FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. 136066-67. February 4, 2003]

PEOPLE OF THE PH L PP NE!, plaintiff-appellee, vs. " N#$ !% &H'#, accusedappellant. $E& ! ON %N#RE!-!#NT #GO, J.( Accused-appellant Binad Sy Chua was charged with vi lati n ! Secti n "#$ Article III ! R%A% #&'($ as a)ended *y R%A% +#(,$ and ! r Illegal - ssessi n ! a))uniti ns in tw separate In! r)ati ns which read as ! ll ws. Cri)inal Case N % ,#-(/+0"1 That n r a* ut the '"st day ! Septe)*er ",,#$ in the City ! Angeles$ -hilippines$ and within the 2urisdicti n ! this 3 n ra*le C urt$ the a* ve-na)ed accused$ did then and there will!ully$ unlaw!ully and !el ni usly have in his p ssessi n and under his c ntr l tw 4'5 plastic *ags c ntaining 6etha)pheta)ine 3ydr chl ride )!H#"'* +e,-.,/- 0ore or 1ess 2+o )2* 3,1os a/4 o/e )1* s0a11 51as2,6 ba- 6o/2a,/,/- 7e2.a05.e2a0,/e Hy4ro61or,4e +e,-.,/- 0ore or 1ess 8,82ee/ )19* -ra0s, +.,6. ,s a re-u1a2e4 4ru-, +,2.ou2 a/y au2.or,2y +.a2soe:er. Cri)inal Case N % ,#-("70'1 That n r a* ut the '"st day ! Septe)*er ",,#$ in the City ! Angeles$ -hilippines$ and within the 2urisdicti n ! this 3 n ra*le C urt$ the a* ve-na)ed accused$ did then and there will!ully$ unlaw!ully and !el ni usly have in his p ssessi n and under his c ntr l twenty )20* 5,e6es o8 1,:e .22 6a1. a00u/,2,o/s, +,2.ou2 8,rs2 .a:,/- ob2a,/e4 a 1,6e/se or 5er0,2 2o 5ossess or 6arry 2.e sa0e% Accused-appellant pleaded 8n t guilty9 n arraign)ent% The tw cases were then 2 intly tried% T.e 5rose6u2,o/ presented three 475 witnesses$ all )e)*ers ! the p lice ! rce ! Angeles City% Their 2es2,0o/,es can *e synthesi:ed as ! ll ws. On Septe)*er '"$ ",,#$ at ar und "/.// in the evening$ !PO2 7ar,o Nu1u4 a/4 PO2 E00era14o Nu/a- re6e,:e4 a re5or2 8ro0 2.e,r 6o/8,4e/2,a1 ,/8or0a/2 2.a2 a66use4a55e11a/2 +as abou2 2o 4e1,:er 4ru-s 2.a2 /,-.2 at the Thunder Inn 3 tel in Bali*ag $ Angeles City% The in! r)er !urther re5or2e4 2.a2 a66use4-a55e11a/2 4,s2r,bu2es ,11e-a1 4ru-s in di!!erent ;ara ;e *ars in Angeles City% On the *asis ! this lead$ the -N- Chie! ! Angeles City$ C l% Ne pit <utierre:$ i))ediately ! r)ed a tea) ! peratives c )p sed ! 6a2 r Bernardin $ Insp% Tulla $ Insp% =))anuel Nunag$ -/' =))erald Nunag$ S-/" Fernand < $ and s )e civilian assets$ with S-O' 6ari Nulud$ as tea) investigat r% The gr up ! S-O'

