People vs. Milado

A warrantless search conducted incidental to a lawful arrest is valid, and the right to question the legality of an arrest is waived if not raised via a motion to quash before arraignment.

On the morning of March 10, 1999, Police Officers Dominic Faclangen and Glen Apangchan were on duty at the Bontoc Police Station when they received information from their asset that a man coming from Talubin was transporting marijuana onboard a passenger jeepney. The asset described the man as sporting a pony tail, wearing a white jacket, and carrying a bag. Acting on this information, Faclangen and Apangchan proceeded to the edge of Samoki Bridge at the Chico River, which separates Samoki and Bontoc, to set up a checkpoint. They were accompanied by another police officer, Angel Komowang, whom they picked up along the way.

The policemen flagged down about four or five vehicles before coming across a jeepney carrying appellant Rogelio Pijo Milado, who matched the asset's description, including the fact that he was carrying a black bag. Certain that appellant was the person described by their asset, the policemen boarded the jeepney and invited appellant and the driver to the police station. Upon arriving at the station but while still inside the vehicle, the policemen told appellant to open the black bag. Appellant complied, and the officers found what appeared to be six bricks individually wrapped in newspapers. Laboratory analysis later confirmed the bricks to be marijuana, totaling 5,209.2 grams.

Appellant admitted taking a passenger jeepney bound for Bontoc on the morning of March 10, 1999. Onboard with him were some high school students, a woman, and a 14-year-old child. Along the way, the jeepney picked up a certain Derick Masilian, whom appellant knew was a policeman. Upon reaching Bontoc, the high school students and the woman alighted. The child also tried to alight, but Masilian stopped him and told the driver to proceed to the police station. Three other policemen boarded the jeepney along the way. Appellant asked why he was being taken to the station but was told to explain there. At the station, the child was released, but appellant was taken inside and confronted with the black bag found in the jeepney. When asked how many kilos of marijuana were inside, appellant answered that he knew nothing about it, denied owning the bag, and claimed he carried only a shoulder bag containing scissors and a manicure set. He denied transporting marijuana and stated he was a beautician by profession.

Appellant also admitted in his testimony that in 1982 he had been arrested for possession of marijuana in Dantay, Mountain Province, pleaded guilty, was sentenced to six years imprisonment, and applied for probation.

• Illegal Search and Seizure: Appellant argued that the evidence allegedly seized from him was the product of an illegal search and seizure, rendering it inadmissible under the Rules of Evidence and Article II, Section 3(2) of the Constitution.
• No Valid Arrest: Appellant contended that there was no valid arrest to begin with, as he was not committing any crime in full view of the arresting policemen.

• Search Incidental to Lawful Arrest: The Office of the Solicitor General countered that appellant was caught in the actual commission of a crime—transporting marijuana, an illegal substance—and because the prohibited article was found on board a moving vehicle, police officers had the duty to immediately seize it even without a warrant.
• Waiver of Right to Question Arrest: The appellee maintained that it was too late for appellant to raise an objection to the manner of his arrest, his failure to file a motion to quash the information prior to arraignment constituting a waiver of the right to question the legality of the arrest.

• Validity of Warrantless Search: Whether the warrantless search of appellant's bag and the seizure of the marijuana were valid as incidental to a lawful arrest.
• Waiver of Right to Question Arrest: Whether appellant's failure to question the legality of his arrest before arraignment constituted a waiver of that right.

• Validity of Warrantless Search: Yes. The search was valid as incidental to a lawful arrest, appellant having been taken into custody when the policemen directed him to remain in the jeepney and proceed to the police station.
• Waiver of Right to Question Arrest: Yes. The failure to file a motion to quash the information prior to arraignment was deemed a waiver of the right to question the legality of the conduct of the arrest.

• Validity of Warrantless Search: The general rule requiring a valid search warrant admits of exceptions, including searches incidental to a lawful arrest. Citing Sanchez vs. Demetriou, the Court explained that an arrest is effected by actual restraint or voluntary submission to custody, and that no formal declaration of arrest is required—only an intention to arrest and submission under the belief that it is necessary. When the policemen saw appellant and confirmed he matched the asset's description, they were certain he was the person they sought. Although no "formal arrest" had been declared, appellant had already been deprived of his liberty when the officers told him to stay inside the jeepney and instructed the driver to proceed to the station. The word "invited" was effectively a command from three law enforcers that appellant could hardly defy. As a consequence of this arrest, the policemen were authorized to search the black bag, as a contemporaneous search of a person arrested may extend to areas within his custody and immediate control.

