G.R. No. 128587 . March 16, 2007.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. HON. PERFECTO A.S. LAGUIO, JR., and LAWRENCE WANG Y CHEN, Respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Lawrence Wang was charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs, illegal possession of firearms, and violation of the COMELEC gun ban. The charges stemmed from a warrantless arrest and search conducted by police operatives in the early morning of May 17, 1996. The police, after arresting two individuals for drug possession earlier that night, proceeded to Wang’s apartment based on information linking him to the arrested persons. Upon seeing Wang approach his car, the officers approached him, introduced themselves, frisked him, and searched his vehicle. The search yielded a large quantity of shabu, two firearms, ammunition, cash, and weighing scales. Wang resisted this warrantless arrest and search. During trial, the prosecution rested its case for the drug charge, and Wang filed a Demurrer to Evidence, which the Regional Trial Court granted, leading to his acquittal.
The prosecution appealed, arguing that the warrantless arrest and search were valid as Wang was caught in flagrante delicto. It contended that the police had probable cause based on information from previously arrested individuals and that Wang’s act of approaching his car late at night was a suspicious overt act indicating criminal activity. The defense maintained that there was no lawful arrest, as Wang was not committing any crime in the officers’ presence, and the subsequent search was therefore unconstitutional.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court erred in granting the Demurrer to Evidence and acquitting the accused based on the inadmissibility of evidence obtained from an alleged unlawful warrantless arrest and search.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the acquittal. The legal logic centers on the constitutional requirement for a valid warrantless arrest under Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court, which permits such an arrest only when the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense in the presence of the arresting officer. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove that Wang was caught in flagrante delicto. The police had no personal knowledge of any criminal act; their information came from the statements of previously arrested individuals, which constituted mere hearsay at the time of the arrest. Wang’s mere act of walking to his car at night, without more, did not constitute a suspicious overt act sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest.
Consequently, the warrantless arrest being unlawful, the subsequent search of his person and vehicle could not be justified as incidental to a valid arrest. The evidence obtained—the drugs and firearms—was therefore the fruit of the poisonous tree and inadmissible. Without this evidence, the prosecution’s case collapsed. The Court emphasized that the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be sacrificed for expediency, and the government must not violate the law to enforce another. The trial court correctly granted the demurrer, and the acquittal, being based on the prosecution’s failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to inadmissible evidence, is final.