View full case

PEOPLE v. JACK RACHO Y RAQUERO

FACTS:

On May 19, 2003, a confidential agent of the police transacted through cellular phone with appellant for the purchase of shabu. The agent later reported the transaction to the police authorities who immediately formed a team composed of member of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), the Intelligence group of the Philippine Army and the local police force to apprehend the appellant. On May 20, 2003, appellant called up the agent and informed him that he was on board a Genesis bus and would arrive in Baler, Aurora, anytime of the day wearing a red and white striped T-shirt. The team members then posted themselves along the national highway in Baler, Aurora. At around 3:00 p.m. of the same day, a Genesis bus arrived in Baler. When appellant alighted from the bus, the confidential agent pointed to him as the person he transacted with earlier. As appellant was about to board a tricycle, the team approached him and invited him to the police station on suspicion of carrying shabu. Appellant denied the accusation, but as he pulled out his hands from his pants' pocket, a white envelope slipped therefrom which, when opened, yielded a small sachet containing the suspected drug. The confiscated specimen was turned over to Police Inspector Rogelio Sarenas De Vera who marked it with his initials and with appellant's name. The field test and laboratory examinations on the contents of the confiscated sachet yielded positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Appellant was charged with Violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165 for transporting or delivering; and Violation of Section 11 of the same law for possessing, dangerous drugs. During the arraignment, appellant pleaded "Not Guilty" to both charges. At the trial, appellant denied the charges and claimed that he went to Baler, Aurora to visit his brother. On July 8, 2004, the RTC rendered a Joint Judgment convicting appellant of Violation of Section 5, Article II, R.A. 9165 and sentencing him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00; but acquitted him of the charge of Violation of Section 11, Article II, R.A. 9165. On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision. The present appeal attacks the credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution and the legality of his arrest and the subsequent warrantless search.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the warrantless search and seizure of the appellant is valid as it was conducted incident to a lawful arrest.

  2. Whether the police officers had probable cause to effect a valid warrantless arrest.

  3. Whether the warrantless search conducted by the police officers was valid.

  4. Whether the evidence seized during the illegal warrantless search is admissible.

RULING:

  1. The warrantless search and seizure is valid as it was conducted incident to a lawful arrest since the appellant was caught in flagrante delicto, committing or attempting to commit a crime in the presence of the apprehending officers.

  2. The police officers had probable cause to effect a valid warrantless arrest because they received reliable information that the appellant would arrive in Baler, Aurora carrying shabu, and the appellant performed an overt act of pulling out his hands from his pants' pocket and a white envelope containing a sachet of suspected drugs slipped therefrom.

  3. The warrantless search conducted by the police officers was not valid. The appellant was not committing a crime in the presence of the police officers, nor did the officers have personal knowledge of facts indicating that the appellant had committed, was committing, or about to commit an offense. The appellant was not acting in any suspicious manner that would give the police officers reasonable grounds to suspect him of committing or intending to commit a crime. The information given by the informant was the sole basis for the arrest, which was not enough to establish probable cause.

  4. The evidence seized during the illegal warrantless search is inadmissible. The confiscation of the prohibited substance was the direct result of the illegal search. In accordance with the 1987 Constitution, any evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional rules against unreasonable searches and seizures is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

PRINCIPLES:

  • What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable warrantless search or seizure is determined from the uniqueness of the circumstances involved, including the purpose of the search or seizure, presence or absence of probable cause, manner of search and seizure, place or thing searched, and character of the articles procured.

  • In searches incident to a lawful arrest, the arrest must precede the search, unless there is a probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search.

  • Probable cause signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged.

  • Reliable information alone is not sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest, there must be an overt act indicating that the accused has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.

  • The validity of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused. A waiver of an illegal and warrantless arrest does not waive the inadmissibility of evidence seized during the illegal arrest.

  • Law enforcers should act with deliberate care and within the parameters set by the Constitution and the law. The end does not justify the means, and condoning illegal searches in the name of law enforcement fosters the breakdown of the system of justice and the denigration of society.