SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 352 04/03/2018, 11*52 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 352 04/03/2018,

, 11*52 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 352 04/03/2018, 11*52 AM

Same; Same; Same; Same; Under the first exception, the law
requires that there be first a lawful arrest before a search can be
made·the process cannot be reversed; As a rule, an arrest is
considered legitimate if effected with a valid warrant of arrest; The
Rules of Court recognizes permissible warrantless arrests.·The first
exception (search incidental to a lawful arrest) includes a valid
174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED warrantless search and seizure pursuant to an equally valid
warrantless arrest which must precede the search. In this instance,
People vs. Molina
the law requires that there be first a lawful arrest before a search
* can be made·the process cannot be reversed. As a rule, an arrest is
G.R. No. 133917. February 19, 2001. considered legitimate if effected with a valid warrant of arrest. The

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

________________
NASARIO MOLINA y MANAMAT @ „BOBONG‰ and
GREGORIO MULA y MALAGURA @ „BOBOY,‰ accused- * EN BANC.
appellants.

Constitutional Law; Criminal Procedure; Searches and 175

Seizures; Arrest; Constitution mandates that searches and seizures

be carried out in a reasonable fashion, that is, by virtue or on the
strength of a search warrant predicated upon the existence of a
VOL. 352, FEBRUARY 19, 2001 175
probable cause; Article III, Section 3, paragraph 2, bolsters and
solidifies the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. People vs. Molina
·The fundamental law of the land mandates that searches and
seizures be carried out in a reasonable fashion, that is, by virtue or
Rules of Court, however, recognizes permissible warrantless
on the strength of a search warrant predicated upon the existence of
arrests. Thus, a peace officer or a private person may, without
a probable cause. x x x Complementary to the foregoing provision is
warrant, arrest a person: (a) when, in his presence, the person to be
the exclusionary rule enshrined under Article III, Section 3,
arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
paragraph 2, which bolsters and solidifies the protection against
commit an offense (arrest in flagrante delicto); (b) when an offense
unreasonable searches and seizures. Thus: Any evidence obtained
has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based
in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for
on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to
any purpose in any proceeding.
be arrested has committed it (arrest effected in hot pursuit); and (c)
Same; Same; Same; Same; Instances where search and seizure when the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a
may be made without a warrant and the evidence obtained penal establishment or a place where he is serving final judgment
therefrom may be admissible.·Search and seizure may be made or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped
without a warrant and the evidence obtained therefrom may be while being transferred from one confinement to another (arrest of
admissible in the following instances: (1) search incident to a lawful escaped prisoners).
arrest; (2) search of a moving motor vehicle; (3) search in violation
Same; Same; Same; Same; In cases of in flagrante delicto
of customs laws; (4) seizure of evidence in plain view; (5) when the
arrests, a peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant,
accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and
arrest a person when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
seizures; and (6) stop and frisk situations (Terry search).
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ef14974bde59547a003600fb002c009e/p/APR174/?username=Guest Page 1 of 18 http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ef14974bde59547a003600fb002c009e/p/APR174/?username=Guest Page 2 of 18

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 352 04/03/2018, 11*52 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 352 04/03/2018, 11*52 AM

offense; Arresting officer must have personal knowledge of facts or Same; Same; Same; Same; Two requisites to constitute a valid
circumstances convincingly indicative or constitutive of probable in flagrante delicto arrest.·To constitute a valid in flagrante delicto
cause; Meaning of Probable Cause.·In People v. Chua Ho San, the arrest, two requisites must concur: (1) the person to be arrested
Court held that in cases of in flagrante delicto arrests, a peace must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is
officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2)
when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. The arresting officer.
arresting officer, therefore, must have personal knowledge of such
fact or, as recent case law adverts to, personal knowledge of facts or AUTOMATIC REVIEW of a decision of the Regional Trial
circumstances convincingly indicative or constitutive of probable Court of Davao City, Br. 17.
cause. As discussed in People v. Doria, probable cause means an
actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion. The grounds of The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of actual belief of the The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
arresting officers, the suspicion that the person to be arrested is Ateneo Legal Aid Office for accused-appellants.
probably guilty of committing the offense, is based on actual facts,
i.e., supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. A
To sanction disrespect and disregard for the Constitution in
reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on probable cause,
the name of protecting the society from lawbreakers is to
coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officers making the
make the government itself lawless and to subvert those
arrest.
values 1upon which our ultimate freedom and liberty
Same; Same; Same; Same; It is settled that „reliable depend. 2
information‰ alone, absent any overt act indicative of a felonious For automatic review is the Decision of the Regional
enterprise in the presence and within the view of the arresting Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 17, in Criminal Case No.
officers, are not sufficient to constitute probable cause that would 37,264-96, finding accused-appellants Nasario Molina y
justify an in flagrante delicto arrest.·As applied to in flagrante Manamat alias „Bobong‰ and Gregorio Mula y Malagura
delicto arrests, it is settled that „reliable information‰ alone, absent alias „Boboy,‰ guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of
3
any overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise in the presence and Section 8, of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972
within the view of the arresting officers, are not sufficient to

