Antiquera v.

People
712 SCRA 339
December 11, 2013
FACTS:
The accused George Codes Antiquera and Corazon Olivenza Cruz were charged with
illegal possession of paraphernalia for dangerous drugs. It was stated that police officers were
conducting a police visibility patrol in Pasay City, when they saw two unidentified men rushing
out of a house and boarded a jeep. The police, suspecting that a crime was committed, peeked
through the opened door of the house. They saw petitioner Antiquera holding an improvised
tooter and a lighter. He was with Cruz, his live-in partner, who in turn was holding an improvised
burner and an aluminum foil. This prompted the police officers to enter the house and arrest the
accused. During the inspection, a wooden jewelry box was found, containing an improvised
burner, wok, scissors, 10 small transparent plastic sachets with traces of white crystalline
substance, improvised scoop, and seven unused strips of aluminum foil. These were all
confiscated, while the accused were brought to the PNP for investigation. They were eventually
found guilty by the RTC, which was affirmed by the CA.
ISSUE:
1. Whether CA erred in finding accused Antiquera guilty of illegal possession of drug
paraphernalia based on the testimony that the police saw him and Cruz in the act of
possessing drug paraphernalia?
HELD:
1. Yes.
The Court ruled that the case at bar involves an arrest in flagrante delicto, wherein an officer
or a private person may conduct a warrantless arrest of a person when in his presence, the person
to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. It
was decided that the circumstances do not warrant an arrest in flagrante delicto for as stated in
the facts, they saw the men rush out of a house and board a jeep. Since the officers suspected that
a crime had been committed, the natural thing to do is to chase the jeep boarded by the men since
the officers were in a patrol car and a tricycle. Instead of doing that, the officers gave priority to
the house even when they did not hear anyone asking for help from inside. They did not notice
anything irregular in the house, and even as they peeked through the door, they saw no activity
that justified their entering. Clearly, no crime was plainly exposed to their view that authorized
the warrantless arrest. Consequently, since the arrest was illegal, the search and seizure is also
illegal thus the evidence seized, inadmissible.

Prepared by: Jo-Anne D. Coloquio