Amminudin Vs. People, G.R. No. 74869 July 6, 1988

 The mandate of the Bill of Rights is clear:

Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Facts:

Aminnudin was arrested shortly after disembarking from the M/V Wilcon in Iloilo City. He was arrested without a warrant of arrest. The police officers had earlier received a tip from one of their informers that the accused-appellant was on board a vessel bound for Iloilo City and was carrying marijuana. He was Identified by name.

Acting on this tip, the police officer waited for him in the port of his destination. Thereafter, at the port he was apprehend as he descended from the gangplank after the informer had pointed to him. They detained him and inspected the bag he was carrying. It was found to contain three kilos of what were later analyzed as marijuana leaves by an NBI forensic examiner.

Aminnudin argued that the evidence charged against him is inadmissible since he was unlawfully arrested, and that there was no valid warrant of arrest or search warrant issued against him. However, the police officer averred that the arrest was valid by virtue of Flagrante Delicto.

Issue:              The issue in this case in relation to our subject is whether or not the warrantless arrest against Amminudin is valid?

 

Held:              No, the warrantless against Amminudin was not valid.

In the many cases where this Court has sustained the warrantless arrest of violators of the Dangerous Drugs Act, it has always been shown that they were caught red-handed, as a result of what are popularly called "buy-bust" operations of the narcotics agents. 25 Rule 113 was clearly applicable because at the precise time of arrest the accused was in the act of selling the prohibited drug.

In the case at bar, the accused-appellant was not, at the moment of his arrest, committing a crime nor was it shown that he was about to do so or that he had just done so. What he was doing was descending the gangplank of the M/V Wilcon 9 and there was no outward indication that called for his arrest.

To all appearances, he was like any of the other passengers innocently disembarking from the vessel. It was only when the informer pointed to him as the carrier of the marijuana that he suddenly became suspect and so subject to apprehension. It was the furtive finger that triggered his arrest. The Identification by the informer was the probable cause as determined by the officers (and not a judge) that authorized them to pounce upon Aminnudin and immediately arrest him.

ACCORDINGLY, the decision of the trial court is REVERSED and the accused-appellant is ACQUITTED.