Stephen
Tibagong vs. People of the Philippines
G.R.
No 182178
August
15, 2011
Facts:
Petitioner
was found guilty by the lower courts for the violation of Section 11 or RA
9165.
Facts
state that arresting officers, PO3 Faelogo and PO3 Paquera, received
information from a caller, informing them of an illegal drug trade. The two
proceeded to the reported place where they found petitioner, flicking a plastic
allegedly containing shabu. The police officers arrested petitioner and seized
the said plastic as well as the lighter found in the petitioner’s possession.
Petitioner
denied ownership. He further claimed that he wasn’t doing anything illegal and
so the arrest done was a violation of his rights and that the article seized
should be inadmissible since it is the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’.
Issue:
Whether
or not petitioner was right in averring that the evidence was inadmissible, it
being the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’.
HELD:
The
court held that the petitioner’s failure to raise the issue on the validity of
his arrest before arraignment and his active participation in the proceedings
in the lower court estopped him from assailing the same on appeal. He was
deemed to have waived his right.
The
admissibility of the articles as evidence relied on whether the search made was
lawful.
Section
5, Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedures provides for the only occasions
permitting a warrantless arrest: (a) When, in his
presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or
is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an
offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and (c) When the person to be
arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place
where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is
pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to
another.
The following occasions also permits a
warrantless search: 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
Court held that sufficient
evidence supported the warrantless
arrest of petitioner effected under Section 5 (a), or the arrest of a suspect in flagrante
delicto.
The police officers witnessed
petitioner flicking a transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance
in plain view. Arousing their suspicion that the sachet contains shabu, the arresting officers immediately approached petitioner,
introduced themselves as police officers and effected the arrest. After
laboratory examination, the white crystalline substance placed inside the
plastic sachet was found positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a regulated drug.
The arrest having been lawful,
the item seized was likewise lawful. Not to mention, the item’s veracity was
well established.
The
Court affirmed the lower courts decision and found accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt.
