Case Digest: So v. Republic (G.R. No. 170603)

So v. Republic | G.R. No. 170603 | 29 Jan 2007 | Callejo, Sr. J. | Art IV (Section 1, Par 4) | Petitioners: Edison So Respondents: Republic of the Philippines Recit Ready Summary Herein Petitioner So filed for a Petition for Naturalization under CA No. 473 aka the Revised Naturalization Law.He presented 2 witnesses à fam business lawyer Atty. Adasa & UST classmate Mark Salcedo. RTC granted So’s petition. Respondent Republic of the Phil through OSG said not so fast! Coz SolGen claims na the 2 witnesses So presented did not know him (So) well enough and that they only gave general statements upon being asked about the character and moral conduct of So. CA set aside RTC’s decision. Hence, this present petition. The issue is W/N So qualifies for Philippines Citizenship and the Court said NO. It was wrong for So to claim that that RA 9139 should apply to his case instead of CA No. 473. This is because the latter applied to ALL ALIENS regardless of class while the former applies to nati...
Post a Comment

Case Digest: Comerciante v. People (G.R. No. 205926)

Comerciante v. People | G.R. No. 205926 | July 22, 2015 | Perlas-Bernabe, J.| Art III - Sec. 2 |

Recit Ready Summary: Agents Radan and Calag were patrolling the area while on their way to visit a friend at Private Road, Mandaluyong City. The spotted accused Comerciante and Dasila standing and showing “improper and unpleasant movements” with one of them handling plastic sachets to the other. Thinking the sachets contain shabu , they introduced themselves as officers and arrested them. Upon examination it was indeed shabu. 

RTC found Comerciante guilty beyond reasonable doubt. CA affirmed the conviction. 

The SC ruled that against the CA. In the circumstances of the case, it was highly implausible that the officers be able to identify with reasonable accuracy that the plastic sachets indeed contained shabu. The act of standing with a companion handing over something to him cannot in any way be considered criminal acts. It was also failed to show that Calag had personal knowledge that a crime had been committed. . The 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. 

There was no valid warrantless arrest nor a valid “stop and frisk” search made. The shabu purportedly seized is inadmissible in evidence for being the proverbial fruit of the poisonous tree. He must necessarily be acquitted and exonerated from all criminal liability.

FACTS:
1. Agent Eduardo Radan and P03 Bienvy Calag II were aboard a motorcycle, patrolling the area while on their way to visit a friend at Private Road, Barangay Hulo, Mandaluyong City. 

2. Cruising at the speed of 30 kilometers per hour, they spotted, at a distance of about 10 meters, two (2) men – Comerciante and Dasilla standing and showing “improper and unpleasant movements” with one of them handing plastic sachets to the other. 

3. Thinking the sachets may contain shabu, they immediately stopped and approached them, introduced themselves as agents and arrested them. Upon examination, the sachet contained 0.43 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride commonly known as “shabu”. 

4. Comerciante averred that PO3 Calag was looking for a certain “Barok,” who was a notorious drug pusher in the area, when suddenly, he and Dasilla, were arrested and taken to the police station. 

5. RTC Ruling: Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) The RTC considered it a seizure in plain view. 

6. CA Ruling: PO3 Calag had probable cause to effect the warrantless arrest given the accused was commiting a crime in flagrante delicto and he personally saw them exchanging the plastic sachets. According to the CA, this was enough to draw a reasonable suspicion that the sachets might contain shabu.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA correctly affirmed Comerciante’s conviction for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165. No.


HELD:
1. The situation does not fall under arrest of a suspect under in flagrante delicto.

REQUISITES:

a. The person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he –

i. Has just committed
ii. Is actually committing
iii. Is attempting to commit an offense

b. Such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. In both instances, the officer’s personal knowledge of the fact of the commission of an offense is absolutely required.

In the circumstances of the case, the court finds it highly implausible that P03 Calag, even assuming he has perfect vision, would be able to identify with reasonable accuracy – especially from a distance of around 10 meters and while aboard a motorcycle cruising at a speed of 30 kilometers per hour – miniscule amounts of white crystalline substance inside two (2) very small plastic sachets held by Comerciante.

The acts of standing around with a companion and handling over something to him cannot in any way be considered criminal acts. “Improper and unpleasant movements” are not sufficient to affect a warrantless arrest. 

