Miguel vs People

Facts:
 An information was filed before the RTC charging Jeffrey Miguel (petitioner) of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs, penalized under 9165 or the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002”
 Prosecution alleged that (prosecution version of facts):
o Around 12:45 am of May 24, 2010, a Bantay Bayan operative of Brgy. San Antonio Village,
Makati, named Reynaldo Bahoyo was doing his rounds when he received a report of a man
showing off his private parts at Kaong Street!
o Bahoyo and fellow Bantay Bayan operative Mark Velasquez then went to said street and saw a
visible intoxicated person, which they later identified as petitioner, urinating and displaying his
private parts while standing in front of a gate enclosing an empty lot
o When they asked petitioner where he lived, the latter answered “Kaong Street”
o Bahoyo then said he lived on the same street but petitioner looked unfamiliar to him, so he asked
for an ID, but petitioner failed to produce one
o Velasquez repeated the for an ID, but instead, petitioner emptied his pockets, revealing a pack
of cigarettes containing one stick and two pieces of rolled paper containing dried marijuana
leaves
o This prompted the Bantay Bayans to seize the items, take petitioner to the police station, and
turn him, as well as the items, over to SPO3 Rafael Castillo
o SPO3 Castillo then inventoried the items, and prepared a request for qualitative examination of
the rolled paper and for petitioner to undergo drug testing
o Tests confirmed it was marijuana and that petitioner was positive for the presence of
Methamphetamine but negative for THC-metabolites
 Petitioner pleaded not guilty, and presented a different version of facts (petitioner version of facts):
o He was just urinating in from of his workplace when 2 Bantay Bayan operatives approached him
and asked him where he lived
o Upon responding that he lived in Kaong Street, they frisked him, took away his belongings, and
thereafter handcuffed and brought him to the Brgy. Hall
o He was detained for about an hour before being taken to the Ospital ng Makati and to another
office where a bald officer questioned him
o He was then taken back to the Brgy. Hall where they showed him 2 sticks of marijuana joints
allegedly recovered from him
 RTC Ruling
o RTC found petitioner guilty for the crime charged
o They ruled that the Bahoyo and Velasques conducted a valid warrantless arrest, as petitioner
was scandalously showing his private parts at the time of his arrest
o Thus, the incidental search which yielded the seized marijuana was also lawful
 Petitioner appealed to the CA
 CA Ruling
o CA affirmed conviction
o It held that search made on petitioner was valid as it was done incidental to his arrest for
exhibiting his private parts on public
o As such, said marijuana is admissible in evidence and sufficient to convict him for the crime
charged
 Petitioner moved for reconsideration but was denied, hence the petition to the SC
 Petitioner argues that the search and arrest was illegal and, thus, the marijuana purportedly seized from
him is inadmissible in evidence
Issue:
Whether or not the there was a valid search incidental to a lawful warrantless arrest

Ruling:
 NO
 (First, the Court established that the Bill of Rights apply to Bantay Bayan operatives)
 The Bantay Bayan operatives are not government agents like the PNP or the NBI in charge of law
enforcement, but are civilian volunteers who act as “force multipliers” to assist the law enforcement
agencies in maintaining peace and security. The Bill of Rights generally cannot be invoked against the
acts of private individuals, however, they may be applicable if such individuals act under the color of a
state-related function
 In this case, the acts of the Bantay Bayan relating to the preservation of peace and order in their
respective areas have the color of a state-related function. As such, the Bill of Rights may be applied to
the Bantay Bayan operatives who arrested and subsequently searched petitioner.

 (Next, the court determined that the arrest and search was NOT validly made)
 The Bill of Rights provides that evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and seizures shall be
inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding, being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous
tree. The law requires that there first be a lawful arrest first before a search can be made – this process
cannot be reversed.
 A lawful arrest may be made without a warrant, provided the parameters defined in Section 5, Rule 113
of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure are complied with.
 In Section 5(a), or in flagrante delicto arrests, 2 elements must concur, namely:
a. The person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit a crime
b. Such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer
 Section 5(b), requires that at the time of the arrest, an offense had in fact just been committed and the
arresting officer had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the accused had committed it
 In both instances, the officer’s personal knowledge of the fact of the commission of an offense is
essential
 On the basis of the testimonies, the Court is inclined to believe that petitioner went out to the street to
urinate (note that there was no CR in his workplace) when the Bantay Bayan operatives chanced upon
him. That latter then approached and questioned petitioner, and thereafter went on to search his
person, which purportedly yielded the marijuana.
 Verily, the prosecution’s claim that petitioner was showing off his private parts was belied by the
testimonies (important note: the Bantay Bayans testified in the cross examination that petitioner was
showing off his private parts while urinating and turning his back from them. How the hell can you show
off your private parts when you are turning your back and urinating? lol)
 Clearly, these circumstances do not justify the conduct of an in flagrante delicto arrest, considering
that there was NO overt act constituting a crime committed by petitioner in the presence or within
the view of the arresting officer
 Neither do these circumstances necessitate a “hot pursuit” warrantless arrest as the arresting operatives
do not have any personal knowledge of facts that petitioner had just committed an offense
 Moreover, if the arrest was made because of the alleged display of private parts, then the proper charge
should have been filed against him. However, records are bereft of any showing that such charge was
filed aside from the instant criminal charge for illegal possession of dangerous drugs. This strengthens
the view that no prior lawful arrest was made which led to a valid search incidental thereto.
 There must be a lawful arrest FIRST, before a search can be made, the process cannot be reversed.