Farhanna B. Mapandi 23 CALACDAY VS VIVO 33 SCRA 382 (1970) FERNANDO, J.

Facts: -Martiniano P. Vivo : acting commissioner of Immigration -Petitioner Calacday’s citizenship is being questioned -Petitioner seeks to enjoin the then Acting Commissioner of Immigration Vivo from taking them into custody of conducting deportation proceedings against them or cancelling their identification certificates on the assumption that the previous decisions of the Board of Inquiry, affirmed by the Board of Immigration Commissioners declaring them Filipino citizens, had become final and conclusive -Based on this assumption, petitioner contends that respondent Vivo is devoid of any authority to take steps to deport them under the appropriate provisions of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as amended. Issue: WON the warrants of arrest issued by the Commissioner of Immigration (Vivo) for the purposes of investigation and before a final judgment of the deportation proceedings is issued, are valid. Ruling: No. RD: Art III, Sec 1 (3) states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined 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.” (the following is from Cruz, page 147) Warrants of arrest may be issued by administrative authorities only for the purpose of carrying out a final finding of a violation of law, like an order of deportation or an order of contempt, and not for the sole purpose of investigation or prosecution. As held in Morano v. Vivo, “The constitutional limitation contemplates an order of arrest…not as a measure indispensable to carry out a valid decision by a competent official, such as a legal order of deportation, issued by the Commission of Immigration, in pursuance of a valid legislation.”



-On March 17, 1989, at about 7:30 o'clock in the morning, at the vicinity of the airport road of the Masbate Domestic Airport, located at the municipality of Masbate province of Masbate, Congressman Moises Espinosa, Sr. and his security escorts, namely Provincial Guards Antonio Cortes, Gaspar Amaro, and Artemio Fuentes were attacked and killed by a lone assassin. Dante Siblante another security escort of Congressman Espinosa, Sr. survived the assassination plot, although, he himself suffered a gunshot wound. -An investigation of the incident then followed. -Thereafter, and for the purpose of preliminary investigation, the designated investigator, Harry O. Tantiado, TSg, of the PC Criminal Investigation Service at Camp Bagong Ibalon Legazpi City filed an amended complaint with the Municipal Trial Court of Masbate accusing, among others, Vicente Lim, Sr., Mayor Susana Lim of Masbate, Jolly T. Fernandez, Florencio T. Fernandez, Jr., Nonilon A. Bagalihog, Mayor Nestor C. Lim and Mayor Antonio Kho of the crime of multiple murder and frustrated murder in connection with the airport incident. The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 9211. -After conducting the preliminary investigation, the court issued an order dated July 31, 1989 stating therein that: “. . . after weighing the affidavits and answers given by the witnesses for the prosecution during the preliminary examination in searching questions and answers, concludes that a probable cause has been established for the issuance of a warrant of arrest of named accused in the amended complaint, namely, Jimmy Cabarles, Ronnie Fernandez, Nonilon Bagalihog, Jolly Fernandez, Florencio Fernandez, Jr., Vicente Lim, Sr., Susana Lim, Nestor Lim, Antonio Kho, Jaime Liwanag, Zaldy Dumalag and Rene Tualla alias Tidoy.” - Petitioners Vicente Lim, Sr. and Susana Lim filed with the respondent court several motions and manifestations which in substance prayed that an order be issued requiring the transmittal of the initial records of the preliminary inquiry or investigation conducted by the Municipal Judge Barsaga of Masbate for the best enlightenment regarding the existence of a probable cause or prima facie evidence as well as the determination of the existence of guilt, pursuant to the mandatory mandate of the constitution that no warrant shall be issued unless the issuing magistrate shall have himself been personally convinced of such probable cause. - In another manifestation, the Lims reiterated that the court conduct a hearing to determine if there really exists a prima facie case against them in the light of documents which are recantations of some witnesses in the preliminary investigation. - It should also be noted that the Lims also presented to the respondent Judge documents of recantation of witnesses whose testimonies were used to establish a prima facie case against them. -On July 5, 1990, the respondent court issued an order denying for lack of merit the motions and manifestations and issued warrants of arrest against the accused including the petitioners herein. The judge wrote, “In the instant cases, the preliminary investigation was conducted by the Municipal Trial Court of Masbate, Masbate which found the existence of probable cause that the offense of multiple murder was committed and that all the accused are probably guilty thereof, which was affirmed upon review by the Provincial Prosecutor who properly filed with the Regional Trial Court four separate informations for murder. Considering that both the two competent officers to whom such duty was entrusted by law have declared the existence of probable cause, each information is complete in form and substance, and there is no visible defect on its face, this Court finds it just and proper to rely on the prosecutor's certification in each information…” -Petitioners question the judgment of Judge Felix (statement immediately preceding this paragraph, italicized).

ISSUE: WON a judge may issue a warrant of arrest without bail by simply relying on the prosecution's certification and recommendation that a probable cause exists. RULING: The questioned Order of respondent Judge Nemesio S. Felix of Branch 56, Regional Trial Court of Makati dated July 5, 1990 is declared NULL and VOID and SET ASIDE. RD: As held in Soliven v. Makasiar, the Judge does not have to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. The Prosecutor can perform the same functions as a commissioner for the taking of the evidence. However, there should be necessary documents and a report supporting the Fiscal's bare certification. All of these should be before the Judge. We cannot determine beforehand how cursory or exhaustive the Judge's examination should be. Usually, this depends on the circumstances of each case. The Judge has to exercise sound discretion; after all, the personal determination is vested in the Judge by the Constitution. However, to be sure, the Judge must go beyond the Prosecutor's certification and investigation report whenever necessary. As mentioned in the facts (stated above), the Lims presented documents of recantations of the witnesses. Although, the general rule is that recantations are not given much weight in the determination of a case and in the granting of a new trial the respondent Judge before issuing his own warrants of arrest should, at the very least, have gone over the records of the preliminary examination conducted earlier in the light of the evidence now presented by the concerned witnesses in view of the "political undertones" prevailing in the cases. In making the required personal determination, a Judge is not precluded from relying on the evidence earlier gathered by responsible officers. The extent of the reliance depends on the circumstances of each case and is subject to the Judge's sound discretion. However, the Judge abuses that discretion when having no evidence before him, he issues a warrant of arrest. Indubitably, the respondent Judge (Felix) committed a grave error when he relied solely on the Prosecutor's certification and issued the questioned Order dated July 5, 1990 without having before him any other basis for his personal determination of the existence of a probable cause.

30 BORLONGAN, JR VS PENA GR NO. 143591 (NOV 23, 2007) NACHURA, J.

Facts: -Respondent Magdaleno Peña instituted a civil case for recovery of agent’s compensation and expenses, damages, and attorney’s fees, against Urban Bank and the petitioners, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Occidental, Bago City. - Respondent anchored his claim for compensation on the contract of agency, allegedly entered into with the petitioners wherein the former undertook to perform such acts necessary to prevent any intruder and squatter from unlawfully occupying Urban Bank’s property located along Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City. - Petitioners filed a MD arguing that they never appointed the respondent as agent or counsel. -Attached to the MD were the following documents:

that petitioners knew that the documents were falsified considering that the signatories were mere dummies. -MTCC’s answer (in response to Omnibus MQ filed by petitioners): They upheld the validity of the warrant of arrest. determine probable cause. Bago City. 6683. Bago City. -On the same day that the Omnibus MQ was filed. An unsigned letter dated December 7. . -Petitioners (Oct `1. The City Prosecutor concluded that the documents were falsified because the alleged signatories untruthfully stated that ISCI was the principal of the respondent. adopted in their answer and later. for the obvious reason that the legality of their information and their arrest was yet to be settled by the court. and . 2. also in contravention of the Rules. Their bail bonds expressly provided that they do not intend to waive their right to question the validity of their arrest. 1994 signed by Herman Ponce and Julie Abad on behalf of Isabela Sugar Company. saying that it was issued in accordance with the Rules. and 4. Ong. and the signatories were neither stockholders nor officers and employees of ISCI.The above stated documents were presented in an attempt to show that the respondent was appointed as agent by ISCI and not by Urban Bank or by the petitioners. He claimed that said documents were falsified because the alleged signatories did not actually affix their signatures. Inc. Subsequently. 6684. Issue: 1) WON petitioners were deprived of their right to due process of law because of the denial of their right to preliminary investigation and to submit their counter-affidavit. 1998) : In the report. the trial judge merely relied on the complaint-affidavit and attachments of the respondent in issuing the warrants of arrest. (ISCI). The cases were docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. -City Prosecutor’s Report (Sept 23.4 1. the petitioners refused to enter their plea. A letter dated December 9. 1994 addressed to Corazon Bejasa from Marilyn G. 1994 addressed to Teodoro Borlongan and signed by Marilyn G. the petitioners posted bail. since no such counter-affidavit and supporting documents were submitted by the petitioners. . and 6686. 3) WON this Court can. (according to the MTCC) petitioners could no longer question the validity of the warrant since they already posted bail. and that the documents formed part of the record of Civil Case No. A Memorandum dated November 20. the original owner of the subject property. itself. petitioners introduced said documents as evidence before the RTC knowing that they were falsified. 3. Besides. the corresponding Informations were filed with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC). 2) WON the Informations charging the petitioners were validly filed and the warrants for their arrest were properly issued. 6685. 1998) filed an Omnibus MQ : They insist that they were denied due process because of the non-observance of a proper procedure on preliminary investigation prescribed in the Rules of Court. Thereafter. Ong. Worse. 1994 from Enrique Montilla III. Judge Primitivo Blanca issued the warrants for the arrest of the petitioners. the Prosecutor concluded that the petitioners were probably guilty of four (4) counts of the crime of Introducing Falsified Documents penalized by the second paragraph of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). On the date of arraignment.Respondent Peña filed his Complaint-Affidavit with the Office of the City Prosecutor. Moreover they claim that the respondent’s affidavit was not based on the latter’s personal knowledge and therefore should not have been used by the court in determining probable cause. in their Pre-Trial Brief. 754 where they were used by petitioners as evidence in support of their motion to dismiss. A letter dated December 19.

… SEC. he is not mandated to require the submission of counter-affidavits. no complaint or information for an offense cognizable by the Regional Trial Court shall be filed without a preliminary investigation having been first conducted in the following manner: (a) The complaint shall state the known address of the respondent and be accompanied by affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses as well as other supporting documents. – Except as provided for in Section 7 hereof.” -Records show that the prosecutor relied merely on the affidavits submitted by the complainant and did not require the petitioners to submit their answer. in their absence or unavailability. or. who must certify that he personally examined the affiants and that he is satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits. But the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses.5 4) WON the petitioners posting a bail constitutes a waiver of their right to question the validity of their arrest. He should not be faulted for doing such as this is sanctioned by the rules. – Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding for the purpose of determining whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime cognizable by the Regional Trial Court has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof. Following established doctrine and procedure. Section 2 of Article III of the Constitution underscores the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. a notary public. For issue number 2: . There is no provision or procedural rule which makes the submission of counter-affidavits mandatory before the judge could determine probable cause. 3. Procedure. Cases not falling under the original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts not covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure. and (2) if he is not satisfied that probable cause exists. – If the complaint is filed directly with the fiscal or state prosecutor. and should be held for trial. … SEC. in such number of copies as there are respondents. – (a) Where filed with the fiscal. he shall (1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor regarding the existence of probable cause. plus two (2) copies of the official file. the procedure outlined in Section 3 (a) of this Rule shall be observed. petitioners contend that the warrants were illegally issued as they were solely based on the affidavits of the complainant. and on the basis thereof. MTCC is ordered to dismiss criminal cases against petitioners. RD: For issues numbered 1 and 3: -The following sections of Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure are relevant to the aforesaid issues: “SECTION 1. Moreover. Ruling: Petition granted. he may already make a personal determination of the existence of probable cause. without infringing on the constitutional rights of the petitioners. state prosecutor or government official authorized to administer oath. The Fiscal shall take appropriate action based on the affidavits and other supporting documents submitted by the complainant. The said affidavits shall be sworn to before any fiscal. he may disregard the prosecutor’s report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause. Probable cause may then be determined on the basis alone of the affidavits and supporting documents of the complainant. Definition. -Regarding the issuance of the warrant of arrest. 9.

