warrantless arrest to counsel of choice cases

7/28/2019 Warrantless Arrest to Counsel of Choice Cases

1/16

REBELLION AS CONTINUING OFFENSES

Umil vs. Ramos

Facts:This is a consolidated petition for

habeas corpus where the petitioners alleged thattheir detention is illegal and unlawful as theirarrests were made without warrant and that nopreliminary investigation was first conducted,making the informations filed against them arenull and void.

The respondents contends otherwise.In this consolidated case, all of the

petitioners are charged under the AntiSubversion Law, with an exception to the caseof Enrile vs. Lim (Inciting to sedition) andNazareno vs. Station Commander.

The rest are charged guilty of rebellion,

a crime against the State, and is a continuingcrimes in nature. They were found of thepossession of unlicensed firearms andammunitions as well as subversive documents.

Issue:Was warrantless arrest in the case at

bar illegal, as the arrest was not made pursuantto the constitutional and statutory guidelines forthe issuance of warrantless arrest?

Held:Warrantless arrest conducted in the

case at bar is lawful.Pursuant to 5 Rule 113 of RRC, arrest

of a person without a warrant of arrest orprevious complaint is recognized by law. Theinstances where a valid warrantless arrest maybe effected are the following.

Sec5. Arrest without Warrant: When lawful Apeace officer or a private person may, withoutwarrant, arrest a person:

(a) When in his presence, the person to bearrested has committees, is actuallycommitting, or is attempting to commit

an offense.(b) When an offense has in fact just been

committed, and he has personalknowledge of the facts indicating thatthe person to be arrested has committedit; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is aprisoner who has escaped from a penalestablishment or place where he is

serving final judgment or temporarilyconfined while his case is pending, orhas escaped while being transferredfrom one confinement or another.

Thus, pursuant to the RRC, warrantlessarrest is justified when a person arrested iscaught in flagranti delicto or in the act ofcommitting an offense; or when an offense hasjust been committed and the person making thearrest has personal knowledge of the factsindicating that the person arrested hascommitted it.

The rational behind the concept ofwarrantless arrest is laid down in the PPI vs.Malasugui, that to sustain that arresting aperson without warrant illegal would leave thesociety, into a large extent, at the mercy of theshrewdest, the most expert and the mostdepraved of criminals, facilitating their escape in

many instances.In the case at bar, the petitioners had

freshly committed or were actually committingan offense.

In the case of the petitioners who werecharged of rebellion and inciting to sedition, thecourt held that they are lawfully detained and theinformations filed against them are valid.

This is since the crime in which they arearrested are continuous crime which is againstthe State, thus, the continued possession ofsubversive materials and unlicensed firearmsand ammunitions, even without preliminary

investigation and without warrant, as long as theauthorities have confiscated such prohibitedmaterials under their possession and that in thecase of Enrile vs. Lim, they had actually donewhat is prohibited by law as long as they arepositively identified by a witness having apersonal knowledge of the committed crime,their arrest are lawful.

This is justified since under the doctrineof Garcia-Padilla vs. Enrile, persons arrested ofrebellion does not need to follow strictprocedures, since their crimes committed areviolence against the State, which concerns the

very survival of the society and government.In the case of Nazareno vs. stationCommander, the warrantless arrest is justifiedsince there was a prior information filed againstthe petitioner for the same offense, and that hewas positively identified by a witness who has apersonal knowledge about the crime hecommitted. He was arrested while he was atlarge.


2/16

Note:

A valid warrantless arrest and validwarrantless search and seizure,circumstances differentiated.

Valid Warrantless arrest:

Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, whichreads, in part:

Sec. 5. Arrest, without warrant; when lawful Apeace officer or a private person may, without awarrant, arrest a person:

(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 beencommitted, and he has personal knowledge offacts indicating that the person to be arrestedhas committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is aprisoner who has escaped . . .

A warrantless arrest under thecircumstances contemplated under Section5(a) has been denominated as one "inflagrante delicto," while that under Section5(b) has been described as a "hot pursuit"arrest.

Turning to valid warrantless searches,They are limited to the following:

(1) Customs searches;(2) Search of moving vehicles;(3) Seizure of evidence in plain view;(4) Consent searches;(5) A search incidental to a lawful arrest;

and(6) A "stop and frisk."

X----------------------------------------X

COMMITTED IN THE PRESENCE OF POLICE

PEOPLE VS.SUCRO

Facts:

Pat. Fulgencio went to Arlie Regalados house atC. Quimpo to monitor activities of EdisonSUCRO (accused). Sucro was reported to beselling marijuana at a chapel 2 meters awayfrom Regalados house. Sucro was monitoredto have talked and exchanged things threetimes. These activities are reported throughradio to P/Lt. Seraspi. A third buyer wastransacting with appellant and was reported andlater identified as Ronnie Macabante. From thatmoment, P/Lt.Seraspi proceeded to the area.While the police officers were at the YouthHostel in Maagama St. Fulgencio told Lt.

Seraspi to intercept. Macabante wasintercepted at Mabini and Maagama crossing infront of Aklan Medical center. Macabante sawthe police and threw a tea bag of marijuana onthe ground. Macabante admitted buying themarijuana from Sucro in front of the chapel.

The police team intercepted and arrested

SUCRO at the corner of C. Quimpo and

Veterans. Recovered were 19 sticks and 4

teabags of marijuana from a cart inside the

chapel and another teabag from Macabante.

Issue:

Whether or Not arrest without warrant is lawful.

Whether or Not evidence from such arrest is

admissible.

Held:

Search and seizures supported by a valid

warrant of arrest is not an absolute rule. Rule

126, Sec 12 of Rules of Criminal Procedure

provides that a person lawfully arrested may be

searched for dangerous weapons or anything,

which may be used as proff of the commission

of an offense, without a search warrant.(People

v. Castiller) The failure of the police officers to

secure a warrant stems from the fact that their

knowledge required from the surveillance was

insufficient to fulfill requirements for its issuance.


3/16

However, warantless search and seizures are

legal as long as PROBABLE CAUSE existed.

The police officers have personal knowledge of

the actual commission of the crime from the

surveillance of the activities of the accused. As

police officers were the ones conducting the

surveillance, it is presumed that they are

regularly in performance of their duties.

X----------------------------------------X

People vs. Luisito Go

Facts:

After an information was relayed to the

intelligence and Follow Up Unit of Calamba

Police that shabu or methamphetaminehydrochloride is supplied in Crossing, Calamba

Laguna, agents went in the place for follow up.

A police agent, Panuringan, then

reported that he saw the accused, Luisito Go,

enter a disco House with two women with a gun

tucked in the accused waist.

Three policemen entered the disco

House for the Operation Bakal to search for

illegally possessed firearms. Thus, when the

accused was ordered to stand-up, police agentssaw a revolver tucked in his waist, they asked

for its licensed but the accused never showed it,

instead, he gave his drivers license bearing

other name. The police agents confiscated the

gun with 10 live ammunitions.

The agents also confiscated glass

toothers and tin foils in the accused-appellants

car together with an alleged shabu wrapped in

cellophane. The accused was arrested without

search and arrest warrants.

