Case Summary (G.R. No. 228107)
Procedural History
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11 of RA 9165, ruling the warrantless arrest lawful under flagrante delicto for a hand grenade and the search incidental thereto valid. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the arrest and search were lawful under Rule 113, Section 5, and that the chain of custody was intact. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied. He filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Issue
Whether the warrantless search and seizure of the sachets of alleged shabu were lawful, and if not, whether the evidence should be excluded, warranting petitioner’s acquittal.
Constitutional and Rule-Based Standards
Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution mandates that searches and seizures be reasonable and, absent exceptions, supported by a warrant. Rule 113, Section 5 allows warrantless arrest when an offense is committed in an officer’s presence, among other situations. Jurisprudence recognizes exceptions to the warrant requirement, including searches incidental to lawful arrest and “stop and frisk,” each requiring specific factual predicates.
Distinction Between Search Incidental to Arrest and Stop and Frisk
A search incidental to arrest presupposes a lawful arrest, which generally requires a warrant or a valid exception (e.g., flagrante delicto). A “stop and frisk” requires less than probable cause but demands at least two suspicious circumstances observed by the officer that, in light of experience and context, justify the intrusion for officer safety or crime prevention. Mere hunches or uncorroborated suspicions do not suffice.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Legality of Arrest and Search
The Court found no lawful basis for arrest in flagrante delicto because PO3 Mazo’s sole grounds were observing a metal object and a “hunch” of wrongdoing. There was no personal knowledge of circumstances indicating illicit activity, and the existence of a hand grenade went unproven due to absence of chain-of-custody evidence for the metal object and non-presentation of backup witnesses. The search was improperly justified as incidental to a lawful arrest and failed the “stop and frisk” threshold, as only one uncertain circumstance (sight of metal)
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 228107)
Facts
- On October 7, 2012 at about 2:30 p.m., PO3 Marck Andrew M. Mazo stood in line at Petron Gasoline Station, Guadalupe, Makati City, behind one Gregorio Telen y Ichon, who was fueling his motorcycle.
- When Telen removed his wallet from his right back pocket, part of his shirt rode up, revealing a metal object at his waistband resembling a hand grenade.
- PO3 Mazo reported his observation to his superior and was instructed to keep under surveillance. He tailed Telen to Robinsons Galleria, parked along Ortigas Avenue, and continued to observe him.
- Approximately thirty minutes later, backed by Senior Inspector Karl T. Payumo, PO3 Mazo approached Telen, identified himself as a police officer, warned him against sudden movements, and removed the metal object, confirming it to be a hand grenade.
- PO3 Mazo placed Telen under arrest, advised him of his constitutional rights, frisked him, and recovered three heat-sealed plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance later tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”).
- The seized sachets were marked, inventoried, photographed before Telen and a Police Files reporter, and then processed through the standard chain of custody: marking, inventory, photographic documentation, booking sheet, arrest report, chain of custody form, request for laboratory examination, and forensic examination by Senior Inspector Anamelisa S. Bacani.
- Telen underwent a medical examination showing no external injuries upon arrest. He denied possession of shabu at trial, claiming he was abducted by men in civilian clothes and beaten until he could not produce ₱7 million extortion money.
Procedural History
- An Information was filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 164, Pasig City, charging Telen with illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Republic Act No. 9165.
- On arraignment, Telen pleaded not guilty.
- On March 23, 2015, the RTC convicted Telen beyond reasonable doubt, imposing an indeterminate sentence of 12 years and 1 day to 16 years imprisonment and a ₱300,000 fine; ordered forfeiture of the seized drugs and their remittance to PDEA for destruction.
- Telen appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). On June 16, 2016, the CA affirmed the RTC decision, holding Telen was caught in