People v Martinez (2010)

Ponente: Mendoza
Petitioner: People of the Philippines
Respondent: Arnold Martinez, Edgar Dizon, Rezin Martinez, and Rafael Gonzales

Under what topic: Search Incidental to a lawful arrest

Synopsis: Police officers were tipped by a jeepney driver (who heard it from another person)
that there was an on going pot session at the house of one of the respondents. Respondents
were then arrested at the house during the reported pot session by police officers without
an arrest warrant. It was found that the arrest was not lawful because no probable cause
existed, thus the evidence was found inadmissible.

Crime/Offense charged to the accused: Violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act (Possession
during social gatherings)

Doctrine:
Evidence procured on the occasion of an unreasonable search and seizure is deemed tainted
for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree and should be excluded.

Facts:
Version of the Prosecution (the one admitted in court)
At 12:45 P.M. a concerned citizen entered the precinct and reported to PO1 Azardon
that a pot session was going on in the house of Gonzales.
o PO1 Azardon does not personally know the concerned citizen. He just knew
that the citizen is a jeepney driver who wanted to keep his identity in private
o The jeepney driver got his information from someone else
Upon receipt of the report, PO1 Azardon formed his team and hied to the house of
Gonzalez.
Inside the house, they saw accused Gonzales, Arnold Martinez (A. Martinez), Edgar
Dizon (Dizon), and Rezin Martinez (R. Martinez) in a room. In front of them were open
plastic sachets (containing shabu residue), pieces of rolled used aluminum foil and
pieces of used aluminum foil.
The accused were arrested and brought to the police precinct.
The seized items were put under a laboratory examination and all 115 plastic sachets,
11 pieces of rolled used aluminum foil, and 27 of the 49 pieces of used aluminum foil
tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
They were found to be positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).
RTC held the accused guilty of the crime Possession of Dangerous Drugs During
Social Gatherings.
CA sustained the findings of the RTC

Issue/s:
1. WON the evidence against the accused are admissible
2. WON chain of custody has not been established

Held-Ratio:
1. Evidence against the accused is inadmissible because the tipped information is not
sufficient probable cause to effect a lawful arrest allowing for a warrantless search.
This case would appear to fall under either a warrantless search incidental to a
lawful arrest or a plain view search, both of which require a lawful arrest in
order to be considered valid exceptions to the constitutional guarantee.
o Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest (see Rule 113 below)
Paragraphs (a) and (b) both require probable cause to be present
in order for a warrantless arrest to be valid.
Paragraph (a) the arresting officers had no personal
knowledge that at the time of the arrest, accused had just
committed, were committing, or were about to commit a
crime, as they had no probable cause to enter the house
of accused Rafael Gonzales in order to arrest them.
Paragraph (b), the arresting officers had no personal
knowledge of facts and circumstances that would lead
them to believe that the accused had just committed an
offense.
Tipped information is sufficient probable cause to effect a
warrantless search only in cases involving either a buy-bust
operation or drugs in transit.
The tip originated from a concerned citizen who himself
had no personal knowledge of the information that was
reported to the police
o Plain view
The evidence was not inadvertently discovered as the police
officers intentionally entered the house with no prior surveillance
or investigation before they discovered the accused with the
subject items.
Evidence procured on the occasion of an unreasonable search and seizure is
deemed tainted for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree and should be
excluded.

2. The officers failed to comply with the chain of custody requirement in dangerous
drugs cases.
No prior coordination with PDEA
No inventory of the confiscated items conducted at the crime scene
No photograph of the items taken
No compliance with the rule requiring the accused to sign the inventory and
to give them copies thereof; and
No showing of how the items were handled from the time of confiscation up
to the time of submission to the crime laboratory for testing



Dispositive:
WHEREFORE, the August 7, 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. HC- NO. 03269 is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE and another judgment entered ACQUITTING the accused and
ordering their immediate release from detention, unless they are confined for any other
lawful cause.


Digesters notes:
Rule 113, Sec. 5
Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A peace officer or a 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 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; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined
while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.
FYI:
The accused is estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest if he fails to raise such
issue before arraignment. This waiver is limited only to the arrest. The legality of an
arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused. A
waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the
inadmissibility of evidence seized during the illegal warrantless arrest.