PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V.

MARLON CRISTOBAL Y AMBROSIO

G.R. No. 234207
06/10/2019

Not a SocLeg related case – Crim/Consti

FACTS:

Police officer’s version

Accused-appellant Marlon Cristobal was flagged down by PO2 Rexy Ramos for driving a motorcycle without a
helmet ordering Ramos to present OR and CR of the motorcycle. Failure to present such, Ramos then asked for his
driver’s license. While being ticketed, Cristobal ran away but was apprehended and brought back to the checkpoint
thereby subjected for search for deadly weapon but nothing was found. However, PO2 Ramos noticed that accused-
appellant's pocket was bulging which appeared to be small plastic bag therefrom which appeared to be seven plastic
sachets of shabu. Hence
his warrantless arrest and thereby charged with violation of with Violation of Section 11, Art. 2 of R.A. 9165 (illegal
possession of dangerous drugs) despite denial and defense that he was framed thereof.

Cristobal’s version
He was unable to produce the OR/CR as the key to open the motorcycle compartment was lost. PO2 Ramos
suddenly told him to stand up and empty his pockets. He brought out the contents of his pockets, ₱18,000.00, which
was sent by his mother and was intended for his wedding. PO2 Ramos then went to his police mobile, returned, said
"positive", and frisked him on his waist. Nothing else was found in his possession.

The RTC convicted Cristobal of the crime charged. In finding Cristobal guilty, the RTC held that the search
conducted against Cristobal may be justified under the "stop and frisk" doctrine, or otherwise called the Terry search.
The CA affirmed the RTC's conviction of Cristobal.

ISSUE:
Whether the RTC and the CA erred in convicting Cristobal.

RULING:
NO.

As to the warrantless arrest:

His violation of the traffic code was not, ipso facto, the reason of his arrest. In Luz V. People, Arrest is effected by
an actual restraint of the person to be arrested or by that person's 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. Failure to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle under RA 10054 and failure to furnish the OR
and CR of the motorcycle are both punishable by fine only. Under the Rules of Court, a warrant of arrest need not be
issued if the information or charge was filed for an offense penalized by a fine only. It may be stated as a corollary that
neither can a warrantless arrest be made for such an offense.

As to the search:
The law requires that there first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made — the process cannot be
reversed. Since there was no valid arrest, there was neither a valid search incidental to a lawful arrest nor a valid “stop
and frisk” search. In Terry v. Ohio, where the doctrine of stop and frisk search was based, states that where a police
officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity
may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where, in the
course of investigating this behavior, he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where
nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is
entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of
such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.

In Manalili vs. Court of Appeals, said doctrine did not, however, abandon the rule that the police must,
whenever practicable, obtain advance judicial approval of searches and seizures through the warrant procedure,
excused only by exigent circumstances. Hence, in People vs. Cogaed, should be balanced with the need to protect the
privacy of citizens in accordance with Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.
In the case at bar, the police officers' act of proceeding to search Cristobal's body, despite their own admission
that they were unable to find any weapon on him, constitutes an invalid and unconstitutional search.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated June 29, 2017 of the
Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CR-HC No. 08134 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Marlon
Cristobal y Ambrosio is ACQUITTED of the crime charged, and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention
unless he is being lawfully held for another cause. Let an entry of final judgment be issued immediately.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City, for
immediate implementation. The said Superintendent is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within fve (5) days from
receipt of this Decision the action he has taken.

SO ORDERED