PEOPLE VS LAGUIO JR.
FACTS: Respondent was acquitted on 3 different cases
filed against him (dangerous drugs act, illegal possession of firearms and
comelec gun ban) after his demurrer to evidence (inadmissibility of the evidence)
was granted due to the illegal/unlawful arrest, search and seizure that was
conducted by the police officers contending that he was arrested in flagrante
delicto but the defense further presented that respondent did not do any overt
act to make him be subject to a warrantless arrest under the exceptions in
section 5 of rule 113.
ISSUE: Whether there was lawful arrest, search and
seizure by the police operatives in this case despite the absence of a WOA
and/or SW.
HELD:
There are actually two
(2) acts involved in this case, namely, the warrantless arrest and the
warrantless search. There is no question that warrantless search may be
conducted as an incident to a valid warrantless arrest. The law requires that
there be first a lawful arrest before a search can be made; the process cannot
be reversed. However, if there are valid reasons to conduct lawful
search and seizure which thereafter shows that the accused is currently
committing a crime, the accused may be lawfully arrested in flagrante delicto
without need for a warrant of arrest.
Section
5, provides three (3)
instances when warrantless arrest may be lawfully effected: (a) arrest of a
suspect in flagrante delicto; (b) arrest of a suspect where, based on personal
knowledge of the arresting officer, there is probable cause that said suspect
was the author of a crime which had just been committed; (c) arrest of a
prisoner who has escaped from custody serving final judgment or temporarily
confined while his case is pending.For a warrantless arrest of an accused caught in flagrante delicto under paragraph (a) of Section 5 to be valid, two requisites must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.
The facts and circumstances surrounding the present case did not manifest any suspicious behavior on the part of private respondent Lawrence Wang that would reasonably invite the attention of the police. He was merely walking from the Maria Orosa Apartment and was about to enter the parked BMW car when the police operatives arrested him, frisked and searched his person and commanded him to open the compartment of the car, which was later on found to be owned by his friend, David Lee. He was not committing any visible offense then. Therefore, there can be no valid warrantless arrest in flagrante delicto under paragraph (a) of Section 5. It is settled that "reliable information" alone, absent any overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise in the presence and within the view of the arresting officers, is not sufficient to constitute probable cause that would justify an in flagrante delicto arrest.
The inevitable conclusion, as correctly made by the trial court, is that the warrantless arrest was illegal. Ipso jure, the warrantless search incidental to the illegal arrest is likewise unlawful.