FACTS:
Sometime in June 1996, SPO1 Marino Paguidopon received an information
regarding the presence of an alleged marijuana pusher in Davao City. SPO1
Paguidopon was then with his informer when a motorcycle passed by. His informer
pointed to the motorcycle driver, accused-appellant Mula, as the pusher.
At around
9:30 in the morning, while the team were positioned in the house of SPO1
Paguidopon, a "trisikad" carrying the accused-appellants passed by.
At that instance, SPO1 Paguidopon pointed to the accused-appellants as the
pushers. Thereupon, the team boarded their, vehicle and overtook the
"trisikad." SPO1
Paguidopon was left in his house, thirty meters from where the
accused-appellants were accosted. The police officers then ordered the
"trisikad" to stop. At that point, accused-appellant Mula who was
holding a black bag handed the same to accused-appellant Molina.
Subsequently,
SPO1 Pamplona introduced himself as a police officer and asked
accused-appellant Molina to open the bag. Molina replied, "Boss, if possible we will
settle this."14 SPO1
Pamplona insisted on opening the bag, which revealed dried marijuana leaves
inside. Thereafter; accused-appellants Mula and Molina were handcuffed by the
police officers.
On December 6, 1996, accused-appellants, through counsel, jointly filed
a Demurrer to Evidence, contending that the marijuana allegedly seized from
them is inadmissible as evidence for having been obtained in violation of their
constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless arrest, search and seizure in the present
case fall within the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement.
HELD: No. In the case at bar, accused-appellants
manifested no outward indication that would justify their arrest.
RATIO: In the case at bar,In holding a bag on board a trisikad, accused-appellants could not be
said to be committing, attempting to commit or have committed a crime. It
matters not that accused-appellant Molina responded "Boss, if possible we
will settle this" to the request of SPO1 Pamplona to open the bag. Such
response which allegedly reinforced the "suspicion" of the arresting
officers that accused-appellants were committing a crime, is an equivocal
statement which standing alone will not constitute probable cause to effect an
inflagrante delicto arrest. Note that were it not for SPO1 Marino Paguidopon
(who did not participate in the arrest but merely pointed accused-appellants to
the arresting officers), accused-appellants could not be the subject of any
suspicion, reasonable or otherwise.
Withal, the Court holds that
the arrest of accused-appellants does not fall under the exceptions allowed by
the rules. Hence, the search conducted on their person was likewise illegal.
Consequently, the marijuana seized by the peace officers could not be admitted
as evidence against accused-appellants, and the Court is thus, left with no
choice but to find in favor of accused-appellants.
No comments:
Post a Comment