UMIL VS.

RAMOS For his part, Mengote made no effort to prove that he owned the fire arm or that
[187 SCRA 311; G.R. NO. 81567; 3 OCT 1991] Facts: he was licensed to possess it but instead, he claimed that the weapon was planted
on him at the time of his arrest. He was convicted for violation of P.D.1866 and was
Facts: Pat. Fulgencio went to Arlie Regalado’s house at C. Quimpo to monitor activities of sentenced to reclusion perpetua. In his appeal he pleads that the weapon was not
Edison SUCRO (accused). Sucro was reported to be selling marijuana at a chapel 2 admissible as evidence against him because it had been illegally seized and
On 1 February 1988, military agents were dispatched to the St. Agnes Hospital, meters away from Regalado’s house. Sucro was monitored to have talked and therefore the fruit of a poisonous tree.
Roosevelt Avenue, Quezon City, to verify a confidential information which was exchanged things three times. These activities are reported through radio to P/Lt.
received by their office, about a "sparrow man" (NPA member) who had been Seraspi. A third buyer was transacting with appellant and was reported and later Issue:
admitted to the said hospital with a gunshot wound. That the wounded man in the identified as Ronnie Macabante. From that moment, P/Lt.Seraspi proceeded to the
said hospital was among the five (5) male "sparrows" who murdered two (2) area. While the police officers were at the Youth Hostel in Maagama St. Fulgencio Whether or not the warrantless search and arrest was illegal.
Capcom mobile patrols the day before, or on 31 January 1988 at about 12:00 o'clock told Lt. Seraspi to intercept. Macabante was intercepted at Mabini and Maagama
noon, before a road hump along Macanining St., Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. The crossing in front of Aklan Medical center. Macabante saw the police and threw a Held:
wounded man's name was listed by the hospital management as "Ronnie tea bag of marijuana on the ground. Macabante admitted buying the marijuana
Javellon," twenty-two (22) years old of Block 10, Lot 4, South City Homes, Biñan, from Sucro in front of the chapel. An evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure inadmissible in any
Laguna however it was disclosed later that the true name of the wounded man was proceeding for any purpose as provided by Art. III sec 32 of the Constitution. Rule
Rolando Dural. In view of this verification, Rolando Dural was transferred to the The police team intercepted and arrested SUCRO at the corner of C. Quimpo and 113 sec.5 of the Rules of Court, provides arrest without warrant lawful when: (a)
Regional Medical Servicesof the CAPCOM, for security reasons. While confined Veterans. Recovered were 19 sticks and 4 teabags of marijuana from a cart inside the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting
thereat, he was positively identified by the eyewitnesses as the one who murdered the chapel and another teabag from Macabante. to commit an offense, (b) when the offense in fact has just been committed, and
the 2 CAPCOM mobile patrols. he has personal knowledge of the facts indicating the person arrested has
Issue: committed it and (c) the person to be arrested has escaped from a penal
Issue: Whether or Not Rolando was lawfully arrested. Whether or Not arrest without warrant is lawful. establishment or a place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined
while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one
Held: Rolando Dural was arrested for being a member of the NPA, an outlawed Whether or Not evidence from such arrest is admissible. confinement to another.
subversive organization. Subversion being a continuing offense, the arrest without
warrant is justified as it can be said that he was committing as offense when Held: These requirements have not been established in the case at bar. At the time of the
arrested. The crimes rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such Search and seizures supported by a valid warrant of arrest is not an absolute rule. arrest in question, the accused appellant was merely looking from side to side and
crimes, and crimes or offenses committed in furtherance therefore in connection Rule 126, Sec 12 of Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a person lawfully holding his abdomen, according to the arresting officers themselves. There was
therewith constitute direct assaults against the state and are in the nature of arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything, which may be used apparently no offense that has just been committed or was being actually
continuing crimes. as proff of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant.(People v. committed or at least being attempt by Mengote in their presence. Moreover a
Castiller) The failure of the police officers to secure a warrant stems from the fact person may not be stopped and frisked in a broad daylight or on a busy street on
People v dela Cruz; G.R. No. 83260; 18 Apr 1990; 184 SCRA 416 that their knowledge required from the surveillance was insufficient to fulfill unexplained suspicion.
requirements for its issuance. However, warantless search and seizures are legal
FACTS: After receiving a confidential report from their informant, a buy-bust as long as PROBABLE CAUSE existed. The police officers have personal knowledge Judgment is reversed and set aside. Accused-appellant is acquitted.
operation was conducted by a team from the 13th Narcotics Regional Unit to catch of the actual commission of the crime from the surveillance of the activities of the
the pusher/s. At the scene, it was the accused-appellant who first negotiated with accused. As police officers were the ones conducting the surveillance, it is People v Luisito Go
the poseur-buyer. Appellant instructed his co-accused to giveone aluminum presumed that they are regularly in performance of their duties. Facts: On October 22, 1992, at around 10:00 oclock in the evening, SPO1 Mauro
foil of marijuana which the latter got from his pants’ pocket and delivered it to the Piamonte and SPO3 Candido Liquido, members of the Intelligence and Follow-up
buyer. After ascertaining that the authenticity of the marijuana, the agent gave Unit of the Calamba Police, went to the police outpost at Crossing, Calamba,
signal. The two accused were arrested. PEOPLE V. MENGOTE Laguna, to follow up an intelligence report that methamphetamine hydrochloride,
[210 SCRA 174; G.R. NO. 87059; 22 JUN 1992] or shabu, a regulated drug, was being supplied there. Police civilian agent Ronnie
ISSUE(S): Whether or not the arrest was valid. Panuringan arrived and reported to them that he saw accused-appellant Luisito Go,
Facts: The Western Police District received a telephone call from an informer that also known as King Louie, enter the Flamingo Disco House with two women.
Held: YES. While it is conceded that in a buy-bust operation, there is seizure of there were three suspicious looking persons at the corner of Juan Luna and North Panuringan said that he spotted a gun tucked in accused-appellants waist.
evidence from one’s person without a search warrant, needless to state a search Bay Boulevard in Tondo, Manila. A surveillance team of plainclothesmen was Together, the three policemen proceeded to the Flamingo, which was located
warrant is not necessary, the search being incident to a lawful arrest. A peace forthwith dispatched to the place. The patrolmen saw two men looking from side about a hundred meters away from the outpost.
officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person when, in his presence, the person to side, one of whom holding his abdomen. They approached the persons and
to be arrested was committed, is actually committing or is attempting to commit identified themselves as policemen, whereupon the two tried to run but unable to When they arrived at the Flamingo, the police officers informed the owner that
an offense. It is a matter of judicial experience that in the arrest of violators of the escape because the other lawmen surrounded them. The suspects were then they were conducting an Operation Bakal, whereby they search for illegally
Dangerous Drugs Act in a buy-bust operation, the malefactors were invariably searched. One of them the accused-appellant was found with a .38 caliber with live possessed firearms. The owner allowed them in and told a waiter to accompany
caught red-handed. ammunitions in it, while his companion had a fan knife. The weapons were taken them. They went up to the second floor of the disco. The waiter turned on the
Judgment of the lower court is AFFIRMED. from them and they were turned over to the police headquarters for investigation. lights, and the police officers saw accused-appellant and his lady companions
An information was filed before the RTC convicting the accused of illegal seated at a table. They identified themselves and asked accused-appellant to stand
PEOPLE VS. SUCRO possession of firearm arm. A witness testified that the weapon was among the up. When the latter did so, the policemen saw the gun tucked in his waist. SPO1
[195 SCRA 388; G.R. No. 93239; 18 Mar 1991] articles stolen at his shop, which he reported to the police including the revolver. Piamonte asked for the license of the gun, but accused-appellant was unable to
produce any. Instead, accused-appellant brought out the drivers license of a certain As a consequence of appellants valid warrantless arrest, he may be lawfully Facts: This case involves the unlawful sale of 250.70 grams of Methamphetamine
Tan Antonio Lerios. SPO1 Piamonte confiscated the gun, which was later identified searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the Hydrochloride (shabu), a regulated drug, in violation of Section 15, Article III of
as a 9mm Walther P88, Serial Number 006784, with a magazine containing ten (10) commission of an offense, without a search warrant, as provided in Rule 126, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as The Dangerous Drugs Act
rounds of live ammunition. Accused-appellant was invited to the police precinct for Section 12. This is a valid search incidental to the lawful arrest.[10] The subsequent of 1972. The crime was allegedly committed as follows: That on or about the 8th
questioning. discovery in his car of drug paraphernalia and the crystalline substance, which was day of December 1994, in the Municipality of Paraaque, Metro Manila, Philippines,
later identified as shabu, though in a distant place from where the illegal a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused
On the way out of the disco, accused-appellant asked permission to bring his car, possession of firearm was committed, cannot be said to have been made during an (Baltazar Bongalon), not being lawfully authorized by law, and by means of motor
which was parked outside. The police officers accompanied accused-appellant to illegal search. As such, the seized items do not fall within the exclusionary clause, vehicle, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give
his car, a Honda Civic with license plate number TCM-789. Through the windshield, which states that any evidence obtained in violation of the right against away to another, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic bag/sachet containing
SPO3 Liquido noticed a Philippine National Police identification card hanging from warrantless arrest cannot be used for any purposes in any proceeding.[11] Hence, brown crystalline substance weighing 250.70 grams, which was found positive to
the rearview mirror. He asked accused-appellant if he was a member of the PNP, not being fruits of the poisonous tree, so to speak, the objects found at the scene the test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a regulated drug, in
and he said no. The police officers asked accused-appellant for his drivers license of the crime, such as the firearm, the shabu and the drug paraphernalia, can be violation of the above-cited law. When arraigned, the accused pled not guilty. Trial
and the registration papers of the vehicle, but he was unable to produce them. used as evidence against appellant. Besides, it has been held that drugs discovered ensued.
