1) People v.

Collado Upon arraignment on November 4, 2004, all the appellants and the other
DOCTRINE accused pleaded not guilty.7 Pretrial and joint trial on the merits subsequently ensued.

Criminal Procedure; Warrantless Arrests; Section 5(a) is what is known as arrest in RTC found the accused guilty.
flagrante delicto. For this type of warrantless arrest to be valid, two requisites must
concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has CA found the warrantless arrest of the appellants to be lawful considering that they
just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and, (2) were caught in the act of committing a crime and affirmed the RTC’s decision to
such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. declare the accused guilty.

Assuming that irregularities indeed attended the arrest of appellants, they can no Not satisfied, the appellants are now before this Court arguing that irregularities
longer question the validity thereof as there is no showing that they objected to the attended their arrest and detention as well as the procedure in handling the specimen
same before their arraignment. allegedly seized from them. Because of these, they assert that their guilt was not
proven beyond reasonable doubt
Warrantless Searches and Seizures; Under Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of
Court, “[a] person lawfully arrested may be searches for dangerous weapons or ISSUE
anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an
offense without a search warrant.” Whether or not the warrantless search and seizure is legal.

Evidence; Witnesses; There is no requirement for the prosecution to present as RULING

witness in a drugs case every person who had something to do with the arrest of the
The warrantless search and seizure is legal. The appealed Decision
accused and the seizure of the prohibited drugs from him.
should be affirmed, with modification. The presumption of regularity in the performance
FACTS of official duties must be upheld in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to
overturn the same.
Version of the Prosecution
A common example of an arrest in flagrante delicto is one made after
An information from a civilian asset that spouses Marcelino and Myra conducting a buy-bust operation. This is precisely what happened in the present case.
were engaged in selling shabu and that drug users, including out-of-school youth, The arrest of the appellants was an arrest in flagrante delicto made in pursuance of
were using their residence in Pasig City, for their drug sessions. After recording the Sec. 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. The arrest was effected after Marcelino and
report in the police blotter, PO2 Noble relayed the information to his superior who in Myra performed the overt act of selling to PO2 Noble the sachet of shabu and Ranada
turn ordered the conduct of a surveillance operation. A buy-bust operation team was of having in his control and custody illegal drug paraphernalia. Thus, there is no other
thereafter formed. Upon reaching the target area, the asset introduced PO2 Noble to logical conclusion than that the arrest made by the police officers was a valid
Marcelino as a regular buyer of shabu. When PO2 Noble was handing over the warrantless arrest since the same was made while the appellants were actually
marked money to Marcelino, the latter motioned that the same be given to his wife, committing the said crimes.
Myra, who accepted the money. Marcelino then took from his pocket a small metal
container from which he brought out a small plastic sachet containing white crystalline Assuming that irregularities indeed attended the arrest of appellants, they
substance and gave the same to PO2 Noble. While PO2 Noble was inspecting its can no longer question the validity thereof as there is no showing that they objected to
contents, he noticed smoke coming from a table inside the house of the couple around the same before their arraignment. Neither did they take steps to quash the
which were seven persons. When PO2 Noble gave the pre-arranged signal, the Informations on such ground. They only raised this issue upon their appeal to the
backup team rushed to the scene. Simultaneously, PO2 Noble introduced himself as a appellate court. By this omission, any objections on the legality of their arrest are
policeman and arrested Marcelino. He frisked him and was able to confiscate the deemed to have been waived by them.
metal container that contained another sachet of white crystalline substance.
2) People v. De Lara
Meanwhile, SPO2 Cruz and another police officer went inside the house of Marcelino
and Myra, where they found Apelo, Cipriano, Ranada, Abache, Sumulong, Madarang QUIASON, J.:
and Latario gathered around a table littered with various drug paraphernalia such as
an improvised water pipe, strips of aluminum foil with traces of white substance, This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, Manila in
disposable lighters, and plastic sachets. A strip of aluminum foil used for smoking Criminal Case No. 94953, finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating
marijuana was recovered from Ranada. The buy-bust team arrested all these persons, Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by B.P. Blg. 179.
advised them of their constitutional rights, and brought them to police headquarters for
investigation and drug testing. I

Version of the Defense The Information charged appellant as follows:

Marcelino suddenly heard someone say “Walang tatakbo!” Four armed "That on or about January 9, 1987, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused,
men rushed inside the house and pointed their guns at him and said “Wag ka nang not being authorized by law to sell, deliver, give away to another or distribute any
pumalag.” He was thereafter dragged outside where he saw the other accused already prohibited drug, did then and there willfully and unlawfully sell or offer for sale two (2)
in handcuffs. Marcelino was later informed that they were being arrested for selling foils offlowering tops of marijuana and one (1) plastic bag of flowering tops of
shabu. Marcelino protested and disclaimed any knowledge about drugs. When the marijuana, which are prohibited drugs" (Rollo, p. 6).
officers frisked all the accused, Marcelino claimed that nothing illegal nor incriminating
was recovered from them. When Myra arrived at the scene, she was shocked to see Upon arraignment, appellant, assisted by his counsel de parte, pleaded not guilty to
her husband being arrested. The police officers then brought all the accused to the the information (Records p. 5).
police station for further questioning. At the police station, PO2 Noble asked Marcelino
II
for P50,000.00 as settlement of their case. Marcelino, Apelo, Cipriano, and Ranada
were also made to drink water that according to Marcelino tasted bitter. They were On December 15, 1986, Capt. Restituto Cablayan of the National Criminal
then brought to Camp Crame for medical examination and drug tests. Those who Investigation Service (NCIS) of the Western Police District (WPD), instructed Sgt.
drank the bitter water tested positive for drugs use while the others, who did not drink, Enrique David to conduct a surveillance operation in the vicinity of Garrido and Zamora
tested negative. Marcelino surmised that their arrest was due to a misunderstanding Streets at Sta. Ana, Manila, after receiving reports of rampant drug-pushing in that
he had with a former police officer named Rey who bought a VCD player from his area (TSN, December 14, 1987, p. 21).
shop. He specifically instructed Rey not to let anyone repair the VCD player should it
malfunction. However, when the VCD player malfunctioned, Rey had it repaired by In compliance thereof, a team led by Sgt. Enrique David, conducted a surveillance
somebody else, hence Marcelino refused to accept the VCD player and return Rey’s operation on December 15 and 17, and confirmed the reported drug-pushing activities
money. This earned the ire of Rey who threatened him with the words “Humanda ka in that area by the group of appellant and a certain Ricky alias "Pilay" (TSN, December
pagbalik ko.” 2, 1987, pp. 5-6). No arrest was made because the team was instructed by their
superior to conduct a surveillance operation only (TSN, January 11, 1988, p. 28).
On January 8, 1987, Malaya (Exh. "F") and People's Tonight (Exh. "K"), reported that As to the legality of appellant's arrest, we find that the police operatives acted within
there were rampant, drug-pushing activities in the vicinity of Garrido and Zamora the bounds of law.
Streets in Sta. Ana, Manila, prompting Gen. Alfredo Lim, then WPD Superintendent, to
reprimand the NCIS office (TSN, December 2, 1987, p. 2). Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure dealing with warrantless
arrests provides:
On January 9, because of the reprimand given by Gen. Lim, Capt. Cablayan instructed
Sgt. David to plan a buy-bust operation and to form a six-man team with Pfc. Martin "Arrest without warrant; when lawful. -- A peace officer or a private person may,
Orolfo, Jr. as the poseur-buyer (TSN, December 2, 1987, p. 6, January 11, 1988, p. 6). without a warrant, arrest a person;

At around 4:45 P.M. of the same day, the team, together with their confidential a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
informant, went to Garrido Street. Upon arriving thereat, they strategically positioned committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
themselves. Pfc. Orolfo, Jr. and the confidential informant proceeded to the house of
appellant located at No. 2267 Garrido Street, where they saw him standing outside. b) When an offense has in fact just been committed and he has personal
The confidential informant introduced Pfc. Orolfo, Jr. to appellant as an interested knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it;
buyer of marijuana. Appellant asked Pfc. Orolfo, Jr. "Ilan ang bibilhin ninyo?" (How
xxx xxx xxx"
much will you buy?). Pfc. Orolfo, Jr. replied: "Two foils" handing at the same time the
marked twenty-peso bill (Exh. "E") to appellant. The latter, after placing the money in In the case at bench, appellant was caught red-handed in delivering two tin foils of
the right pocket of his pants, went inside his house (TSN, January 11, 1988, pp. 7-9). marijuana to Pat. Orolfo, Jr., the poseur-buyer. Applying the aforementioned provision
Minutes later, appellant came back and handed two foils (Exhs. "D-1-a" and "D-1-b") of law, appellant's arrest was lawfully effected without need of a warrant of arrest.
wrapped in onion paper (TSN, January 11, 1988, p. 8). It was after he handed the two "Having caught the appellant in flagrante as a result of the buy-bust operation, the
foils to Pfc. Orolfo, Jr., that he sensed the presence of the police operatives. He then policemen were not only authorized but were also under obligation to apprehend the
tried to retrieve the two foils but Pfc. Orolfo, Jr. prevented him from doing so. During drug pusher even without a warrant of arrest" (People v. Kalubiran, 196 SCRA 644
the scuffle, one foil was torn. Appellant then ran inside his house with Pfc. Orolfo, Jr. [1991]; People v. De Los Santos, 200 SCRA 431 [1991]).
in pursuit. The latter was able to subdue appellant. Sgt. David confronted appellant,
who admitted that he kept prohibited drugs in his house. Appellant showed the Appellant, however, asseverates that his arrest was precipitated only by newspaper
arresting officers a blue plastic bag with white lining containing prohibited drugs. A publications about the rampant sale of drugs along Garrido and Zamora Streets, Sta.
receipt of the articles seized (Exh. "F") was made by Pfc. Orolfo, Jr. (TSN, January 11, Ana, Manila (Rollo, p. 53). If appellant implies that the police merely stage-managed
1988, pp. 12-15). his arrest in order to show that they were not remiss in their duties, then appellant is
wrong. A surveillance on the illegal activities of the appellant was already conducted
Thereafter, the team, together with appellant, proceeded to the WPD headquarters for by the police as early as December 15 and 17, 1986. The newspaper reports
investigation. Thereat, Sgt. David ordered Pfc. Orolfo, Jr. to commence the concerning the illegal drug activities came out only on January 8 and 14, 1987, long
investigation of appellant (TSN, January 11, 1988, pp. 19-21). after the police knew of the said illegal activities. Appellant's eventual arrest on
January 9, 1987 was the result of the surveillance conducted and the buy-bust
During the investigation, appellant was apprised of his constitutional rights to remain
operation.
silent and to have the assistance of counsel. When appellant was asked to give a
written statement, he refused to do so pending arrival of his lawyer (TSN, January 11, The evidence shows that appellant ran inside his house upon sensing the presence of
1988, p. 23). the police operatives. The testimony of Pat. Orolfo, Jr., the poseur-buyer, is as follows:
The prohibited drugs seized from appellant were brought to the NBI for chemical "FISCAL:
analysis. A report and certification of Ms. Aida Pascual, Forensic Chemist of the NBI
(Exhs. "C" and "D"), show the drugs to be positive for marijuana. Q: After placing the P20 bill in his right pocket, what did he do?

Appellant denied having sold marijuana to anyone and claimed that the arresting A: He went to his house and minutes later, he came back, sir.
officers merely planted the marijuana on his person. He testified that on January 9,
1987, he arrived home from work as a security guard of the Vergara Brothers Agency Q: When he came back what happened?
at around 3:00 P.M. After changing his clothes, he went out to fetch his son, who was
left in the care of a neighbor. Upon returning to his house with his son, he was A: He handed to me two tin foils containing suspected marijuana leaves wrapped in
arrested by the police. The police proceeded to search his house, without any search onion paper.
warrant shown to him. After the search, he and his wife were brought to the WPD
Q: And what happened next when he returned with those items?
headquarters. He claimed that inspite of his protestation that he would like to wait for
his lawyer before giving any statement, the police continued their interrogation. A: After he handed to me two foils, he sensed the presence of the operatives and he
tried to retrieve the two foils, sir, and I prevented him and during the scuffle one piece
Appellant denied that the twenty-peso bill was given to him by the poseur-buyer. He
of foil was broken, he tried to run inside the house, so I subdued him immediately and
claimed that he was merely forced to sign his name on the photocopy of the twenty-
apprehended him while he was inside the house.
peso bill (Exh. "F") and that the first time he saw the blue plastic bag containing
prohibited drugs was when he was at the police station (TSN, June 14, 1988, pp. 1- Q: After he was subdued by your group, what happened?
11).
A: Sgt. David confronted him regarding this case and he voluntarily admitted that he
To corroborate his story, appellant presented his younger brother, Gerry de Lara. was still keeping prohibited drugs inside his house?
On October 2, 1989, the trial court rendered its decision, disposing as follows: Q: What did the group do after he voluntarily admitted that he was keeping
prohibited drugs inside his house?
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violation of Sec. 4, Art. II of R.A. 6425 as amended as charged in A: He pointed inside his house (sic) one plastic bag colored blue with white lining
the Information; and this Court hereby sentences the accused to suffer a penalty of life containing prohibited drug" (TSN, January 11, 1988, pp. 12-14).
imprisonment and to pay a fine of P20,000.00" (Rollo, p. 24).
The policemen's entry into the house of appellant without a search warrant was in hot-
Hence, this appeal. pursuit of a person caught committing an offense inflagrante. The arrest that followed
the hot-pursuit was valid (1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 113, Section 5[a]).
III
We also find as valid the seizure of the plastic bag of prohibited drugs found inside
In his appeal, appelIant questions the legality of his arrest and the seizure of prohibited
appellant's house.
drugs found inside his house. Furthermore, he claims that he was not assisted by
counsel during his custodial interrogation (Rollo, pp. 55-57).
The seizure of the plastic bag containing prohibited drugs was the result of appellant's Hence, the maximum penalty that can be imposed on appellant is prision mayor.
arrest inside his house. A contemporaneous search may be conducted upon the Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law to appellant, who was convicted under a
person of the arrestee and the immediate vicinity where the arrest was made special law (People v. Macantando, 109 SCRA 35 [1981]), and as such law was
(People v. Castiller, 188 SCRA 376 [1990]). interpreted in People v. Simon, G.R. No. 93028, July 29, 1994, the minimum penalty
that can be imposed on appellant should be within the range of prision correccional.
We find to be meritorious appellant's claim that he was not assisted by counsel during
the custodial investigation, specifically when he was forced to sign the photocopy of WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with the modification that
the marked twenty-peso bill (Exh. "E"), Receipt of Property Seized (Exh. "F"), and the appellant shall suffer an indeterminate penalty of FOUR (4) years and TWO (2) days
Booking and Information Sheet (Exh. "H"). of prision correccional, as minimum, to EIGHT (8) years and ONE (1) day
of prision mayor, as maximum.
The said documents are inadmissible in evidence for the reason that there was no
showing that appellant was then assisted by counsel nor his waiver thereto put into SO ORDERED.
writing (Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 3[2]).

