Martinez vs. People

A warrantless arrest for an alleged breach of the peace under Section 844 of the Manila City Ordinance is invalid absent probable cause that the person’s conduct actually disrupted communal tranquillity; the resulting warrantless search is illegal, and the seized drug is inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree.

Ramon Martinez y Goco was charged as the accused in a prosecution for possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11(3), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, while the People of the Philippines was the respondent. The case implicated Section 844 of the Revised Ordinance of the City of Manila, which penalizes breaches of the peace, and the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures under Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, enforced by the exclusionary rule in Section 3(2).

At around 9:15 in the evening of December 29, 2007, PO2 Roberto Soque, PO2 Alejandro Cepe, and PO3 Edilberto Zeta, all assigned to the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Section of the Malate Police Station 9, conducted a routine foot patrol along Balingkit Street, Malate, Manila. They heard a man shouting “Putanginamo! Limangdaannabaito?” For purportedly violating Section 844 of the Revised Ordinance of the City of Manila, which punishes breaches of the peace, the man, later identified as Ramon Martinez y Goco/Ramon Goco y Martinez, was apprehended and asked to empty his pockets. In the process, the police officers recovered from him a small transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu. PO2 Soque confiscated the sachet and brought Ramon to Police Station 9, where the former marked the item with the latter’s initials, “RMG.” Police Superintendent Ferdinand Ricafrente Quirante prepared a request for laboratory examination which, together with the specimen, was brought by PO2 Soque to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. Forensic Chemist Police Senior Inspector Erickson Calabocal examined the specimen, which contained 0.173 gram of white crystalline substance, and found the same positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu. Consequently, Ramon was charged with possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11(3), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 through an Information dated January 3, 2008.

In defense, Ramon denied the charge and gave his version of the incident. He narrated that on December 29, 2007, at around 4:00 in the afternoon, while walking along Balingkit Street to borrow a welding machine from one Paez Garcia, a man in civilian clothing approached and asked him if he was Ramon Goco. Upon affirming his identity, he was immediately handcuffed by the man, who eventually introduced himself as a police officer. Together, they boarded a tricycle (sidecar) where the said officer asked him if he was carrying illegal drugs. Despite his denial, he was still brought to a precinct to be detained. Thereafter, PO2 Soque propositioned Ramon and asked for ₱20,000.00 in exchange for his release. When Ramon’s wife, Amalia Goco, was unable to produce the ₱20,000.00 which PO2 Soque had asked for, he was brought to the Manila City Hall for inquest proceedings.

A disinterested member of the community, Rosemarie Escobal, 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 him, and took him away.

The RTC credited the prosecution’s witnesses and found that Ramon was disturbing the peace at the time of his apprehension; the CA likewise upheld the factual findings on the elements of possession and the chain of custody, and rejected Ramon’s claim of extortion.

• Denial of the Charge: Petitioner denied the charge and gave his version that he was walking along Balingkit Street to borrow a welding machine when a civilian-clothed man asked if he was Ramon Goco, handcuffed him, and later identified himself as a police officer.
• Extortion: Petitioner claimed that PO2 Soque demanded ₱20,000.00 for his release and that, when his wife Amalia Goco could not produce the amount, he was brought to the Manila City Hall for inquest proceedings.
• Sole Issue on Appeal: Petitioner raised the sole issue of whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC Decision convicting him of possession of dangerous drugs.

• Sole Issue — Conviction for Possession of Dangerous Drugs: Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC Decision convicting Ramon of the crime of possession of dangerous drugs.

• Sole Issue — Conviction for Possession of Dangerous Drugs: Yes. The CA erred. The conviction was reversed and Ramon was acquitted because no probable cause existed for the warrantless arrest, rendering the incidental search illegal and the seized shabu inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree.

• Sole Issue — Conviction for Possession of Dangerous Drugs: The Constitution guarantees the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, and Section 3(2), Article III renders inadmissible any evidence obtained in violation of that right. The exclusionary rule admits exceptions, including searches incidental to a lawful arrest. A valid warrantless arrest under Section 5(a), Rule 113 requires probable cause that the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense in the arresting officer’s presence. Probable cause means 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 charged; in arrests, it means facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought. The Court re-examined the factual incidents. PO2 Soque arrested Ramon for allegedly violating Section 844 of the Manila City Ordinance, which penalizes breaches of the peace. The ordinance’s gravamen is disruption of communal tranquillity, and a warrantless arrest based on it requires a reasonable assessment by the police officer that a public disturbance is being committed. PO2 Soque testified that he heard Ramon shouting “Putang ina mo! Limang daan na ba ito?” while pointing to his right front pocket, about ten meters away along Balingkit Street; that they approached and saw Ramon shouting; and that they apprehended him for disturbing the serenity of the place. On cross-examination, however, PO2 Soque confirmed that Balingkit Street was thickly populated, with many people outside their houses talking casually. The Court held that this testimony negated probable cause. Shouting in a thickly populated place, with many people conversing on the street, did not constitute any of the acts punishable under Section 844: 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 allegedly shouted were not slanderous, threatening, or abusive and could not have tended to disturb the peace or excite a riot because the street was still teeming with people and alive with activity. No one present at the place of arrest complained that Ramon’s shouting disturbed the public. A disinterested witness, Rosemarie Escobal, testified that Ramon was merely standing in front of the store of Mang Romy when PO2 Soque approached, handcuffed him, and took him away. In totality, 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 of his warrantless arrest. Although the legality of an arrest depends on the reasonable discretion of the officer, that discretion may not be exercised whimsically; probable cause is not a blanket license to withhold liberty or to conduct unwarranted fishing expeditions, and it must be determined wisely and cautiously under the exacting standards of a reasonably discreet and prudent man. Because Ramon was not validly arrested, the warrantless search that resulted from it was illegal, and the shabu seized was inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree. Since the confiscated shabu was the very corpus delicti of the crime charged, Ramon’s acquittal followed as a matter of course.

