Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaSECOND DIVISIONG.R. No. 186529 August 3, 2010PEOPLE OF THE PHLPPNES, Appellee, vs.!AC" RACHO # RA$UERO, Appellant.D E C I S I O NNACHURA, J.:OnappealistheCourtof AppealsCA!Decision1 "ate"Ma#$$,$%%&inCA'(.R. CR').C. No. %%*$+affir,in-theRe-ional .rial Court2 R.C! /oint Decision3 "ate" /ul# &, $%%* fin"in- appellant /ac0 Racho # Ra1uero -uilt# be#on"reasonable "oubt of Violation of Section +, Article II of Republic Act R.A.! No. 234+..he case ste,,e" fro, the follo5in- facts6On Ma# 32, $%%7, a confi"ential a-ent of the police transacte" throu-h cellular phone 5ith appellant for the purchase ofshabu. .hea-ent laterreporte"thetransactiontothepoliceauthorities5hoi,,e"iatel#for,e"atea,co,pose"of,e,ber of the Philippine Dru- Enforce,ent A-enc# PDEA!, the Intelli-ence -roup of the Philippine Ar,# an" the localpolice force to apprehen" the appellant.4 .he a-ent -ave the police appellant8s na,e, to-ether 5ith his ph#sical "escription.)e also assure" the, that appellant 5oul" arrive in 9aler, Aurora the follo5in- "a#.On Ma# $%, $%%7, at 336%% a.,., appellant calle" up the a-ent an" infor,e" hi, that he 5as on boar" a (enesis bus an"5oul" arrive in 9aler, Aurora, an#ti,e of the "a# 5earin- a re" an" 5hite stripe" .'shirt. .he tea, ,e,bers then poste"the,selves alon- the national hi-h5a# in 9aler, Aurora. At aroun" 76%% p.,. of the sa,e "a#, a (enesis bus arrive" in9aler. :hen appellant ali-hte" fro, the bus, the confi"ential a-ent pointe" to hi, as the person he transacte" 5ith earlier.)avin- ali-hte" fro, the bus, appellant stoo" near the hi-h5a# an" 5aite" for a tric#cle that 5oul" brin- hi, to his final"estination. As appellant 5as about to boar" a tric#cle, the tea, approache" hi, an" invite" hi, to the police station onsuspicion of carr#in- shabu. Appellant i,,e"iatel# "enie" the accusation, but as he pulle" out his han"s fro, his pants8poc0et, a 5hite envelope slippe" therefro, 5hich, 5hen opene", #iel"e" a s,all sachet containin- the suspecte" "ru-.5.he tea, then brou-ht appellant to the police station for investi-ation. .he confiscate" speci,en 5as turne" over to PoliceInspector Ro-elio Sarenas De Vera 5ho ,ar0e" it 5ith his initials an" 5ith appellant8s na,e. .he fiel" test an" laborator#e;a,inations on the contents of the confiscate" sachet #iel"e" positive results for ,etha,pheta,ine h#"rochlori"e.6Appellant 5aschar-e"int5oseparateInfor,ations, oneforviolationofSection+ofR.A. 234+, fortransportin-or"eliverin-< an" the secon", of Section 33 of the sa,e la5 for possessin-, "an-erous "ru-s, the accusator# portions of 5hichrea"6=.hat at about 76%% o8cloc0 sic! in the afternoon on Ma# $%, $%%7 in 9aler, Aurora an" 5ithin the >uris"iction of this)onorable Court, the sai" accuse", "i" then an" there, unla5full#, feloniousl# an" 5illfull# have in his possession five point?eroone+.%3! @or*.+*A -ra,sof Metha,pheta,ine)#"rochlori"eco,,onl#0no5nas=Shabu=, are-ulate""ru-5ithout an# per,it or license fro, the proper authorities to possess the sa,e.CON.RARB .O CA:.=7=.hat at about 76%% o8cloc0 sic! in the afternoon on Ma# $%, $%%7 in 9aler, Aurora, the sai" accuse" "i" then an" there,unla5full#, feloniousl# an" 5illfull# transportin- or "eliverin- "an-erous "ru- of +.%3 @or *.+*A -ra,s of shabu 5ithout an#per,it or license fro, the proper authorities to transport the sa,e.CON.RARB .O CA:.