Title
People vs. Fred y Layogan
Case
G.R. No. 243022
Decision Date
Jul 14, 2021
Two individuals, Warton and Paul, were acquitted by the Supreme Court after their warrantless arrest and search were deemed illegal, rendering seized marijuana inadmissible as evidence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 243022)

Facts of the Anti-Narcotics Operation

At around 5 p.m. on April 7, 2010, a CI informed PDEA-CAR of a planned delivery of marijuana by “Paul” and “Warton.” A PDEA team, led by IA3 Tacio and supervised by Dir. Apalla, surveilled near the Strawberry Farm entrance. At 9 p.m., the CI identified Paul (carrying a striped plastic bag) and Warton (carrying a carton).

Seizure and Chain of Custody

Agents Yapes and Asiong approached Paul, smelled marijuana upon opening the bag, cut a portion for inspection, and seized three bricks. Agent Langwas chased and apprehended Warton, who dropped a carton containing seven similar bricks. All items were marked on site, inventoried at PDEA-CAR headquarters in the presence of barangay, media, and DOJ representatives, and later turned over to PDEA and PNP custody for laboratory examination. PSI Biadang Jr. confirmed via physical, chemical, and confirmatory tests that the specimens were marijuana.

RTC Decision

The Regional Trial Court ruled the warrantless search and arrest lawful under the in flagrante delicto exception, finding reasonable grounds based on the CI’s tip and the accused’s conduct. It admitted the seized evidence despite no photographs, citing preservation of integrity and presumption of regularity. Both accused were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment plus fines; Paul’s recognizance was cancelled upon reaching majority.

CA Decision

The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that:

  • The CI tip and the accused’s flight constituted overt acts justifying in flagrante delicto arrest under Rule 113, Section 5(a).
  • Search was incidental to lawful arrest; inventory and markings preserved chain of custody.
  • Failure to photograph did not undermine evidentiary integrity.

Issues on Appeal

  1. Validity of warrantless arrest of Warton
  2. Reasonableness of warrantless search
  3. Compliance with Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165 (inventory and photography)

Supreme Court Analysis on Warrantless Arrest

The Court held that flagging a taxi and waiting on a highway are innocent acts that do not satisfy the “overt act” requirement for in flagrante delicto under Rule 113, Section 5(a). No personal knowledge existed for hot pursuit (Section 5(b)), and Warton was not an escapee (Section 5(c)). His flight was a consequence of the CI-prompted approach, not an independent overt act. Thus, the arrest was illegal.

Supreme Court Analysis on Illegal Search and Seizure

Under the 1987 Constitution, evidence

...continue reading

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