G.R.No.180661.December11,2013.

*
GEORGE ANTIQUERA y CODES, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF
THEPHILIPPINES,respondent.

Remedial Law Criminal Procedure Arrests Warrantless Arrests

Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a
peaceofficeroraprivatepersonmay,withoutawarrant,arrestaperson
when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing,orisattemptingtocommitanoffense.Section5(a),Rule113
oftheRulesofCriminalProcedureprovidesthatapeaceofficeroraprivate
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person when, in his presence, the
persontobearrestedhascommitted,isactuallycommitting,orisattempting
to commit an offense. This is an arrest inflagrantedelicto. The overt act
constituting the crime is done in the presence or within the view of the
arrestingofficer.

_______________

*THIRDDIVISION.

340

Same Same Searches and Seizures Considering that his arrest was
illegal, the search and seizure that resulted from it was likewise illegal.
Consequently, the various drug paraphernalia that the police officers
allegedly found in the house and seized are inadmissible, having proceeded
fromaninvalidsearchandseizure.Clearly,nocrimewasplainlyexposed
to the view of the arresting officers that authorized the arrest of accused
Antiquerawithoutwarrantundertheabovementionedrule.Consideringthat
his arrest was illegal, the search and seizure that resulted from it was
likewiseillegal.Consequently,thevariousdrugparaphernaliathatthepolice
officers allegedly found in the house and seized are inadmissible, having
proceeded from an invalid search and seizure. Since the confiscated drug
paraphernaliaistheverycorpusdelictiof the crime charged, the Court has
no choice but to acquit the accused. One final note. The failure of the
accused to object to the irregularity of his arrest by itself is not enough to
sustain his conviction. A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not
carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during the
illegalwarrantlessarrest.
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionandresolutionof
theCourtofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.

ABAD,J.:

Thiscaseisaboutasupposedwarrantlessarrestandasubsequent
searchpromptedbythepoliceofficerschancesightingthroughan
ajardooroftheaccusedengagedinpotsession.

TheFactsandtheCase

On January 13, 2004 the second Assistant City Prosecutor of

Pasay City charged the accused George Codes Antiquera** and
CorazonOlivenzaCruzwithillegalpossessionofpara

_______________

**AlsoreferredtoasGeorgeAntiquirainsomepartsoftherecords.

341

phernalia for dangerous drugs[1] before the Regional Trial Court

(RTC) of Pasay City in Criminal Case 040100CFM.[2] Since the
accusedCruzjumpedbail,thecourttriedherinabsentia.[3]
The prosecution evidence shows that at around 4:45 a.m. of
February11,2004,PO1GregorioRecio,PO1LaurenceCabutihan,
P/Insp. Eric Ibon, PO1 Rodelio Rania, and two civilian operatives
on board a patrol car and a tricycle were conducting a police
visibility patrol on David Street, Pasay City, when they saw two
unidentifiedmenrushoutofhousenumber107Candimmediately
boardedajeep.
Suspectingthatacrimehadbeencommitted,thepoliceofficers
approachedthehousefromwherethemencameandpeekedthrough
the partially opened door. PO1 Recio and PO1 Cabutihan saw
accusedAntiqueraholdinganimprovisedtooterandapinklighter.
Beside him was his livein partner, Cruz, who was holding an
aluminumfoilandanimprovisedburner.Theysatfacingeachother
at the living room. This prompted the police officers to enter the
house,introducethemselves,andarrestAntiqueraandCruz.[4]
While inspecting the immediate surroundings, PO1 Cabutihan
sawawoodenjewelryboxatopatable.Itcontainedanimprovised
burner,wok,scissors,10smalltransparentplasticsachetswithtraces
ofwhitecrystallinesubstance,improvisedscoop,andsevenunused
stripsofaluminumfoil.Thepoliceofficersconfiscatedalltheseand
brought Antiquera and Cruz to the Drug Enforcement Unit of the
Philippine National Police in Pasay City for further investigation
andtesting.[5]
_______________
[1]InviolationofSection12,ArticleIIofRepublicAct9165,otherwiseknownas
theComprehensiveDangerousDrugsActof2002.
[2]Records,pp.1011.
[3]Rollo,p.233.
[4]Id.,atp.236.
[5]Id.,atpp.236237.

