G.R. No.

205926               July 22, 2015

According to the prosecution, at around 10 o'clock in the evening of July 30, 2003, Agent Eduardo Radan
(Agent Radan) of the NARCOTICS group and P03 Bienvy Calag II (P03 Calag) were aboard a motorcycle,
patrolling the area while on their way to visit a friend at Private Road, Barangay Hulo, Mandaluyong City.
Cruising at a speed of 30 kilometers per hour along Private Road, they spotted, at a distance of about 10
meters, two (2) men - later identified as Comerciante and a certain Erick Dasilla    (Dasilla) - standing and
7

showing "improper and unpleasant movements," with one of them handing plastic sachets to the other.
Thinking that the sachets may contain shabu, they immediately stopped and approached Comerciante and
Dasilla At a distance of around five (5) meters, P03 Calag introduced himself as a police officer, arrested
Comerciante and Dasilla, and confiscated two (2) plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance from
them. A laboratory examination later confirmed that said sachets contained methamphetamine hydrochloride or
shabu. 8

On July 31, 2003, an Information was filed before the RTC charging Comerciante of violation of Section 11,
Article II of RA 9165, to wit:

Xxx not having been lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drugs, [petr] did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously and knowingly have in his possession, custody and control Two (2) heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachet (sic) each containing 0.15 gram (sic) and 0.28 gram (sic) of white crystalline
substance with a total of 0.43 grams which was found positive to the test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride
commonly known as "shabu", a dangerous drug.

After the prosecution rested its case, Dasilla filed a demurrer to evidence, which was granted by the RTC, thus
his acquittal. However, due to Comerciante's failure to file his own demurrer to evidence, the RTC considered
his right to do so waived and ordered him to present his evidence. 9

In his defense, Comerciante averred that P03 Calag was looking for a certain "Barok", who was a notorious
drug pusher in the area, when suddenly, he and Dasilla, who were just standing in front of a jeepney along
Private Road, were arrested and taken to a police station. There, the police officers claimed to have confiscated
illegal drugs from them and were asked money in exchange for their release. When they failed to accede to the
demand, they were brought to another police station to undergo inquest proceedings, and thereafter, were
charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs.  10

The R TC found that P03 Calag conducted a valid warrantless arrest on Comerciante, which yielded two (2)
plastic sachets containing shabu. In this relation, the R TC opined that there was probable cause to justify the
warrantless arrest, considering that P03 Calag saw, in plain view, that Comerciante was carrying the said
sachets when he decided to approach and apprehend the latter. Further, the RTC found that absent any proof
of intent that P03 Calag was impelled by any malicious motive, he must be presumed to have properly
performed his duty when he arrested Comerciante. 13

The CA Ruling

In a Decision   dated October 20, 2011 the CA affirmed Comerciante's conviction. It held that P03 Calag had
14

probable cause to effect the warrantless arrest of Comerciante, given that the latter was committing a crime in
flagrante delicto; and that he personally saw the latter exchanging plastic sachets with Dasilla. According to the
CA, this was enough to draw a reasonable suspicion that those sachets might be shabu, and thus, P03 Calag
had every reason to inquire on the matter right then and there. 15

The Issue before the Court

The core issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA correctly affirmed Comerciante's conviction
for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165.

In his petition, Comerciante essentially contends that P03 Carag did not effect a valid warrantless arrest on him.
Consequently, the evidence gathered as a result of such illegal warrantless arrest, i.e., the plastic sachets
containing shabu should be rendered inadmissible, necessarily resulting in his acquittal.  19

On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General, on behalf of respondent People of the Philippines,
maintains that Comerciante's warrantless arrest was validly made pursuant to the "stop and frisk" rule,
especially considering that he was caught in flagrante delicto in possession of illegal drugs.  20

The Court's Ruling - The petition is meritorious.

Section 2, Article III   of the Constitution mandates that a search and seizure must be carried out through or on
21

the strength of a judicial warrant predicated upon the existence of probable cause; in the absence of such
warrant, such search and seizure becomes, as a general rule, "unreasonable" within the meaning of said
constitutional provision. To protect people from unreasonable searches and seizures, Section 3 (2), Article
III   of the Constitution provides an exclusionary rule which instructs that evidence obtained and confiscated
22

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. In other words, evidence obtained from unreasonable searches
and seizures shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.  23

The exclusionary rule is not, however, an absolute and rigid proscription. One of the recognized exceptions
established by jurisprudence is a search incident to a lawful arrest.   In this instance, the law requires that there
24

first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made - the process cannot be reversed.   Section 5, Rule 113 of
25

the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure lays down the rules on lawful warrantless arrests, as follows:

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.

