PEOPLE VS DEQUINA

Facts: Accused Nelida Dequina was charged for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, the pertinent facts of the case are as follows: P03 Masange along with two other companions were given a tip that a huge amount of marijuana will be delivered in the corner of Juan Luna and Rexabano Street in Tondo Manila. Being given the description of the purported carriers, P03 Masange et al. proceeded to the area and, a male and two females were seen getting off the taxi and carrying individual black bags. The officers went to the individuals and the three began to panic. One of them is accused Nelida Dequina who dropped the bag she was carrying, causing the zipper to open and revealed what seemed to be bricks of marijuana. The bags of her two other companion contained the same. Dequina raised as a defense that she only did what she did because she was under the gun, that her daughter was in the hands of the mastermind threatening her that something bad is to happen to her daughter if she would not complete what she is asked to do.

The RTC convicted her party of the crime and was affirmed by the CA. Dequina and party assail their conviction, asserting that their arrests were illegal.  They were not doing anything illegal that would have justified their warrantless arrest, much less a warrantless search of their persons and belongings.  A search made without a warrant cannot be justified as an incident of arrest unless the arrest itself was lawful. The People counters that accused-appellants’ arrests were lawful as they were then actually committing a crime.  Since accused-appellants were lawfully arrested, the resulting warrantless search of their persons and belongings was also valid.  In addition, accused-appellants did not refute that they were indeed transporting prohibited drugs when they were arrested and, instead, alleged as defenses that Dequina acted under the impulse of uncontrollable fear, and Jundoc and Jingabo were merely accommodating a trusted childhood friend.    

Issue: W/N the warrantless arrest of Dequina is valid.

Held: Yes. The party of Dequina was in inflagrante delicto at the time of the arrest.

Ratio: Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides that a lawful arrest without a warrant may be made by a peace officer or a private person under the following circumstances: 1. When the person to be arrested is in inflagrante delicto. 2. When the arresting officer is in hot pursuit. 3. When the person to be arrested is an escapee.  

“Transport” as used under the Dangerous Drugs Act is defined to mean “to carry or convey from one place to another.”  The evidence in this case shows that at the time of their arrest, accused-appellants were caught in flagrante carrying/transporting dried marijuana leaves in their traveling bags.  PO3 Masanggue need not even open Dequina’s traveling bag to determine its content because when the latter noticed the police officers’ presence, she walked briskly away and in her hurry, accidentally dropped her traveling bag, causing the zipper to open and exposed the dried marijuana bricks therein.  Since a crime was then actually being committed by the accused-appellants, their warrantless arrest was legally justified, and the following warrantless search of their traveling bags was allowable as incidental to their lawful arrest.