Warrantless Arrests

In Flagrante Delicto
People vs Montilla
Political Law Search and Seizure Informers Tip Warrantless Arrest
Facts: On 19 June 1994 at about 2pm, police officers Talingting and Clarin were
informed by an asset that a drug courier would be arriving from Baguio to
Dasmarias carrying an undetermined amount of marijuana. The next day, the
informant pointed at Montilla as the courier who was waiting in a waiting shed Brgy
Salitran, Dasmarias. Montilla was then apprehended and he was caught in
possession of a bag and a carton worth 28 kilos of marijuana. Montilla denied the
allegation and he said he came to Cavite from Baguio for work and he does not
have any effects with him at that time except for some pocket money. He was
sentenced to death thereafter. He averred that the search and seizure conducted
was illegal for there was no warrant and that he should have been given the
opportunity to cross examine the informant. He said that if the informant has given
the cops the information about his arrival as early as the day before his
apprehension, the cops should have ample time to secure a search warrant.
ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless arrest conducted is legal.
HELD: The SC ruled that the warrantless arrest is legal and so was the warrantless
search. Sec 2 Art 3 of the Constitution has its exception when it comes to
warrantless searches, they are:
(1) customs searches;
(2) searches of moving vehicles,
(3) seizure of evidence in plain view;
(4) consented searches;
(5) searches incidental to a lawful arrest;
(6) stop and frisk measures have been invariably recognized as the traditional
exceptions.
In the case at bar, it should be noted that the information relayed by informant to
the cops was that there would be delivery of marijuana at Barangay Salitran by a
courier coming from Baguio in the early morning of June 20, 1994. Even assuming
that the policemen were not pressed for time, this would be beside the point for,
under these circumstances, the information relayed was too sketchy and not
detailed enough for the obtention of the corresponding arrest or search warrant.
While there is an indication that the informant knew the courier, the records do not
reveal that he knew him by name.

On such bare information, the police authorities could not have properly applied for
a warrant, assuming that they could readily have access to a judge or a court that
was still open by the time they could make preparations for applying therefor, and
on which there is no evidence presented by the defense. In determining the
opportunity for obtaining warrants, not only the intervening time is controlling but
all the coincident and ambient circumstances should be considered, especially in
rural areas.
A legitimate warrantless arrest, as above contemplated, necessarily cloaks the
arresting police officer with authority to validly search and seize from the offender
(1) dangerous weapons, and
(2) those that may be used as proof of the commission of an offense.
2 People vs Amminudin