31 UY KHEYTIN VS VILLAREAL 42 PHIL 886. They wanted to search also the bodega on the ground-floor of the house. . the said Ramon Gayanilo stating in his application.On the basis of the above-stated documents (in the facts) and on the strength of the affidavit executed by the respondent. presented to the judge of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo an application for search warrant. It is one of the requisites for a warrant of arrest to be valid. one Segovia. and to protect the State from the burden of unnecessary expenses in prosecuting alleged offenses and holding trials arising from false. on the same day (April 30th) searched the house of the petitioner Uy Kheytin and found therein 60 small cans of opium. Niño St. shall allege facts within their (affiants) personal knowledge. of the town of Molo. that the Chinaman Uy Kheytin was the one who was renting the bodega." . -The SC finds the complaint-affidavit and attachments insufficient to support the existence of probable cause. he placed a guard in the premises to see that nothing was removed therefrom. Nonetheless. Thereupon Lt. . under the writing desk in his store. the respondent M. one Ramon Gayanilo.It must be emphasized that the affidavit of the complainant. No. Facts: -On April 30. 896 (1920) JOHNSON.For the issuance of a warrant of arrest. . it should at least be more than mere suspicion. corporal of the Philippine Constabulary. there is a need to examine the evidence with care to prevent material damage to a potential accused’s constitutional right to liberty and the guarantees of freedom and fair play.6 . there is kept a certain amount of opium.Armed with that search warrant. but Uy Kheytin positively denied that it was his or that he rented it.. The respondent’s claims of the falsity of the documents were mere assertions. The allegation of the respondent that the signatures were falsified does not qualify as personal knowledge. or any of his witnesses. or on evidence beyond reasonable doubt. and then went away to find out who the owner of the bodega was. Torralba. the prosecutor concluded that probable cause exists. Iloilo. "That in the house of Chino Uy Kheytin. The next morning he learned from the owner of the house. They were duly arrested. Torralba wanted to be sure. . While probable cause should be determined in a summary manner. 1919. Torralba and his subordinates resumed the search and then and there found and seized articles which were all with connection to the using of opium. Neither did he claim that he was familiar with the signatures of the signatories. probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. Sto. and for this reason.A criminal complaint was filed in the court of the justice of the peace of Iloilo against all the petitioners herein. J. 20. fraudulent or groundless charges. Lt. Nowhere in said affidavit did respondent state that he was present at the time of the execution of the documents. S. It does not require that the evidence would justify conviction. These same affidavit and documents were used by the trial court in issuing the warrant of arrest. He simply made a bare assertion -A finding of probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence. charging them with a violation of the Opium Law. although the determination of probable cause requires less than evidence which would justify conviction.

RD: (Contention # 1) -SEC. That the search made on May 1st was a continuation of the search begun on the previous day. which is used in paragraph 2 of sec. That the seizure of the petitioner's books. Opium is such property. letters. 58 had not been complied with in its issuance (specifically (a) because it was not issued upon either of the grounds mentioned in section 96 of General Orders No. and (3) that the seizure of the defendants' books and letters was a violation of the provisions of the Jones Law providing that no person shall be compelled to testify against himself. Issue: WON the defendants’ positions are with merit. 2. . whatever may be the technical common-law meaning of the word "felony".Search-warrants have heretofore been allowed to search for… material so kept as to endanger the public safety. therefore.7 -Defendants urged: (1) that the search warrant of April 30 was illegal because the requisites prescribed by the General Orders No. 58. of General Orders No. That although in the issuance of the search warrant in question the judge did not comply with the requirements of section 98 of General Orders No. The issuance of both is restricted by the same provision of the Jones Law (sec. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized. upon technical grounds. (Contention # 2) . But the property sought to be searched for and seized having been actually found in the place described by the complainant. 3) which is as follows: “That no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause. and.” . we are of the opinion that that irregularity is not sufficient cause for ordering the return of the opium found and seized under said warrant. (2) that the searches and seizures made on May 1st had been made without any semblance of authority and hence illegal. 96 above quoted. to the petitioners.” -Suffice it to say that.A search warrant may be likened to a warrant of arrest. and other articles which have no inherent relation with opium and the possession of which is not forbidden by law. . 2. 96. and exonerating the latter. When the property was stolen or embezzled. When it was used or when the intent exists to use it as the means of committing a felony. and (b) because the judge who issued it did not determine the probable cause by examining witnesses under oath) . 58. telegrams. . was illegal and in violation of the petitioners' constitutional rights. Ruling (s): 1. 3. did not require another search warrant. and much less are they entitled to be exonerated because of such omission of the judge. 58 provide: “ It (a search warrant) may be issued upon either of the following grounds: 1. and protecting him against unreasonable searches and seizures. the petitioners are not entitled to the return of the opium and its paraphernalia which were found and seized under said warrant. reasoning by analogy from the case of an improper arrest. the Court believes it would be the height of absurdity to hold.In the present case there was an irregularity in the issuance of the search warrant in question in that the judge did not first examine the complainant or any witnesses under oath. supported by oath or affirmation. that a search warrant is illegal which is issued to search for and seize property the very possession of which is forbidden by law and constitutes a crime.

(Contention # 3) . it was interrupted by the necessity to ascertain who the owner of the bodega on the ground-floor was. -Once inside the Parliamentary Club. so as to enter a window of the house. This would be absurd. because the petitioner Uy Kheytin falsely disclaimed ownership thereof. the police attempted to raid the Parliamentary Club a little after three in the afternoon of the date above. etc.mentioned. on May 25. which they seized might be used as evidence against the petitioners herein a criminal action against them for a violation of the Opium Law. Detective Andres Geronimo of the secret service of the City of Manila. for a search warrant cannot be used for the purpose of obtaining evidence. was used by an organization known as the Parliamentary Club. J. This is shown by the fact that during the interval between the two searches the premises in question were guarded by Constabulary soldiers.That the officers of the law believed that the books. 1923. the building located at No. 33 PEOPLE VS VELOSO 48 PHIL. As a result. and the petitioners were made to understand on April 30th that the authorities were not yet through with the search and would continue the same as soon as they found out that the bodega was also occupied by the petitioner Uy Kheytin. 124 Calle Arzobispo. the property mentioned in the warrant. Indeed. -It appears from the oral evidence adduced during the hearing of the petitioners' motion in the court below that the search for opium. Veloso asked Townsend what he wanted. was not completed on April 30th. 1923. ascended a telephone pole. had been to the club and verified this fact. Accordingly. because they were not "particularly described" or even mentioned in the search warrant. 1923. Facts: -In May. the chief of the gambling squad. F. In other words. because to compel a person to produce his private papers to be used in evidence against him would be equivalent to compelling him to be a witness against himself. nearly fifty persons were apprehended by the police. second. Thus provided. and for a different purpose each day. . One of them was the defendant Veloso.In order to comply with the constitutional provisions regulating the issuance of search warrants. and the latter showed him the search . Townsend. this cannot be interpreted to mean that a search warrant can be used every day for 10 days. He was also the manager of the club. 169 (1925) MALCOLM. City of Manila.While it is true that a warrant is good for 10 days after the date of issuance. one band of police including policeman Rosacker. because. the property to be seized under a warrant must be particularly described therein and no other property can be taken thereunder. They found the doors to the premises closed and barred. on May 19. applied for. Other policemen.. -The police of Manila had reliable information that the so-called Parliamentary Club was nothing more than a gambling house. and obtained a search warrant from Judge Garduño of the municipal court." nor could it be considered "another search.8 . J. broke in the outer door." but was really a continuation of the search begun on April 30th. Veloso was at that time a member of the House of Representative of the Philippine Legislature. papers. they could not be legally seized. the search of May 1st was not made "for a different purpose. Jose Ma. headed by Townsend. and third. even if they had been mentioned in the search warrant. is no reason or justification under the law for the seizure: First.

