G.R. No.

189272 January 21, 2015

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

vs.

Case timeline for better appreciation:

1. Dec. 3, 1998- SPO2 Lazaro
Paglicawan and SPO3 Isagani Yuzon received a radio message from Barangay Captain of Ambil Island,Looc, Oriental Mindoro saying that there is a
suspicious looking boat somewhere w/in the vicinity of the island and they responded by heading towards the location and spotted 2 boats
anchored side by side, one of which resembled a fishing boat and the other, a speedboat.
2. They noticed one (1) person onboard the fishing boat and two (2) onboard the speed boat who were transferring cargo from the former to the
latter. As they
moved closer to the area, the fishing boat hurriedly sped away but due to the strong waves the officers were only able to reach the speedboat, w/c
had some engine problems, and found Respondents with 45 transparent plastic bags(weighing 1kilo each) containing a white, crystalline substance
which they later found out and tested to be methamphetamine hydrochloride (Shabu). In the course of the arrest, the officers asked the
respondents for their identification papers but respondents failed to do so. The officers directed respondents to transfer to their service boat and
thereafter towed respondent’s speed boat to the shore behind the Municipal Hall of Looc, Occidental, Mindoro. Respondents repeatedly offered
them “big, big amount of money” which they ignored.
3. Since the respondents do not know how to speak in English the officers had to get an interpreter to tell them (respondents) of their Miranda
rights.
-An information was filed against the respondents for violation of the Dangerous Drug Act. The respondents plead not guilty.
4. Trial Court found respondents guilty beyond reasonable doubt and the CA affirmed in toto the decision of the Trial Court.
Petitioner/Respondents’ contention:
-They had witnesses which said that the bags of shabu was not recovered from the speed boat but rather from the house of the Barangay captain.
-They allege a violation of their constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. Due to the absence of probable cause, their
warrantless arrest and consequent search and seizure on their persons and possession is unjustified and hence, the
confiscated bags of regulated drugs therefrom are inadmissible against them.

ISSUE: Whether there was a violation of respondents’ constitutionjal right on unreasonable search and if the warrantless arrest and search and
seizure of their persons and possession was unjustified so as to make the confiscated bags inadmissible as evidence against them? NO

RULING:

-In this case, appellants were actually committing a crime and were caught by the apprehending officers in flagrante delicto. As previously stated,
the records reveal that on the date of their arrest, the apprehending officers, while acting upon a report from the Barangay Captain, spotted
appellants transferring cargo from one boat to another. However, one of the boats hastily sped away when they drew closer to the appellants,
naturally arousing the suspicion of the officers. Soon after, the police officers found them with the illegal drugs plainly exposed to the view of the
officers. When they requested appellants to show proper documentation as to their identity as well as their purpose for being there, appellants
refused to show them anything much less respond to any of their questions. In fact, when the officers were transporting appellants and the illegal
drugs to the shore, the appellant Chi Chan Liu even repeatedly offered the arresting officers “big, big amount of money.” Hence, the circumstances
prior to and surrounding the arrest of appellants clearly show that they were arrested when they were actually committing a crime within the view
of the arresting officers, who had reasonable ground to believe that a crime was being committed.
-In addition, this Court does not find the consequent warrantless search and seizure conducted on appellants unreasonable in view of the fact that
the bags containing the regulated drugs were in plain view of the arresting officers, one of the judicially recognized exceptions to the requirement
of obtaining a search warrant.