THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 228107, October 09, 2019
GREGORIO TELEN Y ICHON, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
For a "stop and frisk" search to be valid, it must be supported by evidence such that the totality of the suspicious circumstances observed by the arresting officer led him or her to believe that an accused was committing an illicit act. A warrantless arrest not based on this is a violation of the accused's basic right to privacy.
This Court resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assailing the Decision2 and Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals upheld the Regional Trial Court Judgment4 finding Gregorio Telen y Ichon (Telen) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Article II, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
In an Information5 filed before the Regional Trial Court, Telen was charged with the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The accusatory portion of the Information read:
On or about October 7, 2012, in Pasig City and within the jurisdiction of this [Honorable Court, the accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully and unlawfully have in his possession and under his custody and control three (3) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing white crystalline substance, with the following weight, to wit:
- two grams and twenty-nine decigrams (2.29 grams).
- eight centigrams (0.08 gram)
- ten decigrams (sic) (0.10 gram)
with a total weight of two grams and forty-seven decigrams (sic) (2.47 grams), which were found positive to the tests for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.
Contrary to law.6
WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Gregorio I. Telen GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt, and imposes upon him the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to sixteen (16) years, as maximum, and a fine of three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00). Accordingly, let a mitimus order issue for the commitment of accused Gregorio I. Telen to the National Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City.
The three sachets of shabu (Exhibits “U”, “V” & “W”) are forfeited in favor of the government. Atty. Rachel G. Matalang is directed to transmit the said physical evidence to the PDEA for destruction.
SO ORDERED.25(Emphasis in the original)
SECTION 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
(a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent, and (d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further search;
SECTION 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
[W]hile 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.46 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
"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.
The balance lies in the concept of "suspiciousness" present in the situation where the police officer finds himself or herself in. This may be undoubtedly based on the experience of the police officer. Experienced police officers have personal experience dealing with criminals and criminal behavior. Hence, they should have the ability to discern — based on facts that they themselves observe — whether an individual is acting in a suspicious manner. Clearly, a basic criterion would be that the police officer, with his or her personal knowledge, must observe the facts leading to the suspicion of an illicit act.48 (Citation omitted)
Q: Was there an unusual incident that happened while you were at the Petron gasoline station?
A: Yes ma'am:
Q: What was that?
A: Noong kasalukuyang nagpapakarga po ako ng gasoline, nakita ko na mayroong isang tao ng nagpapakarga rin, malapit sa kinaroroonan ko, na nakita ko na nagbunot ng kanyang wallet at may nakita akong isang bagay ha metal, so agad akong kinutuban. ...
....
Q: You said that you feel something at that time?
A: Yes ma'am.
Q: Why, mr. witness (sic)?
A: As police officer ma'am...(discontinued)
COURT:
Q: Mr. witness, you said that you saw a metal?
A: Yes ma'am.
Q: And then you said that you had a hunch. Hunch of what?
A: Parang masama ma'am.52 (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)
TO: | The Director General BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS 1770 Muntinlupa City | |
| Thru: | CSSupt. Gerardo F. Padilla Superintedent New Bilibid Prison North BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS 1770 Muntinlupa City |
"WHEREFORE, the June 16, 2016 Decision and November 4, 2016 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 37590 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Gregorio Telen y Ichon is ACQUITTED and is ordered immediately RELEASED from confinement unless he is being held for some other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections for immediate implementation. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report the action he has taken to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision. For their information, copies shall also be furnished to the Director General of the Philippine National Police and the Director of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency.
The Regional Trial Court is directed to turn the seized sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride over to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED."
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 11-36.
2 Id. at 38-51. The June 16, 2016 Decision was penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion and concurred in by Associate Justices Danton Q. Bueser and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela of the Special Sixth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3 Id. at 53-53-A. The November 4, 2016 Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion and concurred in by Associate Justices Danton Q. Bueser and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela of the Former Special Sixth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
4 Id. at 72-80. The March 23, 2015 Judgment was penned by Presiding Judge Jennifer Albano Pilar of Branch 164, Regional Trial Court, Pasig City.
5 Id. at 72.
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 Also referred to as PO3 Mark Andrew M. Mozo in the Court of Appeals Decision.
9Rollo, p. 73.
10 Id. at 74.
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 Id. at 74-75.
17 Id. at 75.
18 Id.
19 Id. at 41.
20 Id. at 75-76.
21 Id. at 76.
22 Id. at 72-80.
23 Id. at 76-77.
24 Id. at 78.
25 Id. at 79-80.
26 Id. at 38.
27 Id. at 38-51.
28 Id at 43-44.
29 Id. at 99-112.
30 Id. at 53-53-A.
31 Id. at 11-36.
32 Id. at 22-24.
33 Id. at 25-30.
34 Id. at 135-159.
35 Id. at 144-147.
36 Id. at 147-149.
37 Id. at 150-155.
38 RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, sec. 1 provides:
SECTION 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. — A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.
39Ferrer v. People, 518 Phil. 196, 220 (2006) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, First Division] citing Aradillos v. Court of Appeals, 464 Phil. 650 (2004) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Second Division].
40 CONST., art. III, sec. 3(2) provides:
SECTION 3....
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
41People v. Aruta, 351 Phil. 868, 879-880 (1998) [Per J. Romero, Third Division].
42 347 Phil. 462 (1997) [Per J. Davide, Jr., En Banc].
43 Id. at 479-480.
44People v. Manago, 793 Phil. 505, 515 (2016) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division] citing Comerciante v. People, 764 Phil. 627 (2015) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division].
45Manalili v. Court of Appeals, 345 Phil. 632, 636 (I997) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
46Malacat v. Court of Appeals, 347 Phil. 462, 481 (1997) [Per J. Davide, Jr., En Banc] citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed.2d 889 (1968).
47 740 Phil. 212 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
48 Id. at 229-230.
49 G.R. No. 211214, March 20, 2019, [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
50 Id.
51Rollo, p. 43.
52 Id. at 22-23.
53 Id. at 22.
54 Id. at 74.