GR 205926; (July, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 205926, July 22, 2015
ALVIN COMERCIANTE y GONZALES, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
On July 30, 2003, Agent Eduardo Radan and PO3 Bienvy Calag II, while patrolling on a motorcycle in Mandaluyong City, spotted petitioner Alvin Comerciante and a certain Erick Dasilla standing and showing “improper and unpleasant movements,” with one handing plastic sachets to the other from a distance of about 10 meters. Thinking the sachets contained shabu, they stopped, approached, arrested Comerciante and Dasilla, and confiscated two plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance, which later tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Comerciante was charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The Regional Trial Court convicted Comerciante, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the warrantless arrest was valid as Comerciante was caught in flagrante delicto. Comerciante contended that the warrantless arrest was invalid, rendering the seized evidence inadmissible.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed Comerciante’s conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, specifically, whether a valid warrantless arrest was effected, thereby making the seized drugs admissible as evidence.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the decisions of the lower courts. The warrantless arrest of Comerciante was invalid. For a valid warrantless arrest under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (arrest in flagrante delicto), the person must be committing an offense in the presence of the arresting officer. PO3 Calag’s testimony revealed he was on a motorcycle moving at 30 kilometers per hour from a distance of 10 meters when he saw Comerciante and Dasilla showing “improper and unpleasant movements” and handing plastic sachets. This observation did not constitute personal knowledge that a crime was being committed, as the alleged act did not clearly indicate the commission of an offense. Mere suspicion or unusual movements are insufficient to justify a warrantless arrest. Consequently, the arrest being unlawful, the search incident thereto was also invalid. The seized drugs, being the fruit of an unlawful arrest, are inadmissible under the exclusionary rule. Without the admissible evidence, Comerciante’s conviction cannot stand.