From the Website of PHILSTAR NEWS
links: http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/09/25/1627267/sc-reminds-pnp-anew-follow-rules-warrantless-arrest
SC reminds PNP anew: Follow rules on warrantless arrest
MANILA, Philippines (Philippines News Agency) — The
Supreme Court (SC) reminded anew the Philippine National Police to
comply with rules on warrantless arrest, particularly on drug suspects.
The court made the reiteration after it acquitted a drug convict when
it found that his warrantless arrest and the search incidental to his
arrest were “unreasonable and unlawful.”
In the 11-page decision penned by Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, the
high court’s First Division granted the appeal of accused-appellant
Gerrjan Manago to reverse and set aside the May 20, 2013 decision and
Nov. 6, 2013 resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA in the said decision affirmed the March 23, 2009 ruling of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 58 of Cebu City, finding Manago guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11, Article II of RA 9165,
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Acts of 2002.
“In fine, Manago’s warrantless arrest, and the search incidental
thereto, including that of his moving vehicle were all unreasonable and
unlawful. In consequence, the shabu seized from him is rendered
inadmissible in evidence pursuant to the exclusionary rule under Section
3 (2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution. Since the confiscated
shabu is the very corpus delicti of the crime charged, Manago must
necessarily be acquitted and exonerated from criminal liability,” the
court held.
The court, however, said that one of the recognized exceptions to the
needs of a warrant before a search may be effect is a search incidental
to a lawful arrest. In this instance, the law requires that there first
be a lawful arrest before a search can be made and “the process cannot
be reversed.”
Under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,
the three instances when warrantless arrests may be lawfully effected
are: (a) an arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto (in the very act
of); (b) an arrest of a suspect where, based on personal knowledge of
the arresting officer, there is probable cause that said suspect was the
perpetrator of a crime which had just been committed; and (c) an arrest
of a prisoner who has escaped from custody serving final judgment or
temporarily confined during the pendency of his case or has escaped
while being transferred from one confinement to another.
The court stressed that in warrantless arrests made pursuant to Sec.
5(b), “it is essential that the element of personal knowledge must be
coupled with the element of immediacy; otherwise, the arrest may be
nullified, and resultantly, the items yielded through the search
incidental thereto will be rendered inadmissible in consonance with the
exclusionary rule of the 1987 Constitution.”
The court held that while the element of personal knowledge under Sec.
5(b) was present, the police authorities, opting to conduct a “hot
pursuit operation which — considering the lack of immediacy
— unfortunately failed to meet the legal requirements therefor. Thus,
there being no valid warrantless arrest under the “hot pursuit”
doctrine, the CA erred in ruling that Manago was lawfully arrested.
“In view of the finding that there was no lawful arrest in this case,
the CA likewise erred in ruling that the incidental search on Manago’s
vehicle and body was valid. In fact, the said search was made even
before he was arrested and thus, violated the cardinal rule on searches
incidental to lawful arrests that there first be a lawful arrest before a
search can be made,” the Court held.
The court underscored that “routine inspections do not give police
officers carte blanche discretion to conduct warrantless searches in the
absence of probable cause.”
Records reveal that in the evening of March 15, 2007, PO3 Antonio Din
of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Mobile Patrol Group personally
witnessed a robbery incident while he was waiting for his turn to have a
haircut at Jonas Borces Beauty Parlor. After his brief shootout with
the armed robbers, the latter fled using a motorcycle and a red Toyota
Corolla. Through an investigation and verification by police
authorities, they found out that the armed robbers were staying in
Barangay Del Rio Pit-os; and traced the getaways vehicles to Manago. The
next day, March 16, 2007, the police set up a checkpoint in Sitio
Panagdait where the red Toyota Corolla being driven by Manago passed by
and was intercepted by the police officers. The police then ordered
Manago to disembark the car, and from there, proceeded to search the
vehicle and the body of Manago, which yielded the plastic sachet
containing shabu. Thereupon, they effected Manago’s arrest.
In this case, the police officers had already conducted a thorough
investigation and verification proceedings, which yielded, among others:
the identities of the robbery suspects; the place where they reside;
and the ownership of the getaway vehicles used in the robbery. These
pieces of information were already enough for said police officers to
secure the necessary warrants to accost the robbery suspects.
Consequently, there was no longer any exigent circumstance that would
have justified the necessity of setting up a checkpoint for the purpose
of searching the subject vehicle. Also, the checkpoint was arranged for
the targeted arrest of Manago, who was already identified as the culprit
of the robbery incident. In this regard, it cannot, therefore, be said
that the checkpoint was meant to conduct a routinary and indiscriminate
search of moving vehicles. Rather, it was used as a subterfuge to put
into force the capture of the fleeing suspect.
In 2009, Manago was found by the Cebu City RTC guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of possession of 0.3852 grams of shabu and sentenced him to
suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period of 12 years and one day,
as minimum, to 15 years, as maximum, and to pay a P300,000 fine.
The case was elevated to the CA which affirmed Manago’s conviction,
prompting the latter to further elevate the matter to the high court.
PHIL. STAR NEWS WEBSITE
links:
OTHER HUMAN RIGHTS PROMOTIONS WEBSITES
Human Rights Advocacy Promotions | Human Rights
Home - Human rights Promotions Website
HUMAN RIGHTS PROMOTIONS
PROTECTION AND PROMOTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------
