113
113
113
Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest has been defined In view of the introduction of the above-mentioned documents,
as “such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably respondent Peña filed his Complaint-Affidavit9 with the Office of the
discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been City Prosecutor, Bago City.10 He claimed that said documents were
committed by the person sought to be arrested.”110 Although the falsified because the alleged signatories did not actually affix their
Constitution provides that probable cause shall be determined by the signatures, and the signatories were neither stockholders nor officers
judge after an examination under oath or an affirmation of the and employees of ISCI.11 Worse, petitioners introduced said documents
complainant and the witnesses, we have ruled that a hearing is not as evidence before the RTC knowing that they were falsified.
necessary for the determination thereof.111 In fact, the judge’s personal
examination of the complainant and the witnesses is not mandatory In a Resolution12 dated September 23, 1998, the City Prosecutor
and indispensable for determining the aptness of issuing a warrant of concluded that the petitioners were probably guilty of four (4) counts
arrest. of the crime of Introducing Falsified Documents penalized by the
second paragraph of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The
City Prosecutor concluded that the documents were falsified because
TEODORO BORLONGAN VS PENA the alleged signatories untruthfully stated that ISCI was the principal
of the respondent; that petitioners knew that the documents were
FACTS: falsified considering that the signatories were mere dummies; and that
the documents formed part of the record of Civil Case No. 754 where
Respondent Magdaleno Peña instituted a civil case for recovery of they were used by petitioners as evidence in support of their motion to
agent's compensation and expenses, damages, and attorney's dismiss, adopted in their answer and later, in their Pre-Trial
Brief.13 Subsequently, the corresponding Informations14 were filed with court's conclusion that by posting bail, petitioners already waived their
the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Bago City. The cases were right to assail the validity of the warrant of arrest.
docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 6683, 6684, 6685, and 6686. Thereafter,
Judge Primitivo Blanca issued the warrants15 for the arrest of the On June 20, 2000, the CA dismissed the petition.19
petitioners.
ISSUE: Whether or not the judge failed to personally determine the
On October 1, 1998, petitioners filed an Omnibus Motion to Quash, probable cause before issuing a warrant of arrest
Recall Warrants of Arrest and/or For Reinvestigation.16 Petitioners
insisted that they were denied due process because of the non- RULING: In the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the mandate of the
observance of the proper procedure on preliminary investigation Constitution is for the judge to personally determine the existence of
prescribed in the Rules of Court. Specifically, they claimed that they probable cause:
were not afforded the right to submit their counter-affidavit. They then
argued that since no such counter-affidavit and supporting documents Section 2, Article III of the Constitution provides:
were submitted by the petitioners, the trial judge merely relied on the
complaint-affidavit and attachments of the respondent in issuing the Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
warrants of arrest, also in contravention of the Rules. Petitioners further papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of
prayed that the information be quashed for lack of probable cause. whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
Lastly, petitioners posited that the criminal case should have been warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to
suspended on the ground that the issue being threshed out in the civil be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or
case is a prejudicial question. affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or
In an Order17 dated November 13, 1998, the court denied the omnibus things to be seized.
motion primarily on the ground that preliminary investigation was not
available in the instant case - - - which fell within the jurisdiction of the Enshrined in our Constitution is the rule that “[n]o x x x warrant of
MTCC. The court, likewise, upheld the validity of the warrant of arrest, arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
saying that it was issued in accordance with the Rules. Besides, the personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of
court added, petitioners could no longer question the validity of the the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
warrant since they already posted bail. The court also believed that the describing x x x the persons x x x to be seized.” Interpreting the words
issue involved in the civil case was not a prejudicial question, and thus, “personal determination,” we said in Soliven v. Makasiar that it does not
denied the prayer for suspension of the criminal proceedings. Lastly, thereby mean that judges are obliged to conduct the personal
the court was convinced that the Informations contained all the facts examination of the complainant and his witnesses themselves. To
necessary to constitute an offense. require thus would be to unduly laden them with preliminary
examinations and investigations of criminal complaints instead of
Petitioners subsequently instituted a special civil action concentrating on hearing and deciding cases filed before them. Rather,
for Certiorariand Prohibition with Prayer for Writ of Preliminary what is emphasized merely is the exclusive and personal responsibility
Injunction and TRO, before the CA ascribing grave abuse of discretion of the issuing judge to satisfy himself as to the existence of probable
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the MTCC in cause.
issuing and not recalling the warrants of arrest, reiterating the
arguments in their omnibus motion.18 They, likewise, questioned the
What he is never allowed to do is to follow blindly the prosecutor's bare certifications to file action from the barangay. On the date the two cases
certification as to the existence of probable cause. Much more is were filed, respondent immediately issued two warrants for his arrest.
required by the constitutional provision. Judges have to go over the He was arrested on a Friday and languished in the municipal jail for
report, the affidavits, the transcript of stenographic notes if any, and two days and two nights. He posted bail and filed a motion to inhibit
other documents supporting the prosecutor's certification. Although respondent from hearing the case, but the same was not acted upon.
the extent of the judge's personal examination depends on the He received an envelope from the court with nothing inside and found
circumstances of each case, to be sure, he cannot just rely on the bare out later that the same was supposed to be a notice of hearing; thus, he
certification alone but must go beyond it. was ordered arrested in view of his non-appearance in court.
An arrest without a probable cause is an unreasonable seizure In his Comment3 dated October 31, 2005, respondent denied the
of a person, and violates the privacy of persons which ought not to be allegations contained in the complaint reasoning that he acted in good
intruded by the State.[16] faith and within the scope of his duties. He further contends: Based on
Administrative Circular No. 140-93, the crimes committed by the
Measured against the constitutional mandate and established accused are not within the KatarunganPambarangay Law because the
rulings, there was here a clear abdication of the judicial function and a imposable penalty exceeds one year. Both cases are within the original
clear indication that the judge blindly followed the certification of a city jurisdiction of the court and, finding a probable cause against the
prosecutor as to the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a accused, the court issued the warrant of arrest. There is no law or
warrant of arrest with respect to all of the petitioners. The careless circular issued by this Court that a court cannot issue a warrant of
inclusion of Mr. Ben Lim, Jr., in the warrant of arrest gives flesh to the arrest on Friday. If the accused was not able to post bail on time, it is
bone of contention of petitioners that the instant case is a matter of not his fault or of the court. The motion for inhibition filed by
persecution rather than prosecution complainant must be set for hearing. But in spite of several settings to
hear the motion, complainant failed to appear. In the hearing of both
cases, complainant failed to appear in court; thus, the assistant
provincial prosecutor moved for the arrest of the complainant. At the
COLORADO VS AGAPITO hearing of November 17, 2000 and January 5, 2001, complainant failed
to appear in court, and orders of arrest were issued against him, but
Before us is a sworn letter-complaint1 dated January 31, 2001 of Miguel said orders were reconsidered by the court. In spite of all the orders of
E. Colorado (complainant) charging Judge Ricardo M. Agapito the court for the arrest of complainant, none of the orders were
(respondent), Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Laur, Nueva implemented. Neither was the accused arrested and detained in jail.
Ecija, with Gross Ignorance of the Law and Grave Abuse of Authority And if the complainant received an envelope from the MCTC of Laur
relative to Criminal Case Nos. 3461-G and 3462-G, entitled "People v. without content, complainant should have immediately informed the
Miguel Colorado," with Grave Slander and Grave Threats. court of the said circumstance so that proper action may be done on the
employee in charge of the mailing of notices.
Complainant alleges: He is the accused in the aforementioned criminal
cases. The cases were directly filed with the court without first passing
the Office of the Barangay Chairman, although he and private ISSUE: W/N Respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of authority
complainants are permanent residents of Barangay Bagong Sikat, for the issuance of a warrant of arrest on a Friday to ensure
Gabaldon, Nueva Ecija. Respondent ignored the glaring deficiency in complainant's incarceration for two days
private complainants' filing of the cases without attaching the requisite
RULING: NO. Complainant faults respondent for having been arrested by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have
on a Friday, causing him to languish in jail for two days and two nights. in his possession, custody and control one (1) unsealed transparent
Respondent cannot be held administratively liable for this particular plastic sachet containing traces of white crystalline substance,
matter. (METHYLAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE), one (1) rolled
aluminum foil strip containing traces of white crystalline substance,
Section 6, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides (METHYLAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE), one (1) folded
that an arrest may be made on any day and at any time of the day or aluminum foil strip containing traces of white crystalline substance,
night. (METHYLAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE) and two (2)
disposable plastic lighters, knowing the same are paraphernalia
It is of no moment that the warrant of arrest was issued by respondent instruments apparatus fit or intended for smoking, consuming,
on a Friday, because it is clear from the foregoing that an arrest may be administering, ingesting or introducing dangerous drug
made on any day regardless of what day the warrant of arrest was (METHYLAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE) into the body.
issued. Nowhere in the Rules or in our jurisprudence can we find that
a warrant of arrest issued on a Friday is prohibited. Criminal Case No. C-73029: That on or about the 20th of April 2005 in
Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this
Granting that complainant was arrested on a Friday, he was not Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring together and
without recourse, as he could have posted bail for his temporary liberty mutually helping with one another, without being authorized by law,
in view of Supreme Court Circular No. 95-9610 dated December 5, 1996, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously use and sniff
providing for a skeletal force on a Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu), knowing the same to be
primarily to act on petitions for bail and other urgent matters. And on a dangerous drug under the provisions of the above-cited law.
Saturday afternoons, Sundays and non-working holidays, any judge ±Ï‰ lιbrαrÿ
may act on bailable offenses.
Essentially, Ambre insists that the warrantless arrest and search made
against her were illegal because no offense was being committed at the
time and the police operatives were not authorized by a judicial order
AMBRE VS PEOPLE to enter the dwelling of Sultan. She argues that the alleged "hot pursuit"
on Sultan which ended in the latter's house, where she, Mendoza and
FACTS: Castro were supposedly found having a pot session, was more
imaginary than real. In this regard, Ambre cites the April 29, 2005
Two separate Informations were filed against Ambre, and co-accused, Resolution of the Prosecutor's Office of Caloocan City dismissing the
Bernie Castro (Castro) and Kaycee Mendoza (Mendoza), before the RTC case against Aderp and Sultan for insufficiency of evidence because the
charging them with illegal possession of drug paraphernalia docketed April 20, 2005 buy-bust operation was highly suspicious and doubtful.
as Criminal Case No. C-73028, and illegal use of methylamphetamine She posits that the items allegedly seized from her were inadmissible
hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu, docketed as Criminal Case in evidence being fruits of a poisonous tree. She claims that the
No. C-73029. The Informations indicting the accused read: omission of the apprehending team to observe the procedure outlined
in R.A. No. 9165 for the seizure of evidence in drugs cases significantly
Criminal Case No. C-73028: That on or about 20th day of April 2005 in impairs the prosecution s case. Lastly, Ambre maintains that she was
Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this not subjected to a confirmatory test and, hence, the imposition of the
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized penalty of six months rehabilitation was not justified.
ISSUE: 1) Whether the warrantless arrest of Ambre and the search of arrest of a suspect where, based on personal knowledge of the arresting
her person was valid; officer, there is probable cause that said suspect was the perpetrator of
a crime which had just been committed; (c) arrest of a prisoner who has
RULING: Section 2, Article III13 of the Constitution mandates that a escaped from custody serving final judgment or temporarily confined
search and seizure must be carried out through or on the strength of a during the pendency of his case or has escaped while being transferred
judicial warrant predicated upon the existence of probable cause, from one confinement to another.\
absent which such search and seizure becomes "unreasonable" within
the meaning of said constitutional provision. Evidence obtained and In the case at bench, there is no gainsaying that Ambre was caught by
confiscated on the occasion of such an unreasonable search and seizure the police officers in the act of using shabu and, thus, can be lawfully
is tainted and should be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a arrested without a warrant. PO1 Mateo positively identified Ambre
poisonous tree. In the language of the fundamental law, it shall be sniffing suspected shabu from an aluminum foil being held by
inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. Castro.17 Ambre, however, made much of the fact that there was no
prior valid intrusion in the residence of Sultan. The argument is
This exclusionary rule is not, however, an absolute and rigid specious.
proscription. One of the recognized exception established by
jurisprudence is search incident to a lawful arrest.15 In this exception, Considering that the warrantless arrest of Ambre was valid, the
the law requires that a lawful arrest must precede the search of a person subsequent search and seizure done on her person was likewise lawful.
and his belongings. As a rule, an arrest is considered legitimate if After all, a legitimate warrantless arrest necessarily cloaks the arresting
effected with a valid warrant of arrest. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules police officer with authority to validly search and seize from the
of Criminal Procedure, however, recognizes permissible warrantless offender (1) dangerous weapons, and (2) those that may be used as
arrests proof of the commission of an offense.
rounds when he purportedly received a report of a man showing off the crime charged. he RTC found that BB Bahoyo and BB Velasquez
his private parts at Kaong Street. BB Bahoyo and fellow Bantay conducted a valid warrantless arrest, as petitioner was scandalously
Bayan operative Mark Anthony Velasquez (BB Velasquez) then went to showing his private parts at the time of his arrest. Therefore, the
the said street and saw a visibly intoxicated person, which they later resultant search incidental to such arrest which yielded the seized
identified as herein petitioner, urinating and displaying his private marijuana in petitioner's possession was also lawful. In this regard,
parts while standing in front of a gate enclosing an empty lot. BB since the prosecution has adequately shown that petitioner freely and
Bahoyo and BB Velasquez approached petitioner and asked him where consciously possessed such marijuana without authority by law, then
he lived, and the latter answered Kaong Street. BB Bahoyo then said he must be convicted for violating Section 11, Article II of RA 9165.12
that he also lived in the same street but petitioner looked unfamiliar to
him, so he asked for an identification card, but petitioner failed to CA RULING: CA affirmed petitioner's conviction.15 It held that the
produce one. BB Velasquez then repeated the request for an search made on petitioner which yielded the seized marijuana was
identification card, but instead, petitioner emptied his pockets, validly made as it was done incidental to his arrest for exhibiting his
revealing a pack of cigarettes containing one (1) stick of cigarette and private parts on public. As such, the said seized marijuana is admissible
two (2) pieces of rolled paper containing dried marijuana leaves, in evidence and, thus, sufficient to convict him for the crime charged.
among others. This prompted BB Bahoyo and BB Velasquez to seize the
foregoing items, take petitioner to the police station, and turn him, as ISSUE: he issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA
well as the seized items, over to SPO3 Rafael Castillo (SPO3 Castillo). correctly upheld petitioner's conviction for illegal possession of
SPO3 Castillo then inventoried, marked, and photographed the seized dangerous drugs.
items, all in the presence of BB Bahoyo and BB Velasquez, and
thereafter, prepared an inventory report and a request for qualitative RULING: One of the arguments presented in the instant petition is that
examination of the seized two (2) pieces of rolled paper and for the search and arrest made on petitioner were illegal and, thus, the
petitioner to undergo drug testing. After examination, it was confirmed marijuana purportedly seized from him is inadmissible in
that the aforesaid rolled paper contained marijuana and that petitioner evidence.21 In this relation, it is worth noting that his arresting
was positive for the presence of methamphetamine but negative for officers, i.e., BB Bahoyo and BB Velasquez, are mere Bantay
THC-metabolites, both dangerous drugs.8 Bayan operatives of Makati City. Strictly speaking, they are not
government agents like the Philippine National Police (PNP) or the
Petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge, and thereafter, presented a National Bureau of Investigation in charge of law enforcement; but
different version of the facts. According to him, he was just urinating rather, they are civilian volunteers who act as "force multipliers" to assist
in front of his workplace when two (2) Bantay Bayan operatives, i.e., BB the aforesaid law enforcement agencies in maintaining peace and
Bahoyo and BB Velasquez, approached and asked him where he lived. security within their designated areas.22 Particularly, jurisprudence
Upon responding that he lived in Kaong Street, BB Bahoyo and BB described the nature of Bantay Bayan as "a group of male residents
Velasquez then frisked him, took away his belongings, and thereafter, living in [the] area organized for the purpose of keeping peace in their
handcuffed and brought him to the barangay hall. He was then community[, which is] an accredited auxiliary of the x x x PNP."23 In
detained for about an hour before being taken to the Ospital ng Makati the case of Dela Cruz v. People24 involving civilian port personnel
conducting security checks, the Court thoroughly discussed that while That on or about December 17, 2003 in the City of Manila, Philippines,
the Bill of Rights under Article III of the 1987 Constitution generally the said accused, not being authorized by law to sell, trade, deliver or
cannot be invoked against the acts of private individuals, the same may give away any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully,
nevertheless be applicable if such individuals act under the color of a unlawfully and knowingly sell zero point zero six eight (0.068) grams
state-related function. of white crystalline substance containing methylamphetamine
hydrochloride known as “shabu,” a dangerous drug.
In this light, the Court is convinced that the acts of the Bantay Bayan or
any barangay-based or other volunteer organizations in the nature of During the operation, the respondent approached the confidential
watch groups - relating to the preservation of peace and order in their informant and asked him if he is going to buy shabu. Instead of
respective areas have the color of a state-related function. As such, they answering, the informant pointed to the undercover police officer who
should be deemed as law enforcement authorities for the purpose of was beside him at that time. The undercover police officer showed the
applying the Bill of Rights under Article III of the 1987 Constitution to marked money and the respondent took them. Respondent turned his
them. back a little to get something from his right pocket and passed to him
In warrantless arrests made pursuant to Section 5 (a), Rule 113, two (2) aplastic sachet containing white crystalline substance suspected to be
elements must concur, namely: (a) the person to be arrested must shabu.
execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (b) such overt act Upon receipt, he grabbed the respondent and introduced himself as a
is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. On police officer. He informed the respondent of his constitutional rights
the other hand, Section 5 (b), Rule 113 requires for its application that and law that is vilated. Respondent resisted but the other policemen
at the time of the arrest, an offense had in fact just been committed and rushed to assist. The police officer kept in possession of the evidence
the arresting officer had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the from place of arrest and upon arrival to the police station, he marked
accused had committed it.32 the same with the initials of the accused.
In both instances, the officer's personal knowledge of the fact of the Respondent claimed that he was a victim of frame up. He claims that
commission of an offense is essential. Under Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of his warrantless arrest was illegal and that he was not apprised of his
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the officer himself witnesses rights.
the crime; while in Section 5 (b) of the same, he knows for a fact that a
crime has just been committed.33 ISSUE: whether or not the respondent’s warrantless arrest is lawful
In this case, the prosecution claims that the BB Bahoyo and BB RULING: YES. Since accused-appellant was caught by the buy-bust
Velasquez simply responded to a purported report of a man showing team in flagrante delicto, his immediate arrest was also validly
off his private parts at Kaong Street which led to petitioner's arrest made. The accused was caught in the act and had to be apprehended
on the spot.
PEOPLE VS USMAN Accused-appellant’s arrest being valid, we also hold that the
subsequent warrantless seizure of the illegal drugs from his person is
FACTS: equally valid. The legitimate warrantless arrest also cloaks the
arresting police officer with the authority to validly search and seize
from the offender those that may be used to prove the commission of crystalline substance which PO1 Talacca suspected to be shabu. PO1
the offense. Talacca immediately seized said sachet and brought Araza and his
companions to the police station. He turned over the said sachet to the
PEOPLE VS ARAZA chief investigator, Larry Cabrera (Cabrera), who marked the same with
the initials "RSA" in his presence.
