If you shout in public, can you be arrested and searched for drugs just like that? The police in Goco vs. People of the Philippines, February 13, 2013 G.R. No. 198694 obviously thought so. In December 29, 2007, they were on foot patrol when they took into custody the accused in this case, ostensibly for shouting ““Putangina mo, Limang daan na ba ito?” in a public place as he pointed to his pocket. Using a Manila Ordinance, which penalizes breaches of the peace, he was apprehended and asked to empty his pockets. The police recovered a plastic sachet containing what was suspected to be shabu which they confiscated. This was later examined and found to be positive as methylamphetamine
hydrochloride (or shabu). The story seems particularly inspired, as it paints a drug buyer protesting being short-changed just within earshot of the
police.
This account of the police was denied by the accused who alleged that he was walking at around 4 p.m. when a man in
civilian clothes approached him and asked him his name. After responding, he was handcuffed and detained. He was
asked if he was carrying illegal drugs which he denied. A policeman then asked his wife for P20,000 in exchange for his release. When this could not be produced, he was brought in for inquest proceedings. He was convicted by the Regional Trial Court (“RTC”) which verdict was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The lower court upheld his warrantless arrest as he was disturbing the peace at the time of his apprehension. The Court of Appeals agreed, stating that the “body search made on Ramon as an incident of a lawful warrantless arrest for breach of the peace which he committed in the presence of the police officers, notwithstanding its subsequent dismissal (i.e., the case for breach of the peace) for failure to prosecute. xxx” So it would appear that the original charge which led to his conviction was not even pursued. This case seems very curious. And it seems more curious that the courts were not apparently aware of how the police would resort to shortcuts, or worse, “hulidap” arrests. The Court of Appeals even made reference to “the presumption of regularity in the performance of the police officers’ official duties.” When this presumption goes against the presumption of innocence, which would prevail?
The Supreme Court ruled in the
accused’s favor and overturned his conviction.
It cited Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
which states:
“Section
2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for
any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest
shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge
after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched
and the persons or things to be seized.”
To ensure that this “sacrosanct right remains revered, effects secured by government authorities in
contravention of the foregoing are rendered inadmissible in evidence for any
purpose, in any proceeding.” This is
provided for Section 3(2), Article
Ill of the Constitution: “Any
evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section [referring to
Section 2] shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.” This is
known as the “exclusionary rule” which is subject to certain traditional
exceptions such as “customs searches, searches of moving vehicles, seizure of
evidence in plain view, consented searches, “stop and frisk” measures and
searches incidental to a lawful arrest.” This last exception was relied upon in
the instant case.
The Court stated the basis for a valid arrest without a
warrant:
“A valid
warrantless arrest which justifies a subsequent search is one that is carried
out under the parameters of Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court which
requires that the apprehending officer must have been spurred by probable cause
to arrest a person caught in flagrante
delicto. To be sure, the term probable cause has been understood to mean a
reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong
in themselves to warrant a cautious man’s belief that the person accused is guilty
of the offense with which he is charged.” Specifically with respect to arrests,
it is such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and
prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought
to be arrested. In this light, the determination of the existence or absence of
probable cause necessitates a re-examination of the factual incidents.”
The Court reviewed the facts
surrounding the accused’s arrest for breach of the peace under
Section 844 of the Manila City Ordinance which provides:
“Sec.
844. Breaches of the Peace. No person shall make, and, countenance, or assist
in making any riot, affray, disorder, disturbance, or breach of the peace; or
assault, beat or use personal violence upon another without just cause in any
public place; or utter any slanderous, threatening or abusive language or
expression or exhibit or display any emblem, transparency, representation,
motto, language, device, instrument, or thing; or do any act, in any public
place, meeting or procession, tending to disturb the peace or excite a riot, or
collect with other persons in a body or crowd for any unlawful purpose; or
disturbance or disquiet any congregation engaged in any lawful assembly. xxx”
The Court observed that the
“the gravamen of these offenses is the disruption of communal tranquillity.
Thus, to justify a warrantless arrest based on the same, it must be established
that the apprehension was effected after a reasonable assessment by the police
officer that a public disturbance is being committed.”
Based on the apprehending
officer’s own testimony, they were on routine patrol when they heard the
accused shout. He admitted that the
place was thickly populated, with many people outside their houses where
everybody was also talking and noisy.
For the Court, this negated “the presence of probable cause when the
police officers conducted their warrantless arrest of Ramon. To elucidate, it
cannot be said that the act of shouting in a thickly-populated place, with many
people conversing with each other on the street, would constitute any of the
acts punishable under Section 844 of the Manila City Ordinance as above-quoted.
Ramon was not making or assisting in any riot, affray, disorder, disturbance,
or breach of the peace; he was not assaulting, beating or using personal
violence upon another; and, the words he allegedly shouted - “Putangina mo
Limang daan na ba ito’ - are not slanderous, threatening or abusive, and thus,
could not have tended to disturb the peace or excite a riot considering that at
the time of the incident, Balingkit Street was still teeming with people and
alive with activity.”
In fact, a witness testified
the accused was just taken away. “Further, it bears stressing that no one
present at the place of arrest ever complained that Ramon’s shouting disturbed
the public. On the contrary, a disinterested member of the community (a certain
Rosemarie Escobal) even testified that Ramon was merely standing in front of
the store of a certain Mang Romy when a man in civilian clothes, later
identified as PO2 Soque, approached Ramon, immediately handcuffed and took him
away.”
The Court did not that find
that “these facts and circumstances could not have engendered a well-founded
belief that any breach of the peace had been committed by Ramon at the time
that his warrantless arrest was effected. All told, no probable cause existed
to justify Ramon’s warrantless arrest.”
While the Court acknowledged
that the legality of an arrest “depends upon the reasonable discretion of the
officer or functionary to whom the law at the moment leaves the decision to
characterize the nature of the act or deed of the person for the urgent purpose
of suspending his liberty for this should not be exercised in a whimsical
manner, else a person’s liberty be subjected to ubiquitous abuse. As law
enforcers, it is largely expected of them to conduct a more circumspect
assessment of the situation at hand. The determination of probable cause is not
a blanket-license to withhold liberty or to conduct unwarranted fishing
expeditions. It demarcates the line between legitimate human conduct on the one
hand, and ostensible criminal activity, on the other. In this respect, it must
be performed wisely and cautiously, applying the exacting standards of a
reasonably discreet and prudent man. Surely, as constitutionally guaranteed
rights lie at the fore, the duty to determine probable cause should be clothed
with utmost conscientiousness as well as impelled by a higher sense of public
accountability.”
Since the accused was not validly
arrested, the “warrantless search that resulted from it was also illegal.” The shabu purportedly seized from the
accused is “inadmissible in evidence for being the proverbial fruit of the
poisonous tree as mandated by the above discussed constitutional provisions.”
The accused was therefore acquitted.
It is alarming to read about
police involvement in crime and abuses, a favorite one of which is the
“hulidap” and which merited a definition by the Supreme Court thus: “A term for
"Arrest-Hold-up" employed for “framing innocent people” (People vs.
Tiu, et al. G.R. 142885. October 22,
2003) and often employed to extort money from them. As shown in the Goco case though, we can at
least look to the Supreme Court to arrest the abuses by the police in effecting
warrantless arrests and illegal searches. And it is unfortunate that such a seemingly
uncomplicated case had to reach the Supreme Court in the first place. What would
be even more unfortunate is the time the accused may have had to spend under
detention while his case was heard.
No comments:
Post a Comment