People vs.

Estella
Incidental to Lawful Arrest
Version of the Prosecution
 Judge Estrada of RTC-Zambales issued a search warrant for the conduct of a search and seizure in the
residence of Estella in Zambales. A team of police officers and barangay officials went to Estella’s
home.
 They saw Estella sitting on a rocking chair about 2 meters away from a hut owned by Narding Estella,
his brother.
o Narding owned the lot and was rented by Estella’s live-in partner named Eva.
o The team approached the appellant and introduced themselves as police officers. They
showed him the warrant and explained it to him.
 Estella was told that if he admitted to the crime he would deserve a lesser penalty. While inside the
hut, Estella surrendered to the team 2 cans containing dried marijuana fruiting tops, with 20 brickes
each.
 The team searched the hut in Estella and Eva’s presence. They found a plastic container under the
kitchen table, with 4 big bricks of marijuana, and a gun with live ammo.

Version of the Defense

 He was talking to his group of friends out on the street when the team of policemen arrived. He
admitted he was Estella, and pointed to his home. The police officers, however, insisted that his house
was actually the one across the road as according to the asset.

RTC found Estella guilty of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act. The court a quo relied heavily on the testimony
of prosecution’s principal witness – SPO1 Buloron. RTC also relied on the fact that they were with the barangay
captain, who would know which house is whose.

Issue #1 – W/N the house was his? NO.

 The only link between him and the “hut” was that his brother was the one owning it. Just because his
live-in partner Eva is supposedly renting, doesn’t mean that he was also in control of it. (besides no
other evidence to support Eva renting it)
 The fact that he was found near it, sitting on a rocking chair and drinking coffee doesn’t show control
nor ownership.
 Inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police officers on whether or not Estella stayed outside the
hut or not. (Buloron vs. Barnachea)
Issue #2 – W/N Valid search incidental to lawful arrest? NO.
 OSG argues that having surrendered the prohibited items, the police had the right to arrest him and
thereafter subject him to a search of the immediate vicinity of the arrestee.
 The above argument assumes that the prosecution was able to prove that appellant had voluntarily
surrendered the marijuana to the police officers. As earlier adverted to, there is no convincing proof
that he indeed surrendered the prohibited drug, whether voluntarily or otherwise.
 There was no lawful arrest to begin with
o No warrant + not:
 (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
 (b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe
based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested
has committed it; and
 (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined
 while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.
o It was never proven that Estella was in possession of Marijuana during the search. There was
no way of knowing if was actually committing an offense in the presence of the officers.
Without that knowledge, the officers could not make a search incidental to a lawful arrest
since there’s no lawful arrest.
 Also, these kinds of searches are limited in scope
o Limited to within the area within which the person can reach for a weapon or anything which
may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a warrant.
o The purpose of the exception is to protect the arresting officer from being harmed by the
person being arrested, who might be armed with a concealed weapon, and to prevent the
latter from destroying evidence within reach. The exception, therefore, should not be strained
beyond what is needed to serve its purpose.

Not having been the owner of the house, his presence is immaterial.