GR 199018; (September, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 199018. September 27, 2017
ROLANDO DACANAY Y LACASTE, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Petitioner Rolando Dacanay was charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Republic Act No. 9165. The prosecution alleged that on October 23, 2002, members of the Task Force Anti-Vice (TFAV) Unit, while patrolling Mandaluyong City, saw Dacanay holding a plastic sachet. Upon being approached, Dacanay allegedly tried to flee and discard the sachet but was apprehended. The seized item, marked “RG,” was later confirmed by forensic examination to contain methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. The defense presented a starkly different version. Dacanay, a tricycle driver, testified that he was flagged down and searched by the TFAV members. He claimed a sachet was picked up from the ground about a meter away from his tricycle and was falsely attributed to him.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the warrantless arrest and subsequent seizure of the dangerous drug from Dacanay were valid, thereby rendering the evidence admissible against him.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition and acquitted Dacanay. The Court ruled that his warrantless arrest was invalid, rendering the seized drugs inadmissible as evidence. For a valid warrantless arrest under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, the arresting officer must have personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. Here, the prosecution witness, Genguyon, testified that the TFAV Unit merely “noticed” Dacanay holding a plastic sachet. This observation, without more, did not constitute personal knowledge that an offense was being committed in their presence. The substance’s illegality was not immediately apparent; it required laboratory testing to be confirmed as shabu. Consequently, the arrest did not fall under the “in flagrante delicto” exception.
The invalid arrest tainted the ensuing search and seizure. Since the arrest was unlawful, the search incident to a lawful arrest could not be invoked. The plastic sachet, being the fruit of the poisonous tree, was inadmissible in evidence. Without the corpus delicti, Dacanay’s guilt could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. While the fight against illegal drugs is paramount, it must be pursued within the bounds of law, with strict compliance to constitutional rights serving as the foundation for a valid conviction. The prosecution’s failure to establish the legality of the arrest and seizure was fatal to its case.