[07] PEOPLE v VILLAREAL capriciously exercised without unduly compromising a citizen’s

GR No. 201363 | March 18, 2013 | Justice Perlas-Bernabe | Freya Patron constitutionally guaranteed right to liberty.

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: Republic of the Philippines FACTS:

ACCUSED-APPELLANT: Nazareno Villareal y Lualhati  .Dec. 25, 2006, 11:30 am – PO3 de Leon (member of the Station Anti-Illegal
Drugs-Special Operation Unit) was driving his motorcycle on his way home
TOPIC: Searches and Seizures along 5th Ave. He saw appellant from a distance of about 8-10 meters,
holding and scrutinizing in his hand a plastic sachet of shabu. He alighted
CASE SUMMARY: PO3 de Leon was riding his motorcycle when he saw from his motorcycle and approached appellant whom he recognized as
appellant from an 8-10 meter distance. He was inspecting a plastic sachet someone he had previously arrested for illegal drug possession.
containing shabu. PO3 de Leon approached him whom he recognized as  Upon seeing PO3 de Leon, appellant tried to escape but was apprehended
someone he had previously arrested for illegal drug possession but he tried to with the help of a tricycle driver. Despite his attempt to resist arrest, PO3 de
escape. He was apprehended with the help of a tricycle driver and was brought Leon was able to board him onto his motorcycle and confiscate the plastic
to the police station. In his defense, appellant was walking when a man who was sachet of shabu in his possession.
riding a motorcycle called him from behind, approached him and frisked him. He  PO3 de Leon brought appellant to the 9th Ave. Police Station to fix his
was brought to the police station where he was detained and mauled. Both the handcuffs, and then they went to the office where the seized plastic sachet
RTC and CA convicted him, stating that a valid in flagrante delicto arrest was was marked with his and appellant’s initials and the date of the arrest.
done. The SC reversed. There was no valid warrantless arrest. . Based on his  PO3 de Leon then turned over the marked evidence as well as appellant to
testimony, the Court finds it inconceivable how PO3 de Leon, even with his investigator PO2 Hipolito who executed an acknowledgment receipt and
presumably perfect vision, would be able to identify with reasonable accuracy, prepared a letter request for the lab exam of the seized substance. He
from a distance of about 8-10 meters and while simultaneously driving a personally delivered the request and the confiscated item to the PNP Crime
motorcycle, a negligible and minuscule amount of powdery substance inside the Lab which were received by Police Senior Inspector Arturo, the forensic
plastic sachet allegedly held by appellant. Absent any other circumstance upon chemist.
which to anchor a lawful arrest, no other overt act could be properly attributed to  Upon qualitative exam, the plastic sachet, which contained 0.03g of white
appellant as to rouse suspicion in the mind of PO3 de Leon that he had just crystalline substance, tested positive from methylamphetamine
committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime, for the acts per se hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. Consequently, appellant was charged with
of walking along the street and examining something in one’s hands cannot in violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of RA 9165 for illegal possession of dangerous
any way be considered criminal acts. drugs.
 He entered a plea of not guilty upon arraignment. HIS DEFENSE: claimed
DOCTRINE: For the warrantless arrest under par. (a) of Sec. 5 to operate, that on that date and time, he was walking alone along Avenida, Rizal
two elements must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an headed towards 5th Ave. when someone who was riding a motorcycle called
overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is him from behind. Appellant approached the person, who turned out to be
attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the PO3 de Leon, who told him not to run, frisked him, and took his wallet which
presence or within the view of the arresting officer. On the other hand, contained P1,000. He was brought to the 9th Ave. police station where he
paragraph (b) of Sec. 5 requires for its application that at the time of the was detained and mauled by 8 other detainees under PO3 de Leon’s orders.
arrest, an offense had in fact just been committed and the arresting officer Then he was brought to the Sangandaan Headquarters where 2 others
had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the appellant had police officers where he was forced to answer questions about a stolen
committed it. In both instances, the officer’s personal knowledge of the fact cellphone, firing a gun right beside his ear each time he failed to answer and
of the commission of an offense is ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED. Thus, while it eventually mauling him when he continued to deny knowledge about the
is true that the legality of an arrest depends upon the reasonable discretion cellphone. The next day he underwent inquest proceedings before a Fiscal
of the officer or functionary to whom the law at the moment leaves the who informed him that he was being charged with resisting arrest and “Sec.
