(DIGEST) Remegio vs. People, G.R. No. 227038, July 31, 2017

Remegio vs. People, G.R. No.
227038, July 31, 2017
FACTS The prosecution alleged that a Bantay Bayan operative of Barangay San Antonio
Village, Makati City named Bahoyo purportedly received a report of a man showing off his
private parts at Kaong Street. BB Bahoyo and fellow Bantay Bayan operative Velasquez then
went to the said street and saw a visibly intoxicated person, which they later identified as herein
petitioner, urinating and displaying his private parts while standing in front of a gate enclosing an
empty lot.
BB Bahoyo and BB Velasquez approached petitioner and asked him where he lived, and asked
for an identification card, but petitioner failed to produce one. BB Velasquez then repeated the
request for an identification card, but instead, petitioner emptied his pockets, revealing a pack of
cigarettes containing one (1) stick of cigarette and two (2) pieces of rolled paper containing dried
marijuana leaves, among others. This prompted BB Bahoyo and BB Velasquez to seize the
foregoing items, take petitioner to the police station, and turn him, as well as the seized items,
over to SPO3 Castillo. After examination, it was confirmed that the aforesaid rolled paper
contained marijuana and that petitioner was positive for the presence of methamphetamine but
negative for THC-metabolites, both dangerous drugs.
An Information was then filed before the RTC charging petitioner of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs, defined and penalized under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, otherwise
known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002." Petitioner pleaded not guilty to
the charge.
RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. The RTC found that
BB Bahoyo and BB Velasquez conducted a valid warrantless arrest, as petitioner was
scandalously showing his private parts at the time of his arrest. Therefore, the resultant search
incidental to such arrest which yielded the seized marijuana in petitioner's possession was also
lawful. Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the CA which affirmed petitioner's conviction.
Undaunted, petitioner moved for reconsideration, which was, however, denied in a Resolution;
hence, this petition.
ISSUES: Whether or not the Bantay Bayan operatives conducted a lawful search on petitioner?
HELD: No, the Bantay Bayan operatives conducted an illegal search on the person of petitioner.
One of the recognized exceptions to the need of a warrant before a search may be effected is a
search incidental to a lawful arrest. In this instance, the law requires that there first be a lawful
arrest before a search can be made- the process cannot be reversed. Article 3 Section 2 provides
the constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure.
In warrantless arrests made pursuant to Section 5 (a), Rule 113, two (2) elements must
concur, namely: (a) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has
just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (b) such overt
act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.
On the basis of the testimonies, the Court is inclined to believe that at around past 12
o'clock in the early morning of May 24, 2010, petitioner went out to the street to urinate when
the Bantay Bayan operatives chanced upon him. The latter then approached and questioned
petitioner, and thereafter, went on to search his person, which purportedly yielded the marijuana
seized from him. Verily, the prosecution's claim that petitioner was showing off his private parts
was belied by the testimonies. Clearly, these circumstances do not justify the conduct of an in
flagrante delicto arrest, considering that there was no overt act constituting a crime committed by
petitioner in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. Neither do these
circumstances necessitate a "hot pursuit" warrantless arrest as the arresting Bantay Bayan
operatives do not have any personal knowledge of facts that petitioner had just committed an
offense. More importantly, the Court simply finds highly implausible the prosecution's claim that
a valid warrantless arrest was made on petitioner on account of the alleged public display of his
private parts because if it was indeed the case, then the proper charge should have been filed
against him. However, records are bereft of any showing that such charge was filed aside from
the instant criminal charge for illegal possession of dangerous drugs - thereby strengthening the
view that no prior arrest was made on petitioner which led to a search incidental thereto. As
stressed earlier, there must first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made and that such
process cannot be reversed.
NOTE: Bantay Bayans are considered as Law Enforcers.
In this light, the Court is convinced that the acts of the Bantay Bayan - or any barangay-based
or other volunteer organizations in the nature of watch groups - relating to the preservation of
peace and order in their respective areas have the color of a state-related function. As such, they
should be deemed as law enforcement authorities for the purpose of applying the Bill of Rights
under Article III of the 1987 Constitution to them.

(DIGEST) Remegio vs. People, G.R. No. 227038, July 31, 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(DIGEST) Remegio vs. People, G.R. No. 227038, July 31, 2017

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

(DIGEST) Remegio vs. People, G.R. No. 227038, July 31, 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remegio vs. People, G.R. No.

227038, July 31, 2017

NOTE: Bantay Bayans are considered as Law Enforcers.

You might also like