Title
People vs. Lacson y Marquesses
Case
G.R. No. 248529
Decision Date
Apr 19, 2023
Police arrested three men during a patrol, finding weapons without permits. The Supreme Court acquitted them, ruling the warrantless arrest and search unlawful, rendering evidence inadmissible.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 248529)

Procedural Posture

The three were arraigned and pleaded not guilty. After pre-trial and trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted Lacson for illegal possession of explosives and election-period weapons ban, and Agpalo for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition and election-period weapons ban; Dagdag was acquitted. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Lacson and Agpalo appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues Presented

  1. Validity of warrantless arrest.
  2. Validity of warrantless search (frisk).
  3. Proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Jurisdictional Objection and Estoppel

Under Rule 113, Section 5, objections to arrest must be raised before arraignment by motion to quash; failure to do so waives the right to challenge court jurisdiction over the person. Lacson and Agpalo did not move to quash and thus are estopped from contesting the legality of their arrests for jurisdictional purposes. However, estoppel does not extend to the admissibility of evidence seized.

Constitutional Search-and-Seizure Analysis

The 1987 Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures and mandates exclusion of unlawfully obtained evidence. Warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable unless they fall under recognized exceptions. Two potentially relevant exceptions are:
• In flagrante delicto arrest and incidental search – requires an overt act witnessed by the arresting officer indicating commission or attempt of a crime.
• Stop-and-frisk (Terry) search – requires reasonable suspicion based on specific, articulable facts of criminal activity and a protective pat-down for weapons.

Application of Exceptions

Neither exception justified the searches:
• In flagrante delicto – Lacson and Agpalo committed no overt criminal act in the presence of officers; mere loitering and “suspicious” appearance do not satisfy the requirement. Flight alone, absent other indicia, is too equivocal to establish an overt act.
• Stop-and-frisk – officers lacked specific, articulable facts pointing to concealed weapons; the general snatching report did not describe suspects, and seeing the accused standing did not create a genuine reason to frisk.

...continue reading

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