FACTS:

The case involves the appeal of Ramon Martinez from his conviction for possession of dangerous drugs under Republic Act No. 9165. On December 29, 2007, police officers conducted a routine foot patrol at Balingkit Street, Malate, Manila when they heard Ramon shouting profanities. They apprehended him for violating a city ordinance and asked him to empty his pockets. The police officers found a small plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu. Ramon was brought to the police station and the specimen was sent for laboratory examination, which confirmed it to be shabu. Ramon denied the charge and claimed that he was arrested without cause and was being extorted by the police officers. The RTC convicted him, which was affirmed by the CA. The issue is whether the CA erred in affirming Ramon's conviction.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the warrantless arrest of the accused was valid.

2. Whether the subsequent search conducted after the arrest was valid.

3. Whether or not the warrantless arrest of the petitioner was valid.

4. Whether or not the warrantless search and seizure of the subject shabu was legal.

RULING:

1. The warrantless arrest of the accused was valid. The arrest was carried out under the parameters of Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, which requires that the apprehending officer must have been spurred by probable cause to arrest a person caught in flagrante delicto.

2. The subsequent search conducted after the arrest was valid. The search was incidental to a lawful arrest and falls under one of the exceptions to the exclusionary rule.

3. The warrantless arrest of the petitioner was not valid. The court found that there was no probable cause to justify the warrantless arrest of the petitioner. It was concluded that the act of shouting in a thickly-populated place, with many people conversing with each other on the street, does not constitute any of the acts punishable under Section 844 of the Manila City Ordinance. The petitioner was not engaged in any activity that would disturb the peace or excite a riot. Moreover, no one present at the place of arrest complained that the petitioner's shouting disturbed the public. Therefore, no probable cause existed for the warrantless arrest.

4. The warrantless search and seizure of the subject shabu was illegal. Since the warrantless arrest was found to be invalid, the subsequent search was also unlawful. The shabu purportedly seized from the petitioner is considered the fruit of the poisonous tree and, therefore, inadmissible in evidence. As the confiscated shabu is the very corpus delicti of the crime charged, the petitioner is acquitted based on this ground.

PRINCIPLES:

• The exclusionary rule, which prohibits the admission of evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution, is not an absolute rule but has exceptions, such as searches incidental to a lawful arrest.

• A valid warrantless arrest justifies a subsequent search if it is carried out under the parameters of Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, which requires probable cause. Probable cause refers to facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested.

• Probable cause is necessary to justify a warrantless arrest. The determination of probable cause should be performed wisely and cautiously, applying the exacting standards of a reasonably discreet and prudent person. Law enforcers should conduct a circumspect assessment of the situation before effecting a warrantless arrest.

• A warrantless search and seizure is generally considered illegal, unless it falls under any of the recognized exceptions to the rule. A warrantless search conducted as an incident to a lawful arrest is one such exception. However, if the arrest itself is found to be illegal, the subsequent search is also considered unlawful. The fruits of a poisonous tree, such as the seized items, are inadmissible in evidence.