SALVADOR V. REBELLION v.. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. G.R. No.

175700. July 05, 2010.

FACTS:

When two policemen saw Salvador Rebellon and another person exchanging something, the officers
introduced themselves and when asked what he was holding, petitioner handed three strips of
aluminum foil. Upon search, the officers found a sachet of shabu.

The RTC found him guilty of possession of illegal drugs which the CA affirmed. Petitioner that the
shabu found during search is inadmissible as the arrest was not valid.

ISSUE: Whether the warrantless arrest was valid.

RULING:

The SC ruled in the affirmative. But the SC made it clear the even if the warrant was not valid, it would
still prevail because petitioner did not file a motion to quash regarding this before entering his plea.

In answering the petitioner's issue, the Sc rules that the arrest was valid and it was an arrest in
flagrante delicto. After the suspicion of the officers was aroused, they introduced themselves and from
a distance of the officers saw a sachet with white crystalline substance which they confiscated.
Consequently, the results of the attendant search and seizure were admissible in evidence to prove his
guilt of the offense charged

G.R. No. 180661 December 11, 2013

GEORGE ANTIQUERA y CODES, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Facts:
Police officers were conducting a police visibility patrol in Pasay City when they saw
two unidentified men rush out of a house and boarded a jeep. Believing that there
was a crime, the police officers approached the house. When they peeked through
the partially opened door, they saw Antiquera and Cruz engaged in a pot session.
The police officers entered the house, introduced themselves and arrested
Antiquera and Cruz. While inspecting the vicinity, PO1 Cabutihan saw a jewellery
box which contained shabu and unused paraphernalia. The RTC found them guilty of
illegal possession of paraphernalia for dangerous drugs. The court affirmed the
decision of RTC.
Issue:
Whether or not the arrest was invalid.
Held:
Yes, there was unlawful arrest because the circumstances here do not make out a
case of arrest made in flagrante delicto. Admittedly, the police officers did not
notice anything amiss going on in the house from the street where they stood.
Indeed, even as they peeked through its partially opened door, they saw no activity
that warranted their entering it. Clearly, no crime was plainly exposed to the view of
the arresting officers that authorized the arrest of accused Antiquera without
warrant under the above-mentioned rule. Considering that his arrest was illegal, the
search and seizure that resulted from it was likewise illegal.

Quelnan vs People

GR No 166061 July 6, 2007

Facts:
Sometime in 1996, the Police Assistance and Reaction Against Crime (PARAC) was tasked to implement
a search warrant to a certain Bernard Lim for probably possessing MA HCI (Shabu). The team was
escorted to the unit by the security officer (Punsaran), upon arrival at the place to be searched, a male
person naked from the waist up opened the door, which was later identified as Quelnan. The team
presented the search warrant and proceeded with the search. In the presence of Quelnan and Punsaran,
they found on top of a bedroom table 3 pieces of transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance which was later examined as Shabu. The next day, Quelnan was arrested for violation of Sec.
16 Art. III of RA 6425.

Quelnan in his defense averred that he is not residing in the said unit, but he is the registered owner of
the said unit, which he leased to Sung Kok Lee beginning May 1996. That he was there during he search
for he was collecting the rent. That he was forced to sign some documents at gunpoint, handcuffed and
brought to PARAC Office. Two days later, he was brought to Makati Prosecutor's Office for inquest and a
case was filed against him.

Issue:
Whether or not the search warrant was properly enforced provided that he was not the subject of the
search warrant.

Whether or not Quelnan was validly arrested.

Ruling:
Yes, there is no provision of law that requires the search warrant must name the person who occupies the
described premises, that where the search warrant is issued for the search of a specifically described
premises only and not for the search of a person, and failure to name to owner or occupant of such
property in the affidavit and search warrant does not invalidate the warrant.

Yes, Quelnan was arrested inflagrante delicto. In the prosecution of illegal possession of shabu the
following requisites must be present:
the accused is found in possession of a regulated drug;
the person is not authorized by law or by duly constituted authorities; and
the accused has knowledge that the said drug is a regulated drug.
That there must be intent to possess the drug, which includes actual possession or constructive
possession. Actual possession exist when the drug is immediate physical possession or control of the
accused, while constructive possession exist when he drug is under the dominion and control of the
accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion over the place where it is found.

Quelnan was found and caught in flagrante when the shabu was found in his constructive possession.