People v.
Racho
August 3, 2010 | J. Cortes
Search incident to lawful arrest – “Reliable information” insufficient
DOCTRINE: The long standing rule in this jurisdiction is that "reliable information" alone is not sufficient to justify a
warrantless arrest. The rule requires, in addition, that the accused perform some overt act that would indicate that he
has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.
CASE SUMMARY: Racho was apprehended by the police as he alighted from a bus, based on a tip from an informant that
he transacted with. He was convicted for the transportation of illegal drugs. He assailed the validity of his arrest and the
admissibility of the seized contraband and contends that it was a fruit of the poisonous tree.
FACTS:
A confidential agent of the police transacted through cellphone with Racho for the purchase of sabu. He reported
this to the authorities who immediately formed a team with members from the PDEA and the local police to
apprehend the appellant. He assured them that Racho would arrive in Baler, Aurora the next day.
Racho informed the informant that he will be arriving in Baler in a red and white striped T-shirt, on board a Genesis
bus. The team posted themselves along the national highway of Baler. When Racho alighted from the bys, the
agent pointed to him as the person he transacted with. When Racho was about to board a tricycle, the olice
approached him on the suspicion that he was carrying illegal drugs. He denied the same but a white envelope
containing shabu fell out when he took his hands out of his pocket. He was invited to the station where the
envelope was marked with his name and the Police Inspector’s initials. The field test and lab exams yielded positive
results for metamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
2 Informations were filed against Racho – one for violation of Sec 5 of RA 9165 for transporting or delivering, and
the other, Section 11, for possessing dangerous drugs.
Racho pleaded not guilty.
During trial, he claimed that he went to Baler to visit his mother and to inform her of his sick father. He denied
that the shabu was taken from him. He claims that the police officers’ van blocked the tricycle and forced him to
go down. RTC convicted Racho for transporting but acquitted for possession.
Appellant assails the credibility of the witnesses for prosecution that they failed to establish the identity of the
confiscated drug because of the team’s failure to mark the specimen right after the seizure. He also questioned
the legality of his arrest and the warrantless search, and contends that the drug was fruit of the poisonous tree.
ISSUE: W/N the trial court erred in convicting Racho? W/N the warrantless search was valid? NO
RULING:
Appellant focuses his appeal on the validity of his arrest and the search and seizure of the sachet of shabu and,
consequently, the admissibility of the sachet. It is noteworthy that although the circumstances of his arrest were
briefly discussed by the RTC, the validity of the arrest and search and the admissibility of the evidence against
appellant were not squarely raised by the latter and thus, were not ruled upon by the trial and appellate courts.
BUT IN CRIMINAL LAW, an appeal opens the whole case for review.
The accused cannot anymore question his arrest (having submitted voluntarily to the court’s jurisdiction) but the
sachet of shabu seized from him during the warrantless search was inadmissible in evidence.
Recent jurisprudence holds that in searches incident to a lawful arrest, the arrest must precede the search;
generally, the process cannot be reversed. Nevertheless, a search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest
can precede the arrest if the police have probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search.
o In this case then, it has to be determined whether or not the police had probable cause to arrest him (a
reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a
cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged).
o What prompted the police to apprehend the appellant without a warrant was their informant’s tip. Is
this sufficient probable cause? The long standing rule in this jurisdiction is that "reliable information"
alone is not sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest. The rule requires, in addition, that the accused
perform some overt act that would indicate that he has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense.
This case is similar to People v. Aruta; Tudtud; and Nuevas. In all of these cases, the SC refused to validate the
warrantless search precisely because there was no adequate probable cause. It is required that there be a
showing of some overt act indicative of the criminal design.
o At the time of the arrest, appellant had just alighted from the Gemini bus and was waiting for a tricycle.
Appellant was not acting in any suspicious manner that would engender a reasonable ground for the
police officers to suspect and conclude that he was committing or intending to commit a crime. Were it
not for the information given by the informant, appellant would not have been apprehended and no
search would have been made, and consequently, the sachet of shabu would not have been confiscated.
o Neither were the officers impelled by any urgency that would allow them to do away with the requisite
warrant. They already knew of his name and his description prior to the arrest. This is an instance of a
fruit of the poisonous tree and is inadmissible in evidence.
o 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.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court of Appeals Decision dated May 22, 2008 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C.
No. 00425 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant Jack Raquero Racho is ACQUITTED for insufficiency of evidence.
NOTES: