PEOPLE VS. NG YI BUN, GR 180452 (2011)

FACTS: Capt. Danilo Ibon received information from an operative that there was an ongoing shipment of contraband in Quezon Province. A team was formed to investigate and to observe the goings-on at the resort. From a distance of around 50 meters, they spotted six Chinese-looking men loading bags containing a white substance into a white van. Having been noticed, Capt. Ibon identified his team and asked Chua Shilou Hwan (Hwan) what they were loading on the van. Hwan replied that it was shabu and pointed, when probed further, to Raymond Tan (Tan) as the leader. A total of 172 bags of suspected shabu were then confiscated. Bundles of noodles (bihon) were also found on the premises.

It was later ascertained that the said bags were indeed shabu. In violation of Sec. 16, Article III of RA 6425, a case was filed against the six Chinese men who entered a plea of not guilty upon re-arraignment. The RTC convicted accused-appellants of the crime charged. On appeal to the CA, accused-appellants Bun, Cheng, Shi, Min, and Tan raised the lone issue of: whether the trial court erred in ruling that there was a valid search and arrest despite the absence of a warrant. On the other hand, accused-appellant Hwan sought an acquittal on the basis of: (1) the warrantless search, seizure and subsequent arrest is not valid.

The CA affirmed that there was a valid search and arrest despite absence of a warrant since they were caught in flagrante delicto which, thus, justified their arrests and the seizure of the contraband.The urgency of the situation meant that the buy-bust team had no time to secure a search warrant and the warrantless seizure of the transparent plastic bags can likewise be sustained under the plain view doctrine.  Hence, the accused-appellants submitted their supplemental briefs on the sole issue that: there was no valid search and arrest due to absence of a warrant.

ISSUE/S: WON the there was a valid search and arrest despite the absence of a warrant.

HELD: Yes, the circumstances fall under an in flagrantedelicto arrest under Rule 113, Sec. 5(a) of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.

RATIO: Article III Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

A settled exception to the right guaranteed in the aforequoted provision is that of an arrest made during the commission of a crime, which does not require a warrant. Such warrantless arrest is considered reasonable and valid under Rule 113, Sec. 5(a) of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure:

Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

In the case at bar, there was indeed a valid warrantless arrest in flagrante delicto. Consider the circumstances immediately prior to and surrounding the arrest of accused-appellants: (1) the police officers received information from an operative about an ongoing shipment of contraband; (2) the police officers, with the operative, proceeded to Villa Vicenta Resort in Barangay Bignay II, Sariaya, Quezon; (3) they observed the goings-on at the resort from a distance of around 50 meters; and (4) they spotted the six accused-appellants loading transparent bags containing a white substance into a white L-300 van. 

Evidently, the arresting police officers had probable cause to suspect that accused-appellants were loading and transporting contraband, more so when Hwan, upon being accosted, readily mentioned that they were loading shabu and pointed to Tan as their leader. Thus, the arrest of accused-appellants who were caught in flagrante delicto of possessing, and in the act of loading into a white L-300 van, shabu, a prohibited drug under RA 6425, as amended­­ is valid. Likewise, the accused-appellants are deemed to have waived their objections to their arrest for not raising the issue before entering their plea.