________________
176
1 Dissenting opinion of Justice Brennan in Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S.
465, 96 S. Ct. 3037, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1067, 1105 [1976].
2 Dated April 25, 1997, Rollo, pp. 11-24.
176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
3 Sec. 8. Possession or Use of Prohibited Drugs.·The penalty of
People vs. Molina reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred
thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person
who, unless authorized by law, shall possess or use any prohibited drug
constitute probable cause that would justify an in flagrante delicto
subject to the provisions of Section 20 hereof.
arrest. Thus, in People v. Aminnudin, it was held that „the accused-
appellant was not, at the moment of his arrest, committing a crime 177
nor was it shown that he was about to do so or that he had just done
so.
VOL. 352, FEBRUARY 19, 2001 177

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ef14974bde59547a003600fb002c009e/p/APR174/?username=Guest Page 3 of 18 http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ef14974bde59547a003600fb002c009e/p/APR174/?username=Guest Page 4 of 18

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 352 04/03/2018, 11*52 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 352 04/03/2018, 11*52 AM

People vs. Molina 5 Filed on August 10, 1996; Rollo, p. 7.

6 Records, p. 14.
7 TSN, November 14, 1996, pp. 2-4.
(Republic
4
Act No. 6425), as amended by Republic Act No.
7659, and sentencing them to suffer the supreme penalty 178
of death.
The information against accused-appellants reads:
178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
That on or about August 8, 1996, in the City of Davao, Philippines,
People vs. Molina
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, in conspiracy with each other, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously was found in their possession motorcycle driver, accused-appellant Mula, as the pusher.
946.9 grains of dried marijuana which are prohibited. As to accused-appellant Molina, SPO1 Paguidopon had no
5
CONTRARY TO LAW. occasion to see him before the arrest. Moreover, the names
and addresses of the accused-appellants came to the
Upon arraignment on September 4, 1996, accused- knowledge 8
of SPO1 Paguidopon only after they were
appellants pleaded not guilty to the accusation against arrested.
6
them. Trial ensued, wherein the prosecution presented At about 7:30 in the morning of August 8, 1996, SPO1
Police Superintendent Eriel Mallorca, SPO1 Leonardo Y. Paguidopon received an information that the alleged
Pamplona, Jr., and SPO1 Marino S. pusher will be9 passing at NHA, Maa, Davao City any time
Paguidopon, Jr. as witnesses. that morning. Consequently, at around 8:00 A.M. of the
The antecedent facts are as follows: Sometime in June same day, he called for assistance at the PNP, Precinct No.
1996, SPO1 Marino Paguidopon, then a member of the 3, Matina, Davao City, which immediately dispatched the
Philippine National Police detailed at Precinct No. 3, team of SPO4 Dionisio Cloribel (team leader), SPO2
Matina, Davao City, received an information regarding the7 Paguidopon (brother of SPO1 Marino Paguidopon), and
presence of an alleged marijuana pusher in Davao City. SPO1 Pamplona, to proceed to the house of SPO1 Marino
The first time he came to see the said marijuana pusher in Paguidopon 10
where they would wait for the alleged pusher
person was during the first week of July 1996. SPO1 to pass by.
Paguidopon was then with his informer when a motorcycle At around 9:30 in the morning of August 8, 1996, while
passed by. His informer pointed to the the team was positioned in the house of SPO1 Paguidopon,
a „trisikad‰ carrying the accused-appellants passed by. At
________________ that instance, SPOI Paguidopon pointed to the accused-
appellants as the pushers. Thereupon, the team11 boarded
Sec. 20. Application of Penalties, Confiscation and Forfeiture of the their vehicle and overtook the „trisikad.‰ SPO1
Proceeds or Instruments of the Crime.·The penalties for offenses under Paguidopon was left in his house, thirty12
meters from where
Sections 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of Article II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15 and 16 of the accused-appellants were accosted.
Article III of this Act shall be applied if the dangerous drugs involved is The police officers then ordered the „trisikad‰ to stop. At
in any of the following quantities: that point, accused-appellant Mula who was holding a
5) 750 grams or more of indian hemp or marijuana; black bag handed the same to accused-appellant Molina.
xxx xxx xxx Subsequently, SPO1 Pamplona introduced himself as a
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing police officer
13
and asked accusedappellant Molina to open
quantities, the penalty shall range from prision correccional to reclusion the bag.
14
Molina replied, „Boss, if possible we will settle
perpetua depending upon the quantity. this.‰ SPO1 Pamplona insisted on opening the bag, which
4 An Act Imposing the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes. revealed dried marijuana leaves inside. Thereafter,