Nulud$ -O' Nunag and the civilian in! r)er p siti ned the)selves acr ss 6cArthur 3ighway near Bali 3ai Restaurant$ !r nting Thunder Inn 3 tel% The ther gr up acted as their *ac; up% At ar und "".&( in the evening$ 2.e,r ,/8or0er 5o,/2e4 2o a 6ar 4r,:e/ by a66use4a55e11a/2 +.,6. ;us2 arr,:e4 a/4 5ar3e4 /ear 2.e e/2ra/6e o8 2.e T.u/4er // Ho2e1 % #82er a66use4-a55e11a/2 a1,-.2e4 8ro0 2.e 6ar 6arry,/- a sea1e4 <es2-O ;u,6e bo=, !PO2 Nu1u4 a/4 PO2 Nu/a- .urr,e41y a66os2e4 .,0 a/4 ,/2ro4u6e4 2.e0se1:es as 5o1,6e o88,6ers. #s a66use4-a55e11a/2 5u11e4 ou2 .,s +a11e2, a s0a11 2ra/s5are/2 51as2,6 ba- +,2. a 6rys2a11,/e subs2a/6e 5ro2ru4e4 8ro0 .,s r,-.2 ba63 5o63e2 % F rthwith$ S-O' Nulud su*2ected hi) t a * dy search which y,e14e4 2+e/2y )20* 5,e6es o8 1,:e .22 6a1,ber 8,rear0 bu11e2s 8ro0 .,s 1e82 ba63 5o63e2. >.e/ !PO2 Nu/a- 5ee3e4 ,/2o 2.e 6o/2e/2s o8 2.e <es2-O bo=, .e sa+ 2.a2 ,2 6o/2a,/e4 a 6rys2a11,/e subs2a/6e. !PO2 Nu1u4 ,/s2a/21y 6o/8,s6a2e4 2.e s0a11 2ra/s5are/2 51as2,6 ba-, 2.e <es2-O ;u,6e bo=, 2.e 2+e/2y )20* 5,e6es o8 .22 6a1,ber 8,rear0 bu11e2s a/4 2.e 6ar use4 by a66use4-a55e11a/2% A!terwards$ S-O' Nulud and the ther p lice peratives wh arrived at the scene *r ught the c n!iscated ite)s t the !!ice ! C l% <uttiere: at the -N- 3ead>uarters in Ca)p -epit $ Angeles City%071 >.e/ &o1. Gu2,erre? o5e/e4 2.e sea1e4 <es2-O ;u,6e bo=, .e 8ou/4 2 b,- 51as2,6 ba-s 6o/2a,/,/- 6rys2a11,/e subs2a/6es. T.e ,/,2,a1 8,e14 2es2 6o/4u62e4 by !PO2 $a/,1o &ru? a2 2.e PNP Hea4@uar2ers re:ea1e4 2.a2 2.e s,e?e4 ,2e0s 6o/2a,/e4 s.abu % 0&1 Therea!ter$ S-O' Nulud t gether with accused-appellant *r ught these ite)s ! r !urther la* rat ry e?a)inati n t the Cri)e @a* rat ry at Ca)p Olivas$ San Fernand $ -a)panga% A!ter due testing$ ! rensic che)ist SAInsp% Daisy Ba* r c ncluded that the crystalline su*stances yielded p sitive results ! r sha*u% The s)all plastic *ag weighed "7%B"( gra)s while the tw *ig plastic *ags weighed "%,&' ;il gra)s ! shabu%0(1 #66use4-a55e11a/2 :e.e0e/21y 4e/,e4 the accusati n against hi) and narrated a di!!erent versi n ! the incident% Accused-appellant alleged that n the night in >uesti n$ he was driving the car ! his wi!e t ! ll w her and his s n t 6anila% 3e !elt sleepy$ s he decided t ta;e the ld r ute al ng 6cArthur 3ighway% 3e st pped in !r nt ! a s)all st re near Thunder Inn 3 tel in Bali*ag $ Angeles City t *uy cigarettes and candies% Chile at the st re$ he n ticed a )an appr ach and e?a)ine the inside ! his car% Chen he called the attenti n ! the nl ;er$ the )an i))ediately pulled ut a %&( cali*er gun and )ade hi) !ace his car with raised hands% The )an later n identi!ied hi)sel! as a p lice)an% During the c urse ! the arrest$ the p lice)an t ; ut his wallet and instructed hi) t pen his car% 3e re!used$ s the p lice)an t ; his car ;eys and pr ceeded t search his car% At this ti)e$ the p lice !!icerDs c )pani ns arrived at the scene in tw cars% -O' Nulud$ wh 2ust arrived at the scene$ pulled hi) away !r ) his car in a near*y *an;$ while the thers searched his car% Therea!ter$ he was *r ught t the Sala; t - lice Stati n and was held inside a *athr ) ! r a* ut !i!teen )inutes until C l% <uttiere: arrived$ wh rdered his )en t call the )edia% In the presence ! rep rters$ C l% <uttiere: pened the * ? and accused-appellant was )ade t h ld the * ? while pictures were *eing ta;en%0#1 Cil!red @ag)an c rr * rated the st ry ! the accused-appellant in its )aterial p ints% 3e testi!ied that he witnessed the incident while he was c nducting a r utine security chec; ar und the pre)ises ! the <uess Building$ near Thunder Inn 3 tel%0+1 On Septe)*er "($ ",,B the Regi nal Trial C urt ! Angeles City$ Branch (,$ rendered a decisi n$0B1 the disp sitive p rti n ! which reads. C3=R=FOR=$ the ! reg ing c nsidered$ 2udge)ent is here*y rendered as ! ll ws.

