10/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 860

 
 

G.R. No. 213225. April 4, 2018. *

 
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RENANTE
COMPRADO y BRONOLA, accused-appellant.

Constitutional Law; Criminal Procedure; Searches and Seizures;

Search Warrants; Exclusionary Rule; The Bill of Rights requires that a
search and seizure must be carried out with a judicial warrant; otherwise,
any evidence obtained from such warrantless search is inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding; Exceptions.—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. The Bill of Rights requires that a search and
seizure must be carried out with a judicial warrant; otherwise, any evidence
obtained from such warrantless search is inadmissible for any purpose in
any proceeding. This proscription, however, admits of exceptions, namely:
1) Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest; 2) Search of evidence in
plain view; 3) Search of a moving vehicle; 4) Consented warrantless search;
5) Customs search; 6) Stop and Frisk; and 7) Exigent and emergency
circumstances.
Same; Same; Same; Stop-and-Frisk Searches; A stop-and-frisk search
is often confused with a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest.—A
stop-and-frisk search is often confused with a warrantless search incidental
to a lawful arrest. However, the distinctions between the two have already
been settled by the Court in  Malacat v. CA, 283 SCRA 159 (1997): In a
search incidental to a lawful arrest, as the precedent arrest determines the
validity of the incidental search, the legality of the arrest is questioned in a
large majority of these cases, e.g., whether an arrest was merely used as a
pretext for conducting a search. In this instance,  the law requires that
there first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made — the process 

_______________

*  THIRD DIVISION.

 
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017564b5cff5fb0a47c5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/21
10/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 860

421

VOL. 860, APRIL 4, 2018 421

People vs. Comprado

cannot be reversed. At bottom, assuming a valid arrest, the arresting

officer may search the person of the arrestee and the area within which the
latter may reach for a weapon or for evidence to destroy, and seize any
money or property found which was used in the commission of the crime, or
the fruit of the crime, or that which may be used as evidence, or which
might furnish the arrestee with the means of escaping or committing
violence. x  x  x  x We now proceed to the justification for and allowable
scope of a “stop and frisk” as a “limited protective search of outer clothing
for weapons,” as laid down in Terry, thus: We merely hold today that where
a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to
conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot
and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and
presently dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he
identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where
nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable
fear for his own or others’ safety, he is entitled [to] the protection of himself
and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer
clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might
be used to assault him. Such a search is a reasonable search under the
Fourth Amendment. Other notable points of Terry are that while probable
cause is not required to conduct a “stop and frisk” it nevertheless holds that
mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a “stop and frisk.” A genuine
reason must exist, in light of the police officer’s experience and
surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person detained
has weapons concealed about him. Finally, a “stop and frisk” serves a
two-fold interest: (1) the general interest of effective crime prevention and
detection, which underlies the recognition that a police officer may, under
appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner, approach a person
for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even without
probable cause; and (2) the more pressing interest of safety and self-
preservation which permit the police officer to take steps to assure himself
that the person with whom he deals is not armed with a deadly weapon that
could unexpectedly and fatally be used against the police officer.

 
 

422

422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017564b5cff5fb0a47c5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/21
10/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 860

People vs. Comprado

Same; Same; Same; As regards search incidental to a lawful arrest, it

is worth emphasizing that a lawful arrest must precede the search of a
person and his belongings; the process cannot be reversed.—As regards
search incidental to a lawful arrest, it is worth emphasizing that a lawful
arrest must precede the search of a person and his belongings; the process
cannot be reversed. Thus, it becomes imperative to determine whether
accused-appellant’s warrantless arrest was valid. Section 5, Rule 113 of the
Rules of Criminal Procedure enumerates the instances wherein a peace
officer or a private person may lawfully arrest a person even without a
warrant: 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.
Same; Same; Warrantless Arrests; In Flagrante Delicto Arrests; For a
warrantless arrest of an accused caught in flagrante delicto to be valid, two
(2) requisites must concur: (1) 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 (2) such overt act is done in the presence
or within the view of the arresting officer.—Paragraph (a) of Section 5 is
commonly known as an in flagrante delicto arrest. For a warrantless arrest
of an accused caught in flagrante delicto to be valid, two requisites must
concur: (1) 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 (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the
view of the arresting officer. On the other hand, the elements of an arrest
effected in hot pursuit under paragraph (b) of Section 5 (arrest effected in
hot pursuit) are: first, an offense has just been committed; and second, the
arresting officer has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge
of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it.

 
 

423

VOL. 860, APRIL 4, 2018 423

People vs. Comprado

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017564b5cff5fb0a47c5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/21
10/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 860

Same; Same; Same; Warrantless arrests are mere exceptions to the

constitutional right of a person against unreasonable searches and seizures,
thus, they must be strictly construed against the government and its agents.
—Here, without the tip provided by the confidential informant, accused-
appellant could not be said to have executed any overt act in the presence or
within the view of the arresting officers which would indicate that he was
committing the crime of illegal possession of marijuana. Neither did the
arresting officers have personal knowledge of facts indicating that accused-
appellant had just committed an offense. Again, without the tipped
information, accused-appellant would just have been any other bus
passenger who was minding his own business and eager to reach his
destination. It must be remembered that warrantless arrests are mere
exceptions to the constitutional right of a person against unreasonable
searches and seizures, thus, they must be strictly construed against the
government and its agents. While the campaign against proliferation of
illegal drugs is indeed a noble objective, the same must be conducted in a
manner which does not trample upon well-established constitutional rights.
Truly, the end does not justify the means.
Same; Same; Same; It is worthy to note that the information relayed to
the police officers was that a passenger of that particular bus was carrying
marijuana such that when the police officers boarded the bus, they searched
the bag of the person matching the description given by their informant and
not the cargo or contents of the said bus.—The search in this case, however,
could not be classified as a search of a moving vehicle. In this particular
type of search, the vehicle is the target and not a specific person. Further, in
search of a moving vehicle, the vehicle was intentionally used as a means to
transport illegal items. It is worthy to note that the information relayed to
the police officers was that a passenger of that particular bus was carrying
marijuana such that when the police officers boarded the bus, they searched
the bag of the person matching the description given by their informant and
not the cargo or contents of the said bus. Moreover, in this case, it just so
happened that the alleged drug courier was a bus passenger. To extend to
such breadth the scope of searches on moving vehicles would open the
floodgates to unbridled warrantless searches which can be conducted by the
mere expedient of waiting for the target person to ride a motor vehicle,
setting up a checkpoint along the route of that vehicle, and then stopping
such vehicle when it arrives at the checkpoint in order to search the target
person.

 
 

424

424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Comprado

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017564b5cff5fb0a47c5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/21
10/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 860

Remedial Law; Evidence; Exclusionary Rule; Any evidence obtained in

violation of the right against unreasonable searches and seizures shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.—Any evidence obtained in
violation of the right against unreasonable searches and seizures shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. This exclusionary rule
instructs that evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of such
unreasonable searches and seizures are deemed tainted and should be
excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree. In other words,
evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and seizures shall be
inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.
Same; Same; Waiver of Rights; A waiver of an illegal, warrantless
arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence
seized during an illegal warrantless arrest.—Without the confiscated
marijuana, no evidence is left to convict accused-appellant. Thus, an
acquittal is warranted, despite accused-appellant’s failure to object to the
regularity of his arrest before arraignment. 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 an illegal warrantless arrest.

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
   Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
   Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellant.

MARTIRES, J.:
 
This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated 19 May 2014, of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01156 which
affirmed the Decision2 dated 18 April 2013, of the Re-

_______________

1  Rollo, pp. 3-15.

2  Records, pp. 117-123; penned by Presiding Judge Arthur L. Abundiente.

 
 
 

425

VOL. 860, APRIL 4, 2018 425

People vs. Comprado

gional Trial Court, Branch 25, Misamis Oriental (RTC), in Criminal

Case No. 2011-671 finding Renante Comprado y Bronola (accused-
appellant) guilty of illegal possession of marijuana.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017564b5cff5fb0a47c5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/21
10/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 860

 
The Facts
 
On 19 July 2011, accused-appellant was charged with violation
of Section 11, Article 2 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise
known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The
Information reads:

That on July 15, 2011, at more or less eleven o’clock in the

evening, along the national highway, Puerto, Cagayan de Oro City,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the
above named accused, without being authorized by law to possess or
use any dangerous drugs, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
criminally have in his possession, control and custody 3,200 grams of
dried fruiting tops of suspected marijuana, which substance, after
qualitative examination conducted by the Regional Crime
Laboratory, Office No. 10, Cagayan de Oro City, tested positive for
marijuana, a dangerous drug, with the said accused, knowing the
substance to be a dangerous drug.3

 
Upon his arraignment on 8 August 2011, accused-appellant
pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Thereafter, trial on the
merits ensued.
 
