G.R. No. 93239; March 18, 1991
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDISON SUCRO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Edison Sucro was charged with violating the Dangerous Drugs Act for selling and possessing marijuana. The prosecution evidence established that on March 21, 1989, police officer Pat. Roy Fulgencio, acting on prior information, conducted surveillance on Sucro. Fulgencio witnessed Sucro retrieve items from a cart inside a chapel and hand them to buyers, including Aldie Borromeo and later Ronnie Macabante. Fulgencio reported these transactions to his superior, P/Lt. Vicente Seraspi, Jr.
When Macabante was intercepted by the police team, he threw a tea bag of marijuana to the ground and admitted purchasing it from Sucro. The police then arrested Sucro and recovered from the chapel cart nineteen marijuana cigarette sticks and four tea bags of dried marijuana leaves, which forensic analysis confirmed to be marijuana. Sucro was convicted of the sale of prohibited drugs and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the warrantless arrest of Sucro was lawful and consequently whether the marijuana seized is admissible as evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, ruling the warrantless arrest was lawful and the evidence obtained admissible. The arrest falls under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, which allows a warrantless arrest when a person is apprehended in flagrante delicto—that is, when the person is caught in the act of committing an offense. Here, police officer Fulgencio personally witnessed Sucro engage in what appeared to be multiple drug transactions during his surveillance. The subsequent arrest of Sucro, based on this direct observation and the contemporaneous confession of buyer Macabante, was made while Sucro was ostensibly still engaged in the criminal enterprise of selling marijuana. There was no time to secure a warrant as the events unfolded dynamically.
The Court rejected Sucro’s argument that the police had prior information and thus time to obtain a warrant, noting that personal observation of ongoing criminal activity justifies immediate action without a warrant to prevent the escape of the offender and the disposal of evidence. The marijuana seized was therefore obtained as a valid incident to a lawful arrest. The positive identification by Macabante, corroborated by the police officers’ testimonies and forensic evidence, firmly established Sucro’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, outweighing his denial and alibi.