SC acquits drug convict due to unlawful arrest

The Supreme Court has reversed due to technicality the conviction of a man in Cebu for possession of illegal drugs. 

Acting on the appeal of Gerrjan Manago, the SC First Division, in an August 17 decision, found his arrest by the police in 2007 "unreasonable and unlawful" because it did not follow the rules on warrantless arrest.

Case records show that in the evening of March 15, 2007, PO3 Antonio Din of the Philippine National Police Mobile Patrol Group personally witnessed a robbery incident while he was waiting for his turn to have a haircut at a salon.

Din had a brief shootout with the armed robbers, who fled using a motorcycle and a red Toyota Corolla.

After an investigation, authorities found out that the armed robbers were staying in Barangay Del Rio Pit-os, Cebu City and traced the getaway vehicles to Manago.

The following day, March 16, 2007, the police set up a checkpoint in Sitio Panagdait where the red Toyota Corolla being driven by Manago passed by and was intercepted by the police officers.

The police then ordered Manago to get off the car, and from there, proceeded to search the vehicle and the body of Manago, which yielded the plastic sachet containing shabu that weighed 0.3852 gram.

Because of this, police arrested Manago and charged him for violation of Republic Act 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Manago was found guilty of violating Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 by the Cebu City Regional Trial Court branch 58 on March 23, 2009.

He was meted the penalty of imprisonment for a period of 12 years and one day as minimum up to 15 years as maximum and to pay a P300,000 fine.

Manago challenged his conviction before the Court of Appeals but this was turned down in 2013. He then went up to the SC.

In its decision, the SC scored the policemen for not securing the necessary arrest warrants to nab the robbery suspects.

The high court noted that the police officers had already conducted a thorough investigation and verification proceedings, which yielded, among others: the identities of the robbery suspects; the place where they reside; and the ownership of the getaway vehicles used in the robbery.

The Court also said there was no longer any reason that would have justified the necessity of setting up a checkpoint for the purpose of searching the getaway vehicle.

This led the SC to conclude that the checkpoint was not meant to conduct a routinary and indiscriminate search of moving vehicles but it was used as bait to capture Manago.

Citing the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures, the high court said "Manago’s warrantless arrest, and the search incidental thereto, including that of his moving vehicle were all unreasonable and unlawful."

"In consequence, the shabu seized from him is rendered inadmissible in evidence pursuant to the exclusionary rule under Section 3 (2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution. Since the confiscated shabu is the very corpus delicti (concrete evidence) of the crime charged, Manago must necessarily be acquitted and exonerated from criminal liability,” stated the decision penned by Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe. 

The Court also said that there are only three instances when warrantless arrests can be made under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

A warrantless arrest is possible if the suspect is caught in the act of committing the crime; an arrest of a suspect where, based on personal knowledge of the arresting officer, there is probable cause that said suspect was the perpetrator of a crime which had just been committed.

It can also be applied to a prisoner who has escaped from custody serving final judgment or temporarily confined during the pendency of his case or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

The Court held that while the element of personal knowledge was present, Manago's arrest failed to meet the requirement of immediacy needed under a hot pursuit operation.

“In view of the finding that there was no lawful arrest in this case, the CA likewise erred in ruling that the incidental search on Manago’s vehicle and body was valid. In fact, the said search was made even before he was arrested and thus, violated the cardinal rule on searches incidental to lawful arrests that there first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made,” the Court said.

The SC said that “routine inspections do not give police officers carte blanche discretion to conduct warrantless searches in the absence of probable cause.” — VVP, GMA News