G.R. No. 200370 Mario Veridiano Y Sapi People of The Philippines Facts

G.R. No.
200370
MARIO VERIDIANO y SAPI

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
FACTS:
Through this Petition for Review on Certiorari, Mario Veridiano y Sapi (Veridiano)
assails the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed his
conviction for violation of Article II, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165.
In an Information filed before the Regional Trial Court of San Pablo City,
Laguna, Veridiano was charged with the crime of illegal possession of dangerous
drugs.
The Information read:
That on or about January 15, 2008, in the Municipality of Nagcarlan, Province of

Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, not being permitted or authorized by law, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, control and custody one (1) small
heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 2. 72 grams of dried marijuana
leaves, a dangerous drug. POI Cabello confiscated the tea bag and marked it with
his initials. Veridiano was arrested and apprised of his constitutional rights. He was
then brought to the police station.
In the Decision, the Regional Trial Court found Veridiano guilty beyond reasonable
doubt for the crime of illegal possession of marijuana. Accordingly, he was
sentenced to suffer a penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day,
as minimum, to twenty (20) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of ₱300,000.00.
Veridiano appealed the decision of the trial court asserting that "he was illegally
arrested." He argued that the tea bag containing marijuana is "inadmissible in
evidence [for] being the 'fruit of a poisonous tree. "Veridiano further argued that the
police officers failed to comply with the rule on chain of custody.
On the other hand, the prosecution asserted that "[t]he legality of an arrest affects
only the jurisdiction of the court over [the person of the accused]." Thus, by entering
his plea, Veridiano waived his right to question any irregularity in his arrest. With
regard to the alleged illegal warrantless search conducted by the police officers, the
prosecution argued that Veridiano' s "submissive deportment at the time of the
search" indicated that he consented to the warrantless search.
Petitioner argues that the tea bag containing marijuana leaves was seized in
violation of his right against unreasonable searches and seizures. He asserts that his
arrest was illegal. Petitioner was merely seated inside the jeepney at the time of his
apprehension. He did not act in any manner that would give the police officers
reasonable ground to believe that he had just committed a crime or that he was
committing a crime. Petitioner also asserts that reliable information is insufficient to
constitute probable cause that would support a valid warrantless arrest.
Since his arrest was illegal, petitioner argues· that "the accompanying [warrantless]
search was likewise illegal." Hence, under Article III, Section 2, in relation to Article
III, Section 3(2) of the Constitution, the seized tea bag containing marijuana is
"inadmissible in evidence [for] being the fruit of a poisonous tree."
ISSUES:
Whether there was a valid warrantless arrest
Whether there was a valid warrantless search against petitioner
RULING:
Petitioner's warrantless arrest was unlawful.
A search incidental to a lawful arrest requires that there must first be a lawful arrest
before a search is made. Otherwise stated, a lawful arrest must precede the search;
"the process cannot be reversed." For there to be a lawful arrest, law enforcers must
be armed with a valid warrant. Nevertheless, an arrest may also be effected without
a warrant.
The first kind of warrantless arrest is known as an in flagrante delicto arrest. The
validity of this warrantless arrest requires compliance with the overt act test. Failure
to comply with the overt act test renders an in flagrante delicto arrest constitutionally
infirm.
The warrantless arrest was invalidated as an in flagrante delicto arrest because the
accused did not exhibit an overt act within the view of the police officers suggesting
that he was in possession of illegal drugs at the time he was apprehended.
The warrantless search cannot be justified under the reasonable suspicion

requirement in "stop and frisk" searches.
In the present case, the extensive search conducted by the police officers exceeded
the allowable limits of warrantless searches. They had no probable cause to believe
that the accused violated any law except for the tip they received. They did not
observe any peculiar activity from the accused that may either arouse their suspicion
or verify the tip. Moreover, the search was flawed at its inception. The checkpoint
was set up to target the arrest of the accused.
The warrantless search conducted by the police officers is invalid. Consequently, the
tea bag containing marijuana seized from petitioner is rendered inadmissible under
the exclusionary principle in Article III, Section 3(2) of the Constitution. There being
no evidence to support his conviction, petitioner must be acquitted.
WHEREFORE, petitioner Mario Veridiano y Sapi is hereby ACQUITTED and is

ordered immediately RELEASED from confinement unless he is being held for some
other lawful cause.

G.R. No. 200370 Mario Veridiano Y Sapi People of The Philippines Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 200370 Mario Veridiano Y Sapi People of The Philippines Facts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 200370 Mario Veridiano Y Sapi People of The Philippines Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

MARIO VERIDIANO y SAPI

The Information read:

That on or about January 15, 2008, in the Municipality of Nagcarlan, Province of

Petitioner's warrantless arrest was unlawful.

The warrantless search cannot be justified under the reasonable suspicion

WHEREFORE, petitioner Mario Veridiano y Sapi is hereby ACQUITTED and is

You might also like