G.R. No. 180661, December 11, 2013 - GEORGE ANTIQUERA Y CODES, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
GEORGE ANTIQUERA Y CODES, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
This case is about a supposed warrantless arrest and a subsequent search prompted by the police officers’ chance sighting through an ajar door of the accused engaged in pot session.
The prosecution evidence shows that at around 4:45 a.m. of February 11, 2004, PO1 Gregorio Recio, PO1 Laurence Cabutihan, P/Insp. Eric Ibon, PO1 Rodelio Rania, and two civilian operatives on board a patrol car and a tricycle were conducting a police visibility patrol on David Street, Pasay City, when they saw two unidentified men rush out of house number 107-C and immediately boarded a jeep.
On July 30, 2004 the RTC rendered a Decision8 that found accused Antiquera and Cruz guilty of the crime charged and sentenced them to a prison term ranging from six months and one day to two years and four months, and to pay a fine of P10,000.00 each and the costs of the suit.
The RTC said that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the police caught accused Antiquera and Cruz in the act of using shabu and having drug paraphernalia in their possession. Since no ill motive could be attributed to PO1 Recio and PO1 Cabutihan, the court accorded full faith and credit to their testimony and rejected the self-serving claim of Antiquera.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) rendered a Decision10 on September 21, 2007 affirming in full the decision of the trial court. The accused moved for reconsideration but the CA denied it.11 The accused is now before this Court seeking acquittal.
The issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred in finding accused Antiquera guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia based on the evidence of the police officers that they saw him and Cruz in the act of possessing drug paraphernalia.
The prosecution’s theory, upheld by both the RTC and the CA, is that it was a case of valid warrantless arrest in that the police officers saw accused Antiquera and Cruz through the door of their house, in the act of having a pot session. That valid warrantless arrest gave the officers the right as well to search the living room for objects relating to the crime and thus seize the paraphernalia they found there.
But the circumstances here do not make out a case of arrest made in flagrante delicto.
1. The police officers claim that they were alerted when they saw two unidentified men suddenly rush out of 107 David Street, Pasay City. Since they suspected that a crime had been committed, the natural thing for them to do was to give chase to the jeep that the two fleeing men boarded, given that the officers were in a patrol car and a tricycle. Running after the fleeing suspects was the more urgent task but the officers instead gave priority to the house even when they heard no cry for help from it.
By the way, Mr. Cabutihan, when you followed your companion towards the open door, how was the door open? Was it totally open, or was it partially open?
It was partially open Your Honor.
By how much, 1/3, 1/2? Only by less than one (1) foot?
More or less 4 to 6 inches, Your Honor.
So how were you able to know, to see the interior of the house if the door was only open by 6 inches? Or did you have to push the door?
We pushed the door, Your Honor.
Were you allowed to just go towards the door of the house, push its door and peeped inside it, as a police officer?
Are you not allowed to – Are you not required to get a search warrant before you can search the interior of the house?
What do you mean by yes? Would you first obtain a search warrant before searching the interior of the house?
So why did you not a [sic] secure a search warrant first before you tried to investigate the house, considering your admission that you suspected that there was something wrong inside the house?
Because we saw them that they were engaged in pot session, Your Honor.
But before you saw them, you just had to push the door wide open to peep through its opening because you did not know what was happening inside?
Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Peralta, Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., concur.
* Also referred to as George Antiquira in some parts of the records.
1 In violation of Section 12, Article II of Republic Act 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
7 TSN, May 31, 2004, pp. 3-4.
10Rollo, pp. 56-70. Penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Myrna Dimaranan Vidal.
13People v. Molina, 404 Phil. 797, 809 (2001).
14Zalameda v. People, G.R. No. 183656, September 4, 2009, 598 SCRA 537, 552.
15 TSN, May 20, 2004, pp. 8-10.
16 See: Luz v. People, G.R. No. 197788, February 29, 2012, 667 SCRA 421, 434.
17 See: People v. Villareal, G.R. No. 201363, March 18, 2013, 693 SCRA 549, 561.
18People v. Martinez, G.R. No. 191366, December 13, 2010, 637 SCRA 791, 801.