When accused-appellant opened the door, SPO3 Liquido took the ID card and as a result of a consented search is admissible in evidence
found that the same belonged to SPO4 Zenaida Bagadiong. The police officers saw Issue: won the arrest valid
pieces of glass tooters and tin foils on the backseat and floor of the car. They asked Larranaga vs CA
accused-appellant why he had these items, but he did not say anything. Instead, Held: He was caught in flagrante delicto[49] selling shabu.[50] There was,
accused-appellant suggested that they talk the matter over, and intimated that he Facts: therefore, no need for a warrant to effect his arrest pursuant to Section 5 (a), Rule
had money. SPO3 Liquido replied that they should talk at the police headquarters. Petitioner Larranaga was charged with two counts of kidnapping and serious 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal procedure. Said section provides: Sec. 5. Arrest,
Accused-appellant took out an attach case from the car and opened it. There were illegaldetention before the RTC of Cebu City. He was arrested and was detained without warrant; when lawfulA peace officer or a private person may, without a
two black clutch bags inside. Accused-appellant opened the first bag, which withoutthe filing of the necessary Information and warrant of arrest. The petitioner warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
contained shiny white substance wrapped in cellophane. The second bag allegedthat he must be released and be subject to a preliminary investigation. committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
contained P120,000.00 in cash. However, pending the resolution of the Court for the petition for certiorari, Moreover, the rule is that an accused is estopped from assailing the legality of his
prohibitionand mandamus with writs of preliminary prohibitory and mandatory arrest if he failed to move to quash the information against him before his
The police officers brought accused-appellant to the police station. When they injunction filedby the petitioner, RTC judge issued a warrant of arrest directed to arraignment. Any objection involving the arrest or the procedure in the acquisition
arrived at the precinct, they turned over the attach case together with the two the petitioner. by the court of jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before he
black clutch bags to the investigator. The investigator found eight cellophane bags enters his plea, otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.[52] Even in the
containing granules suspected to be shabu in one of the clutch bags. When the Issue :1.Whether petitioner is entitled to a regular preliminary investigation instances not allowed by law, a warrantless arrest is not a jurisdictional defect, and
attach case was opened, the police officers found that it also contained three glass 2.Whether writ of habeas corpus should be granted in favor of objection thereto is waived where the person arrested submits to arraignment
tooters, tin foils, an improvised burner, magazines and newspapers. Both the trial petitioner. without objection. The subsequent filing of the charges and the issuance of the
court and the Court of Appeals found that the arrest and subsequent seizure were corresponding warrant of arrest against a person illegally detained will cure the
legal. Held: defect of that detention.[53]
1.Yes. Our ruling is not altered by the fact that petitioner has been arraigned
Issue: WON the arrest is legal onOctober 14, 1997. The rule is that the right to preliminary investigation iswaived Next, the appellant claims that the search conducted in his house was unlawful. He
when the accused fails to invoke it before or at the time of entering aplea at also laments that the NARCOM agents robbed him of his personal properties
HELD: the decision of the trial court finding accused-appellant guilty beyond arraignment. Petitioner, in this case, has been actively andconsistently demanding during the search and they received money from his relatives after his arrest. This
reasonable doubt of illegal possession of firearm is AFFIRMED. The constitutional a regular preliminary investigation even before hewas charged in court. Also, Court need not tarry on the validity of the said search for the appellant consented
proscription, that no person shall be arrested without any warrant of arrest having petitioner refused to enter a plea during thearraignment because there was a to the search. He admitted that he voluntarily accompanied the policemen to his
been issued prior thereto,[8] is not a hard-and-fast rule. The Rules of Court and pending case in this Court regarding hisright to avail of a regular preliminary house.[54] As for the charges of robbery and extortion, as in the alleged unlawful
jurisprudence recognize exceptional cases where an arrest may be effected investigation. Clearly, the acts of petitioner and his counsel are inconsistent with a search made in his house, those incidents transpired after his arrest. Whether true
without a warrant.[9] Among these are when, in the presence of a peace officer, waiver. Preliminaryinvestigation is part of procedural due process. It cannot be or not, his liability for the unlawful sale of shabu remains.
the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting waived unlessthe waiver appears to be clear and informed.
to commit an offense; or when an offense has in fact just been committed, and the 2.No. The filing of charges and the issuance of the warrant of arrest against aperson As we have earlier stated, the appellants denial cannot prevail over the positive
arresting officer has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be invalidly detained will cure the defect of that detention or at least deny him the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. We are not unaware of the perception
arrested has committed it. right to be released because of such defect.The originalwarrantless arrest of the that, in some instances, law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence
petitioner was doubtless illegal. Nevertheless, theRegional Trial Court lawfully to extract information or even to harass civilians. However, like alibi, frame-up is a
In the cases at bar, the police saw the gun tucked in appellants waist when he stood acquired jurisdiction over the person of thepetitioner by virtue of the warrant of defense that has been viewed by the Court with disfavor as it can easily be
up. The gun was plainly visible. No search was conducted as none was necessary. arrest it issued on August 26, 1993 against him and the other accused in connection concocted, hence, commonly used as a standard line of defense in most
Accused-appellant could not show any license for the firearm, whether at the time with the rape-slay cases. Itwas belated, to be sure, but it was nonetheless legal. prosecutions arising from violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. We realize the
of his arrest or thereafter. Thus, he was in effect committing a crime in the Hence, the issuance of writ of habeas corpus may not apply in the case as there is disastrous consequences on the enforcement of law and order, not to mention the
presence of the police officers. No warrant of arrest was necessary in such a no illegal confinement to speak of. well-being of society, if the courts, solely on the basis of the policemens alleged
situation, it being one of the recognized exceptions under the Rules. rotten reputation, accept in every instance this form of defense which can be so
People v Bongalon easily fabricated. It is precisely for this reason that the legal presumption that
official duty has been regularly performed exists.
 of Bohol, whom they saw standing beside the stairs of his house. Following a short their baggages. Sgt. Parajas then proceeded to the rear of the bus while Sgt. Fider
People vs Recepcion introduction, PO2 Estrada and the informant told Bohol of their purpose. Bohol began inspecting the bags in the front.
At about one-thirty on the morning of 28 July 1999 in Sabungan Fastfood and asked, "How much?" to which PO2 Estrada replied, "Piso lang" (meaning ₱100 While at the back, Sgt. Parajas noticed a woman with curly hair seated at the right
Videoke Pub, Diosdado Recepcion, Alfredo Baracas, Joemari delos Reyes, Bernardo worth of shabu) and handed to the former the marked ₱100-bill. In turn, Bohol side (as one is facing the driver) of the last seat of the bus, with a travelling bag
Ranara, Dominador Recepcion, Robert Alfonso and Audie Dona, entered the pub. gave PO2 Estrada a plastic sachet containing white crystalline granules which the with black and orange stripes 4 on her lap. Sgt. Parajas inspected the bag and
The men occupied table 12 and ordered beer from waitress Eliza Bautista. A few latter suspected to be shabu. The illicit transaction having been consummated, PO2 discovered three (3) bundles of marijuana leaves covered by assorted clothing. The
minutes later, three men from the group transferred to table 10. Just as Marie Estrada gave to his companions their pre-arranged signal. Emerging from their bag and the contents thereof were confiscated and the woman arrested; she was
(waitress) was approaching table 13 to get the microphone from a customer, one hiding places, PO2 Luisito Gutierrez and his companions arrested Bohol. PO2 later brought to the NARCOM office in Baguio City where she was booked and
of the men stood up and fired his gun at another customer. Another from the group Gutierrez frisked Bohol and recovered from him the buy-bust money and three investigated. The woman was then identified as Accused-Appellant. 5 The
pull out a gun and shot a customer, Rodolfo Ortega, while on his knees. The group plastic sachets containing similar white crystalline granules suspected to be shabu. confiscated bundles were subjected to laboratory examination, and found positive
gone berserk and started shooting indiscriminately inside the pub. Even when the Consequently, the police officers brought Bohol to the police station and the for marijuana.
