1. Luz v.

People, 669 SCRA 421, 429-430

Facts:
Accused was apprehended for driving a motorcycle without a helmet, which violated a municipal ordinance
requiring all motorcycle drivers to wear a helmet while driving. SPO2 Alteza, invited to come inside their
substation when he noticed that the accused was uneasy and kept on getting something from his jacket,
alerted, he told the accused to take out the contents of the pocket of his jacket. Accused put out the contents
of the pocket of his jacket which was one of those was a nickel-like tin or metal container, he opened the
container, and PO2 noticed a cartoon cover and something beneath. Accused spilled out the contents of
the container on the table which turned out to be four (4) plastic sachets, the two (2) of which were empty
while the other two (2) contained suspected shabu.
Issue:
Whether the search conducted is incidental to a lawful arrest.
Ruling:
No.The following are the instances when a warrantless search is allowed: (i) a warrantless search incidental
to a lawful arrest; (ii) search of evidence in “plain view”; (iii) search of a moving vehicle; (iv) consented
warrantless search; (v) customs search; (vi) a “stop and frisk” search; and (vii) exigent and emergency
circumstances. None of the above-mentioned instances, especially a search incident to a lawful arrest, are
applicable to this case. This ruling does not imply that there can be no arrest for a traffic violation. Certainly,
when there is an intent on the part of the police officer to deprive the motorist of liberty, or to take the latter
into custody, the former may be deemed to have arrested the motorist. In this case, however, the officer’s
issuance (or intent to issue) a traffic citation ticket negates the possibility of an arrest for the same violation.

2. Pestillos v. Generoso, G.R. No. 182601 November 10, 2014

Facts:

An altercation ensued between the Pestillos, the petitioner and Atty. Generoso. SPO1 Monsalve dispatched
SPO2 Javier with the augmentation personnel from the Airforce, A2C Sayson and Galvez were called to
go to the scene and render assistance, then saw Atty. Generoso was badly beaten, the latter pointing to
the petitioners as those who mauled him. This prompted the police officers to "invite" the petitioners to go
to the police station for investigation. Petitioners were indicted for attempted murder. The petitioners filed
an Urgent Motion for Regular Preliminary Investigation on the ground that they had not been lawfully
arrested, they alleged that no valid warrantless arrest took place since the police officers had no personal
knowledge that they were the perpetrators of the crime.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioners were validly arrested without a warrant.

Ruling:
Yes. The arresting officers went to the scene of the crime upon the complaint of Atty. Generoso of his
alleged mauling; the police officers responded to the scene of the crime less than one (1) hour after the
alleged mauling; the alleged crime transpired in a community where Atty. Generoso and the petitioners
reside; Atty. Generoso positively identified the petitioners as those responsible for his mauling and, notably,
the petitioners and Atty. Generoso lived almost in the same neighborhood; more importantly, when the
petitioners were confronted by the arresting officers, they did not deny their participation in the incident with
Atty. Generoso, although they narrated a different version of what transpired. These circumstances were
well within the police officers' observation, perception and evaluation at the time of the arrest, which were
within their personal knowledge, prompting them to make the warrantless arrests.

3. Borlongan v. Pena 620 SCRA 106, 127

Facts:
Atty. Peña filed his Complaint-Affidavit[9] with the Office of the City Prosecutor, claiming that said
documents were falsified. The City Prosecutor found probable cause for the indictment of petitioners for
four (4) counts of the crime of Introducing Falsified Documents. The City Prosecutor concluded that the
documents were falsified because the alleged signatories untruthfully stated that ICSI was the principal of
the respondent; that petitioners knew that the documents were falsified considering that the signatories
were mere dummies; and that the documents formed part of the record of Civil Case No. 754 where they
were used by petitioners as evidence in support of their motion to dismiss, and then adopted in their answer
and in their Pre-Trial Brief.

Issue:

Issues raised by the petitioners had already become moot and academic when the latter posted bail and
were already arraigned.

Ruling:

The issues raised by the petitioners have not been mooted by the fact that they had posted bail and were
already arraigned. Section 26, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure is a new one, intended
to modify previous rulings of this Court that an application for bail or the admission to bail by the accused
shall be considered as a waiver of his right to assail the warrant issued for his arrest on the legalities or
irregularities thereon.

4. Ocampo v. Abando, G.R. No. 176830 February 11, 2014

Facts:

A mass graveyard was found at Sitio Sapang Daco, Barangay Kaulisihan, Inopacan, Leyte by the43rd
Infantry Brigade containing 67 skeletal remains of those believed to be victims of “Operation Venereal
Disease (VD)” by the Communist Party of the Philippines/ New People’s Army/National Democratic Front
(CPP/NPA/NDF) of the Philippines. Undated letters requested appropriate legal action on 12 complaint-
affidavits attached therewith accusing 71 named members of the Communist Party of the Philippines/New
People's Army/National Democratic Front of the Philippines (CPP/NPA/NDF) of murder, including
petitioners herein along with several other unnamed members. Prosecutor Vivero issued a subpoena
requiring, among others, petitioners to submit their counter-affidavits and those of their witnesses. While
the proceedings were suspended, petitioner Echanis was arrested by virtue of the warrant of arrest issued
by Judge Abando.

Issue:

Were petitioners denied due process during preliminary investigation and in the issuance of the warrant of
arrest?

Ruling:

No. "The essence of due process is reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit evidence in support of
one's defense." What is proscribed is a lack of opportunity to be heard. Thus, one who has been afforded
a chance to present one's own side of the story cannot claim denial of due process. Majority of the
respondents did not submit their counter-affidavits because they could no longer be found in their last
known address, per return of the subpoenas. Section 3(d), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, allows Prosecutor
Vivero to resolve the complaint based on the evidence before him if a respondent could not be subpoenaed.
As long as efforts to reach a respondent were made, and he was given an opportunity to present
countervailing evidence, the preliminary investigation remains valid.

5. People v. Tan 608 SCRA 85, 95

Facts:

Two separate information were filed against respondent Tan for violation of the Revised Securities Act.
During the trial, the petitioner made its formal offer of evidence. RTC admitted the pieces of evidence, but
denied admission of all other exhibits. Tan filed a Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence.RTC issued
an order granting Tan’s Demurrer to Evidence. CA denied, ruling that the dismissal of a criminal action by
the grant of a Demurrer to Evidence is one on the merits and operates as an acquittal, for which reason,
the prosecution cannot appeal therefrom as it would place the accused in double jeopardy.

Issue:

Whether or not the court erred in granting Tan’s Demurrer to Evidence.

Ruling:

No. The demurrer to evidence in criminal cases, such as the one at bar, is “filed after the prosecution had
rested its case,” and when the same is granted, it calls “for an appreciation of the evidence adduced by the
prosecution and its sufficiency to warrant conviction beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in a dismissal of
the case on the merits, tantamount to an acquittal of the accused.” Such dismissal of a criminal case by the
grant of demurrer to evidence may not be appealed, for to do so would place the accused in double
jeopardy. The verdict being one of acquittal, the case ends there. RTC did not violate petitioner’s right to
due process as the petitioner was given more than ample opportunity to present its case which led to grant
of Tan’s demurrer. As such RTC did not abuse its discretion in the manner it conducted the proceedings of
the trial, as well as its grant of respondent’s demurrer to evidence.

6. AAA v. Carbonell June 8, 2007

Facts:

AAA was a secretary at the Arzadon Automotive and Car Service Center, her boss, Arzadon, herein the
accused asked her to deliver a book to an office located at another building but when she returned to their
office, the lights had been turned off and the gate was closed, but she still went in. On her way out, she
saw Arzadon standing beside a parked van holding a pipe, the accused threatened her with the pipe and
forced her to lie on the pavement, then raped her. She didn’t report the incident at first because of Arzadon’s
threats but then she found out she’s pregnant so she eventually filed the complaint for rape. AAA failed to
appear for the 4 consecutive orders to take the witness stand in order to satisfy the judge for the existence
of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, because of this, dismissed the case for lack of
probable cause.

Issue:

Whether or not, the Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Criminal Case No. 6983 for
lack of probable cause.

Ruling:

Yes. The constitutional provision does not mandatorily require the judge to personally examine the
complainant and her witnesses. Instead, he may opt to: 1)personally evaluate the report and supporting
documents submitted by the prosecutor or 2) he may disregard the prosecutor’s report and require the
submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses. In this case, Judge Carbonell dismissed the case without
taking into consideration the June 11, 2003 Resolution of 2nd Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Georgina
Hidalgo, the October 13, 2003 Resolution of the panel of prosecutors, and the July 1, 2005 Resolution of
the Department of Justice, all of which sustain a finding of probable cause against Arzadon. Thus, the
respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in the dismissal for lack of probable cause on the
ground that petitioner and her witnesses failed to take the witness stand considering there is ample
evidence and sufficient basis on record to support a finding of probable cause, it was unnecessary for him
to take the further step of examining the petitioner and her witnesses.

7. Soliven vs. Makasiar G.R. No. 82585 167 SCRA 393

Facts:

Zabate owns a parcel of land and executed a real estate mortgage over the said parcel of land to secure a
loan of P3,000,000.00 he obtained from DHM Philippines Produce, Inc. (DHM). Later, foreclosure
ensued.To prevent the auction sale from proceeding, Zabate filed a complaint for annulment of mortgage,
extrajudicial foreclosure, and auction sale with prayer for injunctive relief, before the RTC of Davao City.
DHM filed an answer with counterclaim. After nearly twelve (12) years of litigation, the trial court issued an
Order dismissing Zabate's complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue:

Zabate asserts that there is jurisprudence holding that the market value of the property can be used to
determine jurisdiction and reiterates that the RTC had acquired jurisdiction over the case through estoppel
by laches.

Ruling:

Zabate is wrong. In determining which court has jurisdiction, it is only the assessed value of the realty
involved that should be computed. As found by both courts a quo, there is nothing in Zabate's complaint or
its attachments which points to the assessed value of the property in question. However, this is not the end
of the road for Zabate. Since the RTC did not render a decision on the merits, he can still file a new complaint
alleging the assessed value of the property in dispute. As regards Zabate's assertion of jurisdiction by
estoppel, it must fail. Jurisdiction by estoppel can only be invoked against parties to a case and not against
the court itself. Rule 9, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Court very clearly provides that "x x x when it
appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter, x x x the court shall dismiss the claim."

8. Malacat v. Court of Appeals, 283 SCRA 159 (1997)

Facts:

Four (4) police officers were conducting a patrol in Quiapo due to bomb threats that had been occurring in
the area for the last seven (7) days. They found two groups of Muslim-looking men standing on opposite
sides of the Quezon Boulevard corner who were acting suspiciously and their eyes were moving very fast.
After thirty minutes of observing, they decided to approach one of the groups, but upon seeing the
policemen, the groups fled in all directions. Fortunately, one of the men later identified as Malacat, was
apprehended and without a warrant, the police officer searched him and found a grenade tucked inside his
front waistline. Malacat was arrested and charged with illegal possession of explosives.

Issue:

Whether or not the search and seizure conducted by the police was valid.

Ruling:

The general rule as regards arrests, searches and seizures is that a warrant is needed in order to validly
effect the same. The Constitutional prohibition against unreasonable arrests, searches and seizures refers
to those effected without a validly issued warrant, subject to certain exceptions. As regards valid warrantless
arrests, it can be found in Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. Here, there could have been no valid
in flagrante delicto or hot pursuit arrest preceding the search in light of the lack of personal knowledge on
the part of Yu, the arresting officer, or an overt physical act, on the part of petitioner, indicating that a crime
had just been committed, was being committed or was going to be committed.

9. Hao v. Adriano, G.R. No. 183345, September 17, 2014

Facts:

Private complainant Manuel Dy y Awiten filed a case for syndicated estafa against petitioners and Victor
Ngo. The public prosecutor filed an information for syndicated estafa against the petitioners and their 6 co-
accused. Judge Placido Marquez issued warrants of arrest against the petitioners and the other accused.
Consequently, petitioners immediately filed a motion to defer arraignment and motion to lift the warrant of
arrest. In their twin motions, they invoked the absence of probable cause against them and the pendency
of their petition for review with the Department of Justice.

Issue:

Whether or not the issuance of warrant of arrest is valid.

Ruling:

Section 5(a) of Rule 112, grants the trial court three options upon the filing of the criminal complaint or
information. He may: a) dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly failed to establish probable cause;
b) issue a warrant of arrest if it finds probable cause; or c) order the prosecutor to present additional
evidence within five days from notice in case of doubt on the existence of probable cause. In the present
case, the trial court chose to issue warrants of arrest to the petitioners and their co-accused. To be valid,
these warrants must have been issued after compliance with the requirement that probable cause be
personally determined by the judge. Notably at this stage, the judge is tasked to merely determine the
probability, not the certainty, of guilt of the accused. In doing so, he need not conduct a de novo hearing;
he only needs to personally review the prosecutor’s initial determination and see if it is supported by
substantial evidence.

