RULE 113 DOCTRINE: Personal examination by the Judge NOT REQUIRED

ARREST No. The interpretation is not accurate.

HOW IS ARREST MADE? The Court ruled in AAA v. Carbonell that what the Constitution
 Sec. 1, Rule 113 provides that an Arrest is the taking of a emphasizes is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the
person into custody in order that he may be bound to issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable
answer the commission of an offense. cause.
 In making an arrest, the person need not be actually In doing so, he is not required to personally examine the
restrained by the person making the arrest. Under the complainant and its witness.
Rules of Court, submission to the custody of the person
making the arrest already constitutes an arrest. (Sec. 2, Instead, he may opt to:
Rule 113) 1) PERSONALLY EVALUATE the report and supporting
 Arrest may be made on any day, at any time of the day or documents submitted by the prosecutor or
night 2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause,
he may disregard the prosecutor’s report and require
WHAT IS A “WARRANT OF ARREST”? the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to
 It is a legal process issued by a competent authority, aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of
directing the arrest of a person or persons upon the probable cause.
grounds stated therein.
"Sound policy dictates this procedure, otherwise judges
WHO CAN ISSUE A WOA? would be unduly laden with the preliminary
 Sec. 2, Article III o the Consti provides that: examination and investigation of criminal complaints
“No search warrant or warrant of arrest shall instead of concentrating on hearing and deciding cases
issue except upon probable cause to be filed before their courts
determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the The Court added its ruling in Webb vs. De Leon that, before
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, issuing warrants of arrest, judges merely determine the
and particularly describing the place to be probability, not the certainty, of guilt of an accused.
searched and the persons or things to be seized.
In doing so, judges do not conduct a de novo hearing to
determine the existence.
The Constitution speaks of “judges” which means judges
of all levels. This power may not be limited much less
withdrawn by Congress. The power to determine the PERSONAL DETERMINATION NOT PERSONAL EXAMINATION
existence of probable cause is a function of the judge and  Personal examination is not mandatory and indispensable
such power lies in the judge alone (People v. Inting) in the determination of probable cause for the issuance of
a warrant of arrest.
REQUISITES FOR ISSUANCE OF WOA (PPE-P)*****  Indeed, what the law requires as personal determination on
1. It is constitutionally mandated that a warrant of arrest the part of the judge is that he should not rely solely on the
shall issue only upon finding of probable cause report of the investigating prosecutor.

