Luz vs People of the Philippines

FACTS

PO2 Emmanuel L. Alteza, who was then assigned as a traffic enforcer, flagged down the accused for
violating a municipal ordinance requiring all motorcycle riders to wear helmet while driving. He invited
the accused to come inside their police sub-station, since the place where he flagged down the accused
is almost in front of the said sub-station. While he and SPO1 Brillante were issuing a citation ticket for
violation of municipal ordinance, he noticed that the accused was uneasy and kept on getting something
from his jacket. He was alerted and told the accused to take out the contents of the pocket of his jacket.
A metal container from the pocket revealed to contain two sachets of shabu. Accused raised the defense
of planting evidence and extortion.

The RTC convicted the petitioner of illegal possession of dangerous drugs as it found the prosecution
evidence sufficient to show that he had been lawfully arrested for a traffic violation and then subjected
to a valid search, which led to the discovery on his person of two plastic sachets later found to contain
shabu. RTC found his defense weak, self-serving and unsubstantiated. CA affirmed the RTCs decision.

ISSUE

WON there was a valid arrest

HELD

No, the arrest was not valid.

Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he or she may be bound to answer for the
commission of an offense. It is effected by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested or by that
persons voluntary submission to the custody of the one making the arrest. Neither the application of
actual force, manual touching of the body, or physical restraint, nor a formal declaration of arrest, is
required. It is enough that there be an intention on the part of one of the parties to arrest the other, and
that there be an intent on the part of the other to submit, under the belief and impression that
submission is necessary. Under R.A. 4136, or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, the general
procedure for dealing with a traffic violation is not the arrest of the offender, but the confiscation of the
drivers license of the latter.

The SC ruling does not imply that there can be no arrest for a traffic violation. Certainly, when there is an
intent on the part of the police officer to deprive the motorist of liberty, or to take the latter into
custody, the former may be deemed to have arrested the motorist. In this case, however, the officers
issuance (or intent to issue) a traffic citation ticket negates the possibility of an arrest for the same
violation.

Even if one were to work under the assumption that petitioner was deemed arrested upon being
flagged down for a traffic violation and while awaiting the issuance of his ticket, then the requirements
for a valid arrest were not complied with.
Antiquera vs People

Facts:
George Antiquera and Olivenza Cruz were charged with illegal possession of drug paraphernalia.
That on February 11, 2004, 4:45 am, P01 Cabutihan and P01 Recio with other police officers and
civilian operatives are on board a patrol car conducting a police visibility patrol. Suddenly they saw 2
men rush out of a house and hurriedly rode a jeepney.
Suspecting that a crime has been committed P01 Recio and Cabutihan proceeded to approach the
house where the 2 men came from. Allegedly the door was slightly open and that from the slightly
open door they saw Antiquera and his live-in partner Cruz were engaging in a so-called "pot session"
and proceeded to enter to arrest the two. That while they were arresting the two, the police officers, in
plain view saw a wooden jewelry box and it contained different types of drug paraphernalia.
Cruz jumped her bail so she was tried in absentia.
The RTC convicted Antiquera and Cruz for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia. The CA affirmed the
decision of the lower court.
Issue:
Is the arrest of Antiquera and Cruz in accordance of Sec. 5 Rule 113 of rules of court for warrant-less
arrests?
Held:
The court held that there is no warrant-less arrest in accordance with Sec. 5 Rule 113 of Rules of Court
because in the questioning during trial, it was proven that the arresting officers P01 Recio and
Cabutihan did not comply with the proper rules and procedure in conducting warrant-less arrests. The
arresting officers according to their testimony during cross examinations said that the door was open 6
inches when they approached the house. When asked if the 6 inches opening of the door was enough to
see the events transpiring inside, the officers said that they had to push the door slightly to see clearly.
Thus this cannot comply with Sec. 5 Rule 113 of Rules of Court because the crime was not in view of the
arresting officers nor did they have prior knowledge that a crime has been committed. The court noted
that the immediate response to the 2 men that hurriedly rode the jeepney was to follow them in pursuit
not to go to the house where they came from, hence it was not logical when they instead went to the
house of Antiquera. The proper procedure should've been to first acquire a search warrant before
proceeding to enter the house.
Thereby, the court had no choice but to acquit Antiquera because the evidence acquired from the arrest
is deemed inadmissible as it is acquired from an invalid arrest, and the evidence is material to the
complaint lodged against Antiquera for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia.
PEOPLE v. VASQUEZ
G.R. No. 200304
January 15, 2014

Facts: Initially the case of illegal possession of drugs was raffled but upon motion it was consolidated with the case
of illegal sale of drugs. On arraignment, the appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges. The pre-trial conference of
the cases was held, but the same was terminated without the parties entering into any stipulation of facts. During the
trial of the case the prosecution stated the events. There was a confidential informant reported to PO2 Trambulo
about the illegal drug activities. Fajardo form a buy-bust team. It was in the buy-bust operation that Don was arrested.

RTC convicted the appellant of the crimes charged. The RTC gave more credence to the prosecutions
evidence given that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty on the part of the police officers
was not overcome. On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of the appellant. Hence this appeal. He
argues that the police officers did not have a search warrant or a warrant of arrest at the time he was arrested. This
occurred despite the fact that the police officers allegedly had ample time to secure a warrant of arrest against him.
Inasmuch as his arrest was illegal, the appellant avers that the evidence obtained as a result thereof was
inadmissible in court.

Issue: Whether the appellant Don may assail the validity of arrest.

Ruling: No.

At the outset, the Court rules that the appellant can no longer assail the validity of his arrest. We reiterated in
People v. Tampis that "[a]ny objection, defect or irregularity attending an arrest must be made before the accused
enters his plea on arraignment. Having failed to move for the quashing of the information against them before their
arraignment, appellants are now estopped from questioning the legality of their arrest. Any irregularity was cured
upon their voluntary submission to the trial courts jurisdiction." Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that the
appellant was caught in flagrante delicto of selling illegal drugs to an undercover police officer in a buy-bust
operation. His arrest, thus, falls within the ambit of Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure when an arrest made without warrant is deemed lawful. Having established the validity of the warrantless
arrest in this case, the Court holds that the warrantless seizure of the illegal drugs from the appellant is likewise valid.
We held in People v. Cabugatan that:

This interdiction against warrantless searches and seizures, however, is not absolute and such warrantless searches
and seizures have long been deemed permissible by jurisprudence in instances of
(1) search of moving vehicles,
(2) seizure in plain view,
(3) customs searches,
(4) waiver or consented searches,
(5) stop and frisk situations (Terry search), and search incidental to a lawful arrest.

The last includes a valid warrantless arrest, for, while as a rule, an arrest is considered legitimate [if] effected with a
valid warrant of arrest, the Rules of Court recognize permissible warrantless arrest, to wit:
(1) arrest in flagrante delicto
(2) arrest effected in hot pursuit, and
(3) arrest of escaped prisoners. (Citation omitted.)

Thus, the appellant cannot seek exculpation by invoking belatedly the invalidity of his arrest and the subsequent
search upon his person.