Lonacinad

LLB-1E

PEOPLE VS ALDUB

Facts:
On November 1, 2012 few members of the PDEA with a confidential informant
held a briefing for a possible buy bust operation wherein the witness (a PDEA
agent) was tasked to be the poseur buyer and was given a 500 peso bill as a
boodle money. Upon coordinating with the PNP Legazpi City, the agents,
together with the informant proceeded to the barangay where the accused lives.
But instead of having the supposed poseur buyer to be the one to hand over the
boodle money to the accused, the confidential informant was the only one who
transacted with the accused. The informant just delivered the illegal substance
(shabu) to the law enforcers and described the pusher as one who is wearing a
red sando inside a house with a red gate. The enforcers upon seeing the
accused wearing a red sando inside a house with a red gate, arrested him while
he was holding three 500 peso bill.

Issue:
O Whether or not the arrest was reasonable.
O Whether or not the arrest may be made without warrant.

Argument:
The Constitution of the the Philippines, declares under Art. III Section 2 that,
the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose
shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except
upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination

under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce,
and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be
seized
Under this section , the lawe enforcers had clearly violated the right of the accused for
arresting him without any warrant of arrest. The accused cannot be held inflagrante
delicto because he has not committed the crime in plain view of the arresting officers. In
in conducting a buy bust operation, it is important that the law enforcers be able to
personnally see or witness the accuse while committing the crime.
Basing from the facts given, it was only the informant who transacted with the subject
or the drug pusher and delivered the illegal substance (shabu) to the officers. Although
the informants description was the same as the accused, the latter was not commiting
the crime at the time of arrest. Also the fact that the accused was holding three 500
peso bill negates with the fact that the boodle money was only a 500 peso bill.
There are only three instances when a law enforcer may arrest a person without any
warrant: First, if in the case of inflagrante delicto or being caught in the act of the
crime using the plain view doctrine; Second, in cases of hot pusuit when a person
who has all the descriptions of the perpetrator and is trying to escape or flee; Third, in
the case of an escaped prisoner.
Clearly the accused cannot be held inflagrante delicto nor in hot pursuit because at the
time of arrest he was only watching television and obviously without intent to escape a
crime committed. Also the arresting officers do not have personal knowledge of the
facts but only mere instructions by the informant of the pushers location and clothing.
Decision:
No, the arrest was not reasonable due to absence of a warrant of arrest. The
arresting officers may not use arrest in hot pursuit as an argument. According to Section
5 of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court lays down the basic rule on when an arrest
without a warrant is lawful. It states:

Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. -- A peace officer or a private person
may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined

while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.
In the case of People versus Doria, arrest in hot pursuit is defined by the second
instance of warrantless arrest. In this instance it is necessary that the arresting
officers have a personal knowledge of the crime. Thus, while the law enforcers
may not actually witness the execution of acts constituting the offense, they
must have direct knowledge or view of the crime right after its commission.

Personal knowledge means actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion,

based on actual facts, that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of
committing the crime. And mere intelligence that the suspect committed the
crime is not enough. The description by the informant too was not sufficient to
accuse the suspect as the one whom he bought with the illegal drugs.
In Umil v. Ramos there were strong objections to the warrantless arrest of a
suspected member of the New Peoples Army (NPA), while he was being treated
for a gunshot wound in a hospital. He alleged that there was no valid
justification for his arrest without a warrant, because he was not then
committing any offense nor were there any indications that he had just
committed or was about to commit one; he was in fact confined in a hospital.
In People v. Burgos, a certain Masamlok informed police authorities that the
appellant was involved in subversive activities. Acting on the strength of such
information and without securing a judicial warrant, the police proceeded to
appellants house to arrest him. There, they also allegedly recovered an
unlicensed firearm and subversive materials.
Just like the cases above mentioned the accused was not in the act of commiting
the crime nor in any possesion of the illegal drugs or possess any indication that
he has just committed a crime.
Therefore, the accused must be acquited for the crime for the unreasonable
arreast and the substances acquired by the enforcers may not be used against
the accused.

Constitution of the Philippines

People v. Ruben Montilla
Umil

v. Ramos, 202 SCRA 251, 263, October 3, 1991

People v. Burgos, supra, p. 15, per Gutierrez, J

Assignment in Legal Writing