G.R. No. 133917 February 19, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NASARIO MOLINA y MANAMA @ “BOBONG” and GREGORIO MULA y MALAGURA @ “BOBOY”, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Nasario Molina and Gregorio Mula were charged with illegal possession of 946.9 grams of marijuana. The prosecution evidence showed that SPO1 Marino Paguidopon received information in June 1996 about a marijuana pusher in Davao City. On August 8, 1996, acting on a tip that the pusher would pass a specific area, a police team waited at Paguidopon’s house. When a trisikad carrying the appellants passed, Paguidopon identified them. The team overtook the trisikad, ordered it to stop, and saw Mula hand a black bag to Molina. SPO1 Pamplona introduced himself as an officer and asked Molina to open the bag. Molina replied, “Boss, if possible we will settle this.” Upon opening, the bag revealed dried marijuana leaves. Appellants were arrested. They filed a demurrer to evidence, arguing the marijuana was seized in violation of their constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The trial court denied the demurrer, and after appellants waived their right to present evidence, found them guilty and imposed the death penalty.

ISSUE

Whether the warrantless search and seizure conducted on the accused-appellants were valid, rendering the confiscated marijuana admissible as evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED the accused-appellants. The search was invalid, making the seized marijuana inadmissible as evidence under the exclusionary rule. The Court emphasized that a warrantless search and seizure is permissible only under recognized exceptions, such as search incidental to a lawful arrest. For this exception to apply, the arrest itself must be lawful, requiring that at the moment of arrest, the arresting officer had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested had committed, was committing, or was about to commit an offense. Here, the police had no such personal knowledge. Their information came from an unnamed informant, and SPO1 Paguidopon, who pointed out the appellants, was not even present at the scene of the arrest. The mere act of Mula handing a bag to Molina upon seeing the police was not sufficient to constitute suspicious behavior justifying a warrantless arrest. The Court held that the apprehending officers acted purely on suspicion and not on facts personally observed. Consequently, the arrest was unlawful, and the subsequent search, being incidental to an invalid arrest, was likewise unlawful. With the marijuana declared inadmissible, the prosecution’s case collapsed, as there was no other competent evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court underscored that constitutional rights cannot be sacrificed even in the pursuit of criminals.