ABRAHAM MICLAT JR. v.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

656 SCRA 539 | August 31, 2011
Peralta, J.

Doctrines:
1. An accused is estopped from assailing any irregularity of his arrest if he fails to raise
this issue or to move for the quashal of the information against him on this ground
before arraignment.
2. Under the plain view doctrine, the law enforcement officer must lawfully make an
initial intrusion and the object which may incriminate the accused must be open to
eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent.

FACTS
Petitioner in the case assails the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the
decision of the RTC convicting petitioner of violation of Section 11, Art. II of the Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002. It is alleged that petitioner have in his possession, custody and control shabu weighing
0.24 gram in violation of the said law. According to the prosecution, P/Insp Jose Valencua received
an INFOREP Memo from Camp Crame pertaining to the illicit and down-right drug-trading
activities being undertaken along Caloocan involving petitioner and one Mic or Jojo. Pursuant to
said report, a surveillance team was formed and proceeded to the target area to verify with their
informant to verify said report. When they reached the area, the informant pointed out to a certain
house and PO3 Antonio positioned himself at the perimeter of the house, peeped inside the house
thru a small opening in the curtain covered window and saw petitioner arranging several pieces of
small plastic sachets of which he believed was shabu. PO3 Antonio then went inside the house and
when he introduced himself to the petitioner, the same voluntarily surrendered the sachets.
The petitioner belies all these assertions and contends that he was watching television with
his sister and father when they suddenly heard a commotion prompting them to go down. Several
individuals in civilian clothes introduced themselves as raiding police and expressed their purpose
of arresting the petitioner. When he and his father tried to plead his case, the police kicked him at
the back and they were handcuffed and brought to the police station. In there, PO3 Pagsolingan
showed petitioner a small piece of plastic sachet containing shabu which was allegedly recovered
from their house. Petitioner was later detained.
The RTC convicted the petitioner of the crime charged. Petitioner then sought recourse
before the CA who then issued the assailed decision which affirmed the decision of the RTC. The
CA also held that all the evidence presented by the prosecution were admissible against the
petitioner and that it is undisputed that he was informed of his constitutional rights when he was
arrested. Aggrieved, petitioner filed the present appeal in this court questioning the legality of the
arrest and seizure of the suspected drug sachets.

ISSUES AND HOLDING

1. W/N the petitioner can question the legality of the arrest and the seizure? – NO.
It is a well-settled rule that an accused is stopped from assailing any irregularity of
his arrest if he fails to raise this issue or to move for the quashal of the information against
him on this ground before arraignment. Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the
procedure by which the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be
made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. In the present

SERAPIO C2021 | 1
 case, the petitioner raised no objection to the irregularity of his arrest before his
arraignment and actively participated in the trial hence, he is now estopped from invoking
such irregularities.

2. W/N the arrest was lawful? -YES.

Even assuming arguendo that the petitioner is not estopped from questioning the
legality of his arrest and the seizure made, the same must still fail for lack of merit.
Petitioner contends that being seen in the act of arranging several plastic sachets inside
their house by one of the arresting officers who was peeping through a window is not
sufficient reason for the police authorities to enter his house without a valid search warrant
and/or warrant of arrest. Moreover, peeping through a curtain-covered window cannot be
contemplated as within the meaning of the plain view doctrine, rendering the warrantless
arrest unlawful.
However, one of the recognized exceptions in the need of warrant of arrests is when
an accused was caught in flagrante delicto which contemplates a situation in which the
person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and such overt act is done in the
presence or within the view of the arresting officer.
In the present case, the petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto by the agents of
the Station Drug Enforcement Unit of Caloocan Police during its surveillance operation.
PO3 Antonio, through petitioner’s window saw him arranging the sachets with suspected
shabu and clearly was exposed in his plain view. After this, he entered the house of the
petitioner, introduced himself to which petitioner voluntarily surrendered the four sachets.
It is also said that PO3 Antonio informed petitioner of his constitutional rights. By virtue
of such circumstances prior to and surrounding the arrest of the arrest of the petitioner, it
is clear that he was arrested in flagrante delicto as he was committing a violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Act, within the view of the arresting officer.

3. W/N the seized drugs are admissible as evidence against petitioner? – YES.
The same can be said for the admissibility of the seized drugs. In the case at bar,
petitioner was caught arranging the plastic sachets in plain view of PO3 Antonio and he
also voluntarily surrendered the same to the latter when PO3 Antonio introduced himself
and his authority. The seizure made was not only incidental to a lawful arrest but also falls
under the purview of plain view doctrine. Under the plain view doctrine, the following
elements must be present: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a
prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular
area; (b) the discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately
apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or
otherwise subject to seizure. All the elements are present in this case, hence the seized
drugs are admissible as evidence against the petitioner.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated October 13,
2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 28846 is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION. Petitioner is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate sentence of twelve (12)
years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months.

SERAPIO C2021 | 2