Name: Henry C.
Sayon P35 LAWPRO130 August 18, 2025
People of the Philippines vs. Gerrjan Manago y Acut
G.R. No. 212340, August 17, 2016
Facts
On March 15, 2007, at around 9:30 p.m., PO3 Antonio Din witnessed an armed robbery at Jonas
Borces Beauty Parlor in Cebu City, Philippines, where the suspects fled on a motorcycle registered to
Gerrjan Manago y Acut and a red Toyota Corolla owned by Manago's employer. The following day,
March 16, 2007, at around 9:30 p.m., police set up a checkpoint in Sitio Panagdait, Cebu City, as part
of a purported "hot pursuit" operation. They stopped Manago driving the Corolla, frisked him, and
found a heat-sealed sachet of shabu (methamphetamine hydrochloride) in his pocket, leading to his
warrantless arrest for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of Republic
Act No. 9165.
Issue
Whether the warrantless arrest of Manago under the "hot pursuit" exception was valid, thereby
justifying the incidental search and seizure of the shabu.
Holding
No. The Supreme Court acquitted Manago, ruling the warrantless arrest invalid and the evidence
inadmissible.
Reasoning
The Court held that the arrest did not meet the requirements for a valid hot pursuit warrantless arrest
under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, which requires that an offense has just been
committed and the officer has probable cause based on personal knowledge that the person arrested
committed it. Here, there was no immediacy—the robbery occurred the previous day, and police had
time to investigate, verify vehicle ownership, and obtain a warrant. The checkpoint was a pretext for
targeting Manago, not a routine measure, and the search preceded the arrest, violating the
constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Without a lawful arrest, the
incidental search was invalid, rendering the shabu fruit of the poisonous tree and inadmissible.
Rule of Law
Under Philippine law, warrantless arrests are permissible without a warrant when:
An offense has just been committed.
The arresting officer has probable cause—based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances—
that the person to be arrested committed it (hot pursuit exception).
Lack of immediacy or reliance on pretextual measures invalidates the arrest.