FACTS: On August 15, 2003, an Information3 for violation of Section 11,
Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165) otherwise known as the The prosecution was supposed to also present Police Senior Inspector
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002-was filed against Araza, Donna Villa Huelgas (P/Sr. Insp. Huelgas), the Forensic Chemist who
the accusatory portion of which reads as examined the confiscated white crystalline substance, but her
follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary testimony was dispensed with after the defense agreed to the following
stipulations: 1) Chemistry Report No. D-2028-02 as Exhibit "B"; 2) the
name of suspect Rommel Araza y Sagun as Exhibit "B-l"; 3) the
That on or about August 28, 2002, in the Municipality of San Pedro, specimen submitted as Exhibit "B-2"; 4) findings as Exhibit "B-3"; 5)
Province of Laguna, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this conclusion as Exhibit "B-4"; 6) the name and signature of P/Sr. Insp.
Honorable Court the said accused, not being authorized by law, did Huelgas as Exhibits "B-5"; 7) the request for laboratory examination as
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his Exhibit "C"; 8) the name of suspect Rommel Araza y Sagun as Exhibit
possession, control and custody one (1) small heat-sealed transparent "C-1"; 9) the evidence submitted as Exhibit "C-2"; 10) the stamp mark as
plastic sachet containing METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE Exhibit "C-3"; 11) the half-size white envelope as Exhibit "D"; 12) the
commonly known as "shabu," a dangerous drug, weighing zero point plastic sachet as Exhibit "D-l"; and 13) the small heat-sealed plastic
zero six (0.06) gram. sachets as Exhibit "D-1 -A."6chanrobleslaw
During arraignment, Araza pleaded "not guilty."5 Thereafter, trial The defense presented a completely different version of the incident.
ensued. Araza testified that he was sleeping inside a room in the house of Sacdo
when PO1 Talacca suddenly woke him up and frisked him. PO1
Version of the Prosecution Talacca confiscated his wallet that contained coins then took him to the
police station and charged him with illegal possession of prohibited
The prosecution presented Police Officer 1 Edmund Talacca (PO1 drugs.
Talacca) who testified as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The RTC ruled that the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of
At around 8:00 p.m. of August 28, 2002, PO1 Talacca accompanied Araza beyond reasonable doubt. It gave credence to the testimony of
the Barangay Chairman, Barangay Tanods and several members of PO1 Talacca since he is presumed to have regularly performed his
the barangay council in confiscating a video karera machine inside the duties and there was no evidence that he had any motive to falsely
house of a certain Alejandro Sacdo (Sacdo). While confiscating said testify against Araza. The RTC rejected Araza's alibi as a feeble defense
machine, PO1 Talacca saw nine persons, including Araza, that cannot prevail over the positive testimony of PO1 Talacca.
sniffing shabu or engaging in a pot session inside the house of Sacdo.
He arrested and frisked them. Recovered from the pocket of Araza was In his brief,11 Araza highlighted PO1 Talacca's admission under oath
a small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white that the shabu was confiscated from his pocket and not in plain view.
He posited that the shabu is inadmissible in evidence since it was FACTS: That on or about 25th day of October 2008, in the City of Taguig,
illegally seized, having been taken from his pocket and not as an Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
incident of an arrest in flagrante delicio. Arazá likewise argued that the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, sell, deliver,
rule on chain of custody was not properly adhered to since there was and give away to a poseur buyer, zero point twelve (0.12) gram of a
no evidence that a physical inventory of the shabu was conducted in the white crystalline substance, commonly known as "shabu" which is a
presence of any elected local government official and the media. He dangerous drug, in consideration of the amount of Two Hundred Pesos
claimed that the possibility of tampering, alteration or substitution of (Php200.00) and in violation of the above cited law.[3]
the substance may have been present since the investigating officer
who marked the seized shabu in the police station and the person who When arraigned, Adriano pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.
delivered the same to the crime laboratory were not presented during During the pre-trial conference on 13 July 2009, the parties stipulated
the trial. on the following:
The CA, however, was not impressed. It ruled that Araza was estopped
from assailing the legality of his arrest for his failure to move to quash
the Information against him prior to arraignment. It also held that he 1. The identity of the accused as the same person named in the
could no longer question the chain of custody for failing to raise the information;
same during trial. Besides, the prosecution was able to establish the 2. The existence of the specimens and documents marked as
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item evidence but with a counter-proposal that the forensic chemist
ISSUE: W/N His warrantless arrest is lawful has no personal knowledge as to the source of the specimen;
3. The qualification of the forensic chemist, P/Sr. Insp. Yelah
RULING: As to the admissibility of the shabu seized from Araza, it is Manaog;
crucial to ascertain whether the search that yielded the alleged 4. The existence and due execution of the Physical Science Report
contraband was lawful.23 The Constitution states that failure to secure No. D-334-08;
a judicial warrant prior to the actual search and consequent seizure 5. The due execution and genuineness of the FINDINGS on the
would render it unreasonable and any evidence obtained therefrom qualitative examination conducted on the specimens gave
shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding POSITIVE result to the test for the presence of
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug;[4]
Considering the foregoing, Araza was clearly apprehended in flagrante
delicio as he was then committing a crime (sniffing shabu) in the
presence of PO1 Talacca. Hence, his warrantless arrest is valid pursuant During trial, the prosecution presented Police Officer 1 Teodoro
to Section 5(a) of the above-quoted Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. And Morales (PO1 Morales), who testified that acting on a report received
having been lawfully arrested, the warrantless search that followed from a barangay official and an informant that Adriano was selling
was undoubtedly incidental to a lawful arrest, which as mentioned, is drugs in North Daang Hari, Taguig City, Police Chief Inspector Porfirio
an exception to the constitutional prohibition on warrantless search Calagan formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation to entrap
and seizure. Conversely, the shabu seized from Araza is admissible in Adriano, designating PO1 Morales as the poseur-buyer, and marking
evidence to prove his guilt of the offense charged. the buy-bust money consisting of ten PI00.00 bills with the initials "PC".
After briefing, PO1 Morales, together with the informant and his team,
proceeded to North Daang Hari where PO1 Morales bought P200.00
PEOPLE VS EDWRADO ADRIANO Y SALES worth of shabu from Adriano. Upon giving Adriano the marked money
and after receiving a plastic sachet containing white crystalline illegal shabu through a buy-bust operation, within the plain view of the
substance, PO1 Morales signaled his team to arrest Adriano. PO2 arresting officers.
