ONGCOMA HADJI HOMAR vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES J. Brion September 2, 2015
G.R. No. 182534
Doctrine
1. The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Any evidence obtained in violation of these rights shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. While the power to search and seize may at times be necessary to the public welfare, the exercise of this power and the implementation of the law should not violate the constitutional rights of the citizens. To determine the admissibility of the seized drugs in evidence, it is indispensable to ascertain whether or not the search which yielded the alleged contraband was lawful. 2. Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he or she may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense. It is effected by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested or by that person's voluntary submission to the custody of the one making the arrest. Neither the application of actual force, manual touching of the body, or physical restraint, nor a formal declaration of arrest, is required. It is enough that there be an intention on the part of one of the parties to arrest the other, and that there be an intent on the part of the other to submit, under the belief and impression that submission is necessary.
Facts
●
● ●
● ●
● ●
●
Ratio/Iss ues
Prosecution’s version: PO1 Tan and CA (civilian agent) Tangcoy were ordered by their superior to man the South Wing of Roxas Boulevard one August evening in 2002 when they saw Homar jaywalking. He was immediately accosted and was told to use the pedestrian crossing. Homar picked up something from the ground prompting Tan and Tangcoy to frisk him. They found a knife and soon enough, a plastic sachet which they suspected contained shabu. Homar’s version: He claimed he was on his way home that night from selling imitation sunglasses when the police stopped and frisked him despite his refusal and accusing him of being a “holdupper.” They allegedly forced him to go with them, confiscated his kitchen knife (to cut cords) and investigated for alleged possession of shabu. RTC: Convicted Homar due to presumption of regularity in the arrest and straightforward testimony of the arresting officers. 1 CA: Affirmed the RTC based on Rule 113, Section 5 (a) which enumerates the instances when warrantless arrest is permitted. Homar committed jaywalking in the presence of Tan/Tangcoy so the arrest was valid. 2 The subsequent frisking and search were incident to a lawful arrest under Rule 126, Section 13 . Likewise, he was caught in flagrante delicto in possession of shabu. Homar’s arguments: Shabu is inadmissible because the arrest was unlawful. He was not committing any crime and no criminal charges were filed against him. Also, Section 13 only contemplates those “which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense.” The sachet of shabu had nothing to do with jaywalking. Respondent’s position: Non-filing of a criminal charge does not render the arrest invalid. Besides, he can no longer question his arrest since he already submitted to the jurisdiction of the court.
W/N the prosecution was able to prove a lawful warrantless arrest precede the search on Homar’s person (NO) – 1, 2. (1) Police alleged that Homar committed jaywalking in flagrante delicto and in their presence. The prosecution has to prove the legality of the warrantless arrest, otherwise, the corpus delicti (in this case, the shabu) will be in admissible. (2) To constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, two requisites must concur: (1) 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 (2) such overt act is done in the presence of or within the view of the arresting officer.
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; Section 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. — 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. (12a) 1 2
(3) The prosecution was not able to discharge this burden, particularly that Homar was actually committing a crime. They did not identify the place where Homar allegedly crossed and that it was illegal to cross that area. He was also not charged with jaywalking. (4) NOTE: The filing of a criminal charge is not required to prove a valid warrantless arrest because the prosecution still has to prove the legality of the warrantless arrest. (5) Presumption of regularity: This cannot overcome the presumption of innocence or proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The accused still enjoys this constitutional right until proven otherwise by the prosecution. (6) Accost vs. Arrest: The police testified that they “accosted” Homar when he jaywalked. However, this is different from an actual arrest as contemplated by the Rules on warrantless arrests. See Doctrine 3. (7) No arrest preceded the search because they did not intend to bring him under custody or restrain his liberty. The lack of intent was further proven by the absence of criminal charges against him. Intent only came after they allegedly confiscated the shabu. The shabu was not recovered immediately after the alleged lawful arrest but only after the initial search. (8) Intent to arrest is indispensable because otherwise, any evidence obtained in violation thereof will be inadmissible (Luz v People). W/N Homar had waived the inadmissibility of the evidence seized when he submitted to the court’s jurisdiction (NO) (1) Despite having actively participated in all the proceedings, this waiver does not automatically carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of the evidence seized. (2) The shabu as evidence is inadmissible and precludes conviction. Held
Petitioner ACQUITTED.