Version of the Prosecution
 
On 15 July 2011, at 6:30 in the evening, a confidential informant
(CI) sent a text message to Police Inspector Dominador Orate, Jr.
(P/Insp. Orate), then Deputy Station Commander of Police Station
6, Puerto, Cagayan de Oro City, that

_______________

3  Id., at p. 3.

 
 

426

426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Comprado

an alleged courier of marijuana together with a female companion, was

sighted at Cabanglasan, Bukidnon. The alleged courier had in his possession
a backpack containing marijuana and would be traveling from Bukidnon to
Cagayan de Oro City. At 9:30 in the evening, the CI called P/Insp. Orate to
inform him that the alleged drug courier had boarded a bus with body
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017564b5cff5fb0a47c5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/21
10/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 860

number .2646 and plate number KVP 988 bound for Cagayan de Oro City.
The CI added that the man would be carrying a backpack in black and violet
colors with the marking “Lowe Alpine.” Thus, at about 9:45 in the evening,
the police officers stationed at Police Station 6 put up a checkpoint in front
of the station.4
At 11:00 o’clock in the evening, the policemen stopped the bus
bearing the said body and plate numbers. P/Insp. Orate, Police
Officer 3 Teodoro de Oro (PO3 De Oro), Senior Police Officer 1
Benjamin Jay Reycitez (SPO1 Reycitez), and PO1 Rexie Tenio (PO1
Tenio) boarded the bus and saw a man matching the description
given to them by the CI. The man was seated at the back of the bus
with a backpack placed on his lap. After P/Insp. Orate asked the man
to open the bag, the police officers saw a transparent cellophane
containing dried marijuana leaves.5
SPO1 Reycitez took photos of accused-appellant and the
cellophane bag containing the dried marijuana leaves.6 PO3 De Oro,
in the presence of accused-appellant, marked the bag “RCB-2” and
the contents of the bag “RCB-1.”7  Thereafter, PO1 Tenio and PO3
De Oro brought accused-appellant and the seized bag to the PNP
Crime Laboratory for examination.8 On 16 July 2011, at around 1:40
in the morning, Police Senior Inspector Charity Caceres (PSI
Caceres) of the PNP Crime Laboratory Office 10, Cagayan de Oro
City, re-

_______________

4  TSN, 2 April 2012, pp. 5-9.

5  Id., at pp. 9-11.
6  TSN, 23 February 2012, p. 7.
7  TSN, 16 January 2012, p. 13.
8  TSN, 23 February 2012, p. 13.

 
 

427

VOL. 860, APRIL 4, 2018 427

People vs. Comprado

ceived the requests for examination and the specimen. PSI Caceres,
after conducting qualitative examination of the specimen, issued
Chemistry Report No. D-253-20119  stating that the dried leaves
seized from accused-appellant were marijuana and which weighed
3,200 grams.
 
Version of the Defense
 

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017564b5cff5fb0a47c5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/21
10/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 860

Accused-appellant denied ownership of the bag and the

marijuana. He maintains that on 15 July 2011, at around 6:30 in the
evening, he and his girlfriend went to the house of a certain Freddie
Nacorda in Aglayan, Bukidnon, to collect the latter’s debt. When
they were about to leave, Nacorda requested him to carry a bag to
Cagayan de Oro City.
When they reached Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, their vehicle was
stopped by three (3) police officers. All of the passengers were
ordered to alight from the vehicle for baggage inspection. The bag
was opened and they saw a transparent cellophane bag containing
marijuana leaves. At around 9:00 o’clock in the evening, accused-
appellant, his girlfriend, and the police officers who arrested them
boarded a bus bound for Cagayan de Oro City.
When the bus approached Puerto, Cagayan de Oro City, the
police officers told the bus driver to stop at the checkpoint. The
arresting officers took photos of accused-appellant and his girlfriend
inside the bus. They were then brought to the police station where
they were subjected to custodial investigation without the assistance
of counsel.10

_______________

9   Records, pp. 14-15.

10  Id. (no proper pagination); Judicial Affidavit of Accused-Appellant.

 
 

