PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NIÑO ERWIN REDONA Y SAMOY AND DIANA BUCO Y MANDAP, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

People versus Redona

The Case

This is a criminal case in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted two accused, Niño Erwin Redona and Diana Buco, for violations of The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 arising from a buy-bust operation. Redona was charged with possession of a dangerous drug, and Buco with the attempt to sell and give away a dangerous drug. The case matters because it is a clean illustration of the interplay between the lawful warrantless arrest, the search incident to that arrest, and the exclusion of evidence that is the fruit of an unlawful search. It teaches that the process cannot be reversed: the arrest must come first and must itself be lawful before any search may follow.

Procedural History

The trial court found both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Redona was convicted of possession of a dangerous drug under Section 11, Article II of the law, and Buco was convicted of attempt to sell and give away a dangerous drug under Section 26, Article II in relation to Section 5. Both appealed to the Supreme Court, which, in a decision dated the thirty-first of January, two thousand thirteen, denied the appeal and affirmed the convictions. Redona then filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that his arrest was unlawful and that the evidence obtained from him was therefore inadmissible, and that the chain of custody rule had been broken. On a second look at the records, the Supreme Court granted his motion for reconsideration, reversed and set aside his conviction, and acquitted him, while upholding the conviction of Buco.

Facts

In the early morning of the twenty-fifth of August, two thousand seven, a male informant arrived at the police office and reported that a drug deal could be arranged that day. During the briefing, the police learned that a female would bring the item and that the delivery would take place at a Jollibee food chain along Alabang Zapote Road in Muntinlupa at around four in the afternoon. A buy-bust team was formed, and a poseur buyer was given four pieces of five hundred peso bills together with boodle money.

The team positioned itself in front of the Jollibee. At around a quarter to four in the afternoon, a cream-colored Honda Civic arrived. A female, who fit the description of the person who would bring the item, alighted and approached the poseur buyer and the informant near the door of the Jollibee. They entered, and the poseur buyer went upstairs while the woman sat at a table on the ground floor. When the poseur buyer came down, the woman stood up and returned to the vehicle. The poseur buyer radioed the team that the transaction was positive, then followed and arrested her.

Redona, who had been seated at the driver's seat of the same Honda Civic the whole time, was then arrested by another officer. The officer testified that he held Redona because he was with Buco, that they introduced themselves as police officers, and that he bodily searched Redona and recovered one plastic sachet from his right front pocket. The officer admitted that he had not seen Redona in possession of drugs before the arrest, and no witness testified that Buco had been carrying or possessing drugs together with Redona before she alighted from the vehicle.

Issues

• Whether or not the warrantless arrest of Redona was lawful, there being no showing that he had committed, was committing, or was attempting to commit an offense in the presence of the arresting officer.
• Whether or not the search of Redona's person, being incidental to an unlawful arrest, and the seizure of the plastic sachet from him were likewise unlawful, so that the seized drug is excluded as fruit of a poisonous tree.
• Whether or not the conviction of Buco for attempt to sell and give away a dangerous drug should stand.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, paragraph (a), provides:

A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.

This is the provision on arrest in flagrante delicto, and the Court held that Redona's arrest did not satisfy it because he performed no overt criminal act in the officer's presence.

Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, paragraph (b), provides:

When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it.

This is the provision on arrest effected in hot pursuit, and the Court held that its rigorous conditions were not shown to have been complied with.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the arrest of Redona was unlawful. The prosecution failed to prove that he was committing any offense before or during the arrest. Staying in a vehicle, or having previously talked to a suspected criminal, are not criminal acts. Even unusual or suspicious behavior would not suffice for a lawful warrantless arrest. The officer did not acquire personal knowledge that a crime had been committed or was being committed by Redona, and it is not enough that the officer had reasonable ground to believe it; a crime must in fact have been committed first. The Court stressed that the only act attributed to Redona was being the driver of the vehicle that brought Buco to the Jollibee.

On the second issue, the Court held that the search and the seizure were likewise unlawful. It recalled the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement, including search incident to a lawful arrest, and explained that this exception requires a valid warrantless arrest that must precede the search. The Court stated the rule plainly:

In this instance, the law requires that there be first a lawful arrest before a search can be made — the process cannot be reversed.

To constitute a valid arrest in flagrante delicto, two requisites must concur: first, 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 second, such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. Reliable information alone, absent any overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise in the presence and within the view of the arresting officers, is not sufficient to constitute probable cause. Without a valid justification for the arrest, the search of Redona's person and the seizure of the shabu were unlawful, and the seized shabu is excluded in evidence as fruit of a poisonous tree. Without the corpus delicti, acquittal was inevitable.

On the third issue, the Court found no reason to disturb the conviction of Buco, as the evidence of the prosecution showed her guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the attempt to sell and give away a dangerous drug.

Doctrine

A warrantless arrest in flagrante delicto requires two concurring requisites: an overt act by the person to be arrested indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime, and that such overt act be done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. Reliable information alone, without an overt act, does not constitute probable cause. A search incident to a lawful arrest presupposes a lawful arrest that must come first; the process cannot be reversed. Where the arrest is unlawful, the search and seizure that follow are unlawful, and the seized item is excluded as fruit of a poisonous tree, so that without the corpus delicti, acquittal follows.

Disposition

The motion for reconsideration of Redona was granted, and he was acquitted based on reasonable doubt and ordered immediately released unless his continued confinement is warranted by some other cause, while the conviction of Buco stands.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the law requires a lawful arrest before a search can be made, and the process cannot be reversed. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of a valid in flagrante delicto arrest and the exclusion of evidence as fruit of a poisonous tree.