G.R. No. 238141 . July 1, 2019.
WILLIAM CRUZ y FERNANDEZ and VIRGILIO FERNANDEZ y TORRES, Petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners William Cruz and Virgilio Fernandez were charged with violating Section 3(d) of Republic Act No. 9287 (Illegal Gambling Law) for allegedly engaging in illegal gambling bookies activity. The prosecution alleged that on July 10, 2015, police officers conducted surveillance along Mabini Street in Binmaley, Pangasinan. From a distance of about five meters, the officers saw petitioners carrying ball pens, papelitos, and money and allegedly collecting jueteng bets. The officers approached, asked if they were employees of Meredien Vista Gaming Corporation, and upon petitioners’ failure to show authority, arrested them and confiscated the items. Petitioners pleaded not guilty. Only Virgilio testified, claiming he was merely seeing his wife and was invited to the police station where he discovered the charges, which he denied. The Regional Trial Court found them guilty of violating Section 3(c) of RA 9287, sentencing them to imprisonment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of petitioners for violation of Section 3(c) of RA 9287.

RULING

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction. The Court ruled that the warrantless arrest of petitioners was not valid as an in flagrante delicto arrest. For a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, the person must execute an overt act indicating the commission of a crime, and such act must be done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer, who must have personal knowledge of the offense. Here, the arresting officers were about five meters away when they allegedly saw petitioners carrying ball pens, papelitos, and money. The Court found it highly implausible for the officers to ascertain with reasonable accuracy from that distance that these items constituted gambling paraphernalia used in collecting jueteng bets. The mere fact that petitioners were holding these items and were not employees of MVGC did not, by themselves, constitute an overt act of committing illegal gambling. Consequently, the arrest was unlawful. As the arrest was invalid, the subsequent search incidental to arrest was also invalid, and the evidence obtained (the papelitos, ball pens, and money) was inadmissible as the “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Without this evidence, the prosecution failed to prove petitioners’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt.