CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | PEOPLE V. GARDON-MITOY, G.R. NO. 223140, 4 SEPTEMBER 2019
PEOPLE V. GARDON-MITOY,
G.R. NO. 223140, 4 SEPTEMBER 2019
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
A lawful
arrest must precede a warrantless search conducted upon the personal effects of
an individual. The process cannot be reversed. Hence, the search must rest on
probable cause existing independently of the arrest.
FACTS
Based on the alleged
tip from the unidentified informant to the effect that the accused-appellant
would be transporting dangerous drugs onboard a Charing 19 shuttle van with
plate number VRA 698, the police officers had set up a checkpoint on the
National Highway in Barangay Malatgao in Narra, Palawan.
There, PO1 Abdulito Rosales later flagged down the approaching shuttle van. The
officers at the checkpoint introduced themselves as policemen. But even at that
time, none of the officers knew who would be transporting dangerous drugs to.
They were only told that the suspect was a person named Rose, but they had no
independent knowledge of who she was other than her name being Rose. Upon the
driver opening the door of the vehicle, PO1 Rosales nonetheless singled her out
by immediately asking who of the passengers was Rose. The
accused-appellant naturally answered the query by identifying herself as Rose without
hesitation. The police officers also did not yet know how or where Rose was
transporting the dangerous drugs. So, PO1 Rosales immediately inquired about
her baggage, and, in response, she requested the driver to hand her the pink
bag resting at the rear portion of the van.
Meanwhile, SPO2
Renato Felizarte and PO1 Rosales noticed that the accused-appellant transferred
a block-shaped bundle wrapped in yellow cellophane and brown tape from the pink
bag to a black one, and then placed the black bag on a vacant seat beside her.
At what precise moment this took place was not indicated in the records, but
the officers’ mere say-so was entirely subjective on their part. Without
objective facts being presented here by which we can test the basis for the
officers’ suspicion about the block-shaped bundle contained marijuana,
we should not give unquestioned acceptance and belief to such testimony. The
mere subjective conclusions of the officers concerning the existence of
probable cause is never binding on the court whose duty remains to
“independently scrutinize the objective facts to determine the existence
of probable cause,” for, indeed, “the
courts have never hesitated to overrule an officer’s determination of
probable cause when none exists.”
But SPO2 Felizarte
also claimed that it was about then when the accused-appellant panicked and
tried to get down from the van, impelling him and PO1 Rosales to restrain her.
Did such conduct on her part, assuming it did occur, give sufficient cause to
search and to arrest?
ISSUE
In this
appeal, the accused-appellant insists on the illegality of her warrantless
arrest. She asserts that the marijuana leaves supposedly taken from her bag were inadmissible in
evidence pursuant to the exclusionary rule; and that the apprehending officers
did not comply with the procedure laid out in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
RULING
NO.
The court ruled that the arrest of the accused-appellant did not justify the
search of the personal belongings because the arrest did not precede the
search. Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, clearly states that “[a] person lawfully
arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been
used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search
warrant.” Accordingly, there should first be a lawful arrest before the
warrantless search can be made; the process cannot be reversed. As such, the
search made against the accused-appellant would be valid only if sufficient
probable cause to support it existed independently of the arrest.