428

428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Comprado

The RTC’s Ruling

 
In its decision, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty of illegal
possession of marijuana. It held that accused-appellant’s
uncorroborated claim that he was merely requested to bring the bag
to Cagayan de Oro City, did not prove his innocence; mere
possession of the illegal substance already consummated the crime
and good faith was not even a defense. The RTC did not lend
credence to accused-appellant’s claim that he was arrested in
Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, because it was unbelievable that the
police officers would go out of their jurisdiction in Puerto, Cagayan
de Oro City, just to apprehend accused-appellant in Bukidnon. The
fallo reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds the

accused RENANTE COMPRADO y BRONOLA GUILTY
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017564b5cff5fb0a47c5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/21
10/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 860

BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime defined and

penalized under Sections 11, [7], Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as
charged in the Information, and hereby sentences him to suffer
the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT, and to pay the Fine of
Five Hundred Thousand Pesos [P500,000.00], without subsidiary
penalty in case of nonpayment of fine.
Let the penalty imposed on the accused be a lesson and an
example to all who have criminal propensity, inclination and
proclivity to commit the same forbidden acts, that crime does not
pay, and that the pecuniary gain and benefit which one can derive
from possessing drugs, or other illegal substance, or from committing
any other acts penalized under Republic Act No. 9165, cannot
compensate for the penalty which one will suffer if ever he is
prosecuted and penalized to the full extent of the law.11

Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed before the CA.

_______________

11  Id., at p. 122.

 
 

429

VOL. 860, APRIL 4, 2018 429

People vs. Comprado

The CA’s Ruling

 
In its decision, the CA affirmed the conviction of accused-
appellant. It opined that accused-appellant submitted to the
jurisdiction of the court because he raised no objection as to the
irregularity of his arrest before his arraignment. The CA reasoned
that the seized items are admissible in evidence because the search
and seizure of the illegal narcotics were made pursuant to a search of
a moving vehicle. It added that while it was admitted by the
arresting police officers that no representatives from the media and
other personalities required by law were present during the operation
and during the taking of the inventory, noncompliance with Section
21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 was not fatal and would not render
inadmissible accused-appellant’s arrest or the items seized from him
because the prosecution was able to show that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items had been preserved. The CA
disposed the case in this wise:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Judgment dated

18 April 2013 of the Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental, 10th
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017564b5cff5fb0a47c5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/21
10/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 860

Judicial Region, Branch 25 in Criminal Case No. 2011-671 is hereby

affirmed in toto.12

Hence, this appeal.

Issues
 
I. Whether accused-appellant’s arrest was valid;
II. Whether the seized items are admissible in evidence; and
III. Whether accused-appellant is guilty of the crime charged.

_______________

12  Rollo, p. 14.

 
 

430

430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Comprado

Our Ruling
 
The Court finds for accused-appellant.
 
I.
 
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.13
The Bill of Rights requires that a search and seizure must be
carried out with a judicial warrant; otherwise, any evidence obtained
from such warrantless search is inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding.14  This proscription, however, admits of exceptions,
namely: 1) Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest; 2) Search
of evidence in plain view; 3) Search of a moving vehicle; 4)
Consented warrantless search; 5) Customs search; 6) Stop and Frisk;
and 7) Exigent and emergency circumstances.15
 
II.
 
A stop-and-frisk search is often confused with a warrantless
search incidental to a lawful arrest. However, the distinctions
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017564b5cff5fb0a47c5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/21
10/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 860

between the two have already been settled by the Court in Malacat v.
CA:16

_______________

13  1987 CONSTITUTION, Article III, Section 2.

14  People v. Nuevas, 545 Phil. 356, 369; 516 SCRA 463, 475 (2007).
15  Id., at p. 370; p. 476.
16  347 Phil. 462; 283 SCRA 159 (1997).