group are about the last of the group who left the pub, was still firing his gun. confiscated four plastic sachets of white crystalline substance were subjected to
When the shooting finally stopped, five lifeless bodies of men were found sprawled laboratory examination. The specimens were confirmed to be methamphetamine ISSUE: won THERE IS VALID WARRANTLESS ARREST
on the floor, - Benjamin Valdez, Augusto Billodo, Renato Cleofas, Rodolfo Ortega hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu. Upon arraignment, Bohol entered a
and Ruperto San Juan. plea of "not guilty" to both charges. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. He was HELD: The general rule regarding searches and seizures can be stated in this
Ruben Labjata, a jeepney driver, was waiting for passengers at Dagohoy Street, guilty. manner: no person shall be subjected to a search of his person, personal effects or
Caloocan City, when he heard gunshots. When, unexpectedly, 8 men arrived and belongings, or his residence except by virtue of a search warrant or on the occasion
ordered all the passengers to get off the vehicle. The gun men told Labjata to go ISSUE: THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THE ACCUSED- of a lawful arrest. 14 The basis for the rule can be found in Article III, Section 2 of
north until they finally reached, hours later, Paniqui, Tarlac. APPELLANT’S SEARCH AND ARREST AS ILLEGAL. the 1987 Constitution, which states:"The right of the people to be secure in their
When the group reach Paniqui, Tarlac they alighted, four of the men rode Conrado persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures
Marquez tricycle, while the other four took two more tricycles. Marquez brought HELD: In the present case, the arresting officers were justified in arresting Bohol as of whatever nature and for any purpose, shall be inviolable, and no search warrant
the group to Brgy. Coral, Ramos, Tarlac. he had just committed a crime when he sold the shabu to PO2 Estrada. A buy-bust or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
Around lunchtime on 29 July 1999, the Bulacan Police invited Ruben Labjata for operation is a form of entrapment which has repeatedly been accepted to be a personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
questioning. Taken by police authorities to Tarlac, he pointed to the exact place valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law. complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the
where the armed men got off from his vehicle. Conrado Marquez, likewise invited place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."cralaw virtua1aw
by the police for interrogation, readily informed the police of the place where he Considering the legality of Bohol’s warrantless arrest, the subsequent warrantless library. Article III, Section 3 (2) further ordains that any evidence obtained in
brought the men who hired his tricycle. The police promptly cordoned the area and search that resulted in the seizure of the shabu found in his person is likewise valid. violation of the aforementioned right shall, among others, "be inadmissible for any
the group, surrendered after several calls by the police. In a legitimate warrantless arrest, the arresting police officers are authorized to purpose in any proceeding."cralaw virtua1aw library
The group were charged with multiple murder, violation of P.D. No. 1866, and search and seize from the offender (1) any dangerous weapons and (2) the things The constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and seizures admits
robbery in band before the Regional Trial Court, Caloocan City. which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense.14 The constitutional of certain exceptions. Aside from a search incident to a lawful arrest, a warrantless
Issue: WON the warrantless arrest made by the police was valid? (ginawa kasi yung proscription against warrantless searches and seizures admits of certain search had been upheld in cases of a moving vehicle, 15 and the seizure of evidence
warrantless arrest almost 1 and a half day pagkatapos ng insidente) exceptions. This Court has ruled that the following instances constitute valid in plain view.
warrantless searches and seizures: (1) search incident to a lawful arrest; (2) search With regard to the search of moving vehicles, this had been justified on the ground
Held: Yes. The arrest of appellants has been made in hot pursuit, an exception from of a moving motor vehicle; (3) search in violation of customs laws; (4) seizure of that the mobility of motor vehicles makes it possible for the vehicle to be searched
the rule that warrantless arrests are illegal. (Ito lang ang sinabi ng SC about hot the evidence in plain view; (5) search when the accused himself waives his right to move out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. This
pursuit, pero nadiscuss na natin to kay Atty. Gallant, and doctrine daw ng kaso na against unreasonable searches and seizures; (6) stop and frisk; and (7) exigent and in no way, however, gives the police officers unlimited discretion to conduct
to ay na kahit isang araw na nakalipas nung ginawa yung crimen valid pa rin yung emergency circumstances. warrantless searches of automobiles in the absence of probable cause. When a
warrantless arrest dito na hot pursuit) vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search, such a warrantless search
In any event, appellants can no longer assail the illegality of their arrest since such PEOPLE V BAGISTA has been held to be valid only as long as the officers conducting the search have
a claim has not been brought up before or during the arraignment. The failure to FACTS: On July 4, 1988, at around 8:00 o’clock in the morning, the Narcotics reasonable or probable cause to believe before the search that they will find the
timely move for the quashal of the Information on this basis operates as a waiver Command (NARCOM) Detachment Office located at the Arix Building, Bokawkan instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle to be searched. The
of the right to question the supposed irregularity of the arrest. Road, Baguio City, received information from one of its regular informants that a NARCOM officers in the case at bar had probable cause to stop and search all
certain woman, 23 years of age, with naturally curly hair, and with a height of 5’2" vehicles coming from the north at Acop, Tublay, Benguet in view of the confidential
People v Bohol or 5’3", would be transporting marijuana from up north. 1 Acting upon this piece of information they received from their regular informant that a woman having the
Facts: On August 2, 2002, at around 8:30 p.m., a confidential informant came to the information, Sgt. Oscar Parajas testified that he, Sgt. Godofredo Fider and a civilian same appearance as that of accused-appellant would be bringing marijuana from
police station and tipped P/Sr. Insp. Jessie Nitullano that a certain Ricardo Bohol is NARCOM agent proceeded to Km. 16, Acop, Tublay, Benguet. Upon arriving at said up north. They likewise have probable cause to search accused-appellant’s
engaged in illegal drug trade in Isla Puting Bato, Tondo, Manila. P/Sr. Insp. Nitullano location at around 11:00 o’clock that same morning, they established a checkpoint belongings since she fits the description given by the NARCOM informant. Since
then formed a team of six police operatives to verify the informant’s tip, and, if and flagged down all vehicles, both private and public, coming from the north to there was a valid warrantless search by the NARCOM agents, any evidence
found positive, to launch then and there a buy-bust entrapment of Bohol. PO2 check if any of these vehicles were carrying marijuana leaves on board. obtained during the course of said search is admissible against Accused-Appellant.
Ferdinand Estrada was assigned to act as poseur buyer, and he was provided with After about 4 1/2 hours, the NARCOM agents stopped a Dangwa Tranco bus with
a marked ₱100-bill as buy-bust money. Plate No. AVD 938 and body number 428, which came from Lepanto, Benguet. PEOPLE V GERENTE
Sgts. Parajas and Fider boarded the bus and thereupon Sgt. Parajas announced to Facts: Edna Edwina Reyes testified that appellant Gabriel Gerente, together with
Between 9:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. of the same day, the team proceeded to the site the passengers that they were NARCOM agents and that they were going to search Fredo Echigoren and Totoy Echigoren, started drinking liquor and smoking
of their operation. Guided by the informant, PO2 Estrada proceeded to the house marijuana in the house of the appellant which is about six (6) meters away from
the house of the prosecution witness who was in her house on that day. She the person who is about to be arrested may be armed and might attack them unless would nonetheless insist on the illegality of his arrest by arguing that the policemen
overheard the three men talking about their intention to kill Clarito Blace. he is first disarmed. who actually arrested him were not at the scene of the hit and run. The court begs
Appellant allegedly agreed: “Sigue, papatayin natin mamaya.” Fredo and Totoy to disagree. It is a reality that curbing lawlessness gains more success when law
Echigoren and Gerente carried out their plan to kill Clarito Blace at about 2:00 p.m. PADILLA V CA enforcers function in collaboration with private citizens. Furthermore, in
of the same day. The prosecution witness, Edna Edwina Reyes, testified that she Facts: Padilla figured in a hit and run accident in Oct 26, 1992. He was later on accordance with settled jurisprudence, any objection, defect or irregularity
witnessed the killing. Fredo Echigoren struck the first blow against Clarito Blace, apprehended with the help pf a civilian witness. Upon arrest following high attending an arrest must be made before the accused enters his plea.
followed by Totoy Echigoren and Gabriel Gerente who hit him twice with a piece of powered firearms were found in his possession: 2. No. In crimes involving illegal possession of firearm, two requisites must be
wood in the head and when he fell, Totoy Echigoren dropped a hollow block on the 1. .357 caliber revolver with 6 live ammunition established, viz.: (1) the existence of the subject firearm and, (2) the fact that the
victim’s head. Thereafter, the three men dragged Blace to a place behind the house 2. M-16 Baby Armalite magazine with ammo accused who owned or possessed the firearm does not have the corresponding
of Gerente. At about 4:00 p.m. of the same day, Patrolman Jaime Urrutia of the 3. .380 pietro beretta with 8 ammo license or permit to possess. The first element is beyond dispute as the subject
Valenzuela Police Station received a report from the Palo Police Detachment about 4. 6 live double action ammo of .38 caliber revolver firearms and ammunitions were seized from petitioner’s possession via a valid
a mauling incident. He went to the Valenzuela District Hospital where the victim Padilla claimed papers of guns were at home. His arrest for hit and run incident warrantless search, identified and offered in evidence during trial. As to the second
was brought. He was informed by the hospital officials that the victim died on modified to include grounds of Illegal Possession of firearms. He had no papers. On element, the same was convincingly proven by the prosecution. Indeed,
arrival. The cause of death was massive fracture of the skull caused by a hard and Dec. 3, 1994, Padilla was found guilty of Illegal Possession of Firearms under PD petitioner’s purported Mission Order and Memorandum Receipt are inferior in the
heavy object. Right away, Patrolman Urrutia, together with Police Corporal Romeo 1866 by the RTC of Angeles City. He was convicted and sentenced to an face of the more formidable evidence for the prosecution as our meticulous review
Lima and Patrolman Alex Umali, proceeded to Paseo de Blas where the mauling indeterminate penalty from 17 years. 4 months, 1 day of reclusion temporal as of the records reveals that the Mission Order and Memorandum Receipt were
incident took place. There they found a piece of wood with blood stains, a hollow minimum to 21 years of reclusion perpetua as maximum. The Court of Appeals mere afterthoughts contrived and issued under suspicious circumstances. On this
block and two roaches of marijuana. They were informed by the prosecution confirmed decision and cancelled bailbond. RTC of Angeles City was directed to score, we lift from respondent court’s incisive observation. Furthermore, the
witness, Edna Edwina Reyes that she saw the killing and she pointed to Gabriel issue order of arrest. Motion for reconsideration was denied by Court of Appeals. Memorandum Receipt is also unsupported by a certification as required by the
Gerente as one of the three men who killed Clarito. The policemen proceeded to Padilla filed lots of other petitions and all of a sudden, the Solicitor General made a March 5, 1988 Memorandum of the Secretary of Defense. Petitioner is not in the
the house of the appellant who was then sleeping. They told him to come out of complete turnaround and filed “Manifestation in Lieu of Comment” praying for Plantilla of Non-Uniform personnel or in list of Civilian Agents of Employees of the
the house and they introduced themselves as policemen. Patrolman Urrutia frisked acquittal (nabayaran siguro). PNP, which would justify issuance of mission order (as stated in PD 1866). Lastly,
appellant and found a coin purse in his pocket which contained dried leaves Issues: the M-16 and any short firearms higher than 0.38 caliber cannot be licensed to a
wrapped in cigarette foil. The dried leaves were sent to the National Bureau of 1. WARRANTLESS ARREST: WON his was illegal and consequently, the firearms civilian.