"% In Cri)inal Case N % ,#-("7 ! r Illegal - ssessi n ! A))uniti ns$ the accused is here*y ac>uitted ! the cri)e charged ! r insu!!iciency ! evidence% '% In Cri)inal Case N % ,#-(/+ ! r Illegal - ssessi n ! "$,((%B"( gra)s ! sha*u$ accused Binad Sy Chua is ! und <EI@TF *ey nd reas na*le d u*t ! the cri)e charge and is here*y sentenced t su!!er the penalty ! reclusi n perpetua and t pay a !ine ! One 6illi n 4-"$///$///%//5 -es s% SO ORD=R=D%0,1 3ence$ 2.e ,/s2a/2 a55ea1 where accused-appellant raised the ! ll wing err rs. T3= TRIA@ COERT =RR=D <RAV=@F IN ITS FO@@OCIN< FINDIN<S. A% T3= ARR=ST OF ACCES=D-A--=@@ANT BINAD SF C3EA CAS @ACFE@G

B% T3= S=ARC3 OF 3IS -=RSON AND T3= SEBS=HE=NT CONFISCATION OF S3ABE A@@=<=D@F FOEND ON 3I6 C=R= CONDECT=D IN A @ACFE@ AND VA@ID 6ANN=RG C% T3= -ROS=CETION =VID=NC= SE--ORTIN< T3= CRI6= C3AR<=D IS SEFICI=NT TO -ROV= T3= <EI@T OF T3= ACCES=D-A--=@@ANT B=FOND R=AONAB@= DOEBT%0"/1 Accused-appellant )aintains that the warrantless arrest and search )ade *y the p lice peratives was unlaw!ulG that in the light ! the testi) ny ! S-O' Nulud that pri r t his arrest he has *een under surveillance ! r tw years$ there was there! re n c )pelling reas n ! r the haste within which the arresting !!icers s ught t arrest and search hi) with ut a warrantG that the p lice !!icers had su!!icient in! r)ati n a* ut hi) and c uld have easily arrested hi)% Accused-appellant !urther argues that since his arrest was null an v id$ the drugs that were sei:ed sh uld li;ewise *e inad)issi*le in evidence since they were *tained in vi lati n ! his c nstituti nal rights against unreas na*le search and sei:ures and arrest% Accused-appellants argument is impressed with merit% Alth ugh the trial c urtDs evaluati n ! the credi*ility ! witnesses and their testi) nies is entitled t great respect and will n t *e distur*ed n appeal$ h wever$ this rule is n t a hard and !ast ne% It is a ti)e-h n red rule that the assess)ent ! the trial c urt with regard t the credi*ility ! witnesses deserves the ut) st respect$ i! n t !inality$ ! r the reas n that the trial 2udge has the prer gative$ denied t appellate 2udges$ ! *serving the de)ean r ! the declarants in the c urse ! their testi) nies% The nly e?cepti n is i! there is a sh wing that the trial 2udge verl ;ed$ )isunderst d$ r )isapplied s )e !act r circu)stance ! weight and su*stance that w uld have a!!ected the case%0""1 In the case at *ar$ there appears n rec rd s )e !acts ! weight and su*stance that have *een verl ;ed$ )isapprehended$ r )isapplied *y the trial c urt which casts d u*t n the guilt ! accused-appellant% An appeal in a cri)inal case pens the wh le case ! r review and this includes the review ! the penalty and inde)nity i)p sed *y the trial c urt% 0"'1 Ce are cl thed with a)ple auth rity t review )atters$ even th se n t raised n appeal$ i! we !ind that their c nsiderati n is necessary in arriving at a 2ust disp siti n ! the case% =very circu)stance in !av r ! the accused shall *e c nsidered% 0"71 This is in ;eeping with the c nstituti nal )andate

that every accused shall *e presu)ed inn cent unless his guilt is pr ven *ey nd reas na*le d u*t% First$ +,2. res5e62 2o 2.e +arra/21ess arres2 a/4 6o/se@ue/2 sear6. a/4 se,?ure 0a4e u5o/ a66use4-a55e11a/2$ 2.e 6our2 a quo 0a4e 2.e 8o11o+,/- 8,/4,/-s( Accused was searched and arrested while in p ssessi n ! regulated drugs 4sha*u5% A cri)e was actually *eing c ))itted *y the accused and he was caught inflagrante delicto% Thus$ the search )ade up n his pers nal e!!ects ? ? ? all w a warrantless search incident t a law!ul arrest% ? ? ? ? Chile it is true that the p lice !!icers were n t ar)ed with a search warrant when the search was )ade ver the pers nal a!!ects 4sic5 ! the accused$ h wever$ under the circu)stances ! the case$ there was su!!icient pr *a*le cause ! r said !!icers t *elieve that accused was then and there c ))itting a cri)e% ??? ??? ???

