G.R. No. 212340 . August 17, 2016.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GERRJAN MANAGO Y ACUT, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Gerrjan Manago was charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution’s evidence showed that on March 15, 2007, PO3 Antonio Din witnessed a robbery at a beauty parlor and exchanged gunfire with the suspects, who fled using a motorcycle and a red Toyota Corolla. An investigation revealed the motorcycle was registered to Manago and the Toyota Corolla was registered to Zest-O Corporation, where Manago worked. The following day, March 16, 2007, police set up a checkpoint. Manago, driving the red Toyota Corolla, was stopped. A search of the vehicle yielded nothing, but a frisk of Manago allegedly yielded a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance, later confirmed by a forensic chemist to contain methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). A re-examination by the NBI showed the sachet contained 0.3852 grams of shabu mixed with tawas. Manago denied possession, claiming he was arbitrarily arrested, interrogated about the robbery, and his requests for a lawyer and an arrest warrant were ignored. Prior to arraignment, he filed a Motion to Dismiss/Suppress Evidence, arguing the search and seizure were illegal. The RTC denied the motion, finding the warrantless search of a moving vehicle valid based on probable cause linking the car to the robbery. The RTC convicted Manago. The CA affirmed the conviction, ruling the warrantless arrest was valid as a “hot pursuit” operation, making the search incidental to a lawful arrest.

ISSUE

Whether or not Manago’s conviction for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 should be upheld, considering the admissibility of the evidence seized from him.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the appeal and acquitted Manago. The Court ruled that the warrantless arrest of Manago was invalid. The arrest did not fall under any of the instances for a valid warrantless arrest under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure: (a) he was not caught in flagrante delicto; (b) the arresting officers did not have personal knowledge that he had just committed an offense, as they relied on an investigation conducted a day after the robbery; and (c) he was not an escapee. Consequently, the search conducted on him could not be justified as incidental to a lawful arrest. The search was also not a valid search of a moving vehicle, as the requisite probable cause was not established; the police merely suspected Manago’s involvement based on the car’s registration, not on actual facts pointing to his participation in the robbery committed the previous day. Since the search was unlawful, the seized drug evidence is inadmissible under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. With the evidence being the very corpus delicti of the crime, Manago’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.