=8Durin- the arrai-n,ent, appellant plea"e" =Not (uilt#= to both char-es.At the trial, appellant "enie" liabilit# an" clai,e" that he 5ent to 9aler, Aurora to visit his brother to infor, hi, about theirailin-father.)e,aintaine"that thechar-esa-ainst hi,5erefalsean"thatnoshabu5asta0enfro,hi,.Astothecircu,stances of his arrest, he e;plaine" that the police officers, throu-h their van, bloc0e" the tric#cle he 5as ri"in- inu"-e overloo0e", ,isun"erstoo", or ,isapplie" so,e fact or circu,stance of5ei-ht an" substance that 5oul" have affecte" the case.13Appellant focuses his appeal on the vali"it# of his arrest an" the search an" sei?ure of the sachet of shabu an", conse1uentl#,the a",issibilit# of the sachet. It is note5orth# that althou-h the circu,stances of his arrest 5ere briefl# "iscusse" b# theR.C, the vali"it# of the arrest an" search an" the a",issibilit# of the evi"ence a-ainst appellant 5ere not s1uarel# raise" b#the latter an" thus, 5ere not rule" upon b# the trial an" appellate courts.It is5ell'settle"thatanappealinacri,inalcaseopensthe5holecaseforrevie5. 3avvphi3 .hisCourtisclothe"5itha,pleauthorit# to revie5 ,atters, even those not raise" on appeal, if 5e fin" the, necessar# in arrivin- at a >ust "isposition of thecase. Ever# circu,stance in favor of the accuse" shall be consi"ere". .his is in 0eepin- 5ith the constitutional ,an"ate thatever# accuse" shall be presu,e" innocent unless his -uilt is proven be#on" reasonable "oubt.14After a thorou-h revie5 of the recor"s of the case an" for reasons that 5ill be "iscusse" belo5, 5e fin" that appellant can nolon-er 1uestionthevali"it#of his arrest, but thesachet of shabusei?e"fro,hi,"urin-the5arrantless searchisina",issible in evi"ence a-ainst hi,..he recor"s sho5 that appellant never ob>ecte" to the irre-ularit# of his arrest before his arrai-n,ent. In fact, this is the firstti,e that he raises the issue. Consi"erin- this lapse, couple" 5ith his active participation in the trial of the case, 5e ,ustabi"e 5ith >urispru"ence 5hich "ictates that appellant, havin- voluntaril# sub,itte" to the >uris"iction of the trial court, is"ee,e" to have 5aive" his ri-ht to 1uestion the vali"it# of his arrest, thus curin- 5hatever "efect ,a# have atten"e" hisarrest. .he le-alit# of the arrest affects onl# the >uris"iction of the court over his person. Appellant8s 5arrantless arresttherefore cannot, in itself, be the basis of his ac1uittal. 15As to the a",issibilit# of the sei?e" "ru- in evi"ence, it is necessar# for us to ascertain 5hether or not the search 5hich#iel"e" the alle-e" contraban" 5as la5ful.16.he 32&D Constitution states that a search an" conse1uent sei?ure ,ust be carrie" out 5ith a >u"icial 5arrant< other5ise, itbeco,es unreasonable an" an# evi"ence obtaine" therefro, shall be ina",issible for an# purpose in an#procee"in-.17 Sai" proscription, ho5ever, a",its of e;ceptions, na,el#63. :arrantless search inci"ental to a la5ful arresturispru"ence hol"s that in searches inci"ent to a la5ful arrest, the arrest ,ust prece"e the search< -enerall#, theprocess cannot be reverse". Nevertheless, a search substantiall# conte,poraneous 5ith an arrest can prece"e the arrest if thepolice have probable cause to ,a0e the arrest at the outset of the search.21 .hus, -iven the factual ,ilieu of the case, 5ehave to "eter,ine 5hether the police officers ha" probable cause to arrest appellant. Althou-h probable cause elu"es e;actan"concrete"efinition, itor"inaril#si-nifiesareasonable-roun"ofsuspicionsupporte"b#circu,stancessufficientl#stron- in