You are on page 1of 2

Antiquera (Codes) v People They saw two men rushing out of a house and immediately

GR 180661 December 11, 2013 boarded a jeep.


Abad, J. The police officers approached the house from where the men
came from and peeked through the door that was partially
Relevant Provisions: opened.
Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
They saw the accused Antiquera holding an improvised tooter
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue and a pink lighter together with his live in partner, Cruz, who
except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after was holding an aluminum foil and an improvised burner.
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may The police officers then entered the house, introduced
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or
themselves and arrested Antiquera and Cruz.
things to be seized.
Section 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable Upon looking at immediate surroundings, they saw a wooden
except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires jewelry box on top of a table. It contained an improvised
otherwise, as prescribed by law. burner, wok, scissors, 10 small transparent plastic sachets
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be
with traces of white crystalline substance, improvised scoop,
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
and seven unused strips of aluminum foil.
Short summary: Antiquera alleged that the police officers knocked on his door
Some police officers were doing a visibility patrol on David St., Pasay which prompted him to wake up. Upon opening the door, the
City. During the patrol, they saw two men rush out of a house and officers told him, Dyan ka lang, pusher ka. He was then
boarded a jeep. Suspecting that a crime had happened, they went to arrested. At the police station, they were shown a box that the
the house and saw that the door was partly open. They peeked police said had been recovered from his house.
through the door and saw Antiquera and Cruz with drug paraphernalia. Issue: Whether or not the arrest and search done was valid
The police officers then entered the house, introduced themselves
and arrested the couple for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia. Held: NO
The court held that the accused be acquitted of the crime charged. The circumstances here do not make out a case of arrest made in
The door was only partly open and the police officers had to push it flagrante delicto.
further open to see the crime happening. The police officers had no
arrest or search warrant and thus all the evidence they gathered are 1. The police officers claim that they were alerted when they saw
inadmissible as evidence. two unidentified men suddenly rush out of 107 David Street,
Pasay City. Since they suspected that a crime had been
Facts: committed, the natural thing for them to do was to give chase
to the jeep that the two fleeing men boarded, given that the
At around 4:45 am of February 11, 2004, PO1 Recio, PO1 officers were in a patrol car and a tricycle. Running after the
Cabutihan, P/Insp. Ibon, PO1 Rania and two civilian fleeing suspects was the more urgent task but the officers
operatives were on board a patrol car and a tricycle instead gave priority to the house even when they heard no
conducting a police visibility patrol on David St., Pasay City. cry for help from it.
2. Admittedly, the police officers did not notice anything amiss
going on in the house from the street where they stood. Indeed,
even as they peeked through its partially opened door, they
saw no activity that warranted their entering it.

One of the police officers testified that the door was only opened by
about 4-6 inches. They couldnt see what was happening inside when
they peeked through. They had to open the door to see what was
happening inside.

Clearly, no crime was plainly exposed to the view of the arresting


officers that authorized the arrest of accused Antiquera without
warrant under the abovementioned rule. Considering that his arrest
was illegal, the search and seizure that resulted from it was likewise
illegal. Consequently, the various drug paraphernalia that the police
officers allegedly found in the house and seized are inadmissible,
having proceeded from an invalid search and seizure. Since the
confiscated drug paraphernalia is the very corpus delicti of the crime
charged, the Court has no choice but to acquit the accused.

DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS


ASIDE the Decision dated September 21, 2007 and Resolution dated
November 16, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CR 28937 and
ACQUITS the accused George Antiquera y Codes of the crime of
which he is charged for lack of evidence sufficient to establish his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. The Court further ORDERS the
cancellation and release of the bail bond he posted for his provisional
liberty.

Note: Cruz, Antiqueras live in partner was tried in absentia because


she jumped bail.