Be that as it may, the rejection of said evidence would not affect the conviction of
appellant in view of the abundance of other evidence establishing his guilt. The ruling 3) People v. Molina
in People v. Mauyao, 207 SCRA 732 (1992) is apropos:
DOCTRINE
"It bears emphasis, however, that the accused appellant's conformity to the questioned
documents has not been a factor at all in his conviction. For even if these documents RELIABLE INFORMATION ALONE NOT SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE PROBABLE
were disregarded, still the accused-appellant's guilt has been adequately established CAUSE. — As applied to in flagrante delicto arrests, it is settled that "reliable
by other evidence of record. The trial court's verdict was based on the evidence of the information" alone, absent any overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise in the
prosecution not on his signatures on the questioned documents. Accused-appellant's presence and within the view of the arresting officers, are not sufficient to constitute
denial simply can not prevail over the detailed and unshaken testimonies of the probable cause that would justify an in flagrante delicto arrest.
apprehending officers who caught him red-handed selling marijuana and who have not
REQUISITES; VALID IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO ARREST. — Clearly, to constitute a
shown to have any ulterior motive to testify falsely against accused-appellant." valid in
flagrante delicto arrest, two requisites must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must
IV execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within
The trial court sentenced appellant to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay
the view of the arresting officer.
a fine of P20,000.00 pursuant to Section 4, Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972, as amended by B.P. Blg. 179. However, said law was further amended by R.A.
No. 7659. FACTS:
Under Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659, the penalty to be imposed for selling, Police officers received an information from an informer that an alleged marijuana
administering, delivering or distributing less than 750 grams of marijuana, shall range pusher will be passing at a specific place anytime. A trisikad carrying Nasario Molina
from "prision correccional to reclusion perpetua depending upon the quantity." and Gregorio Mula passed by, they were pointed as pushers. The police overtook the
trisikad, Mula handed a black bag.
Under Section 4 of R.A. No. 7659, the penalty for selling, dispensing, delivering,
transporting or distributing marijuana in excess of 750 grams or more shall be After introducing himself as police officer, PO Pamplona requested Molina to open the
"reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from Five Hundred Thousand Pesos to bag. The bag contained marijuana leaves inside. For unlawful possession of 946.9
Ten Million Pesos." grams of dried marijuana, accused Molina and Mula were found by the RTC of Davao
City guilty of violation of Section 8, of the Dangerous Drugs Act and sentenced them to
We noticed that the penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed by R.A. No. 7659 as death. The court anchored its judgment of conviction on a finding that the warrantless
the maximum penalty when the quantity of the marijuana involved in the offense is less arrest of accused-appellants, and the subsequent search conducted by the peace
than 750 grams and at the same time as the minimum penalty when the quantity of officers, were valid because accused-appellants were caught in flagrant delicto in
marijuana involved is 750 grams or more. It is the duty of the Court to harmonize possession of prohibited drugs, thus, this automatic review.
conflicting provisions to give effect to the whole law (Rufino Lopez and Sons v. Court
ISSUE: W/N accused-appellants were caught in flagrant delicto
of Appeals, 100 Phil. 850 [1957]). Furthermore, one of this Court's primordial
responsibilities is to give a statute its sensible construction. This is to effectuate the
HELD: No. Accused-appellants are acquitted. The Supreme Court held that the
intention of the legislature so as to avoid an absurd conclusion with regard to its accused-appellants manifested no outward indication that would justify their arrest. In
meaning (Lamb v. Phipps, 22 Phil. 456 [1912]). Therefore, when the quantity involved holding a bag on board a trisikad, accused-appellants could not be said to be
is less than 750 grams, Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659 should be read correctly to committing, attempting to commit or have committed a crime. It matters not that
provide a penalty ranging from prision correccional to reclusion temporal only. accused-appellant Molina responded "Boss, if possible we will settle this" to the
request of SPO1 Pamplona to open the bag. Such response which allegedly
The provision of Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, which states that "penal laws reinforced the "suspicion" of the arresting officers that accused appellants were
shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony," finds committing a crime, is an equivocal statement which standing alone will not constitute
meaning in this case. Appellant is entitled to benefit from the reduction of the penalty probable cause to effect an in flagrant delicto arrest. As applied to in flagrante delicto
introduced by R.A. No. 7659. arrests, it is settled that "reliable information" alone, absent any overt act indicative of a
felonious enterprise in the presence and within the view of the arresting officers, are
In order to determine the penalty to be imposed on appellant, we first divide the not sufficient to constitute probable cause that would justify an in flagrante delicto
amount of 750 grams into three to correspond to the three applicable penalties, arrest.
namely, prision correccional, prision mayor and reclusion temporal.

If the marijuana involved is from 500 to 749 grams, the penalty to be imposed Moreover, it could not be said that accused-appellants waived their right against
is reclusion temporal. If the marijuana involved is from 250 to 499 grams, the penalty unreasonable searches and seizure. Implied acquiescence to the search, if there was
to be imposed is prision mayor and if the weight of the marijuana involved is below 250 any, could not have been more than mere passive conformity given under intimidating
grams, the penalty to be imposed is prision correccional. or coercive circumstances and is thus considered no consent at all within the purview
of the constitutional guarantee. Thus, the Court held that the arrest of accused-
Since there is no evidence as to the weight of the two foils and one plastic bag of appellants did not fall under the exception allowed by the rules. Any evidence obtained
flowering tops of marijuana seized from appellant, we resolve the doubt in favor of in violation of the Constitutional provision against unreasonable searches and seizures
shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. Since the search conducted
appellant and conclude that the quantity involved was: (i) below 750 grams; and (ii) not
on their person was likewise illegal, the marijuana seized by the peace officers could
less than 250 but not more than 499 grams.
not be admitted as evidence against accused-appellants.
 4) People V. De Los Reyes o While they were inside their car, another car suddenly arrived, from
which an armed male passenger alighted and approached them.

PEOPLE v. DE LOS REYES o Four other armed men followed and poked their guns at accused-
appellant Rolando delos Reyes and Marlon David.
G.R. No. 174774/ AUG 31 2011 / LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J./CRIMPRO-
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE, CRIMINAL RECORD/PSPAMBID o The armed men, in civilian attire, were carrying an SM plastic
shopping bag and questioned delos Reyes if he knew the owner of
NATURE Appeal (Final Review) said plastic bag.

PETITIONERS People of the Philippines o Rolando delos Reyes denied any knowledge about the plastic
bag. Marlon David was also asked and he answered that he knew
RESPONDENTS Rolando delos Reyes and Raymundo Reyes nothing about the plastic bag.

 Emmanuel de Claro (Cocoy) and Lantion-Tom version:

SUMMARY. Delos Reyes, Reyes, de Claro, and Lantion-Tom were arrested for drug o they were with de Claro’s brother, Roberto and a friend, James,
trafficking while parked at Whistlestop based on an anonymous tip. The Court held with the two remaining outside Whistlestop
that the police officers had no prior knowledge of the suspects identities and that
nobody actually saw shabu being sold. o Lantion-Tom went to accompany Ms. Milan (Lantion-Tom’s
accountant), while de Claro was left inside
DOCTRINE. "reliable information" alone, absent any overt act indicative of a felonious
enterprise in the presence and within the view of the arresting officers, are not o After Ms. Milan left, Lantion-Tom was suddenly surrounded by men
sufficient to constitute probable cause that would justify an in flagrante delicto arrest who introduced themselves as police officers and were arresting
them for being the source of shabu in a drug deal

o Corroborated by Roberto de Claro (Emmanuel de Claro’s brother)

SUBSTANTIVE FACTS.
 PO3 Santiago (one of the police officers who arrested Cocoy and Lantion-Tom
 Information version: admitted that he did not actually see what was inside the plastic bag and that he
did not even see Botong hand over such plastic bag to Mac-Mac.
o on 17 February 2000 a confidential informant called up relative to a
narcotics drug deal to commence at the vicinity of the parking area  SPO1 Lectura (leader of the team) initially denied that Marlon David was
of Shangrila Plaza Hotel, Mandaluyong City with Botong when the latter was arrested, but he later admitted that the police
also arrested Marlon David. SPO1 Lectura acknowledged that his team heavily
o about 2:00 p.m they strategically positioned themselves at the relied on the information given by the confidential informant in identifying the
vicinity parking area of said hotel suspects in the illegal drug deal, who were eventually arrested.
o that about 10:00 p.m., Reyes, on board a white Toyota Corolla, and  RTC: found accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt
delos Reyes, a.k.a. Botong, on board a red Toyota Corolla, arrived
and proceeded inside Whistletop Bar and Restaurant. delos Reyes  CA: Same
then called de Claro through his cellular phone;

o delos Reyes and de Claro then proceeded to the latter’s parked

Mazda car where Lantion-Tom was waiting; from the parked car, a PROCEDURAL FACTS.
box in transparent plastic bag was taken, which de Claro handed-
over to delos Reyes;  February 17, 2000: Rolando S. delos Reyes and Raymundo G. Reyes,
Emmanuel de Claro, and Mary Jane Lantion-Tom (Lantion-Tom) were all
o delos Reyes in turn handed the box in a plastic bag to Reyes; arrested for illegal possession, sale, delivery, distribution, and/or transportation
of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu)
o The accused admitted having in their possession illegal drugs and
the recovered items containing ten (10) pcs. of shabu  March 3, 2000 Resolution: The Office of the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong
City found probable cause to indict accused-appellants, together with Emmanuel
o Mandaluyong City found probable cause to indict accused- de Claro, for violation of Republic Act No. 6425, and resolved to continue the
appellants, together with Emmanuel de Claro, for violation of preliminary investigation in so far as Lantion-Tom was concerned
Republic Act No. 6425, and resolved to continue the preliminary
investigation in so far as Lantion-Tom was concerned  The Office of the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City, after preliminary
investigation and reinvestigation, recommended that the RTC drop accused-
 delos Reyes (Botong) version: appellant Rolando delos Reyes and Lantion-Tom from the criminal charge.
o He claims that on 17 February 2000, he went to Buenas Market,  March 7, 2000: accused-appellant Rolando delos Reyes, Emmanuel de Claro,
Manggahan, Pasig City, together with a neighbor, one Marlon and Lantion-Tom, moved for a reinvestigation of their case before the RTC
David, to talk to Raymundo Reyes (Mac-mac) who was to pay his
indebtedness  March 15, 2000: RTC granted Order
o while looking for a parking space, several men with firearms  Prosecution filed a motion with leave of court to admit amended information
suddenly appeared, with one shouting, “buksan mo ang pintuan ng
sasakyan at kung hindi babasagin ko ito”  April 4, 2000: RTC denied prosecution’s motion
o He and Marlon David were forced out of their vehicle with one of the  Sept 23, 2003: RTC found accused-appellants and Emmanuel de Claro guilty
armed men bringing out a plastic shopping bag of Shoe Mart, beyond reasonable doubt
asking where the said bag allegedly containing shabu came from,
delos Reyes answered hindi ko alam, and he and Marlon David  Emmanuel de Claro, Robert delos Reyes and Reyes filed notice of appeal
were blindfolded when forcibly taken to the groups vehicle and
continuously asked who the source of the shabu was  Emmanuel de Claro moved to withdraw his notice of appeal, instead filing an
Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and to Re-Open Proceedings
 Marlon David (17-year-old high school student with Botong) version:
 Emmanuel de Claro asked the RTC to review its judgment of conviction
o he accompanied delos Reyes, to the Buenas Market in Cainta,
Rizal, to collect some money
 o pointed out that although these police officers testified that Lantion- o (c) when the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
Tom, from the car, handed to him the plastic bag containing the box escaped from a penal establishment or a place where he is
with sachets of shabu, the prosecution still dropped the criminal serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his
charges against Lantion-Tom. case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from
one confinement to another (arrest of escaped prisoners)
o the prosecution failed to contradict his alibi that he, his wife, and his
brother went to Shangri-La Plaza in Mandaluyong City to meet his  Citing People v Molina:
wife’s accountant, so they could attend to several documents
pertaining to a business permit o “As applied to in flagrante delicto arrests, it is settled that
"reliable information" alone, absent any overt act
 November 11, 2003: RTC granted Emmanuel de Claros motion to withdraw his indicative of a felonious enterprise in the presence and
notice of appeal and required the prosecution to comment to his motions for within the view of the arresting officers, are not sufficient
reconsideration to constitute probable cause that would justify an in
flagrante delicto arrest”
 December 19, 2003: Prosecution filed its Comment/Opposition
o “Clearly, to constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, two
 January 12 2004: RTC acquitted Emmanuel de Claro (OMG!) explicitly requisites must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must
admitted that it erred in giving full faith and credit to the testimonies of execute an overt act indicating that he has just
prosecution witnesses SPO1 Lectura, PO3 Santiago, and PO3 Yumul, and in committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
entirely rejecting the alibi of the defense commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the
presence or within the view of the arresting officer.”
 March 29, 2004: RTC forwarded case to SC
 SPO1 Lectura, PO3 Santiago, and PO3 Yumul had no prior knowledge of
 November 2004: SC remanded case to CA the suspects identities, and they completely relied on their confidential
informant to actually identify the suspects.
 July 12, 2006: CA sustained conviction, modified penalty to reclusion perpetua
(“the police officers testimonies deserve credence than accused-appellants  None of the police officers actually saw what was inside that box.
defenses of denial and alibi, there being no evidence to rebut the presumption
that the police officers regularly performed their official duties” –inconsistent with  There is also no evidence that the confidential informant himself knew that
de Claro acquittal) the box contained shabu.