In the present case$ the p lice received in! r)ati n that the accused will distri*ute illegal drugs that evening at the Thunder Inn 3 tel and its vicinities% The p lice !!icer had t act >uic;ly and there was n ) re ti)e t secure a search warrant% The search is valid *eing a;in t a 8st p and !ris;9%0"&1 A th r ugh review ! the evidence n rec rd *elies the !indings and c nclusi n ! the trial c urt% It c n!used the tw di!!erent c ncepts ! a search incidental t a law!ul arrest 4 in flagrante delicto5 and ! a 8st p-and-!ris;%9 In Malacat v. Court of Appeals $0"(1 we distinguished the c ncepts ! a 8st p-and-!ris;9 and ! a search incidental t a law!ul arrest$ t wit. At the utset$ we n te that the trial c urt c n!used the c ncepts ! a 8st p-and-!ris;9 and ! a search incidental t a law!ul arrest% These tw types ! warrantless searches di!!er in ter)s ! the re>uisite >uantu) ! pr ! *e! re they )ay *e validly e!!ected and in their all wa*le sc pe% In a search incidental t a law!ul arrest$ as 2.e 5re6e4e/2 arres2 4e2er0,/es 2.e :a1,4,2y o8 2.e ,/6,4e/2a1 sear6.$ the legality ! the arrest is >uesti ned in a large )a2 rity ! these cases$ e.g., whether an arrest was )erely used as a prete?t ! r c nducting a search% In this instance$ 2.e 1a+ re@u,res 2.a2 2.ere 8,rs2 be arres2 be8ore a sear6. 6a/ be 0a4eA2.e 5ro6ess 6a//o2 be re:erse4. At * tt )$ assu)ing a valid arrest$ the arresting !!icer )ay search the pers n ! the arrestee and the area within which the latter )ay reach ! r a weap n r ! r evidence t destr y$ and sei:e any ) ney r pr perty ! und which was used in the c ))issi n ! the cri)e$ r the !ruit ! the cri)e$ r that which )ay *e used as evidence$ r which )ight !urnish the arrestee with the )eans ! escaping r c ))itting vi lence% ??? ??? ???

Ce n w pr ceed t the 2usti!icati n ! r and all wa*le sc pe ! a 8st p-and-!ris;9 as a 81,0,2e4 5ro2e62,:e sear6. o8 ou2er 61o2.,/- 8or +ea5o/s,9 as laid d wn in Terry$ thus. Ce )erely h ld t day that +.ere a 5o1,6e o88,6er obser:es u/usua1 6o/4u62 which leads hi) reas na*ly t c nclude in light ! his e?perience that cri)inal activity )ay *e a! t and that the

