Malacat vs.

Court of Appeals
[GR 123595, 12 December 1997]
acts!
On 27 August 1990, at about 6:30 p.m., allegedly in response to bomb
threats reported seven days earlier, odol!o "u o! the #estern $oli%e
&istri%t, 'etropolitan $oli%e (or%e o! the )ntegrated *ational $oli%e,
$oli%e +tation *o. 3, ,uiapo, 'anila, -as on !oot patrol -ith three
other poli%e o!!i%ers .all o! them in uni!orm/ along ,ue0on 1oulevard,
,uiapo, 'anila, near the 'er%ury &rug store at $la0a 'iranda. 2hey
%han%ed upon t-o groups o! 'uslim3loo4ing men, -ith ea%h group,
%omprised o! three to !our men, posted at opposite sides o! the %orner
o! ,ue0on 1oulevard near the 'er%ury &rug +tore. 2hese men -ere
a%ting suspi%iously -ith 5their eyes moving very !ast.5 "u and his
%ompanions positioned themselves at strategi% points and observed
both groups !or about 30 minutes. 2he poli%e o!!i%ers then approa%hed
one group o! men, -ho then !led in di!!erent dire%tions. As the
poli%emen gave %hase, "u %aught up -ith and apprehended +ammy
'ala%at y 'andar .-ho "u re%ogni0ed, inasmu%h as allegedly the
previous +aturday, 26 August 1990, li4e-ise at $la0a 'iranda, "u sa-
'ala%at and 2 others attempt to detonate a grenade/. 7pon sear%hing
'ala%at, "u !ound a !ragmentation grenade tu%4ed inside the latter8s
5!ront -aist line.5 "u8s %ompanion, poli%e o!!i%er ogelio 'alibiran,
apprehended Abdul 9asan !rom -hom a .3: %aliber revolver -as
re%overed. 'ala%at and 9asan -ere then brought to $oli%e +tation 3
-here "u pla%ed an 5;5 mar4 at the bottom o! the grenade and
therea!ter gave it to his %ommander. "u did not issue any re%eipt !or
the grenade he allegedly re%overed !rom 'ala%at. On 30 August 1990,
'ala%at -as %harged -ith violating +e%tion 3 o! $residential &e%ree
1:66. At arraignment on 9 O%tober 1990, petitioner, assisted by
%ounsel de o!!i%io, entered a plea o! not guilty. 'ala%at denied the
%harges and e<plained that he only re%ently arrived in 'anila.
=o-ever, severalother poli%e o!!i%ers mauled him, hitting him -ith
ben%hes and guns. $etitioner -as on%e again sear%hed, but nothing
-as !ound on him. =e sa- the grenade only in %ourt -hen it -as
presented. )n its de%ision dated 10 (ebruary 199> but promulgated on
16 (ebruary 199>, the trial %ourt ruled that the -arrantless sear%h and
sei0ure o! 'ala%at -as a4in to a 5stop and !ris4,5 -here a 5-arrant and
sei0ure %an be e!!e%ted -ithout ne%essarily being pre%eded by an
arrest5 and 5-hose ob?e%t is either to maintain the status @uo
momentarily -hile the poli%e o!!i%er see4s to obtain more in!ormation5A
and that the sei0ure o! the grenade !rom 'ala%at -as in%idental to a
la-!ul arrest. 2he trial %ourt thus !ound 'ala%at guilty o! the %rime o!
illegal possession o! e<plosives under +e%tion 3 o! $& 1:66, and
senten%ed him to su!!er the penalty o! not less than 17 years, > months
and 1 day o! e%lusion 2emporal, as minimum, and not more than 30
years o! e%lusion $erpetua, as ma<imum. On 1: (ebruary 199>,
'ala%at !iled a noti%e o! appeal indi%ating that he -as appealing to the
+upreme 9ourt. =o-ever, the re%ord o! the %ase -as !or-arded to the
9ourt o! Appeals .9A3B 9 169::/.
)n its de%ision o! 2> Canuary 1996, the 9ourt o! Appeals a!!irmed the
trial %ourt. 'analili !iled a petition !or revie- -ith the +upreme 9ourt.
"ssue!
#hether the sear%h made on 'ala%at is valid, pursuant to the
e<%eption o! Dstop and !ris4.E
#el$!
2he general rule as regards arrests, sear%hes and sei0ures is that a
-arrant is needed in order to validly e! !e%t the same. 2he
9onstitutional prohibition against unreasonable arrests, sear%hes and
sei0ures re!ers to those e!!e%ted -ithout a validly issued -arrant,
sub?e%t to %ertain e<%eptions. As regards valid -arrantless arrests,
these are !ound in +e%tion 6, ule 113 o! the ules o! 9ourt. A
-arrantless arrest under the %ir%umstan%es %ontemplated under
+e%tion 6.a/ has been denominated as one 5in !lagrante deli%to,5 -hile
that under +e%tion 6.b/ has been des%ribed as a 5hot pursuit5 arrest.
