PEOPLE V. NG YIK BUN Velasco, Jr., J. January 10, 2011 RA IO !E"I!EN!

I# A warrantless arrest shall be lawful, if in the presence of the arresting officer, the person to be arrested is actually committing a crime (in flagrante delicto). $UI"K %A" &# Based on an information received from an operative that there was an ongoing shipment of contraband, the police proceeded to Villa Vicente Resort. Chinese loo!ing men were seen from a distance of around "# meters loading shabu into a van when $as! %orce Aduana arrested them. Accused are claiming that the arrest was invalid since the operation was conducted without a warrant. %A" &# Capt. &anilo 'bon of $as! %orce Aduana received information from an operative that there was an ongoing shipment of contraband. (pon instructions from his superior, )a*or Carlo )agno $abo, Capt. 'bon formed a team in coordination with a +hilippine ,ational +olice detachment, and, along with the operative, the team then proceeded to Villa Vicenta Resort in -ue.on. $he members of the team were able to observe the goings on at the resort from a distance of around "# meters. $hey spotted si/ Chinese loo!ing men loading bags containing a white substance into a white van. 0aving been noticed, Capt. 'bon identified his team and as!ed accused appellant Chua 1hilou 0wan (0wan) what they were loading on the van. 0wan replied that it was shabu and pointed, when probed further, to accused appellant Raymond $an as the leader. A total of 234 bags of suspected shabu were then confiscated. An Amended 'nformation for violation of 1ec. 25, Article ''' of RA 564" was filed against accused appellants, who entered a plea of not guilty upon re arraignment. Accused appellants all maintained their innocence. $he R$C convicted accused appellants of the crime charged. $he appellate court found accused appellants7 contentions unmeritorious as it conse8uently affirmed in toto the R$C &ecision. $he CA ruled that, contrary to accused appellants7 assertion, they were first arrested before the sei.ure of the contraband was made. $he CA held that accused appellants were caught in flagrante delicto loading transparent plastic bags containing white crystalline substance into an 9 :## van which, thus, *ustified their arrests and the sei.ure of the contraband. $he CA agreed with the prosecution that the urgency of the situation meant that the buy bust team had no time to secure a search warrant. )oreover, the CA also found that the warrantless sei.ure of the transparent plastic bags can li!ewise be sustained under the plain view doctrine. I&&UE# ;<, there was a valid search and arrest despite the absence of a warrant !E"I&ION# Accused found =('9$> beyong reasonable doubt. 'EL!# Revised Rules on Criminal +rocedure, 1ec. ". Arrest without warrant? when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person@ (a) ;hen, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is

attempting to commit an offense? /// $he foregoing proviso refers to arrest in flagrante delicto.'n the instant case, there was indeed a valid warrantless arrest in flagrante delicto. Consider the circumstances immediately prior to and surrounding the arrest of accused appellants@ (2) the police officers received information from an operative about an ongoing shipment of contraband? (4) the police officers, with the operative, proceeded to Villa Vicenta Resort in Barangay Bignay '', 1ariaya, -ue.on? (:) they observed the goings on at the resort from a distance of around "# meters? and (6) they spotted the si/ accused appellants loading transparent bags containing a white substance into a white 9 :## van. Avidently, the arresting police officers had probable cause to suspect that accused appellants were loading and transporting contraband, more so when 0wan, upon being accosted, readily mentioned that they were loading shabu and pointed to $an as their leader. $hus, the arrest of accused appellants who were caught in flagrante delicto of possessing, and in the act of loading into a white 9 :## van, shabu, a prohibited drug under RA 564", as amended is valid. +resent in the instant case are all the elements of illegal possession of drugs@ (2) the accused is in possession of an item or ob*ect which is identified to be a prohibited drug? (4) such possession is not authori.ed by law? and (:) the accused freely and consciously possesses the prohibited drug. Accused appellants were positively identified in court as the individuals caught loading and possessing illegal drugs. $hey were found to be in possession of prohibited drugs without proof that they were duly authori.ed by law to possess them. 0aving been caught in flagrante delicto, there is, therefore, a prima facie evidence of animus possidendi on the part of accused appellants.$here is, thus, no merit to the argument of the defense that a warrant was needed to arrest accused appellants.