Miclat v. People | G.R. No. 176077 | 31 August 2011 | Article III – Section 2 |
Recit Ready Summary:
An INFOREP Memo from Camp Cram was received, relating to illicit and down-right drug trading activities
being undertaken in Caloocan, involving Abe Miclat, Wily alias Bokbok and Mic or Jojo. Immediately, a
surveillance team was formed and went to the area. The team surrounded the perimeter of Abe’s house.
Abraham Miclat was convicted for violating the DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT. He was caught in his home, for
being in possession of SHABU. PO3 Antonio saw Miclat arranging several pieces of plastic along with the
shabu, from the curtained window. He entered and informed Miclat of his authority. Then, Miclat voluntarily
surrendered the items, and was arrested.
The issue is W/N Miclat’s arrest and the subsequent seizure of the drugs are constitutional. The Court said
YES, and affirmed their admissibility.
First, Miclat raised no objection to the irregularity of his arrest before arraignment and actively participated in
the case. Jurisprudence dictates that he is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court,
curing any defect in his arrest.
Second, The warrantless arrest was valid for being IN FRAGRANTE DELICTO.
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.
Lastly, as to the admissibility of the seized drugs in evidence, it too falls within the established exceptions of
valid warrantless searches and seizures. The seizure was not only incidental to the arrest, but it was also a
search of evidence in PLAIN VIEW.
1. the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a
position from which he can view a particular area;
2. the discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent;
3. it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime,
contraband or otherwise subject to seizure
FACTS: On November 8, 2002, in Caloocan City, Abraham Miclat had in his possession, custody, and control
SHABU (METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE), weight 0.24 grams.
An INFOREP Memo from Camp Crame was received by the Caloocan City Police Station, relating to illicit
and down-right drug trading activities being undertaken in Palmera Spring, Caloocan involving Abe Miclat,
Wily alias Bokbok and Mic or Jojo. Immediately, a surveillance team was formed. After a short briefing at
their station, the team boarded a rented passenger jeepney and proceeded to the target area to verify the
said informant and/or memorandum.
Upon arrival at 3:50 pm, they were led to the house of “Abe” and were positioned around the perimeter of the
house. Thru a small opening in the curtain-covered window, PO3 Antonio peeped inside and at a distance of
one meter, saw Abe arranging several pieces of small plastic sachets which he believed to be containing
Shabu. Slowly, said operative inched his way in by gently pushing the door as well as the plywood covering
it. Upon entering, PO3 Antonio forthwith introduced himself as a police officer while Abe, on the other hand,
after being informed of such authority, voluntarily handed over four sachets. PO3 Antonio immediately placed
the suspect under arrest and brought him and the four plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance
to their headquarters and turned them over to PO3 Fernando Moran for proper disposition. The suspect was
identified as Abraham Miclat y Cerbo a.k.a ABE, 19 years old, single, jobless and a resident of Maginhawa
Village, Palmera Spring II, Bagumbong, Caloocan City.
Miclat’s defense: Abe, along with his father and sister, were watching a television soap Cindy, when they
suddenly heard a commotion downstairs from raiding police operatives. He was arrested and on their way to
the police station, he was shown a plastic sachet containing shabu.
He was eventually detained.
He was convicted for violating the DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT.
ISSUES: W/N Miclat’s arrest and the subsequent seizure of the drugs are
constitutional? YES.
HELD:
1. Miclat raised no objection to the irregularity of his arrest before arraignment and actively participated
in the case. Jurisprudence dictates that he is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial
court, curing any defect in his arrest. An accused is estopped from assailing any irregularity of his
arrest if he fails to raise this issue or to move for the quashal of the information against him on this
ground before arraignment. Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the
court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea;
otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.
2. This was a valid warrantless arrest for being IN FRAGRANTE DELICTO.
a. The Court ruled that two elements must be present:
i. 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
ii. such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.
3. As to the admissibility of the seized drugs in evidence, it too falls within the established exceptions.
The seizure was not only incidental to the arrest, but it was also a search of evidence in PLAIN
VIEW. The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a position
from which he can particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, he came
inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The object must be open to eye
and hand and its discovery inadvertent.
a. The plain view doctrine applies when the following requisites concur:
i. the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an
intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area;
ii. the discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent;
iii. it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence
of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.
DISPOSITION: Appeal is DENIED. Decision is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION - indeterminate sentence of twelve (12)
years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months.
Comments
Post a Comment