assigned digest case

8/10/2019 Assigned Digest Case

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/assigned-digest-case 1/21

People vs. Gerente [GR 95847-48, 10 March 1993]

Facts:

At about 7:00 a.m. of 30 April 1990, Gabriel Gerente, together with Fredo Echigoren

and Totoy Echigoren, allegedly started drinking liquor and smoking marijuana inGerente's house which is about 6 meters away from the house of Edna Edwina Reyeswho was in her house on that day. She overheard the three men talking about theirintention to kill Clarito Blace. She testified that she heard Fredo Echigoren saying,"Gabriel, papatayin natin si Clarito Blace." Fredo and Totoy Echigoren and Gerentecarried out their plan to kill Clarito Blace at about 2:00 p.m. of the same day. Reyesallegedly witnessed the killing. Fredo Echigoren struck the first blow against ClaritoBlace, followed by Totoy Echigoren and Gabriel Gerente who hit him twice with a pieceof wood in the head and when he fell, Totoy Echigoren dropped a hollow block on thevictim's head. Thereafter, the three men dragged Blace to a place behind the house ofGerente. At about 4:00 p.m. of the same day, Patrolman Jaime Urrutia of the

Valenzuela Police Station received a report from the Palo Police Detachment about amauling incident. He went to the Valenzuela District Hospital where the victim wasbrought. He was informed by the hospital officials that the victim died on arrival. Thecause of death was massive fracture of the skull caused by a hard and heavy object.Right away, Patrolman Urrutia, together with Police Corporal Romeo Lima andPatrolman Alex Umali, proceeded to Paseo de Blas where the mauling incident tookplace. There they found a piece of wood with blood stains, a hollow block and tworoaches of marijuana. They were informed by Reyes that she saw the killing and shepointed to Gabriel Gerente as one of the three men who killed Clarito. The policemenproceeded to the house of Gerente, who was then sleeping. They told him to come outof the house and they introduced themselves as policemen.

Patrolman Urrutia frisked Gerente and found a coin purse in his pocket which containeddried leaves wrapped in cigarette foil. The dried leaves were sent to the NationalBureau of Investigation for examination. The Forensic Chemist found them to bemarijuana. Only Gerente was apprehended by the police. The other suspects, Fredoand Totoy Echigoren, are still at large. On 2 May 1990, two separate informations werefiled by Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Benjamin Caraig against him for Violation ofSection 8, Art. II, of RA 6425, and for Murder. When arraigned on 16 May 1990,Gerente pleaded not guilty to both charges. A joint trial of the two cases was held. On24 September 1990, the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, Branch 172,found Gerente guilty of Violation of Section 8 of Republic Act 6425 and sentenced himto suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a term of 12 years and 1 day, as minimum, to20 years, as maximum; and also found him guilty of Murder for which crime he wassentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Gerente appealed.

Issue:



Whether the police officers have the personal knowledge of the killing of Blace to allowthem to arrest, and the subsequent search Gerente’s person, without the necessarywarrant.

Held:

The search of Gerente's person and the seizure of the marijuana leaves in hispossession were valid because they were incident to a lawful warrantless arrest.Paragraphs (a) and (b), Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Court provide that"A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When,in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or isattempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed,and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested hascommitted it;" The policemen arrested Gerente only some 3 hours after Gerente and hiscompanions had killed Blace. They saw Blace dead in the hospital and when theyinspected the scene of the crime, they found the instruments of death: a piece of wood

and a concrete hollow block which the killers had used to bludgeon him to death. Theeye-witness, Edna Edwina Reyes, reported the happening to the policemen andpinpointed her neighbor, Gerente, as one of the killers. Under those circumstances,since the policemen had personal knowledge of the violent death of Blace and of factsindicating that Gerente and two others had killed him, they could lawfully arrest Gerentewithout a warrant. If they had postponed his arrest until they could obtain a warrant, hewould have fled the law as his two companions did. The search conducted on Gerente'sperson was likewise lawful because it was made as an incident to a valid arrest. This isin accordance with Section 12, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court which providesthat "A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anythingwhich may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant."The frisk and search of Gerente's person upon his arrest was a permissibleprecautionary measure of arresting officers to protect themselves, for the person who isabout to be arrested may be armed and might attack them unless he is first disarmed.

Padilla VS CA

Summary of the Case:One night, Enrique Manarang noticed the accused appellant’s car running fast. After awhile, a screech of tires was heard and thus, made the officer run out and investigate.Not so long, the car continued to run, so a hot-pursuit took place. Manarang thenradioed the incident to the Police. When the car was put to a stop, the driver rolled downthe windows with his hands raised. The officers then noticed that it was the famousactor, Robin Padilla. While apprehended, because of the hit-and-run incident, the policesaw the revolver tucked in the left waist of Robin. So, the police insisted that the gun beshown in the office if it was legal. The crowd had formed and Robin was shaking theirhands and pointing to the police while saying “iyan kinuha ang baril ko”, as if it was inthe movies. The gesture then revealed a magazine clip of a rifle which made the policesuspect that there is a rifle inside the vehicle. Then the rifle was seen. The otherfirearms were voluntarily surrendered by Robin. Now, Robin’s defense was that his



arrest was illegal and consequently, the firearms and ammunitions taken in the coursethereof are inadmissible in evidence under the exclusionary rule. Robin Padilla wasarrested, tried, and convicted for illegal possession of firearms. He was in possession ofa .357 caliber revolver, Smith and Wesson with 6 live ammunitions, One M-16 baby

Armalite Rifle with ammunitions, One .380 Pietro Barreta with 8 live ammunitions, and

six live double action ammunitions of .38 caliber revolver.

Relation to Article3: Section 2.

Robin claimed that there was no search warrant or warrant of arrest thus, making hisarrest illegal and the evidences inadmissible. The Bill of rights’ purpose is to put limit tothe government’s power. In the People vs. Marti case, the government was notinvolved. In this case, the government is involved but it was not illegal.Why? According to what’s written in the case, a peace officer or a private person mayarrest a person: (a) when the person has committed, is actually committing or isattempting to commit and offense, (b) when an offense has in fact just been committed,

and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested hascommitted it.The instances above clearly explain the legality of the arrest. Robin Padilla, my idol hadfirst sideswept a balut vendor and the incident was heard by Manarang and he sawRobin fled away from the scene, thus, committing a hit-and-run. And Enrique Manarangwas a peace officer.When he was halted, the firearms were revealed to the police officers without their actof searching. The firearms were in “plain view”. And the firearms were found by thepolice in their pursuit of their official duties. And the police have the right as to wherethey are because they were in pursuit of Robin when they found the firearms.