pers ns with wh ) he is dealing )ay *e ar)ed and presently danger us$ +.ere ,/ 2.e 6ourse o8 ,/:es2,-a2,/- 2.,s be.a:,or .e ,4e/2,8,es .,0se18 as a 5o1,6e0a/ a/4 0a3es reaso/ab1e ,/@u,r,es$ and where n thing in the initial stages ! the enc unter serves t dispel his reas na*le !ear ! r his wn r thersD sa!ety$ he is entitled ! r the pr tecti n ! hi)sel! and thers in the area t c nduct a care!ully li)ited search ! the uter cl thing ! such pers ns in an atte)pt t disc ver weap ns which )ight *e used t assault hi)% Such a search is a reas na*le search under the F urth a)end)ent% Other n ta*le p ints ! Terry are that while pr *a*le cause is n t re>uired t c nduct a 8st pand-!ris;$9 it nevertheless h lds that 0ere sus5,6,o/ or a .u/6. +,11 /o2 :a1,4a2e a Bs2o5a/4-8r,s3C. # -e/u,/e reaso/ 0us2 e=,s2, ,/ 1,-.2 o8 2.e 5o1,6e o88,6erDs e=5er,e/6e a/4 surrou/4,/- 6o/4,2,o/s, 2o +arra/2 2.e be1,e8 2.a2 2.e 5erso/ 4e2a,/e4 .as +ea5o/s 6o/6ea1e4 abou2 .,0. Finally$ a 8st p-and-!ris;9 serves a tw -! ld interest. 4"5 the general interest ! e!!ective cri)e preventi n and detecti n$ which underlies the rec gniti n that a p lice !!icer )ay$ under appr priate circu)stances and in an appr priate )anner$ appr ach a pers n ! r purp ses ! investigating p ssi*le cri)inal *ehavi r even with ut pr *a*le causeG and 4'5 the ) re pressing interest ! sa!ety and sel!-preservati n which per)it the p lice !!icer t ta;e steps t assure hi)sel! that the pers n with wh ) he deals is n t ar)ed with a deadly weap n that c uld une?pectedly and !atally *e used against the p lice !!icer%0"#1 4=)phasis urs5 In the case at bar, neither the in flagrante delicto nor the stop and frisk principles is applicable to justify the warrantless arrest and consequent search and seizure ade by the police operatives on accused-appellant% In in flagrante delicto arrests$ the accused is apprehended at the very ) )ent he is c ))itting r atte)pting t c ))it r has 2ust c ))itted an !!ense in the presence ! the arresting !!icer% =)phasis sh uld *e laid n the !act that the law re>uires that the search be incidental to a lawful arrest% There! re it is *ey nd cavil that a law!ul arrest )ust precede the search ! a pers n and his *el ngings%0"+1 Acc rdingly$ ! r this e?cepti n t apply 2+o e1e0e/2s 0us2 6o/6ur( )1* 2.e 5erso/ 2o be arres2e4 0us2 e=e6u2e a/ o:er2 a62 ,/4,6a2,/- 2.a2 .e .as ;us2 6o00,22e4, ,s a62ua11y 6o00,22,/-, or ,s a22e052,/- 2o 6o00,2 a 6r,0e G and )2* su6. o:er2 a62 ,s 4o/e ,/ 2.e 5rese/6e or +,2.,/ 2.e :,e+ o8 2.e arres2,/- o88,6er%0"B1 We find the two aforementioned elements lac ing in the case at bar % !he record reveals that when accused-appellant arrived at the vicinity of !hunder Inn "otel, he erely parked his car along the #c$rthur "ighway, alighted fro it and casually proceeded towards the entrance of the "otel clutching a sealed %est-& juice bo'( $ccused-appellant did not act in a suspicious anner( )or all intents and purposes, there was no overt anifestation that accused-appellant has just co itted, is actually co itting, or is atte pting to co it a cri e% Ho+e:er, /o2+,2.s2a/4,/- 2.e abse/6e o8 a/y o:er2 a62 s2ro/-1y 0a/,8es2,/- a :,o1a2,o/ o8 2.e 1a+, 2.e -rou5 o8 !PO2 Nu1u4 B.urr,e41y a66os2e4C [1E] a66use4-a55e11a/2 a/4 1a2er o/ B,/2ro4u6e4 2.e0se1:es as 5o1,6e o88,6ers %90'/1 Accused-appellant was arrested *e! re the alleged dr p- !! ! sha*u was d ne% !robable cause in this case was more imagined than real. Thus, there could have been no in flagrante delicto arrest preceding the search, in light of the lack of an overt physical act on the part of accused-appellant that he had co itted a cri e, was co itting a cri e or was going to co it a cri e % As applied t in flagrante delicto arrests$ ,2 .as bee/ .e14 2.a2 Bre1,ab1e ,/8or0a2,o/C a1o/e, abse/2 a/y o:er2 a62 ,/4,6a2,:e o8 a 8e1o/,ous e/2er5r,se ,/ 2.e 5rese/6e a/4 +,2.,/ 2.e :,e+ o8 2.e arres2,/- o88,6ers, ,s /o2 su88,6,e/2 2o 6o/s2,2u2e 5robab1e 6ause 2.a2 +ou14 ;us2,8y a/ in

flagrante delicto arrest.0'"1 3ence$ in !eople v. Aminudin$0''1 we ruled that 8the a66use4a55e11a/2 +as /o2, a2 2.e 0o0e/2 o8 .,s arres2, 6o00,22,/- a 6r,0e /or +as ,2 s.o+/ 2.a2 .e +as abou2 2o 4o so or 2.a2 .e .a4 ;us2 4o/e so % Chat he was d ing was descending the gangplan; ! the 6AV Cilc n , and there was n utward indicati n that called ! r his arrest% T all appearances$ he was li;e any ! the ther passengers inn cently dise)*ar;ing !r ) the vessel% 2 +as o/1y +.e/ 2.e ,/8or0er 5o,/2e4 2o .,0 as 2.e 6arr,er o8 2.e 0ar,;ua/a 2.a2 .e su44e/1y be6a0e sus5e62 a/4 so sub;e62 2o a55re.e/s,o/9 4=)phasis supplied5% The reliance ! the pr secuti n in !eople v. Tangliben0'71 t 2usti!y the p liceDs acti ns is )isplaced% In the said case$ *ased n the in! r)ati n supplied *y in! r)ers$ p lice !!icers c nducted a surveillance at the Vict ry @iner Ter)inal c )p und in San Fernand $ -a)panga against pers ns wh )ay c ))it )isde)ean rs and als n th se wh )ay *e engaged in the tra!!ic ! danger us drugs% At ,.7/ in the evening$ the p lice)en n ticed a pers n carrying a red travelling *ag wh +as a62,/- sus5,6,ous1y% They c n!r nted hi) and re>uested hi) t pen his *ag *ut he re!used% 3e acceded later n when the p lice)en identi!ied the)selves% Inside the *ag were )ari2uana leaves wrapped in a plastic wrapper% T.e 5o1,6e o88,6ers o/1y 3/e+ o8 2.e a62,:,2,es o8 Ta/-1,be/ o/ 2.e /,-.2 o8 .,s arres2% / 2.e ,/s2a/2 6ase, 2.e a55re.e/4,/- 5o1,6e0e/ a1rea4y .a4 5r,or 3/o+1e4-e 8ro0 2.e :ery sa0e ,/8or0a/2 o8 a66use4-a55e11a/2Ds a62,:,2,es. No 1ess 2.a/ !PO2 7ar,o Nu1u4, 2.e 2ea0 1ea4er o8 2.e arres2,/- o5era2,:es, a40,22e4 2.a2 2.e,r ,/8or0a/2 .as bee/ 2e11,/- 2.e0 abou2 2.e a62,:,2,es o8 a66use4-a55e11a/2 8or 2+o years 5r,or 2o .,s a62ua1 arres2 o/ !e52e0ber 21, 1EE6% An e?cerpt ! the testi) ny ! S-O' 6ari Nulud reveals the illegality ! the arrest ! accused-appellant as ! ll ws. H% Did the civilian in! r)er ! y urs )enti ned t y u the na)e ! this chinese drug pusherI A% 3e is )enti ning the na)e ! Binad r J 2 Chua% y u even *e! re Septe)*er '"$ H% And he had *een )enti ning these na)es t ",,#I A% Fes$ sir%

H% 3 w l ng did this civilian in! r)ant have *een telling y u a* ut the activities ! this chinese drug pusher rec; ning in relati n t Septe)*er '"$ ",,#I A% That was a* ut tw years already% H% N thwithstanding his tw years pers nal ;n wledge which y u gained !r ) the civilian in! r)ant that this chinese drug pusher have *een engaged pushing drugs here in Angeles City$ y u did n t thin; ! applying ! r a search warrant ! r this chinese drug pusherI A% ? ? N $ sir% ? ? ??? H% Chen y u acc sted this Binad Chua$ he was casually wal;ing al ng the r ad near the Thunder Inn 3 tel$ is that rightI A% 3e was pinp inted *y the civilian in! r)er that he is the chinese drug pusher that will deliver t hi) als % ? ?

H% 6y >uesti n 6r% Citness$ is this J 2 Chua r Binad Chua the accused in this case he alighted with a C r lla car with plate nu)*er ,,,$ I thin;$ he 2ust alighted when y u saw hi)I A% Fes$ sir% H% Fr ) the car when he alighted$ he casually wal;ed t wards near the entrance ! the Thunder Inn 3 telI A% 3e was a* ut t pr ceed t wards Thunder Inn 3 tel *ut he was pinp inted already *y the civilian in! r)er% Fes$ sir$ he is a* ut t enter Thunder Inn 3 tel% ? ? ??? H% Chile he was wal;ing$ then y u and -O' Nunag p unced n hi) as y u used p unced n hi) in y ur a!!idavitI A% ? ? Fes$ sir% ? ? ??? H% And y u p unced n J 2 Chua *e! re y u saw that alleged s)all plastic *ag$ is that c rrectI A% A% ? ? A% Fes$ sir% Fes$ sir% ? ? ??? H% But w uld y u agree with )e that n t all crystalline su*stance is sha*uI N $ that is sha*u and it is *een a l ng ti)e that we have *een tailing the accused that he is really a drug pusher% ? ? H% And a!ter that y u als c n!iscated this Kest 2uice * ?I ? ? ? ?

H% But he was 2ust wal;ing t wards the entrance ! the Thunder Inn 3 telI A% ? ?

