Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
APR
[SERENO, J.] At the time that he was waiting for PO3 Alteza to write his
citation ticket, petitioner could not be said to have been
under arrest. There was no intention on the part of PO3
Alteza to arrest him, deprive him of his liberty, or take him
FACTS: PO3 Alteza flagged down Rodel Luz for violating a into custody. Prior to the issuance of the ticket, the period
municipal ordinance which requires all motorcycle drivers to during which petitioner was at the police station may be
wear helmets while driving their motorcyles. PO3 Alteza characterized merely as waiting time. In fact, as found by the
invited the Luz to come inside their sub-station since the trial court, PO3 Alteza himself testified that the only reason
place where he flagged down the Luz is almost in front of the they went to the police sub-station was that petitioner had
said sub-station. While issuing a citation ticket for violation of been flagged down almost in front of that place. Hence, it
municipal ordinance, PO3 Alteza noticed that Luz was was only for the sake of convenience that they were waiting
uneasy and kept on getting something from his jacket. there. There was no intention to take petitioner into custody.
Alerted and so, he told the Luz to take out the contents of the
pocket of his jacket as the latter may have a weapon inside it.
Luzo bliged and slowly put out the contents of the pocket of
his jacket which was a nickel-like tin or metal container about This ruling does not imply that there can be no arrest for a
two (2) to three (3) inches in size, including two (2) traffic violation. Certainly, when there is an intent on the part
cellphones, one (1) pair of scissors and one (1) Swiss knife. of the police officer to deprive the motorist of liberty, or to
Upon seeing the said container, he asked Luz to open it. take the latter into custody, the former may be deemed to
After Luz opened the container, PO3 Alteza noticed a have arrested the motorist. In this case, however, the officers
cartoon cover and something beneath it, and that upon his issuance (or intent to issue) a traffic citation ticket negates
instruction, the former spilled out the contents of the the possibility of an arrest for the same violation.
container on the table which turned out to be four (4) plastic
sachets, the two (2) of which were empty while the other two
(2) contained suspected shabu. Luz was later charged for
illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Luz claims that there
was no lawful search and seizure because there was no
lawful arrest. The RTC found that Luz was lawfully arrested.
Upon review, the CA affirmed the RTCs Decision.
ISSUE #2: Assuming that Luz was deemed arrested, was
there a valid warrantless search and seizure that can still
produce conviction?
HELD #1: NO, Luz was not lawfully arrested. When he was
flagged down for committing a traffic violation, he was not, This Court has held that at the time a person is arrested, it
ipso facto and solely for this reason, arrested. shall be the duty of the arresting officer to inform the latter of
the reason for the arrest and must show that person the
warrant of arrest, if any. Persons shall be informed of their
constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel, and that
Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he any statement they might make could be used against them.
or she may be bound to answer for the commission of an It may also be noted that in this case, these constitutional
offense. It is effected by an actual restraint of the person to requirements were complied with by the police officers only
be arrested or by that persons voluntary submission to the after petitioner had been arrested for illegal possession of
custody of the one making the arrest. Neither the application dangerous drugs.
of actual force, manual touching of the body, or physical
restraint, nor a formal declaration of arrest, is required. It is
[T]here being no valid arrest, the warrantless search that
resulted from it was likewise illegal. The subject items seized
during the illegal arrest are inadmissible. The drugs are the RATIO:
very corpus delicti of the crime of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs. Thus, their inadmissibility precludes
conviction and calls for the acquittal of the accused
1. The petition was erroneously filed under Rule 65 when it
Filoteo vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 79543, October 16, should be filed under Rule 45. In any case, the Court
1996 brushed aside this procedural defect because of the
important issues the petition raised.
SEPTEMBER 16, 2018
FACTS:
The Supreme Court may dismiss the petition by treating it as
having been erroneously filed under Rule 65 when the
proper remedy is Rule 45.
Petitioner was charged with hijacking a Delivery Truck of the
Bureau of Post along MacArthur Highway in Meycauayan,
Bulacan, together with ten others, in that on May 3, 1982, the
accused, two of whom were armed with guns, stopped the The petition submitted alternatively under either rule 45 or
Delivery Truck at gunpoint, and then robbed and carried rule 65 gave the Supreme Court the prerogative to decide
away the truck with them, including Social Security System how to treat said petition, and may dismiss the petition on
Medicare Checks and Vouchers, Social Security System the grounds that it is unqualified for the rule that the court
Pension Checks and Vouchers Treasury Warrants, and decided the petition falls under. The petition was considered
several Mail Matters from abroad worth P253,728.29 as one for review on certiorari under Rule 45 as in Jariol, Jr.
belonging to US Government Pensionados, SSS vs. Sandiganbayan, because under P.D. No. 1486, amended
Pensionados, SSS Medicare Beneficiaries and Private by P.D. No. 1606, which created the Sandiganbayan,
Individuals. specified that decisions and final orders of the
Sandiganbayan shall be subject to review on certiorari by the
Supreme Court, ruling out a petition for certiorari under Rule
65 because certiorari may be invoked only where there is no
Based on a signed confession, the Sandiganbayan, on June other plain, speedy or adequate remedy.
18, 1987, convicted petitioner and his cohorts as co-
principals for the violation of Section 2 (e), in relation to
Section 3 (b) of Presidential Decree No. 532, or Anti-Piracy
and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974. This petition could have been dismissed on these grounds
but due to the importance of the issues raised, the Court
assumed jurisdiction.
ISSUES/HELD: