PEOPLE VS. TANGLIBEN [184 SCRA 220; G.R. No.L-63630; 6 Apr 1990] !

"#$% Patrolmen Silverio and Romeo Punzalan were conductingsurveillance at the San Fernando Victory Liner Terminal. At around 9: !"m they noticed a "erson# $edel Tangli%en# carrying a traveling%ag who acted sus"iciously. They con&ronted him# ins"ected his %ag# and there they &ound mari'uana leaves wra""ed in a "lastic wra""er and weight () more or less. A &ield test was conducted on a little "ortion o& the mari'uana leaves and &ound "ositive result &or mari'uana.The accused was then ta*en to the Police +ead,uarters &or &urther investigations. The de&ense version was: +e was an em"loyee in the "oultry and engaged in the %usiness o& selling "oultry medicine and &eeds and including chi*s and used to conduct his %usiness in Taytay Rizal. That he never le&t on $arch - and on $ar. he went to Su%ic to collect a %alance o& P(!! &rom his customer thereat and to %uy something. +e was a%out to go home to $anila# however# he was ti"sy that he did not notive that the %us was only %ound &or San Fernando. ."on alighting at the Victory Liner at San Fernando# Pam"anga to wait &or a %us going to $anila# a "olice o&&icer a""roached him and %rought him to the munici"al %uilding. The "olicie o&&icer told him that i& was 'ust &or veri&ication i& was a mem%er o& the /PA. The RT0 &ound Tangli%en guilty o& violating sec.1 art. - o& the RA 21-3 or the 4angerous 4rugs Act o& (95-. I$$&'% 6hether or /ot there was an unlaw&ul search due to lac* o& search warrant. (')*% /o. Rule (( sec. 3 "rovides the a "eace o&&icer or a "rivate "erson may w7o a warrant arrest a "erson when in his "resence the "erson to %e arrested has committed# is committing# or is attem"ting to commit an o&&ense.

8t was contendedthat the mari'uana allegedly seized &orm the accused was a "roduct o& unlaw&ul search without warrant and is there&ore inadmissi%le in evidence. The S0 held that this contention is without merit %ecause one o& the e9ce"tions to the general rule re,uiring a search warrant is a search incident to a law&ul arrest. Thus# Sec. (- o& Rule (-2 o& the (9:3 Rules on 0riminal Procedure "rovides: Search incident to a law&ul arrest. A "erson law&ully arrested may %e searched &or dangerous wea"ons or anything which may %e used as "roo& o& the commission o& an o&&ese# without a search warrant. 8n the "resent case# the accused was &ound to have %een committing "ossession o& mari'uana and can %e there&ore searched law&ully even without a search warrant. Another reason is that this case "oses urgency on the "art o& the arresting "olice o&&icers. 8t was &ound out that an in&ormer "ointed to the accused telling the "olicemen that the accused was carrying mari'uana. The "olice o&&icers had to act ,uic*ly and there was not enough time to secure a search warrant. 6here&ore# the o&&ense committed %y the a""ellant is "ossession o& mari'uana under Sec. : o& RA 21-3 ;4angerous 4rugs Act o& (95-# as amended.<