Republic of the Philippines

8th Judicial Region

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
xxx
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff;
Criminal Case No. xxx
For:
-versusVIOLATION OF B.P. 6
xxx,
Accused.
x-------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
For resolution is a Demurrer to Evidence praying that this
case be dismissed on the grounds that the information is fatally
defective, that the bladed weapon is inadmissible in evidence,
and that prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of
innocence of the accused.
Accused argues, that the confiscated bladed weapon of
the accused is admissible in evidence, it being a fruit of a
poisonous tree, because at the time the accused was arrested,
he was only walking along the road and passing by in front of
the prosecution witnesses who arrested him. At that time, they
only saw accused with a bladed weapon tucked to his waist
without doing anything more which may be considered
unlawful. It is the position of the accused that the offense
charged carries two elements: first the carrying outside ones
residence of any bladed weapon, blunt, or pointed weapon, etc.
not used as a necessary tool or implement for a livelihood; and
second, that the act of carrying the weapon was either in
furtherance of, or to abet, or in connection with subversion,
rebellion, insurrecton, lawless violence, criminality, chaos, or
public disorder.
For its part, the prosecution counters that, the carrying of
the bladed weapon by the accused at the time of his
apprehesion was to abet or in connection with criminality that
Page 1 of 4

is, his unlawful act of possessing marijuana which the

prosecution witnesses discovered at the time they arrested the
accused.
Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rule of Criminal Procedure
provides that a peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person when, in his presence, the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense. This is known as flagrante
delicto.
In one case, 1 the High Court has ruled:
For a warrantless arrest of an accused caught in flagrante
delicto to be valid, two requisites 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. In the
present case, there was no overt act indicative of a felonious
enterprise that could be properly attributed to the appellant to rouse
suspicion in the mind of P03 Corbe that he (appellant) had just
committed, was actually committing, or was attempting to commit a
crime. In fact, P03 Corbe testified that the appellant and the
informant were just talking with each other when he approached
them.

In another case2 the Supreme Court has likewise held,

thus:
For a warrantless arrest of an accused caught in flagrante delicto
under paragraph (a) of Section 5 to be valid, two requisites 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.291awphi1.nt
The facts and circumstances surrounding the present case did not
manifest any suspicious behavior on the part of private respondent
Lawrence Wang that would reasonably invite the attention of the
1 People of the Philippines v. Oliver Renato Edano y Ebdane, G.R. No. 188133, July 7, 2014
2 People v. Laguio, March 16, 2007, G.R. No. 128587

Page 2 of 4

police. He was merely walking from the Maria Orosa Apartment and
was about to enter the parked BMW car when the police operatives
arrested him, frisked and searched his person and commanded him
to open the compartment of the car, which was later on found to be
owned by his friend, David Lee. He was not committing any visible
offense then. Therefore, there can be no valid warrantless arrest in
flagrante delicto under paragraph (a) of Section 5. It is settled that
"reliable information" alone, absent any overt act indicative of a
felonious enterprise in the presence and within the view of the
arresting officers, is not sufficient to constitute probable cause that
would justify an in flagrante delicto arrest.

Applying the aforesaid jurisprudence in the case at bar, it

is clear that the warrantless arrest of the accused is not
justified. The Judicial Affidavit of Complaint by xxx xxx shows:
Mga alas 3:30 ng hapon Junyo 28, 2015 habang kami
nasa tabi ng kalsada, Porok xxx, nagtatanong hinggil sa mga
xxx
As told by the witnesses, there is nothing that shows that
the accused arrested was executing an overt act indicating that
he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting
to commit a crime; and that such overt act is done in the
presence or within the view of the arresting officer. As
aptly pointed out by the defense, the carrying of a bladed
weapon per se, does not constitute the offense of Violation of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 6 because as held in the case of People
vs. Purisima, the offense carries two elements: first the carrying
outside ones residence of any bladed weapon, blunt, or
pointed weapon, etc. not used as a necessary tool or
implement for a livelihood; and second, that the act of carrying
the weapon was either in furtherance of, or to abet, or in
connection with subversion, rebellion, insurrecton, lawless
violence, criminality, chaos, or public disorder.
The alleged possession of the accused of marijuana at the
time he was arrested will not likewise be appreciated in favor of
the Prosecution because such discovery and confiscation of
said illegal drugs was made after the accused was arrested.
In People v. Aminnudin,3 the Court declared as inadmissible in
3 G.R. No. L-74869, July 6, 1988, 163 SCRA 402.
Page 3 of 4

evidence the marijuana found in appellants possession during

a search without a warrant, because it had been illegally
seized, in disregard of the Bill of Rights.
Consequently, this Court has no choice but to declare the
warrantless arrest illegal, the subject bladed weapon as well as
the alleged possession of marijuana are indamissible in
evidence for being a fruit of a poisonous tree, and the accused
acquitted of the crime charged.
WHEREFORE, the Demurer to Evidence is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.
IN CHAMBERS, xxx City, 16 January 2017.

xxx
Presiding Judge

Page 4 of 4