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ef14974bde59547a003600fb002c009e/p/APR174/?username=Guest Page 5 of 18 http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ef14974bde59547a003600fb002c009e/p/APR174/?username=Guest Page 6 of 18

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 352 04/03/2018, 11*52 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 352 04/03/2018, 11*52 AM

________________ immediately elevate the entire records of this case with the Clerk of
Court of the Supreme Court, Manila, for the automatic review of
8 TSN, November 14, 1996, pp. 7-9.
their case by the Supreme Court and its appropriate action as the
9 Id., pp. 10 and 18.
case may be.
19
10 TSN, November 26, 1996, pp. 4-5 (Direct examination of SPO1
SO ORDERED.
Pamplona).
11 TSN, November 26, 1996, pp. 5-6. Pursuant to Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code and Rule
12 TSN, November 14, 1996, pp. 14-15. 122, Section 10 of the Rules of Court, the case was elevated
13 TSN, November 26, 1996, pp. 6-8. to this Court on automatic review. Accused-appellants
14 Id., p. 14. contend:
179
________________

VOL. 352, FEBRUARY 19, 2001 179 15 Id., p. 9.

16 Records, pp. 32-37.
People vs. Molina
17 Records, pp. 39-43.
18 Penned by Judge Renato A. Fuentes.
accused-appellants15 Mula and Molina were handcuffed by 19 Decision, Rollo, p. 24.
the police officers.
On December 6, 1996, accused-appellants, through 180
counsel, jointly filed a Demurrer to Evidence, contending
that the marijuana allegedly seized from them is 180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
inadmissible as evidence for having been obtained in
violation of their constitutional right against unreasonable People vs. Molina
16
searches and 17
seizures. The demurrer was denied by the
trial court. A motion for reconsideration was filed by I.
accused-appellants, but this was likewise denied.
Accusedappellants waived presentation of evidence and THAT THE MARIJUANA IS INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE FOR
opted to file a joint memorandum. HAVING BEEN SEIZED IN VIOLATION OF APPELLANTSÊ
On April 25, 1997, the trial court rendered the assailed CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AGAINST UNREASONABLE
18
decision, the decretal portion of which reads: SEARCHES AND SEIZURES;

WHEREFORE, finding the evidence of the prosecution alone II.

without any evidence from both accused who waived presentation of
THAT ASSUMING IT IS ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE, THE
their own evidence through their counsels, more than sufficient to
GOVERNMENT HAS NOT OTHERWISE PROVED THEIR GUILT
prove the guilt of both accused of the offense charged beyond
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT; AND
reasonable doubt, pursuant to Sec. 20, sub. par. 5 of Republic Act
7659, accused NASARIO MOLINA and GREGORIO MULA, are III.
sentenced to suffer a SUPREME PENALTY OF DEATH through
lethal injection under Republic Act 8176, to be effected and THAT, FINALLY, ASSUMING THEIR GUILT HAS BEEN
implemented as therein provided for by law, in relation to Sec. 24 of PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, THE IMPOSABLE
Rep. Act 7659. PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF SEC. 8 OF RA No. 7659 (sic), IN
The Branch Clerk of Court of this court, is ordered to THE ABSENCE OF ANY AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE, IS

