People vs. Sucro

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EDISON SUCRO

G.R. No. 93239             March 18, 1991

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:

Searches and seizures must be supported by a valid warrant is not an absolute rule.

Pat. Fulgencio saw appellant enter the chapel, taking something which turned out later to be marijuana from the compartment of a cart found inside the chapel, and then return to the street where he handed the same to a buyer, Aldie Borromeo. After a while appellant went back to the chapel and again came out with marijuana which he gave to a group of persons. It was at this instance that Pat. Fulgencio radioed P/Lt. Seraspi and reported the activity going on. Fulgencio again called up Seraspi to report that a third buyer later Identified as Ronnie Macabante, was transacting with appellant.

The team intercept Macabante and appellant. The police were able to recover from appellant sticks and teabag of marijuana from the cart inside the chapel and another teabag from Macabente.

The accused-appellant contends that his arrest was illegal, being a violation of his rights granted under Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. He stresses that there was sufficient time for the police officers to apply for a search and arrest warrants considering that Fulgencio informed his Station Commander of the activities of the accused two days before March 21, 1989, the date of his arrest.

ISSUE: whether or not the arrest without warrant of the accused is lawful.

RULING: YES

Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides for the instances where arrest without warrant is considered lawful. The rule states:

Arrest without warrant, when lawful. — A peace officer or private person may, without warrant, arrest a person:

(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 in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it;

An offense is committed in the presence or within the view of an officer, within the meaning of the rule authorizing an arrest without a warrant, when the officer sees the offense, although at a distance, or hears the disturbances created thereby and proceeds at once to the scene thereof.

The fact that Macabante, when intercepted by the police, was caught throwing the marijuana stick and when confronted, readily admitted that he bought the same from accused-appellant clearly indicates that Sucro had just sold the marijuana stick to Macabante, and therefore, had just committed an illegal act of which the police officers had personal knowledge, being members of the team which monitored Sucro's nefarious activity.

The SC earlier indicated in the case of People v. Bati that police officers have personal knowledge of the actual commission of the crime when it had earlier conducted surveillance activities of the accused.

As the Solicitor General has pointed out:

There are several instances when a warrantless search and seizure can be effected without necessarily being preceded by an arrest provided the same is effected on the basis of probable cause (e.g. stop and search without warrant at checkpoints). Between warrantless searches and seizures at checkpoints and in the case at bar the latter is more reasonable considering that unlike in the former, it was effected on the basis of probable cause. Under the circumstances (monitoring of transactions) there existed probable cause for the arresting officers, to arrest appellant who was in fact selling marijuana and to seize the contraband.

That searches and seizures must be supported by a valid warrant is not an absolute rule. Among the exceptions granted by law is a search incidental to a lawful arrest under Sec. 12, Rule 126 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, which provides that a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant.