Miclat v. People
G.R. No. 176077, August 31, 2011


● An accused is estopped from assailing any irregularity of his arrest if he fails to raise this issue or to move for the quashal of the information against him on this ground before arraignment. Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.


Facts: 

The police agents were conducting a surveillance operation in the area of Palmera Spring II to verify the reported drug-related activities of several individuals, which included Miclat. Led by their informant to the house of house Miclat, PO3 Antonio positioned himself at the perimeter of the house, while the rest of the members of the group deployed themselves nearby. PO3 Antonio peeped thru a small opening in the curtain-covered window, and there at a distance of 1½ meters, saw Miclat arranging several plastic sachets containing what appears to be shabu in the living room of their home. 

PO3 Antonio then inched his way in the house and upon gaining entrance, the operative introduced himself as a police officer. After which, Miclat voluntarily handed over to PO3 Antonio the small plastic sachets. PO3 Antonio then placed Miclat under arrest and informed him of his constitutional rights. The RTC convicted Miclat of crime of possession of a dangerous drugs.


Issue:

1. Was the warrantless arrest valid?

2. Are the drugs seized admissible in evidence?


Held:

1. Yes. At the time of petitioner’s arraignment, there was no objection raised as to the irregularity of his arrest. Thereafter, he actively participated in the proceedings before the trial court. In effect, he is deemed to have waived any perceived defect in his arrest and effectively submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court trying his case.

At any rate, under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, an arrest without warrant is lawful when, in the presence of an arresting officer, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. For the exception in Section 5 (a), Rule 113 to operate, two (2) elements must be present: (1) the person arrested execute an overt act that indicates he has just committed, actually committing, or is attempting a crime; (2) the overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. In this case, Miclat was caught in flagrante delicto and the police authorities effectively made a valid warrantless arrest.

2. Yes. It is to be noted that Miclat was caught in the act of arranging the heat-sealed plastic sachets in plain sight of PO3 Antonio and he voluntarily surrendered them to him upon learning that he is a police officer. The seizure made by PO3 Antonio of the four plastic sachets from Miclat was not only incidental to a lawful arrest, but it also falls within the purview of the "plain view" doctrine.

Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in a position to have that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced in evidence. The "plain view" doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The object must be open to eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent. 

It is clear, therefore, that an object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly exposed to sight. Since Miclat’s arrest is among the exceptions to the rule requiring a warrant before effecting an arrest and the evidence seized from the Miclat was the result of a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest, which incidentally was in plain view of the arresting officer, the results of the ensuing search and seizure were admissible in evidence to prove Miclat’s guilt of the offense charged.