 HENCE, SC FINAL REVIEW  No effort at all was taken to confirm that the arrested suspects actually
knew that the box or carton inside the white plastic bag, seized from their
possession, contained shabu.
ISSUES & RATIO.  The police officers were unable to establish a cogent fact or circumstance
that would have reasonably invited their attention, as officers of the law, to
1. WON the lower courts were inconsistent. – YES. suspect that accused-appellants, Emmanuel de Claro, and Lantion-Tom
has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a
 RTC erred in ignoring the recommendation of the Office of the City crime, particularly, an illegal drug deal.
Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City to drop delos Reyes and Lantion-Tom
from the criminal charge

 CA erred in refusing to consider the acquittal of Emmanuel de Claro by DECISION.

the RTC
CA judgment REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Delos Reyes and Reyes are ACQUITTED
 Guided by the settled rule that where the inculpatory facts admit of several on the ground of reasonable doubt
interpretations, one consistent with accused's innocence and another with
his guilt, the evidence thus adduced fail[ed] to meet the test of moral
certainty 5) People v. Nazareno Villareal

 the very same evidence were presented against Emmanuel de Claro and GR 201363 / March 18 2013 / J. Perlas-Bernabe / 693 SCRA 549
accused-appellants; if the evidence is insufficient to convict the former,
then it is also insufficient to convict the latter. Doctrine: For the warrantless arrest under paragraph (a) of Section 5 to operate, two
elements must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act
 Lantion-Tom was never charged with any criminal involvement even indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
when, according to the prosecutions version of events, she was the first a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the
person to deliver the shabu. arresting officer. On the other hand, paragraph (b) of Section 5 requires for its
application that at the time of the arrest, an offense had in fact just been committed
and the arresting officer had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the appellant
had committed it. In both instances, the officer’s personal knowledge of the fact of the
2. RELEVANT!!: If the prosecution’s version were true, did it establish
commission of an offense is absolutely required. Under paragraph (a), the officer
probable cause? – NO.
himself witnesses the crime while under paragraph (b), he knows for a fact that a crime
has just been committed. (Rule 113, Section 5, Rules on Criminal Procedure)
 Even assuming that the prosecutions version of the events were true, it
still failed to establish probable cause to justify the in flagrante
Facts:
delicto arrests of accused-appellants and search of accused-appellants
persons, incidental to their arrests, resulting in the seizure of the shabu in - Appeal from the CA decision which affirmed the RTC Caloocan decision
accused-appellants possession - As P03 Renato De Leon was was driving his motorcycle on his way home
along 5th Avenue, he saw Villareal from a distance of about 8 to 10
 A peace officer or a private person may, without warrant, arrest a person: meters, holding a plastic sachet of shabu. PO3 de Leon, a member of the
Station Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operation Unit (SAID-SOU) in Caloocan
o (a) when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has City, approached Villareal whom he recognized as someone he had
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to previously arrested for illegal drug possession. Upon seeing PO3 de Leon,
commit an offense (arrest in flagrante delicto); Villareal tried to escape but was quickly apprehended. PO3 de Leon
confiscated the plastic sachet of shabu and brought Villareal to the SAID-
o (b) when an offense has just been committed and he has SOU office, and marked the plastic sachet. PO3 de Leon turned over the
probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of marked evidence as well as the person of appellant to the investigator,
facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has PO2 Randulfo Hipolito. Upon qualitative examination, the plastic sachet,
committed it (arrest effected in hot pursuit); which contained 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance, tested positive
 for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. Villareal was precedent and unnecessarily stretch the authority and power of police
charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 for illegal officers to effect warrantless arrests based solely on knowledge of a
possession of dangerous drugs. person’s previous criminal infractions, rendering nugatory the rigorous
- Version of Villareal: Denied PO3 de Leon’s allegations and instead requisites laid out under Section 5.
claimed that he was walking alone towards 5th Avenue when someone - Also, Villareal’s act of running away from PO3 de Leon should not be
who was riding a motorcycle called him from behind. Villareal approached construed against him. Flight per se is not synonymous with guilt and
the person, who turned out to be PO3 de Leon, who then told him not to must not always be attributed to one’s consciousness of guilt.
run, frisked him, and took his wallet. He was brought to the 9 th Avenue - Villareal’s acts of walking along the street and holding something in his
police station where he was detained and mauled by eight other detainees hands, even if they appeared to be dubious, coupled with his previous
under the orders of PO3 de Leon. He was then brought to the criminal charge for the same offense, are not by themselves sufficient to
Sangandaan Headquarters where two other police officers took him to the incite suspicion of criminal activity or to create probable cause enough to
headquarters’ firing range and forced him to answer questions about a justify a warrantless arrest under Section 5. "Probable cause" has been
stolen cellphone, eventually mauling him when he denied the accusations. understood to mean a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by
The following day, he underwent inquest proceedings before one Fiscal circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious
Guiyab, who informed him that he was being charged with resisting arrest man's belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he
and "Section 11." The first charge was eventually dismissed. is charged. Specifically with respect to arrests, it is such facts and
- RTC Ruling: Conviction of Villareal, as all the elements of the crime of circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man
illegal possession were present: (1) the appellant is in possession of an to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be
item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) that such arrested.
possession is not authorized by law; and (3) that the accused freely and
consciously possesses said drug. Also, the plain view doctrine was found Acquitted due to reasonable doubt and immediately released from detention
to be applicable, as the confiscated item was in plain view of PO3 de Leon
at the place and time of the arrest
- CA Ruling: Sustained the conviction, finding "a clear case of in flagrante
delicto 6.PEOPLE vs TUDTUD G.R. NO. 144037 SEPTEMBER 26, 2003
- warrantless arrest". The CA held that Villareal "exhibited an overt act or
strange conduct that would reasonably arouse suspicion," aggravated by
the existence of his past criminal citations and his attempt to flee when
PO3 de Leon approached him. Facts: Sometime on July 1999, the Toril Police Station received a report from a
“civilian asset” about a certain Noel Tudtud who was allegedly responsible for the
Issue: Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC’s Decision convicting appellant of proliferation of marijuana in their area. They were informed that Tudtud headed to
the offense charged Cotabato and would be back later. A team composed of PO1 Florentino, PO1 Desierto
and SPO1 Villalonghan waited for Tudtud’s arrival. Two men disembarked from a bus
Ruling: YES. and helped each other carry a carton box marked, “King Flakes.” One of them
- Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides appeared to be Tudtud. The police officers approached them, identified themselves
for lawful warrantless arrests by a peace officer or private person: (a) and informed them that they had received information that stocks of illegal drugs would
When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is be arriving at night. PO1 Desierto asked if they could open the box. Tudtud obliged by
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an
saying “all right.” The box yielded pieces of dried fish and beneath which were
offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe
bundles, one wrapped in a plastic bag and one in a newspaper. They turned out to be
based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to
be arrested has committed it; and (c) When the person to be arrested is a marijuana. The police then arrested Tudtud and the companion.
prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he
is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is Tudtud and his companion were charged with illegal possession of
pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to prohibited drugs. However, they raised the issue of admissibility of evidence which
another. they claimed were seized in violation of their rights against unreasonable search and
- For the warrantless arrest under paragraph (a) of Section 5 to operate, seizure.
two elements must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an
overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is Issue: W/N the search is valid.
attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the
presence or within the view of the arresting officer. On the other hand, Held: No. The warrantless search is not valid.
paragraph (b) of Section 5 requires for its application that at the time of
the arrest, an offense had in fact just been committed and the arresting A search as an incident to a lawful arrest must precede such arrest. The
officer had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the appellant had process cannot be reversed. Nevertheless, a search substantially contemporaneous
committed it. In both instances, the officer’s personal knowledge of the with an arrest can precede the arrest if the police have probable cause to make the
fact of the commission of an offense is absolutely required. Under arrest at the outset of the search.
paragraph (a), the officer himself witnesses the crime while under
paragraph (b), he knows for a fact that a crime has just been committed. The question therefore is whether the police herein had probable cause to
- Based on PO3 de Leon’s testimony, the Court finds it inconceivable that arrest Tudtud. The longstanding rule is that “reliable information” alone is not sufficient
P03 De Leon would be able to identify, from a distance of about 8-10 to justify a “warrantless search.” Likewise, there must be an 1.) overt act indicating
meters and while simultaneously driving a motorcycle, an amount of felonious design; 2.) such overt act can be done in the presence of the arresting
powdery substance inside the plastic sachet allegedly held by Villareal. officer.
That he had previously effected numerous arrests, all involving shabu, is
insufficient to create a conclusion that Villareal held shabu. In the case at bar, in no sense can the knowledge of the arresting officer
- Neither has it been established that the rigorous conditions set forth in be considered “personal” having learned only from an informant. Such information is
paragraph (b) of Section 5, Rule 113 have been complied with, i.e., that only hearsay.
an offense had in fact just been committed and the arresting officer had
personal knowledge of facts indicating that the appellant had committed it. On the issue of waiver, there is an effective waiver only if the ff. requisites
- PO3 de Leon failed to show he had personal knowledge that a crime had are present: 1.) it must appear that the right exists; 2.) the person involved had
been committed. It is not enough that PO3 de Leon had reasonable knowledge, actual or constructive, of such right; and 3.) said person had an actual
ground to believe that Villareal had just committed a crime; a crime must intention to relinquish the right.
in fact have been committed first, which did not happen in this case.
- A previous arrest or existing criminal record, even for the same offense, In the case, the prosecution failed to establish the second and third
will not suffice to satisfy the exacting requirements provided under Section requisites. Tudtud’s implied acquiescence, if at all, could not have been more than
5, Rule 113 in order to justify a lawful warrantless arrest. "Personal mere passive conformity given under coercive or intimidating circumstance and is,
knowledge" of the arresting officer that a crime had in fact just been thus, considered no consent at all, and his lack of objection is not tantamount to
committed is required. To interpret "personal knowledge" as referring to a
waiver.
person’s reputation or past criminal citations would create a dangerous
7) People v. Burgos Morellos, had a fan knife secreted in his front right pants pocket. The weapons were
taken from them. Mengote and Morellos were then turned over to police headquarters
for investigation by the Intelligence Division. Besides the police officers, one other
Summary: An informant identified a certain person as a member of a subversive group witness presented by the prosecution was Rigoberto Danganan, who identified the
who forcibly recruited him and based on this information, the police went to arrest the subject weapon as among the articles stolen from him during the robbery in his house
suspect. At the time of the arrest, the suspect was merely plowing his field. in Malabon on June 13, 1987. It is submitted in the Appellant's Brief that the revolver
should not have been admitted in evidence because of its illegal seizure. no warrant
Rule of Law: In a warrantless arrest, the officer arresting a person who has just therefor having been previously obtained. Neither could it have been seized as an
committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense must have personal incident of a lawful arrest because the arrest of Mengote was itself unlawful, having
knowledge of that fact. been also effected without a warrant.

Facts: Cesar Masamlok personally and voluntarily surrendered to the authorities Issue: Whether or not the evidence was admissible
stating that he was forcibly recruited by accused Ruben Burgos (D) as member of the
NPA, threatening him with the use of firearm against his life, if he refused. Pursuant to Ruling: The Court held that Par. (c) of Section 5 of Rule 113 is obviously inapplicable
this information, PC-INP members went to the house of the Burgos (D) and saw him as Mengote was not an escapee from a penal institution when he was arrested. We
plowing his field when they arrived. One of the arresting offices called Burgos (D) and therefore confine ourselves to determining the lawfulness of his arrest under either
asked him about the firearm. At first, Burgos (D) denied having any firearm, but later, Par. (a) or Par. (b) of this section.
Burgos's (D) wife pointed to a place below their house where a gun was buried in the
ground. Par. (a) requires that the person be arrested (1) after he has committed or while he is
actually committing or is at least attempting to commit an offense, (2) in the presence
After recovery of said firearm, Burgos (D) pointed to a stock pile of cogon where the of the arresting officer.
officers recovered alleged subversive documents. Burgos (D) further admitted that the
These requirements have not been established in the case at bar. At the time of the
firearm was issued to him by Nestor Jimenez, team leader of sparrow unit.
arrest in question, the accused-appellant was merely "looking from side to side" and
"holding his abdomen," according to the arresting officers themselves. There was
apparently no offense that had just been committed or was being actually committed
Issues: Is the warrantless arrest valid? Is the warrantless search valid?
or at least being attempted by Mengote in their presence.
Ruling: No. Under Section 6(a) of Rule 113, the officer arresting a person who has just There was nothing to support the arresting officers' suspicion other than Mengote's
committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense must have personal darting eyes and his hand on his abdomen. By no stretch of the imagination could it
knowledge of that fact. The offense must also be committed in his presence or within have been inferred from these acts that an offense had just been committed, or was
his view. (Sayo vs. Chief of Police, 80 Phil. 859). actually being committed, or was at least being attempted in their presence.

There is no such personal knowledge in this case. Whatever knowledge was

possessed by the arresting officers, it came in its entirety from the information
furnished by Cesar Masamlok. The location of the firearm was given by the wife of 9. JOEY M. PESTILOS [and others] vs. GENEROSO and PEOPLE OF THE
Burgos (D). PHILIPPINES. G.R. No. 182601. November 10, 2014.

In arrests without a warrant under Section 6(b), however, it is not enough that there is FACTS: An altercation ensued between the petitioners and Atty. Generoso at
reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a crime. A Kasiyahan St. Quezon City where the petitioner and Atty. Generoso reside. Atty.
crime must in fact or actually have been committed first. That a crime has actually Generoso called the Central Police District. Atty. Generoso then pointed to the
been committed is an essential precondition. It is not enough to suspect that a crime petitioners as those who mauled him. This prompted the police officers to “invite” the
may have been committed. The fact of the commission of the offense must be petitioners to go to Batasan Hills Police Station for investigation. At the inquest
undisputed. The test of reasonable ground applies only to the identity of the proceeding, the City Prosecutor of Quezon City found that the petitioners stabbed Atty.
perpetrator. Generoso with a bladed weapon. Atty. Generoso fortunately survived the attack.
Petitioners were indicted for attempted murder.
In this case, the Burgos (D) was arrested on the sole basis of Masamlok's verbal
On March 7, 2005, the petitioners filed an Urgent Motion for Regular Preliminary
report. Masamlok led the authorities to suspect that the accused had committed a
Investigation12 on the ground that they had not been lawfully arrested. They alleged
crime. They were still fishing for evidence of a crime not yet ascertained. The
that no valid warrantless arrest took place since the police officers had no personal
subsequent recovery of the subject firearm on the basis of information from the lips of
knowledge that they were the perpetrators of the crime. They also claimed that they
a frightened wife cannot make the arrest lawful. If an arrest without warrant is unlawful
were just “invited” to the police station. Thus, the inquest proceeding was improper,
at the moment it is made, generally nothing that happened or is discovered afterward
and a regular procedure for preliminary investigation should have been performed
can make it lawful. The fruit of a poisoned tree is necessarily also tainted.
pursuant to Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. The Urgent Motion was denied.