2. The situation does not fall under hot pursuit arrest. 

REQUISITES:
a. Offense has in fact just been committed
b. That the arresting peace officer or private person has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested is the one who commits the offense.

The factual backdrop of the case failed to show that PO3 Calag had personal knowledge that a crime has been indisputably committed by Comerciante. It is not enough that the arresting officer has reasonable ground to believe that the accused had just committed a crime; a crime must in fact be committed first, which did not happen in this case.

 3. It cannot be considered as stop and frisk. 

REQUIRES that there be a genuine reason for the police officer to believe that a certain person has illegal firearms or is carrying illegal drugs in his possession. 

A mere suspicion or hunch will not validate a stop and frisk, a genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officer’s experience and the surrounding conditions, to warrant a belief that the person to be held has weapons (or contraband) concealed about him. It should therefore be emphasized that a search and seizure should precede the arrest for this principle to apply. (People v. Malacat) 

Comerciante’s acts of standing around with a companion and handing over something to the latter do not constitute criminal acts. 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 Comerciante. 

4. There was neither a valid warrantless arrest nor a valid “stop and frisk” search made on Comerciante. The shabu purportedly seized from him is inadmissible in evidence for being the proverbial fruit of the poisonous tree. He must necessarily be acquitted and exonerated from all criminal liability

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Decision dated October 20, 2011 and the Resolution dated February 19, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 32813 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, petitioner Alvin Comerciante y Gonzales is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime of violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause his immediate release, unless he is being lawfully held for any other reason.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Case Digest: Republic v. Sereno (G.R. No 237428) w/ Summary of Separate Opinions

Republic v. Sereno (including Summary of Separate Opinions) | G.R. No. 237428 | May 11, 2018 | Tijam, J. |  Topic: Art. VIII, Sec 5 (other topics included in the full digest) | SUMMARY:   A petition for quo warranto was filed by the OSG assailing the appointment of CJ Sereno as Chief Justice on the ground that she failed to prove her integrity during the nomination process as she failed to comply with the SALN requirements of the JBC. Several groups and individuals filed Motions for Leave to Intervene, among them Senators De Lima and Trillanes. CJ Sereno filed a Motion to Inhibit against six Justices. The Republic argues that (1) quo warranto is the proper remedy, as the Constitution does not make impeachment the exclusive mode of unseating an impeachable officer; (2) the petition is not time barred as prescription cannot run against the States; and, (3) that, at the time of her appointment, CJ Sereno was not of “proven integrity” she not having filed the required SALNs a...
Read more

Case Digest: Gloria Dy v. People (G.R. No 189081)

Gloria Dy v. People of the Philippines | G.R. No. 189081 | August 10, 2016 | Topic: Liability ex delicto / ex contractu FACTS: Dy, as the General Manager of Mandy Commodities Company, Inc. (MCCI) proposed to William Mandy (President of MCCI) to purchase a property for the company. To facilitate the purchase, the president obtained a loan from International China Bank of Commerce (bank), which was granted to the company in the amount of P20 million.   As security, MCCI executed a chattel mortgage over their warehouses. The president entrusted Dy to manage the payment of the loan. Later on, MCCI received a notice of foreclosure over the mortgaged property due to its default in paying.   In order to prevent the foreclosure, the president delivered to Dy, P21,706,281 worth of checks issued by MCCI, with the instruction that Dy shall use the checks to pay the loan. However, the president later discovered that the checks weren’t paid to the bank when the bank foreclosed the mortg...
Read more

Case Digest: Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo (G.R. No. 180906)

Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo |  G.R. No. 180906 | October 7, 2008 |  Puno. C.J. Doctrine and Concepts: The Writ of Amparo offers a better remedy to extralegal killings and enforced disappearances and threats thereof due to the nature of swiftness required to resolve these cases The remedy provides rapid judicial relief as it partakes of a summary that requires only substantial evidence to make the appropriate reliefs available to the petitioner; it is not an action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt or liability for damages requiring preponderance of evidence or administrative responsibility requiring full and exhaustive proceedings. Facts The case at bar is an appeal via Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court in relation to Section 19 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo , seeking to reverse and set aside , the Decision promulgated by Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. AMPARO No. 00001. The original case was filed by ...
Read more