Investigation for examination. The Forensic Chemist found them to be marijuana. and ammunitions taken in the course thereof are inadmissible in evidence under
When arraigned the appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges. A joint trial of the exclusionary rule People v Sinoc
the two cases was held. The trial court rendered a decision convicting him of 2. LICENSE TO CARRY: WON the petitioner is authorized, under a Mission Order Facts: It appears that on September 20, 1991, at about 6 oclock in the morning,
Violation of Section 8 of R.A. 6425 and of Murder. and Memorandum Receipt, to carry the subject firearms Isidoro Viacrusis, manager of Taganito Mining Corporation, was motoring from the
company compound (at Taganito, Claver, Surigao del Norte) to Surigao City. He
Issue: Whether the Personal Knowledge of the policeman of the crime committed HELD: was riding on a company vehicle, a Mitsubishi Pajero (with Plate No. DFX-397),
by the accused is justified and valid in arresting the latter without securing an arrest 1. No. Anent the first defense, petitioner questions the legality of his arrest. There driven by Tarcisio Guijapon. As Viacrusis and Guijapon were approaching the public
and search warrant. is no dispute that no warrant was issued for the arrest of petitioner, but that per cemetery of Claver, they were stopped by several armed men. The latter,
se did not make his apprehension at the Abacan Bridge illegal. Warrantless arrests identifying themselves as members of the New Peoples Army (NPA), boarded the
Held: Yes, “To hold that no criminal can, in any case, be arrested and searched for are sanctioned in Sec. 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure—a Pajero and ordered Guijapon to proceed. When they reached Barobo, Surigao del
the evidence and tokens of his crime without a warrant, would be to leave society, peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person (a) when Norte, the armed men ordered Viacrusis and Guijapon to alight, led them, their
to a large extent, at the mercy of the shrewdest, the most expert, and the most in his presence the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or hands bound behind their back, to a coconut grove some six meters from the road,
depraved of criminals, facilitating their escape in many instances.” The policemen is attempting to commit an offense. When caught in flagrante delicto with and after making them lie face down on the ground, shot them several times.
arrested Gerente only some 3 hours after Gerente and his companions had killed possession of an unlicensed firearm and ammo, petitioner’s warrantless arrest was Viacrusis miraculously survived. The driver, Guijapon, was not as lucky; he died on
Blace. They saw Blace dead in the hospital and when they inspected the scene of proper since he was actually committing another offence in the presence of all the spot. These facts set forth in, among others, a sworn statement given to the
the crime, they found the instruments of death: a piece of wood and a concrete those officers. There was no supervening event or a considerable lapse of time police by Sinoc, infra, and an affidavit executed and sworn to by Viacrusis on
hollow block which the killers had used to bludgeon him to death. The eye-witness, between the hit and run and the actual apprehension. Because arrest was legal, October 17, 1991, about a month later.[7] In that affidavit, Viacrusis described the
Edna Edwina Reyes, reported the happening to the policemen and pinpointed her the pieces of evidence are admissible. armed men who had kidnapped and shot him and Guijapon. The only malefactor
neighbor, Gerente, as one of the killers. Under those circumstances, since the Instances when warrantless search and seizure of property is valid:a. Seizure of he was able to identify by name, however, was Danilo Sinoc who, he said, had curly
policemen had personal knowledge of the violent death of Blace and of facts evidence in “plain view,” elements of which are (a) prior valid intrusion based on hair, (was) known as Colot (Danilo Sinoc), (and was known to ) driver Tarcing.
indicating that Gerente and two others had killed him, they could lawfully arrest valid warrantless arrest in which police are legally present in pursuit of official Danilo Sinoc was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt in two cases jointly tried:[1]
Gerente without a warrant. If they had postponed his arrest until they could obtain duties, (b) evidence inadvertedly discovered by police who had the right to be one, of the special complex crime of kidnapping with murder and the other, of the
a warrant, he would have fled the law as his two companions did. The search there, (c) evidence immediately apparent, and (d) plain view justified mere seizure complex crime of kidnapping with frustrated murder
conducted on Gerente’s person was likewise lawful because it was made as an of evidence without further search (People v. Evaristo: objects whose possession
incident to a valid arrest. This is in accordance with Section 12, Rule 126 of the are prohibited by law inadvertedly found in plain view are subject to seizure even Issue: won the there was valid arrest
Revised Rules of Court which provides that Search incident to lawful arrest. — A without a warrant) b. Search of moving vehicle c. Warrantless search incidental to
person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything lawful arrest recognized under section 12, Rule 126 of Rules of Court and by Held: the law provides that an arrest without warrant may be licitly effected by a
which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search prevailing jurisprudence where the test of incidental search (not excluded by peace officer, inter alia When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he
warrant.” The frisk and search of appellant’s person upon his arrest was a exclusionary rule) is that item to be searched must be within arrestee’s custody or has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has
permissible precautionary measure of arresting officers to protect themselves, for area of immediate control and search contemporaneous with arrest. Petitioner committed it.[15]
 and eight o'clock in the evening, and that, fifteen minutes later, accused-appellants still indulging in drinks at the store of Brigida Tumamang.ccused-appellants were
There is no question that the police officers in this case were aware that an offense also left. charged with murder. "That on or about the 13th day of December 1995, in the
had just been committed: i.e., that some twelve hours earlier, a Pajero belonging evening, in barangay Sioasio West, Municipality of Sual, Province of Pangasinan,
to a private company had been stolen (carnapped) and its driver and passenger SPO4 Mirande, with several policemen, repaired to the respective houses of Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
shot, the former having died and the latter being on the verge of death. Nor is there accused-appellants. The policemen asked Ruben Baula and Crisanto Baula for the accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, armed with
any doubt that an informer (asset) had reported that the stolen Pajero was at the clothing they wore on the night of the murder. Ruben Baula gave his bloodstained a bolo (tabas), with abuse of superior strength, treachery and evident
Bliss Housing Project at the Moncayo. It was precisely to recover the Pajero that a pair of short pants, and Crisanto Baula turned over his bloodstained polo shirt. The premeditation and intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
team composed of SPO1 Micheal Aringo and joint elements of 459 PNP MFC and policemen next went to the hut of Danilo Dacucos. Inside the hut, the group found feloniously attack, assault and stab Patrocenia Caburao, inflicting upon her the
Monkayo Police Stn. Led by Insptr. Eden T. Ugale, went to that place and, on taking hanging on the wall a bloodstained bolo. The bloodstained pair of short pants, polo following: 1. Hacking wound - 3 inches in length; 2 inches deep Rt. Occipital region
custody of the Pajero, forthwith dispatched a radio message to Higher shirt and bolo, together with the victim's dried blood samples,[3] were sent on the (nape area) exposing brain tissue; 2. Hacking wound - 4 inches in length; 2 inches
Headquarters advising of that fact.[16] same day to the National Bureau of Investigation, Dagupan City Branch Office,[4] deep at mid occipital area exposing damage brain tissue; 3. Hacking wound - 4
for forensic examination. The results of the examination[5] disclosed that the inches in length; 1/2 inch deep facial area running across the Rt. Cheek and left
There is no question either that when SPO1 Aringo and his companions reached the bloodstains[6] found in the bolo,[7] the bloodstains[8] on the polo shirt[9] and the cheek including the nasal area; 4. Hacking wound - 2 inches in height; 1 inch deep at
place where the Pajero was parked, they were told by Paulino Overa, owner of the bloodstains[10] on the pair of short pants[11] had the same type "O" blood as that the vertex (top of the head); 5. Abrasion; confluent at the back area. Cause of death
apartment behind which the vehicle was parked, that the man who had brought of the victim. - Brain tissue injury secondary to mortal wounds above which injuries directly
the Pajero would be back by 12:00 noon; that the person thus described did in fact caused her death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the said Patrocenia
show up at about 10:00 A.M., and was immediately identified by Overa as the one The defense had another version of the incident. Caburao.Contrary to Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code." When arraigned, the
who rode on that car pajero;'[17] just as there is no question that when the police accused all entered a plea of not guilty to the offense charged. Trial shortly
officers accosted him, Sinoc had the key to the stolen Pajero and was in the act of Wilson Radovan, the barangay captain of Siwasiw, Sual, Pangasinan, testified that thereafter ensued. The relevant facts and events that transpired, according to the
moving toward it admittedly to take possession of it (after having arrived by bus on 13 December 1995, at around eight o'clock in the evening, while he and the other prosecution, were briefly narrated in the People's Brief. Accused was convicted
from Tagum together with another suspect, Ram). Sinocs link to the stolen vehicle barangay officials were at their outpost, they heard the cry of a woman asking for
(and hence to the kidnapping and killing accompanying its asportation) was thus help. Rushing out, they saw Teofila Uson, a barangay mate, who told them that she Issue: won the arresting officer has personal knowledge
palpable. and Patrocinia Caburao were being pelted with stones. Teofila Uson said that it was
too dark to be able to identify the person who had attacked them. When the group Held: None. Proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures is not
The foregoing circumstances left the police officers no alternative save to arrest proceeded to the place of the incident, they saw the lifeless body of Patrocinia absolute, of course, and the Court has had occasions to rule that a warrantless
Sinoc and take possession of the Pajero. His arrest without warrant was justified; Caburao, beside the road, near the creek. Radovan testified that he did not notice search and seizure of property is valid under certain circumstances. There can, for
indeed, it was in the premises the officers clear duty to apprehend him; their any other person in the place where the incident occurred. He requested Gene instance, be a lawful warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized
omission to do so would have been inexcusable. Macatiao, the son-in-law of the victim and one of those who first arrived in the under Section 12, Rules 126 of the Rules of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence;
scene, to inform their relatives and the police. or seizure of evidence in "plain view," its elements being extant;[27] or search of a
People v Baula moving vehicle;[28] or consented search; or customs search.[29] The situation here
Facts: a On 13 December 1995, at around eight oclock in the evening, Jupiter Ruben Baula testified that in the morning of 13 December 1995, he, together with in question, however, can hardly come within the purview of any of the established
Caburao, decided to follow his mother, Patrocinia Caburao, who had earlier left his co-accused and other companions, namely, Pepito Ramos, Amber Pagudpod, exceptions.
