De La Cruz, Nizza Gabrielle S.

1- DELTA
CLJ 101
May 18, 2021

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R.No. 74869 July 6, 1988
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
IDEL AMINNUDIN y AHNI, defendant-appellant.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Herminio T. Llariza counsel de-officio for defendant-appellant.

Idel Aminnudin was arrested on Ilo-ilo City at about 8:30 at the evening in M/V Wilcon 9
on June 25,1984. The PC Officers who were waiting for him accosted him and looked through
his bad and there they found what looked like Marijuana leaves, after they took him to the
headquarters for investigation. The two bundles (3kg) that they found tested positive for
Marijuana. It was the evidence for filing the Violation of the Dangerous Drug Act against him.
Later they included Farida Ali y Hassen his companion when he was arrested and she was also
investigated. Subsequently Ali was absolved of the charges after a thorough investigation, the
motion was granted and the trial proceeded only against Aminnudin, who was later convicted for
life imprisonment and a fine of 20,000 Pesos.
In his defense, Aminnudin disclaimed the Marijuana and said that all he had in his bag
was his clothes (Jacket, two shirts and two pairs of pants). His bag was confiscated without
search warrant. He also said that he was forced on the investigation to admit that what he was
carrying is Marijuana.
But the trial court was unconvinced of Aminnundin’s claim, because according to them
the accused only carried 2 watches that he claims to be his business. He carried it from Jolo to
Ilo-Ilo to sell to a friend whose name was also unidentified by Aminnudin and his allegations of
maltreatment had no proof of injuries by him.
 On this trial the PC officer was also questions about the absence of the search warrant
even after obtaining information about Aminnudin two days before his arrival to Ilo-ilo City. The
chief of the arresting team, Lt. Cipriano Querol Jr. said on his testimony that because they are
very sure that their operation will yield positive result the search warrant is not necessary
anymore. This statement of the Lieutenant was used as an evidence that this arrest was unlawful
under the Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution.
The Accused-appellant was not caught in flagrante nor was a crime about to be
committed or had just been committed to justify the arrest without warrant under Rule 113 of the
Rules of the Court.

ISSUES
Whether or not the Arrest is lawful and justifiable given the fact that the PC officers have the
enough time and means and probable cause needed for them to consult and convince a judge to
issue a search warrant for the accused-appellant.

RULING
The evidence obtained was inadmissible since Aminnudin was arrested illegally without warrant.
The warrantless arrest does not fall under the Rule 113 since the PC officers had their time for
consulting a judge to issue a warrant against the Accused.
The Court found that with the exclusion of the illegally seized marijuana as evidence against the
accused-appellant, his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and he must therefore
be discharged on the presumption that he is innocent.