Thus, two information were filed against

the accused, one in violation of the Dangerous

Drugs Act (RA 6452) and violation to PD 1866

or the Illegal Possession of firearms and

ammunitions.

The accused assails the validity of his

arrest and his subsequent convictions for two

crimes.

Issue:

Was the warrantless arrest valid?

Held:

Yes. It is valid.

Rules of Court and Jurisprudence

recognize exceptional cases where an arrest

may be effected without warrant, to wit;

(a) In the presence of a peace officer, the

person to be arrested has committed, isactually committing, or is attempting tocommit an offense

(b) When an offense has in fact just beencommitted and the arresting officer haspersonal knowledge of facts indicatingthat the person to be arrested hascommitted it.

(c) When the accused is a fugitive from lawwhile serving his sentence from a finalconviction.

In the case at bar, it is clear that thepolicemen saw a gun tucked in his waist

when he was arrested. The gun is plainly

visible and no corresponding license was

found. Thus, it is a valid search under the

RRC (Plain view doctrine) no arrest

warrant is necessary.

The case also falls under the recognize

instances provided under the RRC (Search

incidental to lawful arrest), thus, the police

has the authority to search the accused for

dangerous drugs or weapons that is used asproof to the commission of the offense. The

incidental discovery and confiscation of the

drug paraphernalia to his car is lawful.

Note: Bail; Criminal Procedure:

Admission for bail does not preclude the

accused to raise question on the validity of his


4/16

arrest, as long as he raised the same before he

enters plea, otherwise, it will bar him from

questioning the same as he place himself

already under the jurisdiction of the court.

Absence of Preliminary investigation is

not a ground to quash the information.

X----------------------------------------X

PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OFTHE OFFENSES

People vs. Gerente

Facts:

At about 7:00 a.m. of 30 April 1990,

Gabriel Gerente, together with Fredo Echigorenand Totoy Echigoren, allegedly started drinkingliquor and smoking marijuana in Gerenteshouse which is about 6 meters away from thehouse of Edna Edwina Reyes who was in herhouse on that day. She overheard the three mentalking about their intention to kill Clarito Blace.She testified that she heard Fredo Echigorensaying, Gabriel, papatayin natin si ClaritoBlace. Fredo and Totoy Echigoren and Gerentecarried out their plan to kill Clarito Blace at about2:00 p.m. of the same day. Reyes allegedlywitnessed the killing. Fredo Echigoren struck the

first blow against Clarito Blace, followed byTotoy Echigoren and Gabriel Gerente who hithim twice with a piece of wood in the head andwhen he fell, Totoy Echigoren dropped a hollowblock on the victims head. Thereafter, the threemen dragged Blace to a place behind the houseof Gerente. At about 4:00 p.m. of the same day,Patrolman Jaime Urrutia of the ValenzuelaPolice Station received a report from the PaloPolice Detachment about a mauling incident. Hewent to the Valenzuela District Hospital wherethe victim was brought. He was informed by thehospital officials that the victim died on arrival.The cause of death was massive fracture of theskull caused by a hard and heavy object. Rightaway, Patrolman Urrutia, together with PoliceCorporal Romeo Lima and Patrolman AlexUmali, proceeded to Paseo de Blas where themauling incident took place. There they found apiece of wood with blood stains, a hollow blockand two roaches of marijuana. They wereinformed by Reyes that she saw the killing andshe pointed to Gabriel Gerente as one of the

three men who killed Clarito. The policemenproceeded to the house of Gerente, who wasthen sleeping. They told him to come out of thehouse and they introduced themselves aspolicemen. Patrolman Urrutia frisked Gerenteand found a coin purse in his pocket whichcontained dried leaves wrapped in cigarette foil.The dried leaves were sent to the NationalBureau of Investigation for examination. TheForensic Chemist found them to be marijuana.Only Gerente was apprehended by the police.The other suspects, Fredo and Totoy Echigoren,are still at large. On 2 May 1990, two separateinformations were filed by Assistant ProvincialProsecutor Benjamin Caraig against him forViolation of Section 8, Art. II, of RA 6425, and forMurder. When arraigned on 16 May 1990,Gerente pleaded not guilty to both charges. Ajoint trial of the two cases was held. On 24September 1990, the Regional Trial Court of

Valenzuela, Metro Manila, Branch 172, foundGerente guilty of Violation of Section 8 ofRepublic Act 6425 and sentenced him to sufferthe penalty of imprisonment for a term of 12years and 1 day, as minimum, to 20 years, asmaximum; and also found him guilty of Murderfor which crime he was sentenced to suffer thepenalty of reclusion perpetua. . Gerenteappealed.

Issue:

Whether the police officers have thepersonal knowledge of the killing of Blace toallow them to arrest, and the subsequentsearchly Gerentes person, without thenecessary warrant.

Held:

The search of Gerentes person and theseizure of the marijuana leaves in hispossession were valid because they wereincident to a lawful warrantless arrest.Paragraphs (a) and (b), Section 5, Rule 113 ofthe Revised Rules of Court provide that Apeace officer or a private person may, without awarrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in hispresence, the person to be arrested hascommitted, is actually committing, or isattempting to commit an offense; (b) When anoffense has in fact just been committed, and hehas personal knowledge of facts indicating thatthe person to be arrested has committed it; Thepolicemen arrested Gerente only some 3 hours


5/16

after Gerente and his companions had killedBlace. They saw Blace dead in the hospital andwhen they inspected the scene of the crime,they found the instruments of death: a piece ofwood and a concrete hollow block which thekillers had used to bludgeon him to death. Theeye-witness, Edna Edwina Reyes, reported thehappening to the policemen and pinpointed herneighbor, Gerente, as one of the killers. Underthose circumstances, since the policemen hadpersonal knowledge of the violent death of Blaceand of facts indicating that Gerente and twoothers had killed him, they could lawfully arrestGerente without a warrant. If they hadpostponed his arrest until they could obtain awarrant, he would have fled the law as his twocompanions did. The search conducted onGerentes person was likewise lawful because itwas made as an incident to a valid arrest. This isin accordance with Section 12, Rule 126 of the

Revised Rules of Court which provides that Aperson lawfully arrested may be searched fordangerous weapons or anything which may beused as proof of the commission of an offense,without a search warrant. The frisk and searchof Gerentes person upon his arrest was apermissible precautionary measure of arrestingofficers to protect themselves, for the personwho is about to be arrested may be armed andmight attack them unless he is first disarmed.

X----------------------------------------X

People vs. Sinoc

Facts:

On 20 September 1991, at about 6:00a.m., Isidoro Viacrusis, manager of TaganitoMining Corporation, was motoring from thecompany compound (at Taganito, Claver,Surigao del Norte) to Surigao City. He was ridingon a company vehicle, a Mitsubishi Pajero(DFX-397), driven by Tarcisio Guijapon. As

Viacrusis and Guijapon were approaching thepublic cemetery of Claver, they were stopped byseveral armed men. The latter, identifyingthemselves as members of the New PeoplesArmy (NPA), boarded the Pajero and orderedGuijapon to proceed. When they reachedBarobo, Surigao del Norte, the armed menordered Viacrusis and Guijapon to alight, ledthem, their hands bound behind their back to acoconut grove some 6 meters from the road,

and after making them lie face down on theground, shot them several times. Viacrusismiraculously survived. The driver, Guijapon, wasnot as lucky; he died on the spot. At about 7a.m. the following day, a secret informant(known as a civilian asset) named Boyetreported to the police Station at Monkayo,Davao del Norte that the stolen (carnapped)Pajero was parked behind the apartment of acertain Paulino Overa at the Bliss HousingProject at Poblacion, Monkayo. On instructionsof the Station Commander, a police team wentto the place. They saw the Pajero and, theirinitial inquiries having yielded the informationthat the man who had brought it there wouldreturn that morning, posted themselves in sucha manner as to keep it in view. Some 3 hourslater, at about 10:30 a.m., they saw a manapproach the Pajero who, on seeing them,tried to run away. They stopped him. They found

out that the man, identified as Danilo Sinoc ofSurigao del Norte, had the key of the Pajero,and was acting under instructions of certaincompanions who were waiting for him at the StarLodge at Tagum, Davao del Norte. Riding on therecovered Pajero, the police officers broughtSinoc to the Star Lodge only to discover that hiscompanions were no longer there. They laterturned over Sinoc to the 459th Mobile Force,together with the Pajero. Sinoc, Vicente Salon@ Dodong, Benjamin Espinosa @ Benji,Jaime Jornales @ James, VictorinoDelegencia @ Jun-Gren, and one Roger Doe

@ Ram (at large) were charged on 23 January1992. Only Sinoc and Vicente Salon werearraigned, on 14 July 1992, the other accusedbeing then at large. Assisted by their respectivecounsel, both Sinoc and Salon entered pleas ofnot guilty and were thereafter jointly tried. On 7October 1993, the Regional Trial Court ofSurigao City, Branch 30, found Sinoc guiltybeyond reasonable doubt in two cases jointlytried: one, of the special complex crime ofkidnapping with murder (under Article 267 inrelation to Articles 248 2 and 48 3 of the RevisedPenal Code) in Criminal Case 3564; and the

other, of the complex crime of kidnapping withfrustrated murder (under Articles 267, 248, 6 4and 48 of the same Code) in Criminal Case3565. In each case, the penalty of reclusionperpetua was imposed on him. Salon, on theother hand was acquitted inasmuch asconspiracy was not proven. Sinoc appealed.


6/16

Issue:

Whether the police officer had personalknowledge of the crime Sinoc committed toallow them to arrest the latter without a warrantof arrest.

Held:

The law provides that an arrest withoutwarrant may be licitly effected by a peaceofficer, inter alia. When an offense has in factjust been committed, and he has personalknowledge of facts indicating that the person tobe arrested has committed it. There is noquestion that the police officers in this case wereaware that an offense had just been committed;i.e., that some 12 hours earlier, a Pajerobelonging to a private company had been stolen

(carnapped) and its driver and passenger shot,the former having died and the latter being onthe verge of death. Nor is there any doubt thatan informer (asset) had reported that the stolenPajero was at the Bliss Housing Project atMonkayo. It was precisely to recover thePajero that a team composed of SPO1 MichaelAringo and joint elements of 459 PNP MFC andMoncayo Police Station led by Insptr Eden T.Ugale, went to that place and, on takingcustody of the Pajero, forthwith dispatched aradio message to Higher Headquartersadvising of that fact. There is no question either

that when SPO1 Aringo and his companionsreached the place where the Pajero wasparked, they were told by Paulino Overa, ownerof the apartment behind which the vehicle wasparked, that the man who had brought thePajero would be back by 12:00 noon; that theperson thus described did in fact show up atabout 10:00 A.M., and was immediatelyidentified by Overa as the one who rode on thatcar Pajero; just as there is no question thatwhen the police officers accosted him, Sinochad the key to the stolen Pajero and was in theact of moving toward it admittedly to takepossession of it (after having arrived by bus from

Tagum together with another suspect, Ram).Sinocs link to the stolen vehicle (and hence tothe kidnapping and killing accompanying itsasportation) was thus palpable. The foregoingcircumstances left the police officers noalternative save to arrest Sinoc and takepossession of the Pajero. His arrest withoutwarrant was justified; indeed, it was in thepremises the officers clear duty to apprehend

him; their omission to do so would have beeninexcusable.

X----------------------------------------X

People vs. Baula

Facts:

After the gruesome killing of Patronicia

Caburao in the municipality of Sual, Pangasinan,

the investigating police went to the residence of

the accused-appellant, Baula et al.

In the process of questioning the

appellants, the police saw bloodstained bolo,

short pants, polo shirts and was subsequently

confiscated without search warrant and directedto the NBI for forensic exams. The exam

resulted that the bloods found in the confiscated

articles bears the same blood type O as that of

the victim.

Thus, the accused were arrested,charged and was convicted in the crime ofmurder by the RTC Lingayen and sentenced tosuffer RP. Hence this appeal for review on thedecision of the lower court in the ground that thearticles sought (bloodstained bolo, shirt andshort pants) cannot be admitted as evidence

against the accused since it was seized withouta valid search and seizure warrant.

Issue:

Whether the articles are validly seizedeven without a valid search warrant andtherefore admitted as evidence in the case atbar.

Whether the articles when with consentgiven to the officers can be admitted as anevidence?

Held:

The articles are unlawfully searched and

seized.


7/16

A search incidental to a valid arrest is

one of the statutory exceptions to the

constitutional mandate that no search and

seizure shall be effected without a valid warrant.

In this instance, the arrest should be lawful

before search and seizure by the arresting

officer would be conducted. A warrantless arrest

may be effected by the arresting officer when in

his presence the person arrested is have

committed, committing or attempting to commit

the crime. It cannot be reversed; otherwise, it

would unlawful and unconstitutional and the

seized article would be inadmissible evidence.

In the case at bar, Accused-appellants

were not being arrested at the time that the

subject articles were allegedly taken from them

but were just being questioned by the police

officers conducting the investigation about the

death of Patrocinia Caburao. The investigating

officers had no personal knowledge of facts

indicating that the accused had committed the

crime. Being in no position to effect a

warrantless arrest, the police officers were thus

likewise barred from effecting a warrantless

search and seizure.

An illegal search cannot be undertaken

and then an arrest effected on the strength of

the evidence yielded by that search.

The Court finds it less than credible the

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 merely on 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 in the pursuit of criminals

cannot ennoble the use of arbitrary methods that

the Constitution itself abhors.

Thus, the bloodstained polo, bolo and

shorts are inadmissible as evidence.