 
 

431

VOL. 860, APRIL 4, 2018 431

People vs. Comprado

In a search incidental to a lawful arrest, as the precedent arrest

determines the validity of the incidental search, the legality of the
arrest is questioned in a large majority of these cases, e.g., whether an
arrest was merely used as a pretext for conducting a search. In this
instance, the law requires that there first be a lawful arrest before
a search can be made — the process cannot be reversed. At bottom,
assuming a valid arrest, the arresting officer may search the person of
the arrestee and the area within which the latter may reach for a
weapon or for evidence to destroy, and seize any money or property
found which was used in the commission of the crime, or the fruit of
the crime, or that which may be used as evidence, or which might
furnish the arrestee with the means of escaping or committing
violence.
x x x x
We now proceed to the justification for and allowable scope of a
“stop and frisk” as a “limited protective search of outer clothing for
weapons,” as laid down in Terry, thus:
We merely hold today that where a police officer observes
unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude
in light of his experience that criminal activity may be
afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be
armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of
investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a
policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing
in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his
reasonable fear for his own or others’ safety, he is entitled [to]
the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a
carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such
persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017564b5cff5fb0a47c5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/21
10/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 860

used to assault him. Such a search is a reasonable search

under the Fourth Amendment.

 
 

432

432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Comprado

Other notable points of Terry are that while probable cause is not
required to conduct a “stop and frisk” it nevertheless holds that mere
suspicion or a hunch will not validate a “stop and frisk.” A genuine
reason must exist, in light of the police officer’s experience and
surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person
detained has weapons concealed about him. Finally, a “stop and
frisk” serves a two-fold interest: (1) the general interest of effective
crime prevention and detection, which underlies the recognition that
a police officer may, under appropriate circumstances and in an
appropriate manner, approach a person for purposes of investigating
possible criminal behavior even without probable cause; and (2) the
more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation which permit
the police officer to take steps to assure himself that the person with
whom he deals is not armed with a deadly weapon that could
unexpectedly and fatally be used against the police officer.17
(emphases supplied and citations omitted)

III.
 
A valid stop and frisk was illustrated in the cases of Posadas v.
CA  (Posadas),18  Manalili v. CA  (Manalili),19  and  People v.
Solayao (Solayao).20
In  Posadas, two policemen were conducting a surveillance
within the premises of the Rizal Memorial Colleges when they
spotted the accused carrying a  buri  bag and acting suspiciously.
They approached the accused and identified themselves as police
officers. The accused attempted to flee but his attempt to get away
was thwarted by the policemen who then

_______________

17  Id., at pp. 480-482; pp. 175-177.

18  266 Phil. 306; 188 SCRA 288 (1990).
19  345 Phil. 632; 280 SCRA 400 (1997).
20  330 Phil. 811; 262 SCRA 255 (1996).

 
 
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017564b5cff5fb0a47c5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/21
10/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 860

433

VOL. 860, APRIL 4, 2018 433

People vs. Comprado

checked the buri bag wherein they found guns, ammunition, and a
grenade.21
In  Manalili, police officers were patrolling the Caloocan City
cemetery when they chanced upon a man who had reddish eyes and
was walking in a swaying manner. When this person tried to avoid
the policemen, the latter approached him and introduced themselves
as police officers. The policemen then asked what he was holding in
his hands, but he tried to resist.22
In  Solayao, police operatives were carrying out an intelligence
patrol to verify reports on the presence of armed persons roaming
around the  barangays  of Caibiran, Biliran. Later on, they met the
group of accused-appellant. The police officers became suspicious
when they observed that the men were drunk and that accused-
appellant himself was wearing a camouflage uniform or a jungle
suit. Upon seeing the government agents, accused-appellant’s
companions fled. Thus, the police officers found justifiable reason to
stop and frisk the accused.23
 
IV.
 
On the other hand, the Court found no sufficient justification in
the stop and frisk committed by the police in  People v.
Cogaed  (Cogaed).24  In that case, the police officers received a
message from an informant that one Marvin Buya would be
transporting marijuana from  Barangay  Lun-Oy, San Gabriel, La
Union, to the Poblacion of San Gabriel, La Union. A checkpoint was
set up and when a passenger jeepney from Barangay Lun-Oy arrived
at the checkpoint, the jeepney

_______________

21  Posadas v. Court of Appeals, supra note 18 at pp. 307-308; pp. 289-290.

22  Manalili v. Court of Appeals, supra note 19 at p. 638; pp. 405-407.
23  People v. Solayao, supra note 20 at pp. 814-815; p. 261.
24  740 Phil. 212, 220-222; 731 SCRA 427, 437 (2014).

