PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee v.

NAZARENO VILLAREAL y LUALHATI,

accused-appellant
G.R. No. 205926, [July 22, 2015]

FACTS:
Police Version:
 Around 11:30 in the morning, P03 De Leon was driving his motorcycle when he saw
Villareal within 8-10 meters holding a plastic sachet with white substance.
 He alighted his motorcycle and as he was about to approach Villareal, Villareal ran and
was subdued through the help of a tricycle driver.
 P03 De Leon made Villareal ride his motorcycle to the nearest police station
 Upon reaching the Police Station, De Leon marked the white plastic sachet with their
initials and submitted it to the crime lab for verification
 Crime Lab results showed that the sachet was indeed 0.03 grams of shabu.

Accused Version:
 Villareal was walking around Avenida headed towards 5th Avenue when a motorcycle
behind him stopped
 It was P03 De Leon who took him to the nearest police station
 There he was allegedly mauled by eight detainees through the order of P03 De Leon to
make him admit that he stole a cellphone

PROCEDURE:
 An information was filed against De Leon for violation of RA 9165 (Illegal possession of
dangerous drugs)
 Villareal entered a plea of not guilty
 RTC: Elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs were evident. Regarding his
warrantless arrest, it was a case of in flagrante delicto.
 CA: The arrest was valid as Villareal exhibited an overt act or strange conduct that would
reasonably arouse suspicion, aggravated by his past criminal citations and his attempt to
flee when P03 De Leon approached him.
 Villareal appealed before the SC

ISSUE/S:
WON the arrest was valid

RULING:
NO, Sec. 5 Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure a warrantless arrest may be
lawfully effected by
 Arrest of suspect in flagrante delicto
o This requires overt act indicating that he has committed, actually
committing or is attempting to commit a crime
 o Such overt act must be done in the presence of or within the view of
arresting officer
 Arrest of suspect where, based on personal knowledge of the arresting officer,
there is probable cause that said suspect was the perpetrator of a crime which
had just been committed;
o This requires that at the time of the arrest, an offense had just in fact been
committed and the arresting officer had personal knowledge of facts
indicating that the accused committed it
 Arrest of a prisoner who has escaped from custody serving final judgment or
temporarily confined during the pendency of his case or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another.

In both first and second instances, personal knowledge of the fact of the commission of an
offense is absolutely required. The facts indicate that personal knowledge was not evident as
P03 De Leon stated in his testimony that he was 8-10 meters away from Villareal when he saw
him holding a 0.03 grams of shabu. There is no way that he can ascertain a plastic sachet to
contain shabu within that distance. The act of walking around and examining something in one’s
hand cannot in any way be considered criminal acts.

EXTRA:
 In the CA ruling, De Leon’s personal knowledge was based on assumption that Villareal’s
plastic contain shabu because he has been charged for the same offense twice.
 SC ruled: A previous arrest or existing criminal record even for the same offense will not
suffice to satisfy the requirements in order to justify a lawful warrantless arrest.

VERDICT:
Having no lawful warrantless arrest and that the shabu seized from Villareal was inadmissible
for being the proverbial fruit of the poisonous tree, he must be aquitted.

FALLO:

WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 31320 is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant Nazareno Villareal y Lualhati is ACQUITTED on
reasonable doubt of the off ense charged and ordered immediately released from detention,
unless his continued confinement is warranted by some other cause or ground.
SO ORDERED.