PEOPLE V. SUCRO G.R. No. 93239 March 18, 1991
FACTS:
l Roy Fulgencio, a member of the INP, Kalibo, Aklan, was instructed by their Station Commander to monitor the activities of appellant Edison Sucro, because of information gathered by Seraspi that Sucro was selling marijuana
l As planned Roy Fulgencio monitored the activities of the accused under the house of Regalado and near the chapel where the accused was selling marijuana to a group of persons around 5 pm.
l Pat reported this to their station commander and instructed him to continue his monitoring.
l At about 6:30 P.M., Pat. Fulgencio again called up Seraspi to report that a third buyer later Identified as Ronnie Macabante, was transacting with appellant.
l At that point, after Macabante bought from the accused, they pursue Macabante and told them he bought it from herein accused-appellant.
l The police team was able to overtake and arrest appellant at the corner of C. Quimpo and Veterans Sts. The police recovered 19 sticks and 4 teabags of marijuana from the cart inside the chapel and another teabag from Macabante,
l Accused appealed that the marijuana teabags were seized without serving upon him a search warrant.
l The accused-appellant contends that his arrest was illegal, is a violation of his rights granted under Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
l He stresses that there was sufficient time for the police officers to apply for a search and arrest warrants considering that Fulgencio informed his Station Commander of the activities of the accused two days before March 21, 1989, the date of his arrest.
ISSUE:
WON the arrest without warrant of the accused is lawful and consequently
WON the evidence resulting from such arrest is admissible.
HELD:
YES. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides for the instances where an arrest without warrant is considered lawful. The rule states:
Arrest without warrant, when lawful. — A peace officer or private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; (Emphasis supplied)
An offense is committed in the presence or within the view of an officer, within the meaning of the rule authorizing an arrest without a warrant, when the officer sees the offense, although at a distance, or hears the disturbances created thereby and proceeds at once to the scene thereof.
From the records of the case, Fulgencio saw Sucro three times dealing drugs inside the chapel where he is 2 meters away monitoring his nefarious activities then after the 3rd deal, the police intercepted the buyer Macabante and when confronted by the police, Macabante readily admitted that he bought the marijuana from Sucro. Therefore, Sucro had just committed an illegal act of which the police officers had personal knowledge, being members of the team which monitored accused-appellants nefarious activity.
The accused questions the failure of the police officers to secure a warrant considering that Fulgencio himself knew of Sucro's activities even prior to the former's joining the police force. Fulgencio reported Sucro's activities only three days before the incident.
As the records reveal, Fulgencio and Sucro had known each other since their childhood years and that after Fulgencio joined the police force, he told the accused-appellant not to sell drugs in their locality. Hence, it is possible that because of this friendship, Fulgencio hesitated to report his childhood friend and merely advised him not to engage in such activity. However, because of reliable information was given by some informants that selling was going on every day, he was constrained to report the matter to the Station Commander.
On the other hand, the failure of the police officers to secure a warrant stems from the fact that their knowledge acquired from the surveillance was insufficient to fulfill the requirements for the issuance of a search warrant. What is paramount is that probable cause existed.
The general rule is that searches and seizures must be supported by a valid warrant is not an absolute rule... Among the exceptions granted by law is a search incidental to a lawful arrest under Sec. 12, Rule 126 of the RCP which provides that a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant.
Since the arrest was considered valid, the evidence presented is admissible in evidence.
Hence, this Court is convinced that appellant Edison Sucro had indeed committed the offense charged. The trial court's decision must be upheld.