CRIMINAL RULE 113

PROCEDURE
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V RACHO GR No. 186529
Date: August 03, 2010
Ponente: NACHURA, J.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee JACK RACHO Y RAQUERO, appellant

FACTS

Two informations were filed against the appellant Racho, one for violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No.
9165 (transporting and delivering dangerous drugs) and another for Section 11 of RA No. 9165 (possessing
dangerous drugs). The RTC rendered judgment convicting the appellant of violation of Section 5 but acquitting
him of violation of Section 11. Racho appealed to the CA, which affirmed the decision of the RTC.

Backstory:
On May 19, 2003, a confidential agent of the police transacted through cellular phone with appellant for the
purchase of shabu. The agent reported the transaction to the police authorities who immediately formed a
team to apprehend the appellant.

On May 20, 2003, at 11:00 a.m., appellant called up the agent with the information that he was on board a
Genesis bus and would arrive in Baler, Aurora anytime of the day wearing a red and white striped T-shirt.
The team members posted themselves along the national highway in Baler, Aurora, and at around 3:00 p.m.
of the same day, a Genesis bus arrived in Baler. When appellant alighted from the bus, the confidential agent
pointed to him as the person he transacted with, and when the latter was about to board a tricycle, the team
approached him and invited him to the police station as he was suspected of carrying shabu. When he pulled
out his hands from his pants' pocket, a white envelope slipped therefrom which, when opened, yielded a small
sachet containing the suspected drug.The team then brought appellant to the police station for investigation
and the confiscated specimen was marked in the presence of appellant. The field test and laboratory
examinations on the contents of the confiscated sachet yielded positive results fo1r methamphetamine
hydrochloride.

Now, appellant assails, for the first time, the legality of his arrest and the admissibility of the confiscated
sachet of shabu on the ground that it was the fruit of the poisonous tree.

ISSUE/S

1. WON the legality of the appellant’s arrest may be assailed on appeal for the first time - NO.

2. WON the sachet of shabu seized as a result of the search conducted after the warrantless arrest is
inadmissible in evidence against him - YES

RATIO
We find that appellant can no longer question the validity of his arrest, but the sachet of shabu seized from
him during the warrantless search is inadmissible in evidence against him.

1. Appellant never objected to the irregularity of his arrest before his arraignment. In fact, this is the first time
that he raises the issue. Considering this lapse, coupled with his active participation in the trial of the case,
we must abide with jurisprudence which dictates that appellant, having voluntarily submitted to the
jurisdiction of the trial court, is deemed to have waived his right to question the validity of his arrest, thus
curing whatever defect may have attended his arrest. The legality of the arrest affects only the jurisdiction
of the court over his person. Appellant's warrantless arrest therefore cannot, in itself, be the basis of his
acquittal.

2. The RTC concluded that appellant was caught in flagrante delicto, declaring that he was caught in the act
of actually committing a crime or attempting to commit a crime in the presence of the apprehending officers
as he arrived in Baler, Aurora bringing with him a sachet of shabu. Consequently, the warrantless search
was considered valid as it was deemed an incident to the lawful arrest. Recent jurisprudence holds that
in searches incident to a lawful arrest, the arrest must precede the search; generally, the process cannot
be reversed. Nevertheless, a search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest
if the police have probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search. What prompted the police
to apprehend appellant, even without a warrant, was the tip given by the informant that appellant would
arrive in Baler, Aurora carrying shabu. This circumstance gives rise to another question: whether that
information, by itself, is sufficient probable cause to effect a valid warrantless arrest. The long standing
rule in this jurisdiction is that "reliable information" alone is not sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest.
Obviously, this is an instance of seizure of the "fruit of the poisonous tree," hence, the confiscated item is
inadmissible in evidence consonant with Article III, Section 3(2) of the 1987 Constitution, "any evidence
obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding." Without the confiscated shabu, appellant's conviction cannot be sustained based on the
remaining evidence. Thus, an acquittal is warranted, despite the waiver of appellant of his right to question
the illegality of his arrest by entering a plea and his active participation in the trial of the case.

RULING

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court of Appeals Decision dated May 22, 2008 in CA-G.R. CR-
H.C. No. 00425 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant Jack Raquero Racho is ACQUITTED for
insufficiency of evidence.

The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to cause the immediate release of appellant, unless
the latter is being lawfully held for another cause; and to inform the Court of the date of his release, or the
reasons for his confinement, within ten (10) days from notice.

No costs.

Notes