TOPIC: Rule 113 Section 5: Warrantless Arrest

SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 182348 November 20, 2008
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee
vs.
CARLOS DELA CRUZ, accused-appellant.

FACTS:

In this case, Carlos Dela Cruz was apprehended by the police officers during the organized arrest of Wilfredo Loilo alias
Boy Bicol who was a wanted drug pusher in San Mateo, Rizal. According to the prosecution, Carlos Dela Cruz was
seen talking to Boy Bicol in the nipa hut during the organized arrest and was seen holding a shotgun through a window.
A plastic bag of suspected shabu, digital weighing scale, drug paraphernalia, ammunition and magazines were seen
lying on the table during the arrest. Thereafter, two (2) charges against Carlos Dela Cruz were made before the RTC
for the crimes of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition and possession of dangerous drug.

In his defense, Carlos Dela Cruz contended that he was at Boy Bicols house for a welding job of Boy Bicols motorcycle.
When he asked the police officers the reason for his arrest, they told him that it was because he was a companion of
Boy Bicol. Carlos Dela Cruz denied under oath that the gun and drugs found were his.

The RTC then acquitted Carlos Dela Cruz for the crime of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition but convicted
him of possession of dangerous drugs. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) sustained his conviction for possession of
dangerous drugs.

ISSUE:

WON the warrantless arrest of Carlos Dela Cruz was illegal.

HELD:

YES. The prosecution in this case failed to show all the elements of the crime absent a showing of either actual or
constructive possession of Carlos Dela Cruz. Since he was not in possession of the illegal drugs in Boy Bicols hut, his
subsequent arrest without a warrant was also invalid. Rule 113 Section 5 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure on
warrantless arrest provides that a peace officer or a private person may, without a 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 just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of
facts or circumstances that the 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 serving final judgment or is temporarily
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

In the present case, the warrantless arrest was effected under Sec. 5 (a) of Rule 113. To be valid, two requisites must
concur: (1) 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, (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of
the arresting officer.

Here, the act of pointing a firearm at the buy-bust team would have been sufficient basis for his arrest in flagrante
delicto; however, the prosecution was not able to adequately prove that Carlos Dela Cruz was committing an offense.
Although he merely denied possessing the firearm, the prosecutions charge was weak since the alleged firearm was
not presented. His arrest, independent of the buy-bust operation targeting Boy Bicol, was therefore not lawful since it
was not proved that he was committing an offense.