Ronnie Fabroa immediately arrested Adriano.[5] The marked money
confiscated from Adriano was brought to the police station for A buy-bust operation is "a form of entrapment, in which the violator is
investigation, while the plastic sachet containing white crystalline caught in flagrante delicto and the police officers conducting the
substance, which was marked with "ESA-251008"[6] at the crime scene operation are not only authorized but duty-bound to apprehend the
was brought to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory violator and to search him for anything that may have been part of or
by PO2 Vergelio Del Rosario, who also prepared the letter-request.[7] used in the commission of the crime."[15]
In the PNP Crime Laboratory, the result of the laboratory examination A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which in recent years has
conducted by Police/Senior Inspector Yelah Manaog confirmed the been accepted as a valid and effective mode of apprehending drug
presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride.[8] pushers. In a buy-bust operation, the idea to commit a crime originates
from the offender, without anybody inducing or prodding him to
On the other hand, the defense presented Adriano, who testified that commit the offense. If carried out with due regard for constitutional
on 22 October 2008, at around 10:00 p.m., he was at home, putting his and legal safeguards, a buy-bust operation deserves judicial
nephews and nieces to sleep when suddenly two (2) armed men barged sanction.[17]
into the house and dragged him outside and forcibly took him to the
police station in Taguig City. It was only when they arrived at the
police station when he learned that he was arrested for illegal sale
of shabu.[9]
RTC found Adriano guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime SANCHEZ V. PEOPLE
charged. The RTC gave credence to the testimony of PO 1 Morales
based on the presumption that police officers perform their duties in a FACTS: Sanchez was charged for violation of Sec. 11 of Article II of RA
regular manner because the defense failed to establish any ill-motive 9165 for the possession of shabu. He pleaded not guilty to the offense
on the part of the arresting officers to at least create a dent in the charged.
prosecution's case.
Prosecution’s Version of Facts
The CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC. The CA ruled that the
prosecution established the elements of the crime of illegal sale SPO1 Elmer Amposta together with other CSUs Hernandez,
of shabu. Even if the prosecution failed to comply with the requirements Tagle, and Monzon, acted on the information that Jacinta
provided in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, such noncompliance did not Marciano was selling drugs to tricycle drivers. They were
render the seized items inadmissible in evidence dispatched to Brgy. Alapan 1-B, Imus, Cavite, to conduct an
operation.
RULING: Adriano was arrested pursuant to Section 5(a), which While at the place, they waited for a tricycle going to, and
provides that a person may be arrested without a warrant if he "has coming from the house of Jacinta. After a few minutes, they
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an spotted a tricycle carrying Rizaldy Sanchez coming out of
offense." In the case at bar, Adriano was caught in the act of committing the house. The group chased the tricycle. After catching up
an offense, in flagrante delicto, when Adriano was caught selling
with it, they requested Sanchez to alight. It was then they officers that he was seen leaving the residence of a notorious drug
noticed Rizaldy holding a match box. dealer, where, according to a tip they received, illegal drug activities
SPO1 Amposta asked Sanchez if he could see the contents were being perpetrated. It also conccluded that the confiscation by the
of the match box which the latter agreed to. While police operative of the subject narcotics from Sanchez was pursuant to
examining it, SPO1 Amposta found a small transparent a valid search.
plastic sachet which contained a white crystalline
substance. Suspecting that it was a regulated drug, the ISSUE: Whether or not the Sanchez was caught in flagrante delicto
group accosted Sanchez and the tricycle driver. They were hence a search warrant was no longer necessary.
brought to the police station.
The forensic chemist from NBI found that the said susbtance RULING: NO. It is observed that the Court of Appeals confused the
was shabu. search incidental to a lawful arrest with stop-and-frisk principle.
Sanchez denied all the allegations of the prosecution. He In a search incidental to a lawful arrest, arrest determines the validity
said that he and Darwin Reyes were on their way hope of the incidental search. The law requires that there first be a lawful
where they transported a passenger, when their way was arrest before a search can be made, the process cannot be reveresed.
blocked by four armed men riding an owner-type jeepney. The arresting officer may search the person of the arrestee and the area
Without a word, the four men frisked him and Darwin. He within which the latter may reach for a weapon or for evidence to
protested and asked what offense did they commit. The destroy, and seize any money or property found which was used in the
officers told him that they had just bought drugs from commission of the crime.
Alapan. He reasoned out that he merely transported a
passenger there but the policemen still accosted him and he
was brought to Imus Police Station.
On cross-examination, the accused admitted tht it was the As held in Terry v. Ohio, the Terry stop-and-frisk serach is a limited
first time that he saw the police officers at the time he was protective searcch of outer clothing for weapons. Where a police officer
arrested. observes unusual conduct which leads him to reasonably conclude in
light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the
The RTC ruled that Sanchez was caught in flagrante delicto, in actual persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently
possession of shabu. It stated that the police operatives had reasonable dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he
ground to believe that Sanchez was in possession of the said dangerous identifies himself as apoliceman and makes reasonable inquiries, he is
drug and suspicion was confirmed when the match box Sanchez was entitled for the protection of himself.
carrying was found to contain shabu.
The two-fold interest of stop-and-frisk are:
The CA found no cogent reason to reverse or modify the findings of
facts and conclusions reached by the RTC and upheld the conviction of 1. The general interest of effective crime prevention and detection,
Sanchez. According to the CA, there was probable cause for the police which underlies the recognition that a police officer may, under
appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner, manifestation on the part of Sanchez that he had just engaged in, was
approach a person for purposes of investigating possible actually engaging in, or was attemptin to engage in the criminal activity
criminal behavior even without probable cause of ilegally possessiong shabu.
2. The more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation
which permit the police office to take steps to assure himself There is no valid stop-and-frisk. This is an act of apolice officer to stop
that the person with whom he deals is not armed with a deadly a citizen on the street, interrogate him and pat him for weapon/s or
weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against the contraband. The police officer should properly introduce himself and
police officer. make initial inquiries, approach and restrain a person who manifests
unusual and suspicious conduct, in order to check the latter’s outer
IN THE CASE AT BENCH, neither the in flagrante delict arrest nor the clothing for possible concealed weapons. The apprehending officer
stop-and-frisk principle was applicable to justify the warrantless search must have a genuine reason, in accordance with the police officer’s
and seizure made by the police operatives. The search preceded the experience and the surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that
arrest of Sanchez . There was no arrest prior to the conduct of the the person to be held has weapons or contraband concealed.
search. Under Sec. 1 of Rule 113, arrest is the taking of a person into
custody that he may be bound to answer for the commission of an The Court does not find the totality of the circumstance sufficient to
offense. Sec. 2 of the same rules provides that an arrest is effected by an incite a reasonable suspicion that would justify a stop-and-frisk search
actual restraint of the person to be arrested or by his voluntary on Sanchez. Coming out from the house of a drug pusher and boarding
submission to the custody of the person making the arrest. a tricylce without more, were innocuous movements, and by
themselves alone could not give rise in the mind of an experienced and
It appears that SPO1 Amposta after they caught up with the tricycle prudent police officer of any belief that he had shabu in his possession.