 “PROBABLE CAUSE” – such facts and
circumstances which would lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent man to believe that an
PRELIMINARY INQUIRY vs. PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
offense has bee committed by the person sought  PRELIMINARY INQUIRY determines probable cause for the
to be arrested” issuance of a warrant of arrest, while the PRELIMINARY
2. Such probable cause shall be personally determined by INVESTIGATION PROPER, which ascertains whether the
the judge offender should be held for trial or be released.
3. after examination under oath or affirmation of the  The determination of probable cause for purposes of
complainant and the witnesses he/ she may produce, and issuing a warrant of arrest is made by the judge. The
4. particularly describing the person to be seized preliminary investigation proper — whether or not there is
reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of
What is the Effect of an Illegal Arrest on Jurisdiction of the Court? the offense charged — is the function of the investigating
 It bears stressing that the legality of the arrest affects only the prosecutor.
jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accuse. The
METHOD OF ARREST WITH A WARRANT; WARRANT NEED NOT BE
illegality of the arrest cannot, in itself, be a basis for acquittal. It
IN POSSESSION OF THE OFFICER(IIP-D)
will not negate the validity of the conviction of the accused.
 When making an arrest by virtue of a warrant, the officer
 By submitting oneself to the jurisdiction of the court as shown shall: (CW)
by entering into a counsel-assisted plea, the active participation (a) inform the person to be arrested of the cause
in the trial and presenting evidence for the defense, the of his arrest, and
accused is deemed to have waived his constitutional protection (b) inform him of the fact that a warrant has
against illegal arrest (People v. Rivera) been issued for his arrest.
 The information need not be made when the person to be
AAA v. Carbonell arrested: (FFI)
 (a) flees, person to be arrested has committed
(b) forcibly resists, or it.
(c) the giving of the information will imperil the (c) arrest of a PDL who has escaped from custody
arrest (Sec. 7, Rule 113, Rules of Court). serving final judgment or temporarily confined
 The officer need not have the warrant in his possession at while his case is pending.
the time of the arrest.  Another ground for a warrantless arrest other than those
o However, after the arrest, the warrant shall be provided for under SEC 5, Rule 113 ROC, is:
shown to him as soon as practicable, if the o when a person PREVIOUSLY LAWFULLY
person arrested so requires (Sec. 7, Rule 113, ARRESTED ESCAPES OR IS RESCUED.
Rules of Court).  Under the Rules, any person may
 The officer assigned to execute the warrant of arrest has immediately pursue or retake him
the duty to deliver the person arrested to the nearest without a warrant at any time and in
police station or jail without unnecessary delay (Sec. 3, any place within the Philippines
Rule 113, Rules of Court). o When an ACCUSED RELEASED ON BAIL attempts
to depart from the Philippines.
NOTE:
 The person arrested shall not be subject to a greater “Arrest in Flagrante Delicto”
restraint than is necessary for his detention (Sec. 2) BASIS;
 In case, the officer cannot on his own effectively make the  Under Sec. 5(a), Rule 113, mere "suspicion" and "reliable
arrest, the authority to effect an arrest carries with it an information" are not justifications for a warrantless arrest.
authority to orally summon as many persons as he deems  The rule requires that the ACCUSED PERFORM SOME
necessary to assist him in effecting the arrest. OVERT ACT that would indicate that he has committed, is
o Every person summoned by an officer is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
required to give the assistance requested offense.
provided he can do so without detriment to
himself (Sec. 10, Rule 113, Rules of Court). NOTE: In this type of warrantless arrest, the person making the
arrest himself WITNESS the crime and hence, he has personal
EXCPTN: knowledge of the commission of the offense.
o The duty of the person summoned does not arise
when rendering assistance would cause harm to REQUISITES:
himself. PEOPLE V. AMAGO
(carrying a firearm)
May Arresting officers break into any buildings or enclosure in DOCTRINE: Requisite for In Flagrante Delicto; Warrantless
implementing the Arrest? search incidental to Lawful Arrest
 YES, Sec 11, Rule 113 ROC authorized arresting officers to
break in, in order to make the arrest, when the person to YES. The SC ruled that there have been a valid in flagrante
be arrested is believed to be inside the building or delicto arrests under Sec. 5(a), Rule 113 of ROC.
enclosure and the officers were refused admittance even
after announcing their authority and purpose. For this kind of arrest to be valid, two (2) requisites must
 Also, after entering the building or enclosure, he may concur: (OP)
break out from said place if necessary to liberate himself (a) the person arrested must execute an overt act
from the same place. (Sec. 12) indicating that he or she has just committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit
What are the instances of a valid warrantless arrest? a crime; and
 GENERAL RULE: (b) the overt act was done in the presence or
As regards arrests, searches and seizures is that a warrant within the view of the arresting officer
is needed in order to validly effect the same. The
Constitutional prohibition against unreasonable arrests, It is apparent that Amago's act of making an abrupt U-turn,
searches and seizures refers to those effected without a instead of stopping at the checkpoint sign, made a
validly issued warrant Hence, the doctrine is that a warrant reasonable belief for the police officers to suspect that
of arrest is required before an arrest is made. accused-appellants might have committed some traffic
violations or delivering something illegal.
The police officers stopped them and, in the course, Amago
 A warrantless arrest is the exception.
intentionally slumped down the motorcycle he was riding
Section 5 of Rule 113 provides three (3) instances when causing his t-shirt to be lifted, thereby exposing the handle of
warrantless arrest may be lawfully effected: (FHP) a handgun that was tucked in his waistband. At the same
(a) arrest of a suspect in FLAGRANTE DELICTO; time, Pińero saw a folding knife protruding from the left
 When in his presence, the person to be pocket of Vendiola who had fallen from the motorcycle.
arrested has committed, is actually Due to the failure of Amago to produce any license to carry
committing or is going to commit an the firearm and for the illegal possession of a bladed weapon
offense. by Vendiola, they were arrested.
(b) arrest of a suspect in HOT PURSUIT
 When an offense has just been Under Sec. 13 Rule 126 a search incident to a lawful arrest
committed and based on personal is valid even without a search warrant.
knowledge of facts, there is a In lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty and
reasonable ground to believe that the the right of the apprehending officers to conduct
 a warrantless search not only on the person of through actual restraint or other means, must also be clearly
the suspect, but also in the permissible area established.
within the latter's reach. Otherwise stated, a valid
arrest allows the seizure of evidence or Petitioners' defense fails as it merely argues on semantics.
dangerous weapons either on the person of the However they opt to call it, it was evident that Pacis was taken
one arrested or within the area of his immediate into the barangay officials' custody based on their belief that he
control. committed a crime, either because he was allegedly committing
theft, or because he became violent. Their intent to arrest Pacis
The phrase "within the area of his immediate was clearly established.
control" means the area from within which he
might gain possession of a weapon or WON in flagrante delicto arrest was valid?
destructible evidence. (People v. Uyboco)  NO. An in flagrante delicto arrest that does not comply
with the overt act test is constitutionally infirm.
In the instant case, tire shabu was found in a peppermint gum
container inside the utility box of accused-appellants' motorcycle
 Two elements must concur, the person to be arrested must
that was within their immediate control. Therefore, it is within the
permissible area that the apprehending officers could validly execute an overt act indicating that he or she has just
execute a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest. committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
NOTE: commit a crime; and that such overt act is done in the
"TRANSPORT" as used under the Comprehensive presence or within the view of the arresting officer.
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 means "to carry or
The acts of petitioners in maliciously ignoring the claim of membership of
convey from one place to another." The
the private complainant, arresting the latter without reasonable ground,
essential element of the charge is the and forcibly bringing the latter to the police station, sufficiently
movement of the dangerous drug from one constitutes bad faith.
place to another.
All these factual circumstances are enough to rebut the presumption of
In People v. Del Mundo: The very act of good faith and regularity in the performance of official duties in
transporting a prohibited drug, like in the instant petitioners' favor.
case, is a malum prohibitum since it is punished
There was no overt act within petitioners' plain view which hinted that
as an offense under a special law. The mere Pacis was committing a crime. During his apprehension, Pacis has not
commission of the act constitutes the offense committed, was not committing, nor was he about to commit a crime.
and is sufficient to validly charge and convict an The warrantless arrest in this case was unlawful.
individual committing the act, regardless of .
criminal intent.  A public officer who has no duty to arrest or detain a
person is deemed a private individual, in contemplation of
Since the crime is malum prohibitum, it is inconsequential Articles 267 and 268 of RPC.
to prove that the illegal drugs were delivered or  Even when a public officer has the legal duty to arrest or
transported to another person. The only thing that had to detain another, but he or she fails to show legal grounds
be proven was the movement of the illegal drugs from one for detention, "the public officer is deemed to have acted
place to another. in a private capacity and is considered a 'private
individual."'
DUROPAN V. PEOPLE :(Brgy.Kagawad)  A barangay kagawad is a member of the
G.R. No. 230825, June 10, 2020 legislative council of the sangguniang barangay,
which enacts laws of local application. He or she is
DOCTRINE: In flagrante v. Hotpursuit; Terry-Stop-and-Frisk; Duty
a person in authority, per SEC. 388 of the LGC.
of Brgy. Kagawad & Tanod to Arrest; Art. 269 RPC Unlawful
 Meanwhile, a barangay tanod is deemed as an
Arrest;
agent of persons in authority whose duties are
Invitation vs. Arrest
described in Section 388 of the Local Government
WON Pacis was arrested?
Code.
 YES. PACIS is arrested.
 While deemed as persons in authority and agents
 The Court explained what may be deemed an arrest:
of persons in authority, respectively, the barangay
Application of actual force, manual touching of the
kagawad and barangay tanod are not the public
body, physical restraint or a formal declaration of
officers whose official duty is to arrest or detain
arrest is not required. It is enough that there be an
persons contemplated within the purview of
INTENT on the part of one of the parties to ARREST the
Article 269 of the RPC.
other and an intent on the part of the other to
SUBMIT, under the belief and impression that
SUBMISSION IS NECESSARY.
Saraum v. People (Pata case: IFD v. HP)
Although denominated as requests, invitations from DOCTRINE: In Flagrante v. HOT PURSUIT; PLAIN VIEW; MOTION
high-ranking officials to a hearing in a military camp TO QUASH
were deemed arrests. This Court characterized them as WON in flagrante arrest is valid?
authoritative commands which may not be reasonably  YES, the arrest in flagrante delicto was valid.
expected to be defied.  Saraum was arrested during the commission of a crime,
which instance does not require a warrant in accordance
Intent to arrest by the arresting person or officer, whether
 with Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of ROC.*INSERT REQUISITES*. While nowhere in the prosecution evidence show the "justifiable
ground" which may excuse the police operatives involved in the buy-
 Mere possession of the paraphernalia is an offense. While bust operation from making the physical inventory and taking a
photograph of the drug paraphernalia confiscated and/or seized, such
the items have countless lawful uses by themselves, the
omission shall not render Saraum's arrest illegal or the items
prosecution successfully proved their purpose for taking seized/confiscated from him as inadmissible in evidence.
drugs.
Said "justifiable ground" will remain unknown in the light of the
 Since the warrantless arrest was valid, the warrantless apparent failure of Saraum to specifically challenge the CUSTODY AND
seizure incidental to the arrest is also valid, and the seized SAFEKEEPING or the ISSUE OF DISPOSITION AND PRESERVATION of the
items are the corpus delicti of the offense itself. subject drug paraphernalia before the trial court. He cannot be allowed