their house at Barangay Siwasiw West, Sual, Pangasinan, to settle her due Francis Amistad and Reny, were harvesting palay, at Sitio Binabalian, Siwasiw West,
obligations at a store, about one-and-a-half kilometers away, owned by a certain Sual, Pangasinan, on the land being tenanted by Crisanto Baula. He recounted that In a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest, the arrest itself must have to
Brigida Tumamang. While traversing the road towards the store, Jupiter noticed a they were there until 4:55 in the afternoon at about which time Crisanto Baula be effected under the circumstances enumerated by law. One such case is when
commotion near the creek about ten meters away from him. He focused his invited the group to eat "merienda" in the nearby canteen of Brigida Tumamang. an offense has in fact just been committed, and the peace officer has personal
flashlight towards the direction where he heard the commotion and saw accused- He noticed that when they arrived at the store, there were three other persons knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.[30]
appellants Crisanto Baula and Danilo Dacucos in the act of hacking a person who partaking of drinks. At about twilight, they left the store of Brigida Tumamang and
was lying on the ground, while accused-appellants Robert Baula and Ruben Baula proceeded to their respective residences, leaving behind the three persons who Accused-appellants were not being arrested at the time that the subject articles
stood as lookouts. The assault lasted for about four minutes. Accused-appellants continued with their drinking spree. At about three o'clock in the morning of 14 were allegedly taken from them but were just being questioned by the police
fled but not before they had threatened Jupiter with death if he were to divulge December 1995, while he was asleep, four policemen and several barangay officials officers conducting the investigation about the death of Patrocinia Caburao. The
the incident to anyone. Jupiter went near the lifeless body of the victim who turned arrived and asked him if he knew who had killed Patrocinia Caburao. Although he investigating officers had no personal knowledge of facts indicating that the
out to be his own mother. Her head and face sustained four hacking wounds, two denied any knowledge about the killing, the policemen, nevertheless, invited him accused had committed the crime. Being in no position to effect a warrantless
of which damaged her brain tissues. Jupiter rushed home and brought his niece to accompany them to the house of Robert Baula. Arriving thereat, the policemen arrest, the police officers were thus likewise barred from effecting a warrantless
and nephew to the house of a neighbor for their safety. For fear of reprisal from likewise questioned the latter about the killing of Patrocinia Caburao. Robert Baula, search and seizure. the police officers acted on a mere suspicion that accused-
accused-appellants and believing that the police would be able to solve the gory like his co-accused Ruben Baula, denied any knowledge of the killing. After the appellants could be responsible for the commission of the crime and only because
killing on their own, Jupiter did not reveal the carnage to either his relatives or the interrogation, the police authorities allowed them to go. Ruben and Robert Baula of their being at the store where the victim was last seen.
police. both vehemently denied that the police ever took any clothing from them.
Mere suspicion cannot satisfy the requirement of probable cause which signifies a
About two o'clock in the morning of 14 December 1995, the police authorities, led Accused-appellants, Crisanto Baula and Danilo Dacucos, corroborated the reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in
by SPO4 Fermin Mirande, went to the locus criminis, and took pictures of the body testimony of their co-accused, Ruben and Robert Baula, in its material points, themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty
of the victim.[2] The investigation revealed that before the victim was killed, she claiming that in the morning of 13 December 1995, they went to Sitio Binabalian to of the offense with which he can be charged.[32] An illegal search cannot be
had been to Brigida Tumamang's store; that accused-appellants were also at the harvest palay; that in the afternoon, they took their merienda at the store of Brigida undertaken and then an arrest effected on the strength of the evidence yielded by
store having a drinking spree; that the victim left the store between seven o'clock Tumamang; and that, thereafter, they went home leaving behind the three persons that search.[33]
 with five live bullets. PO3 Estoy, Jr. said that he inscribed his initials "RDE" (for positively identified by a waitress named Danet Garcellano as the victim's
The Court finds it less than credible the stance of the prosecution that the polo Raymundo D. Estoy) on the cylinder of the gun with the use of a sharp object. While companion, the arresting officers allegedly asked Cubcubin where he hid the gun
shirt and short pants have been voluntarily given. An alleged consent to a PO3 Estoy,Jr. was conducting the search, SPO1 Malinao, Jr. and PO3 Rosal stayed used in killing the victim. According to SPO1 Malinao, Jr., when Cubcubin refused
warrantless search and seizure cannot be based merely on the presumption of with Cubcubin in the sala. The .38 caliber gun, the white "Hanes" t-shirt, and the to answer, he sought Cubcubin's permission to go back to his house and there
regularity in the performance of duty.[34] This presumption, by itself, cannot two spent .38 caliber shells were all photographed. Cubcubin found the .38 caliber revolver on top of a plastic water container outside the
prevail against the constitutionally protected rights of an individual, and zeal in the was then taken to the police station, where he was photographed along with the bathroom. Thus, the gun was purposely sought by the police officers and they did
pursuit of criminals cannot ennoble the use of arbitrary methods that the things seized from him. Cubcubin was charged for the crime of murder. On 5 not merely stumble upon it. Nor were the police officers justified in seizing the
Constitution itself abhors. October 1998, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 88, Cavite City, found Cubcubin white "Hanes" t-shirt placed on top of the divider "in plain view" as such is not
guilty of murder and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death. Hence, the contraband nor is it incriminating in nature which would lead SPO1 Malinao, Jr. to
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FIDEL ABRENICA automatic review. conclude that it would constitute evidence of a crime. Contrary to what SPO1
CUBCUBIN, JR., accused-appellant. Malinao, Jr. said, the t-shirt was not "bloodied" which could have directed his
[G.R. No. 136267. July 10, 2001] Issue: Whether there was "probable cause" for PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao, Jr., attention to take a closer look at it. From the photograph of the t-shirt, it is not
the arresting officers, to believe that Cubcubin committed the crime, to allow them visible that there were bloodstains. The actual t-shirt merely had some small specks
Facts: At about 3:30 a.m. of 26 August 1997, Sgt. Rogel, desk officer of the Cavite to conduct the latter's warrantless arrest. of blood at its lower portion. Furthermore, there is no evidence to link Cubcubin
City police station, received a telephone call that a person had been shot near the directly to the crime.
cemetery along Julian Felipe Boulevard in San Antonio, Cavite City. For this reason, Held: Rule 113, §5 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, provides
a police team, composed of SPO1 Malinao, Jr., PO3 Rosal, PO3 Estoy, Jr., PO3 that "A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: PEOPLE vs KIMURA
Manicio, and SPO3 Manalo, responded to the call and found Henry P. Piamonte (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually G.R. No. 130805
slumped dead on his tricycle which was then parked on the road. Police committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has in fact AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
photographer Fred Agana took pictures of the crime scene showing the victim just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the
slumped on the handle of the tricycle. PO3 Rosal testified that a tricycle driver, who person to be arrested has committed it; (c) When the person to be arrested is a FACTS:
refused to divulge his name, told him that Fidel Abrenica Cubcubin Jr. and the prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving 1. Tomohisa Kimura and Akira Kizaki (respondents) seek the reversal of
victim were last seen together coming out of the Sting Cafe, located in San Antonio final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped the decision finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of RA No.
near the gate of Sangley Point, Cavite City, about a kilometer and a half away from while being transferred from one confinement to another." Under §5(b), two 7659 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) sentencing them to suffer the penalty of
the crime scene. Forthwith, PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao, Jr. went to the cafe and conditions must concur for a warrantless arrest to be valid: first, the offender has reclusion perpetua and pay P 50,000.00.
talked to Danet Garcellano, a food server/waitress in Sting Cafe. Garcellano just committed an offense and, second, the arresting peace officer or private 2. On June 27, 1994, the two were accused to transport and deliver 40,768
described Cubcubin as a lean, dark-complexioned, and mustachioed man who had person has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested grams of Indian hemp (marijuana) in Cash & Carry, Makati City. Kimura and Kizaki
on a white t-shirt and brown short pants. Armando Plata, another tricycle driver, has committed it. It has been held that "personal knowledge of facts' in arrests entered separate pleas of NOT GUILTY.
told PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao, Jr. that Garcellano's description fitted a person without a warrant must be based upon probable cause, which means an actual 3. The version of prosecution maintains that in the morning of June 27,
known as alias "Jun Dulce." Armando Plata, who knew where Cubcubin lived, led belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion." Herein, the arrest of Cubcubin was 1994, Maj. Anso, head of Delta Group, Narcotics Command received information
PO3 Rosal, SPO1 Malinao, Jr., and Prosecutor Lu to Cubucubin's house in Garcia effected shortly after the victim was killed. There was no "probable cause, from a confidential informant that a certain Koichi Kishi and Rey Plantilla were
Extension, Cavite City. The policemen knocked on the door for about 3 minutes however, for PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao, Jr., the arresting officers, to believe that engaged in the selling of illegal drugs at the Cash and Carry Supermarket, Maj. Anso
before it was opened by a man who answered the description given by Danet Cubcubin committed the crime. The two did not have "personal knowledge of organized a team composed of SPO4 Baldovino, Jr., SPO1 Cabato and PO3 Cadoy
Garcellano and who turned out to be Cubcubin. The police operatives identified facts" indicating that Cubcubin had committed the crime. Their knowledge of the to conduct surveillance of the area. A buy-bust operation was launched.
themselves and informed him that he was being sought in connection with the circumstances from which they allegedly inferred that Cubcubin was probably • 3:00 in the afternoon, the informant was able to contact the targets
shooting near the cemetery. Cubcubin denied involvement in the incident. PO3 guilty was based entirely on what they had been told by others, to wit: by someone who told him that they will be arriving at 8:00 in the evening at the parking area.
