People vs Dequina

Facts: Accused Nelida Dequina was charged for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, the
pertinent facts of the case are as follows: P03 Masange along with two other companions were given a tip
that a huge amount of marijuana will be delivered in the corner of Juan Luna and Rexabano Street in
Tondo Manila. Being given the description of the purported carriers, P03 Masange et al. proceeded to the
area and, a male and two females were seen getting off the taxi and carrying individual black bags. The
officers went to the individuals and the three began to panic. One of them is accused Nelida Dequina who
dropped the bag she was carrying, causing the zipper to open and revealed what seemed to be bricks of
marijuana. The bags of her two other companion contained the same. Dequina raised as a defense that
she only did what she did because she was under the gun, that her daughter was in the hands of the
mastermind threatening her that something bad is to happen to her daughter if she would not complete
what she is asked to do.

The RTC convicted her party of the crime and was affirmed by the CA. Dequina and party assail their
conviction, asserting that their arrests were illegal. They were not doing anything illegal that would have
justified their warrantless arrest, much less a warrantless search of their persons and belongings. A
search made without a warrant cannot be justified as an incident of arrest unless the arrest itself was
lawful. The People counters that accused-appellants arrests were lawful as they were then actually
committing a crime. Since accused-appellants were lawfully arrested, the resulting warrantless search of
their persons and belongings was also valid. In addition, accused-appellants did not refute that they were
indeed transporting prohibited drugs when they were arrested and, instead, alleged as defenses that
Dequina acted under the impulse of uncontrollable fear, and Jundoc and Jingabo were merely
accommodating a trusted childhood friend.

Issue: W/N the warrantless arrest of Dequina is valid.

Held: Yes. The party of Dequina was in inflagrante delicto at the time of the arrest.

Ratio: Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides that a lawful arrest without a warrant may be
made by a peace officer or a private person under the following circumstances: 1. When the person to be
arrested is in inflagrante delicto. 2. When the arresting officer is in hot pursuit. 3. When the person to be
arrested is an escapee.

Transport as used under the Dangerous Drugs Act is defined to mean to carry or convey from one
place to another. The evidence in this case shows that at the time of their arrest, accused-appellants
were caught in flagrante carrying/transporting dried marijuana leaves in their traveling bags. PO3
Masanggue need not even open Dequinas traveling bag to determine its content because when the latter
noticed the police officers presence, she walked briskly away and in her hurry, accidentally dropped her
traveling bag, causing the zipper to open and exposed the dried marijuana bricks therein. Since a crime
was then actually being committed by the accused-appellants, their warrantless arrest was legally
justified, and the following warrantless search of their traveling bags was allowable as incidental to their
lawful arrest.