B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED
People v. Racho People v. Racho
I. Recit-ready summary
Similar to all our old warrantless seizure cases in consti 2
Racho was caught for violation of section 5 of RA9165 (Dang.
Drugs Act). There was an informant who tipped the PDEA off and thus
Racho was caught as he was going to the tricycle in Baler.
After arrest, he dropped a packet of Shabu and thus was charged for
a violation of the DDA. He was tried in the RTC and found guilty. In the
SC however, they did not appreciate the evidence but deemed that Racho
waived his right to question the arrest. In the arrest, he is estopped because
he waived his right already by not raising it at the earliest opportunity.
For the packet of shabu, the information given by the agent does not
by itself show probable cause thus making the arrest legal. There was no
arrest thus there can be no admissible evidence.
II. Facts of the case
Jack Racho is currently being tried for a violation of Section 5, Article
II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165.
An agent contacted the police claiming that Racho is guilty of said
provision. PDEA then formed their police team to apprehend said Racho. The
agent gave the police appellant’s name, together with his physical
description. He also assured them that appellant would arrive in Baler, Aurora
the following day.
He was wearing a red and white stripped tshirt headed to Baler. When
he arrived, the agent pointed to him and as Racho was about to board a
tricycle, he was apprehended. He was caught with a packet of shabu. He was
asked to place his name on the evidence found.
He claims that he was merely visiting his father in Baler. He explained
that the police officers, through their van, blocked the tricycle he was riding
in; forced him to alight; brought him to Sea Breeze Lodge; stripped his
clothes and underwear; then brought him to the police station for
investigation
G.R. NO: 186529
ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Admissible Evidence
VOL 32 [Aug 3, 2010]
The RTC sentenced him to life imprisonment but acquitted him for the
other violation of Section 11.
In his supplemental brief, appellant 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.
III. Issue/s
1. Is the arrest valid? MOOT for not being questioned earlier.
2. Was the confiscated packet on the ground valid?
IV. Ratio/Legal Basis
First is the claim with regard to the legality of the facts of the case.
It is well-settled that an appeal in a criminal case opens the whole case
for review. This Court is clothed with ample authority to review matters, even
those not raised on appeal, if we find them necessary in arriving at a just
disposition of the case. Every circumstance in favor of the accused shall be
considered. This is in keeping with the constitutional mandate that every
accused shall be presumed innocent unless his guilt is proven beyond
reasonable doubt.
Considering this lapse, coupled with his active participation in the trial
of the case, we must abide with jurisprudence which dictates that appellant,
having voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court, is deemed
to have waived his right to question the validity of his arrest, thus curing
whatever defect may have attended his arrest. The obvious fact of his active
participation has removed any opportunity for him to question the validity of
arrest.
FOR THE EVIDENCE OF THE PACKET
The 1987 Constitution states that a search and consequent seizure must be
carried out with a judicial warrant; otherwise, it becomes unreasonable and
PONENTE: Nachura J
DIGEST MAKER: Soon
 B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED
People v. Racho
any evidence obtained therefrom shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding. Said proscription, however, admits of exceptions, namely:
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;
2. Search of evidence in "plain view;"
3. Search of a moving vehicle;
4. Consented warrantless search;
5. Customs search;
6. Stop and Frisk; and
7. Exigent and emergency circumstances
The RTC concluded that appellant was caught in flagrante delicto, declaring
that he was caught in the act of actually committing a crime or attempting to
commit a crime in the presence of the apprehending officers as he arrived in
Baler, Aurora bringing with him a sachet of shabu. Consequently, the
warrantless search was considered valid as it was deemed an incident to the
lawful arrest.
Recent jurisprudence holds that in searches incident to a lawful arrest,
the arrest must precede the search; generally, the process cannot be reversed.
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.
Clearly, what prompted the police to apprehend appellant, even without
a warrant, was the tip given by the informant that appellant would arrive in
Baler, Aurora carrying shabu. This circumstance gives rise to another
question: whether that information, by itself, is sufficient probable cause to
effect a valid warrantless arrest.
In cases Aruta, Tudtud, and Nuevas, there was only an informant thus
the probable cause was not appreciated. There was no crime being committed
because the police reasonably could not tell that Racho was committing a
crime at that exact moment without the informant. Although it was not certain
that appellant would arrive on the same day as well (May 19), there was an
assurance that he would be there the following day (May 20). Clearly, the
police had ample opportunity to apply for a warrant.
G.R. NO: 186529
ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Admissible Evidence
VOL 32 [Aug 3, 2010]
People v. Racho
With the fact that there was ample time to apply for a warrant and that
there was no specific crime being committed at that exact moment when we
was apprehended in the tricycle, the evidence of the shabu packet cannot be
admissible.
Without the confiscated shabu, appellant’s conviction cannot be
sustained based on the remaining evidence. Thus, an acquittal is warranted,
despite the waiver of appellant of his right to question the illegality of his
arrest by entering a plea and his active participation in the trial of the case.
As earlier mentioned, the legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of
the court over the person of the accused. A waiver of an illegal, warrantless
arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized
during an illegal warrantless arrest.
V. Disposition
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court of Appeals Decision
dated May 22, 2008 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00425 is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Appellant Jack Raquero Racho is ACQUITTED for insufficiency of
evidence.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to cause the
immediate release of appellant, unless the latter is being lawfully held for
another cause; and to inform the Court of the date of his release, or the reasons
for his confinement, within ten (10) days from notice.
VI. Notes
PONENTE: Nachura J
DIGEST MAKER: Soon