• Exclusionary Rule — Under Section 3(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution, any evidence obtained in violation of the right against unreasonable searches and seizures is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. The rule is not absolute; recognized exceptions include 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. The Court applied the rule because the search of Ramon was not incidental to a lawful arrest.
• Warrantless Arrest under Section 5(a), Rule 113 — A warrantless arrest is valid when, in the arresting officer’s presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. The Court found no probable cause that Ramon had committed a breach of the peace in the officers’ presence, so the warrantless arrest was invalid.
• Probable Cause — Probable cause is 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 charged; for arrests, it consists of facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought. The Court held that Ramon’s alleged shouting in a thickly populated street did not meet this standard.
• Search Incidental to a Lawful Arrest — A warrantless search is valid as an incident of a lawful arrest. If the arrest is invalid, the incidental search is likewise illegal. Because Ramon’s arrest lacked probable cause, the search that yielded the shabu was illegal.
• Fruit of the Poisonous Tree — Evidence obtained from an illegal search or seizure is inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree. The seized shabu, being the corpus delicti of the offense, could not sustain the conviction, and acquittal followed.
• Breach of the Peace under Section 844 of the Manila City Ordinance — The ordinance penalizes (1) making, countenancing, or assisting in making any riot, affray, disorder, disturbance, or breach of the peace; (2) assaulting, beating, or using personal violence upon another without just cause in any public place; (3) uttering any slanderous, threatening, or abusive language or expression or exhibiting or displaying any emblem, transparency, representation, motto, language, device, instrument, or thing; and (4) doing any act, in any public place, meeting, or procession, tending to disturb the peace or excite a riot, or collecting with other persons in a body or crowd for any unlawful purpose, or disturbing or disquieting any congregation engaged in any lawful assembly. Its gravamen is disruption of communal tranquillity. The Court held that Ramon’s conduct did not fall within any of these acts.

• “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 states the exclusionary rule that the Court applied to render the seized shabu inadmissible.
• “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.” — This is the core factual-legal holding that no probable cause existed for the warrantless arrest.
• “The determination of probable cause is not a blanket-license to withhold liberty or to conduct unwarranted fishing expeditions.” — This defines the limits of police discretion in determining probable cause.
• “Consequently, as it cannot be said that Ramon was validly arrested the warantless search that resulted from it was also illegal. Thus, the subject shabu purportedly seized from Ramon is inadmissible in evidence for being the proverbial fruit of the poisonous tree as mandated by the above discussed constitutional provision.” — This states the consequence of the invalid arrest and the basis for acquittal.

• People vs. Montilla, G.R. No. 123872, January 30, 1998, 285 SCRA 703, 717 — Cited for the rule that the exclusionary rule is not absolute and for the traditional exceptions to the warrantless search requirement.
• People vs. Chua Ho San @TsayHo San, G.R. No. 128222, June 17, 1999, 308 SCRA 432, 445 — Cited for the definition of probable cause in the context of arrests, requiring circumstances sufficiently strong to warrant a cautious man’s belief that the accused is guilty.
• People vs. Encinada, October 2, 1997, 280 SCRA 72 — Cited within People vs. Chua Ho San for the probable cause standard.
• People vs. Ramos, G.R. No. 85401-02, June 4, 1990, 264 SCRA 554, 569 — Cited for the principle that the legality of an arrest depends on the reasonable discretion of the officer or functionary, subject to the requirement that it not be exercised whimsically.
• People vs. Molleda, November 21, 1978, 86 SCRA 667, 700 — Cited in connection with the reasonable-discretion standard for arrests.
• Terry vs. Ohio, 392 U.S. I, 88 S Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968), adopted in Posadas vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 89139, August 2, 1990, 188 SCRA 288 — Cited as the source of the “stop and frisk” exception to the warrant requirement.

• Section 2, Article III, 1987 Philippine Constitution — Guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures and requires a warrant based on probable cause. The Court used it as the constitutional baseline for assessing the warrantless arrest and search.
• Section 3(2), Article III, 1987 Philippine Constitution — Provides the exclusionary rule: evidence obtained in violation of Section 2 or Section 3 is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. Applied to exclude the seized shabu.
• Section 5(a), Rule 113, Rules of Court — Allows a warrantless arrest when, in the arresting officer’s presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. The Court found this exception unavailable because there was no probable cause of an offense committed in the officers’ presence.
• Section 11(3), Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — Punishes possession of dangerous drugs. Ramon was charged and convicted under this provision, but the conviction was reversed because the corpus delicti was inadmissible.
• Section 844, Revised Ordinance of the City of Manila — Punishes breaches of the peace, including riot, affray, disorder, disturbance, assault, abusive language, and acts tending to disturb the peace, with imprisonment of not more than six months and/or a fine of not more than PHP 200.00. The Court held that Ramon’s alleged shouting did not fall within the ordinance and could not justify the warrantless arrest.

Antonio T. Carpio (Chairperson), Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. del Castillo, and Jose Portugal Perez concurred.