PEOPLE VS.

MONTILLA, 284 SCRA 703

On June 19, 1994, at about 2 p.m., SPO1 Talingting and SPO1 Clarin of the Dasmarinas,
Cavite PNP were informed by an INFORMER that a drug courier would be arriving in Barangay
Salitran, Dasmarinas, Cavite, from Baguio City, with an undetermined amount of marijuana.
The informer likewise informed them that he could recognize said person.
At about 4 in the morning of June 20, 1994, the appellant was arrested by the abovenamed police officers while alighting from a passenger jeepney near a waiting shed in
Salitran, Dasmarinas, Cavite, upon being pointed to by the informer. The policemen recovered
28 kilos of dried marijuana leaves. The arrest was without warrant.
The trial court convicted the appellant for transporting marijuana based on the
testimonies of the Above-named police officers without presenting the alleged informer.
Issue:
Was the warrantless arrest valid?
Held:
The accused claims that the warrantless search and seizure is illegal because the
alleged information was received by the police on June 19, 1994 and therefore, they could
have applied for a search warrant. The said contention is without merit considering that the
information given by the informer is too sketchy and not detailed enough for the obtention of
the corresponding arrest or search warrant. While there is indication that the informer knows
the courier, the records do not show that he knew his name. On bare information, the police
could not have secured a warrant from a judge.
Furthermore, warrantless search is allowed in the following instances:
1.

customs searches;

2.

searches of moving vehicle;

3.

seizure of evidence in plain view;

4.

consented searches;

5.

search incidental to a lawful arrest; and

6.

stop and frisk measures.

Since the accused was arrested for transporting marijuana, the subsequent search on his
person is justified. An arresting officer has the right to validly search and seize from the
offender (1) dangerous weapons; and (2) those that may be used as proof of the commission
of the offense.
In the case at bar, upon being pointed to by the informer as the drug courier, the policemen
requested the accused to open and show them the contents of his bag and the cartoon he was
carrying and he voluntarily opened the same and upon cursory inspection, it was found out
that it contains marijuana. Hence the arrest.
The accused insists that it is normal for a person traveling with a bag and cartoon which
should not elicit the slightest suspicion that he was committing a crime. In short, there was no
probable cause for these policemen to think that he was committing a crime.
The said contention was considered without merit by the Supreme Court considering the fact
that he consented to the search as well as the fact that the informer was a reliable one who
had supplied similar information to the police in the past which proved positive.
(NOTE: The SC held that the non-presentation of the informer does not affect the case for the
prosecution because he is not even the best witness. He is merely a corroborative witness to
the arresting officers. )
JUSTICE PANGANIBAN:
To say that reliable tips from informers constitute probable cause for a warrantless arrest or
search IS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT AND PLACES IN GREAT JEOPARDY THE DOCTRINES LAID
DOWN IN MANY DECISIONS MADE BY THIS COURT. (PEOPLE VS. BURGOS, 144 SCRA 1; PEOPLE
VS. AMINNUDIN, 163 SCRA 402; PEOPLE VS. ENCINADA, October 2, 1997; PEOPLE VS.
MENGOTE, 220 SCRA).
The case is similar to the case of People vs. Encimada where the appellant was searched
without a warrant while disembarking from a ship on the strength of a tip from an informer
received by the police the previous afternoon that the appellant would be transporting
prohibited drugs. The search yielded a plastic package containing marijuana. On Appeal, the
SC reversed the decision of conviction and held that Encinada did not manifest any suspicious
behavior that would necessarily and reasonably invite the attention of the police.