H% S y u have *een tailing this accused ! r >uite a l ng ti)e that y u are very sure that what was *r ught *y hi) was sha*uI A% Fes$ sir.0'&1 The police operatives cannot feign ignorance of the alleged illegal activities of accusedappellant. Considering that the identity, address and activities of the suspected culprit was already ascertained two years previous to the actual arrest, there was indeed no reason why the police officers could not have obtained a judicial warrant before arresting accusedappellant and searching his person % Chatever in! r)ati n their civilian asset relayed t the) h urs *e! re accused-appellantDs arrest was n t a pr duct ! an 8 n-the-sp t9 tip which )ay e?cuse the) !r ) *taining a warrant ! arrest% Acc rdingly$ the arresting tea)Ds c ntenti n that their arrest ! accused-appellant was a pr duct ! an 8 n-the-sp t9 tip is untena*le%

In the sa)e vein$ there c uld *e n valid 8st p-and-!ris;9 in this case% A st p-and-!ris; was de!ined as the act ! a p lice !!icer t st p a citi:en n the street$ interr gate hi)$ and pat hi) ! r weap n4s50'(1 r c ntra*and% The p lice !!icer sh uld pr perly intr duce hi)sel! and )a;e initial in>uiries$ appr ach and restrain a pers n wh )ani!ests unusual and suspici us c nduct$ in rder t chec; the latterDs uter cl thing ! r p ssi*ly c ncealed weap ns% 0'#1 The apprehending p lice !!icer )ust have a genuine reas n$ in acc rdance with the p lice !!icerDs e?perience and the surr unding c nditi ns$ t warrant the *elie! that the pers n t *e held has weap ns 4 r c ntra*and5 c ncealed a* ut hi)%0'+1 It sh uld there! re *e e)phasi:ed that a search and sei:ure sh uld precede the arrest ! r this principle t apply%0'B1 This principle ! 8st p-and-!ris;9 search was inv ;ed *y the C urt in Manalili v. Court of Appeals%0',1 In said case$ the p lice)en chanced up n the accused wh had reddish eyes$ wal;ing in a swaying )anner$ and wh appeared t *e high n drugs% Thus$ we upheld the validity ! the search as a;in t a 8st p-and-!ris;%9 In !eople v. "olayao$07/1 we als ! und 2usti!ia*le reas n t 8st p-and-!ris;9 the accused a!ter c nsidering the ! ll wing circu)stances. the drun;en actuati ns ! the accused and his c )pani ns$ the !act that his c )pani ns !led when they saw the p lice)en$ and the !act that the peace !!icers were precisely n an intelligence )issi n t veri!y rep rts that ar)ed pers ns where r a)ing the vicinity% The ! reg ing circu)stances d n t *tain in the case at *ar% There was n valid 8st pand-!ris;9 in the case ! accused-appellant% T reiterate$ accused-appellant was !irst arrested *e! re the search and sei:ure ! the alleged illegal ite)s ! und in his p ssessi n% The apprehending p lice perative !ailed t )a;e any initial in>uiry int accused-appellantDs *usiness in the vicinity r the c ntents ! the Kest-O 2uice * ? he was carrying% The apprehending p lice !!icers nly intr duced the)selves when they already had cust dy ! accused-appellant% Besides$ at the ti)e ! his arrest$ accused-appellant did n t e?hi*it )ani!est unusual and suspici us c nduct reas na*le en ugh t dispense with the pr cedure utlined *y 2urisprudence and the law% There was$ there! re$ n genuine reas na*le gr und ! r the i))ediacy ! accused-appellantDs arrest% O*vi usly$ the acts ! the p lice peratives wh lly depended n the in! r)ati n given t the) *y their c n!idential in! r)ant% Acc rdingly$ *e! re and during that ti)e ! the arrest$ the arresting !!icers had n pers nal ;n wledge that accused-appellant had 2ust c ))itted$ was c ))itting$ r was a* ut t c ))it a cri)e% At any rate$ even i! the !act ! delivery ! the illegal drugs actually ccurred$ accusedappellantDs warrantless arrest and c nse>uent search w uld still n t *e dee)ed a valid 8st pand !ris;9% F r a valid 8st p-and-!ris;9 the search and sei:ure )ust precede the arrest$ which is n t s in this case% Besides$ as we have earlier e)phasi:ed$ the in! r)ati n a* ut the illegal activities ! accused-appellant was n t un;n wn t the apprehending !!icers% 3ence$ the search and sei:ure ! the pr hi*ited drugs cann t *e dee)ed as a valid 8st p-and-!ris;9% Neither can there *e valid sei:ure in plain view n the *asis ! the sei:ed ite)s ! und in accused-appellantDs p ssessi n% First$ there was n valid intrusi n% Sec nd$ the evidence$ i.e.$ the plastic *ags ! und in the Kest-O 2uice * ? which c ntained crystalline su*stances later n identi!ied as )etha)pheta)ine hydr chl ride 4sha*u5 and the '/ r unds ! %'' cali*er a))uniti n$ were n t inadvertently disc vered% The p lice !!icers !irst arrested accusedappellant and intenti nally searched his pers n and pee;ed int the sealed Kest-O 2uice * ? *e! re they were a*le t see and later n ascertain that the crystalline su*stance was sha*u% There was n clear sh wing that the sealed Kest-O 2uice * ? accused-appellant carried c ntained pr hi*ited drugs% Neither were the s)all plastic *ags which allegedly c ntained crystalline su*stance and the '/ r unds ! %'' cali*er a))uniti n visi*le% These pr hi*ited