People vs. Sinoc [GR 113511-12, 1 July 1997]

Facts:

On 20 September 1991, at about 6:00 a.m., Isidoro Viacrusis, manager of TaganitoMiningCorporation, was motoring from the company compound (at Taganito, Claver, Surigaodel Norte) to Surigao City. He was riding on a company vehicle, a Mitsubishi Pajero(DFX-397), driven by Tarcisio Guijapon. As Viacrusis and Guijapon were approachingthe public cemetery of Claver, they were stopped by several armed men. The latter,identifying themselves as members of the New People's Army (NPA), boarded thePajero and ordered Guijapon to proceed. When they reached Barobo, Surigao delNorte, the armed men ordered Viacrusis and Guijapon to alight, led them, their handsbound behind their back to a coconut grove some 6 meters from the road, and aftermaking them lie face down on the ground, shot them several times. Viacrusismiraculously survived. The driver, Guijapon, was not as lucky; he died on the spot. Atabout 7 a.m. the following day, a secret informant (known as a "civilian asset") namedBoyet reported to the police Station at Monkayo, Davao del Norte that the stolen("carnapped") "Pajero" was parked behind the apartment of a certain Paulino Overa at



the Bliss Housing Project at Poblacion, Monkayo. On instructions of the StationCommander, a police team went to the place. They saw the "Pajero" and, their initialinquiries having yielded the information that the man who had brought it there wouldreturn that morning, posted themselves in such a manner as to keep it in view. Some 3hours later, at about 10:30 a.m., they saw a man approach the "Pajero" who, on seeing

them, tried to run away. They stopped him. They found out that the man, identified asDanilo Sinoc of Surigao del Norte, had the key of the "Pajero," and was acting underinstructions of certain companions who were waiting for him at the Star Lodge atTagum, Davao del Norte. Riding on the recovered "Pajero," the police officers broughtSinoc to the Star Lodge only to discover that his companions were no longer there.They later turned over Sinoc to the 459th Mobile Force, together with the "Pajero."Sinoc, Vicente Salon @ "Dodong," Benjamin Espinosa @ "Benji," Jaime Jornales @"James," Victorino Delegencia @ Jun-Gren," and one Roger Doe @ "Ram" (at large)were charged on 23 January 1992. Only Sinoc and Vicente Salon were arraigned, on 14July 1992, the other accused being then at large. Assisted by their respective counsel,both Sinoc and Salon entered pleas of not guilty and were thereafter jointly tried. On 7

October 1993, the Regional Trial Court of Surigao City, Branch 30, found Sinoc guiltybeyond reasonable doubt in two cases jointly tried: one, of the special complex crime ofkidnapping with murder (under Article 267 in relation to Articles 248 2 and 48 3 of theRevised Penal Code) — in Criminal Case 3564; and the other, of the complex crime ofkidnapping with frustrated murder (under Articles 267, 248, 6 4 and 48 of the sameCode) — in Criminal Case 3565. In each case, the penalty of reclusion perpetua wasimposed on him. Salon, on the other hand was acquitted inasmuch as conspiracy wasnot proven. Sinoc appealed.

Issue:

Whether the police officer had personal knowledge of the crime Sinoc committed toallow them to arrest the latter without a warrant of arrest.

Held:

The law provides that an arrest without warrant may be licitly effected by a peaceofficer, inter alia. "When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he haspersonal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it."There is no question that the police officers in this case were aware that an offense had

just been committed; i.e., that some 12 hours earlier, a "Pajero" belonging to a privatecompany had been stolen ("carnapped") and its driver and passenger shot, the formerhaving died and the latter being on the verge of death. Nor is there any doubt that aninformer ("asset") had reported that the stolen "Pajero" was at the Bliss Housing Projectat Monkayo. It was precisely to recover the "Pajero" that a team composed of SPO1Michael Aringo and "joint elements of 459 PNP MFC and Moncayo Police Station led byInsptr Eden T. Ugale," went to that place and, on taking custody of the "Pajero,"forthwith dispatched a radio message to "Higher Headquarters" advising of that fact.There is no question either that when SPO1 Aringo and his companions reached theplace where the "Pajero" was parked, they were told by Paulino Overa, owner of the



apartment behind which the vehicle was parked, that the man who had brought the"Pajero" would be back by 12:00 noon; that the person thus described did in fact showup at about 10:00 A.M., and was immediately identified by Overa as "the one who rodeon that car 'Pajero;'" just as there is no question that when the police officers accostedhim, Sinoc had the key to the stolen "Pajero" and was in the act of moving toward it

admittedly to take possession of it (after having arrived by bus from Tagum togetherwith another suspect, "Ram"). Sinoc's link to the stolen vehicle (and hence to thekidnapping and killing accompanying its transportation) was thus palpable. Theforegoing circumstances left the police officers no alternative save to arrest Sinoc andtake possession of the "Pajero." His arrest without warrant was justified; indeed, it wasin the premises the officers' clear duty to apprehend him; their omission to do so wouldhave been inexcusable.

People vs. Baula [GR 132671, 15 November 2000]

Facts:

On 13 December 1995, at around 8:00 p.m., Jupiter Caburao, allegedly decided tofollow his mother, Patrocinia Caburao, who had earlier left their house at BarangaySiwasiw West, Sual, Pangasinan, to settle her due obligations at a store, about 1 1/2kilometers away, owned by a certain Brigida Tumamang. While traversing the roadtowards the store, Jupiter allegedly noticed a commotion near the creek about 10meters away from him. He allegedly focused his flashlight towards the direction wherehe heard the commotion and saw Crisanto Baula and Danilo Dacucos in the act ofhacking a person who was lying on the ground, while Robert Baula and Ruben Baulastood as lookouts. The assault allegedly lasted for about 4minutes. The Baulas andDacucos allegedly fled but not before they had threatened Jupiter with death if he wereto divulge the incident to anyone. Jupiter went near the lifeless body of the victim whoturned out to be his own mother. Her head and face sustained four hacking wounds, twoof which damaged her brain tissues. Jupiter rushed home and brought his niece andnephew to the house of a neighbor for their safety. For fear of reprisal from the Baulas,et. al. and believing that the police would be able to solve the gory killing on their own,Jupiter did not reveal the damage to either his relatives or the police. About 2:00 a.m. of14 December 1995, the police authorities, led by SPO4 Fermin Mirande, went to thelocus criminis, and took pictures of the body of the victim. The investigation revealedthat before the victim was killed, she had been to Brigida Tumamang's store; that theBaulas, et. al. were also at the store having a drinking spree; that the victim left thestore between 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., and that, 15 minutes later, the Baulas, et. al.also left. SPO4 Mirande, with several policemen, repaired to the respective houses ofaccused-appellants. The policemen asked Ruben Baula and Crisanto Baula for theclothing they wore on the night of the murder. Ruben Baula gave his bloodstained pairof short pants, and Crisanto Baula turned over his bloodstained polo shirt. Thepolicemen next went to the hut of Danilo Dacucos. Inside the hut, the group foundhanging on the wall a bloodstained bolo. The bloodstained pair of short pants, polo shirtand bolo, together with the victim's dried blood samples, were sent on the same day tothe National Bureau of Investigation, Dagupan City Branch Office, for forensic



examination. The results of the examination disclosed that the bloodstains found in thebolo, the bloodstains on the polo shirt and the bloodstains on the pair of short pants hadthe same type "O" blood as that of the victim. On 7 August 1996, Crisanto Baula, RubenBaula, Robert Baula and Danilo Dacucos were charged with murder before theRegional Trial Court, Branch 38, of Lingayen, Pangasinan. When arraigned, the

accused all entered a plea of not guilty to the offense charged. Trial shortly thereafterensued. The Baulas, et. al. denied their involvement in Patrocinia’s killing. The trial courtrendered its judgment on 17 November 1997, convicting Baula, et. al. of the crimecharged, and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay,

jointly and severally, the heirs of Patrocinia Caburao (a) 50,000.00 for the death ofPatrocinia Caburao; (b) P15,000.00 for funeral expenses; (c) moral damages ofP75,000.00; and (d) to pay proportionally the costs. Baula, et. al. appealed.

