Atty. Julius Gregory Delgado
“PEOPLE VS. RONILO JUMARANG”, G.R. 250306 (AUGUST 10, 2022): WARRANTLESS ARREST INVALIDATED AS THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE ACT OF GOING DOWNSTAIRS BRINGING A SUSPECTED MARIJUANA PLANT DOES NOT AMOUNT TO PROBABLE CAUSE
Accused Ronilo Jumarang (“Jumarang”) was convicted of violation of Section 16 (Cultivation or Culture of Plants Classified as Dangerous Drugs or are Sources Thereof), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Accused Jumarang was sentenced by the Regional Trial Court of Iriga City of reclusion perpetua which was affirmed but modified by the Court of Appeals sentencing him to life imprisonment.
The prosecution alleges that the police officers received a tip that “someone in the De Lima residence” located in Santiago, Bato, Camarines Sur was keeping marijuana plants. The information was relayed to the Chief of Police who instructed two police officers, PO2 Tanay and PO2 Buena. The duo when to the area and positioned themselves around 10 meters outside a house, which was located inside a compound. Allegedly, from where they were standing, they could see a man, later on identified as accused Jumarang, tending to some plants. Not long after, accused Jumarang started descending the roof. Suspecting that accused Jumarang will be bringing the plant inside, PO2 Tanay and PO2 Buena called him out and rushed inside the compound. They instructed accused Jumarang to put the plant down so they could closely examine it. PO2 Tanay and PO2 Buena went up the roof and found two (2) other pots which they identified as marijuana plants. Accused Jumarang was brought to the police station. The police officers looked for a barangay official, a member of the media, and a prosecutor to witness the inventor. After which, the plants were brought to Camp Simeon Ola for scientific examination and confirmed that these plants seized from accused Jumarang are indeed marijuana plants.
For his part, accused Jumarang testified that he was merely visiting his in-laws from Batangas where he resides. When his mother requested him to clean the rooftop, he allegedly saw three pots of marijuana plots which he supposedly reported to the police. Accused Jumarang said that as he was handling the plants to the police, he was told that he was planting marijuana. The two (2) officers asked if they could check the rooftop and they saw two (2) more plots of marijuana.
In its Decision, the Supreme Court restated the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure under Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution and that evidence obtained from an unreasonable search and seizure shall be inadmissible as evidence being a “fruit of a poisonous tree” pursuant to Section 3 (2), Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. The Court, however, held that there are permissible warrantless searches: (1) a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest; (2) search of evidence in plain view; (3) search of a moving vehicle; (4) consented warrantless searches; (5) customs search; (6) stop and frisk; and (7) exigent and emergency circumstances.
Among the permissible warrantless searches, the first one, i.e., a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest, was used by the trial court to convict accused Jumarang. The Court held also that in an arrest made in flagrante delicto, it is required that the apprehending officer must have been spurred by probable cause to arrest a person caught. Probable cause refers to “such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent (person) to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested.”
In invalidating the search and seizure being a product of an invalid warrantless arrest, the Supreme Court reversed and set aside the ruling of the trial and appellate courts acquitting accused Jumarang:
“As stated above, when the police officers saw accused-appellant, he was simply going downstairs while holding a potted plant. Accused-appellant was, at this moment, not committing a crime and it was not even shown that he was about to do so or that he had just done so. What he was doing was descending from the stairs, and there was no outward indication that called for his arrest.
Also, the fact that accused-appellant was holding a pot, which the police suspected to be a marijuana plant is not a justification to effect the warrantless arrest. The Court has held that a reasonable suspicion is not synonymous with the personal knowledge required under Section 5(a) to effect a valid warrantless arrest. The facts of the case clearly indicate that P02 Tanay merely assumed that the plant he saw in the pot being carried by accused-appellant was marijuana based on the information relayed to them by their confidential informant. P02 Tanay even admitted that said information was the sole basis in arriving at his conclusion. Clearly, P02 Tanay had no personal knowledge as to the type of plant that accused-appellant was holding, to produce probable cause to believe that the plant was indeed a marijuana plant.
Moreover, P02 Tanay testified that they were positioned at a distance of 10 meters from the house when they saw accused-appellant going downstairs holding a plant in a pot. At such a distance, the police officers would not be able to discern as to the type of plant that accused-appellant was holding. They cannot be said to be equipped with personal knowledge in the commission of a crime.”
As such, the Supreme Court invalidated the illegal search and seizure as there is no valid warrantless arrest since even arrests in flagrante delicto, probable cause must be extant. In the instant case the Supreme Court held that merely relying on confidential information, PO2 Tanay and PO2 Buena had no personal knowledge when they effected the warrantless arrest as they relied on such confidential information given anonymously.