Rosal and SPO1 Malinao, Jr. then asked permission to enter and look around the who called the PNP station in San Antonio, Cavite City at about 3:30 a.m. of 26 After handing to him the marijuana, the operatives approached, PO3 Cadoy held
house. SPO1 Malinao, Jr. said that upon entering the house, he noticed a white t- August 1997 and reported that a man had been killed along Julian Felipe Boulevard Koichi by the hand while Rey scampered away to the direction of the South
shirt, bearing the brand name "Hanes" and the name "Dhenvher" written in the of the said city; by an alleged witness who saw Cubcubin and the victim coming out Superhighway. They learned from Koichi that his friends/suppliers will arrive the
inner portion of the shirt's hemline, placed over a divider near the kitchen. Upon of the Sting Cafe; by Danet Garcellano, waitress at the Sting Cafe, who said that the same evening to fetch him. Several minutes later, a white Nissan Sentra car driven
close examination, he said that he found it to be "bloodied." When he picked up man last seen with the victim was lean, mustachioed, dark-complexioned and was by appellant Kimura with his co-appellant Kizaki seating at the passenger seat
the t-shirt, two spent .38 caliber shells fell from it. PO3 Rosal stayed with Cubcubin wearing a white t-shirt and a pair of brown short pants; by a tricycle driver named arrived at the parking area. Koichi pointed to them as the ones who will fetch him.
while he conducted a search. They then took the t-shirt and the two bullet shells. Armando Plata who told them that the physical description given by Garcellano • A certain Boy driving a stainless jeep, without a plate number, arrived
SPO1 Malinao, Jr. then asked Cubcubin to go with them to Sting Cafe for purposes fitted Cubcubin, alias "Jun Dulce" and who said he knew where Cubcubin lived and and parked. Boy approached the Sentra car and opened its trunk. Appellant Kimura
of identification. There, Cubcubin was positively identified by Danet Garcellano as accompanied them to Cubcubin's house. Thus, PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao, Jr. got a package wrapped in a newspaper and gave it to Boy who walked back to his
the victim's companion. The police investigators asked Cubcubin where the fatal merely relied on information given to them by others. Be that as it may, Cubcubin jeep. While Maj. Anso and SPO4 Baldovino, Jr. were approaching, appellant Kimura
gun was. cannot now question the validity of his arrest without a warrant. The records show ran but was apprehended while Boy was able to board his jeep and together with
SPO1 Malinao, Jr. said Cubcubin refused to tell him where he hid the gun so he that he pleaded not guilty to the charge when arraigned on 11 November 1997. a Kizaki who was seated at the passenger seat sped off towards South
sought the latter's permission to go back to his house to conduct a further search. Cubcubin did not object to the arraignment, and thus has waived the right to object Superhighway. Police found 3 Sacks of marijuana. They brought Koichi and Kimura
Thereupon, SPO1 Malinao, Jr., accompanied by Prosecutor Lu, PO3 Estoy, Jr., PO3 to the legality of his arrest. On the other hand, the search of Cubcubin's house was to the headquarters and turned over the seized marijuana to the investigator who
Manicio, SPO3 Manalo, and PO3 Rosal, proceeded thereto. Inside the house, they illegal and, consequently, the things obtained as a result of the illegal search, i.e., made markings thereon.
saw Cubcubin's 11-year old son Jhumar. PO3 Estoy, Jr. found on top of a plastic the white "Hanes" t-shirt, two spent shells, and the .38 caliber gun, are inadmissible 4. Kimura’s testimony explains that on June 27, 1994, Kimura was in the
water container (drum) outside the bathroom a homemade Smith and Wesson in evidence against him. It cannot be said that the .38 caliber gun was discovered house of his co-appellant Kizaki at Dian Street, Makati City, together with Koichi
caliber .38 revolver (six shooter), without a serial number. He found the gun loaded through inadvertence. After bringing Cubcubin to the Sting Cafe where he was Kishi, Luis Carlos and a certain "Sally" and "Boy". Kimura borrowed the car of Kizaki
in order to get his television from his house in Evangelista to bring it to a repair without a valid warrant of arrest. He points out that although the trial court obtained and testimonies from the prosecution, found him guilty of violating the
shop. Koichi requested Kimura to pass by Cash and Carry Supermarket because he expressed doubts as to the legality of his arrest, it nevertheless convicted him of Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
needed to meet a certain "Rey" who was borrowing money from him. When they the crime charged, which is in violation of the Constitution. Kizaki argues that he
alighted from the car and Koichi handed something to Rey. Shortly thereafter, could not have been caught in flagrante delicto to justify the warrantless arrest Issue:
Koichi and Carlos were grabbed by two men from behind. Then four men when he was arrested two days after the alleged Cash and Carry incident while he
approached the car and one guy ordered him to sit at the back and together with was only having dinner with his friends at a restaurant. Whether or Not the lower court was correct in its judgment.
Koichi and Carlos, they were all brought to Camp Karingal allegedly for violating
Sec. 4 of Republic Act No. 6425.32 Kimura was asked questions about the address Rule 113, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a peace Held:
and business of Kizaki. Kimura denied that there was marijuana in the car on the officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person only under the
night of June 27, 1994 but claims that he saw marijuana placed at the car trunk the following circumstances: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has The NARCOM agents’ procedure in the entrapment of the accused failed to meet
following day at Camp Karingal. Kizaki was not with him at Cash and Carry on the committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) the qualification that the suspected drug dealer must be caught red-handed in the
night of June 27, 1994. There was no stainless jeep near the car on the same night. When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe act of selling marijuana to a person posing as a buyer, since the operation was
Carlos was released and was not charged because Kimura’s girlfriend, Sally, served based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be conducted after the actual exchange. Said raid also violated accused’ right against
as Carlos’ guarantor. arrested has committed it; and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner unreasonable search and seizure, as the situation did not fall in the circumstances
5. Kizaki testified that Kizaki testified that on the date that the alleged who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final wherein a search may be validly made even without a search warrant, i.e. when the
crime was committed, he was in the company of his friends, Mr. and Mrs. judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while search is incidental to a lawful arrest; when it involves prohibited articles in plain
Takeyama, Kimura, and his driver Boy and maid Joan at his house in Dian Street, being transferred from one confinement to another. view. The NARCOM agents could not have justified their act by invoking the
Makati City; Kimura borrowed his car on the night of June 27, 1994 to pick up urgency and necessity of the situation because the testimonies of the prosecution
Kimura’s broken TV and bring it to the repair shop. Appellant Kizaki’s alibi was None of the exceptions enumerated above was present to justify appellant Kizaki’s witnesses reveal that the place had already been put under surveillance for quite
corroborated by Rosario Quintia, his former housemaid, and his friend, Akiyoshi warrantless arrest. This deviation from the standard procedure in the antinarcotics some time. Had it been their intention to conduct the raid, then they should,
Takeyama, who both testified that they were at Kizaki’s house on the night of June operations produces doubts as to the origins of the marijuana. Prosecution failed because they easily could, have first secured a search warrant during that time. The
27, 1994 from 7:00 to 10:00 in the evening and never saw Kizaki leave the house. to prove the crucial first link in the chain of custody. The prosecution witnesses PO2 Court further notes the confusion and ambiguity in the identification of the
Kizaki was arrested on June 29, 1994, two days after the Cash and Carry incident, in Supa and SPO2 Madlon admitted they did not write their initials on the brick of confiscated marijuana leaves and other prohibited drug paraphernalia presented
the Nippon IchiRestaurant located at Mabini, Manila. He was having dinner with Lt. marijuana immediately after allegedly seizing from accused appellant outside the as evidence against appellant:
Col. Rodolfo Tan, Masami Y. Nishino, Anita Takeyama and Akiyoshi Takeyama. grocery store but only did so in their headquarters. The item allegedly seized from
These witnesses executed a joint affidavit and testified that while they were about accused is the same brick of marijuana marked by the policemen in their CIC Taduran, who acted as the poseur buyer, testified that appellant sold him 100
to leave the restaurant, a man got near Kizaki and asked for his passport whom headquarters and given by them to the crime laboratory for examination. grams of dried marijuana leaves wrapped in a plastic bag. Surprisingly, and no
they thought was from the Immigration. Later, they learned that Kizaki was plausible explanation has been advanced therefor, what were submitted to and
brought to Camp Karingal. The denial of appellant Kimura that he was caught in the Cash and Carry examined by the PCCL and thereafter utilized as evidence against the appellant
Supermarket delivering marijuana on the night of June 27, 1994 may be weak but were the following items:
ISSUE: WoN the warrantless arrests of the respondents valid? the evidence for the prosecution is clearly even weaker. The constitutional
presumption of innocence has not been overcome by the prosecution. In fine, for One (1) red and white colored plastic bag containing the following:
HELD: The settled jurisprudence is that alibi is inherently a weak defense. Denial by failure of the prosecution to establish the guilt of both appellants beyond
the accused of the offense charged against him is also inherently a weak defense. reasonable doubt, they must perforce be exonerated from criminal liability. Exh. "A"—Thirty (30) grams of suspected dried marijuana fruiting tops contained
For alibi to prosper, the accused must show that it was impossible for him to have inside a transparent plastic bag.
