187_People v.

Malmstedt

Syllabus Topic: Warrantless searches and Keywords: Swedish man possess drug on bus
seizures. from Sagada.

DOCTRINE:
Section 5, Rules of Court
Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person:
a. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
b. When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of
facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
c. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined
while his case is pending or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested without a warrant
shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail, and he shall be proceeded
against in accordance with Rule 112, Section 7.

Probable Cause
 Such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonable, discreet, and prudent
man to believe that an offense has been committed, and that the objects sought in
connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. The required
probable cause that will justify a warrantless search and seizure is not determined by
any fixed formula but is resolved according to the facts of each case.

FACTS
 Mikael Malmstedt, a Swedish national, entered the Philippines for the 3 rd time.
 Malmstedt stayed in Sagada for 2 days. Thereafter, from Sagada, Malmstedt took a
Skyline bus. He was the only foreigner in the said bus.
 Meanwhile, Captain Vasco of the NARCOM ordered his men to set up a temporary
checkpoint to check all vehicles coming from the Cordillera Region.
 This order was prompted by persistent reports that vehicles coming from Sagada were
transporting marijuana and other prohibited drugs. Moreover, information was received
by the Commanding Officer of NARCOM that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had in his
possession prohibited drugs.
 When Malmstedt’s bus arrived at the checkpoint, 2 NARCOM officers boarded the bus
and conducted an inspection.
 During the inspection, they noticed a bulge on Malmstedt waist. This turned out to be a
pouch bag and when Malmstedt it, as ordered, the officer noticed 4 suspicious-looking
objects wrapped in brown packing tape, prompting the officer to open one of the
wrapped objects. The wrapped objects turned out to contain hashish, a derivative of
marijuana.
  Thereafter, Malmstedt was invited outside the bus for questioning, carrying with him 2
traveling bags. Upon stepping out of the bus, the officers got the bags and opened them.
A teddy bear was found in each bag. Feeling the teddy bears, the officer noticed that
there were bulges inside the same which did not feel like foam stuffing. It was only after
the officers had opened the bags that Malmstedt finally presented his passport.
 Malmstedt was then brought to NARCOM headquarters where a chemistry report
confirmed the existence of hashish. Thus, an information was filed against Malmetedt for
violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
 As his defense, Malmstedt claimed the following: (he only raised these 2 months after the
investigation)
o ✅ An illegal search of his personal effects because there was no warrant.
o The hashish was planted by the NARCOM officers in his pouch bag.
o The 2 traveling bags were not owned by him but were merely entrusted to him
by an Australian couple whom he met in Sagada who cannot take the same bus
with him because there were no more seats available on said bus.
 RTC convicted Malmstedt.

ISSUE

W/N Malmstedt constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures? – NO.

RATIO

The search is made pursuant to a lawful arrest. Thus, it is valid even without a warrant.
 Malmstedt was searched and arrested while transporting prohibited drugs. A crime was
actually being committed and he was caught in flagrante delicto. Thus, the search made
upon his personal effects falls squarely under paragraph (1) of the foregoing provisions
of law, which allow a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest.
 Under the circumstances of the case, there was sufficient probable cause for said officers
to believe that accused was then and there committing a crime.
o Probable Cause - Such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonable,
discreet, and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and
that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to
be searched. The required probable cause that will justify a warrantless search
and seizure is not determined by any fixed formula but is resolved according to
the facts of each case.
 ✅ The receipt of information by NARCOM that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had
prohibited drugs in his possession, plus the suspicious failure Malmstedt to produce his
passport, taken together as a whole, led the NARCOM officers to reasonably believe that
Malmstedt was trying to hide something illegal from the authorities.
 To deprive the NARCOM agents of the ability and facility to act accordingly, including, to
search even without warrant, in the light of such circumstances, would be to sanction
impotence and ineffectiveness in law enforcement, to the detriment of society.