ISSUE: Whether or not the arrest made by the officers is not a valid warrantless
8) G.R. No. 87059 June 22, 1992 arrest?

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, HELD: We hold that the following must be present for a valid warrantless arrest: 1) the
crime should have been just committed; and 2) the arresting officer’s exercise of
vs. discretion is limited by the standard of probable cause to be determined from the facts
and circumstances within his personal knowledge. The requirement of the existence of
ROGELIO MENGOTE y TEJAS, accused-appellant. probable cause objectifies the reasonableness of the warrantless arrest for purposes
of compliance with the Constitutional mandate against unreasonable arrests. Hence,
for purposes of resolving the issue on the validity of the warrantless arrest of the
present petitioners, the question to be resolved is whether the requirements for a valid
Facts: Accused-appellant Rogelio Mengote was convicted of illegal possession of
warrantless arrest under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
firearms on the strength mainly of the stolen pistol found on his person at the moment
Procedure were complied with, namely: 1) has the crime just been committed when
of his warrantless arrest. The incident occurred shortly before noon of August 8, 1987,
they were arrested? 2) did the arresting officer have personal knowledge of facts and
after the Western Police District received a telephone call from an informer that there
circumstances that the petitioners committed the crime? and 3) based on these facts
were three suspicious-looking persons at the corner of Juan Luna and North Bay
and circumstances that the arresting officer possessed at the time of the petitioners’
Boulevard in Tondo, Manila. A surveillance team of plainclothesmen was forthwith
arrest, would a reasonably discreet and prudent person believe that the attempted
dispatched to the place. The suspects were then searched. One of them, who turned
murder of Atty. Generoso was committed by the petitioners? (Court held in affirmative)
out to be the accused-appellant, was found with a .38 caliber Smith and Wesson
revolver with six live bullets in the chamber. His companion, later identified as Nicanor
The arresting officers went to the scene of the crime upon the complaint of Atty. the duty and the right of the apprehending officers to conduct a warrantless search not
Generoso of his alleged mauling; the police officers responded to the scene of the only on the person of the suspect, but also in the permissible area within the latter’s
crime less than one (1) hour after the alleged mauling; the alleged crime transpired in reached. Otherwise stated, a valid arrest allows the seizure of evidence or dangerous
a community where Atty. Generoso and the petitioners reside; Atty. Generoso weapons either on the person of the one arrested or within the area of his immediate
positively identified the petitioners as those responsible for his mauling and, notably, control. The phrase “within the area of his immediate control” means the area from
the petitioners and Atty. Generoso lived almost in the same neighborhood; more within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. A gun on
a table or in a drawer in front of one who is arrested can be as dangerous to the
importantly, when the petitioners were confronted by the arresting officers, they did not
arresting officer as one concealed in the clothing of the person arrested. In Valeroso,
deny their participation in the incident with Atty. Generoso, although they narrated a
however, the Court held that the evidence searched and seized from him could not be
different version of what transpired. used against him because they were discovered in a room, different from where he
was being detained, and was in a locked cabinet. Thus, the area searched could not
With these facts and circumstances that the police officers gathered and which they be considered as one within his immediate control that he could take any weapon or
have personally observed less than one hour from the time that they have arrived at destroy any evidence against him. In the case at bar, the marijuana was found in a
the scene of the crime until the time of the arrest of the petitioners, we deem it black bag in Calantiao’s possession and within his immediate control. He could have
reasonable to conclude that the police officers had personal knowledge of facts or easily taken any weapon from the bag or dumped it to destroy the evidence inside it.
circumstances justifying the petitioners’ warrantless arrests. These circumstances As the black bag containing the marijuana was in Calantiao’s possession, it was within
were well within then police officers’ observation, perception and evaluation at the time the permissible area that the apprehending officers could validly conduct a warrantless
of the arrest. These circumstances qualify as the police officers’ personal observation, search.
which are within their personal knowledge, prompting them to make the warrantless
arrests. The Plain View Doctrine is actually the exception to the inadmissibility of evidence
obtained in a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest outside the suspect’s
10. People of the Philippines vs. Medario Calantiao y Dimalanta, person and premises under his immediate control. This is so because “objects in the
G.R. No. 203984, June 18, 2014 ‘plain view’ of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view are
subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence.” “The doctrine is usually applied
FACTS: On November 11, 2003 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila, Philippines and within where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. It serves to
authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his supplement the prior justification – whether it be a warrant for another object, hot
possession, custody and control two bricks of dried marijuana fruiting tops with a total pursuit, search incident to lawful arrest, or some other legitimate reason for being
weight of 997 .9 grams, knowing the same to be a dangerous drug. PO1 Nelson present unconnected with a search directed against the accused – and permits the
Mariano and PO3 Eduardo Ramirez were on duty; a certain Edwin Lojera arrived at warrantless seizure. ”The Plain View Doctrine thus finds no applicability in Calantiao’s
their office and asked for police assistance regarding a shooting incident. Per report of situation because the police officers purposely searched him upon his arrest. The
the latter, it appears that while driving a towing truck and traversing along EDSA, police officers did not inadvertently come across the black bag, which was in
Balintawak, Quezon City, he had a traffic dispute (gitgitan) with a white taxi cab Calantiao’s possession; they deliberately opened it, as part of the search incident to
prompting him to follow said vehicle until they reached along 8th Avenue Street corner Calantiao’s lawful arrest.
C-3 Road, Caloocan City. Thereat, the passengers of said taxi cab, one of them was
accused Calantiao, alighted and fired their guns. 11) People V. Valeroso

PO1 Mariano testified that they immediately responded to said complaint by People v. Valeroso,14 this Court had the occasion to reiterate the permissible reach of
proceeding to 5th Avenue corner 8th Street, Caloocan City where they found the white a valid warrantless search and seizure incident to a lawful arrest, viz: When an arrest
taxi. While approaching said vehicle, two armed men alighted therefrom, fired their is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested in order
guns towards them and ran away. PO1 Mariano and PO3 Ramirez chased them but to remove any weapon that the latter might use in order to resist arrest or effect his
they were subdued. PO1 Mariano recovered from Calantiao a black bag containing escape. Otherwise, the officer’s safety might well be endangered, and the arrest itself
two bricks of dried marijuana fruiting tops and a magazine of super 38 stainless with frustrated. In addition, it is entirely reasonable for the arresting officer to search for and
ammos, while PO3 Ramirez recovered from Calantiao’s companion a .38 revolver. The seize any evidence on the arrestee’s person in order to prevent its concealment or
suspects and the confiscated items were then turned over to SPO3 Pablo Temena, destruction. Moreover, in lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty and the right of the
police investigator at Bagong Barrio Police Station for investigation. Thereat, PO1 apprehending officers to conduct a warrantless search not only on the person of the
Mariano marked the bricks of marijuana contained in a black bag with his initials, “NM”. suspect, but also in the permissible area within the latter’s reach. Otherwise stated, a
Thereafter, said specimens were forwarded to the PNP Crime Laboratory for chemical valid arrest allows the seizure of evidence or dangerous weapons either on the person
analysis. The result of the examination conducted by P/SINSP. Jesse Dela Rosa of the one arrested or within the area of his immediate control. The phrase "within the
revealed that the same was positive for marijuana. area of his immediate control" means the area from within which he might gain
possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. A gun on a table or in a drawer in
On Calantiao’s defense the taxi he and his companion Rommel Reyes were riding front of one who is arrested can be as dangerous to the arresting officer as one
almost collided with another car. Reyes then opened the window and made a “fuck concealed in the clothing of the person arrested. (Citations omitted.) In Valeroso,
you” sign against the persons on board of that car. That prompted the latter to chase however, the Court held that the evidence searched and seized from him could not be
them and when they were caught in a traffic jam, PO1 Nelson Mariano; one of the used against him because they were discovered in a room, different from where he
persons on board of that other car alighted and kicked their taxi. Calantiao and Reyes was being detained, and was in a locked cabinet. Thus, the area searched could not
alighted and PO1 Mariano slapped the latter and uttered some words, police officer be considered as one within his immediate control that he could take any weapon or
poked his gun against Reyes and when Calantiao tried to grab it, the gun fired. destroy any evidence against him.15 In the case at bar, the marijuana was found in a
Calantiao and Reyes were then handcuffed and were brought to the police station. black bag in Calantiao’s possession and within his immediate control. He could have
Thereat, they were subjected to body frisking and their wallets and money were taken. easily taken any weapon from the bag or dumped it to destroy the evidence inside it.
PO1 Mariano then prepared some documents and informed them that they will be As the black bag containing the marijuana was in Calantiao’s possession, it was within
charged for drugs. A newspaper containing marijuana was shown to them and said the permissible area that the apprehending officers could validly conduct a warrantless
police officer told them that it would be sufficient evidence against them. search. Calantiao’s argument that the marijuana cannot be used as evidence against
him because its discovery was in violation of the Plain View Doctrine, is misplaced.
The Plain View Doctrine is actually the exception to the inadmissibility of evidence
ISSUE: 1. Whether or not that the allegedly seized items are inadmissible evidence obtained in a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest outside the suspect’s
in accordance to plain view doctrine. person and premises under his immediate control. This is so because "[o]bjects in the
‘plain view’ of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view are
HELD: In People v. Valeroso, this Court had the occasion to reiterate the permissible subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence."16 "The doctrine is usually
reach of a valid warrantless search and seizure incident to a lawful arrest, viz: When applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but
an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object x x x. [It] serves to
arrested in order to remove any weapon that the latter might use in order to resist supplement the prior justification – whether it be a warrant for another object, hot
arrest or effect his escape. Otherwise, the officer’s safety might well be endangered, pursuit, search incident to lawful arrest, or some other legitimate reason for being
and the arrest itself frustrated. In addition, it is entirely reasonable for the arresting present unconnected with a search directed against the accused – and permits the
officer to search for and seize any evidence on the arrestee’s person in order to warrantless seizure."17 The Plain View Doctrine thus finds no applicability in
prevent its concealment or destruction. Moreover, in lawful arrests, it becomes both Calantiao’s situation because the police officers purposely searched him upon his
arrest. The police officers did not inadvertently come across the black bag, which was were stirred by illicit motive or failed to properly perform their duties, their testimonies
in Calantiao’s possession; they deliberately opened it, as part of the search incident to deserve full faith and credit.
Calantiao’s lawful arrest. Inventory and Chain of Custody of Evidence Calantiao claims
that even if the search and seizure were validly effected, the marijuana is still
12) G.R. No. 156320 February 14, 2007
inadmissible as evidence against him for failure of the apprehending officers to comply
with the rules on chain of custody, as the item was marked at the police station.18 The RODOLFO ABENES y GACUTAN, Petitioner,
pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 9165 provide as follows: Section 21. Custody vs.
and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant HE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Respondents.
Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall take Topic: Search and Seizure
charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia Brief Facts:
and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper
disposition in the following manner: (1) The apprehending team having initial custody RODOLFO ABENES y GACUTAN, Petitioner was charged and found guilty of illegal
and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically possession of high powered firearm & its ammunitions (Violation of P.D. No. 1866, as
inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s amended by R.A. No. 8294) and violating Section 261(q) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881
from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or (B.P. Blg. 881), otherwise known as the Omnibus Election Code, vis-à-vis COMELEC
counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and Resolution No. 2958 (Gun Ban) by the Regional Trial Court of Pagadian City for
any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and carrying unlicensed firearms during the election period
be given a copy thereof[.] Its Implementing Rules and Regulations state: SECTION 21.
Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, The petitioner on appeal to the CA, he claimed that the checkpoint was not shown to
Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, have been legally set up, and/or that the frisking of the petitioner who was ordered to
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take alight from the Tamaraw FX, along with his companions in the vehicle, violated his
charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, constitutional right against unlawful search and seizure.
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia
and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper Issue: Whether or not the of the accused against unreasonable search and seizure
disposition in the following manner: (a) The apprehending officer/team having initial has been violated
custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation,
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the Held: No. The court ruled that hat not all checkpoints are illegal and those are
person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her warranted by the exigencies of public order and are conducted in a way least intrusive
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of to motorists are allowed. The court also provides that for as long as the vehicle is
Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body search, and the inspection of
of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; Provided, that the physical inventory and the vehicle is limited to a visual search, said routine checks cannot be regarded as
photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at violative of an individual’s right against unreasonable search. In fact, these routine
the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, checks, when conducted in a fixed area, are even less intrusive.
whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-
Also, in relation to the seizure. In the instant case, the firearm was seized
compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity
from the petitioner when in plain view, where the policemen saw it tucked into his waist
and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
uncovered by his shirt.
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and
custody over said items[.] (Emphasis supplied.) This Court has held that the failure to Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in the "plain view" of an
strictly comply with Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, such as officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and
immediately marking seized drugs, will not automatically impair the integrity of chain of may be presented as evidence. The "plain view" doctrine applies when the following
custody because what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior
the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would be utilized in the justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area;
determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.19 Section 21 and its IRR do (b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and (c) it is immediately
not even mention "marking." What they require are (1) physical inventory, and (2) apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime,
taking of photographs. As this Court held in People v. Ocfemia20: What Section 21 of contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.
R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rule do not expressly specify is the matter of
"marking" of the seized items in warrantless seizures to ensure that the evidence All the foregoing requirements are present in the instant case.
seized upon apprehension is the same evidence subjected to inventory and
photography when these activities are undertaken at the police station rather than at
the place of arrest. Consistency with the "chain of custody" rule requires that the
"marking" of the seized items – to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter 13) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence – should be done (1) in the vs.
presence of the apprehended violator (2) immediately upon confiscation. The SUCHINDA LEANGSIRI (at large), accused. FATI OMOGBOLAHAN Y ALABI,
prosecution was able to establish the chain of custody of the seized marijuana from YAMBA LISASI BHOLA, and ZARIATU AMIDU, accused-appellants.
the time the police officers confiscated it, to the time it was turned over to the
investigating officer, up to the time it was brought to the forensic chemist for laboratory
examination.21 This Court has no reason to overrule the RTC and the Court of
Appeals, which both found the chain of custody of the seized drugs to have not been Topic: Warrantless Search
broken so as to render the marijuana seized from Calantiao inadmissible in evidence.
Furthermore, unless it can be shown that there was bad faith, ill will, or tampering of Brief Facts:
the evidence, the presumption that the integrity of the evidence has been preserved
will remain. The burden of showing the foregoing to overcome the presumption that Accused Leangsiri was arrested at the arrival area of the Ninoy Aquino
the police officers handled the seized drugs with regularity, and that they properly International Airport (NAIA). He was in the act of bringing into the country 8,225.31
discharged their duties is on Calantiao. Unfortunately, Calantiao failed to discharge grams of heroin hidden under the false bottom of a black suitcase. He informed the
such burden.22 It is worthy to note that these arguments were only raised by Calantiao authorities that he was to deliver the contraband to three (3) people at the Las Palmas
on his appeal. He himself admits this.23 His theory, from the very beginning, was that Hotel in Manila. The police officers then conducted an entrapment operation at Rm.
he did not do it, and that he was being framed for having offended the police officers. 504 of the Las Palmas Hotel where accused appellants FATI OMOGBOLAHAN Y
Simply put, his defense tactic was one of denial and frame-up. However, those ALABI, YAMBA LISASI BHOLA, and ZARIATU AMIDU where they caught and
defenses have always been frowned upon by the Court, to wit: The defenses of denial arrested. Upon knowing that Amidu is staying at Rm. 413 of the same Hotel, the police
and frame-up have been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor for it can easily authorities accompanied by the hotel’s owner and security officers proceeded in his
be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in prosecutions for violation room and conducted search and seizure where they found tucked within the pages of
of Dangerous Drugs Act. In order to prosper, the defenses of denial and frame-up
her telephone and address book was a piece of paper with the name SUCHINDA
must be proved with strong and convincing evidence. In the cases before us, appellant
failed to present sufficient evidence in support of his claims. Aside from his self-serving LEANGSIRI written on it.
assertions, no plausible proof was presented to bolster his allegations.24 Hence, as
Calantiao failed to show clear and convincing evidence that the apprehending officers
Issue: Whether or not the pieces of evidence obtained in the hotel room of Amidu be house being indicated by the evidence on record, there can be no doubt that the
admissible as evidence warrant described the place to be searched with sufficient particularity.

