CRIM PRO QUINCO, KATE

SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO LAWFUL ARREST PROF GASPAR

People v. Comprado
G.R. No. 213225 | 2018 | Martires, J.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RENANTE
COMPRADO y BRONOLA, accused-appellant.

CASE SUMMARY
Defendant was a passenger in a bus carrying a bag when he was searched by the officers. The officers found
some suspected marijuana substance and it was later on confirmed to be marijuana drug. Was the seizure
legal? Court held no. The situation was not and can not be counted as a valid warrantless search.
DOCTRINE

FACTS
GENERAL FACTS

Defense Argument: Prosecutor’s Argument

o He was only requested to carry a bag
to Cagayan de Oro
o When they reached Malaybalay, their
bus was stopped by 3 police officers
and inspected their baggage – that’s
when they saw the marijuana leaves
o They were taken pictures of and were
brought to the police station in
Cagayan de Oro – subjected to
custodial investigation without the
assistance of counsel
o They received a tip that an alleged
courier of marijuana had boarded a
bus
o Police officers then were stationed at
Police Station 6 to put up a checkpoint
in front of the Station
o They eventually stopped the bus
described in the information and saw
a man matching the description given
to them
▪ The man was seated at the

back of the bus with a

backpack placed on his lap
▪ P/Insp. asked the man to open
the bag and they saw a
transparent cellophane
containing dried marijuana
leaves
▪ They took pictures of the bag
in the presence of the man and
took him and the bag to the
PNP crime lab for examination
– which came out positive as
marijuana
CRIM PRO QUINCO, KATE
SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO LAWFUL ARREST PROF GASPAR
CASE TRAIL

RTC – Comprado Guilty of illegal possession of marijuana

CA – Affirmed RTC decision

ISSUE 1+ SHORT RULING: 1. W/N accused-appellant’s arrest was valid [NO]

CONCEPT 1  Bill of Rights requires that a search and seizure must be carried out with a
judicial warrant
Otherwise, any evidence obtained from such warrantless search is
inadmissible
EXCEPTIONS:
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest
2. Search of evidence in plain view
3. Search of a moving vehicle
4. Consented warrantless search
5. Customs search
6. Stop and Frisk
7. Exigent and emergency circumstances

ICAB 1 It was an invalid warrantless arrest.

CONCLUSION 1
CONCEPT 2 INCIDENTAL TO A LAWFUL ARREST
 there must be a lawful arrest first before the search of a person and his
belongings
IT CANNOT BE REVERSED

Lawful Arrest without warrant

a) In flagrante delicto arrest
1. The person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating
that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting
to commit a crime
2. Such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the
arresting officer
b) Hot pursuit
1. An offense has just been committed
The arresting officer has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge
of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it
ICAB 2 Here, without the tip from the informant:
 No overt act has been have executed any overt act in the presence or within
the view of the arresting officers which would indicate that the person is carrying
a marijuana bag

 No personal knowledge of facts indicating that the accused has just committed
an offense
CONCLUSION 2
CRIM PRO QUINCO, KATE
SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO LAWFUL ARREST PROF GASPAR
CONCEPT 3 MOVING VEHICLE

 allowed in recognition of the impracticability of securing a warrant under said

circumstances as the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or
jurisdiction in which the warrant may be sought

 Peace officers in such cases, however, are limited to routine checks

where the examination of the vehicle is limited to visual inspection

 must be made upon the circumstances known to the seizing officer, that an
automobile or other vehicle contains an item, article or object which by law is
subject to seizure and destruction
 vehicle is the target and not a person
ICAB 3 - Cannot be classified as a search of a moving vehicle
Their target was a person described to them and not the vehicle
CONCEPT 4 STOP-and-FRISK

The allowable scope for this is a “limited protective search of outer clothing for
weapons”
HOW?
 When an officer observes unusual conduct which leads him
reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that a criminal activity
may be afoot and that the person he is dealing may be armed and
presently dangerous
 In the course of investigating, he identifies himself as a policeman and
makes reasonable inquiries and where nothing dispels his reasonable
fear for his own or others’ safety, he can conduct the stop-and-frisk
WHY?
 A policeman is entitled to the protection of himself and others in the
area to carefully conduct limited search of the outer clothing of such
persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to
assault him

What is required?
Probable cause is not required but hunch will not validate a stop and frisk.
 Genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officer’s experience and
surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person detained has
weapons concealed about him

2-fold Interest: (Terry case)

1. the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection, which
underlies the recognition that a police officer may, under appropriate
circumstances and in an appropriate manner, approach a person for
purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even without
probable cause
2. the more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation which permit the
police officer to take steps to assure himself that the person with whom he
deals is not armed with a deadly weapon that could unexpectedly and
fatally be used against the police officer.
CRIM PRO QUINCO, KATE
SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO LAWFUL ARREST PROF GASPAR

ICAB 4 The Court finds that the totality of the circumstances in this case is NOT sufficient
to incite a genuine reason that would justify a stop-and-frisk search on accused-
appellant
 no overt act could be properly attributed to accused-appellant as to rouse
suspicion in the minds of the arresting officers that he had just committed, was
committing, or was about to commit a crime

 there should have been a “presence of more than one seemingly

innocent activity from which, taken together, warranted a reasonable
inference of criminal activity”
o Here, accused-appellant was just a passenger carrying a bag
 nothing suspicious much less criminal in said act  such
circumstance by itself, could not have led the arresting officers
to believe that accused-appellant was in possession of
marijuana
ISSUE 2 + SHORT RULING 2. W/N the seized items are admissible as evidence [NO]

CONCEPT 1 Exclusionary Rule - evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and

seizures shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding

 It is the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree

ICAB 1
CONCLUSION 1
DISPOSITION
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The 19 May 2014 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC
No. 01156 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Renante Comprado y Bronola is ACQUITTED and
ordered RELEASED from detention unless he is detained for any other lawful cause. The Director of the
Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to IMPLEMENT this Decision and to report to this Court the action taken
hereon within five (5) days from receipt.
SO ORDERED.