 
 

434

434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017564b5cff5fb0a47c5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/21
10/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 860

People vs. Comprado

driver disembarked and signaled to the police officers that the two male passengers
were carrying marijuana.
SPO1 Taracatac approached the two male passengers who were
later identified as Victor Cogaed and Santiago Dayao. SPO1
Taracatac asked Cogaed and Dayao what their bags contained.
Cogaed and Dayao told SPO1 Taracatac that they did not know since
they were transporting the bags as a favor for their barrio mate
named Marvin. After this exchange, Cogaed opened the blue bag,
revealing three bricks of what looked like marijuana. The Court, in
that case, invalidated the search and seizure ruling that there were no
suspicious circumstances that preceded the arrest. Also, in Cogaed,
there was a discussion of various jurisprudence wherein the Court
adjudged that there was no valid stop and frisk:

The circumstances of this case are analogous to People v. Aruta.

In that case, an informant told the police that a certain “Aling Rosa”
would be bringing in drugs from Baguio City by bus. At the bus
terminal, the police officers prepared themselves. The informant
pointed at a woman crossing the street and identified her as “Aling
Rosa.” The police apprehended “Aling Rosa,” and they alleged that
she allowed them to look inside her bag. The bag contained
marijuana leaves.
In Aruta, this court found that the search and seizure conducted
was illegal. There were no suspicious circumstances that preceded
Aruta’s arrest and the subsequent search and seizure. It was only the
informant that prompted the police to apprehend her. The evidence
obtained was not admissible because of the illegal search.
Consequently, Aruta was acquitted.
Aruta is almost identical to this case, except that it was the
jeepney driver, not the police’s informant, who informed the police
that Cogaed was “suspicious.”
The facts in Aruta are also similar to the facts in People v.
Aminnudin. Here, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) acted
upon a tip, naming Aminnudin as somebody possessing drugs. The
NBI waited for the ves-

 
 

435

VOL. 860, APRIL 4, 2018 435

People vs. Comprado

sel to arrive and accosted Aminnudin while he was disembarking

from a boat. Like in the case at bar, the NBI inspected Aminnudin’s

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017564b5cff5fb0a47c5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/21
10/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 860

bag and found bundles of what turned out to be marijuana leaves.

The court declared that the search and seizure was illegal. Aminnudin
was acquitted.
x x x x
People v. Chua also presents almost the same circumstances. In
this case, the police had been receiving information that the accused
was distributing drugs in “different karaoke bars in Angeles City.”
One night, the police received information that this drug dealer
would be dealing drugs at the Thunder Inn Hotel so they conducted a
stakeout. A car “arrived and parked” at the hotel. The informant told
the police that the man parked at the hotel was dealing drugs. The
man alighted from his car. He was carrying a juice box. The police
immediately apprehended him and discovered live ammunition and
drugs in his person and in the juice box he was holding.
Like in Aruta, this court did not find anything unusual or
suspicious about Chua’s situation when the police apprehended him
and ruled that “[t]here was no valid ‘stop and frisk.’”25 (citations
omitted)

The Court finds that the totality of the circumstances in this case
is not sufficient to incite a genuine reason that would justify a stop-
and-frisk search on accused-appellant. An examination of the
records reveals that no overt physical act could be properly
attributed to accused-appellant as to rouse suspicion in the minds of
the arresting officers that he had just committed, was committing, or
was about to commit a crime. P/Insp. Orate testified as follows:
[Prosecutor Vicente]:
Q: On that date Mr. Witness, at about 6:30 in the evening, what happened, if any?

_______________

25  Id., at pp. 235-237; pp. 448-450.

 
 

436

436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Comprado

A: At about 6:30 in the evening, I received an information from our Confidential

Informant reporting that an alleged courier of marijuana were sighted in their
place, Sir.
x x x x
[Court]:
Q: Aside from the sighting of this alleged courier of marijuana, what else was
relayed to you if there were anything else?