just noticed Sanchez holding a match box and requested if he could see
the contents. The arrest was made only after the discovery by SPO1 Lastly, the OSG characterizes the seuzure of the subject shabu from
Amposta of the shabu inside the boxx. What happened in this case was Sanchez as seizure of evidence in plain view. The SC disagrees.
a search first before arrest was effected. This does not qualifiy under a
valid warrantless arrest under Sec. 5 Rule 113*. Under the plaint view doctrine, objects falling in the plain view of an
officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject
The evidence on record reveals that no physical act could be properly to seizure and may be presented as evidence.
attributed to Sanchez as to rouse suspicion in the minds of the police
operatives that he had just committeed, was committing, or was about The following are the requisites:
to commit a crime. He was merely seen by the police operatives leaving
the residence of a known drug peddler. IT has not been established 1. the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior
either that the rigorous conditions set in par. B of Sec 5 of Rule 113 have justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he
been complied with. The police officers had no personal knowledge to can view a particular area
believe that Sanchez bought shabu from the notorious drug dealer and 2. the discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent
actually possessed the illegal drug when he boarded the tricycle. The 3. it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he
police officers had no inkling whatsoever as to what Sanchez did inside observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise
the house of the known drug dealer. Nowhere in the prosecution subject to seizure.
evidence does it show that the drug dealer was conducting her
nefarious drug activities insidde the house. There was no over
It is readily apaprent that the seizure of the subject shabu does not fall the offense in the presence of the arresting police officer or private
within the plain view exception. There was no valid intrusion. Sanchez person. Proof of the transaction must be credible and complete. In
was illegally arrested. The subject shabu was not inadvertently every criminal prosecution, it is the State, and no other, that bears the
discovered and it was not plainly exposed to sight. Here, the subject burden of proving the illegal sale of the dangerous drug beyond
shabu was alledly inside amatch box being then held by Sanchez and reasonable doubt.
was not readily apparent or transparent to the police officers.
Here, the confidential informant was not a police officer. He was
designated to be the poseur-buyer himself. It is notable that the
members of the buy-bust team arrested Andaya on the basis of the pre-
PEOPLE V. ANDAYA arranged signal from the poseur buyer. The pre-arranged signal
signified to the members of the buy-bust team that the transaction had
FACTS: Accused Pablito Andaya was charged with violation of Section been consummated between the poseur-buyer and Andaya. However,
5 of RA 9165, otherwise known as Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs the State did not present the confidential informant/ poseur buyer
Act of 2002 for selling shabu. The RTC and CA found him guilty of the during the trial to describe how exactly the transaction between him
crime charged. and Andaya had taken place. There would have been no issue against
that, except that none of the members of the buy-bust team had directly
A team composed of SPO1 Aguila, SPO1 Cabungcal, Eric de Chavez, witnessed the transaction, if any, between Andaya and the poseur-
PO1 Lindberg Yap, Edwalberto Villar and asset Bagsit was constituted buyer due to their being positioned at a distance from the poseur-buyer
to conduct a buy-bust in Batangas City. Two (2) pieces of P100.00 bills and Andaya at the moment of the supposed transaction
both duly marked “X” were recorded in the police blotter. Upon
reaching the designated place, the team members alighted from their The presentation of the confidential informants as witnesses for the
vehicles and occupied different positions where they could see and Prosecution in those instances could be excused because there were
observe the asset. The asset knocked on the door of Pablito’s house. poseur buyers who directly incriminated the accused. In this case,
Pablito came out. Pablito and the asset talked briefly. The asset gave however, it was different, because the poseur-buyer and the
Pablito the marked money. The asset received something from confidential informant were one and the same. Without the poseur
appellant. The pre-arranged signal signifying consummation of the buyer’s testimony, the State did not credibly incriminate Andaya. The
transaction was given. The team members approached Pablito and the members of the buy-bust team could not incriminate Andaya by simply
asset introduced themselves as police officers and arrested accused. declaring that they had seen from their positions the poseur-buyer
handing something to Andaya who, in turn, gave something to the
ISSUE: Is the non-presentation of the confidential informant fatal to the poseur-buyer.
prosecution’s case?
Moreover, the arresting members of the buy-bust team interpreted the
HELD: YES, the non-presentation of the confidential informant is signal from the anonymous poseur buyer as the sign of the
tantamount to saying that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of consummation of the transaction. Their interpretation, being
the accused beyond reasonable doubt. A buy-bust operation is a valid necessarily subjective without the testimony of the poseur-buyer,
and legitimate form of entrapment of the drug pusher. The justification unfairly threatened the liberty of Andaya. We should not allow that
that underlies the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation is that the threat to perpetuate itself. And, lastly, the reliance on the signal would
suspect is arrested in flagranti delicto, that is, the suspect has just deprive Andaya the right to confront and test the credibility of the
committed, or is in the act of committing, or is attempting to commit poseur-buyer who supposedly gave it.
Hence, the prosecution failed to prove accused Andaya’s guilt beyond (5) Customs search;
reasonable doubt.
(6) Stop and frisk; and
PEOPLE V. COGAED
(7) Exigent and emergency circumstances.
FACTS: Victor Cogaed was riding a jeepney with a bag from Barangay
Lun-Oy (Pangasinan) and during a checkpoint, the driver of the
jeepney he rode made a signal to the police telling that Cogaed was
carrying marijuana inside Cogaed’s bag; the police officer then The search involved in this case was initially a “stop and frisk” search,
approached Cogaed and asked the accused about the contents of his but it did not comply with all the requirements of reasonability
bags. Cogaed replied that he did not know what was inside and that he required by the Constitution.
was just transporting the bag in favor of Marvin, a barriomate. Cogaed
subsequently opened the bag revealing the bricks of marijuana inside. “Stop and frisk” searches (sometimes referred to as Terry searches) are
He was then arrested by the police officers. necessary for law enforcement. That is, law enforcers should be given
the legal arsenal to prevent the commission of offenses. However, this
ISSUE: Whether there was a valid search and seizure; and, whether the should be balanced with the need to protect the privacy of citizens in
marijuana confiscated is admissible as evidence. accordance with Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. The balance
lies in the concept of “suspiciousness” present in the situation where
HELD: NO. There is no valid search and seizure; thus, the marijuana the police officer finds himself or herself in. This may be undoubtedly
confiscated shall not be admissible as evidence. based on the experience of the police officer. It does not have to be
probable cause, but it cannot be mere suspicion. It has to be a “genuine
As a general rule, searches conducted with a warrant that meets all the reason to serve the purposes of the “stop and frisk” exception.
requirements of Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution are reasonable.
This warrant requires the existence of probable cause that can only be The “stop and frisk” search was originally limited to outer clothing and
determined by a judge. for the purpose of detecting dangerous weapons.
