Sunteți pe pagina 1din 2

People vs.

Exceptions to 1987 Consti
 A confidential police agent transacted through cellphone with Raquero for the purchase of shabu. The
agent later reported the transaction to the police authorities who immediately formed a team
composed of members of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), Army Intelligence Group,
and local police forces.
o The group was informed of Raquero’s physical description. They were assured that Raquero
would arrive in Baler the next day.
 Raquero called the agent and told him he was on board a Genesis bus, wearing a red and white t-shirt.
The team members then posted themselves along the national highway in Baler, Aurora.
 Raquero arrived in Baler and alighted the bus. The agent pointed at Raquero. Raquero was about to
board a tricycle when the team approached im and invited him to the police station on suspicion of
carrying Shabu.
o Raquero denied carrying Shabu but as he took his hands out of his pockets, a white envelope
slipped therefrom. When opened, yielded a sachet containing the suspected drug.
 Raquero was brought in for investigation. The sachet was turned over to Inspector De Vera, who
marked it with his initials and that of Raquero. Lab exams show that it was shabu.
 Raquero was charged under two informations
o First one – Transporiting / Delivering drugs (RA 9165)
o Second – Possession (RA 9165)

Raquero denied the same, he argues that he went to Baler to talk to his brother about their ailing father. The
team blocked the tricycle he was riding with their van, forced him to go with them to the Sea Breeze resort
where he was stripped, and brought him to the police station for investigation.

 RTC rendered a joint judgment convicting him of violating Section 5 RA 9165. Life imprisonment! (but
he was acquitted of Section 11 possession)

Raquero attacks the credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution. He argues that they failed to establish the
identity of the confiscated drug because the team failed to mark the specimen immediately after seizure. In
his supplemental brief, Raquero assails, for the first time, the legality of his arrest and the validity of the
subsequent warrantless search. He questions the admissibility of the confiscated sachet on the ground that it
was the fruit of the poisonous tree.
Issue #1 – W/N Appellant may still question validity of arrest? NO.
 Appellant never objected to its irregularity before arraignment. In fact, the matter was raised for the
first time on appeal. Considering this lapse, coupled with his active participation in the trial of the
case, we must abide by the jurisprudence which dictates that appellant, having voluntarily sumitted
to the jurisdiction of the trial court, is deemed to have waived his right to question the validity of
the arrest.

Issue #2 – W/N the alleged shabu is admissible as evidence? NO.

 Under the 1987 Constitution, a search and consequent seizure must be carried out with a JUDICIAL
WARRANT. Otherwise, it becomes unreasonable and any evidence obtained therefrom shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
o Exceptions to this rule (PIMSECC)
 Plain View
 Incidental to Lawful Arrest
 Including In Flagrante Delicto
 Moving Vehicle
 Stop and Frisk
 Exigent and Emergency
 Consent
 Customs
 What constitutes a reasonable warrantless search or seizure is a judicial question determinable from
the uniqueness of the circumstances involved, including (3PMC)
o Purpose
o Probable cause, if any
o Manner s/s made
o Place or thing searched
o Character of thing procured.
 In this case, it was a search incidental to a lawful arrest. Jurisprudence tells us that the lawful arrest
comes before the search. Nevertheless, a search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can
precede the arrest if the police have probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search.
Therefore, what we must determine is w/n the police had probable cause to arrest the appellant.
o Probable cause – reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently
strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that the person is guilty of the
o The tip – in this case, it was the tip which prompted them to make the arrest. Problem was,
reliable information alone is not sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest - The rule requires,
in addition, that the accused perform some overt act that would indicate that he has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.
 Early tip – 1 day early – enough time to apply for a warrant.

Obviously, fruit of a poisonous tree. Hence the confiscated item is inadmissible in evidence pursuant to the
1987 Constitution.

Since without the shabu, conviction could not be sustained, acquittal is warranted.