In Gerente Case:

The case is all about killing of certain person Clarito Blace by the appellant that was arrested by the police
force.

Patrolman Jaime Urrutia of the Valenzuela Police Station received a report from the Palo Police Detachment
about a mauling incident. He went to the Valenzuela District Hospital where the victim was brought. He was
informed by the hospital officials that the victim died on arrival. The cause of death was massive fracture of the
skull caused by a hard and heavy object. Right away, Patrolman Urrutia, together with Police Corporal Romeo
Lima and Patrolman Alex Umali, proceeded to Paseo de Blas where the mauling incident took place. There they
found a piece of wood with blood stains, a hollow block and two roaches of marijuana. They were informed by
the prosecution witness, Edna Edwina Reyes, that she saw the killing and she pointed to Gabriel Gerente as one
of the three men who killed Clarito.

The policemen proceeded to the house of the appellant who was then sleeping. They told him to come out of the
house and they introduced themselves as policemen. Patrolman Urrutia frisked appellant and found a coin purse
in his pocket which contained dried leaves wrapped in cigarette foil. The dried leaves were sent to the National
Bureau of Investigation for examination.

Is the arrest valid?

'SECTION 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person:

"(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense;"

"(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating
that the person to be arrested has committed it;

The policemen arrested Gerente only some three (3) hours after Gerente and his companions had killed
Blace. They saw Blace dead in the hospital and when they inspected the scene of the crime, they found the
instruments of death: a piece of wood and a concrete hollow block which the killers had used to bludgeon
him to death. The eye-witness, Edna Edwina Reyes, reported the happening to the policemen and
pinpointed her neighbor, Gerente, as one of the killers. Under those circumstances, since the policemen
had personal knowledge of the violent death of Blace and of facts indicating that Gerente and two others
had killed him, they could lawfully arrest Gerente without a warrant.

People vs. Malasugui, 63 Phil. 221, 228, thus:

"To hold that no criminal can, in any case, be arrested and searched for the evidence and tokens of his
crime without a warrant, would be to leave society, to a large extent, at the mercy of the shrewdest, the most
expert, and the most depraved of criminals, facilitating their escape in many instances."

Aminudin case:

Page 1 of 5
This case is all about the waiting and arresting the appellant by pc officers after they receive report on june 23
1984 and that the appellant was arrested on june 25 1984 when the ship embarked already in the pier (two days
after the pc officer receive report when the arrest happen.)

According to the prosecution, the PC officers had earlier received a tip from one of their informers that the
accused-appellant was on board a vessel bound for Iloilo City and was carrying marijuana. 7 He was Identified
by name. 8 Acting on this tip, they waited for him in the evening of June 25, 1984, and approached him as he
descended from the gangplank after the informer had pointed to him.

Is the arrest valid?

The pc officer violated the mandate of the Bill of Rights is clear:

Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no
search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by
the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

In the case at bar, there was no warrant of arrest or search warrant issued by a judge after personal
determination by him of the existence of probable cause. Contrary to the averments of the government,
the accused-appellant was not caught in flagrante nor was a crime about to be committed or had just
been committed to justify the warrantless arrest allowed under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.

The present case presented no such urgency. From the conflicting declarations of the PC witnesses, it is clear
that they had at least two days within which they could have obtained a warrant to arrest and search
Aminnudin who was coming to Iloilo on the M/V Wilcon 9. His name was known. The vehicle was
Identified. The date of its arrival was certain. And from the information they had received, they could
have persuaded a judge that there was probable cause, indeed, to justify the issuance of a warrant. Yet
they did nothing. No effort was made to comply with the law. The Bill of Rights was ignored altogether
because the PC lieutenant who was the head of the arresting team, had determined on his own authority
that a "search warrant was not necessary."

Manlulu case:
This case is about the killing of certain agent Alfaro by the appellant who was also arrested after 19 hours from the time
the accident happens. It was at 1 o’clock in the morning(dawn) when they killed the agent and the arrest happens at seven
o’clock in that evening.

Is the arrest valid for the laps of time?

Certainly, the police authorities should have first obtained a warrant for the arrest of accused Rolando
Manlulu, and for the search and seizure of his personal effects. The killing took place at one o'clock in the
morning. The arrest and the consequent search and seizure came at around seven o'clock that evening,
some nineteen hours later. This instance cannot come within the purview of a valid warrantless arrest.
Paragraph (b), Sec. 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that the arresting
officer must have "personal knowledge" of an offense which "has in fact just been committed." In the
instant case, neither did Pat. Perez have "personal knowledge," nor was the offense "in fact just been
committed." While Pat. Perez may have personally gathered the information which led to the arrest of
Manlulu, that is not enough. The law requires "personal knowledge." Obviously, "personal gathering of
Page 2 of 5
information" is different from "personal knowledge." The rule requires that the arrest immediately
follows the commission of the offense, not some nineteen hours later.