the,selves to 5arrant a cautious ,an to believe that the person accuse" is -uilt# of the offense 5ith 5hich he ischar-e".22.he "eter,ination of the e;istence or absence of probable cause necessitates a ree;a,ination of the establishe" facts. OnMa# 32, $%%7, a confi"ential a-ent of the police transacte" throu-h cellular phone 5ith appellant for the purchase of shabu..he a-ent reporte" the transaction to the police authorities 5ho i,,e"iatel# for,e" a tea, to apprehen" the appellant. OnMa# $%, $%%7, at 336%% a.,., appellant calle" up the a-ent 5ith the infor,ation that he 5as on boar" a (enesis bus an"5oul"arrivein9aler,Auroraan#ti,eofthe"a#5earin-are"an"5hitestripe".'shirt. .hetea,,e,bersposte"the,selves alon- the national hi-h5a# in 9aler, Aurora, an" at aroun" 76%% p.,. of the sa,e "a#, a (enesis bus arrive" in9aler. :hen appellant ali-hte" fro, the bus, the confi"ential a-ent pointe" to hi, as the person he transacte" 5ith, an"5hen the latter 5as about to boar" a tric#cle, the tea, approache" hi, an" invite" hi, to the police station as he 5assuspecte"of carr#in- shabu.:henhepulle" out his han"s fro, his pants8 poc0et,a5hite envelopeslippe" therefro,5hich, 5hen opene", #iel"e" a s,all sachet containin- the suspecte" "ru-.23 .he tea, then brou-ht appellant to the policestation for investi-ation an" the confiscate" speci,en 5as ,ar0e" in the presence of appellant. .he fiel" test an" laborator#e;a,inations on the contents of the confiscate" sachet #iel"e" positive results for ,etha,pheta,ine h#"rochlori"e.Clearl#, 5hat pro,pte" the police to apprehen" appellant, even 5ithout a 5arrant, 5as the tip -iven b# the infor,ant thatappellant5oul"arrivein9aler, Auroracarr#in-shabu. .hiscircu,stance-ivesrisetoanother1uestion6 5hetherthatinfor,ation, b# itself, is sufficient probable cause to effect a vali" 5arrantless arrest..he lon- stan"in- rule in this >uris"iction is that =reliable infor,ation= alone is not sufficient to >ustif# a 5arrantless arrest..he rule re1uires, in a""ition, that the accuse" perfor, so,e overt act that 5oul" in"icate that he has co,,itte", is actuall#co,,ittin-, or isatte,ptin-toco,,it anoffense.24 :efin"noco-ent reasonto"epart fro,this5ell'establishe""octrine..he instant case is si,ilar to People v. Aruta,25 People v. .u"tu",26 an" People v. Nuevas.27In People v. Aruta, a police officer 5as tippe" off b# his infor,ant that a certain =Alin- Rosa= 5oul" be arrivin- fro,9a-uioCit#thefollo5in-"a#5ithalar-evolu,eof,ari>uana.Actin-onsai"tip,thepoliceasse,ble"atea,an""eplo#e" the,selves near the Philippine National 9an0 PN9! in Olon-apo Cit#. :hile thus positione", a Victor# Ciner9us stoppe" in front of the PN9 buil"in- 5here t5o fe,ales an" a ,an -ot off. .he infor,ant then pointe" to the tea,,e,bersthe5o,an, =Alin-Rosa,=5ho5asthencarr#in-atravelin-ba-. .hereafter, thetea,approache"heran"intro"uce"the,selves. :henas0e"about thecontentsof her ba-, shehan"e"it totheapprehen"in-officers. Fponinspection, the ba- 5as foun" to contain "rie" ,ari>uana leaves.28.he facts in People v. .u"tu" sho5 that in /ul# an" Au-ust, 3222, the .oril Police Station, Davao Cit#, receive" a reportfro, a civilian asset that the nei-hbors of a certain Noel .u"tu" .u"tu"! 