Facts:

In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Rosemarie Gardon-Mentoy (G.R. No. 223140, September 04, 2019), the accused-appellant, Rosemarie Gardon-Mentoy, faced charges for the illegal transportation of dangerous drugs, specifically 1,400 grams of marijuana, as defined in Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The incident occurred on May 31, 2008, around 4:45 p.m. in Barangay Malatgao, Municipality of Narra, Palawan. An informant had alerted the police that a couple was selling marijuana in the area. Based on this information, Police Senior Inspector Yolanda Socrates dispatched a team to conduct surveillance.

On the date of the incident, after confirming that the accused was boarding a Charing 19 shuttle van, police officers conducted a stop on the vehicle. At the checkpoint, they asked for the identity of "Rose," to which Gardon responded affirmatively. While her bag was being retrieved, the authorities observed

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Accused-appellant: Rosemarie Gardon-Mentoy was charged with the illegal transportation of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165.
• The alleged offense involved the transportation and intended sale of marijuana contained in three packages, with a total value stated at Php40,000.00.

Initiation of the Investigation

• On May 30, 2008, an informant reported that a couple, later identified as @ Poks and Rose (the accused-appellant), were involved in transporting and selling marijuana in Barangay Malatgao, Narra, Palawan.
• SPO2 Renato Felizarte of the Nan-a Municipal Police Station, acting on the tip, relayed the information to Police Senior Inspector Yolanda Socrates, who then coordinated a surveillance operation with SPO2 Felizarte and PO1 Abdulito Rosales.

The Operation and Arrest

• On May 31, 2008, after briefing the operation team, the police, acting on the tip, set up a checkpoint along the National Highway in Barangay Malatgao.
• At around 4:30 p.m., PO1 Rosales flagged down a Charing 19 shuttle van (plate number VRA 698) as it approached the checkpoint.
• When the van’s side door was opened, officers inquired about the identity of “Rose”; the accused-appellant promptly identified herself.
• The officers then requested information regarding her baggage. In response, the accused-appellant asked the driver to hand her a pink bag located at the rear of the van.
• During the process, police observed that the accused transferred a block-shaped bundle wrapped in yellow cellophane and brown tape from the pink bag to a black bag, which she then placed on a vacant seat.
• Subsequently, the police, suspecting the bundle contained marijuana, involved Barangay Captain Ernesto Maiguez who retrieved and opened the black bag in the presence of the accused and other passengers.

Evidence Collection and Subsequent Proceedings

• Inside the black bag, police found:
• An L-shaped bundle wrapped in yellow cellophane and brown tape.
• A block-shaped bundle wrapped in newspaper.
• A sachet covered with tissue paper.
• The bundles and sachet were smelled by the officers, and their contents were subsequently confirmed by a forensic examination to be marijuana.
• The seized items were inventoried and photographed at the police station under the presence of a media representative, Barangay Captain Maiguez, and later examined at the Palawan Crime Laboratory.
• During trial, evidence including the inventory, photographic documentation, and Chemistry Report No. D-005-08 was presented in open court.
• The accused-appellant’s version, as testified, pointed to procedural deviations—claiming that she was first handcuffed, and that the police’s handling of her belongings did not follow proper procedure.

Lower Court Decisions

• The RTC, on June 4, 2013, convicted the accused-appellant for the crime charged, imposing life imprisonment and a fine of Php500,000.00.
• The RTC validated the warrantless arrest based on probable cause under Section 5(b) of the Rules of Court and established the corpus delicti through witness testimonies.
• The Court of Appeals (CA) later affirmed the RTC’s conviction on April 28, 2015, holding that the search was an incident to the arrest and was conducted with the requisite probable cause.

Issue:

Legality of the Warrantless Arrest and Search

• Whether the warrantless arrest of the accused-appellant was lawful given that it was carried out without a prior judicial warrant and based on the available facts.
• Whether the warrantless search of the accused-appellant’s personal effects was justified under the doctrine of search incident to a lawful arrest.

Compliance with Constitutional and Statutory Requirements

• Whether the officers had independent probable cause sufficient to justify the warrantless search, as required by the Constitution and statutory limitations.
• Whether the sequence of events (search preceding arrest) violated the mandate that a lawful arrest must first occur before any search of personal effects.

Exclusionary Rule and Admissibility of Evidence

• Whether the evidence (marijuana seized) should be deemed inadmissible pursuant to the exclusionary rule under Section 3(2), Article III of the Constitution, given that the search and arrest were conducted without proper adherence to the law.
• Whether the failure to comply with the specific procedural requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 affects the admissibility of the evidence.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)