Held: 2. Because the location of the shabu was indicated in the warrant and thus known to
the police operatives, it is reasonable to assume that the police found the packets and
No. A warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest may only be made in shabu first. Once the valid portion of the search warrant has been executed, the plain
the place of immediate control of the person arrested right after the arrest where he view doctrine can no longer provide basis for admitting the other items subsequently
may obtain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. Thus, in relation to the found. The marijuana bricks were wrapped in newsprint. There was no apparent
cases, the evidence obtained at Rm. 413 cannot be admitted as evidence because the illegality to justify their seizure. Not being in a transparent container, the contents
arrest of the accused appellants were made at Rm. 504 of the Las Palmas Hotel and wrapped in newsprint could not have been readily discernible as marijuana. That being
does not fall within the exception of warrantless search. Given though that the said, we hold that the marijuana is inadmissible in evidence against Salanguit
evidence obtained at Rm. 413 is inadmissible other evidence clearly established their
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

15 People v. Suzuki

14) People V. Salanguit Facts: Appellant was found guilty of illeal possession of prohibited drugs and was
sentenced to death. Hence, the instant review.
FACTS: Two criminal cases were filed against Salanguit, the first for possession/use of
shabu, and the second, for possession/use of marijuana. Sr. Insp. Aguilar applied in The facts of the case are:Appellant was in the airport for his flight to Manila. PASCOM
the RTC of Cavite a warrant to search the premises of Robert Salanguit for shabu and and NARCOM agents were in the airport to follow on reports on drug trafficking.When
shabu paraphernalias. He presented as a witness Edmund Badua, an undercover he walked through the metal detector, the alarm sounded. He was bodily frisked and
officer, which transacted with Salanguit for the purchase of shabu. nothing was found on his person so they proceeded to check his luggage but appellant
refused then consented eventually and opened it. There they found packs of aluminum
The application was granted and the team of Aguilar proceeded to the premises of foil and when opened, it was found to be marijuana.
Salanguit in QC to serve the warrant. The operatives proceeded to knock on
Salanguit’s door but the same was left unanswered. The operatives heard people Issue: WON the PASCOM agents were authorized to conduct the search. WON
panicking inside the house and they began to force their way inside the house. They accused consented to the search. WON the search was conducted was incidental to a
indicated their authority to conduct the search and began which yielded to the finding lawful arrest. WON the confiscated items were in plain view.
of clear plastic bags with shabu and 2 bricks of dried marijuana leaves covered in
newspaper. Held: In PPvs.Canton and PPvs.Johnson we validated the search conducted on the
departing passengers and the consequent seizure of the shabu found in their persons,
Salanguit refused to sign the receipt for the confiscated drugs. During his arraignment, thus:
he pleaded not guilty and in the trial court, he gave stated that he never got the chance
to review the purported warrant that Aguilar and his team has. He further stated that "Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause by exposure of their
the operatives ate their food and took his cash and valuable, as well as canned goods. persons or property to the public in a manner reflecting a lack of subjective expectation
of privacy, which expectation society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.xxx"
The RTC found him guilty for possession/use of shabu and marijuana. Salanguit
appealed the said decision and argues that the shabu allegedly recovered from his It should be stressed, however, that whenever the right against unreasonable search
residence is inadmissible as evidence against him on the ground that the warrant used and seizure is challenged, an individual may choose between invoking the
to obtain it was invalid and that the marijuana seized from him was also inadmissible constitutional protection or waiving his right by giving consent to the search or
as evidence against him pursuant to the plain view doctrine, and that the operatives seizure.9
employed unnecessary force in executing the warrant.
Here, appellant voluntarily gave his consent to the search conducted by the PASCOM
ISSUES: agents.

1. W/N the warrant used to seize the shabu was valid and the said shabu was It is axiomatic that a reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed formula
inadmissible in evidence against him. but is to be resolved according to the facts of each case. 12 Given the circumstances
obtaining here, we find the search conducted by the airport authorities reasonable and,
2. W/N the marijuana seized was admissible in evidence against Salanguit pursuant to therefore, not violative of his constitutional rights. Hence, when the search of the box
plain view doctrine. of piaya revealed several marijuana fruiting tops, appellant is deemed to have been
caught in flagrante delicto, justifying his arrest even without a warrant under Section
HELD: 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.13 The packs of marijuana obtained
in the course of such valid search are thus admissible as evidence against appellant.14
1. Yes, all the requisites for the issuance of a search warrant were satisfied. Nonetheless, we find the trial court’s reliance on the plain view doctrine misplaced.
Such doctrine finds application only when the incriminating nature of the object is in
2. No, the marijuana was not one of the drugs indicated in the warrant and it was not in
the "plain view" of the police officer.15 Here, it is beyond cavil that the marijuana seized
plain view when it was seized.
from appellant is contained in the box of piaya, wrapped in aluminum foil and not
RATIO: immediately apparent to the airport authorities.

1. The warrant authorized the seizure of undetermined quantity of shabu and drug
paraphernalia. Salanguit contends that it should be void as it did not indicate the Neither was the search incidental to a lawful arrest since appellant was not yet
existence of drug paraphernalias. The warrant was valid as to the seizure of shabu arrested at the time of the search. To be considered a search incidental to a lawful
and void as to the seizure of drug paraphernalia. It is to be noted that no drug arrest, the law requires that there must be a lawful arrest before the search can be
paraphernalia was seized. Salanguit further contends that the warrant was issued for made
more than one specific offense because possession or uses are punished under two
different provisions in the Dangerous Drugs Act. This Court has decided in the case of
People v Dichoso that a warrant that does not specify what provisions of the law were 16) PEOPLE VS. ARUTA [288 SCRA 626; G.R. NO. 120515; 13 APR 1998]
violated, is valid as to the authority to search and seize marijuana, shabu and drug
paraphernalias. Lastly, Salanguit argues that the search warrant failed to indicate the FACTS: On Dec. 13, 1988, P/Lt. Abello was tipped off by his informant that a certain
place to be searched with sufficient particularity. The rule is that a description of the “Aling Rosa” will be arriving from Baguio City with a large volume of marijuana and
place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with reasonable assembled a team. The next day, at the Victory Liner Bus terminal they waited for the
effort, ascertain and identify the place to be searched. The location of Salanguit’s bus coming from Baguio, when the informer pointed out who “Aling Rosa” was, the
team approached her and introduced themselves as NARCOM agents. When Abello
asked “aling Rosa” about the contents of her bag, the latter handed it out to the police. prevented her from doing so. They apprised the petitioner of her constitutional rights
They found dried marijuana leaves packed in a plastic bag marked “cash katutak”. and then they confiscated the sachet. They marked the sachet with the initials “SRE”
and took the petitioner to the police station.
Instead of presenting its evidence, the defense filed a demurrer to evidence alleging
the illegality of the search and seizure of the items. In her testimony, the accused The petitioner contends against the police officer’s statement. The petitioner said that
claimed that she had just come from Choice theatre where she watched a movie she was resting at home when policemen barged inside and asked her whether or not
“Balweg”. While about to cross the road an old woman asked her for help in carrying a she knew a certain “Ryan.” She replied in the negative. Afterwards, she was forcibly
shoulder bag, when she was later on arrested by the police. She has no knowledge of taken to the police station and was detained there. During her detention, the police
the identity of the old woman and the woman was nowhere to be found. Also, no officers were claiming that there was shabu inside the wallet they seized from her. In
search warrant was presented. fine, the petitioner was claiming that the evidence was planted.

The trial court convicted the accused in violation of the dangerous drugs of 1972 ISSUES:

ISSUE: Whether or Not the police correctly searched and seized the drugs from the Can the issue of warrantless arrest as well as the inadmissibility of evidence acquired
accused on the occasion thereof be raised for the first time only on appeal?

HELD: Accused-appellant Aruta cannot be said to be committing a crime. Neither was Whether or not the warrantless arrest was valid?
she about to commit one nor had she just committed a crime. Accused-appellant was
merely crossing the street and was not acting in any manner that would engender a
reasonable ground for the NARCOM agents to suspect and conclude that she was
committing a crime. It was only when the informant pointed to accused-appellant and HELD:
identified her to the agents as the carrier of the marijuana that she was singled out as
No. Petitioner did not question early on her warrantless arrest before her arraignment.
the suspect. The NARCOM agents would not have apprehended accused-appellant
Neither did she take steps to quash the Information on such ground. Verily, she raised
were it not for the furtive finger of the informant because, as clearly illustrated by the
the issue of warrantless arrest as well as the inadmissibility of evidence acquired on
evidence on record, there was no reason whatsoever for them to suspect that
the occasion thereof for the first time only on appeal before the appellate court. By
accused-appellant was committing a crime, except for the pointing finger of the
such omissions, she is deemed to have waived any objections on the legality of
informant. This the Court could neither sanction nor tolerate as it is a clear violation of
her arrest.
the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure. Neither was
there any semblance of any compliance with the rigid requirements of probable cause Yes. The circumstances under which petitioner was arrested indeed engender the
and warrantless arrests. belief that a search on her was warranted. Recall that the police officers were on a
surveillance operation as part of their law enforcement efforts. When PO1 Cruzin saw
Consequently, there was no legal basis for the NARCOM agents to effect a
petitioner placing a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance into her
warrantless search of accused-appellants bag, there being no probable cause and the
cigarette case, it was in his plain view. Given his training as a law enforcement officer,
accused-appellant not having been lawfully arrested. Stated otherwise, the arrest
it was instinctive on his part to be drawn to curiosity and to approach her. That
being incipiently illegal, it logically follows that the subsequent search was similarly
petitioner reacted by attempting to flee after he introduced himself as a police officer
illegal, it being not incidental to a lawful arrest. The constitutional guarantee against
and inquired about the contents of the plastic sachet all the more pricked his curiosity.
unreasonable search and seizure must perforce operate in favor of accused-appellant.
As such, the articles seized could not be used as evidence against accused-appellant What is, therefore, essential is that a genuine reason must exist, in light of the police
for these are fruits of a poisoned tree and, therefore, must be rejected, pursuant to officers experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person
Article III, Sec. 3(2) of the Constitution. who manifests unusual suspicious conduct has weapons or contraband concealed
about him. Such a stop-and-frisk practice serves a dual purpose: (1) the general
Emphasis is to be laid on the fact that the law requires that the search be incidental to
interest of effective crime prevention and detection, which underlies the recognition
a lawful arrest, in order that the search itself may likewise be considered legal.
that a police officer may, under appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate
Therefore, it is beyond cavil that a lawful arrest must precede the search of a person
manner, approach a person for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior
and his belongings. Where a search is first undertaken, and an arrest effected based
even without probable cause; and (2) the more pressing interest of safety and self-
on evidence produced by the search, both such search and arrest would be unlawful,
preservation which permit the police officer to take steps to assure himself that the
for being contrary to law.
person with whom he deals is not armed with a deadly weapon that could
Had the NARCOM agents only applied for a search warrant, they could have secured unexpectedly and fatally be used against the police officer.
one without too much difficulty, contrary to the assertions of the Solicitor General. The
From these standards, the Court finds that the questioned act of the police officers
person intended to be searched has been particularized and the thing to be seized
constituted a valid stop-and-frisk operation. The search/seizure of the suspected
specified. The time was also sufficiently ascertained to be in the afternoon of
shabu initially noticed in petitioners possession - later voluntarily exhibited to the police
December 14, 1988. Aling Rosa turned out to be accused-appellant and the thing to
operative - was undertaken after she was interrogated on what she placed inside a
be seized was marijuana. The vehicle was identified to be a Victory Liner bus. In fact,
cigarette case, and after PO1 Cruzin introduced himself to petitioner as a police
the NARCOM agents purposely positioned themselves near the spot where Victory
officer. And, at the time of her arrest, petitioner was exhibiting suspicious behavior and
Liner buses normally unload their passengers. Assuming that the NARCOM agents
in fact attempted to flee after the police officer had identified himself.
failed to particularize the vehicle, this would not in any way hinder them from securing
a search warrant. The above particulars would have already sufficed. In any case, this CONVICTED 12 yrs and 1 day minimum to 14 years maximum
Court has held that the police should particularly describe the place to be searched
and the person or things to be seized, wherever and whenever it is feasible.

ACQUITTED for lack of evidence to establish her guilt 18) PEOPLE VS AYANGAO (G.R. No. 142356, April 14, 2004)

Facts: Two weeks before August 13, 1999, policemen received an information that a
woman would be traveling with marijuana from Mountain Province to Mabalacat,
17) ESQUILLO V PEOPLE (G.R. No. 182010, August 25, 2010) Pampanga.
FACTS: Police officers were assigned in Malibay, Pasay to conduct surveillance on a
At around 5:00 oclock in the morning of August 13, 1999, the informant went to the
notorious snatcher named “Ryan.” It was during that time the police officers noticed
police headquarters and informed them that the suspect is due to arrive at Sapang
the petitioner. The police saw the petitioner standing three meters away from them.
Biabas, Mabalacat at 6:00 A.M (just an hour later) that day.
They saw the latter place inside a yellow cigarette case a plastic sachet containing a
white substance. They approached the petitioner and introduced themselves as police
The informant went with the police in the place pointed and he personally identified the
officer. Subsequently, they inquired regarding the sachet the petitioner placed inside
woman. They approached the woman. The policemen noticed a protruding marijuana
the case. The petitioner acted suspiciously and even tried to flee. The police officers
leaves from the sacks of sweet potatoes. The policemen identified themselves
and asked the woman to put out the contents of the sack. The sack contains sweet the circumstances of the case, there was sufficient probable cause for said police
potato with a brick-like substance packed with a masking tape. In plain view of the officer to believe that appellant was then and there committing a crime.
policemen it was identified to be marijuana. She was arrested and was convicted in
the trial court. She argued that the marijuana is inadmissible since the Police officer Mariano was tipped off by a civilian asset that a thin Ilocano
warrantless search is invalid, not having been pursuant to lawful arrest. person with a green bag was about to transport marijuana from Banaue, Ifugao. Said
information was received by SPO1 Mariano the very same morning he was waiting for
ISSUES a ride in Banaue to report for work in Lagawe, the capital town of Ifugao
province. Thus, face with such on-the-spot information, the law enforcer had to
Whether the prosecution was able to discharge its burden of proving the appellants respond quickly to the call of duty. Obviously, there was not enough time to secure a
guilt beyond reasonable doubt? search warrant considering the time involved in the process. In fact, in view of the
urgency of the case, SPO1 Mariano together with the civilian asset proceeded
Whether her arrest was illegal because she was not read her Miranda rights? immediately to Hingyon, Ifugao to pursue the drug trafficker. In Hingyon, he flagged
down buses bound for Baguio City and Manila, and looked for the person described by
Whether the defense of alibi stands? the informant. It must be noted that the target of the pursuit was just the thin Ilocano
person with a green bag and no other. And so, when SPO1 Mariano inspected the bus
HELD: bound for Manila, he just singled out the passenger with the green bag. Evidently,
there was definite information of the identity of the person engaged in transporting
Yes. The decision of the trial court was supported by the evidence on record. prohibited drugs at a particular time and place. SPO1 Mariano had already an inkling
Regarding the credibility of witnesses, this Court has ruled time and again that this is a of the identity of the person he was looking for. As a matter of fact, no search at all
matter best assessed by the trial court judge since he has the opportunity to observe was conducted on the baggages of other passengers. Hence, appellants claim that the
the witnesses demeanor and deportment on the stand. Besides, in this case, the arresting officer was only fishing for evidence of a crime has no factual basis.
inconsistencies criticized by the appellant were minor ones involving negligible details Clearly, SPO1 Mariano had probable cause to stop and search the buses
which did not negate the truth of the witnesses testimonies nor detract from their coming from Banaue in view of the information he got from the civilian asset that
credibility. somebody having the same appearance as that of appellant and with a green bag
would be transporting marijuana from Banaue. He likewise had probable cause to
No. In this case, the arresting officers had probable cause to make the arrest in view of search appellants belongings since he fits the description given by the civilian
the tip they received from their informant. This Court has already ruled that tipped asset. Since there was a valid warrantless search by the police officer, any evidence
information is sufficient probable cause to effect a warrantless search.[17] Although obtained during the course of said search is admissible against appellant.
the apprehending officers received the tip two weeks prior to the arrest, they could not
be faulted for not applying for a search warrant inasmuch as the exact date of CONVICTED
appellants arrival was not known by the informant. Although there was testimony by
20. PEOPLE V. DORIA [G.R. No. 125299. January 22, 1999]
PO3 Galvez that the informant told them the exact date of arrival, the trial court gave
more weight to the testimony of PO3 Sagum that stated otherwise, as evidenced by
his finding that the informant arrived at the police station at 5:00 A.M. on August 13, FACTS: Members of the PNP Narcotics Command received information that one “
1999 and informed them that the appellant was arriving at 6:00 A.M. Jun” [Doria] was engaged in illegal drug activities, so they decided to entrap and arrest
him in a buy-bust operation. He was arrested. They frisked him but did not find the
No. The appellant also faults the trial court for failing to give weight to her defense of marked bills on him, and upon inquiry, he revealed that he left it at the house of his
alibi. Appellants alibi could not prevail over the overwhelming evidence presented by associate “ Neneth ” [Gaddao], so he led the police team to her house.
the prosecution. Alibi as a defense is inherently weak and for it to serve as basis for an
acquittal, the accused must establish by clear and convincing evidence (a) his The team found the door open and a woman inside the house. “ Jun” identified
presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense and (b) the her as “Neneth, ” and she was asked by SPO1 Badua about the marked money as
physical impossibility to be at the scene of the crime. The appellant failed to meet PO3 Manlangit looked over her house [he was still outside the house]. Standing by the
these two requirements. Jaime Alarcons house where appellant claimed to be sleeping door, PO3 Manlangit noticed a carton box under the dining table. One of the box’ s
at the time of her arrest, was only 10 meters from the tricycle terminal where she was flaps was open, and inside it was something wrapped in plastic, and it appeared
arrested by the officers. Thus, the trial court was correct in ruling that the alibi of similar to the marijuana earlier sold to him by “ Jun. ” His suspicion aroused, so he
entered the house and took hold of the box. He peeked inside the box and saw 10
appellant was not enough to acquit her of the charges.
bricks of what appeared to be dried marijuana leaves. SPO1 Badua recovered the
CONVICTED marked bills from “ Neneth ” and they arrested her. The bricks were examined and
they were found to be dried marijuana leaves.
19) PEOPLE VS VALDEZ [G.R. No. 127801. March 3, 1999]
Florencio Doria and Violeta Gaddao were charged with violation of RA 6425
FACTS: Valdez was found guilty of the crime of illegal transport of marijuana. SPO1 [Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972], Section 4 [Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution
Bernardo Mariano was waiting for a ride to report for work when a civilian asset and Transportation of Prohibited Drugs] in relation to Section 21 [Attempt and
approached him and intimated that an Ilocano person was ready to transport Conspiracy]. RTC convicted them.
marijuana. This asset described to him the physical appearance of the suspect as thin
and possessing a green bag. Mr. Mariano invited the asset and together they ISSUE:
proceeded to Barangay O-ong, Hingyon, Ifugao. There they alighted and stopped and
ordinary Dangwa passenger bus bound for Baguio City. Aboard on this bus, they did
not find the person concerned. They waited for the air conditioned Dangwa bus bound WON the box of marijuana was in plain view, making its warrantless seizure valid?
for Manila. When this bus arrived, Police Officer Mariano boarded the aircon bus and
looked for that person from among the passengers and noticed him holding the green HELD: No. Gaddao ’s warrantless arrest was illegal because she was arrested solely
bag. He immediately ordered the person to get out of the bus. This fellow followed on the basis of the alleged identification made by Doria. Doria did not point to her as
holding the bag. Once outside, he further ordered the suspect to open the bag and his associate in the drug business, but as the person with whom he left the marked
saw a water jug colored red and white and a lunch box. He told this man to open the bills. This identification does not necessarily mean that Gaddao conspired with Doria in
jug and the lunch box and when opened, he saw marijuana leaves as contents. pushing drugs. If there is no showing that the person who effected the warrantless
arrest had knowledge of facts implicating the person arrested to the perpetration of the
ISSUE: Whether the court erred in admitting the drugs as evidence? criminal offense, the arrest is legally objectionable.
HELD: In this case, appellant was caught in flagrante since he was carrying marijuana Since the warrantless arrest of Gaddao was illegal, the search of her person and home
at the time of his arrest. A crime was actually being committed by the appellant, thus, and the subsequent seizure of the marked bills and marijuana cannot be deemed legal
the search made upon his personal effects falls squarely under paragraph (a) of the as an incident to her arrest.
foregoing provisions of law, which allow a warrantless search incident to lawful
arrest. While it is true that SPO1 Mariano was not armed with a search warrant when “ Plain view ” issue
the search was conducted over the personal effects of appellant, nevertheless, under
Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have ISSUE:W/N there is valid warrantless arrestRULING:Yes.The court held that
that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced petitioners were validly arrest withoutwarrant.
in evidence.
The requirements of a warrantless arrest are nowsummarized in Rule 113, Section 5
Requisites which states that: A peace officer ora private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
a. The law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a person:(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, isactually
prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;(b) When an offense has just been
a particular area committed, and he has probablecause to believe based on personal knowledge of
b. The discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent facts or circumstancesthat the person to be arrested has committed it; and(c) When
the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped froma penal establishment or
c. It is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he place where he is serving final judgment or istemporarily confined while his case is
observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to pending, or has escaped whilebeing transferred from one confinement to another.In
seizure cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b) above, the person arrestedwithout a warrant
shall be forth with delivered to the nearest policestation or jail and shall be proceeded
An object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly exposed to sight. The difficulty against in accordance with section7 of Rule 112.A warrantless arrest under the
arises when the object is inside a closed container. Where the object seized was circumstances contemplated underSection 5(a) above has been denominated as one
inside a closed package, the object itself is not in plain view and therefore cannot be "in flagrante delicto,"while that under Section 5(b) has been described as a "hot
seized without a warrant. If the package is such that an experienced observer could pursuit"arrest.Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
infer from its appearance that it contains the prohibited article, then the article is Procedureprovides that:When an offense has just been committed, and he has
deemed in plain view. It must be immediately apparent to the police that the items that probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that
they observe may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. theperson to be arrested has committed it.The elements under Section 5(b), Rule 113
of the Revised Rules ofCriminal Procedure are: first, an offense has just been
In his direct examination, PO3 Manlangit said that he was sure that the contents of the committed; andsecond, the arresting officer has probable cause to believe based
box were marijuana because he himself checked and marked the said contents. On onpersonal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to bearrested has
cross-examination, however, he admitted that he merely presumed the contents to be committed it.The Court's appreciation of the elements that "the offense has just
marijuana because it had the same plastic wrapping as the "buy-bust beencommitted" and ''personal knowledge of facts and circumstances thatthe person
marijuana." Each of the ten bricks of marijuana in the box was individually wrapped in to be arrested committed it" depended on the particularcircumstances of the case.
old newspaper and placed inside plastic bags-- white, pink or blue in color. PO3 The element of ''personal knowledge of factsor circumstances", however, under
Manlangit himself admitted on cross-examination that the contents of the box could be Section 5(b), Rule 113 of theRevised Rules of Criminal Procedure requires
items other than marijuana. He did not know exactly what the box contained that he clarification.Circumstances may pertain to events or actions within the
had to ask appellant Gaddao about its contents. It was not immediately apparent to actualperception, personal evaluation or observation of the police officer atthe scene
PO3 Manlangit that the content of the box was marijuana; hence, it was not in plain of the crime. Thus, even though the police officer has not seensomeone actually
view and its seizure without the requisite search warrant was in violation of the law and fleeing, he could still make a warrantless arrest if,based on his personal evaluation of
the Constitution. It was fruit of the poisonous tree and should have been excluded and the circumstances at the scene ofthe crime, he could determine the existence of
never considered by the trial court. probable cause that theperson sought to be arrested has committed the
crime.However, the determination of probable cause and the gathering offacts or
The fact that the box containing about 6 kilos of marijuana was found in Gaddao ’s circumstances should be made immediately after thecommission of the crime in order
house Gaddao does not justify a finding that she herself is guilty of the crime charged. to comply with the element ofimmediacy. In other words, the clincher in the element of
''personalknowledge of facts or circumstances" is the required element ofimmediacy
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, what is material is the submission within which these facts or circumstances should begathered.With the facts and
of proof that the sale took place between the poseur-buyer and the seller and the circumstances of the case at bar that the policeofficers gathered and which they have
presentation of the drug as evidence in court. personally observed less thanone hour from the time that they have arrived at the
 Prosecution established the fact that in consideration of the P1,600.00 he scene of the crime it is reasonable to conclude that the police officers had personal
received, Doria sold and delivered 970 grams of marijuana to PO3 Manlangit, the knowledge of the facts and circumstances justifying the petitioners’ warrantless
poseur-buyer arrests.Hence, the petitioners were validly arrested and the subsequentinquest
proceeding was likewise appropriate
 Prosecution failed to prove that Gaddao conspired with accused-appellant
Doria in the sale of said drug
22. People vs. Joselito del Rosario –
DORIA IS SENTENCED TO SUFFER RECLUSION PERPETUA + 500K FINE WHILE GR 127755, April 14, 1999
GADDAO IS ACQUITTED
FACTS

