GR 227038; (July, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 227038 , July 31, 2017
JEFFREY MIGUEL y REMEGIO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Jeffrey Miguel was charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution alleged that in the early morning of May 24, 2010, two Bantay Bayan operatives, Reynaldo Bahoyo and Mark Anthony Velasquez, responded to a report of a man exposing his private parts on Kaong Street, Makati City. They found a visibly intoxicated petitioner urinating and displaying his private parts. Upon approach and request for identification, petitioner instead emptied his pockets, revealing a cigarette pack containing two rolled papers of dried marijuana leaves. The Bantay Bayan operatives seized the items, arrested petitioner, and turned him and the evidence over to police officer SPO3 Rafael Castillo, who conducted the inventory and marking.
Petitioner presented a contrasting version, claiming he was merely urinating near his workplace when the Bantay Bayan operatives frisked him, took his belongings, and arrested him without cause. He denied the marijuana was recovered from him at the scene, alleging it was only shown to him later at the barangay hall.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly upheld petitioner’s conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the conviction. The Court held that the warrantless arrest and the subsequent search were invalid. The arresting individuals were Bantay Bayan operatives, who are not peace officers with the authority to effect arrests under Rule 113, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure for the crime of “alarm and scandal.” Their actions constituted a citizen’s arrest, which requires that the offense was committed in their presence and that they delivered the offender to police authorities immediately. The records showed the operatives detained petitioner for about an hour before turning him over, a delay that vitiated the validity of the arrest.
Consequently, the search incidental to that invalid arrest was likewise unlawful. The marijuana seized is therefore inadmissible as evidence under the constitutional exclusionary rule. With the drug evidence rendered inadmissible, an essential element of the crime—the corpus delicti—was not established beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution’s case necessarily failed. Petitioner’s acquittal was ordered, and his immediate release from detention was directed unless held for another lawful cause.