Sammy Malacat y Mandar vs CA and People

GR No. 123595, December 12,1997

Facts:
Sammy Mandar was convicted for violation of Sec 3 of PD 1866 when he was
caught possessing a hand grenade without securing license or permit from proper
authorities.
He was caught by Rodolfo Yu, a police who respond to bomb threats reported 7
days earlier.
From the statement of Yu, he and his companions approached a group of Muslim
who were acting suspiciously who then fled in different directions. Yu caught up
the petitioner. Yu allegedly found the grenade in petitioners waistline.
Trial court ruled in favor of Yu on the ground that the warrantless search and
seizure is valid by the virtue of stop and frisk where a warrant and seizure can
be effected without necessarily being preceded by an arrest
Issue:
Whether or not the arrest was lawful?
Held:

No.
A warrantless arrest under the circumstances contemplated under Section 5(a)
has been dominated by:
In flagrante delicto;
Hot pursuit arrest; and
Escape of prisoner.
Turning to valid warrantless arrest searches are limited to the following:
1. Custom search
2. Search of moving vehicle
3. Each of evidence in plain view
4. Consent searches
5. A search incidental to a lawful arrest; and
6. Stop and frisk
The law requires that there a first be a lawful arrest before search can be madethe process cannot be reversed.
Here, there can be no valid in flagrante delicto or hot pursuit arrest preceding the
search in the light of the lack of personal knowledge on the part of Yu or an overt
physical act on the part of petitioner indicating that the crime had just been committed
or was going to be committed.
Stop and frisk was in valid in three reason:
Irregulaties to Yus claim which is not supported by police report
At the time of the arrest the petitioner was merely standing at the corner
and not creating any commotion

No probable cause to believe that the petitioner was armed with deadly
weapon. None was no visible evidence of bulging weapon from the
clothing of the petitioner.