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ef14974bde59547a003600fb002c009e/p/APR174/?username=Guest Page 7 of 18 http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ef14974bde59547a003600fb002c009e/p/APR174/?username=Guest Page 8 of 18

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 352
20
LIFE IMPRISONMENT, NOT DEATH.
The Solicitor General filed a Manifestation and Motion (In
Lieu of Brief), wherein he prayed for the acquittal of both
accusedappellants.
The fundamental law of the land mandates that
searches and seizures be carried out in a reasonable
fashion, that is, by virtue or on the strength of a search
warrant predicated upon the existence of a probable cause.
The pertinent provision of the Constitution provides:
SEC. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no
search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to
21
be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
________________
20 Rollo, p. 40.
21 Constitution, Article III, Section 2.
VOL. 352, FEBRUARY 19, 2001
People vs. Molina
Complementary to the foregoing provision is the
exclusionary rule enshrined under Article III, Section 3,
paragraph 2, which bolsters and solidifies 22the protection
against unreasonable searches and seizures. Thus:
Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section
shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
Without this rule, the right to privacy would be a form of
words, valueless and undeserving of mention in a perpetual
charter of inestimable human liberties; so too, without this
rule, the freedom from state invasions of privacy would be
so ephemeral and so neatly severed from its conceptual
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ef14974bde59547a003600fb002c009e/p/APR174/?username=Guest
04/03/2018, 11*52 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 352 04/03/2018, 11*52 AM
nexus with the freedom from all brutish means of coercing
evidence as not to merit this CourtÊs high regard 23
as a
freedom implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.
The foregoing constitutional proscription, however, is
not without exceptions. Search and seizure may be made
without a warrant and the evidence obtained therefrom
may be admissible in the following instances: (1) search
incident to a lawful arrest; (2) search of a moving motor
vehicle; (3) search in violation of customs laws; (4) seizure
of evidence in plain view; (5) when the accused himself
waives his24
right against unreasonable searches and 25
seizures; and (6) stop and frisk situations (Terry search).
________________
22 People v. Chua Ho San, 308 SCRA 432, 443 [1999].
23 Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. ed. 2d 1081, 1090
[1961].
24 People v. Doria., 301 SCRA 668, 705 [1999]; citing Hizon v. Court of
Appeals, 265 SCRA 517, 527 [1996]; People v. Fernandez, 239 SCRA 174,
182-183 [1994]; Roan v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687, 697 [1986]; Bernas,
The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, p. 169 [1996]; Cruz,
Constitutional Law, pp. 147-153 [1986]; Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure, Rule 126, Section 12, and Rule 113, Section 5; People v.
Bagista, 214 SCRA 63, 69 [1992]; People v. Lo Ho Wing, 193 SCRA 122,
181
126-128 [1991]; Roldan, Jr. v. Arca, 65 SCRA 336, 348 [1975]; Papa v.
Mago, 22 SCRA 857, 871-874 [1968]; People v. Tabar, 222 SCRA 144, 153
181 [1993]; Alvarez v. CFI, 64 Phil. 33, 48 [1937]; and People v. Kagui
Malasugui, 63 Phil. 221, 226 [1936].
25 People v. Chua Ho San, supra; citing Terry v. Ohio, 20 L Ed, 896
adopted in Posadas v. Court of Appeals, 188 SCRA 288 [1990]; and People
v. Ramos, 222 SCRA 557 [1993].
182
182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Molina
The first exception (search incidental to a lawful arrest)
includes a valid warrantless search and seizure pursuant
to an equally valid warrantless arrest which must precede
the search. In this instance, the law requires that there be
Page 9 of 18 http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ef14974bde59547a003600fb002c009e/p/APR174/?username=Guest Page 10 of 18
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 352 04/03/2018, 11*52 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 352 04/03/2018, 11*52 AM