X----------------------------------------X

People vs. Cubcubin

Facts:

At about 3:30 a.m. of 26 August 1997,Sgt. Rogel, desk officer of the Cavite City police

station, received a telephone call that a personhad been shot near the cemetery along JulianFelipe Boulevard in San Antonio, Cavite City.For this reason, a police team, composed ofSPO1 Malinao, Jr., PO3 Rosal, PO3 Estoy, Jr.,PO3 Manicio, and SPO3 Manalo, responded tothe call and found Henry P. Piamonte slumpeddead on his tricycle which was then parked onthe road. Police photographer Fred Agana tookpictures of the crime scene showing the victimslumped on the handle of the tricycle. PO3Rosal testified that a tricycle driver, who refusedto divulge his name, told him that Fidel Abrenica

Cubcubin Jr. and the victim were last seentogether coming out of the Sting Cafe, located inSan Antonio near the gate of Sangley Point,Cavite City, about a kilometer and a half awayfrom the crime scene. Forthwith, PO3 Rosal andSPO1 Malinao, Jr. went to the cafe and talked toDanet Garcellano, a food server/waitress inSting Cafe. Garcellano described Cubcubin as alean, dark-complexioned, and mustachioed manwho had on a white t-shirt and brown shortpants. Armando Plata, another tricycle driver,told PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao, Jr. thatGarcellanos description fitted a person knownas alias Jun Dulce. Armando Plata, who knewwhere Cubcubin lived, led PO3 Rosal, SPO1Malinao, Jr., and Prosecutor Lu to Cubucubinshouse in Garcia Extension, Cavite City. Thepolicemen knocked on the door for about 3minutes before it was opened by a man whoanswered the description given by DanetGarcellano and who turned out to be Cubcubin.The police operatives identified themselves andinformed him that he was being sought inconnection with the shooting near the cemetery.Cubcubin denied involvement in the incident.PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao, Jr. then askedpermission to enter and look around the house.

SPO1 Malinao, Jr. said that upon entering thehouse, he noticed a white t-shirt, bearing thebrand name Hanes and the name Dhenvherwritten in the inner portion of the shirts hemline,placed over a divider near the kitchen. Uponclose examination, he said that he found it to bebloodied. When he picked up the t-shirt, twospent .38 caliber shells fell from it. PO3 Rosalstayed with Cubcubin while he conducted a


8/16

search. They then took the t-shirt and the twobullet shells. SPO1 Malinao, Jr. then askedCubcubin to go with them to Sting Cafe forpurposes of identification. There, Cubcubin waspositively identified by Danet Garcellano as thevictims companion. The police investigatorsasked Cubcubin where the fatal gun was. SPO1Malinao, Jr. said Cubcubin refused to tell himwhere he hid the gun so he sought the latterspermission to go back to his house to conduct afurther search. Thereupon, SPO1 Malinao, Jr.,accompanied by Prosecutor Lu, PO3 Estoy, Jr.,PO3 Manicio, SPO3 Manalo, and PO3 Rosal,proceeded thereto. Inside the house, they sawCubcubins 11-year old son Jhumar. PO3 Estoy,Jr. found on top of a plastic water container(drum) outside the bathroom a homemade Smithand Wesson caliber .38 revolver (six shooter),without a serial number. He found the gunloaded with five live bullets. PO3 Estoy, Jr. said

that he inscribed his initials RDE (forRaymundo D. Estoy) on the cylinder of the gunwith the use of a sharp object. While PO3 Estoy,Jr. was conducting the search, SPO1 Malinao,Jr. and PO3 Rosal stayed with Cubcubin in thesala. The .38 caliber gun, the white Hanes t-shirt, and the two spent .38 caliber shells wereall photographed. Cubcubin was then taken tothe police station, where he was photographedalong with the things seized from him. Cubcubinwas charged for the crime of murder. On 5October 1998, the Regional Trial Court, Branch88, Cavite City, found Cubcubin guilty of murder

and sentenced him to suffer the penalty ofdeath. Hence, the automatic review.

Issue:

Whether there was probable cause forPO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao, Jr., the arrestingofficers, to believe that Cubcubin committed thecrime, to allow them to conduct the latterswarrantless arrest.

Held:

Rule 113, 5 of the 1985 Rules onCriminal Procedure, as amended, provides thatA peace officer or a private person may, withouta warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in hispresence, the person to be arrested hascommitted, is actually committing, or isattempting to commit an offense; (b) When anoffense has in fact just been committed, and hehas personal knowledge of facts indicating that

the person to be arrested has committed it; (c)When the person to be arrested is a prisonerwho has escaped from a penal establishment orplace where he is serving final judgment ortemporarily confined while his case is pending,or has escaped while being transferred from oneconfinement to another. Under 5(b), twoconditions must concur for a warrantless arrestto be valid: first, the offender has just committedan offense and, second, the arresting peaceofficer or private person has personal knowledgeof facts indicating that the person to be arrestedhas committed it. It has been held that personalknowledge of facts in arrests without a warrantmust be based upon probable cause, whichmeans an actual belief or reasonable grounds ofsuspicion. Herein, the arrest of Cubcubin waseffected shortly after the victim was killed. Therewas no probable cause, however, for PO3Rosal and SPO1 Malinao, Jr., the arresting

officers, to believe that Cubcubin committed thecrime. The two did not have personalknowledge of facts indicating that Cubcubin hadcommitted the crime. Their knowledge of thecircumstances from which they allegedly inferredthat Cubcubin was probably guilty was basedentirely on what they had been told by others, towit: by someone who called the PNP station inSan Antonio, Cavite City at about 3:30 a.m. of26 August 1997 and reported that a man hadbeen killed along Julian Felipe Boulevard of thesaid city; by an alleged witness who sawCubcubin and the victim coming out of the Sting

Cafe; by Danet Garcellano, waitress at the StingCafe, who said that the man last seen with thevictim was lean, mustachioed, dark-complexioned and was wearing a white t-shirtand a pair of brown short pants; by a tricycledriver named Armando Plata who told them thatthe physical description given by Garcellanofitted Cubcubin, alias Jun Dulce and who saidhe knew where Cubcubin lived andaccompanied them to Cubcubins house. Thus,PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao, Jr. merely reliedon information given to them by others. Be thatas it may, Cubcubin cannot now question the

validity of his arrest without a warrant. Therecords show that he pleaded not guilty to thecharge when arraigned on 11 November 1997.Cubcubin did not object to the arraignment, andthus has waived the right to object to the legalityof his arrest. On the other hand, the search ofCubcubins house was illegal and, consequently,the things obtained as a result of the illegalsearch, i.e., the white Hanes t-shirt, two spentshells, and the .38 caliber gun, are inadmissible


9/16

in evidence against him. It cannot be said thatthe .38 caliber gun was discovered throughinadvertence. After bringing Cubcubin to theSting Cafe where he was positively identified bya waitress named Danet Garcellano as thevictims companion, the arresting officersallegedly asked Cubcubin where he hid the gunused in killing the victim. According to SPO1Malinao, Jr., when Cubcubin refused to answer,he sought Cubcubins permission to go back tohis house and there found the .38 caliberrevolver on top of a plastic water containeroutside the bathroom. Thus, the gun waspurposely sought by the police officers and theydid not merely stumble upon it. Nor were thepolice officers justified in seizing the whiteHanes t-shirt placed on top of the divider inplain view as such is not contraband nor is itincriminating in nature which would lead SPO1Malinao, Jr. to conclude that it would constitute

evidence of a crime. Contrary to what SPO1Malinao, Jr. said, the t-shirt was not bloodiedwhich could have directed his attention to take acloser look at it. From the photograph of the t-shirt, it is not visible that there were bloodstains.The actual t-shirt merely had some small specksof blood at its lower portion. Furthermore, thereis no evidence to link Cubcubin directly to thecrime.

X----------------------------------------X

TIME OF ARREST

People vs. Rodrigueza

Facts:

[Prosecution] At around 5:00 p.m. of 1 July1987, CIC Ciriaco Taduran was in theirheadquarters at the Office of the NarcoticsRegional Unit at Camp Bagong Ibalon, LegaspiCity, together with S/Sgt. Elpidio Molinawe, CICLeonardo B. Galutan and their commandingofficer, Major Crisostomo M. Zeidem, when a

confidential informer arrived and told them thatthere was an ongoing illegal traffic of prohibiteddrugs in Tagas, Daraga, Albay. Major Zeidemformed a team to conduct a buybust operation,which team was given P200.00 in differentdenominations to buy marijuana. These billswere treated with ultraviolet powder at thePhilippine Constabulary Crime Laboratory(PCCL). Sgt. Molinawe gave the money to

Taduran who acted as the poseur buyer. He wastold to look for a certain Don, the alleged sellerof prohibited drugs. Taduran went to Tagasalone and, while along the road, he met SamuelSegovia. He asked Segovia where he could findDon and where he could buy marijuana. Segovialeft for a while and when he returned, he wasaccompanied by a man who was later onintroduced to him as Don Rodrigueza. Afteragreeing on the price of P200.00 for 100 gramsof marijuana, Don halted a passing tricycledriven by Antonio Lonceras. He boarded it andleft Taduran and Segovia. When he came back,Don gave Taduran a certain object wrapped ina plastic which was later identified asmarijuana, and received payment therefor.Thereafter, Taduran returned to theheadquarters and made a report regarding hissaid purchase of marijuana. Based on thatinformation, Major Zeidem ordered a team to

conduct an operation to apprehend thesuspects. In the evening of the same date, CICGalutan and S/Sgt. Molinawe proceeded toRegidor Street, Daraga, Albay and arrestedRodrigueza, Antonio Lonceras and SamuelSegovia. The constables were not, however,armed with a warrant of arrest when theyapprehended the three accused. The arrestswere brought to the headquarters forinvestigation. Thereafter, agents of the NarcoticsCommand (NARCOM) conducted a raid in thehouse of Jovencio Rodrigueza, Dons father.Taduran did not go with them. During the raid,

they were able to confiscate dried marijuanaleaves and a plastic syringe, among others. Thesearch, however, was not authorized by anysearch warrant. The next day, JovencioRodrigueza was released from detention butDon Rodrigueza was detained. [Defense] DonRodrigueza, on the other hand, claimed that onsaid date he was in the house of his aunt in SanRoque, Legaspi City. He stayed there overnightand did not leave the place until the next daywhen his brother arrived and told him that theirfather was taken by some military men thepreceding night. Rodrigueza went to Camp

Bagong Ibalon and arrived there at around 8:00a.m. of 2 July 1987. When he arrived, he wasasked if he knew anything about the marijuanaincident, to which question he answered in thenegative. Like Segovia, he was made to hold aP10.00 bill and was brought to the crimelaboratory for examination. From that time on,he was not allowed to go home and wasdetained inside the camp. He was also tortured


10/16

in order to make him admit his complicity in thealleged sale of marijuana.

On 10 July 1987, Don Rodrigueza, SamuelSegovia and Antonio Lonceras, for possessionof 100 grams of marijuana leaves and for selling,

in a buy-bust operation, said 100 grams of driedmarijuana leaves for a consideration of P200.00.During the arraignment, all the accused pleadednot guilty to the charge against them. TheRegional Trial Court of Legaspi City, Branch 10,found Don Rodrigueza guilty beyond reasonabledoubt of violating Section 4, Article II of theDangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (Republic Act6425, as amended) and sentenced him to sufferthe penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fineof P20,000.00 and costs. The court, however,acquitted Segovia and Lonceres. Rodriguezaappealed.

Issue: Whether the time of Don Rodriguezasarrest is material in determining his culpability inthe crime charged.

Held: As provided in the present Constitution, asearch, to be valid, must generally be authorizedby a search warrant duly issued by the propergovernment authority. True, in some instances,the Court has allowed government authorities toconduct searches and seizures even without asearch warrant. Thus, when the owner of thepremises waives his right against such

incursion; when the search is incidental to alawful arrest; when it is made on vessels andaircraft for violation of customs laws; when it ismade on automobiles for the purpose ofpreventing violations of smuggling orimmigration laws; when it involves prohibitedarticles in plain view; or in cases of inspection ofbuildings and other premises for theenforcement of fire, sanitary and buildingregulations, a search may be validly made evenwithout a search warrant. Herein, however, theraid conducted by the NARCOM agents in thehouse of Jovencio Rodrigueza was notauthorized by any search warrant. It does not

appear, either, that the situation falls under anyof the aforementioned cases. Hence,Rodriguezas right against unreasonable searchand seizure was clearly violated. The NARCOMagents could not have justified their act byinvoking the urgency and necessity of thesituation because the testimonies of theprosecution witnesses reveal that the place hadalready been put under surveillance for quite

some time. Had it been their intention to conductthe raid, then they should, because they easilycould, have first secured a search warrantduring that time. Further, the inconsistenciesmade by prosecution witnesses give morecredibility to the testimony of Don Rodrigueza.While it is true that Rodriguezas defenseamounts to an alibi, and as such is the weakestdefense in a criminal prosecution, there are,nonetheless, some evidentiary aspects pointingto the truth in his testimony. Firstly, the JointAffidavit of Arrest corroborates his testimony thathe was not among those who were arrested onthe night of 1 July 1987. His co-accusedSegovia also testified that Rodrigueza was notwith them when they were apprehended by theNARCOM agents. Hence, Rodrigueza isacquitted of the crime charged, due to the failureof the prosecution to establish its cause.

X----------------------------------------X

Go vs. Court of Appeals

Facts:

On 2 July 1991, Eldon Maguan wasdriving his car along Wilson St., San Juan, MetroManila, heading towards P. Guevarra St. RolitoGo y Tambunting entered Wilson St., where it isa one-way street and started traveling in theopposite or wrong direction. At the corner of

Wilson and J. Abad Santos Sts., Gos andMaguans cars nearly bumped each other. Goalighted from his car, walked over and shotMaguan inside his car. Go then boarded his carand left the scene. A security guard at a nearbyrestaurant was able to take down Gos car platenumber. The police arrived shortly thereafter atthe scene of the shooting and there retrieved anempty shell and one round of live ammunition fora 9mm caliber pistol. Verification at the LandTransportation Office showed that the car wasregistered to one Elsa Ang Go. The followingday, the police returned to the scene of the

shooting to find out where the suspect had comefrom; they were informed that Go had dined atCravings Bake Shop shortly before the shooting.The police obtained a facsimile or impression ofthe credit card used by Go from the cashier ofthe bake shop. The security guard of the bakeshop was shown a picture of Go and hepositively identified him as the same person whohad shot Maguan. Having established that the


11/16

assailant was probably Go, the police launcheda manhunt for Go. On 8 July 1991, Gopresented himself before the San Juan PoliceStation to verify news reports that he was beinghunted by the police; he was accompanied bytwo (2) lawyers. The police forthwith detainedhim. An eyewitness to the shooting, who was atthe police station at that time, positivelyidentified Go as the gunman. That same day,the police promptly filed a complaint forfrustrated homicide against Go with the Office ofthe Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal. First AssistantProvincial Prosecutor Dennis Villa Ignacio(Prosecutor) informed Go, in the Presence ofhis lawyers. that he could avail himself of hisright to preliminary investigation but that he mustfirst sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125of the Revised Penal Code. Go refused toexecute any such waiver. On 9 July 1991, whilethe complaint was still with the Prosecutor, and

before an information could be filed in court, thevictim, Eldon Maguan, died of his gunshotwound(s). Accordingly, on 11 July 1991, theProsecutor, instead of filing an information forfrustrated homicide, filed an information formurder before the Regional Trial Court. No bailwas recommended. At the bottom of theinformation, the Prosecutor certified that nopreliminary investigation had been conductedbecause the accused did not execute and sign awaiver of the provisions of Article 125 of theRevised Penal Code. In the afternoon of 11 July1991, Gos counsel filed with the prosecutor an

omnibus motion for immediate release andproper preliminary investigation, alleging that thewarrantless arrest of Go was unlawful and thatno preliminary investigation had been conductedbefore the information was filed. On 12 July1991, Go filed an urgent ex-parte motion forspecial raffle in order to expedite action on theProsecutors bail recommendation. The casewas raffled to the sala of Judge Benjamin V.Pelayo (Branch 168, RTC of Pasig City), who,on the same date, approved the cash bondposted by Go and ordered his release. Go wasin fact released that same day. On 16 July 1991,

the Prosecutor filed with the Regional Trial Courta motion for leave to conduct preliminaryinvestigation and prayed that in the meantime allproceedings in the court be suspended. On thesaid date, the trial court issued an Order 9granting leave to conduct preliminaryinvestigation and cancelling the arraignment setfor 15 August 1991 until after the prosecutionshall have concluded its preliminaryinvestigation. On 17 July 1991, however, the

Judge motu proprio issued an Order, (1)recalling the 12 July 1991 Order which grantedbail: petitioner was given 48 hours from receiptof the Order to surrender himself: (2) recallingand cancelling the 16 July 1991 Order whichgranted leave to the Prosecutor to conductpreliminary investigation: (3) treating Gosomnibus motion for immediate release andpreliminary investigation dated 11 July 1991 asa petition for bail and set for hearing on 23 July1991. On 19 July 1991, Go filed a petition forcertiorari, prohibition and mandamus before theSupreme Court assailing the 17 July 1991Order. Go also moved for suspension of allproceedings in the case pending resolution bythe Supreme Court of his petition: this motionwas, however, denied by Judge Pelayo. On 23July 1991, Go surrendered to the police. By aResolution dated 24 July 1991, the SupremeCourt remanded the petition for certiorari,

prohibition and mandamus to the Court ofAppeals. On 16 August 1991, Judge Pelayoissued an order in open court setting Gosarraignment on 23 August 1991. On 19 August1991, Go filed with the Court of Appeals amotion to restrain his arraignment. On 23 August1991, Judge Pelayo issued a CommitmentOrder directing the Provincial Warden of Rizal toadmit Go into his custody at the Rizal ProvincialJail. On the same date, Go was arraigned. Inview, however, of his refusal to enter a plea, thetrial court entered for him a plea of not guilty.The trial court then set the criminal case for

continuous hearings on 19, 24 and 26September; on 2, 3, 11 and 17 October; and on7, 8, 14, 15, 21 and 22 November 1991. On 27August 1991. Go filed a petition for habeascorpus in the Court of Appeals. On 30 August1991, the Court of Appeals issued the writ ofhabeas corpus. The petition for certiorari,prohibition and mandamus, on the one hand,and the petition for habeas corpus, upon theother, were subsequently consolidated in theCourt of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, on 2September 1991, issued a resolution denyingGos motion to restrain his arraignment on the

ground that motion had become moot andacademic. On 19 September 1991, trial of thecriminal case commenced. On 23 September1991, the Court of Appeals rendered aconsolidated decision dismissing the 2 petitionson the grounds that Gos warrantless arrest wasvalid and Gos act of posting bail constitutedwaiver of any irregularity attending his arrest,among others. On 3 October 1991, theprosecution presented three (3) more witnesses


12/16

at the trial. Gos Counsel also filed a Withdrawalof Appearance with the trial court, with Gosconformity. On 4 October 1991, Go filed thepresent petition for Review on Certiorari. On 14October 1991, the Court issued a Resolutiondirecting Judge Pelayo to held in abeyance thehearing of the criminal case below until furtherorders from the Supreme Court.

Issue:

Whether Go was arrested legally withoutwarrant for the killing of Maguan, and is thus notentitled to be released pending the conduct of apreliminary investigation.

Held:

Gos warrantless arrest or detention

does not fall within the terms of Section 5 ofRule 113 of the 1985 Rules on CriminalProcedure which provides that A peace officeror a private person may, without a warrant,arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, theperson to be created has committed, is actuallycommitting, or is attempting to commit anoffense; (b) When an offense has in fact justbeen committed, and he has personalknowledge of facts indicating that the person tobe arrested has committed it; and (c) When theperson to be arrested is a prisoner who hasescaped from a penal establishment or place

where he is serving final judgment or temporarilyconfined while his case is pending or hasescaped while being transferred from oneconfinement to another. In cases falling underparagraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the personarrested without a warrant shall be forthwithdelivered to the nearest police station or jail, andhe shall be proceeded against in accordancewith Rule 112, Section 7. Gos arrest tookplace 6 days after the shooting of Maguan. Thearresting officers obviously were not present,within the meaning of Section 5(a), at the timeGo had allegedly shot Maguan. Neither couldthe arrest effected 6 days after the shooting bereasonably regarded as effected when [theshooting had] in fact just been committed withinthe meaning of Section 5 (b). Moreover, none ofthe arresting officers had any personalknowledge of facts indicating that Go was thegunman who had shot Maguan. The informationupon which the police acted had been derivedfrom statements made by alleged eyewitnessesto the shooting one stated that Go was the

gunman another was able to take down thealleged gunmans cars plate number whichturned out to be registered in Gos wifes name.That information did not, however, constitutepersonal knowledge. It is thus clear to theCourt that there was no lawful warrantless arrestof Go within the meaning of Section 5 of Rule113. It is clear too that Section 7 of Rule 112 isalso not applicable. Indeed, Go was not arrestedat all. When he walked into the San Juan PoliceStation, accompanied by two (2) lawyers, he infact placed himself at the disposal of the policeauthorities. He did not state that he wassurrendering himself, in all probability to avoidthe implication he was admitting that he hadslain Eldon Maguan or that he was otherwiseguilty of a crime. When the police filed acomplaint for frustrated homicide with theProsecutor, the latter should have immediatelyscheduled a preliminary investigation to

determine whether there was probable cause forcharging Go in court for the killing of EldonMaguan. Instead, as noted earlier, theProsecutor proceeded under the erroneoussupposition that Section 7 of Rule 112 wasapplicable and required Go to waive theprovisions of Article 125 of the Revised PenalCode as a condition for carrying out apreliminary investigation. This was substantiveerror, for Go was entitled to a preliminaryinvestigation and that right should have beenaccorded him without any conditions. Moreover,since Go had not been arrested; with or without

a warrant, he was also entitled to be releasedforthwith subject only to his appearing at thepreliminary investigation.

X----------------------------------------X

People vs. Calimlim

Facts:

Lanie S. Limin was 14 years old andhad been living with the family of Kagawad

Manny Ferrer and Cresencia Ferrer for the past3 years. On the night of 2 April 1995, she wasleft alone in one of the two houses of the Ferrerssince her usual companions, the sons of Mannyand Cresencia, were out for the night (disco).The Ferrers were in the other house about 15meters away. At around 11:30 P.M., she wasawakened when she heard somebody, lateridentified as Manuel Calimlim y Muyano, enterher room. Calimlim immediately poked a knife at


13/16

the left side of her neck and said Accompanyme because I killed my wife. She was thendragged to the pig pen, about 8-9 meters awayfrom the place where she slept. Afterwards, shewas again forcibly taken back to her room, thento her cousins room and to the kitchen. In eachof these places, Calimlim forcibly had sexualintercourse with her while he poked a knifeagainst her neck. According to Limin, she firstrecognized Calimlim while they were in thekitchen when she was able to remove the clothcovering his face. She stated that she knewCalimlim because she had seen him alwaysfollowing her whenever she went to school.Limin claimed that she did not struggle nor shoutnor resist because she was afraid that appellantmight kill her. After the fourth intercourse,Calimlim threatened that he would kill her if shereported the incidents. Despite the threat, shetold her cousin, Manicris Ferrer, who then

reported the matter to Dr. Nancy Quinto wholived nearby. The rapes were reported to thestation of SPO1 Mario Suratos by KagawadFerrer. Dr. Ricardo Ferrer conducted thephysical examination on Lanie, and found thatthere was minimal vaginal bleeding and therewere lacerations in the hymen, the positions ofwhich were at 9:00 oclock, 6:00 oclock and3:00 oclock, all fresh, indicating that there wereinsertions within the past 24 hours. There wasalso a whitish vaginal discharge which wasfound positive for spermatozoa. ManuelCalimlim denied the accusations. Calimlim was

charged in 4 informations for rape in CriminalCases U-8525, 8638 to 8640. On 17 November1995, the Regional Trial Court, First JudicialRegion, Branch 46, Urdaneta, Pangasinan foundCalimlim guilty of 4 counts of rape andsentenced him to suffer the penalty of death, topay the offended party the amount ofP50,000.00 as damages, and to pay the costs,in each of the cases. Hence, the automaticreview.

Issue:

Whether Calimlim may raise theillegality of the warrantless arrest conductedagainst him, especially as the arrest was made aday after the crime was committed.

Held: Calimlim avers that his arrest violatedSection 5 of Rule 113, 40 since his arrest wasmade one day after the crime was committed,but without any judicial warrant, although the

police had ample time to get one. This he claimsis also in violation of Article III, Sec. 2 of theConstitution. But here it will be noted thatCalimlim entered a plea of not guilty to each ofthe informations charging him of rape. Thus, hehad effectively waived his right to question anyirregularity which might have accompanied hisarrest and the unlawful restraint of his liberty.This is clear from a reading of Section 9 of Rule117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,which provides that the failure of the accused toassert any ground of a motion to quash beforehe pleads to the complaint or information, eitherbecause he did not file a motion to quash orfailed to allege the same in said motion, shall bedeemed a waiver of any objections except thosebased on the grounds provided for inparagraphs (a), (b), (g) and (i) of section 3 of thisRule. Given the circumstances of his case, theexceptions do not apply here and the Court is

constrained to rule that Calimlim is estoppedfrom raising the issue of the legality of his arrest.Moreover, the illegal arrest of an accused is notsufficient cause for setting aside a validjudgment rendered upon a sufficient complaintafter a trial free from error. The defenses claimof warrantless arrest which is illegal cannotrender void all other proceedings including thoseleading to the conviction of Calimlim, nor can thestate be deprived of its right to convict the guiltywhen all the facts on record point to hisculpability.

X----------------------------------------X

MARKED MONEY

People vs. Enrile

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 CityPolice Anti-Narcotics Unit was dispatched to

entrap Rogelio Abugatal at Roosevelt Avenue inSan Francisco del Monte, Quezon City. The planwas made on the strength of a tip given byRenato Polines, a police informer, who washimself to pose as the buyer. On that occasionthe policemen saw Polines hand over toAbugatal the marked money representingpayment for the mock transaction. Abugatal leftwith the money and returned 10 minutes later


14/16

with a wrapped object which he gave Polines.The two policemen then approached Abugataland placed him under arrest, at the same timeconfiscating the wrapped object. Subsequentlaboratory examination revealed this to bemarijuana with flowering tops weighing 22grams. Upon prodding, Abugatal led thepolicemen to a house at 20 De Vera Street, alsoin San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City, wherehe called out for Antonio Enrile. Enrile came outand met them at the gate. Abugatal pointed toEnrile as the source of the marijuana,whereupon the policemen immediately arrestedand frisked him. They found in the right frontpocket of his trousers the marked money earlierdelivered to Abugatal. At the policeheadquarters, Abugatal signed a swornconfession. Enrile refused to make anystatement pending consultation with a lawyer.Antonio Enrile y Villaroman and Rogelio

Abugatal y Marquez were charged for violationof the Dangerous Drug Act by the Regional TrialCourt of Quezon City. The RTC, after trial andon 14 February 1986, found Enrile and Abugatalguilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentencedthem to life imprisonment and a fine ofP30,000.00. Both appealed. Abugatal, however,was killed in an attempted jailbreak and thus theappeal is dismissed as to him.

Issue:

Whether the mark money found inEnriles possession, pursuant to a warrantlessarrest, search and seizure, provide for hiscriminal culpability.

Held:

It was Abugatal who was allegedlycaught red-handed by the policemen as he soldthe marijuana to Polines. Enrile was not even atthe scene of the entrapment at that time.Abugatal said he did lead the policemen toEnriles house where he pointed to Enrile as thesource of the marijuana. Even assuming this tobe true, that circumstance alone did not justifyEnriles warrantless arrest and search. UnderRule 113, Section 5, of the Rules of Court, apeace officer or a private person may make awarrantless arrest only under any of thefollowing circumstances: (a) When, in hispresence, the person to be arrested hascommitted, is actually committing, or isattempting to commit an offense; (b) When an

offense has in fact just been committed, and hehas personal knowledge of facts indicating thatthe person to be arrested has committed it; and(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisonerwho has escaped from a penal establishment orplace where he is serving final judgment ortemporarily confined while his case is pending,or has escaped while being transferred from oneconfinement to another. Paragraphs (a) and (b)are clearly inapplicable. Paragraph (b) is alsonot in point because the policemen who laterarrested Enrile at his house had no personalknowledge that he was the source of themarijuana. According to the policementhemselves, what happened was that they askedAbugatal who gave him the marijuana and weretold it was Enrile. It was for this reason that theyproceeded to Enriles house and immediatelyarrested him. What the policemen should havedone was secure a search warrant on the basis

of the information supplied by Abugatal andthen, with such authority, proceeded to searchand, if the search was fruitful, arrest Enrile. Theyhad no right to simply force themselves into hishouse on the bare (and subsequentlydisallowed) allegations of Abugatal and bundleEnrile off to the police station as if he had beencaught in flagrante delicto. The discovery of themarked money on him did not mean he wascaught in the act of selling marijuana. Themarked money was not prohibited per se. Evenif it were, that fact alone would not retroactivelyvalidate the warrantless search and seizure.

X----------------------------------------X

LACK OF URGENCY

People vs. Pasudag

Facts:

On 26 September 1995, at around 1:30p.m., SPO2 Pepito Calip of the PNP Sison,Pangasinan, went to Brgy. Artacho to conduct

anti-jueteng operations. He urinated at a bushybamboo fence behind the public school. About 5meters away, he saw a garden of about 70square meters. There were marijuana plants inbetween corn plants and camote tops. Heinquired from a storekeeper nearby as to whoowned the house with the garden. Thestoreowner told him that Alberto Pasudag yBokang owned it. SPO2 Calip went to the Police


15/16

Station and reported to Chief of Police RomeoC. Astrero. The latter dispatched a team(composed of SPO2 Calip, SPO3 Fajarito,SPO3 Alcantara and PO3 Rasca) to conduct aninvestigation. At around 2:30 p.m., the teamarrived at Brgy. Artacho and went straight to thehouse of Pasudag. SPO3 Fajarito looked forPasudag and asked him to bring the team to hisbackyard garden which was about 5 metersaway. Upon seeing the marijuana plants, thepolicemen called for a photographer, who tookpictures of Pasudag standing beside one of themarijuana plants. They uprooted 7 marijuanaplants. The team brought Pasudag and themarijuana plants to the police station. On 17December 1996, 4th Assistant ProvincialProsecutor of Pangasinan Emiliano M. Matrofiled with the Regional Trial Court, Pangasinan,Urdaneta an Information charging Pasudag withviolation of RA 6425, Sec. 9. On 10 February

1997, the trial court arraigned the accused. Hepleaded not guilty. Trial ensued. The RegionalTrial Court, Pangasinan, Branch 46, Urdanetafound Pasudag guilty beyond reasonable doubtof illegal cultivation of marijuana and sentencedhim to reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine ofP500,000.00, without subsidiary penalty andother accessories of the law. Pasudag appealed.

Issue:

Whether time was of the essence touproot and confiscate the marijuana plants.

Held:

As a general rule, the procurement of asearch warrant is required before a law enforcermay validly search or seize the person, house,papers or effects of any individual. TheConstitution provides that the right of the peopleto be secure in their persons, houses, papersand effects against unreasonable searches andseizures of whatever nature and for any purposeshall be inviolable. Any evidence obtained inviolation of this provision is inadmissible. Herein,the police authorities had ample opportunity tosecure from the court a search warrant. SPO2Pepito Calip inquired as to who owned thehouse. He was acquainted with marijuana plantsand immediately recognized that some plants inthe backyard of the house were marijuanaplants. Time was not of the essence to uprootand confiscate the plants. They were threemonths old and there was no sufficient reason to

believe that they would be uprooted on thatsame day. With the illegal seizure of themarijuana plants, the seized plants areinadmissible in evidence against Pasudag.

People vs. Aminnudin

Facts:

Idel Aminnudin y Ahni was arrested on25 June 1984, shortly after disembarking fromthe M/V Wilcon 9 at about 8:30 p.m., in IloiloCity. The PC officers who were in fact waiting forhim simply accosted him, inspected his bag andfinding what looked liked marijuana leaves tookhim to their headquarters for investigation. Thetwo bundles of suspect articles were confiscatedfrom him and later taken to the NBI laboratoryfor examination. When they were verified as

marijuana leaves, an information for violation ofthe Dangerous Drugs Act was filed against him.Later, the information was amended to includeFarida Ali y Hassen, who had also been arrestedwith him that same evening and likewiseinvestigated. Both were arraigned and pleadednot guilty. Subsequently, the fiscal filed a motionto dismiss the charge against Ali on the basis ofa sworn statement of the arresting officersabsolving her after a thorough investigation.The motion was granted, and trial proceededonly against Aminnudin, who was eventuallyconvicted, and sentenced to life imprisonment

plus a fine of P20,000.00.

Issue:

Whether there was ample opportunity toobtain a warrant of arrest against Aminnudin, foralleged possession and transport of illegaldrugs.

Held:

It is not disputed, and in fact it isadmitted by the PC officers who testified for theprosecution, that they had no warrant when theyarrested Aminnudin and seized the bag he wascarrying. Their only justification was the tip theyhad earlier received from a reliable and regularinformer who reported to them that Aminnudinwas arriving in Iloilo by boat with marijuana.Their testimony varies as to the time theyreceived the tip, one saying it was two daysbefore the arrest (this was the declaration of the


16/16

chief of the arresting team, Lt. Cipriano Querol,Jr.), another two weeks and a third weeksbefore June 25. There was no warrant of arrestor search warrant issued by a judge afterpersonal determination by him of the existenceof probable cause. Contrary to the averments ofthe government, Aminnudin was not caught inflagrante nor was a crime about to be committedor had just been committed to justify thewarrantless arrest allowed under Rule 113 of theRules of Court. Even expediency could not beinvoked to dispense with the obtention of thewarrant. The present case presented nourgency. From the conflicting declarations of thePC witnesses, it is clear that they had at leasttwo days within which they could have obtaineda warrant to arrest and search Aminnudin whowas coming Iloilo on the M/V Wilcon 9. Hisname was known. The vehicle was identified.The date of its arrival was certain. And from the

information they had received, they could havepersuaded a judge that there was probablecause, indeed, to justify the issuance of awarrant. Yet they did nothing. No effort wasmade to comply with the law. The Bill of Rightswas ignored altogether because the PClieutenant who was the head of the arrestingteam, had determined on his own authority thatsearch warrant was not necessary.

X----------------------------------------X

warrantless arrest to counsel of choice cases

Documents