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017564b5cff5fb0a47c5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/21
10/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 860

A: Our Confidential Informant told me that two persons, a male and a female were
having in their possession a black pack containing marijuana, Sir.
x x x x
[Prosecutor Vicente:]
Q: And then, after you received the information through your cell phone, what
happened next, Mr. Witness?
A: So, I prepared a team to conduct an entrapment operation in order to intercept
these two persons, Sir.
Q: You said that the Informant informed you that the subject was still in
Cabanglasan?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: How did you entrap the subject when he was still in Cabanglasan?
A: I am planning to conduct a checkpoint because according to my Confidential
Informant the subject person is from Gingoog City, Sir.
Q: According to the information, how will he go here?
A: He will be travelling by bus, Sir.
Q: What bus?
A: Bachelor, Sir.
Q: And then, what happened next Mr. Witness?
A: At about 9:30 in the evening my Confidential Informant again called and
informed me that the sub-

 
 

437

VOL. 860, APRIL 4, 2018 437

People vs. Comprado

ject person is now boarding a bus going to Cagayan de Oro City, Sir.
Q: What did he say about the bus, if he said anything, Mr. Witness?
A: My agent was able to identify the body number of the bus, Bus No. 2646.
Q: Bearing Plate No.?
A: Bearing Plate No. KVP 988, Sir.
Q: What was he bringing at that time, according to the information?
A: According to my agent, these two persons were bringing along with them a back
pack color black violet with markings LOWE ALPINE.
Q: Then, what happened next, Mr. Witness?
A: We set up a checkpoint in front of our police station and we waited for the bus
to come over, Sir.
x x x x
Q: About 11 o’clock in the evening, what happened, Mr. Witness?
A: When we sighted the bus we flagged down the bus.
Q: After you flagged down the bus, what happened next?
A: We went onboard the said bus, Sir.
x x x x
Q: What happened next?

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017564b5cff5fb0a47c5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/21
10/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 860

A: We went to the back of the bus and I saw a man carrying a backpack, a black
violet which was described by the Confidential Informant, the back pack
which was placed on his lap.
x x x x
Q: After you saw them, what happened next?
A: We were able to identify the backpack and the description of the courier, so, we
asked him to please open the backpack.
x x x x

 
 

438

438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Comprado

Q: What happened next?

A: When he opened the backpack, we found marijuana leaves, the backpack
containing cellophane which the cellophane containing marijuana leaves.26

In his dissent from  Esquillo v. People,27  Justice Lucas P.

Bersamin emphasizes that there should be “presence of more than
one seemingly innocent activity from which, taken together,
warranted a reasonable inference of criminal activity.” This principle
was subsequently recognized in the recent cases
28 29
of  Cogaed   and  Sanchez v. People   In the case at bar, accused-
appellant was just a passenger carrying his bag. There is nothing
suspicious much less criminal in said act. Moreover, such
circumstance, by itself, could not have led the arresting officers to
believe that accused-appellant was in possession of marijuana.
 
V.
 
As regards search incidental to a lawful arrest, it is worth
emphasizing that a lawful arrest must precede the search of a person
and his belongings; the process cannot be reversed.30  Thus, it
becomes imperative to determine whether accused-appellant’s
warrantless arrest was valid.
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure
enumerates the instances wherein a peace officer or a private person
may lawfully arrest a person even without a warrant:

Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.—A peace officer

or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

_______________

26  TSN, 2 April 2012, pp. 5-10; testimony of P/Insp. Orate.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017564b5cff5fb0a47c5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/21
10/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 860

27  643 Phil. 577, 606; 629 SCRA 370, 397 (2010).

28  People v. Cogaed, supra note 24 at p. 233; p. 446.
29  747 Phil. 552, 573; 741 SCRA 294, 315 (2014).
30  Supra note 14 at p. 371; p. 477.

 
 

439

VOL. 860, APRIL 4, 2018 439

People vs. Comprado

(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.

 
Paragraph (a) of Section 5 is commonly known as an in flagrante
delicto arrest. For a warrantless arrest of an accused caught in
flagrante delicto to be valid, two requisites must concur: (1) 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 (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the
view of the arresting officer.31 On the other hand, the elements of an
arrest effected in hot pursuit under paragraph (b) of Section 5 (arrest
effected in hot pursuit) are: first, an offense has just been committed;
and second, the arresting officer has probable cause to believe based
on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to
be arrested has committed it.32
Here, without the tip provided by the confidential informant,
accused-appellant could not be said to have executed any overt act
in the presence or within the view of the arresting officers which
would indicate that he was committing the crime of illegal
possession of marijuana. Neither did the arresting officers have
personal knowledge of facts indicating that accused-appellant had
just committed an offense. Again, without the

_______________

31  People v. Pavia, 750 Phil. 871; 746 SCRA 216 (2015).

32  Pestilos v. Generoso, 746 Phil. 301, 321; 739 SCRA 337, 362 (2014).

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017564b5cff5fb0a47c5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/21
10/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 860

 
 

440

440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Comprado

tipped information, accused-appellant would just have been any

other bus passenger who was minding his own business and eager to
reach his destination. It must be remembered that warrantless arrests
are mere exceptions to the constitutional right of a person against
unreasonable searches and seizures, thus, they must be strictly
construed against the government and its agents. While the
campaign against proliferation of illegal drugs is indeed a noble
objective, the same must be conducted in a manner which does not
trample upon well-established constitutional rights. Truly, the end
does not justify the means.
 