Issue:

Whether the Baulas can be arrested without warrant for the killing of Petrocinia

Caburao, and whether seizures can be effected pursuant to such arrests.Held:

The proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures is not absolute, and theCourt has had occasions to rule that a warrantless search and seizure of property isvalid under certain circumstances. There can, for instance, be a lawful warrantlesssearch incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12, Rules 126 of the Rulesof Court and by prevailing jurisprudence; or seizure of evidence in "plain view," itselements being extant; or search of a moving vehicle; or consented search; or customssearch. The situation here in question, however, can hardly come within the purview ofany of the established exceptions. In a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest,the arrest itself must have to be effected under the circumstances enumerated by law.One such case is when an offense has in fact just been committed, and the peaceofficer has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested hascommitted it. Danilo Dacucos, Crisanto Baula and Ruben Baula were not being arrestedat the time that the bloodstained bolo, polo shirt and short pants were allegedly takenfrom them but were just being questioned by the police officers conducting theinvestigation about the death of Patrocinia Caburao. The investigating officers had nopersonal knowledge of facts indicating that the accused had committed the crime. Beingin no position to effect a warrantless arrest, the police officers were thus likewise barredfrom effecting a warrantless search and seizure. The police officers acted on a meresuspicion that Baula, et. al. could be responsible for the commission of the crime andonly because of their being at the store where the victim was last seen. Mere suspicioncannot satisfy the requirement of probable cause which signifies a reasonable ground ofsuspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant acautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which hecan be charged. An illegal search cannot be undertaken and then an arrest effected onthe strength of the evidence yielded by that search. The Court finds it less than crediblethe stance of the prosecution that the polo shirt and short pants have been voluntarily



given. An alleged consent to a warrantless search and seizure cannot be based merelyon the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty. This presumption by itself,cannot prevail against the constitutionally protected rights of an individual, and zeal inthe pursuit of criminals cannot ennoble the use of arbitrary methods that theConstitution itself abhors.

People vs. Cubcubin [GR 136267, 10 July 2001]

Facts:

At about 3:30 a.m. of 26 August 1997, Sgt. Rogel, desk officer of the Cavite City policestation, received a telephone call that a person had been shot near the cemetery alongJulian Felipe Boulevard in San Antonio, Cavite City. For this reason, a police team,composed of SPO1 Malinao, Jr., PO3 Rosal, PO3 Estoy, Jr., PO3 Manicio, and SPO3Manalo, responded to the call and found Henry P. Piamonte slumped dead on histricycle which was then parked on the road. Police photographer Fred Agana took

pictures of the crime scene showing the victim slumped on the handle of the tricycle.PO3 Rosal testified that a tricycle driver, who refused to divulge his name, told him thatFidel Abrenica Cubcubin Jr. and the victim were last seen together coming out of theSting Cafe, located in San Antonio near the gate of Sangley Point, Cavite City, about akilometer and a half away from the crime scene. Forthwith, PO3 Rosal and SPO1Malinao, Jr. went to the cafe and talked to Danet Garcellano, a food server/waitress inSting Cafe. Garcellano described Cubcubin as a lean, dark-complexioned, andmustachioed man who had on a white t-shirt and brown short pants. Armando Plata,another tricycle driver, told PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao, Jr. that Garcellano'sdescription fitted a person known as alias "Jun Dulce." Armando Plata, who knew whereCubcubin lived, led PO3 Rosal, SPO1 Malinao, Jr., and Prosecutor Lu to Cubucubin'shouse in Garcia Extension, Cavite City. The policemen knocked on the door for about 3minutes before it was opened by a man who answered the description given by DanetGarcellano and who turned out to be Cubcubin. The police operatives identifiedthemselves and informed him that he was being sought in connection with the shootingnear the cemetery. Cubcubin denied involvement in the incident. PO3 Rosal and SPO1Malinao, Jr. then asked permission to enter and look around the house. SPO1 Malinao,Jr. said that upon entering the house, he noticed a white t-shirt, bearing the brand name"Hanes" and the name "Dhenvher" written in the inner portion of the shirt's hemline,placed over a divider near the kitchen. Upon close examination, he said that he found itto be "bloodied." When he picked up the t-shirt, two spent .38 caliber shells fell from it.PO3 Rosal stayed with Cubcubin while he conducted a search. They then took the t-shirt and the two bullet shells. SPO1 Malinao, Jr. then asked Cubcubin to go with themto Sting Cafe for purposes of identification. There, Cubcubin was positively identified byDanet Garcellano as the victim's companion. The police investigators asked Cubcubinwhere the fatal gun was. SPO1 Malinao, Jr. said Cubcubin refused to tell him where hehid the gun so he sought the latter's permission to go back to his house to conduct afurther search. Thereupon, SPO1 Malinao, Jr., accompanied by Prosecutor Lu, PO3Estoy, Jr., PO3 Manicio, SPO3 Manalo, and PO3 Rosal, proceeded thereto. Inside thehouse, they saw Cubcubin's 11-year old son Jhumar. PO3 Estoy, Jr. found on top of a



plastic water container (drum) outside the bathroom a homemade Smith and Wessoncaliber .38 revolver (six shooter), without a serial number. He found the gun loaded withfive live bullets. PO3 Estoy, Jr. said that he inscribed his initials "RDE" (for RaymundoD. Estoy) on the cylinder of the gun with the use of a sharp object. While PO3 Estoy, Jr.was conducting the search, SPO1 Malinao, Jr. and PO3 Rosal stayed with Cubcubin in

the sala. The .38 caliber gun, the white "Hanes" t-shirt, and the two spent .38 calibershells were all photographed. Cubcubin was then taken to the police station, where hewas photographed along with the things seized from him. Cubcubin was charged for thecrime of murder. On 5 October 1998, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 88, Cavite City,found Cubcubin guilty of murder and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death.Hence, the automatic review.

Issue:

Whether there was "probable cause" for PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao, Jr., thearresting officers, to believe that Cubcubin committed the crime, to allow them to

conduct the latter's warrantless arrest.Held:

Rule 113, §5 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, provides that "Apeace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, inhis presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or isattempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed,and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested hascommitted it; (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from apenal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confinedwhile his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinementto another." Under §5(b), two conditions must concur for a warrantless arrest to be valid:first, the offender has just committed an offense and, second, the arresting peace officeror private person has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to bearrested has committed it. It has been held that "personal knowledge of facts' in arrestswithout a warrant must be based upon probable cause, which means an actual belief orreasonable grounds of suspicion." Herein, the arrest of Cubcubin was effected shortlyafter the victim was killed. There was no "probable cause, however, for PO3 Rosal andSPO1 Malinao, Jr., the arresting officers, to believe that Cubcubin committed the crime.The two did not have "personal knowledge of facts" indicating that Cubcubin hadcommitted the crime. Their knowledge of the circumstances from which they allegedlyinferred that Cubcubin was probably guilty was based entirely on what they had beentold by others, to wit: by someone who called the PNP station in San Antonio, CaviteCity at about 3:30 a.m. of 26 August 1997 and reported that a man had been killedalong Julian Felipe Boulevard of the said city; by an alleged witness who saw Cubcubinand the victim coming out of the Sting Cafe; by Danet Garcellano, waitress at the StingCafe, who said that the man last seen with the victim was lean, mustachioed, dark-complexioned and was wearing a white t-shirt and a pair of brown short pants; by atricycle driver named Armando Plata who told them that the physical description given



by Garcellano fitted Cubcubin, alias "Jun Dulce" and who said he knew where Cubcubinlived and accompanied them to Cubcubin's house. Thus, PO3 Rosal and SPO1Malinao, Jr. merely relied on information given to them by others. Be that as it may,Cubcubin cannot now question the validity of his arrest without a warrant. The recordsshow that he pleaded not guilty to the charge when arraigned on 11 November 1997.

Cubcubin did not object to the arraignment, and thus has waived the right to object tothe legality of his arrest. On the other hand, the search of Cubcubin's house was illegaland, consequently, the things obtained as a result of the illegal search, i.e., the white"Hanes" t-shirt, two spent shells, and the .38 caliber gun, are inadmissible in evidenceagainst him. It cannot be said that the .38 caliber gun was discovered throughinadvertence. After bringing Cubcubin to the Sting Cafe where he was positivelyidentified by a waitress named Danet Garcellano as the victim's companion, thearresting officers allegedly asked Cubcubin where he hid the gun used in killing thevictim. According to SPO1 Malinao, Jr., when Cubcubin refused to answer, he soughtCubcubin's permission to go back to his house and there found the .38 caliber revolveron top of a plastic water container outside the bathroom. Thus, the gun was purposely

sought by the police officers and they did not merely stumble upon it. Nor were thepolice officers justified in seizing the white "Hanes" t-shirt placed on top of the divider "inplain view" as such is not contraband nor is it incriminating in nature which would leadSPO1 Malinao, Jr. to conclude that it would constitute evidence of a crime. Contrary towhat SPO1 Malinao, Jr. said, the t-shirt was not "bloodied" which could have directedhis attention to take a closer look at it. From the photograph of the t-shirt, it is not visiblethat there were bloodstains. The actual t-shirt merely had some small specks of blood atits lower portion. Furthermore, there is no evidence to link Cubcubin directly to thecrime.

TIME OF ARREST

People vs. Rodrigueza [GR 95902, 4 February 1992]

Facts:

[Prosecution] At around 5:00 p.m. of 1 July 1987, CIC Ciriaco Taduran was in theirheadquarters atthe Office of the Narcotics Regional Unit at Camp Bagong Ibalon, Legaspi City, togetherwith S/Sgt. Elpidio Molinawe, CIC Leonardo B. Galutan and their commanding officer,Major Crisostomo M. Zeidem, when a confidential informer arrived and told them thatthere was an ongoing illegal traffic of prohibited drugs in Tagas, Daraga, Albay. MajorZeidem formed a team to conduct a buybust operation, which team was given P200.00in different denominations to buy marijuana. These bills were treated with ultravioletpowder at the Philippine Constabulary Crime Laboratory (PCCL). Sgt. Molinawe gavethe money to Taduran who acted as the poseur buyer. He was told to look for a certainDon, the alleged seller of prohibited drugs. Taduran went to Tagas alone and, whilealong the road, he met Samuel Segovia. He asked Segovia where he could find Donand where he could buy marijuana. Segovia left for a while and when he returned, hewas accompanied by a man who was later on introduced to him as Don Rodrigueza.



After agreeing on the price of P200.00 for 100 grams of marijuana, Don halted apassing tricycle driven by Antonio Lonceras. He boarded it and left Taduran andSegovia. When he came back, Don gave Taduran "a certain object wrapped in aplastic" which was later identified as marijuana, and received payment therefor.Thereafter, Taduran returned to the headquarters and made a report regarding his said

purchase of marijuana. Based on that information, Major Zeidem ordered a team toconduct an operation to apprehend the suspects. In the evening of the same date, CICGalutan and S/Sgt. Molinawe proceeded to Regidor Street, Daraga, Albay and arrestedRodrigueza, Antonio Lonceras and Samuel Segovia. The constables were not,however, armed with a warrant of arrest when they apprehended the three accused.The arrests were brought to the headquarters for investigation. Thereafter, agents of theNarcotics Command (NARCOM) conducted a raid in the house of Jovencio Rodrigueza,Don's father. Taduran did not go with them. During the raid, they were able to confiscatedried marijuana leaves and a plastic syringe, among others. The search, however, wasnot authorized by any search warrant. The next day, Jovencio Rodrigueza was releasedfrom detention but Don Rodrigueza was detained. [Defense] Don Rodrigueza, on the

other hand, claimed that on said date he was in the house of his aunt in San Roque,Legaspi City. He stayed there overnight and did not leave the place until the next daywhen his brother arrived and told him that their father was taken by some military menthe preceding night. Rodrigueza went to Camp Bagong Ibalon and arrived there ataround 8:00 a.m. of 2 July 1987. When he arrived, he was asked if he knew anythingabout the marijuana incident, to which question he answered in the negative. LikeSegovia, he was made to hold a P10.00 bill and was brought to the crime laboratory forexamination. From that time on, he was not allowed to go home and was detainedinside the camp. He was also tortured in order to make him admit his complicity in thealleged sale of marijuana. On 10 July 1987, Don Rodrigueza, Samuel Segovia and

Antonio Lonceras, for possession of 100 grams of marijuana leaves and for selling, in abuy-bust operation, said 100 grams of dried marijuana leaves for a consideration ofP200.00. During the arraignment, all the accused pleaded not guilty to the chargeagainst them. The Regional Trial Court of Legaspi City, Branch 10, found DonRodrigueza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 4, Article II of theDangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (Republic Act 6425, as amended) and sentenced him tosuffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P20,000.00 and costs. Thecourt, however, acquitted Segovia and Lonceres. Rodrigueza appealed.

Issue:

Whether the time of Don Rodrigueza’s arrest is material in determining his culpability inthe crimecharged.

Held:

As provided in the present Constitution, a search, to be valid, must generally beauthorized by a search warrant duly issued by the proper government authority. True, insome instances, the Court has allowed government authorities to conduct searches and



seizures even without a search warrant. Thus, when the owner of the premises waiveshis right against such incursion; when the search is incidental to a lawful arrest; when itis made on vessels and aircraft for violation of customs laws; when it is made onautomobiles for the purpose of preventing violations of smuggling or immigration laws;when it involves prohibited articles in plain view; or in cases of inspection of buildings

and other premises for the enforcement of fire, sanitary and building regulations, asearch may be validly made even without a search warrant. Herein, however, the raidconducted by the NARCOM agents in the house of Jovencio Rodrigueza was notauthorized by any search warrant. It does not appear, either, that the situation fallsunder any of the aforementioned cases. Hence, Rodrigueza's right againstunreasonable search and seizure was clearly violated. The NARCOM agents could nothave justified their act by invoking the urgency and necessity of the situation becausethe testimonies of the prosecution witnesses reveal that the place had already been putunder surveillance for quite some time. Had it been their intention to conduct the raid,then they should, because they easily could, have first secured a search warrant duringthat time. Further, the inconsistencies made by prosecution witnesses give more

credibility to the testimony of Don Rodrigueza. While it is true that Rodrigueza's defenseamounts to an alibi, and as such is the weakest defense in a criminal prosecution, thereare, nonetheless, some evidentiary aspects pointing to the truth in his testimony. Firstly,the Joint Affidavit of Arrest corroborates his testimony that he was not among those whowere arrested on the night of 1 July 1987. His co-accused Segovia also testified thatRodrigueza was not with them when they were apprehended by the NARCOM agents.Hence, Rodrigueza is acquitted of the crime charged, due to the failure of theprosecution to establish its cause.

Go vs. Court of Appeals [GR 101837, 11 February 1992]

Facts:

On 2 July 1991, Eldon Maguan was driving his car along Wilson St., San Juan, MetroManila, heading towards P. Guevarra St. Rolito Go y Tambunting entered Wilson St.,where it is a one-way street and started traveling in the opposite or "wrong" direction. Atthe corner of Wilson and J. Abad Santos Sts., Go's and Maguan's cars nearly bumpedeach other. Go alighted from his car, walked over and shot Maguan inside his car. Gothen boarded his car and left the scene. A security guard at a nearby restaurant wasable to take down Go's car plate number. The police arrived shortly thereafter at thescene of the shooting and there retrieved an empty shell and one round of liveammunition for a 9mm caliber pistol. Verification at the Land Transportation Officeshowed that the car was registered to one Elsa Ang Go. The following day, the policereturned to the scene of the shooting to find out where the suspect had come from; theywere informed that Go had dined at Cravings Bake Shop shortly before the shooting.The police obtained a facsimile or impression of the credit card used by Go from thecashier of the bake shop. The security guard of the bake shop was shown a picture ofGo and he positively identified him as the same person who had shot Maguan. Havingestablished that the assailant was probably Go, the police launched a manhunt for Go.On 8 July 1991, Go presented himself before the San Juan Police Station to verify news



reports that he was being hunted by the police; he was accompanied by two (2)lawyers. The police forthwith detained him. An eyewitness to the shooting, who was atthe police station at that time, positively identified Go as the gunman. That same day,the police promptly filed a complaint for frustrated homicide against Go with the Office ofthe Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal. First Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Dennis Villa

Ignacio ("Prosecutor") informed Go, in the Presence of his lawyers. that he could availhimself of his right to preliminary investigation but that he must first sign a waiver of theprovisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. Go refused to execute any suchwaiver. On 9 July 1991, while the complaint was still with the Prosecutor, and before aninformation could be filed in court, the victim, Eldon Maguan, died of his gunshotwound(s). Accordingly, on 11 July 1991, the Prosecutor, instead of filing an informationfor frustrated homicide, filed an information for murder before the Regional Trial Court.No bail was recommended. At the bottom of the information, the Prosecutor certifiedthat no preliminary investigation had been conducted because the accused did notexecute and sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. Inthe afternoon of 11 July 1991, Go's counsel filed with the prosecutor an omnibus motion

for immediate release and proper preliminary investigation, alleging that the warrantlessarrest of Go was unlawful and that no preliminary investigation had been conductedbefore the information was filed. On 12 July 1991, Go filed an urgent ex-parte motion forspecial raffle in order to expedite action on the Prosecutor's bail recommendation. Thecase was raffled to the sala of Judge Benjamin V. Pelayo (Branch 168, RTC of PasigCity), who, on the same date, approved the cash bond posted by Go and ordered hisrelease. Go was in fact released that same day. On 16 July 1991, the Prosecutor filedwith the Regional Trial Court a motion for leave to conduct preliminary investigation andprayed that in the meantime all proceedings in the court be suspended. On the saiddate, the trial court issued an Order granting leave to conduct preliminary investigationand cancelling the arraignment set for 15 August 1991 until after the prosecution shallhave concluded its preliminary investigation. On 17 July 1991, however, the Judge motuproprio issued an Order, (1) recalling the 12 July 1991 Order which granted bail:petitioner was given 48 hours from receipt of the Order to surrender himself: (2)recalling and cancelling the 16 July 1991 Order which granted leave to the Prosecutorto conduct preliminary investigation: (3) treating Go's omnibus motion for immediaterelease and preliminary investigation dated 11 July 1991 as a petition for bail and set forhearing on 23 July 1991. On 19 July 1991, Go filed a petition for certiorari, prohibitionand mandamus before the Supreme Court assailing the 17 July 1991 Order. Go alsomoved for suspension of all proceedings in the case pending resolution by the SupremeCourt of his petition: this motion was, however, denied by Judge Pelayo. On 23 July1991, Go surrendered to the police. By a Resolution dated 24 July 1991, the SupremeCourt remanded the petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus to the Court of

Appeals. On 16 August 1991, Judge Pelayo issued an order in open court setting Go'sarraignment on 23 August 1991. On 19 August 1991, Go filed with the Court of Appealsa motion to restrain his arraignment. On 23 August 1991, Judge Pelayo issued aCommitment Order directing the Provincial Warden of Rizal to admit Go into hiscustody at the Rizal Provincial Jail. On the same date, Go was arraigned. In view,however, of his refusal to enter a plea, the trial court entered for him a plea of not guilty.The trial court then set the criminal case for continuous hearings on 19, 24 and 26



September; on 2, 3, 11 and 17 October; and on 7, 8, 14, 15, 21 and 22 November 1991.On 27 August 1991. Go filed a petition for habeas corpus in the Court of Appeals. On 30

August 1991, the Court of Appeals issued the writ of habeas corpus. The petition forcertiorari, prohibition and mandamus, on the one hand, and the petition for habeascorpus, upon the other, were subsequently consolidated in the Court of Appeals. The

Court of Appeals, on 2 September 1991, issued a resolution denying Go's motion torestrain his arraignment on the ground that motion had become moot and academic. On19 September 1991, trial of the criminal case commenced. On 23 September 1991, theCourt of Appeals rendered a consolidated decision dismissing the 2 petitions on thegrounds that Go's warrantless arrest was valid and Go's act of posting bail constitutedwaiver of any irregularity attending his arrest, among others. On 3 October 1991, theprosecution presented three (3) more witnesses at the trial. Go's Counsel also filed a"Withdrawal of Appearance" with the trial court, with Go's conformity. On 4 October1991, Go filed the present petition for Review on Certiorari. On 14 October 1991, theCourt issued a Resolution directing Judge Pelayo to held in abeyance the hearing of thecriminal case below until further orders from the Supreme Court.

Issue:

Whether Go was arrested legally without warrant for the killing of Maguan, and is thusnot entitled to be released pending the conduct of a preliminary investigation.

Held:

Go's warrantless "arrest" or detention does not fall within the terms of Section 5 of Rule113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure which provides that "A peace officer or aprivate person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, theperson to be created has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commitan offense; (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personalknowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and (c)When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penalestablishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined whilehis case is pending or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement toanother. In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrestedwithout a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail, and heshall be proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112, Section 7." Go's "arrest" tookplace 6 days after the shooting of Maguan. The "arresting" officers obviously were notpresent, within the meaning of Section 5(a), at the time Go had allegedly shot Maguan.Neither could the "arrest" effected 6 days after the shooting be reasonably regarded aseffected "when [the shooting had] in fact just been committed" within the meaning ofSection 5 (b). Moreover, none of the "arresting" officers had any "personal knowledge"of facts indicating that Go was the gunman who had shot Maguan. The informationupon which the police acted had been derived from statements made by allegedeyewitnesses to the shooting -- one stated that Go was the gunman another was able totake down the alleged gunman's car's plate number which turned out to be registered inGo's wife's name. That information did not, however, constitute "personal knowledge." It



is thus clear to the Court that there was no lawful warrantless arrest of Go within themeaning of Section 5 of Rule 113. It is clear too that Section 7 of Rule 112 is also notapplicable. Indeed, Go was not arrested at all. When he walked into the San JuanPolice Station, accompanied by two (2) lawyers, he in fact placed himself at the disposalof the police authorities. He did not state that he was "surrendering" himself, in all

probability to avoid the implication he was admitting that he had slain Eldon Maguan orthat he was otherwise guilty of a crime. When the police filed a complaint for frustratedhomicide with the Prosecutor, the latter should have immediately scheduled apreliminary investigation to determine whether there was probable cause for chargingGo in court for the killing of Eldon Maguan. Instead, as noted earlier, the Prosecutorproceeded under the erroneous supposition that Section 7 of Rule 112 was applicableand required Go to waive the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code as acondition for carrying out a preliminary investigation. This was substantive error, for Gowas entitled to a preliminary investigation and that right should have been accorded himwithout any conditions. Moreover, since Go had not been arrested; with or without awarrant, he was also entitled to be released forthwith subject only to his appearing at

the preliminary investigation.People vs. Calimlim [GR 123980, 30 August 2001]

Facts:

Lanie S. Limin was 14 years old and had been living with the family of Kagawad MannyFerrer and Cresencia Ferrer for the past 3 years. On the night of 2 April 1995, she wasleft alone in one of the two houses of the Ferrers since her usual companions, the sonsof Manny and Cresencia, were out for the night (disco). The Ferrers were in the otherhouse about 15 meters away. At around 11:30 P.M., she was awakened when sheheard somebody, later identified as Manuel Calimlim y Muyano, enter her room.Calimlim immediately poked a knife at the left side of her neck and said "Accompany mebecause I killed my wife." She was then dragged to the pig pen, about 8-9 meters awayfrom the place where she slept. Afterwards, she was again forcibly taken back to herroom, then to her cousin's room and to the kitchen. In each of these places,Calimlimforcibly had sexual intercourse with her while he poked a knife against her neck.

According to Limin, she first recognized Calimlim while they were in the kitchen whenshe was able to remove the cloth covering his face. She stated that she knew Calimlimbecause she had seen him always following her whenever she went to school. Liminclaimed that she did not struggle nor shout nor resist because she was afraid thatappellant might kill her. After the fourth intercourse, Calimlim threatened that he wouldkill her if she reported the incidents. Despite the threat, she told her cousin, ManicrisFerrer, who then reported the matter to Dr. Nancy Quinto who lived nearby. The rapeswere reported to the station of SPO1 Mario Suratos by Kagawad Ferrer. Dr. RicardoFerrer conducted the physical examination on Lanie, and found that there was minimalvaginal bleeding and there were lacerations in the hymen, the positions of which were at9:00 o'clock, 6:00 o'clock and 3:00 o'clock, all fresh, indicating that there were insertionswithin the past 24 hours. There was also a whitish vaginal discharge which was foundpositive for spermatozoa. Manuel Calimlim denied the accusations. Calimlim was



charged in 4 informations for rape in Criminal Cases U-8525, 8638 to 8640. On 17November 1995, the Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, Branch 46, Urdaneta,Pangasinan found Calimlim guilty of 4 counts of rape and sentenced him to suffer thepenalty of death, to pay the offended party the amount of P50,000.00 as damages, andto pay the costs, in each of the cases. Hence, the automatic review.

Issue:

Whether Calimlim may raise the illegality of the warrantless arrest conducted againsthim, especially as the arrest was made a day after the crime was committed.

Held:

Calimlim avers that his arrest violated Section 5 of Rule 113, 40 since his arrest wasmade one dayafter the crime was committed, but without any judicial warrant, although the police had

ample time to get one. This he claims is also in violation of Article III, Sec. 2 of theConstitution. But here it will be noted that Calimlim entered a plea of not guilty to eachof the informations charging him of rape. Thus, he had effectively waived his right toquestion any irregularity which might have accompanied his arrest and the unlawfulrestraint of his liberty. This is clear from a reading of Section 9 of Rule 117 of theRevised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides that "the failure of the accused toassert any ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint orinformation, either because he did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the samein said motion, shall be deemed a waiver of any objections except those based on thegrounds provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g) and (i) of section 3 of this Rule." Giventhe circumstances of his case the exceptions do not apply here and the Court isconstrained to rule that Calimlim is estopped from raising the issue of the legality of hisarrest. Moreover, the illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause for setting asidea valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from error. Thedefense's claim of warrantless arrest which is illegal cannot render void all otherproceedings including those leading to the conviction of Calimlim, nor can the state bedeprived of its right to convict the guilty when all the facts onrecord point to his culpability.

