PEOPLE v. HON. PERFECTO A.S. LAGUIO, JR.

& LAWRENCE WANG

Facts: Police operatives of the Public Assistance and Reaction Against Crime of the Department of
Interior and Local Government, arrested SPO2 de Dios, \Anoble and a certain Arellano, for unlawful
possession of shabu. In the course of the investigation of the three arrested persons, Redentor Teck,
alias Frank, and Joseph Junio were identified as the source of the drug. An entrapment operation was
then set after the three were prevailed upon to call their source and pretend to order another supply of
shabu. That same date, Redentor Teck and Joseph Junio were arrested while they were about to hand
over another bag of shabu to SPO2 De Dios and company.

Redentor Teck and Joseph Junio did not disclose their source of shabu but admitted that they were
working for Wang. They also disclosed that they knew of a scheduled delivery of shabu early the
following morning, and that their employer (Wang) could be found at the Maria Orosa Apartment in
Malate, Manila. The police operatives decided to look for Wang to shed light on the illegal drug activities
of Redentor Teck and Joseph Junio. Police Inspector and his men then proceeded to Maria Orosa
Apartment and placed the same under surveillance. Wang, who was described to the operatives by
Teck, came out of the apartment and walked towards a parked BMW car. On nearing the car, he
(witness) together with Captain Margallo and two other police officers approached Wang, introduced
themselves to him as police officers, asked his name and, upon hearing that he was Lawrence Wang,
immediately frisked him and asked him to open the back compartment of the BMW car. When frisked,
there was found inside the front right pocket of Wang and confiscated from him an unlicensed Pistol
loaded with ammunitions. At the same time, the other members of the operatives searched the car and
found inside it were the following items: (a) transparent plastic bags of shabu; (b) P650,000.00 cash ; (c)
one electronic and one mechanical scales; and (d) an unlicensed Daewoo 9mm Pistol with magazine.
Then and there, Wang resisted the warrantless arrest and search. The trial court held that the
warrantless arrest was illegal and that warrantless search incidental to the arrest was also unlawful.

Issue: Whether or not Hon. Laguio erred in acquitting the accused due to the invalid warrantless arrest?

Held: No.

The pertinent provisions of Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure on warrantless arrest provide:

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.

Therefore, there can be no valid warrantless arrest in flagrante delicto under paragraph (a) of Section 5.
It is settled that "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
that would justify an in flagrante delicto arrest.

Neither may the warrantless arrest be justified under paragraph (b) of Section 5. And doubtless, the
warrantless arrest does not fall under paragraph (c) of Section 5.

The inevitable conclusion, as correctly made by the trial court, is that the warrantless arrest was illegal.
Ipso jure, the warrantless search incidental to the illegal arrest is likewise unlawful. The Peoples
contention that Wang waived his right against unreasonable search and seizure has no factual basis.
While we agree in principle that consent will validate an otherwise illegal search, however, based on the
evidence on record, Wang resisted his arrest and the search on his person and belongings. The implied
acquiescence to the search, if there was any, could not have been more than mere passive conformity
given under intimidating or coercive circumstances and is thus considered no consent at all within the
purview of the constitutional guarantee. Moreover, the continuing objection to the validity of the
warrantless arrest made of record during the arraignment bolsters Wangs claim that he resisted the
warrantless arrest and search.