decision to characterize the nature of the act or deed of the person for the 11”. The first charge was eventually dismissed.
urgent purpose of suspending his liberty, it cannot be arbitrarily or
 RTC – convicted appellant. Found the plain view doctrine applicable as the personal knowledge that a crime had been indisputably committed by the
confiscated item was in plain view of PO3 de Leon at the place and time of appellant. It is not enough that PO3 de Leon had reasonable ground to
the arrest. believe that appellant had just committed a crime; a crime must in fact have
 CA – sustained RTC. It was a clear case of in flagrante delicto warrantless been committed first, which does not obtain in this case.
arrest under Sec. 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.  Without the overt act that would pin liability against appellant, it is therefore
He exhibited an overt act or strange conduct that would reasonably arouse clear that PO3 de Leon was merely impelled to apprehend appellant on
suspicion aggravated by the existence of his past criminal citations and his account of the latter’s previous charge for the same offense. However,
attempt to flee when PO3 de Leon approached him. However, a previous arrest or existing criminal record, even for the same
offense, will not suffice to satisfy the exacting requirements provided under
ISSUE and RULING: WON the elements for warrantless arrest under Sec. 5 Sec. 5, Rule 113 in order to justify a lawful warrantless arrest. “Personal
Rule 113 were complied with. (NO) THE APPEAL IS MERITORIOUS. knowledge” of the arresting officer that a crime had in fact just been
committed is required.
 For the warrantless arrest under par. (a) of Sec. 5 to operate, 2  Furthermore, appellant’s act of darting away when PO3 de Leon approached
elements must concur: 1) the person to be arrested must execute an him should not be construed against him. Flight per se is not synonymous
overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, with guilt and must not always be attributed to one’s consciousness of guilt. It
or is attempting to commit a crime; and 2) such overt act is done in the is not a reliable indicator of guilt without other circumstances, for even in high
presence or within the view of the arresting officer. Par. (b) of Sec. 5 on crime areas there are many innocent reasons for flight, including fear of
the other hand, requires that at the time of the arrest, an offense had in retribution for speaking to officers, unwillingness to appear as witnesses, and
fact just been committed and the arresting officer had personal fear of being wrongfully apprehended as a guilty party. Thus, appellant’s
knowledge of facts indicating that the appellant had committed it. attempt to run away from PO3 de Leon is susceptible of various
o In both instances, the officer’s personal knowledge of the fact of explanations; it could easily have meant guilt just as it could likewise signify
the commission of an offense is ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED. innocence.
 An assessment of the facts shows there was NO warrantless arrest. Based  Thus, while it is true that the legality of an arrest depends upon the
on his testimony, the Court finds it inconceivable how PO3 de Leon, even reasonable discretion of the officer or functionary to whom the law at
with his presumably perfect vision, would be able to identify with reasonable the moment leaves the decision to characterize the nature of the act or
accuracy, from a distance of about 8-10 meters and while simultaneously deed of the person for the urgent purpose of suspending his liberty, it
driving a motorcycle, a negligible and minuscule amount of powdery cannot be arbitrarily or capriciously exercised without unduly
substance inside the plastic sachet allegedly held by appellant. compromising a citizen’s constitutionally guaranteed right to liberty.
 Absent any other circumstance upon which to anchor a lawful arrest, no
other overt act could be properly attributed to appellant as to rouse suspicion DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals
in the mind of PO3 de Leon that he had just committed, was committing, or in CA-G.R. CR No. 31320 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant
was about to commit a crime, for the acts per se of walking along the street Nazareno Villareal y Lualhati is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt of the
and examining something in one’s hands cannot in any way be considered offense charged and ordered immediately released from detention, unless
criminal acts. In fact, even if appellant had been exhibiting unusual or his continued confinement is warranted by some other cause or ground.
strange acts, or at the very least appeared suspicious, the same would not SO ORDERED.
have been sufficient in order for PO3 de Leon to effect a lawful warrantless
arrest under paragraph (a) of Section 5, Rule 113.
 Neither has it been established that the rigorous conditions set forth in
paragraph (b) of Section 5, Rule 113 have been complied with, i.e., that an
offense had in fact just been committed and the arresting officer had
personal knowledge of facts indicating that the appellant had committed it.
The factual circumstances of the case failed to show that PO3 de Leon had