People VS Vinalon

Facts:

On the 24th

day of September, 1997, in Quezon City, Philippines, Vinalon with the otheraccused, conspiring, confederating with each other and mutually helping one another,with intent to gain and by means of violence and intimidation against persons, did, thenand there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously rob PO1 Joseph H. Llave of the PNPNational Capital Region Command, Norman A. Mapa and Reynaldo B. Elidio whileposing themselves as passengers of a Jell Transport passenger bus with Plate No.PXC-266 and while said bus was cruising along Commonwealth Avenue near Don

Antonio Avenue, Brgy. Old Balara, Quezon City, further that by reason or on the



occasion of the said robbery, with intent to kill and taking advantage of their superiorstrength, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and usepersonal violence upon the person of one PO1 Joseph H. Llave by then and thereshooting him on the different parts of his body thereby inflicting upon him serious andmortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death thereafter; that

likewise on the same occasion of the robbery appellants shot with the use of handgunsNorman A. Mapa hitting him on the face and Antonio C. Hernandez hitting him on thehip thereby causing them serious physical injuries which have required medicalattendance for a period of more than 30 days, to the damage and prejudice of the saidoffended parties. Upon arraignment, both appellants pleaded not guilty. Trial thenensued. The prosecution presented Jimmy Solomon, the bus driver; Dr. Ma. CristinaFreyra, a medico-legal officer from the PNP Crime Laboratory Services; PO3 PedroWalawala, the investigating officer; Dr. Reynaldo Perez, examining doctor of victimsNorman Mapa and Antonio Fernandez; Reynaldo Elidio, a passenger; and PO3 Bernard

Amigo, the arresting officer.The testimony of PO3 PEDRO WALAWALA was dispensedwith as both parties admitted that he was the investigator of the case and that he had no

personal knowledge of the incident itself. Appellant REYNALDO VIÑALON testified thaton September 23, 1997, his wife instructed him to go to Fairview, Quezon City for herbrother’s despedida party. At around 10:30 P.M., he boarded a Jell bus bound forFairview and dozed off along the way. He was awakened by gunfire and realized hewas shot. He disclaimed taking part in the robbery. He also denied knowing his co-appellant who took him to the Malvar General Hospital and added that it was his wifewho spent for his medical treatment. He claimed that the case against him was filedwithout prior investigation.

Reynaldo Viñalon y Agustin and Arnold Devera y Mocalen, was found GUILTY beyondreasonable doubt of the Special Complex Crime of Robbery with Homicide defined inand penalized by paragraph 1 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended byRepublic Act 7659, and, there being one aggravating circumstance of “Band”(paragraph 6, Article 14, Revised Penal Code) without any mitigating circumstance tooffset the same, are sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH.

Issue:

(1) the validity of the warrantless arrest and the search and seizure incident thereto

Held:

The arrest of appellants done immediately after the incident was valid for it was madeby the arresting officers after the victims of the robbery pointed to appellants as themalefactors. Accordingly, the search and seizure that ensued are valid as incidental toa lawful arrest.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plainti f f-appel lee, vs. RENANTE MENDEZ andBABY CABAGTONG, accu sed-appel lant.



Fact:

That on or about the 8th day of December, 1996, at about 7:30 in the evening, more orless, at Sitio Tinotogasan, Brgy. Burabud, Gamay, Northern Samar, Philippines CANDYDOLIM, a minor was raped and killed.

Based on the prosecution’s evidence, Rico Dolim (father of the victim) testified that, inthe morning of December 8, 1996, Candy Dolim, then 13 years old, left their house tocollect bets on the PBA ending games from the local residents. When she did notreturn home that evening, Rico asked his father Ambrosio and his daughter Jinky tolook for Candy, but they did not find her. Information that Candy was in Mapanas withher mother proved wrong. On December 12, 1996, word reached Rico that a young girlwas found dead in Sitio Tinotogasan. Rico immediately went to the place and found thelifeless body of Candy. Her panty and shorts were hanging from an ankle, while hershirt was rolled up to her throat. She had wounds in different parts of her body.

Rico sought the help of the police and Barangay Captain Pedro Gomba. Havingheard that a certain Ronnie Cabagtong[4] was involved in the killing of his daughter, Ricofiled a complaint against Ronnie, who was then investigated by the police. WhileRonnie was under investigation at the police headquarters, his mother, AureaCabagtong, came to the station. She told Rico Dolim that she knew what actuallyhappened to Candy and offered to be a witness. Aurea Cabagtong pointed to accused-appellants Baby Cabagtong and Renante Mendez as the perpetrators of the crime.

Aurea Cabagtong claimed that, on the night of December 8, 1996, accused-appellants Renante Mendez and Baby Cabagtong went to her house. They weresoaked from the rain. She said that her son Ronnie, who was already about to sleep,asked her to let the two inside. She said her son talked with accused-appellants, but

she did not understand what they had been discussing. Aurea Cabagtong said she sawaccused-appellants washing their clothes to remove bloodstains on them. The twospent the night in her house with her son Ronnie. When she woke up the followingmorning, she found they had already left.

Mendez remained in custody for investigation, while the chief of police orderCabagtong to be arrested.

Issue: Whether or not the arrest of the suspects without warrant is valid?

Held:

SPO2 Cernio did not have personal knowledge of the commission of the crime soas to justify the warrantless arrest of Renante Mendez. Personal knowledge of facts inarrests without warrant under §5(b) of Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure mustbe based upon “probable cause,” which means “an actual belief or reasonable groundsof suspicion.” The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when it is based on actualfacts, i.e., when it is supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves tocreate the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/nov2002/147671.htm#_ftn4





People vs. Enrile [GR 74189, 26 May 1993]

Facts:

At about 6:30 p.m. of 25 October 1985, a buy-bust team composed of Pat. Jaime Floresand Pat. Wilson Rances of the Quezon City Police Anti-Narcotics Unit was dispatchedto entrap Rogelio Abugatal at Roosevelt Avenue in San Francisco del Monte, QuezonCity. The plan was made on the strength of a tip given by Renato Polines, a policeinformer, who was himself to pose as the buyer. On that occasion the policemen sawPolines hand over to Abugatal the marked money representing payment for the mocktransaction. Abugatal left with the money and returned 10 minutes later with a wrappedobject which he gave Polines. The two policemen then approached Abugatal andplaced him under arrest, at the same time confiscating the wrapped object. Subsequent

laboratory examination revealed this to be marijuana with flowering tops weighing 22grams. Upon prodding, Abugatal led the policemen to a house at 20 De Vera Street,also in San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City, where he called out for Antonio Enrile.Enrile came out and met them at the gate. Abugatal pointed to Enrile as the source ofthe marijuana, whereupon the policemen immediately arrested and frisked him. Theyfound in the right front pocket of his trousers the marked money earlier delivered to

Abugatal. At the police headquarters, Abugatal signed a sworn confession. Enrilerefused to make any statement pending consultation with a lawyer. Antonio Enrile yVillaroman and Rogelio Abugatal y Marquez were charged for violation of theDangerous Drug Act by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. The RTC, after trialand on 14 February 1986, found Enrile and Abugatal guilty beyond reasonable doubt

and sentenced them to life imprisonment and a fine of P30,000.00. Both appealed. Abugatal, however, was killed in an attempted jailbreak and thus the appeal isdismissed as to him.