• Waiver of Right to Question Arrest: Appellant argued there was no valid arrest because he was not committing any crime in full view of the arresting officers. The Court held it was too late to raise this objection. Citing People vs. Lopez, the Court ruled that failure to question the manner of arrest by filing a motion to quash the information prior to arraignment constitutes a waiver of the right to challenge the legality of the arrest. The Court further found the evidence sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as appellant's bare denials could not prevail over the positive testimonies of the police officers who apprehended him while he was transporting five kilos of marijuana on a moving vehicle.

• Search Incidental to a Lawful Arrest — As an exception to the constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and seizures, a contemporaneous search of a person arrested may be effected and may extend to areas within his custody and immediate control. The Court applied this doctrine by holding that appellant was effectively arrested when the policemen directed him to remain in the jeepney and proceed to the station, notwithstanding the use of the word "invited," and that the subsequent search of his bag was therefore valid.
• Waiver of Right to Question Legality of Arrest — The right to object to the legality of an arrest is waived if the accused fails to file a motion to quash the information before arraignment. The Court applied this doctrine to bar appellant's challenge to the validity of his arrest, as he raised the objection only on appeal.
• Definition of Arrest — Arrest is the taking of a person into custody that he may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense. Application of actual force, manual touching of the body, physical restraint, or a formal declaration of arrest is not required; it is enough that there be an intention on the part of one party to arrest and the intent of the other to submit, under the belief and impression that submission is necessary.

• "Application of actual force, manual touching of the body, physical restraint or a formal declaration of arrest is not required. It is enough that there be an intention on the part of one of the parties to arrest the other and the intent of the other to submit, under the belief and impression that submission is necessary." — This passage defines the controlling standard for when an arrest is deemed effected, which the Court applied to hold that appellant was under arrest even without a formal declaration.

• "The term 'invited' may have been used by the police, but it was obviously a command coming from three law enforcers who appellant could hardly be expected to defy." — This statement establishes the factual basis for concluding that appellant's liberty was restrained, constituting an arrest that justified the incidental search.

• "It is too late for appellant to raise this object to the manner of his arrest, by filing a motion to quash the information prior to his arraignment, is deemed a waiver of his right to question the legality of the conduct of his arrest." — This passage articulates the waiver doctrine that precluded appellant from challenging the validity of his arrest on appeal.

• People vs. Valdez, 304 SCRA 140 (1999) — Cited for the enumeration of exceptions to the constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and seizures, including searches incidental to a lawful arrest, plain view, moving vehicles, consented searches, customs searches, stop-and-frisk, and exigent circumstances.
• Sanchez vs. Demetriou, 227 SCRA 627 (1993) — Cited for the definition and nature of an arrest under the Rules of Court, establishing that a formal declaration of arrest is not required.
• Padilla vs. Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA 402 (1997) — Cited in support of the proposition that a contemporaneous search of a person arrested may extend to areas within his custody and immediate control.
• People vs. Chua Ho San, 308 SCRA 432 (1999) — Cited alongside Padilla vs. Court of Appeals for the scope of a search incidental to a lawful arrest.
• People vs. Lopez, 245 SCRA 95 (1995) — Cited for the doctrine that failure to question the legality of an arrest before arraignment constitutes a waiver of that right.

• Section 4, Article III, Republic Act 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as amended by Republic Act 7659 — Appellant was charged and convicted under this provision for transporting marijuana, a prohibited drug, and sentenced to reclusion perpetua and a fine of ₱500,000.
• Article II, Section 3(2), 1987 Constitution — Cited by appellant as the constitutional basis for the inadmissibility of evidence obtained through illegal search and seizure; the Court found the search valid as an exception to the warrant requirement.
• Section 1, Rule 113, Rules of Court — Defines arrest as the taking of a person into custody that he may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense.
• Section 2, Rule 113, Rules of Court — Provides that an arrest is effected by actual restraint of the person or by his voluntary submission to the custody of the person making the arrest.

Davide, Jr., C.J. (Chairman), Panganiban, Ynares-Santiago, and Carpio, JJ., concurred.