The aforementioned provision provides three (3) instances when a warrantless arrest may be lawfully
effected:

(a) arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto;

(b) arrest of a suspect where, based on personal knowledge of the arresting officer, there is probable
cause that said suspect was the perpetrator of a crime which had just been committed;

(c) arrest of a prisoner who has escaped from custody serving final judgment or temporarily confined
during the pendency of his case or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to
another.  26

For a warrantless arrest under Section 5 (a) to operate, two (2) elements must concur, namely:

(a) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and

(b) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.    27

On the other hand, Section 5 (b) requires for its application that at the time of the arrest, an offense had in fact
just been committed and the arresting officer had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the accused had
committed it. 28

In both instances, the officer's personal knowledge of the fact of the commission of an offense is absolutely
required.

Under Section 5 (a), the officer himself witnesses the crime; while in Section (b), he knows for a fact that a
crime has just been committed.  29

A judicious review of the factual milieu of the instant case reveals that there could have been no lawful
warrantless arrest made on Comerciante. P03 Calag himself admitted that he was aboard a motorcycle cruising
at a speed of around 30 kilometers per hour when he saw Comerciante and Dasilla standing around and
showing "improper and unpleasant movements," with one of them handing plastic sachets to the other. On the
basis of the foregoing, he decided to effect an arrest. P03 Calag's testimony on direct examination is revelatory:

Pros. Silao:
Q: Now on July 30, 2003 around 10:00 o'clock in the evening, kindly tell the court where were you?
A: We were then conducting our patrol on a motorbike ma' am.
xxxx
Q: And who were with you while you were patrolling?
A: Eduardo Radan, Ma' am.
Q: And who is this Eduardo Radan?
A: He is an agent of the Narcotics Group, ma'am.
Q: While you were along Private Road, Hulo, Mandaluyong City, what unusual incident that happened if any?
A: We spotted somebody who was then as if handing a plastic sachet to someone.
xxxx
Q: Now how far were you when you saw this incident from these two male persons you already identified?
A: About ten (10) meters away ma'am.
Q: What were their positions in relation to you when you saw them in that particular act?
A: They were quite facing me then.
0: What was the speed of your motorcycle when you were traversing this Private Road, Hulo, Mandaluyong City?
A: About thirty (30) kilometers per hour, ma'am.
Q: And who was driving the motorcycle?
A: Eduardo Radan, ma'am.
Q: When you spotted them as if handing something to each other, what did you do?
A: We stopped ma'am.
Q: And how far were you from them when you stopped, more or less?
A: We passed by them for a short distance before we stopped ma'am.
Q: And after you passed by them and you said you stopped, what was the reaction of these two male persons?
A: They were surprised, ma'am.
xxxx
Q: And what was their reaction when you said you introduced yourself as police officer?
A: They were surprised.
Q: When you say "nabigla" what was their reaction that made you say that they were surprised?
A: They were stunned.
Q: After they were stunned, what did you do next, police officer?
A: I arrested them, ma' am. I invited them.
Q: What did you say to them? How did you invite them? In short, napakasimple Lang ng tanong ko sa yo eh. Did you
say anything?
Court:
Mr. Witness, stop making unnecessary movements, just listens.
Pros. Silao: Are you fit to testify? May sakit ka ba o wala? Witness: Wala po.
Pros. Silao: Eh, bakit di ka makapagsalita?
Court: You keep touching your eyes. Just relax. Answer the question, ano sinabi mo sa kanila?
Pros. Silao: Are you fit to testify? Wala ka bang sakit?
Witness: Wala po.
xxxx
Q: From what portion of his body, I am referring to Alvin Comerciante did you recover the plastic sachet?
A: From his hand ma'am.
Q: Left or right hand?
Pros. Silao: You cannot recall? Hindi mo matandaan. Sabihin mo Kung Hindi mo matandaan, no problem. Kaliwa,
kanan or you cannot recall?  30

(Emphases and underscoring supplied)

