CASE DIGEST BY: MARY CHOLEENE M. BAUTISTA; PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LAWRENCE WANG Y. CHEN

 Case digest: Mary Choleene M. Bautista

G.R. No. 128587            March 16, 2007

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HON. PERFECTO A.S. LAGUIO, JR., in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Branch 18, RTC, Manila, and LAWRENCE WANG Y CHEN, Respondents.

FACTS:

    Sometime on May 1996, SPO2 Vergel de Dios, Rogelio Anoble and a certain Arellano, for unlawful possession of shabu.  In the course of the investigation of the 3 arrested persons, 3 people were identified as the source of the drug, Redentor Teck, alias Frank and Joseph Junio.  And with this discovery, an entrapment operation was set to pretend to order another supply of shabu from the identified 3 persons.

    Teck, Frank and Junio were arrested while they were about to hand over another bag of shabu and when questioned, Teck and Junio informed the police operatives that they were working at Glamour Modeling Agency owned by Lawrence Wang.  They did not disclose the source of the shabu, however, they admitted that they were working for Wang and that they were scheduled to deliver shabu early in the following morning.  The police operatives decided to look for Wang to shed light on the illegal drug activities of Teck and Junio.

     On May 17, 1996, Wang was found walking out of his apartment and towards his BMW car.  Nearing his car, Police Officers asked his name and upon hearing that he was Lawrence Wang, they immediately marked him and asked him to open the back compartment of his BMW car.  When frisked, there was found inside the front right pocket of Wang and confiscated from him an unlicensed fire arm loaded with ammunitions.  At the same time, when the car was searched, the operatives found inside the following items: (a)32 transparent plastic bags containing shabu; (b) cash in the amount of P650,000.00; (c) one electronic and one mechanical scales; and (d) an unlicensed fire arm with magazine.  And so, then and there, Wang resisted the warrantless arrest and search.  And 3 separate Information was filed against Lawrence wang.

    After the prosecution rested its case, Wang filed his undated Demurrer to Evidence, praying for his acquittal and the dismissal of the 3 cases against him for lack of a valid arrest and search warrants and the inadmissibility of the prosecution's evidence against him. The trial court granted Wang's Demurrer to evidence and acquitting him of all charges for lack of evidence.

ISSUES:

    a.  Whether or not the prosecution may appeal the trial court's resolution granting Wang's Demurrer to evidence and acquitting him of all the charges against him without violating the constitutional proscription against double jeopardy; and

    b.  Whether or not there was a lawful arrest, search and seizure by the police operatives in this case despite the absence of a warrant of arrest and/or a search warrant.

RULING:

   a. No.

    First off, it must be emphasized that the present case is an appeal filed directly with this Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 in relation to Rule 41, Section 2, paragraph (c) of the Rules of Court raising only pure questions of law, ordinary appeal by mere filing of a notice of appeal not being allowed as a mode of appeal directly to this Court.  It is basic that appeal in criminal cases throws the whole records of the case wide open for review by the appellate court, that is why any appeal from a judgment of acquittal necessarily puts the accused in double jeopardy, in effect, the very same Section 2 of Rule 122 of the Rules of Criminal procedure, disallows appeal by the People from judgments of acquittal.

    An order granting an accused's demurrer to evidence is a resolution of the case on the merits, and it amounts to an acquittal.  Generally further prosecution of the accused after an acquittal would violate the constitutional proscription on double jeopardy.

    The grant or denial of a demurrer to evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial court and its ruling on the matter shall not be disturbed in the absence of a grave abuse of discretion.

    The appellate court may review dismissal orders of trial courts granting an accused's demurrer to evidence.  However, this may be done via the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 based on the ground of grave abuse of discretion, amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction.  Unfortunately, what petitioner People of the Philippines filed with the Court in the present case is an appeal by way of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 raising pure question of law, which is different from a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

    For being the wrong remedy taken by the petitioner in this case, this petition is outrightly dismissible.  The Court cannot reverse the assailed dismissal order of the trial court by appeal without violating private respondent's right against double jeopardy.

    b. No.

    There is no question that warrantless search may be conducted as an incident to a valid warrantless arrest.  The law requires that there must be first a lawful arrest before a search can be made; the process cannot be reversed.  However, if there are valid reasons to conduct lawful search and seizure which thereafter shows that the accused is currently committing a crime, the accused may be lawfully arrested in flagrante delicto without need for a warrant of arrest.

    The warrantless arrest of the accused and the search of his person and the car were without probable cause and could not be licit.  The arrest of the accused did not fall under any of the exception to the requirements of warrantless arrests.

    The trial court resolved the case on the basis of its findings that the arrest preceded the search, and finding no basis to rule in favor a lawful arrest, it rules that the incidental search is likewise unlawful. Any and all pieces of evidence acquired as a consequence thereof are inadmissible in evidence.

    The People's contention that Wang waived his right against unreasonable search and seizure has no factual basis. While the court agrees in principle that consent will validate an otherwise illegal search, however, based on the evidence on the record, Wang resisted his arrest and the search on his person and belongings.  The implied acquiescence to the search, if there was any, could not have been more than mere passive conformity given under intimidating or coercive circumstances and is thus considered no consent at all within the purview of the constitutional guarantee.