GR 198694; (February, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 198694 ; February 13, 2013
RAMON MARTINEZ y GOCO/RAMON GOCO y MARTINEZ @ MON, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
On December 29, 2007, police officers on patrol in Malate, Manila, apprehended petitioner Ramon Martinez after hearing him shout obscenities, allegedly constituting a breach of peace under a city ordinance. Upon arrest, the officers conducted a body search and recovered from his pocket a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. The item was marked, subjected to laboratory examination, and found positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). Consequently, Martinez was charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11(3) of Republic Act No. 9165 . He denied the charge, claiming he was arbitrarily arrested and later extorted by the police.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the petitioner for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition and acquitted the petitioner. The conviction was predicated on evidence obtained from a warrantless search incidental to a warrantless arrest. For such a search to be valid, the arrest itself must be lawful. A warrantless arrest under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court requires that the person 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 alleged act of shouting obscenities, purportedly a breach of peace, did not constitute a crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code but was merely a violation of a city ordinance. Arrest for light offenses penalized only by a fine is generally not authorized unless the person refuses to give his name and address. The prosecution failed to establish that the petitioner refused to identify himself. Therefore, his warrantless arrest was illegal. Consequently, the subsequent search of his person was likewise invalid, and the shabu seized was rendered inadmissible as evidence under the exclusionary rule. With the drug evidence being the corpus delicti of the crime, its inadmissibility warranted acquittal.