342

A forensic chemical officer examined the confiscated drug

paraphernalia and found them positive for traces of
methamphetaminehydrochlorideorshabu.[6]
AccusedAntiqueragaveadifferentstory.Hesaidthatonthedate
andtimeinquestion,heandCruzwereasleepintheirhousewhen
he was roused by knocking on the door. When he went to open it,
threearmedpoliceofficersforcedthemselvesintothehouse.Oneof
them shoved him and said, Dyan ka lang, pusher ka. He was
handcuffed and someone instructed two of the officers to go to his
room. The police later brought accused Antiquera and Cruz to the
policestationandthereinformedthemofthechargesagainstthem.
Theywereshownaboxthatthepolicesaidhadbeenrecoveredfrom
hishouse.[7]
On July 30, 2004 the RTC rendered a Decision[8] that found
accused Antiquera and Cruz guilty of the crime charged and
sentenced them to a prison term ranging from six months and one
daytotwoyearsandfourmonths,andtopayafineofP10,000.00
eachandthecostsofthesuit.
The RTC said that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable
doubtthatthepolicecaughtaccusedAntiqueraandCruzintheact
of using shabu and having drug paraphernalia in their possession.
Since no ill motive could be attributed to PO1 Recio and PO1
Cabutihan,thecourtaccordedfullfaithandcredittotheirtestimony
andrejectedtheselfservingclaimofAntiquera.
The trial court gave no weight to accused Antiqueras claim of
illegal arrest, given PO1 Recio and PO1 Cabutihans credible
testimonythat,priortotheirarrest,theysawAntiqueraandCruzina
pot session at their living room and in possession of drug
paraphernalia.Thepoliceofficerswerethusjusti

_______________
[6]Id.
[7]TSN,May31,2004,pp.34.
[8]Records,pp.147155.

343
fied in arresting the two without a warrant pursuant to Section 5,
Rule113oftheRulesofCriminalProcedure.[9]
Onappeal,theCourtofAppeals(CA)renderedaDecision[10]on
September21,2007affirminginfullthedecisionofthetrialcourt.
TheaccusedmovedforreconsiderationbuttheCAdeniedit.[11]The
accusedisnowbeforethisCourtseekingacquittal.

TheIssuePresented
TheissueinthiscaseiswhetherornottheCAerredinfinding
accused Antiquera guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal
possessionofdrugparaphernaliabasedontheevidenceofthepolice
officers that they saw him and Cruz in the act of possessing drug
paraphernalia.

RulingoftheCourt
Theprosecutionstheory,upheldbyboththeRTCandtheCA,is
thatitwasacaseofvalidwarrantlessarrestinthatthepoliceofficers
sawaccusedAntiqueraandCruzthroughthedooroftheirhouse,in
theactofhavingapotsession.Thatvalidwarrantlessarrestgavethe
officers the right as well to search the living room for objects
relating to the crime and thus seize the paraphernalia they found
there.
The prosecution contends that, since the seized paraphernalia
tested positive for shabu, they were no doubt used for smoking,
consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing
dangerousdrugintothebodyinviolationofSection12ofRepublic
Act 9165. That the accused tested negative for shabu, said the
prosecution,hadnobearingonthecrime

_______________
[9]Id.,atpp.154155.
[10]Rollo,pp.5670.PennedbyAssociateJusticeJoseC.Reyes,Jr.andconcurred
inbyAssociateJusticesJaparB.DimaampaoandMyrnaDimarananVidal.
[11]Id.,atp.72.

344

chargedwhichwasforillegalpossessionofdrugparaphernalia,not
forillegaluseofdangerousdrugs.Theprosecutionaddedthateven
assuming that the arrest of the accused was irregular, he is already
considered to have waived his right to question the validity of his
arrest when he voluntarily submitted himself to the courts
jurisdictionbyenteringapleaofnotguilty.[12]
Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure
provides that a peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person when, in his presence, the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense. This is an arrest in flagrante delicto.[13] The
overtactconstitutingthecrimeisdoneinthepresenceorwithinthe
viewofthearrestingofficer.[14]
Butthecircumstancesheredonotmakeoutacaseofarrestmade
inflagrantedelicto.
1.The police officers claim that they were alerted when they
saw two unidentified men suddenly rush out of 107 David Street,
PasayCity.Sincetheysuspectedthatacrimehadbeencommitted,
thenaturalthingforthemtodowastogivechasetothejeepthatthe
twofleeingmenboarded,giventhattheofficerswereinapatrolcar
and a tricycle. Running after the fleeing suspects was the more
urgent task but the officers instead gave priority to the house even
whentheyheardnocryforhelpfromit.
2.Admittedly,thepoliceofficersdidnotnoticeanythingamiss
goingoninthehousefromthestreetwheretheystood.Indeed,even
as they peeked through its partially opened door, they saw no
activity that warranted their entering it. Thus, PO1 Cabutihan
testified:

_______________
[12]Id.,atpp.240244.
[13]Peoplev.Molina,404Phil.797,809352SCRA174,182(2001).
[14]Zalamedav.People,G.R.No.183656,September4,2009,598SCRA537,552.

