G.R. No.

186529 August 3, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

vs.
JACK RACHO y RAQUERO, Appellant.

A confidential agent of the police transacted through cellular phone with appellant for the purchase
of shabu. Appellant called up the agent and informed him that he was on board a Genesis bus and
would arrive in Baler, Aurora. Having alighted from the bus, appellant was about to board a tricycle
when the team of police authorities approached him and invited him to the police station. As 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.5

Appellant was charged in two separate Informations, one for violation of Section 5 of R.A.
9165, for transporting or delivering; and the second, of Section 11 of the same law for possessing,
dangerous drugs.

ISSUE: (1) WON the warrant of arrest was violated.

(2) WON the evidence was admissible in evidence.

RULING: (1) No. “Reliable information” alone is not sufficient probable cause to effect a valid
warrantless arrest. The SC required the showing of some overt act indicative of the criminal design.

(2) No. This is an instance of seizure of the “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Hence, the
confiscated item is inadmissible in evidence.

The 1987 Constitution states that a search and consequent seizure must be carried out with a
judicial warrant; otherwise, it becomes unreasonable and any evidence obtained therefrom shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.17 Said proscription, however, admits of exceptions,
namely:

1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;

2. Search of evidence in "plain view;"

3. Search of a moving vehicle;

4. Consented warrantless search;

5. Customs search;

6. Stop and Frisk; and

7. Exigent and emergency circumstances.18

G.R. No. 186529 August 3, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
vs.
JACK RACHO y RAQUERO, Appellant.
A confidential agent of the police transacted through cellular phone with appellant for the purchase
of shabu. Appellant called up the agent and informed him that he was on board a Genesis bus and
would arrive in Baler, Aurora. Having alighted from the bus, appellant was about to board a tricycle
when the team of police authorities approached him and invited him to the police station. As 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.5
Appellant was charged in two separate Informations, one for violation of Section 5 of R.A.
9165, for transporting or delivering; and the second, of Section 11 of the same law for possessing,
dangerous drugs.

ISSUE: (1) WON the warrant of arrest was violated.

(2) WON the evidence was admissible in evidence.

RULING: (1) No. “Reliable information” alone is not sufficient probable cause to effect a valid
warrantless arrest. The SC required the showing of some overt act indicative of the criminal design.
 (2) No. This is an instance of seizure of the “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Hence, the
confiscated item is inadmissible in evidence.
The 1987 Constitution states that a search and consequent seizure must be carried out with a
judicial warrant; otherwise, it becomes unreasonable and any evidence obtained therefrom shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.17 Said proscription, however, admits of exceptions,
namely:
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;
2. Search of evidence in "plain view;"
3. Search of a moving vehicle;
4. Consented warrantless search;
5. Customs search;
6. Stop and Frisk; and
7. Exigent and emergency circumstances.18

G.R. No. 186529 August 3, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
vs.
JACK RACHO y RAQUERO, Appellant.
A confidential agent of the police transacted through cellular phone with appellant for the purchase
of shabu. Appellant called up the agent and informed him that he was on board a Genesis bus and
would arrive in Baler, Aurora. Having alighted from the bus, appellant was about to board a tricycle
when the team of police authorities approached him and invited him to the police station. As 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.5
Appellant was charged in two separate Informations, one for violation of Section 5 of R.A.
9165, for transporting or delivering; and the second, of Section 11 of the same law for possessing,
dangerous drugs.

ISSUE: (1) WON the warrant of arrest was violated.

(2) WON the evidence was admissible in evidence.

RULING: (1) No. “Reliable information” alone is not sufficient probable cause to effect a valid
warrantless arrest. The SC required the showing of some overt act indicative of the criminal design.

(2) No. This is an instance of seizure of the “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Hence, the
confiscated item is inadmissible in evidence.
The 1987 Constitution states that a search and consequent seizure must be carried out with a
judicial warrant; otherwise, it becomes unreasonable and any evidence obtained therefrom shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.17 Said proscription, however, admits of exceptions,
namely:
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;
2. Search of evidence in "plain view;"
3. Search of a moving vehicle;
4. Consented warrantless search;
5. Customs search;
6. Stop and Frisk; and
7. Exigent and emergency circumstances.18