PEOPLE vs.
EDISON SUCRO
G.R. No. 93239| Gutierrez, JR., J. | March 18, 1991
Searches and Seizures
DOCTRINE: Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides for the instances where arrest without
warrant is considered lawful. The rule states:
"Arrest without warrant, when lawful. - A peace officer or private person may, without 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 in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the
person to be arrested has committed it;"
FACTS:
● On March 21, 1989, Pat. Roy Fulgencio, a member of the INP, Kalibo, Aklan, was instructed by P/Lt. Vicente
Seraspi, Jr. (Station Commander of the INP Kalibo, Aklan) to monitor the activities of appellant Edison Sucro,
because of information gathered by Seraspi that Sucro was selling marijuana.
● At 5:00 P.M., same day, Pat. Fulgencio saw appellant enter the chapel, taking something which turned out
later to be marijuana from the compartment of a cart found inside the chapel, and then return to the street
where he handed the same to a buyer, Aldie Borromeo. At about 6:30 P.M., Pat. Fulgencio again called up
Seraspi to report that a third buyer later identified as Ronnie Macabante was transacting with appellant.
● The team of Seraspi proceeded to the area. While the police officers were at the Youth Hostel Maagma
Street, Fulgencio asked Seraspi to intercept Macabante and the appellant. When confronted, Macabante
readily admitted that he bought the same from appellant (Edison Sucro) in front of the chapel. The police
recovered 19 sticks and 4 teabags of marijuana from the cart inside the chapel and another teabag from
Macabante. The teabags of marijuana were sent to the Crime Laboratory Service, at Camp Delgado, Iloilo
City for analysis and were all found positive of marijuana.
● The accused-appellant contends that his arrest was illegal, being a violation of his rights granted under
Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. He stresses that there was sufficient time for the police officers
to apply for a search and arrest warrants considering that Fulgencio informed his Station Commander of the
activities of the accused two days before March 21, 1989, the date of his arrest.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the arrest without warrant of the accused is lawful.-YES
Whether or not the evidence resulting from such arrest is admissible.-YES
HELD:
(1) The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner’s contention that his arrest was illegal was unmeritous.
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides for the instances where arrest without warrant is
considered lawful. The rule states:
"Arrest without warrant, when lawful. - A peace officer or private person may, without 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 in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that
the person to be arrested has committed it;"
An offense is committed in the presence or within the view of an officer, within the meaning of the rule
authorizing an arrest without a warrant, when the officer sees the offense, although at a distance, or hears the
disturbances created thereby and proceeds at once to the scene thereof. In the case at bar, Fulgencio, within a
distance of two meters saw Sucro conduct his nefarious activity. He saw Sucro talk to some persons, go inside the
chapel, and return to them and exchange some things. These, Sucro did three times during the time that he was
being monitored. The accused questioned the failure of the police officers to secure a warrant considering that
Fulgencio himself knew of Sucro's activities even prior to the former's joining the police force. Fulgencio reported
Sucro's activities only three days before the incident. As the records revealed, Fulgencio and Sucro had known each
other since their childhood years and that after Fulgencio joined the police force, he told the accused-appellant not to
sell drugs in their locality. Hence, it was possible that because of this friendship, Fulgencio hesitated to report his
childhood friend and merely advised him not to engage in such activity. However, because of reliable information
given by some informants that selling was going on everyday, he was constrained to report the matter to the Station
Commander. It appears that the failure of the police officers to secure a warrant stems from the fact that their
knowledge acquired from the surveillance was insufficient to fulfill the requirements for the issuance of a search
warrant. What is paramount is that probable cause existed. That searches and seizures must be supported by
a valid warrant is not an absolute rule (Manipon, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, 143 SCRA 267 [1986]). Among the
exceptions granted by law is a search incidental to a lawful arrest under Sec. 12, Rule 126 of the Rules on
Criminal Procedure, which provides that a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons
or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant.
(2) The accused-appellant claims that the arrest having been done without warrant, it follows that the
evidence obtained therefrom is inadmissible. As earlier discussed, there is nothing unlawful about the arrest
considering its compliance with the requirements of a warrantless arrest. Ergo, the fruits obtained from such lawful
arrest are admissible in evidence.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED.