However, there are instances when searches are reasonable even when There was not a single suspicious circumstance in this case, and there
warrantless. The known jurisprudential instances of reasonable was no approximation for the probable cause requirement for
warrantless searches and seizures are: warrantless arrest. The person searched was not even the person
mentioned by the informant. The informant gave the name of Marvin
Buya, and the person searched was Victor Cogaed. Even if it was true
that Cogaed responded by saying that he was transporting the bag to
(1) Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest Marvin Buya, this still remained only as one circumstance. This should
not have been enough reason to search Cogaed and his belongings
(2) Seizure of evidence in “plain view,” without a valid search warrant.
(3) Search of a moving vehicle; Likewise, the facts of the case do not qualify as a search incidental to a
lawful arrest. The apprehension of Cogaed was not effected with a
(4) Consented warrantless search; warrant of arrest. None of the instances enumerated in Rule 113,
Section 5 of the Rules of Court were present when the arrest was made. report, Desk SPO1 Monsalve dispatched SP02 Javier to go to the scene
At the time of his apprehension, Cogaed has not committed, was not of the crime and to render assistance. SP02 Javier, together with
committing, or was about to commit a crime. There were no overt acts augmentation personnel from the Airforce, A2C Alano Sayson and
within plain view of the police officers that suggested that Cogaed was Airman Ruel Galvez, arrived at the scene of the crime less than one
in possession of drugs at that time. Also, Cogaed was not an escapee hour after the alleged altercation and they saw Atty. Generoso badly
prisoner that time; hence, he could not have qualified for the last beate.
allowable warrantless arrest.
Atty. Generoso then pointed to the petitioners as those who mauled
There can be no valid waiver of Cogaed’s constitutional rights even if him. This prompted the police officers to "invite" the petitioners to go
we assume that he did not object when the police asked him to open to Batasan Hills Police Station for investigation.
his bags. Appellant’s silence should not be lightly taken as consent to
such search. The implied acquiescence to the search, if there was any, The petitioners went with the police officers to Batasan Hills Police
could not have been more than mere passive conformity given under Station. At the inquest proceeding, the City Prosecutor of Quezon City
intimidating or coercive circumstances and is thus considered no found that the petitioners stabbed Atty. Generoso with a bladed
consent at all within the purview of the constitutional guarantee. weapon. Atty. Generoso fortunately survived the attack.
The Constitution provides that any evidence obtained in violation of The petitioners were indicted for attempted murder
the right against unreasonable searches and seizures shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. Otherwise known as The petitioners primarily argue that they were not lawfully arrested.
the exclusionary rule or the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, this No arrest warrant was ever issued; they went to the police station only
rule prohibits the issuance of general warrants that encourage law as a response to the arresting officers' invitation.
enforcers to go on fishing expeditions. Evidence obtained through
unlawful seizures should be excluded as evidence because it is “the The petitioners also claim that no valid warrantless arrest took place
only practical means of enforcing the constitutional injunction against under the terms of Rule 112, Section 7 of the Revised Rules of Court.
unreasonable searches and seizures.” It ensures that the fundamental The incident happened two (2) hours before the police officers actually
rights to one’s person, houses, papers, and effects are not lightly arrived at the crime scene. The police officers could not have
infringed upon and are upheld. undertaken a valid warrantless arrest as they had no personal
knowledge that the petitioners were the authors of the crime.
Considering that the prosecution and conviction of Cogaed were
founded on the search of his bags, a pronouncement of the illegality of ISSUE:
that search means that there is no evidence left to convict Cogaed.
W/N there is valid warrantless arrest
RULING:
PESTILLOS V. GENEROSO
Yes.The court held that petitioners were validly arrest without warrant.
FACTS: In the morning, an altercation in Quezon City ensued between The requirements of a warrantless arrest are now summarized in Rule
the petitioners and Atty. Moreno Generoso. Atty. Generoso called the 113, Section 5 which states that: A peace officer or a private person may,
Central Police District, Station to report the incident. Acting on this without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is pertain to events or actions within the actual perception, personal
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; evaluation or observation of the police officer at the scene of the crime.
Thus, even though the police officer has not seen someone actually
(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable fleeing, he could still make a warrantless arrest if, based on his personal
cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances evaluation of the circumstances at the scene of the crime, he could
that the person to be arrested has committed it; and determine the existence of probable cause that the person sought to be
arrested has committed the crime.
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from
a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is However, the determination of probable cause and the gathering of
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while facts or circumstances should be made immediately after the
being transferred from one confinement to another. commission of the crime in order to comply with the element of
immediacy. In other words, the clincher in the element of ''personal
In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b) above, the person arrested knowledge of facts or circumstances" is the required element of
without a warrant shall be forth with delivered to the nearest police immediacy within which these facts or circumstances should be
station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with section gathered.
7 of Rule 112.
With the facts and circumstances of the case at bar that the police
A warrantless arrest under the circumstances contemplated under officers gathered and which they have personally observed less than
Section 5(a) above has been denominated as one "in flagrante delicto," one hour from the time that they have arrived at the scene of the crime,
while that under Section 5(b) has been described as a "hot pursuit" it is reasonable to conclude that the police officers had personal
arrest. knowledge of the facts and circumstances justifying the petitioners’
warrantless arrests.
Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
provides that: When an offense has just been committed, and he has Hence, the petitioners were validly arrested and the subsequent
probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or inquest proceeding was likewise appropriate.
circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it.
The elements under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure are: first, an offense has just been committed; and
second, the arresting officer has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be
arrested has committed it.
The Court's appreciation of the elements that "the offense has just been
committed" and ''personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that
the person to be arrested committed it" depended on the particular
circumstances of the case. The element of ''personal knowledge of facts PEOPLE V. VILLAREAL
or circumstances", however, under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure requires clarification. Circumstances may FACTS:
- PO3 Renato de Leon was riding on his motorcycle when he saw (b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause
appellant Nazareno Villareal from an 8 to 10 meter-distance in to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that
Caloocan. the person to be arrested has committed it; and
- Villareal was then inspecting a plastic sachet containing shabu
- De Leon approached Villanueva whom he recognized as (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from
someone he had previously arrested for illegal drug possession a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is
but the latter tried to escape temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while
- He was apprehended with the help of a tricycle driver and was being transferred from one confinement to another.
brought to the police station
- In his defense, Villanueva was walking when a man who was xxx
riding a motorcycle called him from behind
- He was approached, instructed not to run, then was frisked, For the warrantless arrest under paragraph (a) of Section 5 to operate,
and took his wallet two elements must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute
- Appellant was brought to the police station where he was an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually
detained and mauled committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act
- He was also asked questions with a gun right beside his ear each is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. On
time he failed to answer about a stolen cellphone the other hand, paragraph (b) of Section 5 requires for its application
- The trial court convicted appellant of illegal possession of that at the time of the arrest, an offense had in fact just been committed
dangerous drugs and such was established properly through an and the arresting officer had personal knowledge of facts indicating
in flagrante delicto warrantless arrest that the appellant had committed it.