5ere co,plainin- that the latter 5as responsiblefor the proliferation of ,ari>uana in the area. Reactin- to the report, the Intelli-ence Section con"ucte" surveillance. Eorfive "a#s, the# -athere" infor,ation an" learne" that .u"tu" 5as involve" in ille-al "ru-s. On Au-ust 3, 3222, the civilianasset infor,e"thepolicethat .u"tu"ha"hea"e"toCotabatoan"5oul"bebac0laterthat "a#5ithane5stoc0of,ari>uana. At aroun" *6%% p.,. that sa,e "a#, a tea, of police officers poste" the,selves to a5ait .u"tu"8s arrival. At &6%%p.,., t5o ,en "ise,bar0e" fro, a bus an" helpe" each other carr# a carton. .he police officers approache" the suspectsan" as0e" if the# coul" see the contents of the bo; 5hich #iel"e" ,ari>uana leaves.29In People v. Nuevas, the police officers receive" infor,ation that a certain ,ale person, ,ore or less +8*= in hei-ht, $+ to 7%#ears ol", 5ith a tattoo ,ar0 on the upper ri-ht han", an" usuall# 5earin- a san"o an" ,aon- pants, 5oul" ,a0e a "eliver#of,ari>uanaleaves. :hilecon"uctin-stationar#surveillancean",onitorin-ofille-al "ru-traffic0in-, the#sa5theaccuse" 5ho fit the "escription, carr#in- a plastic ba-. .he police accoste" the accuse" an" infor,e" hi, that the# 5erepolice officers. Fpon inspection of the plastic ba- carrie" b# the accuse", the ba- containe" ,ari>uana "rie" leaves an"bric0s 5rappe" in a blue cloth. In his bi" to escape char-es, the accuse" "isclose" 5here t5o other ,ale persons 5oul",a0e a "eliver# of ,ari>uana leaves. Fpon seein- the t5o ,ale persons, later i"entifie" as Re#nal"o Din an" Eernan"oInocencio, the police approache" the,, intro"uce" the,selves as police officers, then inspecte" the ba- the# 5ere carr#in-.Fpon inspection, the contents of the ba- turne" out to be ,ari>uana leaves.30In all of these cases, 5e refuse" to vali"ate the 5arrantless search precisel# because there 5as no a"e1uate probable cause.:e re1uire" the sho5in- of so,e overt act in"icative of the cri,inal "esi-n.As in the above cases, appellant herein 5as not co,,ittin- a cri,e in the presence of the police officers. Neither "i" thearrestin- officers have personal 0no5le"-e of facts in"icatin- that the person to be arreste" ha" co,,itte", 5as co,,ittin-,or about to co,,it an offense. At the ti,e of the arrest, appellant ha" >ust ali-hte" fro, the (e,ini bus an" 5as 5aitin- foratric#cle.Appellant 5asnotactin-inan#suspicious,annerthat 5oul"en-en"erareasonable-roun"forthepoliceofficers to suspect an" conclu"e that he 5as co,,ittin- or inten"in- to co,,it a cri,e. :ere it not for the infor,ation-iven b#the infor,ant, appellant 5oul" not have been apprehen"e" an" no search 5oul" have been ,a"e, an"conse1uentl#, the sachet of shabu 5oul" not have been confiscate".:e are not una5are of another set of >urispru"ence that "ee,s =reliable infor,ation= sufficient to >ustif# a search inci"ent toa la5ful 5arrantless arrest. As cite" in People v. .u"tu", these inclu"e People v.Maspil, /r.,31 People v. 9a-ista,32 People v. 9alin-an,33 People v. Cisin-,34 People v. Montilla,35 People v. Val"e?,36 an"Peoplev.(on?ales.37 Inthesecases, theCourt sustaine"thevali"it#ofthe5arrantlesssearchesnot5ithstan"in-theabsenceof overt acts or suspicious circu,stances that 5oul"in"icatethat theaccuse"ha"co,,itte", 5as actuall#co,,ittin-, or atte,ptin- to co,,it a cri,e. 9ut as aptl# observe" b# the Court, e;cept in Val"e? an" (on?ales, the# 5erecovere" b# the other e;ceptions to the rule a-ainst 5arrantless searches.38Neither 5ere the arrestin- officers i,pelle" b# an# ur-enc# that 5oul" allo5 the, to "o a5a# 5ith the re1uisite 5arrant. Astestifie"tob#Police Officer 3AurelioIni5an, a ,e,ber of the arrestin-tea,, their office receive"the =tippe"infor,ation= on Ma# 32, $%%7. .he# li0e5ise learne" fro, the infor,ant not onl# the appellant8s ph#sical "escription butalso his na,e. Althou-h it 5as not certain that appellant 5oul" arrive on the sa,e "a# Ma# 32!, there 5as an assurancethat he 5oul" be there the follo5in- "a# Ma# $%!. Clearl#, the police ha" a,ple opportunit# to appl# for a 5arrant.39Obviousl#, this is an instance of sei?ure of the =fruit of the poisonous tree,= hence, the confiscate" ite, is ina",issible inevi"ence consonant 5ith Article III, Section 7$! of the 32&D Constitution, =an# evi"ence obtaine" in violation of this or theprece"in- section shall be ina",issible for an# purpose in an# procee"in-.=:ithout theconfiscate"shabu, appellant8sconvictioncannot besustaine"base"onthere,ainin-evi"ence. .hus, anac1uittal is 5arrante", "espite the 5aiver of appellant of his ri-ht to 1uestion the ille-alit# of his arrest b# enterin- a pleaan" his active participation in the trial of the case. As earlier ,entione", the le-alit# of an arrest affects onl# the >uris"ictionof the court over the person of the accuse". A 5aiver of an ille-al, 5arrantless arrest "oes not carr# 5ith it a 5aiver of theina",issibilit# of evi"ence sei?e" "urin- an ille-al 5arrantless arrest.40One final note. As clearl# state" in People v. Nuevas,41; ; ; In the final anal#sis, 5e in the a",inistration of >ustice 5oul" have no ri-ht to e;pect or"inar# people to be la5'abi"in- if 5e "o not insist on the full protection of their ri-hts. So,e la5,en, prosecutors an" >u"-es ,a# still ten" to -lossover an ille-al search an" sei?ure as lon- as the la5 enforcers sho5 the alle-e" evi"ence of the cri,e re-ar"less of the,etho"sb#5hichthe#5ereobtaine". .his0in"ofattitu"econ"onesla5'brea0in-inthena,eofla5enforce,ent.Ironicall#, it onl# fosters the ,ore rapi" brea0"o5n of our s#ste, of >ustice, an" the eventual "eni-ration of societ#. :hilethis Court appreciates an" encoura-es the efforts of la5 enforcers to uphol" the la5 an" to preserve the peace an" securit#of societ#, 5e nevertheless a",onish the, to act 5ith "eliberate care an" 5ithin the para,eters set b# the Constitution an"the la5. .rul#, the en" never >ustifies the ,eans.42:)EREEORE, pre,ises consi"ere", the Court of Appeals Decision "ate" Ma# $$, $%%& in CA'(.R. CR').C. No. %%*$+ isREVERSED an" SE. ASIDE. Appellant /ac0 Ra1uero Racho is ACGFI..ED for insufficienc# of evi"ence..he Director of the 9ureau of Corrections is "irecte" to cause the i,,e"iate release of appellant, unless the latter is bein-la5full# hel" for another cause< an" to infor, the Court of the "ate of his release, or the reasons for his confine,ent, 5ithinten 3%! "a#s fro, notice.No costs.SO ORDERED.ANTONO E%UAR%O &. NACHURAAssociate /ustice:E CONCFR6ANTONO T. CARPOAssociate /usticeChairperson%OS%A%O M. PERALTAAssociate /usticeRO&ERTO A. A&A%Associate /ustice!OSE CATRAL MEN%O'AAssociate /usticeA . . E S . A . I O NI attest that the conclusions in the above Decision ha" been reache" in consultation before the case 5as assi-ne" to the5riter of the opinion of the Court8s Division.ANTONO T. CARPOAssociate /usticeChairperson, Secon" DivisionC E R . I E I C A . I O NPursuant toSection37, ArticleVIII of theConstitutionan"theDivisionChairpersonHsAttestation, I certif#that theconclusions in the above Decision ha" been reache" in consultation before the case 5as assi-ne" to the 5riter of the opinionof the Court8s Division.RENATO C. CORONAChief /ustice