G.R. No. 123595 , December 12, 1997.
Sammy Malacat y Mandar, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals, and People of the Philippines, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Sammy Malacat y Mandar was charged with illegal possession of a hand grenade under Presidential Decree No. 1866. On August 27, 1990, police officers on foot patrol in Quiapo, Manila, due to earlier bomb threats, observed two groups of Muslim-looking men acting suspiciously near Plaza Miranda. After about thirty minutes of observation, the officers approached one group, causing its members to flee. Petitioner was caught by Officer Rodolfo Yu, who, upon searching him, found a fragmentation grenade tucked in his waistline. Petitioner was arrested and later gave an uncounselled confession to Investigator Josefino Serapio. At trial, petitioner denied possession, claiming the grenade was only presented in court and that he was mauled and falsely accused after a general search. The Regional Trial Court found petitioner guilty, ruling the warrantless search and seizure as a valid “stop and frisk” and incidental to a lawful arrest. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding the arrest lawful as petitioner was “attempting to commit an offense” based on probable cause from the suspicious circumstances and prior intelligence.

ISSUE

Whether the warrantless arrest of petitioner and the subsequent seizure of the hand grenade were valid, thereby rendering the grenade admissible as evidence.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts and acquitted petitioner. The Court held that the warrantless arrest did not fall under any of the exceptions provided in Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner was not committing, had just committed, or was attempting to commit an offense in the presence of the arresting officers. Merely standing at a corner and acting suspiciously, without any overt act indicating a crime, does not constitute “attempting to commit an offense.” The police had no personal knowledge of any offense; their observation of “suspicious” movements and the prior bomb threat were insufficient for a warrantless arrest. Consequently, the search was not incidental to a lawful arrest. The Court also clarified that the “stop and frisk” doctrine (Terry v. Ohio) requires a reasonable suspicion of an imminent offense or that the person is armed and dangerous, which was absent here. The search exceeded a mere protective frisk for weapons, as Officer Yu immediately searched petitioner’s waistline. Thus, the seizure of the grenade violated constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, making the grenade inadmissible as evidence. Without the grenade, the prosecution’s case failed, leading to petitioner’s acquittal.