View full case

PEOPLE v. NAZARENO VILLAREAL Y LUALHATI

FACTS:

Appellant Nazareno Villareal was charged with violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. On December 25, 2006, PO3 Renato de Leon, a member of the SAID-SOU in Caloocan City, observed the appellant holding and inspecting a plastic sachet of shabu from a distance. Recognizing the appellant as someone he had previously arrested for drug possession, PO3 de Leon approached him. The appellant attempted to flee but was apprehended with the assistance of a tricycle driver. PO3 de Leon confiscated the plastic sachet of shabu and took the appellant to the 9th Avenue Police Station, where the seized item was marked and the appellant's handcuffs were fixed. PO2 Randulfo Hipolito assumed custody of the appellant and prepared an acknowledgment receipt and a letter request for laboratory examination. The plastic sachet, containing 0.03 grams of a white crystalline substance, tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. The appellant denied the accusations, claiming that he was walking alone when PO3 de Leon frisked him and took his wallet. He alleged that he was subsequently detained, assaulted, and interrogated about a stolen cellphone by two other police officers. The Regional Trial Court convicted the appellant based on the credible statements of PO3 de Leon and the application of the plain view doctrine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, concluding that there was a legal warrantless arrest and an unbroken chain of custody for the seized evidence. The central issue in this case is whether the conviction affirmed by the Court of Appeals was erroneous.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether there was a lawful warrantless arrest.

  2. Whether the officer had personal knowledge of the commission of a crime.

  3. Whether the warrantless arrest of the appellant was valid based on personal knowledge of the arresting officer and the appellant's previous criminal record

  4. Whether the appellant's act of running away can be used as evidence of guilt

RULING:

  1. The Court held that there was no lawful warrantless arrest in this case. The officer's testimony that he saw the appellant examining a small amount of a powdery substance from a distance of about 8 to 10 meters, while simultaneously driving a motorcycle, was deemed inconceivable and insufficient to establish a reasonable basis for a lawful arrest. The acts of walking along the street and examining something in one's hands cannot be considered criminal acts. Furthermore, there was no personal knowledge on the part of the officer that a crime had been committed by the appellant. Therefore, the arrest was not justified under the provisions of Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.

  2. The Court held that personal knowledge of the arresting officer that a crime has just been committed is required for a lawful warrantless arrest. Interpreting "personal knowledge" to include a person's reputation or past criminal citations would stretch the authority of police officers to effect warrantless arrests based solely on knowledge of a person's previous criminal infractions. Therefore, the CA erred in ruling on the validity of the appellant's arrest based on personal knowledge of his past criminal record.

  3. The Court stated that flight per se is not synonymous with guilt and cannot always be attributed to consciousness of guilt. It is not a reliable indicator of guilt without other circumstances. The appellant's attempt to run away from the arresting officer could have various innocent explanations and does not automatically incite suspicion of criminal activity.

PRINCIPLES:

  • For a warrantless arrest under paragraph (a) of Section 5 to be lawful, two elements 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.

  • For a warrantless arrest under paragraph (b) of Section 5 to be lawful, it is required that at the time of the arrest, an offense had in fact just been committed and the arresting officer had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the appellant had committed it.

  • The officer's personal knowledge of the fact of the commission of an offense is absolutely required for both paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 5.

  • The acts of walking along the street and examining something in one's hands cannot in any way be considered criminal acts.

  • Reasonable suspicion or belief of the officer is not sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest unless a crime has in fact been committed first.

  • A previous arrest or existing criminal record, even for the same offense, does not suffice to justify a lawful warrantless arrest. "Personal knowledge" of the arresting officer that a crime has just been committed is required.

  • Flight per se is not indicative of guilt and must not always be attributed to consciousness of guilt. It is not a reliable indicator of guilt without other circumstances.

  • Probable cause for a warrantless arrest refers to a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to warrant a cautious person's belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense charged.

  • The right of a person to be secure against any unreasonable seizure of his body and deprivation of his liberty is a fundamental right. Exceptions to the requirement of warrants of arrest are strictly construed and cannot be liberally extended.

  • Evidence seized during an unlawful warrantless arrest is inadmissible as the fruit of the poisonous tree.