Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
MONTILLA
January 30, 1998 | Regalado, J. | Arrests; Warrantless Arrests; In flagrante delicto
SUMMARY: A reliable informant told the police that a person was going to arrive in Dasmarinas from Baguio City, transporting
marijuana. Ruben Montilla was in a waiting shed when the police apprehended him, suspecting that he was the person referred to
by the informant. They proceeded with the search when Ruben confirmed he just arrived from Baguio City. He was charged, and
eventually found guilty by the RTC, of transporting prohibited drugs. According to the Supreme Court, his arrest was valid. The
element of transporting drugs was obviously satisfied. The policemen were no longer able to get a warrant because the information
given to them was “sketchy” and they did not even know the name of the person to be arrested.
DOCTRINE: A legitimate warrantless arrest, necessarily cloaks the arresting police officer with authority to validly search and
seize from the offender (1) dangerous weapons, and (2) those that may be used as proof of the commission of an offense. On the
other hand, the apprehending officer must have been spurred by probable cause in effecting an arrest, which could be classified as
one of the permissble arrests set out in Section 5 (a). These instances have been applied to arrests carried out on persons caught in
flagrante delicto.
FACTS:
1. Ruben Montilla was charged with violation of the RULING: RTC’s judgment affirmed, modified only insofar
Dangerous Drugs Act for transporting marijuana. as the penalty imposed is concerned.
1. Lawful arrest must precede warrantless search à Under the circumstances of the instant case, there was
sufficient time for the police to have applied for a search
à Malacat vs. CA: He was searched, and allegedly recovered warrant. The information that appellant would be arriving in
from his body was a bomb. The trial court justified his arrest the early morning of June 20, 1994 at Barangay Salitran,
and search on the finding that he was “attempting to commit a Dasmariñas, Cavite, was received by the police at 2:00 p.m. of
crime.” But we reversed and ruled that there could have been the preceding day. The fact that it was a Sunday did not
no valid in flagrante delicto or hot pursuit arrest preceding the prevent the police from securing a warrant. Administrative
search in light of the lack of personal knowledge on the part of Circulars 13 and 19, s. 1987 allow applications for search
the arresting officer or an overt physical act on the part of warrants even “after office hours, or during Saturdays,
Malacat indicating that a crime had just been committed, was Sundays and legal holidays” where there is an urgency and
being committed, or was going to be committed. prompt action is needed. Surely, with the attendant
circumstances, the arresting officers could have easily justified
2. Personal knowledge is required in in flagrante delicto the urgency of the issuance of a search warrant.
arrests: Jurisprudence is settled that under the in flagrante
delicto rule, “the officer arresting a person who has just 5. To say that “reliable tips” constitute probable cause for a
committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense warrantless arrest or search is, in my opinion, a dangerous
must have personal knowledge of that fact. The offense must precedent and places in great jeopardy the doctrines laid down
also be committed in his presence or within his view.” in many decisions made by this Court, in its effort to zealously
guard and protect the sacred constitutional right against
3. Hot pursuit doctrine not applicable unreasonable arrests, searches and seizures.
à People vs. Burgos: A crime must in fact or actually have 6. Appellant waived his constitutional right
been committed first. That a crime has actually been à I have to concur with the majority in affirming his
committed is an essential precondition. It is not enough to conviction, only for the reason that appellant waived his right
suspect that a crime may have been committed. The fact of the to object to such illegality. It appears that he did not protest
commission of the offense must be undisputed. The test of when the police searched his bag, and apprehended him.
reasonable ground applies only to the identity of the
perpetrator.