too late in the day to question the police officers’ alleged non-
WARRANTLESS SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO LAWFULL ARREST compliance with Section 21 for the first time on appeal.
(PLAIN VIEW)
 The valid warrantless arrest gave the officers the right to search the
shanty for objects relating to the crime and seize the drug VILLASANA V. PEOPLE
paraphernalia they found. (relying on tip information, and no independent verification)
DOCTRINE: Relying on Tip Information With No Independent
 In the course of their lawful intrusion, they inadvertently saw the Verification = UNLAWFUL
various drug paraphernalia.
Was the immediate Arrest of the accused arising from a
 As these items were plainly visible, the police officers were justified
in seizing them. Considering that Saraum’s arrest was legal, the “reliable tip” is sufficient to validate the in flagrante delicto
search and seizure that resulted from it were likewise lawful. arrest?
 It is settled that "reliable information" provided by police
The various drug paraphernalia that the police officers found and seized assets alone is not sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest.
in the shanty are, therefore, admissible in evidence for having proceeded  There must be independent circumstances perceivable by
from a valid search and seizure. Since the confiscated drug paraphernalia the arresting officers suggesting that a criminal offense is
are the very corpus delicti of the crime charged, the Court has no choice
being committed to comply with the exacting requirements
but to sustain the judgment of conviction
of Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court.
 An accused must perform some overt act within plain view
CHAIN OF CUSTODY UNDER RA 9165
of the police officers indicating that she or "he has just
 To ascertain the identity of the drugs and/or paraphernalia
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
presented before the court as the ones seized from the
commit a crime."
accused, the prosecution must show:
o (a) the prescribed procedure under Section 21(1),
The prosecution failed to establish probable cause to justify the
Article II of R.A. No. 9165 has been complied with
in flagrante delicto arrest of petitioner.
or falls within the saving clause provided in Section
21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and
 Thus, the ensuing seizure of the shabu purportedly in his
Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165;17 and
possession is unlawful, and the seized drug is, therefore,
o (b) there was an unbroken link (not perfect link) in
inadmissible in evidence.
the chain of custody with respect to the
o Under the 1987 Constitution, all citizens are
confiscated items.
protected against unreasonable searches and
 Although Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 mandates that the
seizures of their persons, houses, papers, and
apprehending team must immediately conduct a physical
effects.
inventory of the seized items and photograph them, non-
 As a rule, a search and seizure must be carried out with a
compliance therewith is NOT FATAL as long as:
search warrant validly issued by a judge upon personal
o there is a justifiable ground and as long as
determination of probable cause; otherwise, the search
o the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
becomes unreasonable.
confiscated/seized items are properly preserved  It follows that any item or article obtained from such
by the apprehending team. search cannot be used as evidence for any purpose in any
proceeding.
Effect of failure to timely file the Motion to Quash
 Saraum is deemed to have waived any objection thereto  Jurisprudence, however, has recognized several exceptions
when he did not raise the issue before entering his plea. to the search warrant requirement. Among these exceptions
 "The established rule is that an accused may be estopped is a search incidental to a lawful arrest. In this instance, the
from assailing the legality of his arrest if he failed to move lawful arrest must precede the search; the process cannot
for the quashing of the Information against him before his be reversed.
arraignment.
 Any objection involving the arrest or the procedure in the
court's acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of an
accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise People v. YUSOP (LBC CASE)
the objection is deemed waived." (distinguish this case to villasana, information was verified)
 In this case, counsel for Saraum manifested its objection to DOCTRINE: Reliable information received was FIRST
the admission of the seized drug paraphernalia, invoking VERIEFIED
illegal arrest and search, only during the formal offer of 1. Information must be Verified first
evidence by the prosecution.  Follow up operation should be conducted
2. must not rely on the tip, there must be acts conducted by the accuse
 Disappointingly, here, there was No Effort at all on the part of
REQUISITES FOR HOT PURSUIT the prosecution to explain or justify why a representative from
Jurisprudence tells us that the following must be present for a the DOJ was not present during the inventory and photography
valid warrantless arrest under paragraph (b): (OA) of the confiscated drugs nor was it shown that earnest efforts
i) an offense has just been committed; and were in fact exerted to secure or obtain their presence or
ii) the arresting officer has probable cause to attendance thereat
believe based on personal knowledge of facts
or circumstances that the person to be Seemingly, in the present case, the PDEA agents failed to secure
arrested has committed it. the attendance of a DOJ representative during the inventory and
photography of the seized drug.
The evidence on record clearly shows that the police officers had
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances upon which they People vs. Estabillo
had properly determined probable cause in effecting a At any rate, the Court keenly notes that as in Maralit, the
warrantless arrest against Yusop. arresting officers here were likewise able to preserve the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized items which were marked
Here, the PDEA agents immediately acted on a tip received from inventoried, and photographed in front of an elected official and
a confidential informant that a substantial amount of shabu will two (2) media representatives. To be clear though, a media
be shipped from Las Pinas to CDO. representative is no substitute for a DOJ representative under RA
9165 prior to its amendment.
The details regarding the shipment such as the names of the
shipper and consignee, contents of the subject package, and the However, the arresting officers' decision to invite additional
courier service were all accurate upon verification. witnesses than required is cogent proof of their good faith, if
not, earnest efforts to comply with the witness requirement
The PDEA agents then conducted surveillance operations at the under Section 21, RA 9165, and more important, to ensure
LBC branch where the package will be claimed. transparency and dispel any kind of suspicion on the legitimacy
of the operation.
The subject package was without a doubt retrieved a day later
by Yusop - who acted like a guilty person and attempted to run
when confronted by the authorities. People v. Olarte (Toy-gun case)
DOCTRINE: In flagrante vs. HOT PURSUIT; PROBABLE CAUSE;
The foregoing pieces of information qualify as the PDEA agents' When the arresting officer has entered the premises and saw
personal observation, perception and evaluation, which are accused holding a replica gun they are not obliged to wait if the
necessarily within their personal knowledge, prompting them to gun can shoot. It is sufficient that in their presence, there is an
make the warrantless arrest. The Court is, thus, convinced that attempt of committing a crime.
the PDEA agents had personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances justifying Yusop's warrantless arrest. In flagrante vs Hot Pursuit
 The first instance in Sec. 5 of Rule 113, on which the subject
SEC. 21 (2), Article II, RA 9165 applicable in Tranpo of Drugs arrest was premised, is known as an in flagrante
delicto arrest where the accused was caught in the
The prevailing law then requires that: act or attempting to commit, already committing or having
(1) the seized items be inventoried and photographed committed an offense.
immediately after seizure or confiscation; and
(2) the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the  For a warrantless arrest of in flagrante delicto to be effected,
presence of: (AEM-D) two elements must concur:
(a) the accused or his/her representative or counsel, (a) the person to be arrested must execute an overt
(b) an elected public official, act indicating that he has just committed, is actually
(c) a representative from the media, and committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and
(d) a representative from the DOJ, (b) such overt act is done in the presence or within the
All of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventoiy view of the arresting officer.
and be given a copy of the same. Failure to comply with the overt act test renders an in flagrante
delicto arrest constitutionally infirm.
In the case of Lescano v. People, the Court held that non-
compliance with the chain of custody rule is tantamount to The concept of in flagrante delicto arrests should not be
failure in establishing identity of the corpus delicti which is an confused with warrantless arrests based on probable cause as
essential element of the offense and engenders the acquittal of contemplated in the second instance of Sec. 5 of Rule 113.
an accused
 In Hot pursuit, an accused may be arrested when there is
Realistically speaking, strict compliance with the requirements probable cause which is discernible by a peace officer or
of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 is not always be private person that an offense "has just been committed."
possible.1awp++i1 But, while the law excuses non-compliance Here, the offense had already been consummated but NOT
under justifiable grounds the same must be proven as a fact for IN THE PRESENCE of the peace officer or private person
the Court cannot presume what they are or that they even exist ; who, nevertheless, should have personal knowledge of
and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested had
properly preserved.**** committed it.
 More importantly, there is durational immediacy between
 the offense that had just been committed and the peace  SEC 5(b) Rule 11: For a hot pursuit arrest to be valid, there
officer or private person's perception or observation of the must be an offense that was just committed, and the arresting
accused's presence at the incident or immediate vicinity. officer had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the
 Such is why probable cause is required to justify a accused committed it.
warrantless arrest in cases where the peace officer or
private person did not catch or witness the accused in the NOTE:
act of committing an offense.
 This exception does not require the arresting officers to
personally witness the commission of the offense with
SUFFICIENCY OF PROBABLE CAUSE
their own eyes.
 some of its yardsticks for determination may be of help in
ascertaining whether an accused is attempting to  Personal knowledge of facts must be based on probable
commit an offense; cause, which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds
 Probable of guilt "must be based on commonsense of suspicion.
judgments and inferences about human behavior."  The grounds are reasonable when the suspicion that the
person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the
Under the circumstances, PO2 Intud and PO2 Monilar had a offense is based on actual facts, i.e., supported by
reasonable suspicion to arrest accused-appellant who was seen circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create
to have drawn a gun as he was about to enter LBC. the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested.
 Common sense dictates that police officers need not wait
 A reasonable suspicion, therefore, must be founded on
for a serious crime, such as robbery, to be consummated
probable cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the
before they move in and make the arrest because it will
definitely endanger the lives and safety of the public, as peace officers making the arrest.
well as their own.
Pestilos v. Generoso (Gikulata si Atty)
 This is consistent with the jurisprudential dictum that the DOCTRINE: Immediacy, Probable Cause vis-à-vis Personal
obligation to make an arrest by reason of a crime does not Knowledge of facts
presuppose, as a necessary requisite for the fulfillment
thereof, the indubitable existence of a crime. WON PETITIONERS WERE VALIDLY ARRESTED WITHOUT A
WARRANT.
Moreover, even if the firearm drawn turned out to be a replica,  YES. The warrantless arrest was valid.
the police officers were not expected to know on sight whether  Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the ROC provides that:
the firearm was genuine or not, considering they had only a split When an offense has just been committed, and he has
second to act on any indication of danger. probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to
What was necessary was the presence of reasonably sufficient be arrested has committed it.
ground to believe the existence of an act having the  The facts and circumstances that the police officers gathered
characteristics of a crime; and that the same grounds exist to and which they have personally observed LESS THAN ONE