Issue:

Whether the mark money found in Enrile’s possession, pursuant to a warrantless arrest,search and seizure, provide for his criminal culpability.

Held:

It was Abugatal who was allegedly caught red-handed by the policemen as he sold themarijuana to Polines. Enrile was not even at the scene of the entrapment at that time.

Abugatal said he did lead the policemen to Enrile's house where he pointed to Enrile asthe source of the marijuana. Even assuming this to be true, that circumstance alone didnot justify Enrile's warrantless arrest and search. Under Rule 113, Section 5, of theRules of Court, a peace officer or a private person may make a warrantless arrest onlyunder any of the following circumstances: (a) When, in his presence, the person to bearrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;



(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge offacts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and (c) When theperson to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment orplace where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case ispending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

Paragraphs (a) and (b) are clearly inapplicable. Paragraph (b) is also not in pointbecause the policemen who later arrested Enrile at his house had no personalknowledge that he was the source of the marijuana. According to the policementhemselves, what happened was that they asked Abugatal who gave him the marijuanaand were told it was Enrile. It was for this reason that they proceeded to Enrile's houseand immediately arrested him. What the policemen should have done was secure asearch warrant on the basis of the information supplied by Abugatal and then, with suchauthority, proceeded to search and, if the search was fruitful, arrest Enrile. They had noright to simply force themselves into his house on the bare (and subsequentlydisallowed) allegations of Abugatal and bundle Enrile off to the police station as if hehad been caught in flagrante delicto. The discovery of the marked money on him did not

mean he was caught in the act of selling marijuana. The marked money was notprohibited per se. Even if it were, that fact alone would not retroact

People vs. Pasudag [GR 128822, 4 May 2001]

Facts:

On 26 September 1995, at around 1:30 p.m., SPO2 Pepito Calip of the PNP Sison,Pangasinan, went to Brgy. Artacho to conduct anti-jueteng operations. He urinated at abushy bamboo fence behind the public school. About 5 meters away, he saw a gardenof about 70 square meters. There were marijuana plants in between corn plants andcamote tops. He inquired from a storekeeper nearby as to who owned the house withthe garden. The storeowner told him that Alberto Pasudag y Bokang owned it. SPO2Calip went to the Police Station and reported to Chief of Police Romeo C. Astrero. Thelatter dispatched a team (composed of SPO2 Calip, SPO3 Fajarito, SPO3 Alcantaraand PO3 Rasca) to conduct an investigation. At around 2:30 p.m., the team arrived atBrgy. Artacho and went straight to the house of Pasudag. SPO3 Fajarito looked forPasudag and asked him to bring the team to his backyard garden which was about 5meters away. Upon seeing the marijuana plants, the policemen called for aphotographer, who took pictures of Pasudag standing beside one of the marijuanaplants. They uprooted 7 marijuana plants. The team brought Pasudag and themarijuana plants to the police station. On 17 December 1996, 4th Assistant ProvincialProsecutor of Pangasinan Emiliano M. Matro filed with the Regional Trial Court,Pangasinan, Urdaneta an Information charging Pasudag with violation of RA 6425, Sec.9. On 10 February 1997, the trial court arraigned the accused. He pleaded not guilty.Trial ensued. The Regional Trial Court, Pangasinan, Branch 46, Urdaneta foundPasudag guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal cultivation of marijuana andsentenced him to reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P500,000.00, withoutsubsidiary penalty and other accessories of the law. Pasudag appealed.



Issue:

Whether time was of the essence to uproot and confiscate the marijuana plants.

Held:

As a general rule, the procurement of a search warrant is required before a lawenforcer may validly search or seize the person, house, papers or effects of anyindividual. The Constitution provides that "the right of the people to be secure in theirpersons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures ofwhatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable." Any evidence obtained inviolation of this provision is inadmissible. Herein, the police authorities had ampleopportunity to secure from the court a search warrant. SPO2 Pepito Calip inquired as towho owned the house. He was acquainted with marijuana plants and immediatelyrecognized that some plants in the backyard of the house were marijuana plants. Time

was not of the essence to uproot and confiscate the plants. They were three months oldand there was no sufficient reason to believe that they would be uprooted on that sameday. With the illegal seizure of the marijuana plants, the seized plants are inadmissiblein evidence against Pasudag.

People vs. Aminnudin [GR L-74860, 6 July 1988]

Facts:

Idel Aminnudin y Ahni was arrested on 25 June 1984, shortly after disembarking fromthe M/V Wilcon 9 at about 8:30 p.m., in Iloilo City. The PC officers who were in factwaiting for him simply accosted him, inspected his bag and finding what looked likedmarijuana leaves took him to their headquarters for investigation. The two bundles ofsuspect articles were confiscated from him and later taken to the NBI laboratory forexamination. When they were verified as marijuana leaves, an information for violationof the Dangerous Drugs Act was filed against him. Later, the information was amendedto include Farida Ali y Hassen, who had also been arrested with him that same eveningand likewise investigated. Both were arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Subsequently,the fiscal filed a motion to dismiss the charge against Ali on the basis of a swornstatement of the arresting officers absolving her after a "thorough investigation." Themotion was granted, and trial proceeded only against Aminnudin, who was eventuallyconvicted, and sentenced to life imprisonment plus a fine of P20,000.00.

Issue:

Whether there was ample opportunity to obtain a warrant of arrest against Aminnudin,for alleged possession and transport of illegal drugs.

Held:



It is not disputed, and in fact it is admitted by the PC officers who testified for theprosecution, that they had no warrant when they arrested Aminnudin and seized thebag he was carrying. Their only justification was the tip they had earlier received from areliable and regular informer who reported to them that Aminnudin was arriving in Iloiloby boat with marijuana. Their testimony varies as to the time they received the tip, one

saying it was two days before the arrest (this was the declaration of the chief of thearresting team, Lt. Cipriano Querol, Jr.), another two weeks and a third "weeks beforeJune 25." There was no warrant of arrest or search warrant issued by a judge afterpersonal determination by him of the existence of probable cause. Contrary to theaverments of the government, Aminnudin was not caught in flagrante nor was a crimeabout to be committed or had just been committed to justify the warrantless arrestallowed under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. Even expediency could not be invoked todispense with the obtention of the warrant. The present case presented no urgency.From the conflicting declarations of the PC witnesses, it is clear that they had at leasttwo days within which they could have obtained a warrant to arrest and search

Aminnudin who was coming Iloilo on the M/V Wilcon 9. His name was known. The

vehicle was identified. The date of its arrival was certain. And from the information theyhad received, they could have persuaded a judge that there was probable cause,indeed, to justify the issuance of a warrant. Yet they did nothing. No effort was made tocomply with the law. The Bill of Rights was ignored altogether because the PClieutenant who was the head of the arresting team, had determined on his own authoritythat "search warrant was not necessary."

assigned digest case

Documents