[108] People v.

Manago
G.R. No. 212340 | Perlas-Bernabe, J. | 17 August 2016
Topic 1 - Prosecution of Civil Actions; When Civil Action may proceed independently
Nature: Appeal of a Decision from the Court of Appeals

PARTIES:
Petitioner: Heirs of Eduardo Simon
Respondents: Elvin Chan, and the Court of Appeals.

DISPUTED MATTER: The Validity of Accused Manago’s warrantless arrest and conviction
(NOT VALID)

FACTS:
 10 April 2011 – An information was filed against Manago for possession of Dangerous
Drugs (Sec. 11, Art. II, RA 9165). The accusatory portion of the information reads:

That on or about the 16th day of March, 2007, at about 11:50 in the evening, in the City of Cebu,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with deliberate
intent, and without authority of law, did then and there have in his possession and under his control
one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic packet of white crystalline substance weighing 5.85 grams
containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride [sic], a dangerous drug, without being authorized by
law.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

 The prosecution’s narration of facts are as follows:

● 15 March 2011 – According to the prosecution, at around 9:30 PM, 2 persons staged a
robbery at a barber shop.
o After exchanging fire with PO3 Antonio Din of the PNP, the robbers fled
separately, one boarding a motorcycle, while the other boarded a red Toyota
Corolla.
● Upon investigation with the Baranggay Tanod, the police allegedly found that:
o the suspected robbers were employees of accused Manago’s roasted chicken
business;
o the suspects were staying at Manago’s house;
o The getaway motorcycle was registered in Manago’s name; and
o The getaway red Toyota Corolla was registered in the name of Zest-O
Corporation, where Manago worked as a General Manager.
● 16 March 2011 - Because of this information, the police conducted a “hot pursuit”
operation.
o At 9:30 PM on that day, the police were able to stop Manago at a checkpoint that
they set up;
o They conducted a search of his Red Toyota Corolla (the one allegedly used in
the robbery) and found no contraband.
o Upon frisking him, they found on him a plastic packet of methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu. (this was later confirmed in laboratory testing)
 ● The police officers seized the plastic pack, arrested Manago, informed him of his
constitutional rights, and brought him and the plastic pack to their headquarters.

● Manago, in his defense, offered his own narration of facts:

o He denied being in possession of the packet of shabu;
o He claims that at around 11:50 PM of March 16, he was able to start his vehicle
but was apprehended and held up by three men in a pick-up truck carrying long
firearms.
▪ Upon being identified by them (Manago gave the men his driver’s
license), he was ordered to board the pickup and sit in the back of the
truck while they drove to the Cebu City Police Station
o After arriving at the police station, Manago was interrogated about who the
robbers were and to divulge their whereabouts so that no criminal charges would
be filed against him.
▪ Manago claimed that he requested for a phone call with his lawyer, as
well as a copy of the warrant for his arrest, but both requests went
unheeded.
▪ After he was dispossessed of his laptop, wallet, and two (2) mobile
phones, he was then photographed and placed in a detention cell.
o Thereafter, he was brought to the Cebu City Prosecutor's Office where he was
charged with, among others, illegal possession of shabu.

 Before arraignment in the RTC, Manago filed a motion to dismiss the case, claiming that:
o There was no prima facie evidence nor probable cause to conduct a search on
him;
o Therefore, the alleged packet of shabu that was found on him is inadmissible in
evidence in accordance with the “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” doctrine.
 RTC Denied such motion, stating that:
o PO3 Din had probable cause to believe that he was involved in the robbery given
that Manago was driving the getaway vehicle (Red Toyota Corolla) used in said
incident.
o RTC held that There was a valid warrantless arrest, even if:
 (a) the police officers, through PO3 Din, had no personal knowledge of Manago's
involvement in the robbery as they had to conduct in investigation to identify him
as the registered owner of the motorcycle; and
 (b) there was no in flagrante delicto arrest as Manago was merely driving and
gave no indication that he was committing an offense
 Manago subsequently pleaded not guilty, and was also granted bail by the RTC because
some of the white substance in the sachet was actually tawas and not shabu.
 RTC found Manago guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Possession, and the CA affirmed
such conviction.
 Hence, this petition before the SC.

ISSUES/HELD:
W/N Manago’s Conviction should be upheld? NO
(Otherwise stated, W/N Manago’s Warrantless Arrest was Valid? NO)
 Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution mandates that a search and seizure must
be carried out through or on the strength of a judicial warrant predicated upon the
existence of probable cause, absent which such search and seizure becomes
"unreasonable" within the meaning of the said constitutional provision.
 o To protect the people from unreasonable searches and seizures, Section 3 (2),
Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that evidence obtained and
confiscated on the occasion of such unreasonable searches and seizures are
deemed tainted and should be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a
poisonous tree.
o In other words, evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and seizures
shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.
 One of the recognized exceptions to the need of a warrant before a search may be
effected is a search incidental to a lawful arrest. In this instance, the law requires that
there first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made — the process cannot be
reversed.
 Rule 112, Sec. 5 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure outline when an arrest may be
made without a warrant:

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;