Sinoc Case:

This case is about also the kidnapping of certain person (Viacrusis) and his driver (Guijapon) by the appellant
and his companion they take the pajero and shoot the two person whom one is dead for having a fatal wounds
while the other escape from his instantaneous death. The arrest then commence on September 21, 1991, at about
7 o'clock, a secret informant (known as a "civilian asset") named Boyet reported to the Police Station at
Monkayo, Davao del Norte that the stolen ("carnapped") "Pajero" was parked behind the apartment of a certain
Paulino Overa at the Bliss Housing Project at Poblacion, Monkayo. On instructions of the Station Commander,
a police team 8 went to the place. They saw the "Pajero" and, their initial inquiries having yielded the
information that the man who had brought it there would return that morning, posted themselves in such a
manner as to keep it in view. Some three hours later, at about 10:30 o'clock, they saw a man approach the
"Pajero" who, on seeing them, tried to run away. They stopped him. They found out that the man, identified as
Danilo Sinoc, of Surigao del Norte and arrest him.

Is the arrest valid?

There is no question that the police officers in this case were aware that an offense had just been
committed: i.e., that some twelve hours earlier, a "Pajero" belonging to a private company had been
stolen ("carnapped") and its driver and passenger shot, the former having died and the latter being on
the verge of death. Nor is there any doubt that an informer ("asset") had reported that the stolen
"Pajero" was at the Bliss Housing Project at Moncayo. It was precisely to recover the "Pajero" that a
team composed of SPO1 Michael Aringo and "joint elements of 459 PNP MFC and Monkayo Police Stn
led by Insptr Eden T. Ugale," went to that place and, on taking custody of the "Pajero," forthwith
dispatched a radio message to "Higher Headquarters" advising of that fact.

There is no question either that when SPO1 Aringo and his companions reached the place where the
"Pajero" was parked, they were told by Paulino Overa, owner of the apartment behind which the vehicle
was parked, that the man who had brought the "Pajero" would be back by 12:00 noon; that the person
thus described did in fact show up at about 10:00 A.M., and was immediately identified by Overa as "the
one who rode on that car 'pajero;'" 17 just as there is no question that when the police officers accosted
him, Sinoc had the key to the stolen "Pajero" and was in the act of moving toward it admittedly to take
possession of it (after having arrived by bus from Tagum together with another suspect, "Ram"). Sinoc's
link to the stolen vehicle (and hence to the kidnapping and killing accompanying its asportation) was thus
palpable.

The foregoing circumstances left the police officers no alternative save to arrest Sinoc and take possession
of the "Pajero." His arrest without warrant was justified; indeed, it was in the premises the officers' clear
duty to apprehend him; their omission to do so would have been inexcusable.

Doria Case

Page 3 of 5
This case about the entrapment of certain person who sold marijuana (FLORENCIO DORIA) to the police
officer and also the arrest of a woman named VIOLETA GADDAO for being found in her house the pack of
dried marijuana and also the mark money used in the buy-bust operation after the delivery of said marijuana to
the police officers. Both have been convicted and appeal to the supreme court questioning the arrest in the part
of Violeta Gaddao and the validity of the buy-bust operation in the part of Florencio Doria.

Is the arrest valid?

On the part of doria it is valid.

On the part of Violeta Gaddao it is not valid.

“Under Section 5 (a), as above-quoted, a person may be arrested without a warrant if he "has committed,
is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense." Appellant Doria was caught in the act of
committing an offense. When an accused is apprehended in flagrante delicto as a result of a buy-bust
operation, the police are not only authorized but duty-bound to arrest him even without a warrant.”

The warrantless arrest of appellant Gaddao, the search of her person and residence, and the
seizure of the box of marijuana and marked bills are different matters.

To be lawful, the warrantless arrest of appellant Gaddao must fall under any of the three (3)
instances enumerated in Section 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as
aforequoted.

Accused-appellant Gaddao was not caught red-handed during the buy-bust operation to give
ground for her arrest under Section 5 (a) of Rule 113. She was not committing any crime.
Contrary to the finding of the trial court, there was no occasion at all for appellant Gaddao to
flee from the policemen to justify her arrest in "hot pursuit." 114 In fact, she was going about her
daily chores when the policemen pounced on her.

Neither could the arrest of appellant Gaddao be justified under the second instance of Rule
113. "Personal knowledge" of facts in arrests without warrant under Section 5 (b) of Rule 113
must be based upon "probable cause" which means an "actual belief or reasonable grounds
of suspicion.”

Laguio Case

This case about the granting of the demurrer of the accused Wang in violation of Dangerous Drugs Act, Illegal
Possession of Firearms, and Violation of Comelec Gun Ban, and acquitting him for lack of evidence.

Is the arrest and seizure valid?

No. The accused was merely walking from the Maria Orosa Apartment and was about to enter the
parked BMW car when the police officers arrested and frisked him and searched his car. The accused
was not committing any visible offense at the time of his arrest. Neither was there an indication that he
was about to commit a crime or that he had just committed an offense. The unlicensed AMT Cal.380
9mm Automatic Back-up Pistol that the accused had in his possession was concealed inside the right

Page 4 of 5
front pocket of his pants. And the handgun was bantam and slim in size that it would not give an outward
indication of a concealed gun if placed inside the pant's side pocket as was done by the accused. The
arresting officers had no information and knowledge that the accused was carrying an unlicensed
handgun, nor did they see him in possession thereof immediately prior to his arrest.

Clearly therefore, the warrantless arrest of the accused and the search of his person and the car were
without probable cause and could not be licit. The arrest of the accused did not fall under any of the
exception to the requirements of warrantless arrests, (Sec. 5, Rule 113, Rules of Court) and is therefore,
unlawful and derogatory of his constitutional right of liberty.

-NOTHING FOLLOWS-

ooOOoo

Page 5 of 5