- The appellate court sustained conviction finding a clear case of
in flagrante delicto warrantless arrest In both instances, the officer’s personal knowledge of the fact of the
commission of an offense is absolutely required. Under paragraph (a),
the officer himself witnesses the crime while under paragraph (b), he
knows for a fact that a crime has just been committed.
ISSUE: Whether or not the in flagrante warrantless arrest was valid
The Court finds it inconceivable how PO3 de Leon, even with his
HELD: presumably perfect vision, would be able to identify with reasonable
accuracy, from a distance of about 8 to 10 meters and while
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure lays simultaneously driving a motorcycle, a negligible and minuscule
down the basic rules on lawful warrantless arrests, either by a peace amount of powdery substance (0.03 gram) inside the plastic sachet
officer or a private person, as follows: allegedly held by appellant.
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. – A peace officer or a The factual circumstances of the case failed to show that PO3 de Leon
private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: had personal knowledge that a crime had been indisputably committed
by the appellant. It is not enough that PO3 de Leon had reasonable
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is ground to believe that appellant had just committed a crime; a crime
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; must in fact have been committed first, which does not obtain in this
case.
Without the overt act that would pin liability against appellant, it is arrested nor was he made to undergo any preliminary investigation
therefore clear that PO3 de Leon was merely impelled to apprehend tenable.
appellant on account of the latter’s previous charge for the same
offense. Held: Roallos’ claim that he was denied due process since he was
arrested without any warrant of arrest and that he was not afforded a
However, a previous arrest or existing criminal record, even for the preliminary investigation is untenable.
same offense, will not suffice to satisfy the exacting requirements
provided under Section 5, Rule 113 in order to justify a lawful An accused is estopped from assailing any irregularity of his arrest if
warrantless arrest. "Personal knowledge" of the arresting officer that a he fails to raise this issue or to move for the quashal of the information
crime had in fact just been committed is required. To interpret against him on this ground before arraignment. Any objection
"personal knowledge" as referring to a person’s reputation or past involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the court
criminal citations would create a dangerous precedent and acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made
unnecessarily stretch the authority and power of police officers to effect before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.
warrantless arrests based solely on knowledge of a person’s previous
criminal infractions, rendering nugatory the rigorous requisites laid At the time of arraignment, Roallos did not raise any objection to the
out under Section 5. supposed illegality of his arrest and the lack of a proper preliminary
investigation. He actively participated in the proceedings before the
RTC. Therefore he is deemed to have waived any perceived irregularity
in his arrest and has effectively submitted himself to the jurisdiction of
ROALLOS V. PEOPLE the RTC. He is likewise deemed to have waived his right to preliminary
investigation.
Facts: This case is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court which calls to annul and set aside the Decision of the
Court of Appeals where it affirmed with modification the decision of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) finding Vivencio Roallos y Trillanes DELA CRUZ V. PEOPLE
(Roallos) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of sexual abuse
punished under Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610 (R.A. FACTS:
No. 7610), otherwise known as the "Special Protection of Children
Against Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act." Roallos asserted NBI received a complaint from Corazon Absin and Charito
that his arrest was illegal since the same was effected without any Escobido claiming that Ariel Escobido (live-in partner of
warrant of arrest. He said he was not informed of his rights when he Corazon and son of Charito) was picked up by police officers
was arrested nor was he made to undergo any preliminary for allegedly selling drugs.
investigation. An errand boy gave a number to the complainants. When they
called the number, they were instructed to go to the Gorordo
Police Station in Cebu.
In the said police station, they met “James” who demanded
Issue: Whether or not Roallos’ claim that his arrest was illegal for lack 100,000 (later on lowered to 40,000) in exchange for the release
of warrant of arrest , non-information of his rights when he was of Ariel.
After the said meeting, the complainants went directly to the urine for purposes of drug testing was “merely a mechanical act, hence,
NBI wherein the NBI formed an entrapment operation. falling outside the concept of a custodial investigation.”
The officers were able to nab Jaime dela Cruz through the use
of mark-money. LASTLY, the drug test was a violation of petitioner’s right to privacy
Jaime dela Cruz was brought to the forensic laboratory of NBI and right against self-incrimination. It is incontrovertible that
where he was required to submit his urine for drug testing. The petitioner refused to have his urine extracted and tested for drugs. He
test yielded positive for presence of dangerous drugs. also asked for a lawyer prior to his urine test. He was adamant in
Based on dela Cruz’ testimony, he was contending that he exercising his rights, but all of his efforts proved futile, because he was
refused to the drug examination and requested to call his still compelled to submit his urine for drug testing under those
laywer but it was denied by the NBI. circumstances. Such acts were in violation of Sec 2 and Sec 17 of the
RTC – found dela Cruz guilty of violating Sec. 15 of RA9165; 1987 Constitution. In the face of these constitutional guarantees, we
ruled that all the elements were present: 1) accused was arrested cannot condone drug testing of all arrested persons regardless of the
2) accused was subjected to drug test 3) confirmatory test shows crime or offense for which the arrest is being made.
that he used a dangerous drug
CA – affirmed RTC ruling; ruled that extracting urine from
one’s body is merely a mechanical act, hence falling outside the
concept of a custodial investigation. ANTIQUERRA V. PEOPLE
Held: No. The Court holds that the private complainant can move for In such an instance, before a re-investigation of the case may be
reinvestigation. conducted by the public prosecutor, the permission or consent of the
court must be secured. If after such re-investigation the prosecution
By applying for bail, petitioner did not waive his right to challenge the finds a cogent basis to withdraw the information or otherwise cause the
regularity of the reinvestigation of the charge against him, the validity dismissal of the case, such proposed course of action may be taken but
of the admission of the Amended Information, and the legality of his shall likewise be addressed to the sound discretion of the court.
arrest under the Amended Information, as he vigorously raised them
prior to his arraignment. During the arraignment on March 21, 2007, Once the trial court grants the prosecution’s motion for reinvestigation,
petitioner refused to enter his plea since the issues he raised were still the former is deemed to have deferred to the authority of the
pending resolution by the appellate court, thus prompting the trial prosecutorial arm of the Government. Having brought the case back to
court to enter a plea of "not guilty" for him. the drawing board, the prosecution is thus equipped with discretion –
wide and far reaching – regarding the disposition thereof, subject to the
The principle that the accused is precluded after arraignment from trial court’s approval of the resulting proposed course of action.
questioning the illegal arrest or the lack of or irregular preliminary
investigation applies "only if he voluntarily enters his plea and