Case Summary (G.R. No. 227038)
Key Individuals and Context
• Petitioner: Jeffrey Miguel y Remegio
• Respondent: People of the Philippines
• Bantay Bayan Operatives: Reynaldo Bahoyo and Mark Anthony Velasquez
• Police Officer: SPO3 Rafael Castillo
• Trial Court: RTC Makati City, Branch 64
• Appellate Court: Court of Appeals (CA)
• Supreme Court Decision: July 31, 2017
Petitioner’s Alleged Offense and Arrest
On May 24, 2010, Bantay Bayan operatives Bahoyo and Velasquez encountered petitioner urinating on a public street in Makati. The operatives questioned him about his residence, demanded identification, and upon his alleged failure to produce one, frisked him. They seized two rolled papers containing dried marijuana leaves. They then turned petitioner and the seized items over to SPO3 Castillo, who inventoried and submitted the drugs for laboratory examination. The tests confirmed marijuana in the rolled papers and methamphetamine in petitioner’s system.
Procedural History
• May 26, 2010: Information filed under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
• October 1, 2012: RTC convicted petitioner, sentencing him to 12–14 years imprisonment and P300,000 fine.
• October 21, 2015: CA affirmed the conviction, ruling the warrantless arrest and search lawful and compliance with chain of custody established.
• September 5, 2016: CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
• July 31, 2017: Supreme Court granted certiorari, reversed the conviction, and acquitted petitioner.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 2 (prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures) and Section 3(2) (exclusionary rule).
• Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 113, Section 5 (warrantless arrests).
• Republic Act No. 9165, Section 11, Article II (illegal possession of dangerous drugs).
Issue
Whether the CA correctly upheld petitioner’s conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs given the legality of the arrest and search conducted by Bantay Bayan operatives.
Analysis on Applicability of Bill of Rights to Bantay Bayan Operatives
The Supreme Court held that Bantay Bayan operatives—though civilian volunteers—perform a state-related function in maintaining peace and order and are therefore “law enforcement authorities” for purposes of the Bill of Rights under Article III of the 1987 Constitution. Accordingly, searches and seizures conducted by them are subject to constitutional standards.
Constitutional Standards for Search and Seizure
Article III, Section 2 requires that searches and seizures be supported by a judicial warrant based on probable cause, except in clearly defined circumstances. Section 3(2) mandates exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of this provision.
Warrantless Arrest and Search‐Incidental‐to‐Arrest Exception
Rule 113, Section 5 recognizes three instances when a private person or peace officer may effect a warrantless arrest:
(a) In flagrante delicto
(b) Just after the commission of an offense, with personal knowledge of probable cause
(c) Escaped prisoner
A search incidental to arrest is valid only if the arrest itself is lawful; the sequence cannot be reversed.
Credibility of Testimonies and Factual Findings
• Prosecution’s Claim: Petitioner was flagrantly exposing his private parts, justifying a warrantless arrest and search.
• Petitioner’s Version: He was merely urinating outside his workplace when operatives accosted, frisked, and seized his belongings without lawful cause.
• Bantay Bayan Testimony: Bahoyo initially stated he saw
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 227038)
Facts
- On May 24, 2010 at around 12:45 a.m., two Bantay Bayan operatives, Reynaldo Bahoyo and Mark Anthony Velasquez, encountered petitioner Jeffrey Miguel y Remegio standing in front of a gate enclosing an empty lot in Kaong Street, Barangay San Antonio Village, Makati City.
- The operatives approached petitioner, asked for his residence and identification; petitioner failed to produce an ID and emptied his pockets, revealing two rolled papers containing dried marijuana leaves among other items.
- The operatives seized the cigarettes and rolled papers, brought petitioner and the seized items to SPO3 Rafael Castillo, who inventoried, marked, photographed, and requested qualitative examination and drug testing.
- Laboratory examination confirmed the rolled papers contained marijuana; petitioner tested positive for methamphetamine but negative for THC metabolites.
Charge and Information
- An Information dated May 26, 2010 was filed in the RTC of Makati City, Branch 64, charging petitioner with illegal possession of 1.10 grams of dried marijuana leaves, in violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
- The accusatory portion alleged petitioner, not lawfully authorized, willfully and unlawfully possessed, controlled, and had custody of a dangerous drug, contrary to law.
Regional Trial Court Decision
- In a Decision dated October 1, 2012, the RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
- The RTC imposed an indeterminate term of imprisonment from twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months as maximum, and a fine of ₱300,000, without subsidiary imprisonment.
- The RTC held that:
- Petitioner was validly arrested without warrant for scandalously showing his private parts in public, thus in flagrante delicto.
- The search incidental to that arrest lawfully yielded the seized marijuana.
- Chain of custody requirements under RA 9165 were satisfied.
Court of Appeals Decision
- In a Decision dated October 21, 2015, the CA affirmed the