People vs. Bati (G.R. No. 87429, August 27, 1990)

Facts: By the word of their civilian informer, Patrolmen Jose Luciano, Angelito Caraan, Nelson Dimatulac and Democrito Cuenca immediately proceeded to the vicinity an alleged buy-and-sell of marijuana was taking place. They saw Marquez giving something to Bati, who, thereafter, handed a wrapped object, which turned out to be marijuana worth P190, to Marquez who then inserted the object inside the front of his pants in front of his abdomen while Bati, on his part, placed the thing given to him inside his pocket. Marquez was arrested on the spot. Both Bati and Marquez were brought to the Police station where they admitted they were in the buying and selling of the confiscated marijuana.

Issue: Appellant contends that the arrest was not valid as the requirements for a warrantless arrest were not complied with.

Held: This contention is without merit.

Section 5 Rule 113 of the Rules in Criminal Procedure clearly provides:

Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant, when lawful. — A peace officer or private person may, without warrant, arrest a person:

(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 in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it x x x

It is the considered view of the Court that there was no need for Luciano and Caraan to be armed with a warrant of arrest when they arrested Marquez and the accused since they had personal knowledge of the actual commission of the crime viz: They were eyewitnesses to the illegal exchange of marijuana and P190.00 between Marquez and accused who were caught in flagrante delicto. The facts and circumstances attendant precisely fall under Sec. 5, (a), Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. The subsequent arrest of Marquez and accused were made under the principle of "hot pursuit". The recovery of the marijuana from Marquez and the P190.00 from accused by the said police officers were not violative of their constitutional rights since Marquez and the accused voluntarily surrendered them to the police officers. But even for the sake of argument that the recovery of the marijuana and peso bills were against the consent of Marquez and accused, still, the search on their persons was incidental to their valid warrantless arrest. For, the rule that searches and seizures must be supported by a valid warrant is not an absolute rule. There are at least three exceptions: (1) search incidental to an arrest, (2) search of a moving vehicle and (3) seizure of evidence in plain view. In the case at bar, the searches made on Marquez and accused were incidental to their valid arrest.

Having caught the appellant in flagrante as a result of the buy-bust operation, the policemen were not only authorized but were also under obligation to apprehend the drug pusher even without a warrant of arrest And since appellant's arrest was lawful, it follows that the search made incidental to the arrest was also valid.

Supreme Court Poetry: The law is severe because those who are caught in the strangle hold of prohibited drugs not only slide into the ranks of the living dead, what is worse, they become a grave menace to the safety of the law-abiding members of society.