Scribd
Upload
1K views1 page

Homar v. People, 768 SCRA 584

The Supreme Court ruled that Homar's warrantless arrest was unlawful. The lone witness for the prosecution testified that Homar was seen crossing a no jaywalking area and picking something up from the ground. However, the prosecution failed to prove that an overt act indicating Homar had committed a crime occurred in the presence of the arresting officer, which is required to constitute a valid warrantless arrest. As the arrest was unlawful, the shabu recovered was inadmissible as evidence and could not be used to convict Homar.

Uploaded by

Homer Simpson
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views1 page

Homar v. People, 768 SCRA 584

The Supreme Court ruled that Homar's warrantless arrest was unlawful. The lone witness for the prosecution testified that Homar was seen crossing a no jaywalking area and picking something up from the ground. However, the prosecution failed to prove that an overt act indicating Homar had committed a crime occurred in the presence of the arresting officer, which is required to constitute a valid warrantless arrest. As the arrest was unlawful, the shabu recovered was inadmissible as evidence and could not be used to convict Homar.

Uploaded by

Homer Simpson
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Homar v. People, 768 SCRA 584, G.R. No. 182534, 2 Sept.

2015

*Warrantless Arrest

Facts:

Hadji Homar (petitioner) was found in possession of one heat-sealed transparent plastic
sachet containing .03 grams of shabu. In the information, petitioner was charged for violation
of section 11, article II of RA 9165. During arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty.

The lone witness for prosecution, PO1 Eric Tan testified that at around 8:50 pm of 20
Aug. 2002, on board a mobile hunter, he saw petitioner crossing a “No Jaywalking” portion of
Roxas blvd. The petitioner picked up something from the ground prompting civilian agent
Tangcoy to frisk him resulting in the recovery of a knife and the sachet of shabu.

The lone witness for the defense is the petitioner himself. According to him, on even
date, he was going home at around 6:30 pm. After crossing the overpass, a policeman and a
civilian stopped and frisked him despite his refusal and that they poked a gun at him, accused
him of being a holdupper and forced him to go with them.

RTC convicted the petitioner. Petitioner appealed the case to the CA, but was dismissed
by the latter and affirmed the findings of the RTC. Petitioner argues that the shabu, which was
allegedly recoverd from him is inadmissible as evidence because it was obtained as a result of
his unlawful arrest and in violation of his right against unreasonable search and seizure.

Issue:

W / N there is lawful warrantless arrest?

Held:

No. The prosecution failed to prove that a lawful warrantless arrest precede the search
conducted on the petitioner’s body.

The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides the only
occasions when a person maybe lawfully arrested without a warrant. To constitute a valid in
flagrante delicto arrest, 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 of or within the view of the
arresting officer.

The prosecution has the burden to prove the legality of the warrantless arrest from
which the corpus delicti of the crime — shabu — was obtained. For, without a valid warrantless
arrest, the alleged confiscation of the shabu resulting from a warrantless search on the
petitioner’s body is surely a violation of his constitutional right against unlawful search and
seizure. As a consequence, the alleged shabu shall be inadmissible as evidence against him.

You might also like