Exceptions – S top top and and Frisk COMERCIANTE COMERCIANTE V. PEOPLE | GR NO. 205926 PERLAS-BERNABE, J. An information was filed with the RTC of Mandaluyong, Branch 213, against Alvin Comerciante ("Comerciante"). ("Comerciante"). He was found to have in possession two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with shabu which the police acquired after he was frisked after the police spotted him (from a distance of ten [10] meters) standing and showing "improper and unpleasant movements" together with Erick Dasilla ("Dasilla"), with one of them passing a plastic sachet to the other. The RTC convicted him of the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs. Accordingly, Comerciante appealed with the Court of Appeals but the CA merely re-affirmed the decision of the RTC. On appeal with the Supreme Court, it was held that the search conducted on Comerciante was illegal as "improper and unpleasant movements" cannot be considered as probable cause, hence, the warrantless arrest was unlawful. Considering the foregoing, the evidence acquired from such search is inadmissible (Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine). Hence, the SC acquitted Comerciante and exonerated him from all criminal liability.
DOCTRINE Exclusionary Rule To protect protect people people from unreasonable unreasonable searches and seizures, seizures, Section 3(2), Article III of the Constitution provides an exclusionary rule which instructs that evidence obtained and confiscated during unreasonable searches and seizures are deemed tainted and should be excluded for being the fruit of a poisonous tree. Such pieces of evidence are therefore inadmissible. The law requires that there first be a lawful lawful arrest before a search can be made and this process cannot be done in the reverse. While the stop and frisk is an instance wherein a warrantless is allowed, the same cannot be done without probable cause based on the circumstances. For a warrantless arrest to operate the the following following elements elements must be met: o Person arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just has just committed, is is actually committing committing or is attempting to commit a crime; and o Such act is done in the presence or or within the view of the
arresting officer (there is personal knowledge on the part of the officer). IMPORTANT PEOPLE Alvin Comerciante Comerciante (accused) [Commerciante] [Commerciante] Erick Dasilla (person Comerciante was standing with, was eventually acquitted before Comerciante) [Dasilla] Agent Eduardo Radan (Agent of NARCOTICS NARCOTICS Group) [Agent Radan] Radan] PO3 Bienvy Calag II (arresting officer) [PO3 Calag] FACTS 1. 30 July 2003 – Agent Radan and PO3 Calag were on a motorcycle patrolling the area on their way to visit their friend. a. On the the way way to visit their friend b. Cruising at a speed of 30 KM/HR along Private Rode, Mandaluyong c. Spotted at a distance of ten (10) (10) meters, two two (2) men in front of of a jeepney d. Men were were identified identified as: Comerciante and Dasilla Dasilla i. Men were standing and showing "improper and unpleasant movements" ii. One of them them was handing handing plastic sachets to the the other e. At five (5) meters, PO3 PO3 Calag introduced himself as a police officer and arrested the two men, confiscating two small plastic sachets containing shabu. 2. After the prosecution prosecution rested its case, Dasilla filed filed a demurrer to evidence subsequently granted by the RTC, which resulted to Dasilla's acquittal. 3. Comerciante failed to file his own demurrer demurrer and the RTC RTC considered considered this as him waiving his right to do so and ordered him to present his evidence 4. Comerciante averred, in his his defense, defense, that: a. PO3 Calag Calag was looking for "Barok" a notorious drug drug pusher. b. That after being being arrested, they were asked asked money in exchange for their release. c. When they failed to meet the demand, they were brought brought to another police station and underwent inquest proceedings. 5. The RTC ruled on 29 July 2009 that Comerciante Comerciante was guilty guilty of violating Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 a. RTC ruled that that PO3 Calag conducted a valid valid warrantless search since the officer saw Comerciante in plain view carrying the sachets. b. Sentenced to twelve (12) years years and one (1) day to twenty twenty (20)
1
years c. Ordered to pay the fine of Php 300,000. 6. Comerciante appealed to the CA but the CA affirmed his conviction on 20 October 2011. 7. With the denial of his Motion for Reconsideration, Comerciante filed a Rule 45 petition with the Supreme Court.
ISSUE with HOLDING 1. Whether or not the CA correctily affirmed Comerciante's conviction. – No. The evidence against Comerciante is inadmissible as it was procured through an unlawful search (fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine). The same should result in his acquittal. a. The OSG's argument, on behalf of the People of the Philippines, was that the warrantless arrest was valid pursuant to the stop and frisk rule, and hence Comerciante's conviction should be upheld. b. However, the SC held that: i. There was no lawful arrest. ii. Because it is highly implausible that PO3 Calag, even assuming that he has perfect vision, would be able to identify from 10 meters, while moving at a speed of 30 km/hr on the motorcycle, miniscule amounts of shabu inside two (2) very small plastic sachets as held by Comerciante. iii. There is no overt act that could be properly attributed to Comerciante as to rouse suspicion in the mind of PO3 Calag that the former had just committed, was currently committing, or was about to commit a crime. iv. The acts of standing around with a companion handing over something cannot be considered as a criminal act. c. Hence, there being no lawful arrest, the evidence procured is inadmissible, being a fruit of the poisonous tree.
release, unless he is being lawfully held for any other reason. SO ORDERED. OTHER NOTES Evidence obtained through unlawful seizures should be excluded as evidence because it is "the only practical means of enforcing the constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures." ( People v. Cogaed, 731 SCRA 427 [2014]).
DIGESTER: Kim
DISPOSITIVE PORTION WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Decision dated October 20, 2011 and the Resolution dated February 29, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CR No. 32813 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, petitioner Alvin Comerciante y. Gonzales is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause his immediate
2