2urning to valid -arrantless sear%hes, they are limited to the !ollo-ing:
.1/ %ustoms sear%hesA .2/ sear%h o! moving vehi%lesA .3/ sei0ure o!
eviden%e in plain vie-A .>/ %onsent sear%hesA .6/ a sear%h in%idental to
a la-!ul arrestA and .6/ a 5stop and !ris4.5 2he %on%epts o! a 5stop3and3
!ris45 and o! a sear%h in%idental to a la-!ul arrest must not be
%on!used. 2hese t-o types o! -arrantless sear%hes di!!er in terms o!
the re@uisite @uantum o! proo! be!ore they may be validly e!!e%ted and
in their allo-able s%ope. )n a sear%h in%idental to a la-!ul arrest, as the
pre%edent arrest determines the validity o! the in%idental sear%h. =ere,
there %ould have been no valid in !lagrante deli%to or hot pursuit arrest
pre%eding the sear%h in light o! the la%4 o! personal 4no-ledge on the
part o! "u, the arresting o!!i%er, or an overt physi%al a%t, on the part o!
'ala%at, indi%ating that a %rime had ?ust been %ommitted, -as being
%ommitted or -as going to be %ommitted. $lainly, the sear%h
%ondu%ted on 'ala%at %ould not have been one in%idental to a la-!ul
arrest. On the other hand, -hile probable %ause is not re@uired to
%ondu%t a 5stop and !ris4,5 it nevertheless holds that mere suspi%ion or
a hun%h -ill not validate a 5stop and !ris4.5 A genuine reason must
e<ist, in light o! the poli%e o!!i%er8s e<perien%e and surrounding
%onditions, to -arrant the belie! that the person detained has -eapons
%on%ealed about him. (inally, a 5stop3and3!ris45 serves a t-o3!old
interest: .1/ the general interest o! e!!e%tive %rime prevention and
dete%tion, -hi%h underlies the re%ognition that a poli%e o!!i%er may,
under appropriate %ir%umstan%es and in an appropriate manner,
approa%h a person !or purposes o! investigating possible %riminal
behavior even -ithout probable %auseA and .2/ the more pressing
interest o! sa!ety and sel!3preservation -hi%h permit the poli%e o!!i%er
to ta4e steps to assure himsel! that the person -ith -hom he deals is
not armed -ith a deadly -eapon that %ould une<pe%tedly and !atally be
used against the poli%e o!!i%er. =ere, there are at least three .3/
reasons -hy the 5stop3and3!ris45 -as invalid:
(irst, there is grave doubts as to "u8s %laim that 'ala%at -as a
member o! the group -hi%h attempted to bomb $la0a 'iranda 2 days
earlier. 2his %laim is neither supported by any poli%e report or re%ord
nor %orroborated by any other poli%e o!!i%er -ho allegedly %hased that
group.
+e%ond, there -as nothing in 'ala%at8s behavior or %ondu%t -hi%h
%ould have reasonably eli%ited even mere suspi%ion other than that his
eyes -ere 5moving very !ast5 F an observation -hi%h leaves us
in%redulous sin%e "u and his teammates -ere no-here near 'ala%at
and it -as already 6:30 p.m., thus presumably dus4. 'ala%at and his
%ompanions -ere merely standing at the %orner and -ere not %reating
any %ommotion or trouble.
2hird, there -as at all no ground, probable or other-ise, to believe that
'ala%at -as armed -ith a deadly -eapon. *one -as visible to "u, !or
as he admitted, the alleged grenade -as 5dis%overed5 5inside the !ront
-aistline5 o! 'ala%at, and !rom all indi%ations as to the distan%e
bet-een "u and 'ala%at, any telltale bulge, assuming that 'ala%at
-as indeed hiding a grenade, %ould not have been visible to "u. #hat
is une@uivo%al then are blatant violations o! 'ala%at8s rights solemnly
guaranteed in +e%tions 2 and 12.1/ o! Arti%le ))) o! the 9onstitution.
A Dstop3and3!ris4E serves a t-o3!old interest: .1/ the
general interest o! e!!e%tive %rime prevention and
dete%tion, -hi%h underlies the re%ognition that a
poli%e o!!i%er may, under appropriate %ir%umstan%es
and in an appropriate manner, approa%h a person !or
purposes o! investigating possible %riminal behavior
even -ithout probable %auseA and .2/ the more
pressing interest o! sa!ety and sel!3preservation -hi%h
permit the poli%e o!!i%er to ta4e steps to assure
himsel! that the person -ith -hom he deals is not
armed -ith a deadly -eapon that %ould une<pe%tedly
and !atally be used against the poli%e o!!i%er %Malacat
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. &o. 123595, 12 December
1997, '. Dav($e, 'r.).