(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based
on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or
place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has
escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be
forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance
with Section 7 of Rule 112.
 In warrantless arrests made pursuant to Section 5 (b), it is essential that the element of
personal knowledge must be coupled with the element of immediacy; otherwise,
the arrest may be nullified, and resultantly, the items yielded through the search
incidental thereto will be rendered inadmissible in consonance with the exclusionary rule
of the 1987 Constitution
 According to the Court in Pestilos v. Generoso:
o The clincher in the element of "personal knowledge of facts or circumstances" is the required
element of immediacy within which these facts or circumstances should be gathered.
 This required time element acts as a safeguard to ensure that the police officers have
gathered the facts or perceived the circumstances within a very limited time frame.
 This guarantees that the police officers would have no time to base their probable cause
finding on facts or circumstances obtained after an exhaustive investigation.
o On the other hand, with the element of immediacy imposed under Section 5 (b), Rule 113 of
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the police officer's determination of probable
cause would necessarily be limited to raw or uncontaminated facts or circumstances,
gathered as they were within a very limited period of time.
 In this case, while PO3 Din did have personal knowledge of the incident (after all, he
was there during the robbery), the required element of immediacy was not met.
o At the time the police officers effected the warrantless arrest upon Manago's person, investigation
and verification proceedings were already conducted, which consequently yielded sufficient
information on the suspects of the March 15, 2007 robbery incident.
o As the Court sees it, the information the police officers had gathered therefrom would have been
enough for them to secure the necessary warrants against the robbery suspects.
o However, they opted to conduct a "hot pursuit" operation which - considering the lack of immediacy
- unfortunately failed to meet the legal requirements therefor.
 o Thus, there being no valid warrantless arrest under the "hot pursuit" doctrine, the CA erred in ruling
that Manago was lawfully arrested.
 In view of the finding that there was no lawful arrest in this case, the CA likewise erred in
ruling that the incidental search on Manago's vehicle and body was valid. In fact, the
said search was made even before he was arrested and thus, violated the cardinal rule
on searches incidental to lawful arrests that there first be a lawful arrest before a
search can be made.

Furthermore, the SC finds that the warrantless search conducted on Manago’s vehicle was
illegal.
 Jurisprudence provides that warrantless searches of moving vehicles may entail the
setup of military or police checkpoints
o these are not illegal per se as long as its necessity is justified by the
exigencies of public order and conducted in a way least intrusive to
motorists.
 A routine warrantless checkpoint search is valid if such is limited to the ff:
o (a) where the officer merely draws aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle which is
parked on the public fair grounds;
o (b) simply looks into a vehicle;
o (c) flashes a light therein without opening the car's doors;
o (d) where the occupants are not subjected to a physical or body search;
o (e) where the inspection of the Vehicles is limited to a visual search or visual
inspection; and
o (e) where the routine check is conducted in a fixed area.
 However, checkpoints do give authorities a carte blanche discretion to conduct
extensive warrantless searches on vehicles in the absence of probable cause.
o When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search - as opposed to
a mere routine inspection - such a warrantless search has been held to be valid
only as long as the officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable
cause to believe before the search that they will find the instrumentality or
evidence pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle to be searched.
 In the case at bar, the search of Manago’s Red Corolla was invalid.
o the police officers had already conducted a thorough investigation and
verification proceedings, which yielded, among others:
 (a) the identities of the robbery suspects;
 (b) the place where they reside; and
 (c) the ownership of the getaway vehicles used in the robbery, i.e., the
motorcycle and the red Toyota Corolla.
o These pieces of information were already enough for said police officers to
secure the necessary warrants to accost the robbery suspects.
o Consequently, there was no longer any exigent circumstance that would have
justified the necessity of setting up the checkpoint in this case for the purpose of
searching the subject vehicle.
o In addition, it is well to point out that the checkpoint was arranged for the
targeted arrest of Manago, who was already identified as the culprit of the
robbery incident.
 In this regard, it cannot, therefore, be said that the checkpoint was meant to conduct a
routinary and indiscriminate search of moving vehicles.
o Rather, it was used as a subterfuge to put into force the capture of the fleeing
suspect.
 o Unfortunately, this setup cannot take the place of - nor skirt the legal
requirement of - procuring a valid search/arrest warrant given the circumstances
of this case.

IN SUM:
Manago's warrantless arrest, and the search incidental thereto, including that of his moving
vehicle were all unreasonable and unlawful. In consequence, the shabu seized from him is
rendered inadmissible in evidence pursuant to the exclusionary rule under Section 3 (2), Article
III of the 1987 Constitution. Since the confiscated shabu is the very corpus delicti of the crime
charged, Manago must necessarily be acquitted and exonerated from criminal liability.

DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated May 20, 2013 and the Resolution
dated November 6, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CEB-C.R. No. 01342 are
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Gerrjan Manago y Acut
as hereby ACQUITTED of the crime of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No.
9165.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________________________________________________

HELPFUL INFORMATION

DOCTRINE: A search and seizure must be carried out through or on the strength of a judicial
warrant predicated upon the existence of probable cause, absent which such search and
seizure becomes "unreasonable" within the meaning of the said constitutional provision.

SUMMARY: After a robbery/shoot-out incident took place, police officers conducted a hot
pursuit operation by setting up a check-point. Respondent Manago, who was allegedly
involved in the robbery, passed through the checkpoint, whose vehicle was thereafter
searched. As the search produced no contraband, the police officers then frisked Manago,
resulting in the discovery of one (1) plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance
suspected to be methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. The police officers seized the
plastic pack and arrested Manago. RTC found Manago guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
possession shabu, and  further held that police officers conducted a valid warrantless search
of a moving vehicle, considering that PO3 Din positively identified the red Toyota Corolla, then
being driven by Manago, as the getaway vehicle in the March 15, 2007 robbery incident. CA
affirmed the RTC decision. SC acquitted Manago, holding that the shabu seized from him is
inadmissible in evidence pursuant to the exclusionary rule under Section 3 (2), Article III of the
1987 Constitution.