View full case

PEOPLE v. GERRJAN MANAGO Y ACUT

FACTS:

Gerrjan Manago was charged with possession of dangerous drugs, specifically 5.85 grams of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu, without being authorized by law. The prosecution presented evidence that on the evening of March 15, 2007, PO3 Antonio Din was waiting for a haircut at a beauty parlor when two individuals declared a hold-up. Shots were exchanged between PO3 Din and the suspects, after which one suspect fled on a motorcycle and the other on a red Toyota Corolla, the plate numbers of which were noted by PO3 Din. The police conducted an investigation and found that the motorcycle was registered in Manago's name while the car was registered in the name of Zest-O Corporation where Manago worked as a District Sales Manager. The police officers then set up a checkpoint and on the evening of March 16, 2007, Manago, driving the red Toyota Corolla, was stopped and searched. The search led to the discovery of a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance believed to be shabu. Manago denied possessing the seized item and claimed that he was unlawfully arrested and interrogated without his rights being respected. Despite his defense, the Regional Trial Court found Manago guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Manago appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the RTC's decision. Manago further appealed to the Supreme Court to challenge his conviction for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the warrantless arrest of the accused was lawful.

  2. Whether or not the items seized during the search incidental to the arrest are admissible as evidence.

  3. Whether or not the warrantless arrest and search of the accused and the vehicle were valid and lawful.

  4. Whether or not the seized shabu is admissible as evidence.

RULING:

  1. The warrantless arrest of the accused was not lawful. The law requires that there first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made. In this case, the warrantless arrest was made under Section 5(b) of Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which requires personal knowledge of the arresting officer that a crime has just been committed and there is probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested committed it. The Supreme Court emphasized that in warrantless arrests made under Section 5(b), the element of personal knowledge must be coupled with the element of immediacy. The determination of probable cause and the gathering of facts or circumstances should be made immediately after the commission of the crime to comply with the element of immediacy. Failure to comply with this element renders the arrest null and void.

  2. Since the warrantless arrest of the accused was unlawful, the items seized during the search incidental to the arrest are deemed tainted and should be excluded as evidence. The exclusionary rule under Section 3(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of unreasonable searches and seizures are inadmissible in any proceeding.

  3. The Supreme Court held that the warrantless arrest and search of the accused and the vehicle were unreasonable and unlawful. Although the police officers had information regarding the getaway vehicles used in the robbery, there was no exigent circumstance that justified setting up a checkpoint and conducting a search without a valid warrant. The checkpoint was specifically arranged for the targeted arrest of the accused and not for the routinary and indiscriminate search of moving vehicles. Thus, the search conducted on the vehicle and on the person of the accused was deemed unlawful.

  4. Since the warrantless search was deemed unlawful, the shabu seized from the accused is inadmissible as evidence. The exclusionary rule under Section 3(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution renders any evidence obtained through an unreasonable search or seizure inadmissible. As the confiscated shabu is the corpus delicti of the crime charged, the accused must be acquitted and exonerated from criminal liability.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A search and seizure must be carried out through or on the strength of a judicial warrant predicated upon the existence of probable cause, absent which such search and seizure becomes "unreasonable" within the meaning of Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.

  • Evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding pursuant to Section 3(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution.

  • Warrantless arrests may be lawfully effected under three instances, including an arrest of a suspect where there is personal knowledge and probable cause to believe that said suspect was the perpetrator of a crime which had just been committed.

  • The warrantless arrest must comply with the element of immediacy, meaning that the determination of probable cause and the gathering of facts or circumstances should be made immediately after the commission of the crime to ensure the limited time frame and the absence of external factors that may contaminate the information gathered.

  • For a warrantless arrest under the "hot pursuit" doctrine to be valid, there must be personal knowledge on the part of the arresting officer and there must be an element of immediacy. The lack of immediacy in this case renders the arrest invalid.

  • A search incidental to a lawful arrest must be conducted after a valid arrest has been made. In this case, the search was conducted before the arrest, violating the requirement.

  • The rules governing searches of moving vehicles without a warrant have been liberalized, but they must still comply with the principles of reasonableness and probable cause. Routine inspections in checkpoints are permissible if they are limited to visual searches and inspections and do not go beyond the scope of a routine check. Extensive searches require reasonable or probable cause.

  • A search conducted without a valid warrant is presumed unreasonable, unless it falls within the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement.

  • The exclusionary rule under Section 3(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution prohibits the admission of any evidence obtained through unreasonable searches or seizures.