G.R. No. 135904 - Tan y Lagamayo vs. People

The case involves an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Bontoc, Mountain Province, criminally convicting Rogelio Pijo Milado for violating Section 4, Article III of Republic Act 6425, as amended by Republic Act 7659 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972).
Appellant was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and imposed a fine of ₱500,000.

On March 10, 1999, during the morning in the jurisdiction of Bontoc, Mountain Province, police received information from an asset regarding a man transporting marijuana in a passenger jeepney.
The asset described the suspect as having a ponytail, wearing a white jacket, and carrying a black traveling bag.
Based on the description, Police Officers Dominic Faclangen and Glen Apangchan, along with Officer Angel Komowang, set up a checkpoint near Samoki Bridge along the Chico River and identified a jeepney with a passenger matching the description.
The jeepney was flagged down and both the driver and the suspect (appellant) were ordered to proceed to the police station, where the appellant was taken into custody.

While still inside the jeepney, the police instructed the appellant to open the black bag he was carrying.
The material inside the bag was found to be arranged as six bricks, individually wrapped in newspapers.
A subsequent laboratory analysis confirmed the bricks contained approximately 5,209.2 grams (about five and one-fourth kilos) of marijuana.
The evidence was seized on the ground that a contemporaneous search incident to the lawful arrest was permissible.

Appellant admitted to riding a passenger jeepney but claimed he was accompanied by high school students, a woman, and a 14-year-old child.
He contended that a certain Derick Masilian, known to be a policeman, had also been on board, and that some passengers were allowed to alight while he was detained.
The appellant denied ownership or knowledge of the marijuana, stating that the black bag was not his and that he only carried a shoulder bag containing scissors and a manicure set.
He further claimed that he was merely a beautician and not involved in the transportation of illicit substances.

The appellant acknowledged a prior arrest in 1982 for possession of marijuana in Dantay, Mountain Province.
He admitted that he pleaded guilty in that instance, was sentenced to six years of imprisonment, and sought probation.

The appellant argued that the evidence seized from the black bag should have been declared inadmissible as it resulted from an illegal search and seizure, in violation of the Rules of Evidence and the Constitution.
He asserted that his arrest did not meet the requisite legal standards for a warrantless search, thereby undermining the legitimacy of the seizure.

Whether the evidence (marijuana seized from the black bag) was obtained via a valid search incident to the arrest, or if it violated constitutional protections against warrantless searches.

Whether the appellant’s apprehension and detention were carried out in accordance with legal standards, particularly regarding the absence of a formal "arrest" and the use of command by the police.
Whether the appellant’s failure to raise the issue of an illegal arrest before his arraignment constituted a waiver of his right to object to the legality of his arrest.

Whether the conducted search, deemed incidental to a lawful arrest, rendered the seized marijuana admissible in court.
Whether the exceptions to the warrant requirement (e.g., searches of moving vehicles, searches incident to arrest) applied in this case.