in quest of the above described devices and effects and if you find the same or any part thereof. GARDUÑO Judge. Given under my hand. Ruling: Yes. -The warrant read as follows: … SEARCH WARRANT (G) The People of the Philippine Islands. reglas. this 25th day of May.9 warrant. as if it contained gambling utensils. Veloso was finally laid down on the floor. City of Manila. namely in the building numbered 124 Calle Arzobispo. At the door. and Veloso insisting in his refusal to submit to the search. Philippines Islands. About five minutes was consumed in conversation between the policemen and the accused the policemen insisting on searching Veloso. cards. (Sgd. cardboards. and that the police had no right to search the house. which injured the policeman quite severely. chips. certain devices and effects used in violation of the Gambling Law. Veloso read it and told Townsend that he was Representative Veloso and not John Doe. 1923. Through the combined efforts of Townsend and Rosacker. and gave him a blow in another part of the body. of reglas de monte. Townsend answered that Veloso was considered as John Doe. -All of the persons arrested were searched and then conducted to the patrol wagons. and chips were taken from his pockets. -At last the patience of the officers was exhausted.) L. to wit: money. cards. Municipal Court Issue: WON the search warrant and the arrest of Veloso was valid. Veloso again refused to obey and shouted offensive epithets against the police department. 124 Calle Arzobispo. and long sheets of paper. It was necessary for the policemen to conduct him downstairs. you are commanded to bring it forthwith before me as provided for by law. to any member of the Police Force of the City of Manila. Philippine Islands. tables and chairs and other utensils used in connection with the game commonly known as monte and that the said John Doe keeps and conceals said devices and effects with the illegal and criminal intention of using them in violation of the Gambling Law. . Townsend required Veloso to show him the evidence of the game. you are hereby commanded that at any time in the day or night within ten (10) days on or after this date to make a search on the person of said John Doe and in the house situated at No. pintas. City of Manila. So policeman Rosacker took hold of Veloso only to meet with his resistance. GREETING Proof by affidavit having this day been made before me by Andres Geronimo that he has good reason to believe and does believe that John Doe has illegally in his possession in the building occupied by him and which is under his control. As Veloso's pocket was bulging. Veloso resisted so tenaciously that three policemen were needed to place him in the patrol wagon. Veloso bit Rosacker in the right forearm. Now therefore.

a shooting incident occurred in Pantao. the respondent Judge " examined personally all (three) witnesses (brought by the sergeant) under oath thru … (his) closed and direct supervision . Immediately the Provincial Fiscal addressed a "1st endorsement" to the respondent Judge. -On the following day. City of Manila." This. in the Philippine Code on Criminal Procedure that “a search warrant shall not issue except for probable cause and upon application supported by oath particularly describing the place to be searched and the person of thing to be seized. On that same day. A warrant for the apprehension of a person whose true name is unknown. the manager of the club. and as this John Doe was Jose Ma. however. the police could identify John Doe as Jose Ma. in addition. claiming to represent the widow of one of the victims. Philippine Islands. which "has first taken cognizance of said cases. 1985. contain the best descriptio personae possible to be obtained of the person or persons to be apprehended. Veloso without difficulty. Mangurun Batuampar. however. What in fact transpired is still unclear. As the search warrant stated that John Doe had gambling apparatus in his possession in the building occupied by him at No." is void. Atty. Jose L. asking for a "full blast preliminary investigation" of the incident. by the name of "John Doe" or "Richard Roe. 34 PANGANDAMAN VS CASAR 159 SCRA 599." be forwarded to his office. Veloso. without other and further descriptions of the person to be apprehended. 611 (1988) NARVASA. 1985. filed a letter-complaint with the Provincial Fiscal at Marawi City. and should state his personal appearance and peculiarities." reducing to writing the questions to the witnesses and the latter's answers. Laruan. give his occupation and place of residence." -No case relative to the incident was. Such a warrant must. Facts: -On July 27. In the first place." "whose other or true name in unknown. transmitting Atty. Masiu. the affidavit for the search warrant and the search warrant itself described the building to be searched as "the building No. The letter adverted to the possibility of innocent persons being implicated by the parties involved on both sides — none of whom was. and this description must be sufficient to indicate clearly the proper person or persons upon whom the warrant is to be served. City of Manila. Lanao del Sur. identified — and promised that supporting affidavits would shortly be filed. Thereafter the Judge . which left at least five persons dead and two others wounded.C. and any other circumstances by means of which he can be identified. J. Batuampar's letter and requesting that " all cases that may be filed relative … (to the incident) that happened in the afternoon of July 27. was a sufficient designation of the premises to be searched.” The name and description of the accused should be inserted in the body of the warrant and where the name is unknown there must be such a description of the person accused as will enable the officer to identify him when found. when a criminal complaint for multiple murder was filed before him by P. and such warrant will not justify the officer in acting under it. 1748. Sgt. which was docketed as Case No.10 RD: It is provided. among other things. 1985 . 124 Calle Arzobispo. without doubt. August 10. presented to the respondent Judge until Saturday. 124 Calle Arzobispo.

..11 "approved the complaint and issued the corresponding warrant of arrest" against the fourteen (14) petitioners (who were named by the witnesses) and fifty (50) John Does.that there was undue haste and an omission to ask searching questions by the Judge who relied "mainly on the supporting affidavits which were obviously prepared already when presented to him by an enlisted PC personnel as investigator. in total disregard of the Provincial Fiscal . More specifically stated. 1728 of his court for further appropriate action. Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. . Issue: WON the warrant of arrest was null and void.that failure constituted a denial to petitioners of due process which nullified the proceedings leading to the issuance of the warrant for the petitioners' arrest... had already taken cognizance of the matter twelve (12) days earlier and was poised to conduct his own investigation of the same.. seeking recall of the warrant of arrest and subsequent holding of a "thorough investigation" on the ground that the Judge's initial investigation had been "hasty and manifestly haphazard" with "no searching questions" having been propounded. Although not specifically declared the said provision actually mandates two phases. Batuampar (joined by Atty. The respondent Judge denied the motion for “lack of basis”.m. Muti).that August 10. WON completion of the procedure laid down in Section 3 of Rule 112 a condition sine qua non for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. and .. And it ends with the determination by the Judge either: . Pama L. 1985 by Atty." who. .four (64) persons whose participations were of varying nature and degree in a matter of hours and issue the warrant of arrest in the same day" . it would hardly have been possible for respondent Judge to determine the existence of probable cause against sixty. .that the Judge in the case at bar failed to conduct the investigation in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Section 3." The respondent Judge is directed to forward to the Provincial Fiscal of Lanao del Sur the record of the preliminary investigation of the complaint in Criminal Case No. Ruling: The warrant complained of is upheld and declared valid insofar as it orders the arrest of the petitioners..that issuance of a warrant of arrest against fifty (50) "John Does" transgressed the Constitutional provision requiring that such warrants should particularly describe the persons or things to be seized. Said warrant is voided to the extent that it is issued against fifty (50) "John Does. -An "ex-parte" motion for reconsideration was filed on August 14. to 1:00 p.m..that the respondent Judge conducted the preliminary investigation of the charges " . 1985 was a Saturday during which "Municipal Trial Courts are open from 8:00 a. The first phase consists of an ex-parte inquiry into the sufficiency of the complaint and the affidavits and other documents offered in support thereof. -The petitioners contend: . only . RD: Sec 3 of Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure provides the procedure in conducting a preinvestigation of any crime cognizable in the RTCs.. "." and ". as said respondent well knew.

