ALVIN COMERCIANTE y GONZALES, petitioner, vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

respondent.|||
(G.R. No. 205926, [July 22, 2015], 764 PHIL 627-641)

Facts:

At around 10 o'clock in the evening of July 30, 2003, Agent Radan of the
NARCOTICS group and P03 Calag were aboard a motorcycle, patrolling the area
while on their way to visit a friend at Private Road, Barangay Hulo, Mandaluyong
City.

Cruising at a speed of 30 kilometers per hour along Private Road, they

spotted, at a distance of about 10 meters, two (2) men - later identified as
Comerciante and a certain Erick Dasilla - standing and showing "improper and
unpleasant movements," with one of them handing plastic sachets to the other.

Thinking that the sachets may contain shabu, they immediately stopped
and approached Comerciante and Dasilla. At a distance of around five (5) meters,
P03 Calag introduced himself as a police officer, arrested Comerciante and Dasilla,
and confiscated two (2) plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance
from them. RTC and CA convicted accused-appellant in violation of Section 11,
Article II of RA 9165.

Comerciante now contends that P03 Carag did not effect a valid
warrantless arrest on him. Consequently, the evidence gathered as a result of
such illegal warrantless arrest, i.e., the plastic sachets containing shabu should be
rendered inadmissible, necessarily resulting in his acquittal.

Issue:

Was there a valid warrantless arrest and stop and frisk search to justify
conviction for violation of RA 9165?
Ruling:

No. Sec. 5(a) provides that there can only be a lawful warrantless arrest if
there is a crime being committed or about to be committed in the presence of a
peace officer or a private individual. In this case, the Court reiterates that
Comerciante' s acts of standing around with a companion and handing over
something to the latter do not constitute criminal acts. The Court found it highly
implausible, even if P03 Calag had perfect vision to have been able to identify
minuscule amounts of crystalline substances inside two plastic sachets, these
circumstances are not enough to create a reasonable inference of criminal activity
which would constitute a "genuine reason" for him to conduct a "stop and frisk"
search on the former.

NOTE: In sum, there was neither a valid warrantless arrest nor a valid "stop and
frisk" search made on Comerciante. As such, the shabu purportedly seized from
him is rendered inadmissible in evidence for being the proverbial fruit of the
poisonous tree. Since the confiscated shabu is the very corpus delicti of the crime
charged, Comerciante must necessarily be acquitted and exonerated from all
criminal liability.