believe that the person sought to be detained participated in it. HOUR from the time that they have arrived at the scene of
the crime until the time of the arrest of the petitioners,
As a result of the validity of the accused-appellant's warrantless  The circumstances qualify as the police officers’ personal
arrest, the incidental search and seizure of the items in his observation, which are within their personal knowledge,
possession is also valid "to protect the arresting officer from prompting them to make the warrantless arrests.
being harmed by the person arrested and to prevent the latter REQUISITES FOR HOT PURSUIT
from destroying evidence within reach." The requirements set under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of ROC are:
NOTE: 1. an offense has just been committed (Immediacy);
EFFECT OF ILLEGALITY OF ARREST 2. Police officer has personal knowledge of facts or
 The legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the circumstances; and lastly,
court over the person of the accused. 3. Propriety of the determination of probable cause that
 Furthermore, "it is much too late in the day to complain the person sought to be arrested committed the crime.
about the warrantless arrest after a valid information had
been filed, the accused arraigned, trial commenced and Personal knowledge of a crime just committed under the terms
completed, and a judgment of conviction rendered against of the above-cited provision, does not require actual presence
him” at the scene while a crime was being committed.
 It has been ruled time and again that an accused is
estopped from assailing any irregularity with regard to his It is enough that evidence of the recent commission of the crime
arrest if he fails to raise this issue or to move for the quashal is patent (as in this case) and the police officer has probable
of the information against him on this ground before his cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or
arraignment. circumstances, that the person to be arrested has recently
committed the crime.
Besides, only those pieces of evidence obtained after an
unreasonable search and seizure are inadmissible in evidence for
any purpose in any proceeding.
Hot Pursuit Arrest
BASIS: People v. Pangcatan,
(Witness Renante)
DOCTRINE: Invitation v. Arrest; Immediacy Test
WON the search and seizure made to pangcatan was justified by
WON, Warrantless arrest was in Flagrante delicto or Hot the arrest?
pursuit.  NO. The search incident to Pangcatan's arrest is also
 NO. Arrest of Pangcatan cannot be justified as in flagrante unlawful.
or hot pursuit.  Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules states that:
 For warrantless arrest under Sec. 5 (a) Rule 113 to be valid.. o A person lawfully arrested may be searched for
*REMEMBER TO CITE THE REQ.* dangerous weapons or anything which may have
 Noticeably, at the time Pangcatan was invited to the police been used or constitute proof in the commission
station two days after the incident, he was not committing of an offense without a search warrant.
any crime nor was it shown that he was about to do so or  To constitute a valid warrantless search under this
that he had just done so in the presence of the police provision, it requires that there be first a lawful arrest
officers. before a search can be made and this process cannot be
 Thus, the warrantless arrest of Pangcatan cannot be justified reversed. Absent the requisite lawful arrest that must
under the in flagrante delicto exception in paragraph (a), precede the search, it cannot be considered legal.
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules.  Since the search on the person of Pangcatan cannot be
 Pangcatan's arrest also cannot be validated under the hot considered a search incident to a lawful arrest as
pursuit arrest exception in Sec 5(b), Rule 113. contemplated in Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules, the
 The elements of a hot pursuit arrest are: pieces of evidence obtained from this search are
(1) an offense has just been committed; and inadmissible
(2) the arresting officer has probable cause to believe
based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances
that the person to be arrested has committed it. Vaporoso v. People
 Moreover, there must be no appreciable lapse of time (Nangawat ug purse sa car)
between the arrest and the commission of the crime. DOCTRINE:
Otherwise, a warrant of arrest must be secured.
 Here, it took two days for the police officers to arrest him, a WON Police officers lawfully arrested petitioners without a
lapse of time which is inconsistent with the immediacy warrant
requirement in hot pursuit arrests.
 YES. The warrantless arrest is one falling under Sec 5(b)Rule
XXXXXXX 113 of ROC.
 Since Renante positively identified Pangcatan from the  Verily, under the above cited provision, it is essential
photos shown to him on January 9, 2015, the police officers that the element of personal knowledge must be coupled
had sufficient time to secure a warrant. with the element of immediacy
 Instead of applying for a warrant, the police officers lured  with the element of immediacy imposed under Section 5
Pangcatan into placing him into their custody under the
(b), Rule 113 of the ROC, the police officer's determination
guise of an invitation. Consequently, Pangcatan's arrest was
unlawful. of probable cause would necessarily be limited to RAW or
UNCONTAMINATED facts or circumstances , gathered as
Nevertheless, the subsequent filing of charges against Pangcatan, they were within a verv limited period of time.
his plea of not guilty, and his active participation during trial now  otherwise, the arrest may be nullified, and resultantly, the
preclude him from assailing the court's jurisdiction over him. items yielded through the search incidental thereto will be
rendered inadmissible in consonance with the exclusionary
Significance of Immediacy Test
rule of the 1987 Constitution.
the Court explained the reason for the element of immediacy as
 Here, petitioners' sudden flight upon being flagged by a
follows:
police officer, coupled with Dombase's narration of what
As the time gap from the commission of the crime to
had just transpired is enough to provide PO2 Torculas with
the arrest widens, the pieces of information gathered
personal knowledge of facts indicating that a crime had just
are prone to become contaminated and subjected to
been committed and that petitioners are the perpetrators
external factors, interpretations and hearsay.
thereof. Moreover, upon gaining such personal knowledge,
not only did PO2 Torculas chase petitioners until they
On the other hand, with the element of immediacy
entered a dark, secluded area, he also called for back-up and
imposed under Section 5 (b), Rule 113 of the Revised
conducted a "stake-out" right then and there until they were
Rules of Criminal Procedure, the police officer's
able to arrest petitioners about six (6) hours later.
determination of probable cause would necessarily be
 These circumstances indubitably show that the twin
limited to raw or uncontaminated facts or
requisites of personal knowledge and immediacy in order
circumstances, gathered as they were within a very
to effectuate a valid "hot pursuit" warrantless arrest are
limited period of time. The same provision adds
present, considering that PO2 Torculas obtained personal
another safeguard with the requirement of probable
knowledge that a crime had just been committed and that
cause as the standard for evaluating these facts of
he. did not waver in his continuous and unbroken pursuit of
circumstances before the police officer could effect a
petitioners until they were arrested.
valid warrantless arrest
The test of immediacy is not a mere mathematical computation WON the “more thorough” search conducted at the Panabo
of the lapse of time between the commission of the crime and Police Station where the seized drugs were allegedly recovered
the arrest. It is evaluated based on the circumstances from them falls within the purview of a valid search incidental
surrounding each case. to lawful arrest
 Pestilos v. Generoso (Gikulata si Atty)
 NO. Under SEC 13, Rule 126: DOCTINE: Invitation; Intent to Arrest
 A valid arrest allows the seizure of evidence or dangerous
weapons either on the person of the one arrested or within WON the accused was “arrested”
the area of his immediate control.  YES. The accused was arrested and not merely invited.
 The phrase "within the area of his immediate control"  If after the officers have determined that a crime has just
means the area from within which he might gain been committed by the accused, the use of the term
possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. “invited” in the affidavit of arrest is to be construed as an
 On this note, case law requires a strict application of this authoritative command by the officer for the accused to
rule, that is, "to absolutely limit a warrantless search of a submit to the custody of the officer.
person who is lawfully arrested to his or her person at the
time of and incident to his or her arrest and to 'dangerous
weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the DUROPAN V. PEOPLE :(Brgy.Kagawad)
commission of the offense.' Such warrantless search
WON, the Barangay Officials has “arrested” Pacis
obviously cannot be made in a place other than the place of
 YES. The Court ruled in Duropan v. People that:
arrest."
Application of actual force, manual touching of the
 Applying the foregoing parameters, the first search made on
body, physical restraint or a formal declaration of arrest
petitioners, i.e., the cursory body search which, however,
is not required. It is enough that there be an INTENT on
did not yield any drugs but only personal belongings of
the part of one of the parties to ARREST the other and
petitioners, may be considered as a search incidental to a
an intent on the part of the other to SUBMIT, under the
lawful arrest as it was done contemporaneous to their arrest
belief and impression that SUBMISSION IS NECESSARY.
and at the place of apprehension.
 On the other hand, the same cannot be said of the second
Although denominated as requests, invitations from
search which yielded the drugs subject of this case,
high-ranking officials to a hearing in a military camp
considering that a substantial amount of time had already
were deemed arrests. This Court characterized them as
elapsed from the time of the arrest to the time of the
authoritative commands which may not be reasonably
second search, not to mention the fact that the second
expected to be defied.
search was conducted at a venue other than the place of
actual arrest, i.e., the Panabo Police Station.
 Intent to arrest by the arresting person or officer, whether
 Resultantly, the illegal drugs allegedly recovered therefrom
through actual restraint or other means, must also be
constitutes inadmissible evidence pursuant to the
clearly established.
exclusionary clause enshrined in the 1987 Constitution.
 Since the illegally seized drugs is the corpus delicti of the
 Petitioners' defense fails as it merely argues on semantics.
criminal charge, this causes for the dismissal of the case and
However they opt to call it, it was evident that Pacis was
the acquittal of the accused.
taken into the barangay officials' custody based on their
PURPOSE OF SEC. 13, RULE 126 belief that he committed a crime, either because he was
allegedly committing theft, or because he became violent.
 It is therefore a reasonable exercise of the State's police Their intent to arrest Pacis was clearly established.
power to protect:
(a) law enforcers from the injury that may be inflicted on
them by a person they have lawfully arrested, whom
might be armed; and
Rights of a Person Arrested, Detained, or under
(b) evidence from being destroyed by the arrestee. Custodial Investigation
BASIS:
 It seeks to ensure the safety of the arresting officers and the SEC 12, ARTICLE III og the Constitution
integrity of the evidence under the control and within the • Rights of person under investigation
reach of the arrestee. o 1. Any person under investigation for the commission
XXXXXXX of an offense shall have the right to be informed of
 Moreover, in lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty and his right to remain silent and to have competent and
the right of the apprehending officers to conduct a independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If
warrantless search not only on the person of the suspect, the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he
but also in the permissible area within the latter's reach. must be provided with one. These rights cannot be
 Otherwise stated, a valid arrest allows the seizure of waived except in writing and in the presence of
evidence or dangerous weapons either on the person of the counsel (Miranda Rights: • Protection from self-
one arrested or within the area of his immediate control . incrimination •Right to counsel)
The phrase "within the area of his immediate control"
means the area from within which he might gain o 2. No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or
possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. A gun on any other means which vitiate the free will shall be
a table or in a drawer in front of one who is arrested can be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary,
as dangerous to the arresting officer as one concealed in incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention
the clothing of the person arrested. are prohibited. (•Prohibition of torture)

Invitation for Questioning; Intent to make an Arrest o 3. Any confession or admission obtained in violation
of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in
 evidence against him. (• Regulation of evidence DOCTRINE: Right to Remain Silent; Right to Legal Counsel during
collection) Custodial Investigation
 Sec 17 No person shall be compelled to be a
witness against himself. WON accused waived his right to counsel when interrogated
(Prohibition against self-incrimination)  NO. In determining the question of waiver of counsel - it is
incumbent upon the State to prove an intentional
o 4. The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or
of violations of this section as well as compensation privilege.
to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar  The right to counsel does not depend upon a request by a
practices, and their families. (Protection of victim’s defendant, and courts indulge in every reasonable
rights) presumption against waiver. This strict standard applies
equally to an alleged waiver of the right to counsel whether
What are the Rights of a person arrested (R.A. 7438)? at trial or at a critical stage of pretrial proceedings
 The rights of a person arrested, detained or under custodial  Here, Respodent did not waived his right to counsel but,
investigation are spelled out by Republic Act No.7438. instead, he was deprived of his constitutional right to
 These rights are: (ARI-V) assistance of counsel.
(a) The right to be assisted by counsel at all times (Sec.  An individual against whom adversary proceedings have
2[a]) commenced has a right to legal representation when the
(b) The right to remain silent (Sec. 2[b]); government interrogates him and since here the police
(c) The right to be informed of the above rights (Sec. 2[b]); officer's "Christian burial speech" was tantamount to
and interrogation, respondent was entitled to the assistance of
(d) The right to be visited by the immediate members of counsel at the time he made the incriminating statements.
his family, by his counsel, or by any non-governmental  The circumstances of record provide, when viewed in light
organization, national of respondent's assertions of his right to counsel, no
or international reasonable basis for finding that respondent waived his right
to the assistance of counsel, the record falling far short of
When does Custodial Investigation commences? sustaining the State's burden to prove "an intentional
 As a rule, custodial investigation begins to operate as soon as relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or
the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an privilege,"
unresolved crime and the interrogation is then aimed onf a
particular suspect who has been taken into custody and to People v. Licayan(5 year old Rowena Rape case)
whom the police would then direct interrogatory questions that DOCTRINE: Confession vs. Admission; Admission to a Private
tend to elicit incriminating statements. Person; Courts go by the biblical truism that "the wicked flee
 R.A. 7438 expanded the meaning of custodial investigation. when no man pursueth but the righteous are as bold as a lion."
Under Sec. 2(f),” custodial investigation shall include the
practice of issuing an "invitation" to a person who is CONFESSION vs. ADMISSION (RULE 130)
investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to SEC. 33. Confession. - The declaration of an accused
have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense
"inviting" officer for any violation of law.” necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against
 This means that even those who voluntarily surrendered him.
before a police officer must be apprised of their Miranda
rights. SEC. 26. Admission of a party - The act, declaration or omission
of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against
When does the Right To Remain Silent be exercise? him
 It extends to all kinds of questioning (i.e. Preliminary or
custodial investigation) Under SEC 3, RULE 113 of ROC, an extra-judicial confession shall
not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by
evidence of corpus delicti, which is defined as the body of the
crime and, in its primary sense, means a crime has actually been
Right to Counsel committed.
 The right to counsel upon being questioned for the commission
of a crime is part of the Miranda rights. (See Sec 12, Art. III WON an eyewitnesses could have identified the perpetrator of a
Consti) crime
 The Miranda rights were incorporated in our Constitution but  YES. It is settled that when conditions of visibility are
were modifies to include the statement that any waiver of the favorable, and the witnesses do not appear to be biased,
right to counsel must be made in WRITING and in PRESENCE their assertion as to the identity of the malefactor should
OF COUNSEL. normally be accepted.
 Illumination produced by kerosene lamp or a flashlight is
NOTE: Presence of Counsel is MANDATORY in custodial sufficient to allow identification of persons.
investigation; In general inquiry- right to counsel does not come in.  Wicklamps, flashlights, even moonlight or starlight may, in
proper situations be considered sufficient
illumination making the attack on the credibility of
Brewer v. Williams witnesses solely on that ground unmeritorious.
(The Christian Burial Speech Case)
WON the statement made by Rogelio “JUN JUN” Dahilan as to
the location of the victim’s body is hearsay.
 NO. Any oral or documentary evidence is hearsay by
nature if its probative value is not based on the personal People v. Taboga (Media)
knowledge of the witnesses but on the knowledge of some DOCTRINE: Extrajudicial Confession made through Media
other person who was never presented on the witness
stand, because it is the opportunity to cross-examine which WON the extrajudicial confession made by the accused to a
negates the claim that the matters testified to by a witness radio reporter who was allegedly acting as an agent for the
are hearsay. prosecution is in violation of the procedural safeguards enshrine
 In the instant case, Rogelio Dahilan, Jr. testified that in the Constitution and admissible as evidence
accused-appellant indeed told him where the victim’s body  NO. The Court ruled in People vs. Taboga that videotaped
can be found. confessions given before media men by an accused with
 What is more, the victim’s body was actually recovered at the knowledge of and in the presence of police officers are
the location pointed by accused-appellant. impermissible.
 Such confession did not form part of custodial
WON the extrajudicial statements made by the accused to investigation. It was not given to police officers but to a
Dahilan is inadmissible as it partakes an extrajudicial-confession media man in an apparent attempt to elicit sympathy.
 NO. It not an extra-judicial confession, but merely an extra-  The record even discloses that accused-appellant admitted
judicial admission. to the Barangay Captain that he clubbed and stabbed the
 A CONFESSION is an acknowledgment in EXPRESS TERMS, by victim even before the police started investigating him at the
a party in a criminal case, of his GUILT of the crime charged, police station. Besides, if he had indeed been forced into
while confessing, he could have easily asked help from the
 an ADMISSION is a statement by the accused, direct or newsman
implied, of facts pertinent to issue, and tending, in
connection with proof of other facts, to PROVE HIS GUILT. Voluntariness of Extrajudicial Confession and its Admissibility
 In other words, an admission is something less than a  If a confession be free and voluntary the deliberate act of
confession and is but an acknowledgment of some fact or the accused with a full comprehension of its significance,
circumstance which in itself is insufficient to authorize a there is no impediment to its admission as evidence, and it
conviction, and which tends only to establish the ultimate becomes evidence of a high order; since it is supported by
fact of guilt. the presumption a very strong presumption that no person
 In this case, Rogelio "Jun-jun" Dahilan was neither a law of normal mind will deliberately and knowingly confess
enforcement nor a public officer conducting a custodial himself to be a perpetrator of a crime, especially if it be a
interrogation of accused-appellant. He was merely an serious crime, unless prompted by truth and conscience.
acquaintance of accused-appellant who asked the
whereabouts of the missing child of his kumpadre because
 Under Rule 133, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, an
the victim was last seen with the latter.
extrajudicial confession made by an accused shall not be a
 Neither was he instructed by the police to extract
sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by
information from accused-appellant on the details of the
evidence of corpus delicti. As defined, it means the body of
crime.
the crime and, in its primary sense, means a crime has
 Well settled in number of jurisprudences that:
actually been committed. Applied to a particular offense, it is
Constitutional procedure on custodial investigation do not
the actual commission by someone of the particular crime
apply to a spontaneous statement not elicited through
charged.
questioning by the authorities, but given in an ordinary
manner whereby the accused orally admitted having
committed the crime. In the case at bar, the confession made by accused-appellant
 Even assuming arguendo that accused-appellant’s was corroborated by several items found by the authorities, to
admissions indeed partake of an extra-judicial confession, wit: the knife which was used to kill the victim and the charred
the same would still be admissible not only on account of body of the victim.
the foregoing considerations but also because it is
corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. People v. Cabug (Hammer case)
 SEC 3, RULE 113 of ROC, an extra-judicial confession shall
not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated DOCTRINE: Right to Counsel; When does Custodial investigation
by evidence of corpus delicti. commences
 In this case, aside from the admission made by accused- WON, alleged extra-judicial confession to SPO3 Bernard
appellant, the bruised and battered body of the victim Rafanan is inadmissible for having been given without the
herself recovered at the exact spot described by accused- presence of counsel.
appellant conclusively established the corroborating  NO. The confession of accused-appellant is inadmissible
evidence of corpus delicti.  The right to counsel attaches upon the start of
investigation, i.e., when the investigating officer starts to
PN: Simply put, the extrajudicial confession is admissible ask questions to elicit information and/or confessions or
because it was given during a GENERAL INQUIRY, Renante’s admissions from the accused.
inquiry did not equate to a custodial investigation as the latter is  In this case, SPO3 Rafanan testified that he approached
not making an arrest nor he intended to make one. Violation of accused-appellant in order to make queries on what
Bill of rights apply only to the officers of the State (Police happened on the night of August 15, 1992.
officers); It does not apply to Private individuals who are not  He further said that after this voluntary confession from
making an arrest. accused-appellant, he ceased to ask questions because he
 knew that at that point that the latter appellant needed the
assistance of counsel. MIRANDA RIGHTS
 The interrogation of accused-appellant by SPO3 Rafanan Sec. 12, Article III of the Consti embodies the Miranda rights.
ceased to be a general exploratory investigation of a crime The Miranda doctrine requires that:
and entered the stage of custodial interrogation where Art. (a) any person under custodial investigation has the
III, 12(1) of the Constitution applied. right to remain silent;
(b) anything he says can and will be used against him in
NOTE: This is probably the reason why the trial court never fully a court of law;
relied on accused-appellant's extra-judicial confession, although (c) he has the right to talk to an attorney before being
it mentioned it in among the circumstances duly proven in court. questioned and to have his counsel present when being
Instead, the trial court gave weight to the circumstantial questioned; and
evidences which point to accused- appellant's liability. For even (d) if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided
disregarding the extra-judicial confession of accused-appellant, before any questioning if he so desires.
there is sufficient circumstantial evidence which would clearly
establish his conviction. Miranda rights are intended to protect ordinary citizens from
the pressure of custodial setting.
People v. Cabanada (Housemaid; Qualified Theft)
DOCTRINE: Admission during general exploratory investigation In the case of Luz v. People25 citing Berkemer v. McCarty,26 it was
v. Admission during Custodial Investigation explained that:
The purposes of the safeguards prescribed by Miranda
WON, the admission of accused is made during Custodial are to ensure that the police do not coerce or trick
Investigation captive suspects into confessing, to relieve the
 Custodial investigation commences when a person is taken "inherently compelling pressures" "generated by the
into custody and is singled out as a suspect in the custodial setting itself," "which work to undermine the
commission of a crime under investigation and the police individual's will to resist," and as much as possible to
officers begin to ask questions on the suspect's free courts from the task of scrutinizing individual cases
participation therein and which tend to elicit an admission. to try to determine, after the fact, whether particular
confessions were voluntary. Those purposes are
 RA 7438 expanded the definition of custodial investigation
implicated as much by in-custody questioning of
This means that even those who voluntarily surrendered
persons suspected of misdemeanors as they are by
before a police officer must be apprised of their Miranda
questioning of persons suspected of felonies.
rights The same pressures of a custodial setting exist in this
scenario.
The "investigation" in Section 12, paragraph 1 of the Bill of Rights
 Applying the foregoing, Cabanada was not under custodial
pertains to "custodial investigation." Custodial investigation
investigation when she made the confession, without
commences when a person is taken into custody and is singled
counsel, to PO2 Cotoner that she took the missing
out as a suspect in the commission of a crime under investigation
₱20,000.00.
and the police officers begin to ask questions on the suspect's
 The prosecution established that the confession was elicited
participation therein and which tend to elicit an admission.
during the initial interview of the police after Catherine
called to report the missing money and personal effects.
 The investigation was still a general inquiry of the crime Distinction between Custodial Investigation and Preliminary
and has not focused on a particular suspect. Also, she Investigation; Admissibility of an Extrajudicial Confession taken
admitted to the crime while at the residence of her during a PI
employer, thus, she was not yet taken into custody or People v. Omilig
otherwise deprived of her freedom. DOCTRINE:
 However, the subsequent confession of Cabanada at the CIU
office can be considered as having been done in a custodial WON, the extrajudicial confessions were valid
setting.  In Ladiana v. People, the Court defined the difference
between custodial investigation and preliminary
WON, the admission of accused is Admissible in evidence investigation: Custodial Interrogation/Investigation“ is the
 The answer requires distinction. questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a
 It was ruled that any statement obtained in violation of the person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of
constitutional provision, whether exculpatory or his freedom of action in any significant way”;
inculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in  on the other hand, Preliminary Investigation “is an inquiry or
evidence. Even if the confession contains a grain of truth, if a proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient
it was made without the assistance of counsel, it becomes ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has
inadmissible in evidence, regardless of the absence of been committed, and that the respondent is probably guilty
coercion or even if it had been voluntarily given. thereof and should be held for trial.
 Cabanada's confession without counsel at the police  In Ladiana, this Court has unequivocally declared that a
station, which led to the recovery of the other items at her person undergoing preliminary investigation cannot be
house, is inadmissible. considered as being under custodial investigation.
 Nevertheless, the inadmissibility of Cabanada's admission Resultingly, as pronounced in Ladiana, the claim by the
made in CIU does not necessarily entitle her to a verdict of accused of inadmissibility of his extrajudicial confession is
acquittal. Her admission during the general inquiry is still unavailing because his confessions were obtained during a
admissible. preliminary investigation and even if accused-appellant
Peñaflor’s extrajudicial confessions were obtained under
 custodial investigation, these are admissible. the presence of any circumstance that would negate the
 To be admissible, a confession must comply with the admissibility of his confession.
following requirements: it “must be
(a) voluntary; The presumption of regularity in the performance of duty prevails
b) made with the assistance of a competent and over mere allegations. The presumption of regularity operates
independent counsel; when the prosecution proffers that government officials tasked
c) express; and with responsibilities regarding the enforcement of our laws and
d) in writing.” procedures submit that the crime has been duly proven,41 which,
In the case at bar, the prosecution did not present proof of the however, may be refuted by the defense. It is upon the defense
absence of any of these requirements. to disprove such presumption by adducing no less than clear and
TOPIC: Assistance of competent and independent counsel convincing evidence, showing that the performance of functions
preferably of his own choice was tainted with irregularity and that the official had motive to
falsify,42 such that, any taint of irregularity renders the
WON Peñaflor’s two extrajudicial confessions were inadmissible presumption unavailable. In the case at bar, the defense failed to
because he was assisted by an “incompetent and not an refute such presumption. In the end, “[w]hat is sought to be
independent counsel of his choice” protected by the Constitution is the compulsory disclosure of
incriminating facts. The right is guaranteed merely to preclude
 The argument is untenable. the slightest coercion as would lead the accused to admit
 To be a competent and independent counsel in a custodial something false not to provide him with the best defense. "
investigation, the lawyer so engaged should be present at
all stages of the interview, counseling or advising caution Ladiana v. People
reasonably at every turn of the investigation, and stopping DOCTRINE: Admission in Preliminary Investigation; A statement
the interrogation once in a while either to give advice to by the accused admitting the commission of the act charged
the accused that he may either continue, choose to remain against him but denying that it was done with criminal intent is
silent or terminate the interview.” an admission, not a confession.
 It has been made clear that counsel should be present and
able to advise and assist his client from the time the WON the Counter-affidavit of the accused-petitioner may be
confessant answers the first question until the signing of admitted against him as evidence of guilt beyond reasonable
the extrajudicial confession. doubt even if he was not assisted then by counsel.
 In the case, there was no evidence, not even an allegation,  Yes. The Constitution bars the admission in evidence of any
that the counsel who assisted accused-appellant Peñaflor statement extracted by the police from the accused
when his extrajudicial confessions were obtained were without the assistance of competent and independent
absent at any stage of the duration of the proceedings. counsel during a custodial investigation. However, a
 Based on his admission, Atty. Cavales was the last person to counter-affidavit voluntarily presented by the accused
arrive for the conduct of preliminary investigation. However, during the preliminary investigation, even if made without
the preliminary investigation commenced only after he the assistance of counsel, may be used as evidence against
arrived. Only then were questions propounded to accused- the affiant.
appellant Peñaflor.  Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or a proceeding to
 With regard to the submission that accused-appellant determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a
Peñaflor’s appointed counsel is not of his own choice as well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, and
warranted by Article III, Section 12 of the Constitution, the that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should
Court cited its discussion in People v. Tomaquin on the be held for trial.
meaning of “preferably” is relevant:  The Court has unequivocally declared that a defendant on
Ideally, the lawyer called to be present during such trial or under preliminary investigation is not under
investigations should be as far as reasonably possible, custodial interrogation.
the choice of the individual undergoing questioning, but Interrogation by the police, if any there had been would
the word "preferably" does not convey the message already have been ended at the time of the filing of the
that the choice of a lawyer by a person under criminal case in court (or the public prosecutor’s office).
investigation is exclusive as to preclude other equally Hence, with respect to a defendant in a criminal case
competent and independent attorneys from handling already pending in court (or the public prosecutor’s
his defense. office), there is no occasion to speak of his right while
What is imperative is that the counsel should be under ‘custodial interrogation’ laid down by the second
competent and independent. and subsequent sentences of Section 20, Article IV of
As borne by the records, the appointments of Atty. Cavales and the 1973 Constitution [now Section 12, Article III of the
Atty. Cristobal as counsel de officio were with the conformity of 1987 Constitution], for the obvious reason that he is no
accused appellant Peñaflor. longer under ‘custodial interrogation.
They succeeded Atty. Padilla upon his discharge as counsel for  There is no question that even in the absence of counsel, the
accused-appellant Peñaflor. The prosecutors allowed admissions made by petitioner in his Counter-Affidavit are
accusedappellant Peñaflor to engage the services of the new not violative of his constitutional rights. It is clear tha it was
counsel. not exacted by the police while he was under custody or
“a confession is admissible until the accused successfully proves interrogation.
that it was given as a result of violence, intimidation, threat or  Hence, the constitutional rights of a person under custodial
promise of reward or leniency.” investigation as embodied in Article III, Section 12 of the
1987 Constitution, are not at issue in this case.
The prosecution in this case failed to adduce evidence to prove
NOTE: However, the accused -- whether in court or undergoing was illegal likewise the body search conducted upon him, thus making the
preliminary investigation before the public prosecutor -- evidences inadmissible and that the court holds no jurisdiction of his
unquestionably possess rights that must be safeguarded. person by virtue of illegal arrest. He repeatedly raised these arguments
when he filed a petition for certiorari in the CA.
These include:
1) the right to refuse to be made witnesses;
WON, the Court has jurisdiction over the person of the accused
2) the right not to have any prejudice whatsoever
 YES. Although Pangcatan was not validly arrested, he is
imputed to them by such refusal;
now estopped from assailing the court's jurisdiction over
3) the right to testify on their own behalf, subject to
his person
cross-examination by the prosecution; and
 It is settled that any objection to the arrest or acquisition of
4) while testifying, the right to refuse to answer a
jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made
specific question that tends to incriminate them for
before he enters his plea, otherwise the objection is
some crime other than that for which they are being
deemed waived.
prosecuted
 An accused submits to the jurisdiction of the trial court upon
entering a plea and participating actively in the trial and this
Whether or not the accused’s confession is an extrajudicial precludes him from invoking any irregularity that may have
admission. attended his arrest. He is deemed to have waived his
objections when he entered a plea and participated actively
 No. We do not, however, agree with the Sandiganbayan’s in the trial.
characterization of petitioner’s Counter-Affidavit as an  In this case, the denial of the Motion to Quash is not the
extrajudicial confession. It is only an admission. proper subject of an appeal because it is an interlocutory
 Sections 26 and 33 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on order.
Evidence distinguish one from the other as follows:  Since Pangcatan had already filed a petition for certiorari to
o "SEC. 26. Admissions of a party. – The act, assail the interlocutory order and the issue concerning the
declaration or omission of a party as to validity of his arrest and the admissibility of the evidence
arelevant fact may be given in evidence against him had already been put to rest.
against him."  Nevertheless, the subsequent filing of charges against
o SEC. 33. Confession. – The declaration of an Pangcatan, his plea of not guilty, and his active participation
accused acknowledging his guilt of theoffense during trial now preclude him from assailing the court's
charged, or of any offense necessarily jurisdiction over him.
included therein, may be given in evidence
against him. NOTE: Effect of an Appeal
 "In a confession, there is an acknowledgment of guilt; in an In criminal cases, "an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review and the
reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed
admission, there is merely a statement of fact not directly
judgment or even reverse the trial court's decision based on grounds other than
involving an acknowledgment of guilt or of the criminal those that the parties raised as errors. The appeal confers the appellate court full
intent to commit the offense with which one is charged. jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records,
 Thus, in the case, a statement by the accused admitting the revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper
provision of the penal law."
commission of the act charged against him but denying
that it was done with criminal intent is an admission, not a
What is the remedy when a motion to quash is denied?
confession.
For petitioners to go to trial, without prejudice to reiterating the
 The Counter-Affidavit in question contains an admission that
special defenses invoked in their motion to quash. An appeal is
petitioner actually shot the victim when the latter was
not allowed because a denial of a motion to quash is an
attacking him but denies having done it with any criminal
interlocutory order.
intent. In fact, he claims he did it in self-defense.
Nevertheless, whether categorized as a confession or as an
A petition for certiorari is likewise not allowed.
admission, it is admissible in evidence against him
Exception: (when a petition for certiorari Rule 65 may be allowed)
Timeliness of Challenging the Validity of an Arrest
When the court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with
People v. Estabillo
grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to quash.

PROPER ACTION: Here, dapat wala ni enter ug plea si Pangcata,

instead he should have prompted in filing a petition for certiorari
Effect of an Illegal Arrest or Waiver of an Illegal Arrest under 65 assailing the decision on denying his Motion to Quash.
People v. Velasco The petition shall then become a prejudicial question, which
Also, even if the warrantless arrest of an accused is later to be requires to be resolved first before adjudicating the crime
proven invalid, such fact is not sufficient cause to set aside a valid charged against him.
judgement rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free
from error.
On Bench Warrants
As a consequence of failing to attend the trial when so
People v. Pangcatan, supra
required, a bench warrant was issued against complainant:
DOCTRINE: Motion to quash was timely filed however, Accused
entered Plea
SYPNOSIS: Pangcatan raised the validity of his arrest and the seizure of A bench warrant is defined as a writ issued directly by a
weapons in his possession in his Motion to Quash and to Suppress judge to a law-enforcement officer, especially for the
Evidence timely filed prior to his arraignment. He alleged that his arrest arrest of a person who has been held in contempt, has
disobeyed a subpoena, or has to appear for a hearing or
trial.

The provision on bench warrant is expressed under Section

9, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court which states that "[w]hen a
respondent released on bail fails to appear on the day
fixed for the hearing, the court may issue another order of
arrest or may order the bond for his appearance to be
forfeited and confiscated, or both."
 would tend to show specific location
that a crime has been
committed and that
a particular person
committed it
SEARCH and SEIZURE (Rule 126)  Remains valid until  Only valid for 10 days
BASIS: Constitutional Right to Privacy such time that the
person stated in
SEC. 2, Article III of the Constitution WOA arrested;
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,  body cameras are
papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of  Body worn camera is MANDATORY
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no required but it is not
fatal to invalidate
search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
arrest, so long as 
probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after justified
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the  personal examination
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place Miguel v.  not necessarily of the complainant
to be searched and the persons or things to be seized" required to make a and the witnesses is
People personal examination required
(HUBADERO) before issuing a
SEACH WARRANT warrant of arrest  Failure to execute
GR No. the "Knock and
A search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of the
227038, July 31, 2017 announce" rule shall
People of the Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace invalidate the search
officer, commanding him to search for personal property described
therein and bring it before the court (Sec. 1, Rule 126, Rules of DOCTRINE: Arrest and Search by Person acting under state-
Court) related function; Agent of Law

Characteristics:  YES. The Court ruled that Bantay Bayan or any barangay-
 A search warrant is a police weapon, issued under the police based or other volunteer organizations in the nature of
power watch groups - relating to the preservation of peace and
 it is not a criminal case and not bound by the regular rules of order in their respective areas have the color of a state-
jurisdiction
related function.
 this is criminal process, it is the inherent right of the COURT; can
be issued even if there is still no warrant yet
 this is criminal process, it is the inherent right of the COURT;
 It is not a proceeding against a person but is solely for the
discovery and to get possession of personal property.
 It is a special and peculiar remedy, drastic in nature, and made
necessary because of public necessity.
 It resembles in some respects with what is commonly known as
John Doe proceedings.

SURVEILLANCE vs. SW
Surveillance per se is not illegal nor does it requires a warrant because it is not a search.

In search, officers are actively looking for something or specific object relative to a crime
committed while in surveillance, there is still no knowledge that a crime was or is committed.

However, if surveillance involves intrusion of data i.e. wire-tapping, a warrant must first be
sought.
WOA vs.
Purpose & Nature SW
Rule on unreasonable search and seizure is protection against government intrusion.
ARREST SEARCH WARRANT
HENCE, if a person desires to challenge the validity of search (Search is with or w/o warrant) the  Cannot be issued  can be issued w/o
complaint should be RIGHT AGAINST SEARCHES AND SEIZURES but when the search was made without a complaint/ complaint or
by a private individual not the officers of the State the complaint that should be filed is the RIGHT information filed information
TO PRIVACY. before court;

 Object is the person  Object is personal

to be arrested; it property; its rule
involves taking of a covers a wider
person to custody spectrum of matters
on the search of both
persons and places
and the seizure of
things found therein.

 In order to determine  Probable cause to

probable cause to search requires facts
arrest, the judge (not to show that
the prosecutor) must particular things
have sufficient facts connected with a
in his hands that crime are found in a
would tend to show specific location
that a crime has been
committed and that
a particular person
committed it

 Remains valid until  Only valid for 10 days

such time that the
person stated in
WOA arrested;
 body cameras are
 Body worn camera is MANDATORY
required but it is not
fatal to invalidate
arrest, so long as 
justified
 personal examination
 there is a "lawful order from a court or when public safety or
order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law." Any
violation of this provision renders the evidence obtained
inadmissible "for any purpose in any proceeding."
 As such, they should be deemed as law enforcement
 The law insures absolute freedom of communication
between the spouses by making it privileged. Neither
husband nor wife may testify for or against the other
without the consent of the affected spouse while the
RULE ON ARREST & SEARCH OF PRIVATE PERSON vs. marriage subsists. Neither may be examined without the
Agents/LAW ENFORCERS consent of the other as to any communication received in
The Bill of Rights does not govern relationships between confidence by one from the other during the marriage, save
individuals; it cannot be invoked against the acts of private for specified exceptions. But one thing is freedom of
individuals. communication; quite another is a compulsion for each one
to share what one knows with the other. And this has
However, if the search is made upon the request of law nothing to do with the duty of fidelity that each owes to
enforcers, a warrant must generally be first secured if it is to the other.
pass the test of constitutionality.

If the search is made at the behest or initiative of the proprietor World Wide Web Corp. v. People (Data Theft)
of a private establishment for its own and private purpose, and G.R. No. 161106 and G.R. No. 161266, January 13, 2014
without the
Instances where
intervention
the “rightoftopolice
privacy”
authorities,
in non-governmental
the right against DOCTRINE: Nature of SW, not a criminal proceeding but a
unreasonable
intrusion has been
search
upheld:
and seizure cannot be invoked for only the special criminal process; Particularity of Description in SW
act of private individual, not the law enforcers, is involved.
Hing v. Choachuy (Installation of CCTV) Here, the Court relaxed the rule. Generally, the search warrants
In sum, the protection
G.R. No.against
179736, unreasonable
June 26, 2013 searches and issued must be described in particularity. Technical precision of
DOCTRINE: Right to privacy covers Private Business Offices; description is not required. It is only necessary that there be
Intrusion by mere Private person reasonable particularity and certainty as to the identity of the
property to be searched for and seized.
 Yes. There is a violation of the petitioner’s right to privacy.
 The right to privacy is enshrined in our Constitution and in Hence, if the item to be seized cannot be described, general
our laws*SEE Art. 26 of CC* description would be sufficient. (Now it is already covered with
 It is the right of an individual “to be free from unwarranted Cyber warrants.)
publicity, or to live without unwarranted interference by
the public in matters in which the public is not necessarily
concerned.” Simply put, the right to privacy is “the right to
be let alone.” Is an application for a search warrant a criminal action?
 Sec. 26(1) of the Civil Code specifically mentions "prying NO. An application for a search warrant is a “special criminal
into the privacy of another's residence." This does not process,” rather than a criminal action.
mean, however, that only the residence is entitled to
privacy, because the law covers also "similar acts.” A search warrant is in the nature of a criminal process akin to a
 A business office is entitled to the same privacy when the writ of discovery. It is a special and peculiar remedy, drastic in
public is excluded therefrom and only such individuals as its nature, and made necessary because of a public necessity.
are allowed to enter may come in.
State the rule in describing the place to be searched and the
things to be seized in a search warrant.
 The search warrant must satisfy the requirement of
Zulueta v. CA (Marital Status) particularity in the description of the things to be seized
G.R. No. 107383, Feb. 20, 1996
DOCTRINE: Right to privacy between Husband and Wife; A search warrant need not describe the items to be seized in
Admissibility of Evidence obtained without consent and precise and minute detail. The warrant is valid when it enables
knowledge of the other spouse the police officers to readily identify the properties to be seized
and leaves them with no discretion regarding the articles to be
WON, the papers and other materials obtained by the wife seized.
through forcible intrusion and unlawful means are admissible as
evidence in court regarding marital separation and A search warrant fulfills the requirement of particularity in the
disqualification from medical practice of his husband description of the things to be seized when the things described
 NO. The documents and papers in question are inadmissible are limited to those that bear a direct relation to the offense for
in evidence. The constitutional injunction declaring "the which the warrant is being issued.
privacy of communication and correspondence to be
inviolable" is no less applicable simply because the In this case, PLDT was able to establish the connection between
petitioner and respondent are husband and wife. the items to be searched as identified in the warrants and the
crime of theft of its telephone services and business. Prior to the
 The only exception to the prohibition in the Constitution is if application for the search warrants, Rivera conducted
ocular inspection of the premises of petitioners and was then
able to confirm that they had utilized various telecommunications
equipment consisting of computers, lines, cables, antennas,
modems, or routers, multiplexers, PABX or switching equipment,
and support equipment such as software, diskettes, tapes,
manuals and other documentary records to support
the illegal toll bypass operations.”

May an order quashing a search warrant be the proper subject

of an appeal?
It depends. Where the search warrant is issued as an incident in
a pending criminal case, the quashal of a search warrant is
merely interlocutory. There is still “something more to be done in
the said criminal case, i.e., the determination of the guilt of the
accused therein.”

In contrast, where a search warrant is applied for and issued in

anticipation of a criminal case yet to be filed, the order quashing
the warrant (and denial of a motion for reconsideration of the
grant) ends the judicial process.

There is nothing more to be done thereafter.

In this case, the applications for search warrants were instituted
as principal proceedings and not as incidents to pending criminal
actions. When the search warrants issued were subsequently
quashed by the RTC, there was nothing left to be done by the trial
court.

Thus, the quashal of the search warrants were final orders, not
interlocutory, and an appeal may be properly taken therefrom.
NOTE:
 In Motion to Quash, all grounds available upon the filing of the
motion must be included, otherwise that ground will be waived
except those grounds that are not waivable i.e. lack of
jurisdiction, the information does not charge an offense, and
double jeopardy.
 Motion to Suppress is based from Exclusionary Rule found in
Sec 3, Art, 3 Constitution which provides that any evidence
obtained through unreasonable searches and seizures shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. *Fruit of TAKE NOTE:
Poisonous Tree Doctrine*  Different cases in Territorial Jurisdiction, Judicial Region
 If BOTH intrinsic and extrinsic is defective file Motion to Quash with Compelling Reasons and SW issued by Executive
With Motion To Suppress. Judges
 Territory in proviso if there is a criminal case filed it should
Who can challenge validity of the warrant? be filed with the Court hearing the Case; SW can be filed
Normally, the people and the accused. However, in search even if there’s already a case filed before the Court.
warrant, the court ruled in SEC vs. Mendoza Any party (usually occur in Cyber Warrants.)
affected can actually challenge it.  Within Judicial Region of the court but there must be
compelling reason
Where to file the Motion to quash the warrant?
With the Court which issued the warrant, provided there is PEOPLE VS CASTILLO
no case filed yet arising from that warrant. to another DOCTRINE: Jurisdiction on SW vs Jurisdiction on Criminal case
Court. Otherwise, the Motion should be filed to the court
hearing the case. Judge Marcelo C. Cabalbag of the MTC of Gattaran issued a
warrant for search and seizure of drugs in the premises of
Once the case is filed in court, after the search warrant has Petitioner Rabino. Shabu was found. Rabino filed a Motion To
been enforced, and the case filed is in relation to the Quash alleging that Castillo has no jurisdiction to issue a SW
enforcement of the said warrant, the issuing Court will because the imposable penalty of Sec. 11 RA 9165 is more than
have to forward the records of the warrant to the Court 6 year, MTC has no jurisdiction over the case. Respondent Judge
where the case is filed. Castillo granted the Motion to quash. Was the Judge correct?
Rule on the case.
When to challenge the Warrant?
In Abuan vs. People: in the earliest opportunity even if ANSWER:
theirs is no arraignment yet– accused must make known  NO. The Judge is incorrect.
the objective either orally or through motion.  A search warrant may be issued by any court pursuant to
Section 2, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and the resultant
The REQUISITES for the issuance of a search warrant are: (PDE-FTS) case may be filed in another court that has jurisdiction over
(1) probable cause is present and that probable cause the offense committed.
must be for specific one offense;  What controls here is that a search warrant is merely a
(2) such probable cause must be determined personally process, generally issued by a court in the exercise of its
by the judge; ancillary jurisdiction, and not a criminal action to be
(3) the judge must examine, in writing and under oath entertained by a court pursuant to its original jurisdiction.
or affirmation, the complainant and the witnesses he or  Thus, in certain cases when NO CRIMINAL ACTION HAS YET
she may produce; BEEN FILED, ANY COURT MAY ISSUE A SEARCH WARRANT
(4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on the facts even though it has no jurisdiction over the offense
personally known to them; and allegedly committed, provided that all the requirements for
(5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be the issuance of such warrant are present. *cite the
searched and the things to be seized requisites*
 PHILIPPINE SHELL PETROLEUM v. ROMARS Int.
(LPGcase Naga/Iriga) RULE ON JURISDICTION IN CRIMINAL CASES (RULE 110)
DOCTRINE: Jurisdiction Courts issuing SW; the POWER TO ISSUE It is jurisprudentially settled that the concept of venue of
SW IS INHERENT IN ALL COURTS; Compelling Reason under Sec. actions in criminal cases, unlike in civil cases, is jurisdictional.
2(b), Rule 126 of ROC; Effect of Failure to file Motion to Quash
before Arraignment; The place where the crime was committed determines not only
the venue of the action but is an essential element of jurisdiction.
Romars is found to be engaged in unauthorized distribution and It is a fundamental rule that for jurisdiction to be acquired by
reselling LPG with same container as the petitioners. Said LPGs courts in criminal cases, the offense should have been committed
are being refilled in the premises of the respondent located in or any one of its essential ingredients should have taken place
Iriga City. Petitioner asked the NBI to investigate and the within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
mentioned facts were confirmed. SW were issued and served at
the same day, articles described therein were seized. Romars Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the
filed a Motion Quash Search Warrants. Denied. On his MR, he court has jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try the offense
raised for the first time, the impropriety of filing the Application allegedly committed therein by the accused.
of SW in RTC Naga for failing to state compelling reason to
justify filing of SW in said Court in violation of Sec. 2(b), Rule Thus, it cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged with an
126 of ROC. RTC Naga granted the MR. If you are the Judge will offense allegedly committed outside of that limited territory.
you do the same? EXAMPLE OF COMPELLING REASON:
 The police feared that filing of case will enable the accused
ANSWER: to escape upon knowledge of such filing since person to be
 NO. The procedure and purpose for the issuance of a arrested is known in the area i.e. to ENSURE
search warrant are completely different from those for the CONFIDENTIALITY and URGENCY.
institution of a criminal action. (PEOPLE VS. CHUI)
 The proceedings for applications for SW are not criminal in
nature and, thus, the rule that venue is jurisdictional does
not apply thereto. SEC v. Mendoza
 While it is true that the NBI failed to comply with Sec. 2(b), (Gilumluman ang Evidence, wa gibalik sa court)
Rule 126 of ROC which mandates that the application for DOCTRINE: Proper forum to file Motion to Quash when no
search warrant should state the compelling reasons why the criminal case has been filed yet
search warrants were being filed with the RTC-Naga instead
of the RTC-Iriga City, considering that it is the latter court NBI secured a SW from RTC Makati City for search and seizure of
that has territorial jurisdiction over the place where the documents being used for violation of RA 8799 and Art. 315 RTC
alleged crime was committed and also the place where the (Estafa). Articles and documents were seized in the office of the
search warrant was enforced, the issue of whether the respondents located in Makati City. For failure to turn over the
application should have been filed in RTC-Iriga City or RTC- seized items to the issuing court after 3 months, respondents
Naga, is not one involving jurisdiction because the POWER filed a Prohibition and Injunction before RTC Muntinlupa to
TO ISSUE A SPECIAL CRIMINAL PROCESS IS INHERENT IN ALL prevent the use of seized documents to prosecute them, for
COURTS violating Sec. 1, Rule 126 ROC which mandates the immediate
 Further, under OMNIBUS MOTION RULE 15, Sec. 8, it is turn over of seized items to issuing court. RTC Makati nullified
essential that all available objections be included in a the SW. CA rendered its decision without taking into
party’s motion and should be filed BEFORE ARRAIGNMENT, consideration the decision of RTC Makati (Should be dismissed
otherwise, said objections shall be deemed waived; and, the for mootness).
only grounds the court could take cognizance of, even if not
pleaded in said motion are: CA held that the proceedings before the Makati RTC and the
(a) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; Muntinlupa RTC are separate and distinct. The object of the
(b) existence of another action pending between the motion to quash search warrant, file with the Makati RTC, the
same parties for the same cause; and issuing court, was to test the validity of its issuance. On the
(c) bar by prior judgment or by statute of limitations. other hand, the object of the Muntinlupa injunction case is to
prevent the three agencies from using the seized articles in any
In accordance with the omnibus motion rule, therefore, the trial criminal proceeding against Mendoza, et al. considering the SEC
court could only take cognizance of an issue that was not raised and the NBI’s failure to immediately turn over the seized
in the motion to quash if: articles to the court that issued the warrant as the rules require.
(1) said issue was not available or existent when they Was CA Correct in its ruling?
filed the motion to quash the search warrant; or
(2) the issue was one involving jurisdiction over the ANSWER:
subject matter.  NO. Section 14 of Rule 126 is clear.
Obviously, the issue of the defect in the application was available  Questions concerning both:
and existent at the time of filing of the motion to quash. 1) the issuance of the search warrant and
 Hence, It was improper for the RTC-Naga to have taken into 2) the suppression of evidence seized under it are matters
consideration an issue which respondent failed to raise in its that can be raised only with the issuing court if, as in the
motion to quash, as it did not involve a question of present case, no criminal action has in the meantime been
jurisdiction over the subject matter. filed in court.
 It is clear that the RTC-Naga had jurisdiction to issue  The prohibition and injunction filed by Mendoza is actually
criminal processes such as a search warrant. a Motion to Suppress that should have been filed with RTC
 Makati, not RTC Muntinlupa.
 The issuing court is the right forum for such motion given
that no criminal action had as yet been filed against
Mendoza, et al. in some other court.

HOW TO EXAMINE THE WITNESS?