Comerciante v. People, July 22, 2015

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2

G.R. No.

205926               July 22, 2015

ALVIN COMERCIANTE y GONZALES, Petitioner,


vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Facts/Arguments:

Prosecution Defense (Comerciante)

According to the prosecution, at around 10 o'clock in the In his defense, Comerciante averred that P03 Calag
evening of July 30, 2003, Agent Eduardo Radan (Agent was looking for a certain "Barok", who was a notorious
Radan) of the NARCOTICS group and P03 Bienvy Calag II drug pusher in the area, when suddenly, he and
(P03 Calag) were aboard a motorcycle, patrolling the area Dasilla, who were just standing in front of a jeepney
while on their way to visit a friend at Private Road, Barangay along Private Road, were arrested and taken to a
Hulo, Mandaluyong City. Cruising at a speed of 30 kilometers police station. There, the police officers claimed to
per hour along Private Road, they spotted, at a distance of have confiscated illegal drugs from them and were
about 10 meters, two (2) men - later identified as asked money in exchange for their release. When they
Comerciante and a certain Erick Dasilla (Dasilla) - standing failed to accede to the demand, they were brought to
and showing "improper and unpleasant movements," with another police station to undergo inquest proceedings,
one of them handing plastic sachets to the other. Thinking and thereafter, were charged with illegal possession of
that the sachets may contain shabu, they immediately dangerous drugs.
stopped and approached Comerciante and Dasilla At a
distance of around five (5) meters, P03 Calag introduced
himself as a police officer, arrested Comerciante and Dasilla,
and confiscated two (2) plastic sachets containing white
crystalline substance from them. A laboratory examination
later confirmed that said sachets contained
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

Issue: WON there is a valid stop and frisk

RTC: The R TC found that P03 Calag conducted a valid warrantless arrest on Comerciante, which yielded two (2) plastic
sachets containing shabu. In this relation, the R TC opined that there was probable cause to justify the warrantless
arrest, considering that P03 Calag saw, in plain view, that Comerciante was carrying the said sachets when he decided to
approach and apprehend the latter. Further, the RTC found that absent any proof of intent that P03 Calag was impelled
by any malicious motive, he must be presumed to have properly performed his duty when he arrested Comerciante.

CA: It held that P03 Calag had probable cause to effect the warrantless arrest of Comerciante, given that the latter was
committing a crime in flagrante delicto; and that he personally saw the latter exchanging plastic sachets with Dasilla.
According to the CA, this was enough to draw a reasonable suspicion that those sachets might be shabu, and thus, P03
Calag had every reason to inquire on the matter right then and there.

Ruling: (The warrantless arrest was ruled as invalid.)

NO. The stop and frisk is invalid.

"Stop and frisk" searches (sometimes referred to as Terry searches) are necessary for law enforcement. That is, law
enforcers should be given the legal arsenal to prevent the commission of offenses. However, this should be balanced with
the need to protect the privacy of citizens in accordance with Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.
Normally, "stop and frisk" searches do not give the law enforcer an opportunity to confer with a judge to determine
probable cause. In Posadas v. Court of Appeals, one of the earliest cases adopting the "stop and frisk" doctrine in
Philippine jurisprudence, this court approximated the suspicious circumstances as probable cause:

The probable cause is that when the petitioner acted suspiciously and attempted to flee with the buri bag there was a
probable cause that he was concealing something illegal in the bag and it was the right and duty of the police officers to
inspect the same.

For warrantless searches, probable cause was defined as "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.

Malacat v. Court of Appeals clarifies the requirement further. It does not have to be probable cause, but it cannot be
mere suspicion. It has to be a genuine reason to serve the purposes of the "stop and frisk" exception:

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.

In his dissent for Esquillo v. People, Justice Bersamin reminds us that police officers must not rely on a single suspicious
circumstance. There should be "presence of more than one seemingly innocent activity, which, taken together, warranted
a reasonable inference of criminal activity." The Constitution prohibits "umeasonable searches and seizures." Certainly,
reliance on only one suspicious circumstance or none at all will not result in a reasonable search.

In this case, the Court reiterates that Comerciante' s acts of standing around with a companion and handing over
something to the latter do not constitute criminal acts. 1âwphi1 These circumstances are not enough to create a
reasonable inference of criminal activity which would constitute a "genuine reason" for P03 Calag to conduct a "stop and
frisk" search on the former. In this light, the "stop and frisk" search made on Comerciante should be deemed unlawful.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy