G.R. No. 257450 . July 11, 2022
IAN AGRAVANTE Y DE OCA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Ian Agravante was charged with illegal possession of firearm and ammunition under PD No. 1866, as amended. The prosecution alleged that on July 14, 2012, police officers, acting on a tip from an eyewitness, Romeo Tabigne, went to a house in Bacolod City where Agravante was reportedly staying. PO1 Edward Teodorico peered through a window, saw Agravante sleeping, and entered the house. Beside Agravante, they found bags, one of which was identified as stolen in a prior vehicle break-in. Upon search, they discovered an improvised firearm, several live ammunitions in the bag, and another ammunition in Agravante’s pocket. He was arrested for failure to present a license.
Agravante denied the charges, claiming he was merely visiting a friend in the area when he fell asleep. He alleged he was awakened, assaulted by police, and framed. The Regional Trial Court convicted him, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The CA ruled his warrantless arrest was valid under Rule 113, Section 5(b) for an offense “just committed” based on Tabigne’s information, and the search was incidental to a lawful arrest.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the warrantless arrest of Agravante and the subsequent search were valid, rendering the seized firearm and ammunition admissible as evidence against him.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the appellate court’s decision and ACQUITTED Agravante. The arrest was illegal, rendering the seized evidence inadmissible. For a valid warrantless arrest under Section 5(b), Rule 113, two elements must concur: (1) the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; and (2) the arrestor has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested committed it. Here, the police had no personal knowledge. Their information came solely from Tabigne, an alleged eyewitness they had just met. Personal knowledge requires direct perception by the arresting officer, not hearsay information from another. The police did not witness any criminal act by Agravante. They merely saw him sleeping, which is not an offense.
Consequently, the arrest being unlawful, the search incidental thereto was likewise invalid. The evidence obtained—the improvised firearm and ammunition—is considered “fruit of the poisonous tree” and inadmissible for being procured in violation of Agravante’s constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Without this evidence, the prosecution’s case collapses, as the corpus delicti of the crime was not established by admissible proof. His guilt cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that while waiver of an illegal arrest is possible by entering a plea without objection, the waiver does not extend to the admissibility of evidence obtained from an invalid search.