been at the scene of the commission of the crime at the time of its commission. DECISION: REVERSED and ACQUITTED. Exh. "B"— Fifty (50) grams of suspected dried marijuana leaves and seeds
Cash and Carry Supermarket is walking distance from the house of Kizaki. It was contained inside a white colored plastic labelled "Robertson".
not therefore impossible for accused to have been present at the scene of the PEOPLE V. RODRIGUEZA Exh. "C"— Four (4) aluminum foils each containing suspected dried marijuana
crime at the time of its commission. The illegality of warrantless arrest cannot [205 SCRA 791; G.R. No. 95902; 4 Feb 1992] fruiting tops having a total weight of seven grams then further wrapped
deprive the state of its right to convict the guilty when all the facts on record point with a piece of aluminum foil.
to their culpability. Facts: Exh. "D"— Five (5) small transparent plastic bags each containing suspected dried
marijuana fruiting tops having a total weight of seventeen grams.
Appellants claim that although the defense of alibi and denial are weak, it is still the NARCOM agents staged a buy-bust operation, after gaining information that there Exh. "E"— One plastic syringe.
duty of the prosecution to provethe guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt was an ongoing illegal traffic of prohibited drugs in Tagas, Albay. The participating
to support a judgment of conviction; that the trial court mainly relied on the agents were given money treated with ultraviolet powder. One of the agents went Evidently, these prohibited articles were among those confiscated during the so-
weakness of the defense rather than on the strength of the evidence for the to said location, asked for a certain Don. Thereafter, the Don, herein accused, met called follow-up raid in the house of Rodrigueza’s father. The unanswered question
prosecution. They argue that appellant Kizaki’s claim that he was not at the Cash with him and “a certain object wrapped in a plastic” later identified as marijuana then arises as to the identity of the marijuana leaves that became the basis of
and Carry Supermarket on the night of June 27, 1994 was corroborated by three was given in exchange for P200. The agent went back to headquarters and made a appellant's conviction. In People vs. Rubio, this Court had the occasion to rule that
independent witnesses including appellant Kimura who testified that he was not report, based on which, a team was subsequently organized and a raid was the plastic bag and the dried marijuana leaves contained therein constitute the
with appellant Kizaki at Cash and Carry Supermarket. Appellants further question conducted in the house of the father of the accused. During the raid, the NARCOM corpus delicti of the crime. As such, the existence thereof must be proved with
how the trial court could have been certain that the marijuana presented in court agents were able to confiscate dried marijuana leaves and a plastic syringe among certainty and conclusiveness. Failure to do so would be fatal to the cause of the
are the same articles confiscated from the appellants when the arresting officers others. There was no authorization by any search warrant. The accused was found prosecution. Conviction is reversed and set aside and accused is acquitted.
did not place identifying marks on the confiscated items. Appellant Kizaki further positive of ultraviolet powder. The lower court, considering the evidences
contends that he was arrested two days after the alleged buy-bust operation GO VS. COURT OF APPEALS
[206 SCRA 138; G.R. NO. 101837; 11 FEB 1992] by means of force and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and robbery appellants shot with the use of handguns Norman A. Mapa hitting him on
feloniously have carnal knowledge with the undersigned complainant, a minor, the face and Antonio C. Hernandez hitting him on the hip thereby causing them
Facts: against her will. Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. Thereafter, trial on serious physical injuries which have required medical attendance for a period of
the merits followed. Manuel Calimlim guilty of four (4) counts of rape more than 30 days, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended parties. Upon
Petitioner, while traveling in the wrong direction on a one-way street, almost had arraignment, both appellants pleaded not guilty. Trial then ensued. Reynaldo
a collision with another vehicle. Petitioner thereafter got out of his car, shot the Issue: won the arrest was illegal for arrest was made one day after the crime was Viñalon y San Agustin and Arnold Devera y Mocalen guilty of robbery with homicide
driver of the other vehicle, and drove off. An eyewitness of the incident was able committed, but without any judicial warrant, although the police had ample time
to take down petitioner’s plate number and reported the same to the police, who to get one and may the accused invoke art.3 sec 2 Issue: won the warrantless arrest and the search and seizure incident valid
subsequently ordered a manhunt for petitioner. 6 days after the shooting,
petitioner presented himself in the police station, accompanied by 2 lawyers, the Held: But here it will be noted that appellant entered a plea of not guilty to each of Held: On this score, we have previously held that a warrantless arrest may be made
police detained him. Subsequently a criminal charge was brought against him. the informations charging him of rape. Thus, he had effectively waived his right to by police officers based on their personal knowledge culled from the victim herself
Petitioner posted bail, the prosecutor filed the case to the lower court, setting and question any irregularity which might have accompanied his arrest and the who pointed to the suspect as the assailant at the time of the arrest.33 In our view,
commencing trial without preliminary investigation. Prosecutor reasons that the unlawful restraint of his liberty. This is clear from a reading of Section 9 of Rule 117 the arrest of appellants done immediately after the incident was valid for it was
petitioner has waived his right to preliminary investigation as bail has been posted of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure: Sec. 9. Failure to move to quash or to made by the arresting officers after the victims of the robbery pointed to
and that such situation, that petitioner has been arrested without a warrant allege any ground therefor. The failure of the accused to assert any ground of a appellants as the malefactors. Accordingly, the search and seizure that ensued are
lawfully, falls under Section 5, Rule 113 and Section 7, Rule 112 of The 1985 Rules of motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or information, either because valid as incidental to a lawful arrest.
Criminal Procedure which provides for the rules and procedure pertaining to he did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the same in said motion, shall
situations of lawful warrantless arrests. Petitioner in his petition for certiorari be deemed a waiver of any objections except those based on the grounds provided However, appellants seek to nullify the seizure of the objects allegedly taken from
assails such procedure and actions undertaken and files for a preliminary for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g) and (i) of section 3 of this Rule. (Underlining supplied) their possession. They claim they do not constitute admissible evidence as they
investigation. were not duly receipted nor properly identified at the time they were taken.
Given the circumstances of his case now, the exceptions do not apply here and we
Issue: are constrained to rule that appellant is estopped from raising the issue of the Cited in this regard is the case of People vs. Gesmundo,35 which stated that the
legality of his arrest. officer seizing the property under the warrant must give a detailed receipt to the
Whether or Not warrantless arrest of petitioner was lawful. lawful occupant of the premises in whose presence the search and seizure was
Moreover, the illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside a made. Note, however, that Gesmundo involved a search and seizure made
Whether or Not petitioner effectively waived his right to preliminary investigation. valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from pursuant to a warrant, and not to a situation of seizure incidental to warrantless
error.[44] The defenses claim of warrantless arrest which is illegal cannot render arrest, as in the present case. Here, arresting officer Amigo testified that indeed he
Held: void all other proceedings including those leading to the conviction of the seized the disputed items from appellants but he did not issue a receipt.36 He
appellant, nor can the state be deprived of its right to convict the guilty when all claimed that the seized items were entered in the logbook of the security guard of
Petitioner and prosecutor err in relying on Umil v. Ramos, wherein the Court upheld the facts on record point to his culpability. the hospital where appellants were arrested. But this claim was unsubstantiated,
the warrantless arrest as valid effected 1 to 14 days from actual commission of the as the logbook was not presented nor made part of the record of the case. Not
offenses, which however constituted “continuing crimes,” i.e. subversion, People v vinalon only did the credibility of his testimony suffer thereby, but this circumstance also
membership in an outlawed organization, etc. There was no lawful warrantless Facts: That on or about the 24th day of September, 1997, in Quezon City, negated the probative force and value of the said items as evidence for the
arrest under Section 5, Rule 113. This is because the arresting officers were not Philippines, the said appellants, conspiring, confederating with other persons prosecution.
