G.R. No. 212340 - People vs. Manago y Acut

On April 10, 2007, an Information was filed in RTC Cebu City (Branch 58), Criminal Case No. CBU-79707, charging Gerrjan Manago y Acut with violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 (possession of dangerous drugs).
The accusatory portion alleged that on March 16, 2007 at about 11:50 PM in Cebu City, Manago possessed a heat-sealed transparent packet of white crystalline substance weighing 5.85 grams containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).

On March 15, 2007 at about 9:30 PM, PO3 Antonio Din witnessed a hold-up and shootout at Jonas Borces Beauty Parlor. The fleeing suspects used a motorcycle and a red Toyota Corolla whose plate numbers he noted.
The following day, after verifying that the motorcycle was registered to Manago and the Corolla to Zest-O Corporation (his employer), police set up a checkpoint at Sitio Panagdait. At about 9:30 PM, they stopped Manago’s Corolla, frisked him, recovered one plastic sachet of white crystalline substance, arrested him, and forwarded the sachet to the PNP Crime Laboratory, which confirmed it contained shabu.

Manago denied knowledge of or possession of the sachet, claiming an illegal, warrantless arrest without Miranda warnings, denial of counsel, and coercive interrogation.
He moved to dismiss for lack of probable cause and to suppress evidence; on May 31, 2007, the RTC denied the motion, ruling the warrantless search of a moving vehicle valid under hot-pursuit facts.

RTC Decision (March 23, 2009): convicted Manago of possessing 0.3852 grams of shabu (after NBI re-examination) and sentenced him to 12 years and 1 day to 15 years imprisonment, plus P300,000 fine. Motions for reconsideration and bail pending appeal were denied.
CA Resolution (August 13, 2010): granted bail of P200,000 due to the small quantity. CA Decision (May 20, 2013) affirmed conviction, finding arrest and incidental search valid; subsequent motion for reconsideration denied (November 6, 2013).

Whether the warrantless arrest of Manago and the search of his person and vehicle complied with constitutional and procedural exceptions to the warrant requirement.
Whether the seized sachet of shabu is admissible under the exclusionary rule.
Whether the evidence presented sufficed to sustain conviction for possession of dangerous drugs under RA 9165.