21. Pestilos v. Generoso The accused-appellant was convicted of the robbery with homicide and sentenced to
death. The conviction of the accused was based on the testimony of a tricycle driver
FACTS: who claimed that the accused was the one who drove the tricycle, which the suspects
In the morning, an altercation ensued between the petitioners and Atty.Moreno used as their get-away vehicle. The accused was then invited by the police for
Generoso. Atty. Generoso called the Central Police District,Station to report questioning and he pointed to the location where he dropped off the suspects. When
the incident. Acting on this report, Desk the police arrived at the supposed hide-out, a shooting incident ensued, resulting to
SPO1Monsalve the death of some of the suspects.
dispatched SP02 Javier to go to the scene of the crime and torender assistance.
SP02 Javier, together with augmentation personnelfrom the Airforce, A2C Alano After the incident, the accused was taken back to the precint where his statement was
Sayson and Airman Ruel Galvez, arrived atthe scene of the crime less than one hour taken on May 14, 1996. However, this was only subscribed on May 22, 1996 and the
after the allegedaltercation and they saw Atty. Generoso badly beate. accused was made to execute a waiver of detention in the presence of Ex-Judge
Talavera. It was noted that the accused was handcuffed through all this time upon
Atty. Generoso then pointed to the petitioners as those who mauledhim. This orders of the fiscal and based on the authorities' belief that the accused might attempt
prompted the police officers to "invite" the petitioners to goto Batasan Hills Police to escape otherwise.
Station for investigation.The petitioners went with the police officers to Batasan Hills
PoliceStation. At the inquest proceeding, the City Prosecutor of Quezon Cityfound that ISSUES
the petitioners stabbed Atty. Generoso with a bladedweapon. Atty. Generoso
fortunately survived the attack.The petitioners were indicted for attempted murderThe (1) Whether the Miranda rights of the accused-appellant were violated.
petitioners primarily argue that they were not lawfully arrested.No arrest warrant was (2) Whether the warrantless arrest of the accused-appellant was lawful.
ever issued; they went to the police station onlyas a response to the arresting officers'
invitation.The petitioners also claim that no valid warrantless arrest took placeunder HELD
the terms of Rule 112, Section 7 of the Revised Rules of Court.The incident happened
two (2) hours before the police officers actuallyarrived at the crime scene. The police (1) YES. It was established that the accused was not apprised of his rights to
officers could not haveundertaken a valid warrantless arrest as they had no remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel in the course of the
personalknowledge that the petitioners were the authors of the crime. investigation. The Court held that the accused should always be apprised of his
Miranda rights from the moment he is arrested by the authorities as this is deemed the person to be arrested has committed it; and (c) When the person to be arrested is a
start of custodial investigation. In fact, the Court included “invitations” by police officers prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving
in the scope of custodial investigations. final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while
being transferred from one confinement to another. The facts of the case do not
It is evident in this case that when the police invited the accused-appellant to the warrant the applicability of paragraphs (a) and (c). Moreover, in paragraph (b), the only
station, he was already considered as the suspect in the case. Therefore, the instance under which accused-appellant's case could possibly fall, what is essential is
questions asked of him were no longer general inquiries into an unsolved crime, but
that the person making the arrest has personal knowledge of the facts indicating that
were intended to elicit information about his participation in the crime.
the arrestee is responsible for an offense which has just been committed [People v.
However, the Miranda rights may be waived, provided that the waiver is voluntary, Burgos, G.R. No. 68955, September 4,1986,144 SCRA 1]. Accused appellant was
express, in writing and made in the presence of counsel. Unfortunately, the arrested one day after the killing of the victim and only on the basis of information
prosecution failed to establish that the accused made such a waiver. obtained by the police officers from unnamed sources. These abovementioned
circumstances clearly belie a lawful warrantless arrest. [Also read: Section 20, Article
(2) NO. There are certain situations when authorities may conduct a lawful IV of the 1973 Constitution]
warrantless arrest: (a) when the accused is caught in flagrante delicto; (b) when the
arrest is made immediately after the crime was committed; and © when the one to be Note.—View that extrajudicial confessions are inadmissible as they were taken without
arrested is an escaped convict. The arrest of the accused in this case did not fall in admonition to accused as to constitutional rights to silence and to counsel.
any of these exceptions. The arrest was not conducted immediately after the
consummation of the crime; rather, it was done a day after. The authorities also did not
have personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the person to be arrested had
committed the offense because they were not there when the crime was committed. 24) G.R. No. 101837 February 11, 1992
They merely relied on the account of one eyewitness.
ROLITO GO y TAMBUNTING, petitioner,
Unfortunately, athough the warrantless arrest was not lawful, this did not affect the
jurisdiction of the Court in this case because the accused still submitted to arraignment vs.
despite the illegality of his arrest. In effect, he waived his right to contest the legality of
the warrantless arrest. THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE HON. BENJAMIN V. PELAYO, Presiding Judge,
Branch 168, Regional Trial Court, NCJR Pasig, M.M., and PEOPLE OF THE
23. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ARNULFO CENDANA y REYES, PHILIPPINES, respondents.
accused-appellant. G.R. No. 84715. October 17, 1990.

DOCTRINE: The arrest of accused was effected one day after the killing of the victim
and only on the basis of information obtained by the policemen from unnamed Facts: According to the findings of the San Juan Police in their Investigation Report, 1
sources, hence, par. b. of Sec. 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure allowing on 2 July 1991, Eldon Maguan was driving his car along Wilson St., San Juan, Metro
warrantless arrest cannot be applied. The arrest of accused without a warrant is Manila, heading towards P. Guevarra St. Petitioner entered Wilson St., where it is a
therefor unlawful one-way street and started travelling in the opposite or "wrong" direction. At the corner
of Wilson and J. Abad Santos Sts., petitioner's and Maguan's cars nearly bumped
FACTS: The Police Station in Pangasinan received a report that a man was found each other. Petitioner alighted from his car, walked over and shot Maguan inside his
dead on the field near the ricemill. Upon investigation, policemen found the cadaver, car. Petitioner then boarded his car and left the scene. A security guard at a nearby
identified to be that of Dominador Manongdo, lying prostrate on the ground with one restaurant was able to take down petitioner's car plate number. The police arrived
gunshot wound on the head. Subsequently, accused-appellant Arnulfo Cendana y shortly thereafter at the scene of the shooting and there retrieved an empty shell and
Reyes was apprehended and later charged with the crime of murder "thru illegally one round of live ammunition for a 9 mm caliber pistol. Verification at the Land
possessed firearm.” Transportation Office showed that the car was registered to one Elsa Ang Go. On 8
July 1991, petitioner presented himself before the San Juan Police Station to verify
The trial judge convicted accused-appellant finding the latter guilty beyond reasonable news reports that he was being hunted by the police; he was accompanied by two (2)
doubt of the crime of Murder thru Illegally Possessed Firearm, and considering that the lawyers. The police forthwith detained him. An eyewitness to the shooting, who was at
crime of Murder was committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm. the police station at that time, positively identified petitioner as the gunman. That same
day, the police promptly filed a complaint for frustrated homicide. On 9 July 1991,
Solicitor General filed a manifestation recommending the acquittal of accused- while the complaint was still with the Prosecutor, and before an information could be
appellant. He asserts that the alleged admission made by the accused-appellant and filed in court, the victim, Eldon Maguan, died of his gunshot wound(s).
the gun seized from him are both inadmissible in evidence for having been obtained in
violation of accused-appellant's constitutional rights. Accordingly, on 11 July 1991, the Prosecutor, instead of filing an information for
frustrated homicide, filed an information for murder 3 before the Regional Trial Court.
From the narration of events, we note the following: (1) That there was no eye witness No bail was recommended. At the bottom of the information, the Prosecutor certified
to the killing of the victim Dominador Manongdo; (2) That the accused-appellant was that no preliminary investigation had been conducted because the accused did not
apprehended by the police investigators on the basis of information obtained from execute and sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.
unidentified persons that accusedappellant was seen carrying a gun before the In the afternoon of the same day, 11 July 1991, counsel for petitioner filed with the
incident. (3) That the accused-appellant was apprehended by the police officers Prosecutor an omnibus motion for immediate release and proper preliminary
without any warrant of arrest; (4) That the shotgun was recovered without a search investigation,4 alleging that the warrantless arrest of petitioner was unlawful and that
warrant from the house where accused-appellant was arrested; and (5) That the no preliminary investigation had been conducted before the information was filed.
alleged statement made by accusedappellant to the police officers admitting to the
commission of the offense and made after his arrest, was used as the main basis for Issue: Whether the warrantless arrest was valid
his conviction.
Ruling: The Court do not believe that the warrantees "arrest" or detention of petitioner
Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure enumerates the in the instant case falls within the terms of Section 5 of Rule 113. Petitioner's "arrest"
instances when a peace officer or a private person may arrest a person without a took place six (6) days after the shooting of Maguan. The "arresting" officers obviously
warrant. (Refer to the said provision) were not present, within the meaning of Section 5(a), at the time petitioner had
allegedly shot Maguan. Neither could the "arrest" effected six (6) days after the
ISSUE: Is the arrest made against Cendana, only on the basis of information obtained shooting be reasonably regarded as effected "when [the shooting had] in fact just been
by the officers from unnamed sources, lawful? committed" within the meaning of Section 5(b). Moreover, none of the "arresting"
officers had any "personal knowledge" of facts indicating that petitioner was the
HELD: Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure enumerates the
gunman who had shot Maguan. The information upon which the police acted had been
instances when a peace officer or a private person may arrest a person without a
derived from statements made by alleged eyewitnesses to the shooting — one stated
warrant: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
that petitioner was the gunman; another was able to take down the alleged gunman's
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has in
car's plate number which turned out to be registered in petitioner's wife's name. That
fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the
information did not, however, constitute "personal knowledge." It is thus clear to the 26) PEOPLE vs GERENTE
Court that there was no lawful warrantless arrest of petitioner within the meaning of G.R. NO. 95847-48
Section 5 of Rule 113. It is clear too that Section 7 of Rule 112 s also not applicable. MARCH 10, 1993.
Indeed, petitioner was not arrested at all. When he walked into San Juan Police
Station, accompanied by two (2) lawyers, he in fact placed himself at the disposal of
Facts: The Valenzuela Police Station received a report about a mauling incident. Upon
the police authorities. He did not state that he was "surrendering" himself, in all
learning at the hospital that the victim died on arrival and being informed of the cause
probability to avoid the implication he was admitting that he had slain Eldon Maguan or
of death, the policemen proceeded to the crime scene where they found a piece of
that he was otherwise guilty of a crime. When the police filed a complaint for frustrated
wood with blood stains, a hollow block and two roaches of marijuana. After being told
homicide with the Prosecutor, the latter should have immediately scheduled a
by the eye witness the identity of one of the three assailants, the policemen went to
preliminary investigation to determine whether there was probable cause for charging
appellant’s house where they introduced themselves, and apprehended him and
petitioner in court for the killing of Eldon Maguan.
confiscated dried marijuana leaves.

Issue: W/N the search of appellant’s person and the seizure of the marijuana leaves in
25) People V. Tonog his possession were valid.

Facts: Dumaguete City Police Station received a report that a lifeless body was Held: Yes.
found who was later identified as Efren Flores. Based from the investigation, a
The policemen arrested Gerente only some three (3) hours after Gerente
motorcab stopped near the place where the deceased was found. It was also
and his companions had killed Blace. They saw Blace dead in the hospital and when
revealed that Ignacio Tonog, Jr. was the one who was responsible for his
they inspected the scene of the crime, they found the instruments of death: a piece of
death and that prior to the incident, there were grudges between the two.
wood and a concrete hollow block which the killers had used to bludgeon him to death.
Without warrant, police officers went to Bacong, Negros
The eye-witness, Edna Edwina Reyes, reported the happening to the policemen and
Oriental, and upon being invited forquestioning, voluntarily went with the law enforcers
pinpointed her neighbor, Gerente, as one of the killers. Under those circumstances,
unaccompanied by a counsel. While they were on their way to the police station, it
since the policemen had personal knowledge of the violent death of Blace and of facts
was noticed that there were blood stains the accused’s pants
indicating that Gerente and two others had killed him, they could lawfully arrest
and when asked about it, he said that it was from a pig. He was then requested to take
Gerente without a warrant. If they had postponed his arrest until they could obtain a
off his pants for examination.At the station, he confessed his guilt but was
warrant, he would have fled the law as his two companions did.
not recorded. After a month, the pants and the knife found were brought to the
Cebu crime lab and found that the blood was the same as the victim’s. One of The search conducted on Gerente's person was likewise lawful because it
the witnesses, Liberato Solamillo, testified that while drinking with the accused was made as an incident to a valid arrest. This is in accordance with Section 12, Rule
and a certain Allan. 126 of the Revised Rules of Court which provides: "Section 12. Search incident to
lawful arrest. — A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons
The accused left with certain Biyok. At around 11pm, Liberato and Allanrode a
or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a
motorcab to look for the accused. They then saw the victim and requested to convey
search warrant." The frisk and search of appellant's person upon his arrest was a
himto Dumaguete. Allan left and when it fauled to return, Liberato decided to ride
permissible precautionary measure of arresting officers to protect themselves, for the
a pedicab. Onhis
person who is about to be arrested may be armed and might attack them unless he is
way, he saw the motorcab, and when he proceeded to the motorcab, he saw Tonog wi
first disarmed.
thinside and noticed the blood stains on his pants. All the facts were denied by the
accused and that he only confessed because he was told to do so. Charged with three
others, Ignacio Tonog was convicted of murder. 27) People v. Armando Alvario
GR 120437-41 / July 16 1997 / J. Romero / 341 PHIL 526
Issue:Whether the trial court faulted in admitting the pants and knife as evidence since
theywere taken during a warrantless arrest? Doctrine: Warrantless arrest, when lawful – A peace officer or a private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person: (b) When an offense has in fact just been
Rule:The "acid-washed maong"pants committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be
were admissible in evidence, They were taken fromAccused-appellant as arrested has committed it. (Rule 113, Section 5, Rules on Criminal Procedure)
an incident of his arrest. It may be that the police officers were not armed with a
warrant when they apprehended Accused-Appellant. The warrantless Facts:
arrest, however,was justified under Section 5(b), Rule 133 of the 1985 Rules of - Appeal of RTC Makati judgment
Criminal Procedure providing that a peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a - Esterlina Quintero, a single mother, was looking for another job, and was
person "when an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has employed by accused-appellant Armando Alvario to cook and do laundry
personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has for him. Alvario was a caretaker of a house in Bel-Air Subdivision. On her
committed it." first day of employment, she was not given any food, and on the next day,
she was only allowed 2 spoonfuls of leftover food despite doing her
In this case, Pat. Leguarda, in effecting the arrest of Accused-appellant,had regular chores. Alvario gave strict instructions for Esterlina not to leave the
knowledge of facts gathered by him personally in the course of his investigation house. He forced himself on her every night with a gun. He forbid the use
indicaTng that Accused-appellant was one of the perpetrators. The "maong" pants of the telephone, and he threatened that he will file a case against her if
she told anyone. She later then called her sister, who asked for the help of
having been taken from Accused-appellant as an incident to a lawful arrest, no
the Makati police, and on the pretense of a missing wallet, arrested
inµrmity may bea´ributed to their seizure without a warrant. SecTon 12 of Rule 126 of
Alvario without a warrant.
the Rules of Court explicitly provides that "A person charged with an o²ense may be
- Version of Alvario: Esterlina was introduced to him because his employer,
searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the Atty. Rogelio San Luis, was looking for a maid for the latter’s house at Bel-
commission of the o²ense." Air. When he arrived home in the afternoon, Esterlina was already there
with her things. She asked for an advance on her salary, which he gave
“It may be that the police officers were not armed with a warrant when they her, and they had sexual intercourse repeatedly afterwards. He later
apprehended Accused-appellant. The warrantless arrest, however, was justified under confronted Esterlina and Alma about the use of the telephone and about
Section 5 (b), Rule 133 (sic) of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure providing that a his missing money and necklace. The security guards of Bel-Air arrived
peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person when an offense has in fact just because of Esterlina’s missing wallet, and when he went out for a call of
been committed and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to nature, 4 men who identified themselves as Makati policemen grabbed
be arrested has committed it. In this case, Pat. Leguarda, in effecting the arrest of him from behind and told him there was a complaint against him. They
Accused-appellant, had knowledge of facts gathered by him personally in the insisted that he come with them peacefully even as he kept asking for a
course of his investigation indicating that Accused-appellant was one of the warrant of arrest. At the police station, he learned that he was being
perpetrators. “ detained on charges of rape; the complainant was, however, willing to
settle the case for P350,000.00, but he refused to settle.
 - RTC Judge Magpale rendered the judgment finding Alvario guilty of 5 message directing them to Ihaw-Ihaw where there hadbeen a shooting. They
counts of rape proceeded to the place and saw the victim. Bystanders pointed to Jayson as
thegunman. He was apprehended about 10 meters away, attempting to flee.
Issue: Is Alvario guilty beyond reasonable doubt?
He was initially charged with murder but was allowed to plead guilty to the
Ruling: NO. lesser offense of homicideafter plea-bargaining. He was sentenced to 6 years and 1
- While the defense is not persuasive enough, the prosecution is even less day of prision mayor to 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal
convincing in proving the guilt of Armando Alvario beyond a reasonable
doubt. He was subsequently charged with illegal possession of firearm (violation of
- In her complaint, Esterlina Quintero claimed that she was sexually abused PD 1866). Finding him ingood faith (believing that the mission order and memorandum
by Alvario with the use of force, violence and intimidation. This was not receipt issued to him were valid), RTCsentenced him to 20 years imprisonment. CA
proved by the prosecution. increased the penalty to reclusion perpetua.
o The only witnesses she presented were her sister Merlyn and
SPO3 Reyes, whose testimonies failed to provide the SC: Although not raised as an error by the accused-appellant, it is pertinent
necessary support to her allegations of rape. Merlyn’s to consider thecircumstances surrounding accused-appellant’s arrest and the seizure
testimony was that her sister Esterlina called her up and from him of the firearm inquestion considering that both were made without any
sought her aid in the arrest of the man who raped her. SPO3
warrant from a court.
Reyes’ testimony was that he responded to a radio message
that a certain Esterlina Quintero was raped by a man named W/N the warrantless arrest, search, and seizure were valid YES, YES, YES
Armando Alvario, and he engineered Alvario’s arrest. The
other maid, Alma Barliso, who by Esterlina's own account was Rule 113, §5(b) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that an
always inside the house while she was allegedly being raped
warrantless arrest shall belawful when an offense has in fact just been committed, and
by Alvario, was never utilized as a witness. The medical
he has personal knowledge of facts indicating thatthe person to be arrested has
report reveals nothing that would prove a charge of rape as
there was no evident sign of extragenital physical injuries. committed it. In the case at bar there was a shooting. The policemen summonedto the
o The house was not in an isolated place. Located in an scene of the crime found the victim. Jayson was pointed to them as the assailant only
exclusive subdivision in Makati surrounded by neighbors moments afterthe shooting. In fact Jayson had not gone very far. The arresting officers
where sentinels continuously stood guard at the gate nearby, thus acted on the basis of personalknowledge of the death of the victim and of facts
Esterlina could have easily yelled for help whenever Alvario indicating that Jayson was the assailant. The search andseizure were hence incident
was out of the house. to a lawful arrest as allowed under Rule 126, §12.
o The element of seeming indifference to her predicament,
when the denial of food on her first day of employment and to W/N Jayson is liable for illegal possession of firearm YES
have to eat 2 spoonfuls of leftover food the next day should
have been warning to her, as she was not an inexperienced Major Arquillano was not authorized to issue mission orders to civilian agents of the
house helper. She had many opportunities to escape as AFP as he was notany of the officers enumerated in the IRR of PD 1866. Neither was
Alvario was out of the house daily. Between her and the other Jayson qualified to be issued a missionorder because he was a mere reserve of
househelp, Alma, who was alleged to have been also the CAFGU without regular monthly compensation. He also violatedthe restrictions in
sexually abused by Alvario, they could have escaped the the mission order by carrying the firearm inside the nightclub. While the
house. defense argues thatthe prosecution failed to present the police officer who certified
o She did not call her sister Merlyn immediately on the day that Jayson is not licensed to own a firearm, theobjection must be deemed waived in
when she had been repeatedly raped.
view of Jayson's failure to object to the presentation of the certificate.
o Her self-imposed silence, because of Alvario’s threat to file a
case against her, which she did not elaborate on. Alvario W/N RA 8294 amending PD 1866 can be applied on the theory that it is more
testified that he confronted Esterlina and Alma about his
favorable to Jayson NO
missing money and necklace, but neither admitted the theft.
- Alvario consistently protested his warrantless arrest. Rule 113 of the While the new law reduces the penalty for illegal possession of firearm, it cannot be
Rules on Criminal Procedure states that for a warrantless arrest to be
applied becausethe statute provides that the lighter penalty does not apply to cases
lawful, an offense has in fact just been committed and the peace
where another crime has been committed.Neither can the paragraph treating the use
officer/private person has personal knowledge of the facts indicating that
the person to be arrested has committed it. In this case, the personal of the subject firearm in the commission of murder or homicide tobe considered as an
knowledge of the arresting officers in the case at bar was culled from the aggravating circumstance be applied because this case concerns solely the charge
information supplied by the victim herself who pointed to Alvario as the ofillegal possession of firearm.
man who raped her at the time of his arrest.

Acquitted on ground of reasonable doubt; immediate release from prison is ordered

29) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TIRSO ACOL Y
BARNUBAL and PIO BOSES Y DOLFO, defendants, PIO BOSES,
28) People V. Jayson appellant.

FACTS: DOCTRINE: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED;

WARRANTLESS ARREST; WHEN VALID; CASE AT BAR. —since accused-
In March 1991, Wenceslao Jayson was a bouncer at the Ihaw-Ihaw nightclub appellant's arrest was lawful, it follows that the search made incidental thereto was
in Davao City. He wasarrested without a warrant after being pointed by eyewitnesses valid. Moreover, the unlicensed firearms were found when the police team
as the gunman in the killing of NelsonJordan. Recovered from him was a .38 caliber apprehended the accused for the robbery and not for illegal possession of firearms
revolver with 4 live bullets and an empty shell. and ammunition. When, in pursuing an illegal action or in the commission of a
criminal offense, the offending police officers should happen to discover a
The gun and ammo were covered by a memorandum receipt and mission order issued criminal offense being committed by any person, they are not precluded from
by Major Arquillano, Deputy Commander of the Civil-Military Operation and CAFGU performing their duties as police officers for the apprehension of the guilty
person and the taking of the corpus delicti.
Affairs of DavaoMetropolitan District Command. Said order authorized the Jayson to
carry the gun and 12 rounds ofammo for 3 months following certain restrictions:
Carrying of firearms is prohibited in places where people gather for political, religious, FACTS:
social, educational, andrecreational purposes, such as churches or chapels, carnival There was a hold-up inside the jeepney where passengers were divested of their
grounds or fairs, nightclubs, cabarets (...) except whenthe personnel concerned is on personal belongings, including the jacket of passenger Rene Araneta. Thereafter, the
official mission in such places for which he was authorized to carry firearms. robbers alighted and after which Percival Tan (the jeepney driver) and his passengers
went to Fort Bonifacio to report the crime. A CAPCOM team was forthwith formed to
•With respect to the arrest, SPO1 Tenebro testified that while he and track down the culprits. Victim Rene Araneta who went with the responding police
Patrolmen Camotes and Racolaswere patrolling in their car, they received a radio officers, upon seeing four persons, one of whom was wearing his stolen jacket,
walking casually towards Fort Bonifacio, told the police authorities to accost said Reynoso Bacnat then apprehended Cadua’s companion, who was later identified as
persons. After the CAPCOM officers introduced themselves, the four men scampered Joselito Aguilar. In Aguilar’s possession was found a fan knife.
to different directions but three of them, namely, Tirso Acol, Pio Boses, and Albert
Blanco, were apprehended. Tirso Acol and Pio Boses were each found in possession Petitioner seeks to invoke his constitutional right to be secure against unreasonable
of an unlicensed .38 caliber revolver with bullets. After the arrest, the three men were searches and seizures, 18 and the corresponding prohibition against admitting into
brought to Fort Bonifacio and were identified by Percival Tan and the passengers who evidence anything obtained in violation of such right. Petitioner further claims that the
ganged up on the accused. They were apprehended and haled to court, not for the police officers incorrectly premised their action on the instances provided for in
felonious asportation, but for possession of the two unlicensed firearms and bullets warrantless arrests. He adds that since the complainants later on disclaimed
recovered from them which were instrumental in the commission of the crime. petitioner’s identity as the holdupper and that no case of robbery was filed against him,
any probable cause or personal knowledge thereof, alleged by the arresting officers,
ISSUE: W/N there was a valid warrantless arrest and search conducted had been totally negated. Thus, petitioner now posits that, absent probable cause or
thereafter? personal knowledge by the arresting officers, the arrest and the incidental search are
illegal; hence, the “paltik– they seized is inadmissible in evidence.

RULING: Yes. With respect to the so-called warrantless arrest of accused-appellant, Both the trial and appellate courts, according to respondents, found that at the time
we are of the view that the search falls within the purview of the Section 5(b) of Rule that petitioner was arrested, the police officers had probable cause to arrest him based
113 which serves as anexception to the requisite warrant prior to arrest: on the information which was given by the complainants.

When an offense has in fact been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts ISSUE
indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it;
Whether or not the Petitioner’s arrest and the seizure of the firearms lawful.
inasmuch as the police team was formed and dispatched to look for the persons
RULING
responsible for the crime on account of the information related by Percival Tan and
Rene Araneta that they had just been robbed (People vs. Gerente, 219 SCRA 756
Yes. Petitioner’s arrest has been found valid and the seizure of the
[1993]; People vs. Tonog, Jr ., 205 SCRA 772 [1992]).
firearms lawful. Actual possession of an unlicensed firearm, which the accused
And since accused-appellant's arrest was lawful, it follows that the search made attempted to draw out, by itself, amounts to committing an offense in the presence of
incidental thereto was valid (People vs. Tanilon, 221 SCRA 671 [1993]). Moreover, the the arresting officer.
unlicensed firearms were found when the police team apprehended the accused for
the robbery and not for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition (People vs. From a careful study of the records of this case, we find no cogent reason
Cruz, 165 SCRA 135 [1988]). The principle imparted by Justice Padilla in Cruz was to disturb the findings by the trial court as affirmed by the appellate court. Petitioner’s
based on the ruling of this Court in Magoncia vs. Palacio (90 Phil. 771 [1948]) that: declaration that the police officers trumped up a charge of illegal possession just so
that they would “not go home emptyhanded– is far from persuasive. Findings of the
. . . When, in pursuing an illegal action or in the commission of a criminal trial court as to the credibility of the testimonies of the prosecution and the lone
offense, testimony of the defense deserve, in our view, great weight. Jurisprudence has
the offending police officers should happen to discover a criminal offense consistently held that, in the absence of any clear showing that the trial court
being overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight or
committed by any person, they are not precluded from performing their substance which could have affected the result of the case, its findings on the
duties as credibility of witnesses are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be
police officers for the apprehension of the guilty person and the taking of
disturbed on appeal. Furthermore, the presumption of regularity in the performance of
the
official duty strengthens the foregoing doctrine on the credibility of witnesses. The
corpus delicti.
uncorroborated claim of the accused that he had been framed is, to our mind,
30) CADUA VS. COURT OF APPEALS selfserving as well as baseless.

DOCTRINE The findings of the trial court, accepted by the appellate court, show the
pertinence of paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 5 abovecited. Through police dispatch
Arrests and Seizures; Words and Phrases; Personal knowledge of facts,– in arrests to the scene of a crime report and in the presence of complainants, it was ascertained
without warrant must be based upon probable cause, which means an actual belief or that a robbery had just been committed, and the arresting officers had personal
reasonable grounds of suspicion. The right to search incidental to a lawful arrest knowledge that petitioner was directly implicated as a suspect. As explained by a
includes that of searching the person of one who is arrested, in order to find and seize respected authority on criminal procedure: “It has been ruled that ‘personal knowledge
things connected with the crime as its fruits or as the means for its commission. of facts,’ in arrests without warrant must be based upon probable cause, which means
an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion. . . . Peace officers may pursue
The legality of apprehending the accused would not depend on the actual commission and arrest without warrant any person found in suspicious places or under suspicious
of the crime but upon the nature of the deed, where from such characterization it may circumstances reasonably tending to show that such person has committed, or is
reasonably be inferred by the officer or functionary to whom the law at the moment about to commit, any crime or breach of the peace. Probable cause for an arrest
leaves the decision for the urgent purpose of suspending the liberty of the citizen– without warrant is such a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances
police authorities can stop a person forcibly when such action is based on something sufficiently strong in themselves as to warrant a reasonable man in believing the
more than a mere “reasonable and articulable– suspicion that such a person has been accused to be guilty. Besides reasonable ground of suspicion, action in good faith is
engaged in criminal activity. another protective bulwark for the officer. Under such conditions, even if the suspected
person is later found to be innocent, the peace officer is not liable. The cases hold that
FACTS a peace officer might arrest and detain in prison for examination persons walking in
the street at night whom there is reasonable ground to suspect of felony, although
This case stemmed from a charge for Illegal Possession of Firearms. Police officers
there is no proof of a felony having been committed; but the arrest would be illegal if
were dispatched in the area where the accused was apprehended after a report of
the person so arrested was innocent and there were no reasonable grounds of
concerning an alleged holdup of complainants Lourdes Bulos and her daughter
suspicion to mislead the officer. The reason of the rule is apparent. Good people do
Bernadette, who were in need of police assistance. Upon the assistance of the
not ordinarily lurk about the streets and uninhabited premises at midnight. Citizens
complainants, the police officers noticed two men walking alongside the street and as
must be protected from annoyance and crime. Prevention of crime is just as
the officers slowed down the mobile unit to get a closer look, the complainants
commendatory as the capture of criminals. Surely the officer must not be forced to
identified the men as the alleged holduppers, one of which is the petitioner in this
await the commission of robbery or other felony. The rule is supported by the
case. As the police officers was approaching the suspects, he noticed that petitioner
necessities of life.
Cadua was about to pull something which was tucked at the right side of his waist.
Burdeos promptly pointed his firearm at Cadua and warned him not to move. He then
frisked Cadua and found in his possession a .38 caliber “paltik– revolver. PO3