actually there during the incident, thus they had no personal knowledge and their whose true names, identities, whereabouts and other personal circumstances have
information regarding petitioner were derived from other sources. Further, not as yet been ascertained and mutually helping one another, with intent to gain People v merndez
Section 7, Rule 112, does not apply. and by means of violence and intimidation against persons, did, then and there,
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously rob PO1 Joseph H. Llave of the PNP National People v Enrile
Capital Region Command, Norman A. Mapa and Reynaldo B. Elidio in the following Facts: Sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of P30,000.00 for violation of the
Petitioner was not arrested at all, as when he walked in the police station, he manner, to wit: on the date in the place aforementioned, the said appellants, Dangerous Drugs Act, Antonio Enrile faults the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City
neither expressed surrender nor any statement that he was or was not guilty of posing themselves as passengers boarded a Jell Transport passenger bus with for convicting him. 1 His co-accused, Rogelio Abugatal, was killed in an attempted
any crime. When a complaint was filed to the prosecutor, preliminary investigation Plate No. PXC-266 and while said bus was cruising along Commonwealth Avenue jailbreak and this appeal is dismissed as to him. 2 We deal here only with
should have been scheduled to determine probable cause. Prosecutor made a near Don Antonio Avenue, Brgy. Old Balara, this City, a public highway, appellants Enrile.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
substantive error, petitioner is entitled to preliminary investigation, necessarily in armed with handguns and bladed weapon announced a hold up and thereafter
a criminal charge, where the same is required appear thereat. Petition granted, robbed and divested them of their personal properties to the damage and The evidence for the prosecution showed that at about half past six in the evening
prosecutor is ordered to conduct preliminary investigation, trial for the criminal prejudice of the offended parties within the amount aforementioned; further that of October 25, 1985, a buy-bust team composed of Pat. Jaime Flores and Pat. Wilson
case is suspended pending result from preliminary investigation, petitioner is by reason or on the occasion of the said robbery, and for the purpose of enabling Rances of the Quezon City Police Anti-Narcotics Unit was dispatched to entrap
ordered released upon posting a bail bond. the said appellants to take, steal and carry away the aforementioned articles, the Rogelio Abugatal at Roosevelt Avenue in San Francisco Del Monte, Quezon City.
said appellants in pursuance of their conspiracy, with intent to kill and taking The plan was made on the strength of a tip given by Renato Polines, a police
advantage of their superior strength, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and informer, who was himself to pose as the buyer. 3chanrobles virtual law library
People v Calimlim feloniously attack, assault and use personal violence upon the person of one PO1
Facts: Accused was charged with 4 counts of rape allegedly That on or about the Joseph H. Llave by then and there shooting him on the different parts of his body In their separate testimonies, 4 both policemen said that on the occasion they saw
2nd day of April, 1995, at the Poblacion of the municipality of Manaoag, province thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds which were the direct and Polines hand over to Abugatal the marked money representing payment for the
of Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, immediate cause of his death thereafter; that likewise on the same occasion of the mock transaction. Abugatal left with the money and returned ten minutes later
with a wrapped object which he gave Polines. The two policemen then approached value on human rights and individual liberties and are obssessed only with the accused1appellant. The arrest of accused1appellant was tainted with constitutional
Abugatal and placed him under arrest, at the same time confiscating the wrapped maintenance of peace and punishment of infirmity. The testimony of SPO Jovencio Fajarito reveals that appellant was not
object. Subsequent laboratory examination revealed this to be marijuana with crime.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library duly informed of his constitutional rights. 0t has been held repeatedly that
flowering tops weighing 22 grams. 5chanrobles virtual law library custodial investigation commences when a person is taken into custody and is
These are laudible objectives in any well-ordered society. But it should never be singled out as a suspect in the commission of a crime under investigation and the
The prosecution also showed that, upon providing Abugatal led the policemen to pursued at the cost of dismantling the intricate apparatus for the protection of the police officers begin to as, questions on the suspect3s participation therein and
a house at 20 De Vera Street, also in San Francisco Del Monte, Quezon City, where individual from overzealous law-enforcers who mistakenly believe that suspected which tend to elicit an admission. Obviously accused1appellant was a suspect
he called out for Antonio Enrile. Enrile came out and met them at the gate. criminals have forfeited the safeguards afforded them by the Constitution. Law- from the moment the police team went to his house and ordered the uprooting of
Abugatal pointed to Enrile as the source of the marijuana, whereupon the enforcers are not licensed to themselves break the law to apprehend and punish the marijuana plants in his backyard garden.
policemen immediately arrested and frisked him. They found in the right front law-breakers. Such a practice only leads to further defiance of the law by those
pocket of his trousers the marked money earlier delivered to Abugatal, with Serial who have been denied its protection.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual PEOPLE VS. AMMINUDIN
No. PJ966425. 6chanrobles virtual law library law library [163 SCRA 402; G.R. L-74869; 6 Jul 1988]

At the police headquarters, Abugatal signed a sworn confession affirming the In the light of the proven circumstances of this case, the Court is not convinced Facts:
above narration. 7 Enrile refused to make any statement pending consultation with that there is enough evidence to establish Enrile's guilt beyond the shadow of
a lawyer.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library doubt. The paucity of such evidence only strengthens the suspicion that the Idel Aminnudin, accused-appellant was arrested on June 25, 1984, shortly after
marked money was really "planted" on Enrile by the police officers who were disembarking from the M/V Wilcon 9 at about 8:30 in the evening, in Iloilo City. The
In his defense, Enrile testified that the marked money was "planted" on him by the probably worried that their earlier efforts in securing Enrile's conviction as a drug PC officers who were in fact waiting for him because of a tip from one their
police officers, who he said simply barged into his house without a warrant and pusher would be thwarted by his application for probation. informers simply accosted him, inspected his bag and finding what looked liked
arrested him. He stoutly denied any knowledge of the marijuana. He claimed that marijuana leaves took him to their headquarters for investigation. The two bundles
at the time of the alleged incident, he was attending, as a dental technician, to a PEOPLE VS PASUDAG of suspect articles were confiscated from him and later taken to the NBI laboratory
patient whom he was fitting for dentures. 8 The supposed patient, Alicia Tiempo, GR No. 128822, May 4, 2001 for examination. It was found to contain three kilos of what were later analyzed as
corroborated him. 9chanrobles virtual law library FACTS: SPO2 Pepito Calip urinated at a bushy bamboo fence behind the public marijuana leaves by an NBI forensic examiner. An information for violation of the
school. About Dangerous Drugs Act was filed against him. Later, the information was amended
Enrile admitted that he had earlier been convicted of selling marijuana and that he five (5) meters away he saw a garden of about 70 square meters. There were to include Farida Ali y Hassen, who had also been arrested with him that same
had a pending application for probation. He suggested that this could be the marijuana plants in between corn plants and camote tops. He inquired from a evening and likewise investigated. Both were arraigned and pleaded not guilty.
reason the policemen sought to implicate him in the new charge and thus weaken storekeeper nearby as to who owned the house with the garden. The store owner Subsequently, the fiscal filed a motion to dismiss the charge against Ali on the basis
his application. told him that Pasudag owned it. A team was dispatched and of a sworn statement of the arresting officers absolving her after a 'thorough
the team arrived and went straight to the house of accused Pasudag. The police investigation." The motion was granted, and trial proceeded only against the
Issue: WON the arrest was valid looked for accused Pasudag and asked him to bring the team to his backyard accused-appellant, who was eventually convicted . In his defense, Aminnudin
garden which was about five (5) meters disclaimed the marijuana, averring that all he had in his bag was his clothing
Held: What the policemen should have done was secure a search warrant on the away. upon seeing the marijuana plants, the policemen called for a photographer consisting of a jacket, two shirts and two pairs of pants. He alleged that he was
basis of the information supplied by Abugatal, and then, with such authority, who took arbitrarily arrested and immediately handcuffed. His bag was confiscated without
proceeded to search and, if the search was fruitful, arrest Enrile. They had no right pictures of accused Pasudag standing beside one of the marijuana plants. %hey a search warrant. At the PC headquarters, he was manhandled to force him to
to simply force themselves into his house on the bare (and subsequently uprooted seven (") admit he was carrying the marijuana, the investigator hitting him with a piece of
disallowed) allegations of Abugatal and bundle Enrile off to the police station as if marijuana plants. The team brought accused Pasudag and the mari&uana plants to wood in the chest and arms even as he parried the blows while he was still
he had been caught in flagrante delicto.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles the police handcuffed. He insisted he did not even know what marijuana looked like and that
virtual law library station. At the police station, accused Pasudag admitted, in the presence of Chief his business was selling watches and sometimes cigarettes. However the RTC
of Police Astrero, that he owned the marijuana plants. SPO Fajarito prepared a rejected his allegations. Saying that he only has two watches during that time and
The discovery of the marked money on him did not mean he was caught in the act confiscation report that he did not sufficiently proved the injuries allegedly sustained.
of selling marijuana. The marked money was not prohibited per se. Even if it were, which accused Pasudag signed.
that fact alone would not retroactively validate the warrantless search and Issue:
seizure.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library ISSUE: won the arrest and seizure valid
Whether or not search of defendant’s bag is legal.
The principle has been honored through the ages in all liberty-loving regimes that HELD: As a general rule, the procurement of a search warrant is required before a
a man's house is his castle that not even the mighty monarch, with all its forces, law enforcer may validly search or seize the person, house, papers or effects of any Held:
may violate. There were measures available under the law to enable the authorities individual. 0n the case at bar the police authorities had ample opportunity to
to search Enrile's house and to arrest him if he was found in possession of secure from the court a search warrant. SPO2 Pepito Calip inquired as to who The search was illegal. Defendant was not caught in flagrante delicto, which could
prohibited articles. The police did not employ these owned the house. He was acquainted with marijuana plants and immediately allow warrantless arrest or search. At the moment of his arrest, he was not
measures.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library recognized that some plants in the backyard of the house were marijuana plants. committing a crime. Nor was he about to do so or had just done so. To all
time was not of the essence to uproot and confiscate the plants. %hey were three appearances, he was like any of the other passengers innocently disembarking
What they did was simply intrude into Enrile's house and arrest him without the months old and there was no sufficient reason to believe that they would be from the vessel. The said marijuana therefore could not be appreciated as evidence
slightest heed to the injunctions of the Bill of Rights. By so doing, they were using uprooted on that same day. With the illegal seizure of the marijuana plants subject against the defendant, and furthermore he is acquitted of the crime as charged.
the tactics of the police state, where the minions of the government place little of this case, the seized plants are inadmissible in evidence against