first a lawful arrest before 26 a search can be made·the 183

process cannot be reversed. As a rule, an arrest is
considered legitimate if effected with a valid warrant of
VOL. 352, FEBRUARY 19, 2001 183
arrest. The Rules of Court, however, recognizes permissible
warrantless arrests. Thus, a peace officer or a private People vs. Molina
person may, without warrant, arrest a person: (a) when, in
his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is without a warrant, arrest a person when, in his presence,
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
(arrest in flagrante delicto); (b) when an offense has just committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. The
been committed and he has probable cause to believe based arresting officer, therefore, must have personal knowledge
on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the of such fact or, as recent case law adverts to, personal
person to be arrested has committed it (arrest effected in knowledge of facts or circumstances convincingly indicative
hot pursuit); and (c) when the person to be arrested is a or constitutive of probable cause. As discussed in People v.
30
prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or a Doria, probable cause means an actual belief or
place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily reasonable grounds of suspicion. The grounds of suspicion
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while are reasonable when, in the absence of actual belief of the
being transferred from 27
one confinement to another (arrest arresting officers, the suspicion that the person to be
of escaped prisoners). arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense, is
In the case at bar, the court a quo anchored its judgment based on actual facts, i.e., supported by circumstances
of conviction on a finding that the warrantless arrest of sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable
accusedappellants, and the subsequent search conducted cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. A reasonable
by the peace officers, are valid because accused-appellants suspicion therefore must be founded on probable cause,
were caught
28
in flagrante delicto in possession of prohibited coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officers
drugs. This brings us to the issue of whether or not the making the arrest.
warrantless arrest, search and seizure in the present case As applied to in flagrante delicto arrests, it is settled
fall within the recognized exceptions to the warrant that „reliable information‰ alone, absent any overt act
requirement. 29
indicative of a felonious enterprise in the presence and
In People v. Chua Ho San, the Court held that in cases within the view of the arresting officers, are not sufficient
of in flagrante delicto arrests, a peace officer or a private to constitute probable cause that would justify an31 in
person may, flagrante delicto arrest. Thus, in People v. Aminnudin, it
was held that „the accused-appellant was not, at the
________________ moment of his arrest, committing a crime nor was it shown
that he was about to do so or that he had just done so.
26 Id., at 449; citing Malacat v. Court of Appeals, 283 SCRA 159, 175 What he was doing was descending the gangplank of the
[1997]. M/V Wilcon 9 and there was no outward indication that
27 Id., at 444; and the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (as called for his arrest. To all appearances, he was like any of
amended), Rule 113, Section 5. the other passengers innocently disembarking from the
28 Decision, Rollo, p. 22. vessel. It was only when the informer pointed to him as the
29 People v. Chua Ho San, supra; citing People v. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1 carrier of the marijuana that he suddenly became suspect
[1986]; People v. Encinada, 280 SCRA 72 [1997]; People v. Montilla, 285 and so subject to apprehension.‰
SCRA 703 [1998]; People v. Claudio, 160 SCRA 646 [1988]; People v.
Maspil, Jr., 188 SCRA 757 [1988]; People v. Lo Ho Wing, 193 SCRA 122
________________

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ef14974bde59547a003600fb002c009e/p/APR174/?username=Guest Page 11 of 18 http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ef14974bde59547a003600fb002c009e/p/APR174/?username=Guest Page 12 of 18

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 352 04/03/2018, 11*52 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 352 04/03/2018, 11*52 AM

[1991]; People v. Tangiben, 184 SCRA 220 [1990]; Posadas v. Court of Second, there was nothing in petitionerÊs behavior or
Appeals, 188 SCRA 288 [1990]; People v. Malmsteadt, 198 SCRA 401 conduct which could have reasonably elicited even mere
[1991]. suspicion other than that his eyes were „moving very
30 People v. Doria, supra; citing Umil v. Ramos, 202 SCRA 251, 263 fast‰·an observation which leaves us incredulous since Yu
[1991]: United States v. Santos, 36 Phil. 851 [1917]; People v. Bati, 189 and his teammates were nowhere near petitioner and it
SCRA 97 [1990]; People v. Sucro, 195 SCRA 388 [1990] and People v. was already 6:30 p.m., thus presumably dusk. Petitioner
Ramos, 186 SCRA 184 [1990]. and his companions were merely standing at the corner
31 163 SCRA 402, 409-410 [1988]. and were not creating any commotion or trouble . . .

