730 - People V Montilla - 123872

730 PEOPLE V MONTILLA
Date: 30 January 1998 GR Number: 123872 Ponente:

Regalado, J
Article3, Section 3 Wayn Michael L. Novera
Petitioners: People of the Philippines Respondents: Ruben Montilla
Doctrine: A legitimate warrantless arrest, necessarily cloaks the arresting police officer with
authority to validly search and seize from the offender (1) dangerous weapons, and (2) those
that may be used as proof of the commission of an offense. On the other hand, the
apprehending officer must have been spurred by probable cause in effecting an arrest, which
could be classified as one of the permissble arrests set out in Section 5 (a). These instances
have been applied to arrests carried out on persons caught in flagrante delicto.
Facts:
1. Ruben Montilla was charged with violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act for
transporting marijuana. 2. It appears from the evidence of the prosecution that
appellant was apprehended at around 4:00 A.M. of June 20, 1994 near a waiting shed
located at Barangay Salitran, Dasmariñas, Cavite by SPO1 Concordio Talingting and
SPO1 Armando Clarin, both members of the Cavite Philippine National Police
Command based in Dasmariñas.
2. Appellant, according to the two officers, was caught transporting 28 marijuana bricks
contained in a traveling bag and a carton box, which marijuana bricks had a total
weight of 28 kilos. 3. These two officers later asserted in court that they were aided
by an informer in the arrest of appellant. According to the police, the informant was
“reliable” because he was involved in past operations.
3. That informer, according to Talingting and Clarin, had informed them the day before,
or on June 19, 1994 at about 2:00 P.M., that a drug courier, whom said informer could
recognize, would be arriving somewhere in Barangay Salitran, Dasmariñas from
Baguio City with an undetermined amount of marijuana. 4. He claimed during the trial
that while he indeed came all the way from Baguio City, he traveled to Dasmariñas,
Cavite with only some pocket money and without any luggage.
4. His sole purpose in going there was to look up his cousin who had earlier offered a
prospective job at a garment factory in said locality, after which he would return to
Baguio City. He never got around to doing so as he was accosted by SPO1 Talingting
and SPO1 Clarin at Barangay Salitran. 5.
5. In the present appellate review, appellant disputes the trial court’s finding that he
was legally caught in flagrante transporting the prohibited drugs.
Issue/s: Ruling:
W/N the appellant was validly arrested in flagrante 1. YES
Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis:
1. Section 4, Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act clearly prohibits the transport of drugs. By
the mere act of transporting marijuana, the appellant has already violated the statute. There
was no need to present the civilian informer because his testimony would have been merely
corroborative of the declarations of SPO1 Talingting and SPO1 Clarin.
2. Appellant contends that the marijuana bricks were confiscated in the course of an unlawful
warrantless search and seizure. He calls the attention of the Court to the fact that as early as
2:00 P.M. of the preceeding day, June 19, 1994, the police authorities had already been
apprised by their so-called informer of appellant’s impending arrival from Baguio City, hence
those law enforcers had the opportunity to procure the requisite warrant. à Even assuming
that the policemen were not pressed for time, this would be beside the point for, under
these circumstances, the information relayed was too sketchy and not detailed enough for
the obtention of the corresponding arrest or search warrant. While there is an indication that
the informant knew the courier, the records do not reveal that he knew him by name.
3. Informant is reliable because he has been involved in past operations.
4. A legitimate warrantless arrest, as above contemplated, necessarily cloaks the arresting

police officer with authority to validly search and seize from the offender (1) dangerous
weapons, and (2) those that may be used as proof of the commission of an offense. On the
other hand, the apprehending officer must have been spurred by probable cause in effecting
an arrest which could be classified as one in cadence with the instances of permissible arrests
set out in Section 5(a). These instances have been applied to arrests carried out on persons
caught in flagrante delicto.
5. SPO1 Clarin recounted that the informer told them that the marijuana was likely hidden
inside the traveling bag and carton box which appellant was carrying at the time. The officers
thus realized that he was their man even if he was simply carrying a seemingly innocent
looking pair of luggage for personal effects. Accordingly, they approached appellant,
introduced themselves as policemen, and requested him to open and show them the
contents of the traveling bag, which appellant voluntarily and readily did. Upon cursory
inspection by SPO1 Clarin, the bag yielded the prohibited drugs, so, without bothering to
further search the box, they brought appellant and his luggage to their headquarters for
questioning.

730 - People V Montilla - 123872

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

730 - People V Montilla - 123872

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

730 - People V Montilla - 123872

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

730 PEOPLE V MONTILLA

Date: 30 January 1998 GR Number: 123872 Ponente:

3. Informant is reliable because he has been involved in past operations.

4. A legitimate warrantless arrest, as above contemplated, necessarily cloaks the arresting

You might also like