“In a search incidental to a lawful arrest, the law requires that there must first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made”
(Part 1)
We hear of numerous stories about law enforcement officers effecting unlawful warrantless arrests on suspects.
These arrests are sometimes driven by their eagerness to immediately take custody and bring to the fold of law individuals who are believed to have committed, are committing, or are about to commit a crime.
Jesus Christ himself was not spared from a warrantless arrest based on a tip given by Judas to a detachment of soldiers and some officials including the chief priest and the Pharisees.
Jesus was arrested without a warrant simply because the Pharisees were deeply threatened by his teachings.
For more than a millennium, warrantless arrests have been used and abused by those holding power and authority.
It was only in 1215 when King John of England, the sovereign, recognized the Rule of Law and documented the liberties held by “free men” in the Magna Carta (Bill of Rights, Encyclopedia Britannica).
In the case People v. Jumarang, two law enforcement officers positioned themselves around 10 meters outside a house inside a compound.
From where they were standing, they saw Ronillo Jumarang (Jumarang) tending to some plants at the roof of the house and later descended while holding a three-foot tall potted plant with “five finger leaves” (G.R. 250306. Aug. 10, 2022).
“Suspecting that Jumarang was bringing the plant inside his house, the two police officers called out to him and rushed inside the compound. They instructed [him] to put the plant down so they could closely examine it [and] asked Jumarang if they could go inside the house” which the latter allowed (op.cit.)
The prosecution further posited when the two law enforcement officers “went up the roof, they found two other pots of what they identified as marijuana plants. They also brought these down… [and] decided to bring Jumarang and the plants to the police station” (op.cit.)
“For his part, Jumarang … testified that at the time of the incident, he was visiting his in-laws from Batangas where he resides… [and that] his mother-in-law requested him to clean their rooftop. However, when he saw three pots of marijuana plants among the other plants, he decided to report the matter to the police” (op.cit.)
He further alleged that “as he was handling the plants to bring to the police, two of them passed by him [and] [w]hen they saw him with the plant, they approached and told him that he was planting marijuana. They then asked him if they could check the rooftop and he accompanied them, along with his parents-in-law, his wife, and some neighbors” (op.cit.)
“There, they saw two more marijuana plants [and since] Jumarang was the one caught handling the plant, he was arrested by the police officers.”
“After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered the Judgment dated Aug. 30, 2016, finding [him] guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 16, Article II of R.A. No. 9165…” (op.cit.)
The material issue to be resolved in the case was whether there was a valid in flagrante delicto arrest because Jumarang was found holding a pot planted with marijuana when the police officers saw him.
The Supreme Court found that the warrantless arrest was unlawful, hence, the subsequent search was also unlawful.
In a search incidental to a lawful arrest, the law requires that there must first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made; the process cannot be reversed.
In an in flagrante arrest under Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, a person to be arrested must have committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense in the presence of the arresting officer (op.cit.)
“In warrantless arrest made pursuant to Section 5(a), two elements 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” (op.cit.)