10. People v. Adriano

FACTS: Adriano was charged with the crime of illegal sale of shabu punishable under Section 5, Article ll
of RA 9165. Acting on a report received from a barangay oficial and an informant that Adriano was selling
drugs, the police formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation to entrap Adriano, designating PO1
Morales as the poseur-buyer, and marking the buy-bust money consisting of ten P100.00 bills with the
initials "PC".

ISSUE: WON the warrantless arrest is invalid

HELD: No. The warrantless arrest is valid. Warrantless arrests are allowed under three instances provided
in Sec 5 of Rule 114 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. Adriano was arrested pursuant to Section 5(a),
which provides that a person may be arrested without a warrant if he "has committed, is actually committing,
or is attempting to commit an offense." In the case at bar, Adriano was caught in the act of committing an
offense, in flagrante delicto, when Adriano was caught selling illegal shabu through a buy- bust operation,
within the plain view of the arresting officers.

11. Homar vs. People of the Philippines

FACTS: At around 8:50 in the evening, while proceeding to the area onboard a mobile hunter, police officers
saw the petitioner crossing a “No Jaywalking”portion of Roxas Boulevard. They immediately accosted him
and told him to cross at the pedestrian crossing area. The petitioner picked up something from the ground,
prompting Tangcoy to frisk him resulting in the recovery of a knife. Thereafter, Tangcoy conducted a
thorough search on the petitioner’s body and found and confiscated a plastic sachet containing what he
suspected as shabu.

ISSUE: WON there was a valid warrantless arrest.

RULING: The Court held that the shabu confiscated from the accused in that case was inadmissible as
evidence when the police officer who flagged him for traffic violation had no intent to arrest him. Due to the
lack of intent to arrest, the subsequent search was unlawful.

12. People vs. Collado

FACTS: A buy-bust operation team was formed after PO2 Noble received information from a civilian asset
that spouses Marcelino and Myra were engaged in selling shabu and that drug users, including out-of-
school youth, were using their residence for their drug sessions. The asset introduced PO2 Noble to
Marcelino as a regular buyer of shabu. Myra 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
substance and gave it to PO2 Noble.

ISSUE: WON irregularities attended the arrest, detention, and the procedure in handling the specimen
seized from them.

RULING: The arrest of the appellants was an arrest in flagrante delicto made in pursuance of Sec. 5(a),
Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. The arrest was effected after Marcelino and Myra performed the overt act
of selling to PO2 Noble the sachet of shabu and Ranada of having in his control and custody illegal drug
paraphernalia. As for the specimen, the failure of the police officers to inventory and photograph the
confiscated items are not fatal to the prosecution's cause, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value
of the seized substance were preserved, as in this case.

13. People v. Edaño

Facts: On November 19, 2002, the petitioner was charged with the crime of illegal sale of shabu under
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002. The charge stemmed from the buy-bust operation conducted by the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency (PDEA) wherein a poseur-buyer purchased shabu from the petitioner.

Issue: Whether the prosecution was able to prove the elements of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous
drugs beyond reasonable doubt.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the prosecution was able to prove the elements of the crime of illegal
sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt. To establish the crime of illegal sale of dangerous
drugs, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the
object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. In this case,
the prosecution was able to prove that the petitioner sold shabu to the poseur-buyer and received payment
for it. The Supreme Court also found that the petitioner failed to prove that his right to counsel was violated,
and that he was adequately informed of his constitutional rights before he made his confession. The
Supreme Court also rejected the defense's argument that the chain of custody of the seized drugs was not
properly established. The Court found that the prosecution was able to establish the chain of custody
through the testimonies of the PDEA agents who conducted the buy-bust operation and the forensic chemist
who examined the seized drugs. Based on these findings, the Supreme Court affirmed the petitioner's
conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

14. People v. Endaya

FACTS: On 11 November 2002, police operatives of Mataas na kahoy Police Station, acting on a report
from a barangay official that appellant is involved in illegal drug activities, conducted surveillance operations
on appellant. After receiving the plastic sachet from appellant, the civilian asset made the pre-arranged
signal of touching his head to signify that the transaction had been completed. The police officers then
immediately approached appellant Appellant was forthwith brought to the Mataasnakahoy Police Station
where police officers again searched his body to look for an identification card. This body search yielded
another eight plastic sachets of shabu, found in his wallet by PO2 Chavez aside from the other sachets
confiscated during the buy-bust operation.

ISSUE: WON there was a lawful arrest and the sachets of shabu confiscated were admissible as evidence.

Ruling: YES. Appellant's insistence on the illegality of his warrantless. arrest lacks merit. Section 5, Rule
113 of the Rules of Court allows a warrantless arrest under any of the following circumstances:

Sec 5. Arrest without warrant, when lawful - A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant,
arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing,
or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable
cause to believe 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 prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is
pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. In this case, the arrest
of appellant was effected under paragraph (a) or what is termed "in flagrante delicto." For a warrantless
arrest of an accused caught in flagrante delicate under paragraph (a) of the afore-quoted Rule, two
requisites must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must 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 view of the arresting officer.

15. People vs. Chi Chan Liu

FACTS: Police Officers Lazaro Paglicawan and Isagani Yuzon received a radio message from the
Barangay Captain of Ambil Island that a suspicious looking boat was seen somewhere within the vicinity of
said island. Immediately the police officers headed towards the specified location wherein they spotted 2
boats anchored side by side transferring transparent plastic bags containing a white, crystalline substance
later positively identified as 46.6 kilograms of shabu. The appellants were apprehended and were later
turned over to the proper authorities.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the appellants are guilty of the crime of importation or possession of regulated drugs.

2. Whether or not there was a violation of their constitutional rights to unreasonable search and seizure.

3. Whether or not the corpus delicti of the crime charged has been established beyond reasonable doubt.

HELD:
1. The appellants are guilty of the crime of possession of regulated drugs. The mere fact that the appellants
were Chinese nationals as well as their penchant for making reference to China where they could obtain
money to bribe the apprehending officers does not necessarily mean that the confiscated drugs necessarily
came from China. The intelligence report does not sufficiently prove the allegation that appellants were, in
fact, importing illegal drugs in the country from an external source. Appellants’ exoneration from illegal
importation of regulated drugs does not, however, free them from all criminal liability for their possession of
the same is clearly evident. The evidence on record clearly established that appellants were in possession
of the bags containing the regulated drugs without the requisite authority.

