Homar vs.

People
Incidental to Lawful Arrest
Brion
 Homar is charged for violating Section 11 of RA 9165 (possession). He was allegedly found in
possession of one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing shabu.
 Officer Tan is the lone witness for the prosecution. While patrolling along Roxas Boulevard together
with civilian agent Tangcoy, he saw petitioner jaywalking. They immediately accosted him and told
him to cross at a pedestrian crossing area.
o Tan then saw petitioner pick up something off of the ground, prompting tangcoy to frisk him.
o They recovered a knife. Thereafter, Tangcoy conducted a thorough search on his body and
found the sachet.
 Homar, as sole witness for the defense, testified that while he was on his way home from work that
day selling sunglasses, he crossed the overpass and was met by the two policemen. Despite his protests
he was frisked and was accused of being a holdupper.
o He had a KITCHEN knife he used to cut cords with.

The RTC found Homar guilty of the crime charged. It gave credence to the testimony of Officer Tan for being
direct and straightforward. There also no showing of ill-motive in arresting Homar.

The CA affirmed the RTC decision. It explained that under the rules of court, there was a valid warrantless arrest
of Homar (cuz he was jaywalking), and the consequent frisking and search done on his person which produced
the knife and shabu are allowed under law.

Petitioner now argues that the Shabu is inadmissible.

 He was not committing or attempting to commit a crime when he was accosted by the police.
Therefore, there was an unlawful arrest.
 Even if the arrest was valid, the rule on incidental searches is only allowed for weapons or proof of
the crime. The shabu wasn’t proof of jaywalking!

Issue #1 – W/N wrongful conviction? YES

 Searches incidental to lawful arrests must come after a lawful arrest. The rules of court give us 3 valid
circumstances for when warrantless arrests are valid. In this case, it’s alleged that Homar was arrested
for jaywalking in flagrante delicto.
 Two requisites for In Flagrante Delicto
o Person executes an overt act indicating that he had just committed, is committing, or is
attempting to commit a crime
o Such overt act is done in the presence of or within the view of the arresting officer.
 The lone witness – Officer Tan, was unable to establish the requirements of a valid flagrante delicto
arrest. They failed to prove that petitioner was committing a crime.
o Did not testify where he crossed. Did not establish that this was a non-jaywalking area.
o Homer not charged with jaywalking.
 There also seems to hae been a lack of intention to arrest him for jaywalking. Arrest revers to the
taking of a person into custody in order that he or she may be bound to answer for the commission of
an offense. In this case, Tan testified that they accosted him to the right place for crossing only.

Also, failure to object to the legality of the arrest does not mean he also waived the illegality of the search and
the admissibility of the evidence found during.