345

THECOURT:
QBytheway,Mr.Cabutihan,whenyoufollowedyourcompaniontowardsthe
opendoor,howwasthedooropen?Wasittotallyopen,orwasitpartiallyopen?
AItwaspartiallyopenYourHonor.
QByhowmuch,1/3,1/2?Onlybylessthanone(1)foot?
AMoreorless4to6inches,YourHonor.
QSohowwereyouabletoknow,toseetheinteriorofthehouseifthedoor
wasonlyopenby6inches?Ordidyouhavetopushthedoor?
AWepushedthedoor,YourHonor.
xxxx
QWereyouallowedtojustgotowardsthedoorofthehouse,pushitsdoorand
peepedinsideit,asapoliceofficer?
AKasiponaghinalapokamibakamay
QAreyounotallowedtoAreyounotrequiredtogetasearchwarrantbefore
youcansearchtheinteriorofthehouse?
AYes,YourHonor.
Q What do you mean by yes? Would you first obtain a search warrant before
searchingtheinteriorofthehouse?
AYes,YourHonor.
Q So why did you not a [sic] secure a search warrant first before you tried to
investigatethehouse,consideringyouradmissionthatyoususpectedthattherewas
somethingwronginsidethehouse?
ABecausewesawthemthattheywereengagedinpotsession,YourHonor.
 QButbeforeyousawthem,youjusthadtopushthedoorwideopentopeep
throughitsopeningbecauseyoudidnotknowwhatwashappeninginside?

346

AYes,YourHonor.[15](Emphasissupplied)

Clearly,nocrimewasplainlyexposedtotheviewofthearresting
officers that authorized the arrest of accused Antiquera without
warrantundertheabovementionedrule.Consideringthathisarrest
wasillegal,thesearchandseizurethatresultedfromitwaslikewise
illegal.[16] Consequently, the various drug paraphernalia that the
police officers allegedly found in the house and seized are
inadmissible,havingproceededfromaninvalidsearchandseizure.
Sincetheconfiscateddrugparaphernaliaistheverycorpusdelictiof
thecrimecharged,theCourthasnochoicebuttoacquittheaccused.
[17]
One final note. The failure of the accused to object to the
irregularity of his arrest by itself is not enough to sustain his
conviction.Awaiverofanillegalwarrantlessarrestdoesnotcarry
withitawaiveroftheinadmissibilityofevidenceseizedduringthe
illegalwarrantlessarrest.[18]
WHEREFORE,theCourtREVERSESandSETSASIDEthe
DecisiondatedSeptember21,2007andResolutiondatedNovember
16, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CR 28937 and
ACQUITSthe accused George Antiquera y Codes of the crime of
which he is charged for lack of evidence sufficient to establish his
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court further ORDERS the
cancellation and release of the bail bond he posted for his
provisionalliberty.

_______________
[15]TSN,May20,2004,pp.810.
[16]See:Luzv.People,G.R.No.197788,February29,2012,667SCRA421,434.
[17] See: People v. Villareal, G.R. No. 201363, March 18, 2013, 693 SCRA 549,
561.
[18]Peoplev.Martinez,G.R.No.191366,December13,2010,637SCRA791,801.

347

SOORDERED.

Velasco,Jr.(Chairperson),Peralta,MendozaandLeonen, JJ.,
concur.

Judgmentandresolutionreversedandsetaside,accusedGeorge
AntiquerayCodesacquitted.
 Notes.FortheexceptioninSection5(a),Rule113tooperate,
this Court has ruled that two (2) elements must be present: (1) the
persontobearrestedmustexecuteanovertactindicatingthathehas
justcommitted,isactuallycommitting,orisattemptingtocommita
crime and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the
viewofthearrestingofficer.(Miclat,Jr.vs.People,656SCRA539
[2011])
Avalidwarrantlessarrestwhichjustifiesasubsequentsearchis
onethatiscarriedoutundertheparametersofSection5(a),Rule113
of the Rules of Court which requires that the apprehending officer
musthavebeenspurredbyprobablecausetoarrestapersoncaught
inflagrantedelicto.(Martinezvs.People,690SCRA656[2013])
o0o

Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.