2. NO. There was no violation of their constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. In
this case, appellants were actually committing a crime and were caught by the apprehending officers in
flagrante delicto.

3. YES. From the time of appellants’ arrest, the seized bags of regulated drugs were properly marked and
photographed. Proper inventory was also conducted in the presence of the appellants and Mayor Telebrico,
who signed a receipt evidencing that the confiscated drugs were turned over to the PNP Regional
Headquarters. There, the evidence was sent to the Regional Crime Laboratory Service Office for an
examination which yielded positive results. Evidently, an unbroken chain of custody of the confiscated drugs
was established by the prosecution.

16. Comerciante vs. People

FACTS: Eduardo Radan of the NARCOTICS group and P03 Bienvy Calag II were aboard a motorcycle,
patrolling the area while on their way to visit a friend. While cruising, they spotted at a distance of about 10
meters, two (2) men standing and showing "improper and unpleasant movements," with one of them
handing plastic sachets to the other. Thinking that the sachets may contain shabu, they immediately
stopped and approached the suspected men. Police officers confiscated two (2) plastic sachets containing
white crystalline substance from them. A laboratory examination later confirmed that said sachets contained
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA correctly affirmed Comerciante's conviction for violation of Section 11, Article
II of RA 9165.

RULING: No. Section 2, Article III of the Constitution mandates that a search and seizure must be carried
out through or on the strength of a judicial warrant predicated upon the existence of probable cause; in the
absence of such warrant, such search and seizure becomes, as a general rule, "unreasonable" within the
meaning of said constitutional provision. To protect people from unreasonable searches and seizures,
Section 3 (2), Article III of the Constitution provides an exclusionary rule which instructs that evidence
obtained and confiscated on the occasion of such unreasonable searches and seizures are deemed tainted
and should be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree.

17. People v. Villareal

FACTS: PO3 Renato de Leon was riding on his motorcycle when he saw appellant Nazareno Villareal from
an 8 to 10 meter-distance. Villareal was then inspecting a plastic sachet containing shabu. De Leon
approached Villanueva whom he recognized as someone he had previously arrested for illegal drug
possession but the latter tried to escape. He was apprehended with the help of a tricycle driver and was
brought to the police station.

ISSUE: Whether or not the in flagrante warrantless arrest was valid

RULING: No. The Court finds it inconceivable how PO3 de Leon, even with his presumably perfect vision,
would be able to identify with reasonable accuracy, from a distance of about 8 to 10 meters and while
simultaneously driving a motorcycle, a negligible and minuscule amount of powdery substance (0.03 gram)
inside the plastic sachet allegedly held by appellant. The factual circumstances of the case failed to show
that PO3 de Leon had personal knowledge that a crime had been indisputably committed by the appellant.
It is not enough that PO3 de Leon had reasonable ground to believe that appellant had just committed a
crime; a crime must in fact have been committed first, which does not obtain in this case. Without the overt
act that would pin liability against appellant, it is therefore clear that PO3 de Leon was merely impelled to
apprehend appellant on account of the latter’s previous charge for the same offense.

Note: A previous arrest or existing criminal record, even for the same offense, will not suffice to satisfy the
exacting requirements provided under Section 5, Rule 113 in order to justify a lawful warrantless arrest.
"Personal knowledge" of the arresting officer that a crime had in fact just been committed is required. To
interpret "personal knowledge" as referring to a person’s reputation or past criminal citations would create
a dangerous precedent and unnecessarily stretch the authority and power of police officers to effect
warrantless arrests based solely on knowledge of a person’s previous criminal infractions, rendering
nugatory the rigorous requisites laid out under Section 5.

18. People v. Almodiel

FACTS: Almodiel did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, trade, deliver two (2) sachets
of methamphetaminehydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu weighing zero point one two zero five
(0.1205) grams, a dangerous drug. Upon arraignment, the accused entered a plea of not guilty. During pre-
trial, the defense admitted all the allegations in the Information except the specific place of the alleged
incident and the allegation of the sale of dangerous drugs. Thus, a trial ensued.

ISSUE: Whether the court a quo gravely erred in finding that the arrest and the search of the accused-
appellant without a warrant would fall under the doctrine of warrantless search as an incident to a lawful
arrest.

RULING: Under Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, a person may be arrested without a warrant
if he “has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.” The accused was
caught in the act of committing an offense during a buy-bust operation. When an accused is apprehended
in flagrante delicto as a result of a buy-bust operation, the police officers are not only authorized but duty-
bound to arrest him even without a warrant. An arrest made after an entrapment operation does not require
a warrant inasmuch as it is considered a valid “warrantless arrest.” Considering that an arrest was lawfully
made, the search incidental to such arrest was also valid. A person lawfully arrested may be searched,
without a search warrant, for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute
proof in the commission of an offense. Accordingly, the two sachets of shabu seized in the present case
are admissible as evidence.

19 - People v. Rebotazo G.R. No. 192913

Facts:

Appellant was apprehended during a valid buy-bust operation. Police officers conducted the required
inventory and marking of the seized items in the presence of appellant, media and representative from the
DOJ as well as its processing for laboratory examination which yield positive for shabu. Appellant pleaded
not guilty and denied the allegations, invoking he was being framed up.

Issue:
 Whether or not the RTC and CA erred in finding the testimonial evidence of the prosecution witnesses
sufficient to warrant appellant’s conviction for the crimes charged.

Ruling:

No, arrest of the accused in flagrante during a buy-bust operation is justified under Rule 113, Section 5(a)
of the Rules of Court and the seizure made by the buy-bust team falls under a search incidental to a lawful
arrest under Rule 126, Section 13 of the Rules of Court. Since the buy-bust operation was established as
legitimate, it follows that the search was also valid, and a warrant was not needed to conduct it. The
prosecution of cases involving illegal drugs depends largely on the credibility of the police officers who
conducted the buy-bust operation. Credence is usually given to prosecution witnesses who are police
officers, for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence
to the contrary. Failure to impute ill motive on the part of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust
operation will only sustain the conviction of the accused.

20 - People v. Andaya G.R. No. 183700

Facts:

Appellant was apprehended during a buy-bust operation wherein a confidential asset of the police posed
as the poseur-buyer. He was convicted for violating Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 based
on the testimonies of the police officers who conducted the operation. On appeal, he insisted that the non-
presentation of confidential informant was adverse to the Prosecution, indicating that his guilt was not
proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Issue:

Whether or not the presentation of confidential informant is necessary to prove Andaya’s guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.

Ruling:

Yes, it is notable that the members of the buy-bust team arrested Andaya based on a pre-arranged signal
from the poseur buyer. The pre-arranged signal signified to the members of the buy-bust team that the
transaction had been consummated between the poseur buyer and Andaya. However, the State did not
present the confidential informant/poseur buyer during the trial to describe how exactly the transaction
between him and Andaya had taken place. There would have been no issue against that, except that none
of the members of the buy-bust team had directly witnessed the transaction, if any, between Andaya and
the poseur buyer due to their being positioned at a distance from the poseur buyer and Andaya at the
moment of the supposed transaction. Under the law, selling was any act “of giving away any dangerous
drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical whether for money or any other.

21- People vs. Marcelo, G.R. No. 181541

Facts:

Appellant was convicted for violation of Section 5, Article 2 of RA9165 through a valid buy-bust operation.
The RTC was convinced that the prosecution’s evidence established the guilt of appellant beyond
reasonable doubt since (1) appellant was positively identified by the police officers in open court as the
seller of 2.3234 grams of shabu, and (2) the delivery of the shabu to the poseur-buyer as well as the
appellant’s receipt of the marked money were attested to by the prosecution witnesses.

Issue:
The trial court gravely erred in upholding the arrest of the accused-appellant which was not supported by a
warrant authorizing the same.

Ruling:

No, a Warrant of Arrest was not Necessary. Appellant’s argument that her warrantless arrest was not valid
is untenable. We emphasize that the prosecution proved that appellant was apprehended after she
exchanged the shabu in her possession for the marked money of the poseur-buyer. Having been caught in
flagrante delicto, the police officers were not only authorized but were even duty-bound to arrest her even
without a warrant.

22- Antiquera vs. People, G.R. No. 180661

Facts:

While conducting a police visibility patrol, police officers saw two unidentified men rush out of house number
107-C and immediately boarded a jeep. Suspecting that a crime had been committed, the police officers
approached the house from where the men came and peeked through the partially opened door. They
entered the house and saw Antiquera together with Cruz, holding drug paraphernalia.

Issue:

Whether or not the CA erred in finding accused Antiquera guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal
possession of drug paraphernalia based on the evidence of the police officers that they saw him and Cruz
in the act of possessing drug paraphernalia.

Ruling:

Yes, the police officers did not notice anything amiss going on in the house from the street where they
stood. Indeed, even as they peeked through its partially opened door, they saw no activity that warranted
their entering it. Clearly, no crime was plainly exposed to the view of the arresting officers that authorized
the arrest of accused Antiquera without warrant under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure. Consequently, the various drug paraphernalia that the police officers allegedly found in the
house and seized are inadmissible, having proceeded from an invalid search and seizure. Since the
confiscated drug paraphernalia is the very corpus delicti of the crime charged, the Court has no choice but
to acquit the accused.

23 - People vs. Aminnudin 163 SCRA 402

Facts:

Idel Aminnudin was arrested shortly after disembarking from the M/V Wilcon 9 in Iloilo City. He was detained
and the bag he was carrying was inspected, which was later on found to contain three kilos of marijuana
leaves. Aminnudin alleged that he was arbitrarily arrested and his bag was confiscated without a search
warrant.

Issue:

Whether Aminnudin was lawfully arrested.

Ruling:

No, the police officers should have obtained a warrant of arrest first since the information was given to them
two days before the said arrest. In the case at bar, the accused-appellant was not, at the moment of his
arrest, committing a crime nor was it shown that he was about to do so or that he had just done so. It was
only when the informer pointed to him as the carrier of the marijuana that he suddenly became suspect and
so subject to apprehension. The Identification by the informer was the probable cause as determined by
the officers (and not a judge) that authorized them to pounce upon Aminnudin and immediately arrest him.
Hence, the warrantless search was also illegal and the evidence obtained thereby was inadmissible.

Case No. 24 - People vs. Molina 352 SCRA 174

Facts:

The accused were arrested based on information that they were in possession of some marijuana. Accused
were found guilty of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act and were sentenced to death. Accused-appellant
jointly filed a demurrer to evidence, contending that the marijuana allegedly seized from them is
inadmissible as evidence for having been obtained in violation of their constitutional rights against
unreasonable searches and seizure.

Issue:

Whether or not the conduct of searches and seizures were valid.

Ruling:

No, Accused-appellants manifested no outward indication that would justify their arrest. The holding of a
bag on board a trisikad could not be said to be attempting to commit or have committed a crime. There was
no probable cause that led to the arrest of the accused-appellants. The Constitution mandates that
searches and seizures be carried out in a reasonable fashion, that is, by virtue or on the strength of a search
warrant predicated upon the existence of a probable cause. In instances where search and seizure may be
made without a warrant and the evidence obtained therefrom may be admissible only in cases as allowed
by law.

25 - People vs. Mengote 210 SCRA 174, 179

Facts:

A surveillance team was dispatched after the receipt of an information about three suspicious looking
persons. They saw two men "looking from side to side," one of whom was holding his abdomen. Two of
them was apprehended and searched after trying to run away. The search on the person of the arrested
yielded a revolver with six live bullets in the chamber and a fan knife.

Issue:

Whether the arrest and search of Mengote and the seizure of the revolver from him were lawful.

Ruling:

No, in arrests without a warrant a crime must in fact or actually have been committed first as an essential
precondition. It is not enough to suspect that a crime may have been committed. The fact of the commission
of the offense must be undisputed. The test of reasonable ground applies only to the identity of the
perpetrator. (Emphasis supplied) These requirements have not been established in the case at bar. At the
time of the 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 or at least being attempted by Mengote in their
presence.

26 - People v. Hon. Perfecto A.S. Laguio Jr 518 SCRA 393

Facts:

Lawrence Wang was charged with three different crimes (dangerous drugs act, illegal possession of
firearms and comelec gun ban). The prosecution claims that he was arrested on the occasion of committing
a crime. Hence the police officers were justified in requiring the private respondent to open his BMW car’s
trunk to see if he was carrying illegal drugs.

Issue:

Whether there was lawful arrest, search and seizure by the police operatives in this case despite the
absence of a warrant of arrest and/or a search warrant.

Ruling:

No, the facts and circumstances surrounding the present case did not manifest any suspicious behavior on
the part of private respondent that would reasonably invite the attention of the police. He was merely walking
from an Apartment and was about to enter the parked BMW car when the police operatives arrested him,
frisked and searched his person and commanded him to open the compartment of the car, which was later
on found to be owned by his friend, David Lee. He was not committing any visible offense then. Therefore,
there can be no valid warrantless arrest in flagrante delicto under paragraph (a) of Section 5 and
consequently, no valid search. 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, is not sufficient to
constitute probable cause that would justify an in flagrante delicto arrest.

28 - People vs Binad Sy Chua, 444 Phil

Facts:

Accused-appellant was arrested by police officers who conducted surveillance after receiving an
information that the accused-appellant was about to deliver drugs. As the accused-appellant pulled out his
wallet when he was accosted by police officers, a small transparent plastic bag with a crystalline substance
protruded from his right back pocket. He was then subjected to a body search which yielded twenty (20)
pieces of live .22 caliber firearm bullets from his left back pocket.

Issue/s:

(1) Whether or Not the arrest of accused-appellant was lawful; and

(2) WON the search of his person and the subsequent confiscation of shabu allegedly found on him were
conducted in a lawful and valid manner.

Ruling:

“Reliable information” alone, absent any overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise in the presence and
within the view of the arresting officers, is not sufficient to constitute probable cause that would justify an in
flagrante delicto arrest. With regard to the concept of “stop-and frisk”: mere suspicion or a hunch will not
validate a “stop-and-frisk”. A genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officer’s experience and
surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons concealed about him.
Finally, a “stop-and-frisk” serves a two-fold interest: (1) the general interest of effective crime prevention
and detection for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even without probable cause; and (2)
the interest of safety and self-preservation which permit the police officer to take steps to assure himself
that the person with whom he deals is not armed with a deadly weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally
be used against the police officer. In the case at bar, neither the in flagrante delicto nor the “stop and frisk”
principles is applicable to justify the warrantless arrest and consequent search and seizure made by the
police operatives on accused-appellant.
38. Abelita v. Doria, GR 170672

FACTS

Ramirez reported that a certain William Sia is wounded while Petitioner and his wife just left the place of
the incident. Doria looked for the petitioner and when he found him, he informed him about the incident, he
requested Petitioner to go with him in the PNP HQ but the petitioner suddenly sped up his vehicle and
proceeded to his residence, they caught up with petitioner as he was about to run towards his house. The
police offices saw a gun in the form seat and a shotgun at the back and they confiscated the firearms for
illegal possession of firearms and frustrated murder and an administrative case.

ISSUE

Whether or not the arrest and seizure was valid.

RULING

Yes, the seizure was valid under plain view doctrine. They were justified in seizing the firearms. However,
the Court did not agree that petitioner was framed-up and that the respondents were presumed to be
performing their duties in accordance with law. They should not be held liable for damages.

39. PEOPLE V. ACOL, G.R. Nos. 106288-89 May 17, 1994

FACTS

Victim Rene Araneta who went with the responding police 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 persons. After the CAPCOM officers introduced themselves, the four men scampered to different
directions but three of them, namely, Tirso Acol, Pio Boses, and Albert Blanco, were apprehended and two
of them was found with an unlicensed .38 caliber revolver with bullets.

ISSUE

Whether or not there was a valid arrest and seizure in this case.

RULING

Yes. The search falls within the purview of Section 5(b) of Rule 113 which serves as an exception to the
requisite warrant prior to arrest. Accused-appellant's arrest was lawful, it follows that the search made
incidental thereto was valid. The unlicensed firearms were found when the police team apprehended the
accused for the robbery and not for illegal possession of firearms 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 criminal offense being committed by any person, they are not precluded from performing their
duties as police officers for the apprehension of the guilty person and the taking of the corpus delicti.
40. PEOPLE vs. GERENTE, G.R. No. 95847-48. March 10, 1993.

FACTS

With the information by the prosecution witness of killing Clarito Blace, the policemen proceeded to the
house of the appellant who was then sleeping. Patrolman Urrutia frisked appellant and found a coin purse
in his pocket which contained dried leaves wrapped in cigarette foil. The dried leaves were sent to the
National Bureau of Investigation for examination. The Forensic Chemist found them to be marijuana.

ISSUE

Whether or not the court a quo gravely erred in admitting the marijuana leaves adduced in evidence by the
prosecution.

RULING

No. The search of appellant's person and the seizure of the marijuana leaves in his possession were valid
because they were incident to a lawful warrantless arrest of Paragraphs (a) and (b), Section 5, Rule 113 of
the Revised Rules of Court. The search conducted on Gerente's person was likewise lawful because it was
made as an incident to a valid arrest. This is in accordance with Section 12, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules
of Court. The frisk and search of appellant's person upon his arrest was a permissible precautionary
measure of arresting officers to protect themselves, for the person who is about to be arrested may be
armed and might attack them unless he is first disarmed.

41. PEOPLE vs GUILLEN, G.R. No. 191756, November 25, 2013

FACTS

At that time "AAA" was playing cards while waiting for her common-law husband to arrive when someone
knocked at the door and it was her neighbor. entered the room and suddenly poked a balisong on her neck
and eventually raped her.

ISSUE

Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant of rape despite the
prosecution’s failure to overthrow the constitutional presumption of innocence in his favor

RULING

No. The aforesaid blatant FAILURE of the accused to deny victim’s complaint against him is equivalent to
an IMPLIED ADMISSION of guilt. Assuming arguendo that he is innocent of the accusation filed against
him, he should have stood firm in his contention that he didn’t rape/abuse the victim and should have
stressed at the police station that on the date and time of the incident he was having a drinking spree with
his friends. Clearly, when appellant remained silent when confronted by the accusation of "AAA" at the
police station, he was exercising his basic and fundamental right to remain silent. At that stage, his silence
should not be taken against him. Thus, it was error on the part of the trial court to state that appellant’s
silence should be deemed as implied admission of guilt. In fact, this right cannot be waived except in writing
and in the presence of counsel and any admission obtained in violation of this rule shall be inadmissible in
evidence.

42. Luspo vs People G.R. No. 188487, February 14, 2011

FACTS

Public officers, all of the Philippine National Police (PNP), while in the performance of their respective official
and administrative functions as such, acting with evident bad faith and manifest partiality, conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one another, together with private accused Margarita B. Tugaoen, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally cause undue injury to the government (PNP), by causing
the preparation, issuance, release and payment, without supporting documents, of TEN MILLION PESOS
(₱10,000,000.00) to DI-BEN TRADING, MT ENTERPRISES, J-MOS ENTERPRISES and TRIPLE 888
ENTERPRISES, all owned and operated by accused Margarita B. Tugaoen, purportedly for the purchase
of combat, clothing and individual equipment (CCIE) for use of North Capcom personnel, to which no actual
delivery of said CCIE items were ever effected by accused supplier Margarita B. Tugaoen, thereby giving
unwarranted benefits to the latter accused, to the damage and prejudice of the Philippine government in
the total amount of TEN MILLION (₱10,000,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely erred in holding that the investigations conducted on petitioners are
not custodial investigation and in not holding that the sworn statements taken by the investigating officers
during investigations are inadmissible inevidence for being violative of the constitutional rights of the
accused, particularly their right to counsel.

RULING

No. The court held that even if the investigation conducted by thePNP was custodial in nature, the
improprieties that Tugaoen bewail would not prevail against strong and overwhelming evidence showing
her and her co-conspirators guilt. Allegations of impropriety committed during custodial investigation are
material when an extrajudicial admission or confession is the basis of conviction. The conviction of
Montano, Duran and Tugaoenwas not deducted solely from Tugaoens admission, but from the confluence
of evidence showing their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

43. People vs. Chavez G.R. 207950

FACTS

Mark Jason Chavez y Bitancor (Chavez) was charged with the crime of robbery with homicide for the death
of Elmer Duque aka Barbie.

ISSUE

Whether circumstantial evidence be sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the conviction
of the accused.
RULING

Yes. Under, SEC. 4. Circumstantial evidence. The lower courts found that the circumstantial evidence laid
down by the prosecution led to no other conclusion than the commission by Chavez of the crime charged.
The prosecution has equally established, based on the same circumstantial evidence, that the accused had
indeed killed the victim.

44. PEOPLE VS. YAU G.R. No. 208170

FACTS

The complainant was kidnapped for ransom for 22 days of captivity. Complainant was rescued when
members of the Police Anti-Crime and Emergency Response Task Force (PACER) intercepted the same
taxi with plate number PVD 115 and subsequently the appellant led the team to his house where the
complainant was held captive.

ISSUE

Whether they are guilty of kidnapping for ransom

RULING

Yes. Under Kidnapping for Ransom under Article 267 of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 7659. The
prosecution presented credible and sufficient pieces of circumstantial evidence that led to the inescapable
and reasonable conclusion that Petrus committed the crime charged. The settled rule is that a judgment of
conviction based on circumstantial evidence. The corollary rule is that the circumstances proven must
constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to
the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person.

45. REBELLION VS. PEOPLE 623 SCRA 343

FACTS

When two policemen saw Salvador Rebellon and another person exchanging something, the officers
introduced themselves and when asked what he was holding, petitioner handed three strips of aluminum
foil. Upon search, the officers found a sachet of shabu.

ISSUE:

Whether the warrantless arrest was valid.

RULING

Yes. But the SC made it clear the even if the warrant was not valid, it would still prevail because petitioner
did not file a motion to quash regarding this before entering his plea. In answering the petitioner's issue,
the Sc rules that the arrest was valid and it was an arrest in flagrante delicto.
46. PEOPLE VS. VELASCO 710 SCRA 784

FACTS
Velasco was caught in flagrante delicto as she was handing shabu to a designated poseur-buyer. Five
more decks were found in her pockets.
ISSUES

Whether the decks of shabu are inadmissible as evidence for having been acquired through a warrantless
arrest.

RULING
Yes. Section 5(a) of Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. Appellant was caught in flagrante delicto
thus her denial and defense of frame-up cannot be justified under the said provision. Moreover, appellant
failed to establish that the members of the buy-bust team are policemen engaged in mulcting or other
unscrupulous caprice when they entrapped her.

47. RONTOS VS. PEOPLE

FACTS: The CA ruled that the question over the legality of the arrest was deemed waived by petitioner
when he voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court by entering a plea of “Not Guilty" and
participating in the trial of the case.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred when it held that the question of legality was deemed waived when
the petitioner entered a plea of not guilty?

RULING: NO. In his arraignment before the trial court, petitioner never raised any issue and instead "freely
and voluntarily pleaded Not Guilty to the offense charged." Thus, he was estopped from raising the issue
of the legality of his arrest before the trial court, more so on appeal before the CA or this Court.

48. PEOPLE VS SALVADOR

FACTS: The conviction by the RTC herein accused-appellants for having conspired in kidnapping Albert
Yam y Lee (Albert) for the purpose of extorting ransom. Very critical in this case is the testimony of Albert
Yam. He testified about how the kidnapping was perpetrated. The most crucial evidence submitted in this
case was the positive testimony of kidnap victim Albert Yam recognizing appellants as his abductors.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA gravely erred in finding the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of kidnapping for ransom despite the prosecution’s failure to overthrow the constitutional
presumption of innocence in their favor.

RULING: The CA correctly found that the essential elements comprising the crime of kidnapping for ransom
were present and that the accused- appellants conspired in its commission. The test to determine the value
of the testimony of a witness is whether such is in conformity with knowledge and consistent with the
experience of mankind; whatever is repugnant to these standards becomes incredible and lies outside of
judicial cognizance.

49. PEOPLE VS ARAZA

FACTS: The prosecution was able to establish through testimonial and documentary evidence by the wife
and an expert witness, Dr. Lindain, that Araza was the perpetrator of the mental and emotional anguish
suffered by the wife. Araza only offered the defense of denial and were not supported by clear and
convincing evidence.

ISSUE: Whether or not Araza is guilty of violating RA 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their
Children Act of 2004 (VAWC) by committing psychological violence upon his wife through engaging in a
marital infidelity which has caused an emotional anguish and mental suffering on the part of the wife.

RULING: YES. The Court agreed with the ruling of CA that Araza committed psychological violence upon
his wife by committing marital infidelity, which has caused his wife to suffer emotional anguish and mental
suffering. To establish emotional anguish or mental suffering, jurisprudence only requires that the testimony
of the victim to be presented in court, as such experiences are personal to this party. AAA's testimony was
strong and credible and was supported by the testimony of Dr. Lindain, who was presented as an expert
witness.

50. PEOPLE VS. CUNANAN

FACTS: Acting on a tip from a confidential informant that a certain “Paeng Putol”, later identified as the
appellant, was engaging in selling illegal drugs, PSI Abalos organized a buy-bust team.

ISSUE: Whether or not the guilt of accused-appellant proven beyond reasonable doubt

RULING: Appellant was lawfully arrested after he was caught in flagrante delicto selling an illegal drug in a
buy-bust operation, and contrary to his contention, it was not inconceivable that he would openly sell an
illegal drug in public. From this sequence of events, the prosecution was able to show an unbroken link in
the chain of custody of the subject item which is the proof of the corpus delicti. Its integrity and evidentiary
value were shown not to have been compromised notwithstanding the fact that the inventory and
photograph thereof which PO1 Gunda claimed to have been made were not offered in evidence.

51. LEVISTE VS ALAMEDA

FACTS: The private complainants-heirs of De las Alas filed, with the conformity of the public prosecutor,
an Urgent Omnibus Motion praying, inter alia, for the deferment of the proceedings to allow the public
prosecutor to re-examine the evidence on record or to conduct a reinvestigation to determine the proper
offense.

ISSUE: Whether or not private respondent has the right to cause the reinvestigation of the criminal case
when the criminal information had already been filed with the lower court.

RULING: A preliminary investigation is required before the filing of a complaint or information for an offense
where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four years, two months and one day without regard to fine.
As an exception, the rules provide that there is no need for a preliminary investigation in cases of a lawful
arrest without a warrant involving such type of offense, so long as an inquest, where available, has been
conducted.

Contrary to petitioner’s position that private complainant should have appealed to the DOJ Secretary, such
remedy is not immediately available in cases subject of inquest. Inquest is defined as an informal and
summary investigation conducted by a public prosecutor in criminal cases involving persons arrested and
detained without the benefit of a warrant of arrest issued by the court for the purpose of determining whether
said persons should remain under custody and correspondingly be charged in court.

52. PEOPLE VS PALMA

FACTS: Private Respondent Romulo, 17 years of age, was charged with vagrancy. Respondent Judge
dismissed the case on the ground that her court has no jurisdiction to take further cognizance of this case
without prejudice to the re-filing thereof in the Juvenile Court, because he believed that jurisdiction over 16
years old up to under 21 was transferred to the Juvenile Court by the issuance of PD 603 or the Child and
Youth Welfare Code, which defines youthful offenders as those over 9years of age but under 21 at the time
of the commission of the offense.

ISSUE: Whether or Not the issuance of PD 603 transferred the case of the accused from the regular courts
to the Juvenile Court.

HELD: R.A. 6591 creating the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court expressly confers upon it a special
and limited jurisdiction over criminal cases wherein the accused is under 16 years of age at the time of the
filing of the case. The subsequent issuance of PD 603 known as the Child and Youth Welfare Code and
defines a youth offender as one who is over 9 years of age but under 21 at the time of the commission of
the offense did not by such definition transfer jurisdiction over criminal cases involving accused who are 16
and under 21 years of age from the regular courts to the Juvenile Court.

53. PEOPLE VS MENDOZA

FACTS: A complaint-affidavit was filed by Juno Cars, for qualified theft and estafa against Alfredo Mendoza.
-Juno Cars filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, arguing that "the determination of probable cause and
the decision whether or not to file a criminal case in court, rightfully belongs to the public prosecutor." CA
ruled that the trial court acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction "in supplanting the public prosecutor’s
findings of probable cause with her own findings of insufficiency of evidence and lack of probable cause."

ISSUE: WON trial court may dismiss an information filed by the prosecutor on the basis of its own
independent finding of lack of probable cause

RULING: YES. This argument is totally faulty and is without even an iota of credibility. The warrantless
arrest conducted on accused was valid. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Proceedure
enumerates the situations when a person may be arrested without a warrant. In the instant case, the
prosecution completely and fully established that accused was arrested in flagrante delicto. At any rate,
accused failed to raise any objection to the manner of her arrest before arraignment. In fact, she participated
in the trial and is now estopped from assailing the legality of her arrest as she waived any irregularity, if
any, thatmay have tainted her arrest.

54. PEOPLE VS VASQUEZ

FACTS: The appellant appealed his case to this Court to once again impugn his conviction on two grounds:
(1) the purported illegality of the search and the ensuing arrest done by the police officers and (2) his
supposed authority to possess the illegal drugs seized from him. He argues that the police officers did not
have a search warrant or a warrant of arrest at the time he was arrested. This occurred despite the fact that
the police officers allegedly had ample time to secure a warrant of arrest against him.

ISSUE: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the decision of the RTC when it ruled that the
accused was validly arrested without a warrant.

RULING: NO. The Court rules that the appellant can no longer assail the validity of his arrest. Any objection,
defect or irregularity attending an arrest must be made before the accused enters his plea on arraignment.
The fact of the matter is that the appellant was caught in flagrante delicto of selling illegal drugs to an
undercover police officer in a buy-bust operation and his arrest, thus, falls within the ambit of Section 5(a),
Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure when an arrest made without warrant is deemed
lawful. Having established the validity of the warrantless arrest in this case, the Court holds that the
warrantless seizure of the illegal drugs from the appellant is likewise valid.

55. PEOPLE VS MARTINEZ

FACTS: As the team entered the house, accused Orlando Doria was arrested while coming out. Seized
from the accused were open plastic sachets (containing shabu residue), pieces of rolled used aluminum
foil and pieces of used aluminum foil. The accused were arrested and brought to police station.

ISSUE: Were the guilt of the accused proven beyond reasonable doubt?

RULING: NO. The Court finds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt because (1) evidence against the accused are inadmissible and (2) even if the evidence
were admissible, the chain of custody was not duly established.

The evidence is inadmissible because of the illegal arrest, search and seizure. Searches and seizures
without a warrant are valid in (1) incidence of lawful arrest, (2) “plain view” search of evidence, (3) moving
vehicle search, (4) consented search, (5) customs search, (6) stop and frisk, (7) exigent and emergency
cases. Under Rule 113, Sec. 5 of RRCP warrantless arrest can only be done in in flagrante cases, hot
pursuit cases, and fugitive cases. The arrest of the accused-appellants were based solely on the report of
a concerned citizen, no surveillance of the place was conducted. Under Rule 113, fugitive case does not
apply.