184
________________

184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 32 210 SCRA 174, 179-180 [1992].
33 280 SCRA 72, 86-87 [1997].
People vs. Molina 34 283 SCRA 159 [1997].
32
35 Id., at 169.
Likewise, in People v. Mengote, the Court did not consider 36 Id., at 175.
„eyes . . . darting from side to side . . . [while] holding . . .
[oneÊs] abdomen,‰ in a crowded street at 11:30 in the 185
morning, as overt acts and circumstances sufficient to
arouse suspicion and indicative of probable cause. VOL. 352, FEBRUARY 19, 2001 185
According to the Court, „[b]y no stretch of the imagination
could it have been inferred from these acts that an offense People vs. Molina
had just been committed, or was actually being committed,
or was at least being attempted in [the arresting officersÊ] Third, there was at all no ground, probable or otherwise, to believe
33
presence.‰ So also, in People v. Encinada, the Court ruled that petitioner was armed with a deadly weapon. None was visible
that no probable cause is gleanable from the act of riding a to Yu, for as he admitted, the alleged grenade was „discovered‰
motorela while holding two plastic baby chairs. 34 „inside the front waistline‰ of petitioner, and from all indications as
Then, too, in Malacat v. Court of Appeals, the trial to the distance between Yu and petitioner, any telltale bulge,
court concluded that petitioner was attempting to commit a assuming that petitioner was indeed hiding a grenade, could not
37
crime as he was „standing at the corner of Plaza Miranda have been visible to Yu.
and Quezon BoulevardÊ with his eyes Âmoving very fastÊ and
Âlooking 35at every person that come (sic) nearer (sic) to Clearly, to constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, two
them.Ê ‰ In declaring the warrantless arrest therein requisites must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must
illegal, the Court said: execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed,
is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime;
Here, there could have been no valid in flagrante delicto . . . arrest and (2) such overt act is done 38
in the presence or within the
preceding the search in light of the lack of personal knowledge on view of the arresting officer.
the part of Yu, the arresting officer, or an overt physical act, on the In the case at bar, accused-appellants manifested no
part of petitioner, indicating that a crime had just been committed, outward indication that would justify their arrest. In
36
was being committed or was going to be committed. holding a bag on board a trisikad, accused-appellants could
not be said to be committing, attempting to commit or have
It went on to state that· committed a crime. It matters not that accused-appellant
Molina responded „Boss, if possible we will settle this‰ to

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ef14974bde59547a003600fb002c009e/p/APR174/?username=Guest Page 13 of 18 http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ef14974bde59547a003600fb002c009e/p/APR174/?username=Guest Page 14 of 18

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 352 04/03/2018, 11*52 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 352 04/03/2018, 11*52 AM

the request of SPO1 Pamplona to open the bag. Such · to another person and how did you know that it was
response which allegedly reinforced the „suspicion‰ of the Mula who handed the black bag to another person?
arresting officers that accused-appellants were committing A Because I have already information from Paguidopon,
a crime, is an equivocal statement which standing alone · regarding Mula and Molina, when they pass by
will not constitute probable cause to effect an in flagrante through the street near the residence of Paguidopon.
delicto arrest. Note that were it not for SPO1 Marino He told that the one who is big one that is39Gregorio
Paguidopon (who did not participate in the arrest but Mula and the thin one is Nazario Molina‰
merely pointed accused-appellants to the arresting
officers), accused-appellants could not be the subject of any The aforecited testimony of SPOl Pamplona, therefore, is
suspicion, reasonable or otherwise. entirely baseless. SPOl Pamplona could not have learned
While SPO1 Paguidopon claimed that he and his the name of accused-appellants from SPOl Paguipodon
informer conducted a surveillance of accused-appellant because Paguipodon himself, who allegedly conducted the
Mula, SPO1 Paguidopon, however, admitted that he only surveillance, was not even aware of accused-appellantsÊ
learned MulaÊs name and address after the arrest. What is name and address prior to the arrest.
more, it is doubtful if SPO1 Paguidopon indeed recognized Evidently, SPOl Paguidopon, who acted as informer of
accused-appellant Mula. It is worthy to note that, before the arresting officers, more so the arresting officers
the arrest, he was able to see Mula in person only once, themselves, could not have been certain of accused-
pinpointed to him by his informer while they were on the appellantsÊ identity, and were, from all indications, merely
side of the road. These circumstances could not have fishing for evidence at the time of the arrest.
afforded SPO1 Compared to People v. Encinada, the arresting officer in
the said case knew appellant Encinada even before the
________________ arrest because of the latterÊs illegal gambling activities,
thus, lending at least a semblance of validity on the arrest
37 Id., at 178.
effected by the peace officers. Nevertheless, the Court
38 Concurring Opinion of Justice Artemio V. Panganiban in People v.
declared in said case that the warrantless arrest and the
Doria, 301 SCRA 668, 720 (1999).
consequent search were illegal, holding that „[t]he
186 prosecutionÊs evidence did not show any suspicious
behavior when the appellant disembarked from the ship or
while he rode the mo-
186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Molina ________________