su*stances were n t in plain view ! the arresting !!icersG hence$ inad)issi*le ! r *eing the !ruits ! the p is n us tree% In li;e )anner$ the search cann t *e categ ri:ed as a search ! a ) ving vehicle$ a c nsented warrantless search$ r a cust )s search% It cann t even !all under e?igent and e)ergency circu)stances$ ! r the evidence at hand is *ere!t ! any such sh wing% All t ld$ the a*sence ! ill-) tive n the part ! the arresting tea) cann t si)ply validate$ )uch ) re cure$ the illegality ! the arrest and c nse>uent warrantless search ! accusedappellant% Neither can the presu)pti n ! regularity ! per! r)ance ! !uncti n *e inv ;ed *y an !!icer in aid ! the pr cess when he underta;es t 2usti!y an encr ach)ent ! rights secured *y the C nstituti n%07"1 In !eople v. #ubla$07'1 we clearly stated that. The presu)pti n ! regularity in the per! r)ance ! !!icial duty cann t *e used as *asis ! r a!!ir)ing accused-appellantDs c nvicti n *ecause$ !irst$ the presu)pti n is precisely 2ust that L a )ere presu)pti n% Once challenged *y evidence$ as in this case$ ??? 0it1 cann t *e regarded as *inding truth% Sec nd$ the presu)pti n ! regularity in the per! r)ance ! !!icial !uncti ns cann t prep nderate ver the presu)pti n ! inn cence that prevails i! n t verthr wn *y pr ! *ey nd reas na*le d u*t% Further) re$ we entertain d u*ts whether the ite)s allegedly sei:ed !r ) accusedappellant were the very sa)e ite)s presented at the trial ! this case% The rec rd sh ws that the initial !ield test where the ite)s sei:ed were identi!ied as sha*u$ was nly c nducted at the -N- head>uarters ! Angeles City% 0771 The ite)s were there! re n t )ar;ed at the place where they were ta;en% In !eople v. Casimiro$07&1 we struc; d wn with dis*elie! the relia*ility ! the identity ! the c n!iscated ite)s since they were n t )ar;ed at the place where they were sei:ed$ thus. The narc tics !ield test$ which initially identi!ied the sei:ed ite) as )ari2uana$ was li;ewise n t c nducted at the scene ! the cri)e$ *ut nly at the narc tics !!ice% There is thus reas na*le d u*t as t whether the ite) allegedly sei:ed !r ) accused-appellant is the sa)e *ric; ! )ari2uana )ar;ed *y the p lice)en in their head>uarters and given *y the) t the cri)e la* rat ry% The g vern)entDs drive against illegal drugs needs the supp rt ! every citi:en% But it sh uld n t under)ine the !unda)ental rights ! every citi:en as enshrined in the C nstituti n% The c nstituti nal guarantee against warrantless arrests and unreas na*le searches and sei:ures cann t *e s carelessly disregarded as ver:eal us p lice !!icers are s )eti)es w nt t d % Fealty t the c nstituti n and the rights it guarantees sh uld *e para) unt in their )inds$ therwise their g d intenti ns will re)ain as such si)ply *ecause they have *lundered% The cri)inal g es !ree$ i! he )ust$ *ut it is the law that sets hi) !ree% N thing can destr y a g vern)ent ) re >uic;ly than its !ailure t *serve its wn laws$ r w rse$ its disregard ! the charter ! its wn e?istence%07(1 >HEREFORE$ in view ! the ! reg ing$ the decisi n ! the Regi nal Trial C urt ! Angeles City$ Branch (,$ in Cri)inal Cases N s% ,#-(/+ and ,#-("7$ c nvicting accused-appellant Binad Sy Chua ! vi lati n ! Secti n "#$ Article III$ Repu*lic Act N % #&'( and sentencing hi) t su!!er the penalty ! reclusion perpetua and t pay a !ine ! -"$///$///%//$ is R=V=RS=D and S=T ASID=% Accused-appellant Binad Sy Chua is ACHEITT=D n the gr und ! reas na*le d u*t% C nse>uently$ he is rdered ! rthwith released !r ) cust dy$ unless he is *eing law!ully held ! r an ther cri)e%

!O OR$ERE$. $avide, %r., C.%., &Chairman', (itug, Carpio and A)cuna. %%., concur.