VI.
 
The appellate court, in convicting accused-appellant, reasoned
that the search and seizure is valid because it could be considered as
search of a moving vehicle:

Warrantless search and seizure of moving vehicles are allowed in

recognition of the impracticability of securing a warrant under said
circumstances as the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality
or jurisdiction in which the warrant may be sought. Peace officers in
such cases, however, are limited to routine checks where the
examination of the vehicle is limited to visual inspection. When a
vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search, such would
be constitutionally permissible only if the officers made it upon
probable cause, i.e., upon a belief, reasonably arising out of
circumstances known to the seizing officer, that an automobile or
other vehicle contains [an] item, article or object which by law is
subject to seizure and destruction.33

The search in this case, however, could not be classified as a

search of a moving vehicle. In this particular type of search, the 

_______________

33  People v. Libnao, 443 Phil. 506, 515-516; 395 SCRA 407, 413-414 (2003).

 
 

441

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017564b5cff5fb0a47c5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/21
10/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 860

VOL. 860, APRIL 4, 2018 441

People vs. Comprado

vehicle is the target and not a specific person. Further, in search of a

moving vehicle, the vehicle was intentionally used as a means to
transport illegal items. It is worthy to note that the information
relayed to the police officers was that a passenger of that particular
bus was carrying marijuana such that when the police officers
boarded the bus, they searched the bag of the person matching the
description given by their informant and not the cargo or contents of
the said bus. Moreover, in this case, it just so happened that the
alleged drug courier was a bus passenger. To extend to such breadth
the scope of searches on moving vehicles would open the floodgates
to unbridled warrantless searches which can be conducted by the
mere expedient of waiting for the target person to ride a motor
vehicle, setting up a checkpoint along the route of that vehicle, and
then stopping such vehicle when it arrives at the checkpoint in order
to search the target person.
 
VII.
 
Any evidence obtained in violation of the right against
unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding.34 This exclusionary rule instructs that
evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of such
unreasonable searches and seizures are deemed tainted and should
be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree. In
other words, evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and
seizures shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any
proceeding.35
Without the confiscated marijuana, no evidence is left to convict
accused-appellant. Thus, an acquittal is warranted, despite accused-
appellant’s failure to object to the regularity of his arrest before
arraignment. The legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of
the court over the person of the accused.

_______________

34  1987CONSTITUTION, Article III, Section 3(2).

35   Comerciante v. People, 764 Phil. 627, 633-634; 763 SCRA 587, 594-595
(2015).

 
 

442

442 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017564b5cff5fb0a47c5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/21
10/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 860

People vs. Comprado

A waiver of an illegal, warrantless arrest does not carry with it a

waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal
warrantless arrest.36
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The 19 May 2014
Decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01156
is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Renante
Comprado y Bronola is ACQUITTED and ordered RELEASED
from detention unless he is detained for any other lawful cause. The
Director of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to
IMPLEMENT this Decision and to report to this Court the action
taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt.
SO ORDERED.

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Bersamin, Leonen and Gesmundo,

JJ., concur.

Appeal granted, judgment reversed and set aside. Accused-

appellant Renante Comprado y Bronola acquitted and ordered
released.

Notes.—The “stop-and-frisk” search should be used “when

dealing with a rapidly unfolding and potentially criminal situation in
the city streets where unarguably there is no time to secure a search
warrant.” (People vs. Cogaed, 731 SCRA 427 [2014])
The “stop-and-frisk” search was originally limited to outer
clothing and for the purpose of detecting dangerous weapons. (Id.)

 
——o0o——

_______________

36  People v. Racho, 640 Phil. 669, 681; 626 SCRA 633, 647 (2010).

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017564b5cff5fb0a47c5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/21