On the basis of such testimony, the Court finds it highly implausible that P03 Calag, even assuming that he has
perfect vision, would be able to identify with reasonable accuracy - especially from a distance of around 10
meters, and while aboard a motorcycle cruising at a speed of 30 kilometers per hour - miniscule amounts of
white crystalline substance inside two (2) very small plastic sachets held by Comerciante. The Court also notes
that no other overt act could be properly attributed to Comerciante as to rouse suspicion in the mind of P03
Calag that the former had just committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime. Verily, the acts of
standing around with a companion and handing over something to the latter cannot in any way be considered
criminal acts. In fact, even if Comerciante and his companion were showing "improper and unpleasant
movements" as put by P03 Calag, the same would not have been sufficient in order to effect a lawful
warrantless arrest under Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.   That his 31

reasonable suspicion bolstered by (a) the fact that he had seen his fellow officers arrest persons in possession
of shabu; and (b) his trainings and seminars on illegal drugs when he was still assigned in the province are
insufficient to create a conclusion that what he purportedly saw in Comerciante was indeed shabu.  32

Neither has the prosecution established that the rigorous conditions set forth in Section 5 (b), Rule 113, have
been complied with, i.e., that an offense had in fact just been committed and the arresting officer had personal
knowledge of facts indicating that the accused had committed it. As already discussed, the factual backdrop of
the instant case failed to show that P03 Calag had personal knowledge that a crime had been indisputably
committed by Comerciante. Verily, it is not enough that the arresting officer had reasonable ground to believe
that the accused had just committed a crime; a crime must, in fact, have been committed first, which does not
obtain in this case.  33

In this relation, the Court finds respondent's assertion that there was a valid "stop and frisk" search made on
Comerciante untenable. In People v. Cogaed,   the Court had an opportunity to exhaustively explain "stop and
34

frisk" searches:

"Stop and frisk" searches (sometimes referred to as Terry searches) are necessary for law
enforcement.  That is, law enforcers should be given the legal arsenal to prevent the commission of offenses.
1a\^/phi1

However, this should be balanced with the need to protect the privacy of citizens in accordance with Article III,
Section 2 of the Constitution.
The balance lies in the concept of "suspiciousness" present where the police officer finds himself or herself in.
This may be undoubtedly based on the experience of the police officer. Experienced police officers have
personal experience dealing with criminals and criminal behavior. Hence, they should have the ability to
discern - based on facts that they themselves observe - whether an individual is acting in a suspicious
manner. Clearly, a basic criterion would be that the police officer, with his or her personal knowledge, must
observe the facts leading to the suspicion of an illicit act.

xxxx

Normally, "stop and frisk" searches do not give the law enforcer an opportunity to confer with a judge to
determine probable cause. In Posadas v. Court of Appeals, one of the earliest cases adopting the "stop and
frisk" doctrine in Philippine jurisprudence, this court approximated the suspicious circumstances as probable
cause:

The probable cause is that when the petitioner acted suspiciously and attempted to flee with the buri bag there
was a probable cause that he was concealing something illegal in the bag and it was the right and duty of the
police officers to inspect the same.

For warrantless searches, probable cause was defined as "a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by
circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that the person accused is
guilty of the offense with which he is charged.

Malacat v. Court of Appeals clarifies the requirement further. It does not have to be probable cause, but it
cannot be mere suspicion. It has to be a genuine reason to serve the purposes of the "stop and frisk"
exception:

Other notable points of Terry are that while probable cause is not required to conduct a "stop and frisk," it
nevertheless holds that mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a "stop and frisk." A genuine reason must
exist, in light of the police officer's experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person
detained has weapons concealed about him.

In his dissent for Esquillo v. People, Justice Bersamin reminds us that police officers must not rely on a
single suspicious circumstance. There should be "presence of more than one seemingly innocent activity,
which, taken together, warranted a reasonable inference of criminal activity." The Constitution prohibits
"umeasonable searches and seizures." Certainly, reliance on only one suspicious circumstance or none at all
will not result in a reasonable search. [35]] (Emphases and underscoring supplied)

In this case, the Court reiterates that Comerciante' s acts of standing around with a companion and
handing over something to the latter do not constitute criminal acts.  These circumstances are not
1âwphi1

enough to create a reasonable inference of criminal activity which would constitute a "genuine reason" for P03
Calag to conduct a "stop and frisk" search on the former. In this light, the "stop and frisk" search made on
Comerciante should be deemed unlawful.

In sum, there was neither a valid warrantless arrest nor a valid "stop and frisk" search made on Comerciante.
As such, the shabu purportedly seized from him is rendered inadmissible in evidence for being the
proverbial fruit of the poisonous tree. Since the confiscated shabu is the very corpus delicti of the crime
charged, Comerciante must necessarily be acquitted and exonerated from all criminal liability.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.