Myline Cordial

People of the Philippines vs. Jack Racho y Raquero
G.R. No. 186529, August 03, 2010
626 SCRA 633

FACTS:
On May 19, 2003, a confidential agent of the police transacted through cellular phone with appellant for the purchase of shabu. The agent reported the transaction to the police authorities who immediately formed a team to apprehend the appellant. On May 20, 2003, at 11:00 a.m., appellant called up the agent with the information that he was on board a Genesis bus and would arrive in Baler, Aurora anytime of the day wearing a red and white striped T-shirt. The team members posted themselves along the national highway in Baler, Aurora, and at around 3:00 p.m. of the same day, a Genesis bus arrived in Baler. When appellant alighted from the bus, the confidential agent pointed to him as the person he transacted with, and when the latter was about to board a tricycle, the team approached him and invited him to the police station as he was suspected of carrying shabu. When he pulled out his hands from his pants’ pocket, a white envelope slipped therefrom which, when opened, yielded a small sachet containing the suspected drug. The team then brought appellant to the police station for investigation and the confiscated specimen was marked in the presence of appellant. The field test and laboratory examinations on the contents of the confiscated sachet yielded positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride.

RTC Decision: Accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165.

CA affirmed the decision.

ISSUES:
1. Can appellant assail, for the first time on appeal, the legality of his arrest and the validity of the subsequent warrantless search?
2. Is the sachet of shabu seized from him during the warrantless search admissible in evidence against him?
RULING:
1. No. He can no longer question the validity of his arrest but the subsequent warrantless search is not valid. He is deemed to have waived his right to question the validity of his arrest when he never objected to the irregularity of his arrest before his arraignment. It is his first time to raise the issue. He actively participated in the trial of the case and voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the court.

2. No. The sachet of shabu seized from him during the warrantless search is inadmissible in evidence against him. It was confiscated during a warrantless search incidental to an unlawful arrest. There was no sufficient probable cause to effect a valid warrantless arrest because appellant herein did not perform some overt act that would indicate that he has committed, was actually committing, or was attempting to commit an offense. The tip or “reliable information” alone is not sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest.

NOTES:

• The long standing rule in this jurisdiction is that “reliable information” alone is not sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest. The rule requires, in addition, that the accused perform some overt act that would indicate that he has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.
• A waiver of an illegal, warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest.
• The 1987 Constitution states that a search and consequent seizure must be carried out with a judicial warrant; otherwise, it becomes unreasonable and any evidence obtained therefrom shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. Said proscription, however, admits of exceptions, namely:
  1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;
  2. Search of evidence in “plain view;”
  3. Search of a moving vehicle;
  4. Consented warrantless search;
  5. Customs search;
  6. Stop and Frisk; and
  7. Exigent and emergency circumstances.

Full Text: People of the Philippines vs. Jack Racho G.R. No. 186529, August 03, 2010