View full case

PEOPLE v. NASARIO MOLINA Y MANAMAT

FACTS:

The case involves accused-appellants Nasario Molina and Gregorio Mula who were charged with violation of Section 8 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 for possession of dried marijuana. The police officers received information about a marijuana pusher in Davao City and identified the accused-appellants as the pushers when they passed by on a trisikad. They conducted a search and found a black bag containing dried marijuana leaves, leading to the arrest of accused-appellants. The demurrer to evidence filed by accused-appellants was denied, and they were convicted and sentenced to death. Accused-appellants appealed, arguing the inadmissibility of the marijuana as evidence and the lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt of their guilt. They also argued that the imposable penalty for the offense was life imprisonment, not death. The Supreme Court held that the search conducted was incidental to a lawful arrest, thus considering the seized marijuana as admissible evidence. The Court affirmed the conviction of accused-appellants and ruled that the imposable penalty for the offense was indeed death under Republic Act No. 7659.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the warrantless arrest, search, and seizure in the present case fall within the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement.

  2. Whether the accused-appellants executed an overt act indicating that they have just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime.

  3. Whether the search conducted on the accused-appellants was legal.

RULING:

  1. The warrantless arrest, search, and seizure in the present case do not fall within the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement. In flagrante delicto arrests require personal knowledge or facts and circumstances convincingly indicative of probable cause. Mere reliable information is not sufficient to constitute probable cause for an in flagrante delicto arrest. Overt acts and circumstances must be present to arouse suspicion and indicate probable cause. In this case, the accused were not committing a crime nor were there any outward indications that warranted their arrest. Their behavior did not create any suspicion or trouble. Therefore, the warrantless arrest, search, and seizure were illegal.

  2. The accused-appellants did not execute an overt act indicating that they have just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime. Holding a bag on board a trisikad does not constitute the commission, attempt, or completion of a crime. The response of accused-appellant Molina when asked to open the bag is an equivocal statement that does not establish probable cause for an in flagrante delicto arrest. The informer's surveillance of accused-appellant Mula was also insufficient to establish probable cause, especially considering the limited opportunity to observe him and the lack of recognition by the arresting officer. The arrest of accused-appellants was therefore illegal.

  3. The search conducted on the accused-appellants was also illegal because the arrest itself was illegal. Since the search was not conducted under any of the exceptions allowed by the rules, the evidence seized (marijuana) cannot be admitted against the accused-appellants.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Search incidental to lawful arrest - a valid warrantless search and seizure can be done only after a lawful arrest, which cannot be reversed.

  • Permissible warrantless arrests - a peace officer or private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) when the person has committed, is committing, or is attempting to commit an offense in the presence of the arresting officer; (b) when an offense has just been committed and the arresting officer has probable cause to believe the person arrested has committed it; and (c) when the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or has escaped while being transferred from confinement to another.

  • Probable cause - an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested.

  • Reliable information alone is not enough to constitute probable cause for an in flagrante delicto arrest. Overt acts and circumstances indicating a felonious enterprise must be present.

  • Mere suspicious behavior without any overt acts or circumstances is not enough to warrant an in flagrante delicto arrest.

  • Lack of personal knowledge or overt physical act indicating the commission of a crime renders a warrantless arrest illegal.

  • Behavior and conduct must reasonably elicit suspicion or create probable cause for a warrantless arrest.

  • For 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 or within the view of the arresting officer.

  • Holding a bag on board a trisikad does not constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest.

  • An equivocal statement, standing alone, does not constitute probable cause for an in flagrante delicto arrest.

  • Informer surveillance with limited opportunity to observe and lack of recognition by the arresting officer is insufficient to establish probable cause for an in flagrante delicto arrest.

  • Implied acquiescence to a search, if any, under intimidating or coercive circumstances is not considered valid consent within the purview of the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures.

  • All efforts for the achievement of a drug-free society must not encroach on the fundamental rights and liberties of individuals as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.