People of the Philippines v.

Villareal
693 SCRA 549 (2013)

Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines

Accused-Appellant: Nazareno Villareal y Lualhati

Facts:
In the morning of December 25, 2006, Police officer Renato de Leon was driving his motorcycle. From a
distance of 8 to 10 meters he saw the appellant Villareal, holding a plastic sachet of shabu. When
Villareal saw him, he immediately ran away. When de Leon caught Villareal, he was brought to the police
station where he was arrested and the alleged shabu was turned over to be marked as evidence. The
substance was tested and was proven to be a 0.03 gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug. The appellant was charged with the violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 for
illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

During the trial de Leon claimed that the appellant had previous criminal charges for the same offense
and that he arrested the appellant because when he saw that the appellant was holding a powdery white
substance, it immediately gave him suspicion as to the matter thereof.

Issue: Whether or not there was a valid warrantless arrest based on the police officer’s personal
knowledge of the criminal record of the appellant.

Held: No, there was no valid warrantless arrest. A lawful warrantless arrest exists when either of the
following circumstances are present: (a) when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing or is attempting to commit an offense, (b) when an offense has just been committed
and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that he
person to be arrested has committed it, and (c) when the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is service final judgment or is temporarily confined
while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. Based
on the distance and the amount of the powdery substance it is insufficient to conclude, even with clear
vision that such substance constitutes as shabu. The act of the appellant of examining the substance is not
tantamount to arouse suspicion of a commission or possible commission of a crime even
if he has previous criminal history on the same offense.

Personal knowledge is not defined as knowledge of a person’s criminal record, but personal knowledge as
to the actual commission of the crime. The act of running away from authority also does not automatically
imply guilt on the accused. There are various reasons to run away from authority, and commission of a
crime is just one of the possible reasons. Because there is an absence of overt act there is no justification
for the appellant’s warrantless arrest. Hence, it cannot be presented as evidence in court as it is a fruit of
the poisonous tree.