G.R. No. 201363 ; March 18, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. NAZARENO VILLAREAL y LUALHATI, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

On December 25, 2006, PO3 Renato de Leon, while driving his motorcycle, allegedly saw appellant Nazareno Villareal from a distance of 8 to 10 meters holding and scrutinizing a plastic sachet of shabu. PO3 de Leon, recognizing Villareal from a prior arrest, approached him. Villareal attempted to flee but was apprehended. PO3 de Leon confiscated the sachet, later marked it at the police station, and it was subsequently confirmed by forensic examination to contain 0.03 gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride. Villareal was charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The accused denied the charge, claiming he was framed and robbed by PO3 de Leon, and that he was subjected to physical abuse while in custody.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Villareal, ruling that all elements of illegal possession were proven and applying the plain view doctrine to validate the warrantless arrest and seizure. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding the arrest was valid in flagrante delicto and that the chain of custody of the evidence was intact. Villareal appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the warrantless arrest of the appellant was valid, thereby rendering the seized drugs admissible as evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions and acquitted the appellant. The Court held that the warrantless arrest was invalid, rendering the subsequent seizure of the dangerous drug inadmissible as evidence. For a valid in flagrante delicto 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. The prosecution failed to establish this.
The Court found that PO3 de Leon’s claim of seeing the appellant scrutinizing a sachet from a distance of 8 to 10 meters was insufficient. Mere possession of an item, without more, does not constitute overt illegal act manifesting a crime. The officer had no personal knowledge that the sachet contained an illegal drug prior to the arrest; such knowledge only arose after the seizure. The appellant’s alleged attempt to flee and his prior arrest record did not supply the deficiency. Since the arrest was unlawful, the search and seizure incident thereto were likewise invalid. The confiscated shabu, being the product of an illegal arrest, is inadmissible as the “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Without this essential evidence constituting the corpus delicti of the crime, the appellant’s guilt cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt, necessitating acquittal.