PEOPLE V. AMINUDDIN G.R.No. 74869 July 6, 1988
FACTS:
l Idel Aminnudin was arrested on June 25, 1984, shortly after disembarking from the M/V Wilcon 9 at about 8:30 in the evening, in Iloilo City.
l The PC officers who were in fact waiting for him simply accosted him, inspected his bag and finding what looked liked marijuana leaves took him to their headquarters for investigation.
l Later on, the information was amended to include Farida Ali y Hassen and both were charged for Illegal Transportation of Prohibited Drugs.
l The fiscal absolved Ali after a thorough investigation.
l Then trial proceeded only against the accused-appellant, who was eventually convicted.
l The his defense,
u Aminnudin disclaimed the marijuana, averring that all he had in his bag was his clothing consisting of a jacket, two shirts and two pairs of pants.
u He alleged that he was arbitrarily arrested and immediately handcuffed. His bag was confiscated without a search warrant.
u At the PC headquarters, he was manhandled to force him to admit he was carrying the marijuana, the investigator hitting him with a piece of wood in the chest and arms even as he parried the blows while he was still handcuffed.
u He insisted he did not even know what marijuana looked like and that his business was selling watches and sometimes cigarettes.
u He also argued that the marijuana he was alleged to have been carrying was not properly Identified and could have been any of several bundles kept in the stock room of the PC headquarters.
l The trial court was unconvinced, noting from its own examination of the accused that he claimed to have come to Iloilo City to sell watches but carried only two watches at the time, traveling from Jolo for that purpose and spending P107.00 for fare, not to mention his other expenses.
l Aminnudin testified that he kept the two watches in a secret pocket below his belt but, strangely, they were not discovered when he was bodily searched by the arresting officers nor were they damaged as a result of his manhandling.
l He also said he sold one of the watches for P400.00 and gave away the other, although the watches belonged not to him but to his cousin, to a friend whose full name he said did not even know.
l The trial court also rejected his allegations of maltreatment, observing that he had not sufficiently proved the injuries sustained by him.
l On appeal, the Court finds it necessary to answer the legality of his arrest without warrant.
ISSUE:
WON The warrantless arrest is valid
HELD:
NO. Aminuddin was arrested illegally.
The mandate of the Constitution is clear that a valid search or arrest warrant shall be served first before the authorities can check his personal properties or deprived him of his liberty.
In the case at bar, there was no warrant of arrest or search warrant issued by a judge after a personal determination by him of the existence of probable cause. Contrary to the averments of the government, the accused-appellant was not caught in flagrante nor was a crime about to be committed or had just been committed to justify the warrantless arrest allowed under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.
However, the present case presented no such urgency unlike the case of Roldan v. Arca.
Based on the conflicting declarations of the PC witnesses, it is clear that they had at least two days within which they could have obtained a warrant to arrest and search Aminnudin who was coming to Iloilo on the M/V Wilcon 9. His name was known. The vehicle was Identified. The date of its arrival was certain. And from the information they had received, they could have persuaded a judge that there was probable cause, indeed, to justify the issuance of a warrant. Yet they did nothing. No effort was made to comply with the law. The Bill of Rights was ignored altogether because the PC lieutenant who was the head of the arresting team, had determined on his own authority that a "search warrant was not necessary."
In the many cases where this Court has sustained the warrantless arrest of violators of the Dangerous Drugs Act, it has always been shown that they were caught red-handed, as a result of what are popularly called "buy-bust" operations of the narcotics agents. Rule 113 was clearly applicable because at the precise time of arrest the accused was in the act of selling the prohibited drug.
In the case at bar, the accused-appellant was not, at the moment of his arrest, committing a crime nor was it shown that he was about to do so or that he had just done so. What he was doing was descending the gangplank of the M/V Wilcon 9 and there was no outward indication that called for his arrest. To all appearances, he was like any of the other passengers innocently disembarking from the vessel. It was only when the informer pointed to him as the carrier of the marijuana that he suddenly became suspect and so subject to apprehension. It was the furtive finger that triggered his arrest. The Identification by the informer was the probable cause as determined by the officers (and not a judge) that authorized them to pounce upon Aminnudin and immediately arrest him.
As to the Court’s exclusion of the illegally seized marijuana as evidence against the accused-appellant, his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and he must, therefore, be discharged on the presumption that he is innocent.
Hence, accused-appellant is acquitted.