Title
People vs. Comprado y Bronola
Case
G.R. No. 213225
Decision Date
Apr 4, 2018
Accused acquitted after Supreme Court ruled arrest and search illegal; seized marijuana inadmissible due to lack of probable cause and warrantless violation.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 151037)

Petitioner

People of the Philippines

Respondent

Renante Comprado y Bronola

Key Dates

– July 15, 2011: Alleged commission of illegal possession of marijuana
– August 8, 2011: Arraignment before the RTC (plea of not guilty)
– April 18, 2013: RTC Branch 25 decision convicting the accused
– May 19, 2014: Court of Appeals decision affirming the conviction
– April 4, 2018: Supreme Court decision (G.R. No. 213225)

Applicable Law

– 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 2 (right against unreasonable searches and seizures)
– Republic Act No. 9165, Section 11, Article II (prohibition on unlawful possession of dangerous drugs)
– Republic Act No. 9165, Section 21, Article II (inventory and witnessing requirements)
– Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 113, Section 5 (warrantless arrests)

Facts

On July 15, 2011, a confidential informant texted P/Insp. Orate that a male courier and female companion were transporting marijuana from Cabanglasan, Bukidnon, to Cagayan de Oro City aboard a bus (body no. 2646; plate no. KVP 988), carrying a black-and-violet “Lowe Alpine” backpack. At about 9:45 PM, officers set up a checkpoint in front of Police Station 6. At approximately 11 PM, they flagged down the bus, boarded, and found a male passenger matching the informant’s description with the specified backpack on his lap. Upon opening it, officers discovered a cellophane package containing dried marijuana. The bag was marked “RCB-2” and the contents “RCB-1.” The accused and seized items were brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where qualitative examination confirmed 3,200 grams of marijuana.

Version of the Defense

Accused-Appellant denied ownership of the backpack and drugs. He alleged that he had agreed, as a favor to a friend in Bukidnon, to carry an unlabeled bag to Cagayan de Oro City. He claimed arrest occurred in Malaybalay City during a vehicle inspection; thereafter, officers and the accused boarded a bus bound for Cagayan de Oro, later stopping at the Station 6 checkpoint. He also alleged custodial investigation without counsel.

RTC Ruling

The Regional Trial Court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11, Article II of RA 9165. It held that possession alone consummated the crime, that good faith is not a defense, and that the arrest in Bukidnon was implausible. The court imposed life imprisonment and a ₱500,000 fine.

CA Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that:

  1. Accused submitted to jurisdiction by failing to object before arraignment.
  2. Seizure was valid as a search of a moving vehicle.
  3. Non-compliance with RA 9165 inventory and witnessing requirements was not fatal because the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved.

Issues

I. Validity of the warrantless arrest
II. Admissibility of the seized items
III. Guilt of the accused under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165

Supreme Court Ruling

A. Validity of Arrest
The 1987 Constitution guarantees inviolability against unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring a judicial warrant except in narrowly defined exceptions. Warrantless arrests must satisfy either in flagrante delicto or hot pursuit under Rule 113, Section 5. Here, no overt criminal act by the accused occurred in officers’ presence, nor did officers possess personal knowledge of facts indicating an offense. The arrest relied solely on a tip; such exception to the warrant requirement must be strictly construed against the State.

B. Scope of Search
The search could not be justified as:

  1. A lawful “stop-and-frisk” (Terry doctrine requires observable conduct reason


...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.