People v.

Villareal
G.R. No. 201363
March 18, 2013
Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-Appellant: Nazareno Villareal y Lualhati

Facts:
In the morning of December 25, 2006, Police officer Renato de Leon was driving his
motorcycle. From a distance of 8 to 10 meters he saw the appellant Villareal, holding a plastic
sachet of shabu. When Villareal saw him, he immediately ran away. When de Leon caught
Villareal, he was brought to the police station where he was arrested and the alleged shabu was
turned over to be marked as evidence. The substance was tested and was proven to be a 0.03
gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. The appellant was charged with
the violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 for illegal possession of dangerous drugs. During
the trial de Leon claimed that the appellant had previous criminal charges for the same offense
and that he arrested the appellant because when he saw that the appellant was holding a powdery
white substance, it immediately gave him suspicion as to the matter thereof.

Issue: Whether or not there was a valid warrantless arrest based on the police officers personal
knowledge of the criminal record of the appellant.

Held:
No, there was no valid warrantless arrest. A lawful warrantless arrest exists when either
of the following circumstances are present: (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 just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of
facts or circumstances that he person to be arrested has committed it, and (c) when the person
to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is
service final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while
being transferred from one confinement to another. Based on the distance and the amount of the
powdery substance it is insufficient to conclude, even with clear vision that such substance
constitutes as shabu. The act of the appellant of examining the substance is not tantamount to
arouse suspicion of a commission or possible commission of a crime even if he has previous
criminal history on the same offense.

Personal knowledge is not defined as knowledge of a persons criminal record, but

personal knowledge as to the actual commission of the crime. The act of running away from
authority also does not automatically imply guilt on the accused. There are various reasons to run
away from authority, and commission of a crime is just one of the possible reasons.

Because there is an absence of overt act there is no justification for the appellants warrantless
arrest. Hence, it cannot be presented as evidence in court as it is a fruit of the poisonous tree.