39 TSN, November 26, 1996, p. 7.

Paguidopon a closer look at accused-appellant Mula,
considering that the latter was then driving a motorcycle 187
when SPO1 Paguidopon caught a glimpse of him. With
respect to accused-appellant Molina, SPO1 Paguidopon
admitted that he had never seen him before the arrest. VOL. 352, FEBRUARY 19, 2001 187
This belies the claim of SPOl Pamplona that he knew People vs. Molina
the name of accused-appellants even before the arrest, to
wit· torela. No act or fact demonstrating a felonious enterprise
could be ascribed to appellant under such bare
„Q When you said that certain Mula handed a black bag

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ef14974bde59547a003600fb002c009e/p/APR174/?username=Guest Page 15 of 18 http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ef14974bde59547a003600fb002c009e/p/APR174/?username=Guest Page 16 of 18

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 352 04/03/2018, 11*52 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 352 04/03/2018, 11*52 AM

40
circumstances.‰ 188
Moreover, it could not be said that accused-appellants
waived their right against unreasonable searches and 188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
seizure. Implied acquiescence to the search, if there was
People vs. Awing
any, could not have been more than mere passive
conformity given under intimidating or coercive
circumstances and is thus considered no consent at all Judgment reversed and set aside, accused-appellants
41
within the purview of the constitutional guarantee. acquitted.
Withal, the Court holds that the arrest of accused-
appellants does not fall under the exceptions allowed by the Note.·Well-entrenched in this country is the rule that
rules. Hence, the search conducted on their person was no arrest, search and seizure can be made without a valid
likewise illegal. Consequently, the marijuana seized by the warrant issued by competent judicial authority. (Asuncion
peace officers could not be admitted as evidence against vs. Court of Appeals, 302 SCRA 490 [1999])
accused-appellants, and the Court is thus, left with no
··o0o··
choice but to find in favor of accused-appellants.
While the Court strongly supports the campaign of the
government against drug addiction and commends the
efforts of our lawenforcement officers towards this drive, all
efforts for the achievement of a drug-free society must not
encroach on the fundamental rights and liberties of
individuals as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, which © Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
protection extends even to the basest of criminals.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court
of Davao City, Branch 17, in Criminal Case No. 37, 264-96,
is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. For lack of evidence to
establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, accused-
appellants Nasario Molina y Manamat alias „Bobong‰ and
Gregorio Mula y Malagura alias „Boboy,‰ are ACQUITTED
and ordered RELEASED from confinement unless they are
validly detained for other offenses. No costs.
SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr. (C.J.), Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug,

Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo,
Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, De Leon, Jr. and Sandoval-
Gutierrez, JJ., concur.

________________

40 People v. Encinada, supra.

41 Id., at 91; citing Aniag v. Commission on Elections, 237 SCRA 424,
436-437 [1994].

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ef14974bde59547a003600fb002c009e/p/APR174/?username=Guest Page 17 of 18 http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161ef14974bde59547a003600fb002c009e/p/APR174/?username=Guest Page 18 of 18