GR.

No: 182534: Ongcoma Hadji Homar v People of the duties regularly in arresting and conducting a search on To constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, two
Philippines the petitioner. The RTC also noted that PO1 Eric Tan was requisites must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must
straightforward in giving his testimony and he did not show execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed,
any ill motive in arresting the petitioner. It also did not is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime;
 Petition for review on certiorari seeking the reversal of the
believe the petitioner's defense of denial and ruled that it and (2) such overt act is done in the presence of or within
Decision of the CA dated January 10, 2008, and its
is a common and standard defense ploy in most the view of the arresting officer.
Resolution dated April 11, 2008 in CA-G.R. CR No. 29364,
prosecutions in dangerous drugs cases. This defense is On this point, we find that aside from the bare testimony
affirming the decision of the RTC of Parañaque City,
weak especially when it is not substantiated by clear and of Tan as quoted by the CA in its decision, the prosecution
Branch 259 in Criminal Case No. 02-0986 which convicted
convincing evidence as in this case. did not proffer any other proof to establish that the
the petitioner for violation of RA No. 9165 entitled "An Act
Instituting the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of  The CA dismissed the petition and affirmed the RTC's requirements for a valid in flagrante delicto arrest were
findings. complied with. Particularly, the prosecution failed to prove
2002.
According to the CA, Section 5, paragraph (a) of Rule 113 of the that the petitioner was committing a crime.
 The petitioner was charged for violation of Section 11, The respondent failed to specifically identify the area
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure enumerates the
Article II of RA 9165. The Information states that on or where the petitioner allegedly crossed. Thus, Tan merely
circumstances when a warrantless arrest is legal, valid, and proper.
about August 20, 2002, the petitioner was found to stated that the petitioner "crossed the street of Roxas
One of these is when the person to be arrested has committed, is
possess one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet Boulevard, in a place not designated for crossing." Aside
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense in the
containing 0.03 grams of methylamphetamine from this conclusion, the respondent failed to prove that
presence of a peace officer or a private person. In the present case,
hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu. The petitioner the portion of Roxas Boulevard where the petitioner
the petitioner committed jaywalking in the presence of PO1 Tan and
pleaded not guilty during arraignment. crossed was indeed a "no jaywalking" area. The petitioner
C/A Tangcoy; hence, his warrantless arrest for jaywalking was
 PO1 Eric Tan was the lone witness for the prosecution. lawful. was also not charged of jaywalking. These are pieces of
He testified that on August 20, 2002, at around 8:50 in the Consequently, the subsequent frisking and search done on the evidence that could have supported the conclusion that
evening, their Chief, P/Chief Supt. Alfredo C. Valdez, petitioner's body which produced the knife and the shabuwere indeed the petitioner was committing a crime of jaywalking
ordered him and civilian agent (C/A) Ronald Tangcoy to incident to a lawful arrest allowed under Section 13, Rule 126 of the and therefore, the subsequent arrest and search on his
go to the South Wing, Roxas Boulevard. While proceeding Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. person was valid. Unfortunately, the prosecution failed to
to the area onboard a mobile hunter, they saw the The CA likewise ruled that PO1 Tan clearly showed that the prove this in the present case.
petitioner crossing a "No Jaywalking" portion of Roxas petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto in possession of shabu. Clearly, no arrest preceded the search on the person of
Boulevard. They immediately accosted him and told him
 The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was the petitioner. When Tan and Tangcoy allegedly saw the
to cross at the pedestrian crossing area. petitioner jaywalking, they did not arrest him but accosted
denied by the CA.
 The petitioner picked up something from the ground, him and pointed to him the right place for crossing. In fact,
prompting Tangcoy to frisk him resulting in the recovery of according to the RTC, Tan and Tangcoy "immediately
a knife. Thereafter, Tangcoy conducted a thorough search Issue: accosted him and told him to cross the designated
on the petitioner's body and found and confiscated a 1. W/N the shabu allegedly recovered from the petitioner is area."
plastic sachet containing what he suspected as shabu. inadmissible as evidence because it was obtained as a Tan and Tangcoy did not intend to bring the petitioner
Tangcoy and Tan executed a sinumpaang salaysay on result of his unlawful arrest and in violation of his right under custody or to restrain his liberty. This lack of intent
the incident. against unreasonable search and seizure to arrest him was bolstered by the fact that there was no
 The petitioner was the sole witness for the defense. He [5] criminal charge that was filed against the petitioner for
testified that on August 20, 2002, he was going home at crossing a "no jaywalking" area.
around 6:30 p.m. after selling imitation sunglasses and Ruling: From Tan's testimony, the intent to arrest the petitioner
other accessories at the BERMA Shopping Center. After only came after they allegedly confiscated the shabu from
crossing the overpass, a policeman and a civilian stopped the petitioner, for which they informed him of his
and frisked him despite his refusal. They poked a gun at constitutional rights and brought him to the police station.
1. The prosecution failed to prove that a lawful warrantless
him, accused him of being a holdupper, and forced him to In Luz vs. People of the Philippines.The Court held that
arrest preceded the search conducted on the petitioner's
go with them. They also confiscated the kitchen knife, the shabu confiscated from the accused in that case was
body.
which he carried to cut cords. He was likewise inadmissible as evidence when the police officer who
Section 5, Rule 11 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
investigated for alleged possession of shabu and detained flagged him for traffic violation had no intent to arrest
Procedure provides the only occasions when a person
for one day. He was criminally charged before the him. According to the Court, due to the lack of intent to
may be lawfully arrested without a warrant. In the present
Metropolitan Trial Court of Parañaque City, Branch 77 for arrest, the subsequent search was unlawful. This is
case, the respondent alleged that the petitioner's
the possession of the kitchen knife but he was eventually notwithstanding the fact that the accused, being caught in
warrantless arrest was due to his commission of
acquitted. flagrante delicto for violating an ordinance, could have
jaywalking in flagrante delicto and in the presence of Tan
 The RTC convicted the petitioner. It ruled that PO1 Tan and Tangcoy.
been therefore lawfully stopped or arrested by the
and C/A Tangcoy were presumed to have performed their apprehending officers.
We agree with the respondent that the petitioner did not
timely object to the irregularity of his arrest before his
arraignment as required by the Rules. In addition, he
actively participated in the trial of the case.
However, this waiver to question an illegal arrest only
affects the jurisdiction of the court over his person. It is
well-settled that 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.
Since the shabu was seized during an illegal arrest, its
inadmissibility as evidence precludes conviction and
justifies the acquittal of the petitioner.

Petition is GRANTED. The decision of CA is therefore