in which case he dismisses the complaint and transmits the order of dismissal. Place of Birth. NEDA & SECRETARY OF DBM) GR NO. Signature. which shall be transmitted.xxx xxx xxx (b) By the Municipal Trial Court. Facts: . Marital Status. The rule is and has always been that such issuance need only await a finding of probable cause. Picture. he shag issue a warrant of arrest. or (2) that the complaint and the supporting documents show sufficient cause to continue with the inquiry and this ushers in the second phase.12 (1) that there is no ground to continue with the inquiry. The present Section 6 of the same Rule 112 clearly authorizes the municipal trial court to order the respondent's arrest: “Sec. Tax Identification Number (TIN) -Petitioners allege that EO 420 is void because it violates the constitutional provision on the right to privacy : (i) It allows access to personal confidential data without the owner’s consent. 45 KMU VS DIRECTOR (-GENERAL.EO 420. This second phase is designed to give the respondent notice of the complaint. together with the record.. to the provincial fiscal. not the completion of the entire procedure of preliminary investigation . to the provincial fiscal for appropriate action. 6. Height. Any prominent distinguishing features like moles and others. Two index fingers and two thumbmarks. If the municipal trial judge conducting the preliminary investigation is satisfied after an examination in writing and under oath of the complainant and his witnesses in the form of searching question and answers. Date of Birth. APRIL 19. reads: “REQUIRING ALL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND GOVERNMENT-OWNED AND CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS TO STREAMLINE AND HARMONIZE THEIR IDENTIFICATION (ID) SYSTEMS. must be rejected that the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the warrant of arrest against petitioners without first completing the preliminary investigation in accordance with the prescribed procedure. in his view. 2006 CARPIO. Weight. Names of Parents. therefore. the Judge may conduct a hearing and propound to the parties and their witnesses questions on matters that. At this stage also. together with the records of the case. Home Address. NATIONAL ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT THE SAME. J. need to be clarified.” The argument. AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES…” . either for dismissal of the complaint or holding the respondent for trial.Section 3 of the said EO provides that the data to be collected and recorded by the participating agencies shall be limited to the following: Name. that a probable cause exists and that there is a necessity of placing the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. There is no requirement that the entire procedure for preliminary investigation must be completed before a warrant of arrest may be issued. Sex. issued by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on 13 April 2005. AND AUTHORIZING FOR SUCH PURPOSE THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL. The second phase concludes with the Judge rendering his resolution. 167798. When warrant of arrest may issue. access to the complainant's evidence and an opportunity to submit counter-affidavits and supporting documents. (ii) EO 420 is vague .

Appellant refused to allow the inspection because the inspector lacked a search warrant. the inspector confronted appellant and demanded that he permit an inspection of the premises. good to note. JUSTICE WHITE Facts: -On November 6. (iii) There are no compelling reasons that will legitimize the necessity of EO 420.On its face. see * below). RD: . Supreme Court upheld the validity of a New York law that required doctors to furnish the government reports identifying patients who received prescription drugs that have a potential for abuse.13 and without adequate safeguards or penalties for any violation of its provisions. an inspector of the Division of Housing Inspection of the San Francisco Department of Public Health entered an apartment building to make a routine annual inspection for possible violations of the city's Housing Code. was using the rear of his leasehold as a personal residence. Ruling: Petition without merit. in contrast to the prior ID systems (which even before were not complained of) which are bereft of strict administrative safeguards.S. Roe is the leading American case on the constitutional protection for control over information. In Whalen. EO 420 shows no constitutional infirmity because it even narrowly limits the data that can be collected. the U. Claiming that the building's occupancy permit did not allow residential use of the ground floor. -The right to privacy does not bar the adoption of reasonable ID systems by government entities. and declared: Disclosures of private medical information to doctors. lessee of the ground floor. Roe.S. Requiring such disclosures to representatives of the State having responsibility for the health of the community does not automatically amount to an impermissible invasion of privacy. 429 US 589 (1977). Compared to the personal medical data required for disclosure to the New York State in Whalen. The building's manager informed the inspector that appellant. to hospital personnel. -EO 420 further provides strict safeguards to protect the confidentiality of the data collected. Issue: WON EO 420 infringes on the citizen’s right to privacy. as well as the identity of the prescribing doctors. * Whalen v. Supreme Court rejected the privacy claim. and to public health agencies are often an essential part of modern medical practice even when the disclosure may reflect unfavorably on the character of the patient. recorded and shown compared to the existing ID systems of government entities. to insurance companies. . 1963. The U. 49 CAMARA VS MUNICIPAL COURT 387 US 523 (1967) MR. Moreover the data to be collected are routine data for ID systems and are less personal compared to the medical records of patients taking prescription drugs (Whalen v. The law was assailed because the database allegedly infringed the right to privacy of individuals who want to keep their personal matters confidential. The government maintained a central computerized database containing the names and addresses of the patients. the 14 specific data required for disclosure to the Philippine government under EO 420 are far less sensitive and far less personal.

as presently authorized and conducted. 120915. If a valid public interest justifies the intrusion contemplated. . Moreover. and in light of the Fourth Amendment's requirement that a warrant specify the property to be searched. He also contends that he may not be prosecuted under § 507 for refusing to permit an inspection unconstitutionally authorized by § 503 ISSUE: WON administrative inspection programs. structure. 1998 . at reasonable times. 50 PEOPLE VS ARUTA GR. in fact. any building. (§) 503 RIGHT TO ENTER BUILDING. Thereafter.In this case. and appellant again refused to allow an inspection. or premises in the City to perform any duty imposed upon them by the Municipal Code.Appellant has argued throughout this litigation that § 503 is contrary to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments in that it authorizes municipal officials to enter a private dwelling without a search warrant and without probable cause to believe that a violation of the Housing Code exists therein. upon presentation of proper credentials.14 -The inspector returned on November 8. most citizens allow inspections of their property without a warrant. APRIL 3. two inspectors returned to his apartment on November 22. Reasonableness is still the ultimate standard. through the building's manager. have the right to enter. the inspectors made three trips to the building in an attempt to obtain appellant's consent to search. RULING: It is concluded that appellant had a constitutional right to insist that the inspectors obtain a warrant to search and that appellant may not constitutionally be convicted for refusing to consent to the inspection RD: -The basic purpose of the Fourth Amendment.The warrant procedure is designed to guarantee that a decision to search private property is justified by a reasonable governmental interest. -"Sec. A citation was then mailed ordering appellant to appear at the district attorney's office. shall. violate Fourth Amendment rights as enforced through the Fourteenth Amendment. . No doubt. there was no emergency demanding immediate access. it seems likely that warrants should normally be sought only after entry is refused unless there has been a citizen complaint or there is other satisfactory reason for securing immediate entry. the inspectors entered the public portion of the building with the consent of the landlord. -In the case of most routine area inspections. so far as may be necessary for the performance of their duties. -Appellant nevertheless refused the inspectors access to his apartment without a search warrant. When appellant failed to appear. again without a warrant. Yet no warrant was obtained. is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials. as recognized in countless decisions of this Court. " . then there is probable cause to issue a suitably restricted search warrant. Authorized employees of the City departments or City agencies. as a practical matter. and thus appellant was unable to verify either the need for or the appropriate limits of the inspection. a complaint was filed charging him with refusing to permit a lawful inspection in violation of § 507 of the Code. but appellee does not contend that such consent was sufficient to authorize inspection of appellant's premises. Thus. there is no compelling urgency to inspect at a particular time or on a particular day. NO. They informed appellant that he was required by law to permit an inspection under § 503 of the Housing Code.

Abello asked "Aling Rosa" about the contents of her bag. Facts: . 1988." The team confiscated the bag together with the Victory Liner bus ticket to which Lt. an old woman asked her help in carrying a shoulder bag. Efren Quirubin.15 ROMERO. -Upon examination of the seized marijuana specimen at the PC/INP Crime Laboratory. Abello was tipped off by his informant. No. Danilo Santiago and Sgt. convicted accused-appellant of transporting eight (8) kilos and five hundred (500) grams of marijuana from Baguio City to Olongapo City in violation of Section 4. Olongapo City at around 4:00 in the afternoon of December 14. Jose Domingo. the latter handed it to the former. In the middle of the road. -Defense’s version of testimony: She (Rosa Aruta y Menguin. made up of P/Lt. When P/Lt. -Upon inspection. Article 11 of R. 1988 and deployed themselves near the Philippine National Bank (PNB) building along Rizal Avenue and the Caltex gasoline station. December 14. Lt.Testimony of arresting officers: On December 13. Issue: WON the search and seizure done on Aruta was illegal. accused-appellant) claimed that immediately prior to her arrest. known only as Benjie." While about to cross the road. -Said team proceeded to West Bajac-Bajac. -Having ascertained that accused-appellant was "Aling Rosa. one group. Abello assembled a team composed of P/Lt. Domingo affixed his signature. a Victory Liner Bus with body number 474 and the letters BGO printed on its front and back bumpers stopped in front of the PNB building at around 6:30 in the evening of the same day from where two females and a male got off. Angel Sudiacal. P/Lt. she added that no search warrant was shown to her by the arresting officers. -While thus positioned. Domingo arrested her and asked her to go with them to the NARCOM Office. P/Lt. Domingo and the informant posted themselves near the PNB building while the other group waited near the Caltex gasoline station. Moreover. Abello. that a certain "Aling Rosa" would be arriving from Baguio City the following day. . 1988." the team approached her and introduced themselves as NARCOM agents. P/Lt. Thus this appeal. J. It was at this stage that the informant pointed out to the team "Aling Rosa" who was then carrying a traveling bag. Abello and Lt. Pampanga. Accused-appellant was then brought to the NARCOM office for investigation where a Receipt of Property Seized was prepared for the confiscated marijuana leaves. Dividing themselves into two groups.A. Camp Olivas. P/Maj. a prohibited drug. Acting on said tip. the bag was found to contain dried marijuana leaves packed in a plastic bag marked "Cash Katutak. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972). Sgt. with a large volume of marijuana. Sgt. Marlene Salangad. a Forensic Chemist. she disclaimed any knowledge as to the identity of the woman and averred that the old woman was nowhere to be found after she was arrested. Sgt. prepared a Technical Report stating that said specimen yielded positive results for marijuana. she had just come from Choice Theater where she watched the movie "Balweg. -RTC of Olongapo relied on arresting officers’ testimony since they were unconvinced by the defense’s version of the testimony. Oscar Imperial. During investigation at said office. -Defense contended that the search and seizure of the items were illegal thereby violating accusedappellant's constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure as well as their inadmissibility in evidence.

Exigent and Emergency Circumstances. 54 VALE VS LOUISIANA 399 US 30 (1970) Facts: . there being no probable cause and the accused-appellant not having been lawfully arrested. and (d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further search. there was really no excuse for the NARCOM agents not to procure a search warrant considering that they had more than twenty-four hours to do so. Seizure of evidence in "plain view.In fine.16 Ruling: Aruta was acquitted for lack of evidence. and 7. 6. rule or situation which allows exceptions to the requirement of a warrant of arrest or search warrant must perforce be strictly construed and their application limited only to cases specifically provided or allowed by law: 1. . . 3. Customs search. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12.The right of a person to be secured against any unreasonable seizure of his body and any deprivation of his liberty is a most basic and fundamental one. 5. Search of a moving vehicle. (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are. Neither was she about to commit one nor had she just committed a crime. Consented warrantless search. 2.Accused-appellant Aruta cannot be said to be committing a crime. -Consequently. 4. Stop and Frisk." the elements of which are: (a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties. Rule 126 of the Rules of Court 8 and by prevailing jurisprudence. A statute. Highly regulated by the government. (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent. RD: . . Accused-appellant was merely crossing the street and was not acting in any manner that would engender a reasonable ground for the NARCOM agents to suspect and conclude that she was committing a crime. there was no legal basis for the NARCOM agents to effect a warrantless search of accusedappellant's bag. the vehicle's inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity.The essential requisite of probable cause must still be satisfied before a warrantless search and seizure can be lawfully conducted.

that respondents are enjoined from introducing evidence using such search warrant. The respondents. on the part of petitioner Aguilar-Roque. Issue: WON the articles seized were illegally obtained. without prejudice to petitioner Aguilar-Roque. but such personalities obtained would still be retained. The conviction was reversed. Respondents contend that the search warrant is valid and that it should be considered in the context of the crime of rebellion. 4[2]). They then went to the defendant's house where they saw the defendant making a drug deal. Gandamra THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. And since there was illegal arrest of Aguilar-Roque. section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding" (Sec. contend that a lawful search would be justified only by a lawful arrest. Issue: WON the search of the back room of the house incident to a lawful arrest? Ruling: No RD: The court ruled that a search is incident to a lawful arrest "only if it is substantially contemporaneous with the arrest and is confined to the immediate vicinity of the arrest." The court ruled that since the defendant was arrested outside his house. ROGELIO MENGOTE y TEJAS CRUZ. All the articles thus seized fag under the exclusionary rule totally and unqualifiedly and cannot be used against any of the three petitioners. . . the search was unlawful and that the personalities seized during the illegal search should be returned to the petitioner. What the plain language of the Constitution mandates is beyond the power of the courts to change or modify.17 The officers got arrest warrant for the defendant (referring to Vale). This constitutional mandate expressly adopting the exclusionary rule has proved by historical experience to be the only practical means of enforcing the constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures by outlawing all evidence illegally seized and thereby removing the incentive on the part of state and police officers to disregard such basic rights. RD: "Any evidence obtained in violation of this . where the warrant was based. The defendant was convicted and now he appeals and argues that the evidence obtained in the house was result of an unlawful search. The Supreme Court of Lousiana affirmed the conviction by ruling that the search of the house was incident to a lawful arrest. J. concede that the search warrants were null and void but the arrests were not. where they found drugs. or the consent of the defendant. Petitioners on the other hand. Cairalyn D. 55 NOLASCO VS PANO 147 SCRA 509 (1987) Facts: The case at bar is for the motion for partial reconsideration of both petitioners and respondents of the SC’s decision that the questioned search warrant by petitioners is null and void. . The officers arrested the defendant outside his house and then the officers went inside the house and in the back room. they had no right to search the house. the back room of the house was not within the immediate vicinity of the arrest and also since the officers did not have exigent circumstances. Ruling: Yes. in defense.

One of them. arrest a person. without a warrant. where he was asked of the bracelets w/c he voluntarily& w/o protest produced it. a Chinese merchant in cotabato. They approached these persons and identified themselves as policemen.Mengote was then convicted of illegal possession of firearms." There was no offense that had just been committed or actually committed or being attempted in their presence. or is attempting to commit an offense. he was searched. J. Issue: Whether or not the warrantless arrest of Mengote was constitutional? Ruling: the appealed decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. RD: As provided in Sec. Jacaria ordered his immediate arrest. A crime must in fact or actually have been committed first. The test of reasonable ground applies only to the identity of the perpetrator. The death of Tan Why was imputed to the accused who was charged w/ the crime of robbery w/ homicide. The People of the Philippine Islands vs. He was convicted&sentenced to reclusion perpetua.Smith&Wesson revolver w/ 6 live bullets in the chamber. When Tan why was found lying.A surveillance team of plainclothesmen was forthwith dispatched to the place. Issue: Whether or not the search & seizure w/o the corresponding warrant was constitutional? .18 Facts: Shortly before noon of August 8. The suspects were then searched. The accused appealed. who turned out to be the accused-appellant. At the time of the arrest. No warrant therefor having been previously obtained. No costs. Facts: Sometime in 1935. he was still alive and able to answer laconically “Kagui”. Accused was arrested and had been brought to the Lt. Appellant contends that the revolver should not have been admitted in evidence because of its illegal seizure. -Said accused did then and there unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and under his custody and control 1 caliber 38 without first having secured the necessary license or permit. Tan why’s identification card & a memorandum of amounts w/some Chinese characters & his pocket was a change amounting to P92. That a crime has actually been committed is an essential precondition. it was discovered that he also had the pocketbook containing P92 in bills.38 caliber. the Western Police District received a telephone call from an informer that there were 3 suspicious-looking persons at the corner of Juan Luna&North Bay Boulevard. the accused-appellant was merely "looking from side to side" and "holding his abdomen. All they had was hearsay information from the telephone caller& about a crime that had yet to be committed." 1 of whom was holding his abdomen. w/o opposition on his part. 5 of the bill of rights. He died shortly afterward in the cotabato hospital where he had been brought by an agent of authority. The accused-appellant is ACQUITTED and ordered released immediately unless he is validly detained for other offenses. Kagui Malasugui Diaz. (a) When.The weapons were taken from them. Lt. in his presence. was found lying on the ground w/ several wounds in the head. the person to be arrested has committed. It is not enough to suspect that a crime may have been committed. The arresting officers had no personal knowledge of facts indicating that Mengote had committed neither mengote’s identity. The fact of the commission of the offense must be undisputed.As later narrated there were 2 men "looking from side to side. and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.68. was found with a . Tan Why. (b) When an offense has just been committed. is actually committing. 1987.. A peace officer or private person may. Mengote&others were turned over to police headquarters for investigation by the Intelligence Division. whereupon the two tried to run away but were unable to escape because the other lawmen had surrounded them.

’37 & Jan. WON the warrant was in conformity w/ the law? Ruling: The writ prayed for is granted. et. cannot be waived by anyone except the person whose rights are invaded or one who is expressly authorized to do so in his/her behalf. the orders of Oct. Certainly. witness testified that the deceased before he died was able to utter “kagui” as his aggressor &that on the morning he saw the appellant w/ a club in his hand. obtained from justice of the peace of Tarlac. said club was found near the place where Tan was wounded. searches& seizures w/o judicial warrant. almada. Almeda accompanied w/ the captain of Phil. that the persons involved had knowledge. lastly.5. not only when a crime is committed or about to be committed in their presence but also when there is reason to believe or sufficient ground to suspect that one has been committed &that it was committed by the person arrested by them.19 Ruling: The appealed judgment is hereby affirmed. the existence of probable cause was determined not by the judge . papers &effects illegally seized from her. (1) it must be issued upon probable cause (2) the probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by applicant or any other person… In the case @ bar. It is true that the petitioner did not object when the search was made because she was sick &was not present when the warrant was served upon. Leona Pasion Viuda de Garcia vs. petitioner demanded from the respondent Anti-Usury Board the return of the documents seized. proceeded w/ the execution. a search warrant commanding any officer of the law to search the person. In the case @ bar.’38 of respondent judge are set aside &respondents are hereby ordered to return& restore to the petitioner all the properties. w/in 48 hrs. of the existence of such right. that said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right. In the case at bar. from the time this decision becomes final. 2nd. Said constitutional precept has been interpreted as not prohibiting arrests. house or store of the petitioner at Victoria for certain books. In the absence of an explanation of how 1 come into possession of stolen effects belonging to a person wounded& treacherously killed. Facts: Mariano Almeda. J. members of Insular Police or Constabulary as well as those of the municipal police& of chartered cities even of townships may make arrests w/o judicial warrant. It is well-settled that to constitute a waiver of constitutional right. The search warrant was issued upon affidavit. The warrant was unconstitutional because for a search warrant to be valid. there has been a waiver by implication. being a personal one. On several occasions. Issue: 1. w/costs against the appellant. an agent of the Anti-Usuary Board. a Govt. Without costs. Diego Locsin. receipts. except that part containing a pronouncement in favor of the Mindanao Rice Industrial Company & it is ordered that the articles be delivered to the latter’s heirs. WON there has been waiver by the petitioner of her constitutional immunity against unreasonable searches& seizures? 2. the constitutional immunity from unreasonable searches& seizures. it must appear 1st that the right exists. chits. documents. The search warrant is hereby declared void& of no effect. lists. but only those that are unreasonable.al Laurel.3. RD: The waiver may be either express or implied. RD: This is so because under the law. documents &other papers relating to her activities as usurer. Constabulary went to the office of the petitioner in Victoria after showing the search warrant to the petitioner’s bookkeeper &w/o the presence of the petitioner who was ill& confined @ the time. he must necessarily be considered the author of the aggression& death of said person& of robbery committed on him. either actual or constructive.

The authority given to regular Courts of First Instance to conduct preliminary investigations is likewise conferred on Circuit Criminal Courts. No. Renato Tayag and others.: Facts: On April 22.R. Hence. The PNB moved that the dismissal be reconsidered. CCC-V-668 is hereby suspended.al vs. Almario Salta was charged by the PNB before the Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan for violation of RA # 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). 1973. No. et. Salta filed a complaint with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan against Patrocinio Dayrit. The petition in G. Judge Ancheta issued an order ruling that "unless otherwise restrained by higher courts. HON. Section 1." Issue: whether or not Judge Ancheta had jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation over Salta's complaint against petitioner Dayrit in G. COURT OF APPEALS and RENATO D. The complaint had been dismissed by both the Provincial Fiscal and District State Prosecutor Kliatchko. et. Prosecutor Kliatchko conducted hearings after which: a) a prima facie case was found in I. The PNB charged Salta before the Provincial Fiscal in Pampanga for alleged violations of the Anti-Graft Act committed by Salta in the PNB Guagua Branch. Salta. L41395. Rule 112 of the present Rules of Court states that it is conducted for the purpose of determining whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime cognizable by the court has been committed and that the . In 1973. 3934 and an information was filed against Salta and b) the case against Dayrit. 1970. TAYAG PATROCINIO DAYRIT vs.al for violation of the Anti-Graft Law. the Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan dismissed both cases on the ground that the PNB refused to submit documents considered by the fiscal as material. The questioned decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Sometime in 1970. Salta filed a complaint against Patrocinio Dayrit. likewise appealed the order of the Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan which dismissed the case. JR. The resolution of Judge Ancheta dated March 22. et alwas "with the approval of the Department of Justice" dismissed. it is clear that even as said courts may have such authority. the Provincial Fiscal of Pampanga found a prima facie case against Salta and filed the corresponding information with the Circuit Criminal Court. While CCC-V-668 was pending trial before Judge Constante A.R. L-42973 and Renato Tayag. No.R. RD: Judges of Circuit Criminal Courts may conduct preliminary investigations in cases they will later try.. However.al GUTIERREZ.R. J. After an investigation. The DOJ assigned District State Prosecutor Kliatchko to reinvestigate the case against Salta. L-42973 is GRANTED. HON. the hearings on the merits of the criminal case No." Judge Ancheta further held that "until such time when the preliminary investigation shall have been terminated.S. No. CONSTANTE A. et. the respondent in G. 1974 is likewise SET ASIDE. Ancheta.COURT OF APPEALS. No. Prosecutor Kliatchko reinvestigated both complaints. they must concentrate on hearing and deciding criminal cases filed before them instead of discharging a function that could very well be handled by the provincial or city fiscal.20 himself but by the applicant. ALMARIO T. the search warrant was illegally issued by the justice of the peace of Tarlac. After conducting an investigation. the requisite preliminary investigation thereon on Salta's complaint shall be conducted on January 24 and 25. L-41395 is DISMISSED for having become moot and academic.ANCHETA. SALTA. Ruling: the petition in G.

Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Court. as Mrs. The first theory stated that the search and seizure of Coolidge's automobile were "incident" to the arrest. as a rule. Fatima Berua COOLIDGE V. He was cooperative throughout the entire process. Under these circumstances. which were subsequently signed and issued by the attorney general himself--in the role of acting justice of the peace. New Hampshire. He agreed to participate in a polygraph test the following Sunday. It is a part of the prosecution's job. Relative to Section 13. a function of the executive. 'without previous preliminary examination and investigation conducted by the fiscal. 14-year-old Pamela Mason left her home in Manchester. 13. for arrest and search warrants. therefore. not by a policeman or government enforcement agent. would provide enough evidence to support the arrest of Coolidge. She had received a call from a man in need of a babysitter. her body was found many miles away by the side of a north-south highway. it is unconstitutional.On the evening of 13 January 1964. is usually integrated with the preliminary investigation proper when conducted by a court. two plainclothes policemen called on the Coolidge residence. The police immediately began a largescale investigation into the murder.21 respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. that upon complaint filed directly with the Court of First Instance w/o previous preliminary examination& investigation conducted by the fiscal. the judge shall either refer the complaint to the justice of the peace for preliminary examination& investigation. The preliminary investigation proper is. The preliminary examination for the issuance of a warrant of arrest which only a judge could conduct subject to the qualification in the 1973 Bill of Rights. Police contacted Coolidge the following Sunday and asked him to come to the police station where he would be taken to Concord. not a judicial function. he shall issue a warrant for his arrest &refer the case to the fiscal for the filing of the corresponding information." The state of New Hampshire developed three theories in an attempt to explain the warrant's validity. The chief of the Manchester police applied. In . When the right of privacy must reasonably yield to the right of search is. When asked if he owned any guns he responded that he did. Police inquiries led to the questioning of Edward Coolidge. during the polygraph test he had confessed to stealing money from his employer. Coolidge believed her husband had been wearing on the night of Pamela Mason's disappearance. ISSUE: WON the seizure & subsequent search of Coolidge’s automobile is constitutional. or himself conduct both preliminary examination and investigation simultaneously in the manner provided in the preceding petitions and should find reasonable ground to believe that the defendant has committed the offense charged. NEW HAMPSHIRE FACTS: . Coolidge waited with her mother-in-law for her husband to return. respondent Judge Ancheta had no authority to conduct another preliminary investigation against Dayrit and Tayag. The plainclothes policemen stated that her husband was in "serious trouble" and would not be returning home that night. it is stated thereby with pristine clarity that the complaints over which a judge of a court of first instance may conduct preliminary examination and investigation are those 'filed directly' before it.It was decided that the murder charge. That evening. Rule 112 of the New Rules of Court. New Hampshire for the lie-detector test. These officers were not even aware that Coolidge had readily provided three guns for inspection to the previous officers. SEC. At one point during the questioning they asked to see Coolidge's guns and the clothes that Mrs. Eight days later. . HELD: No. along with a search of his residence and two cars. The respondent Judge conducted the questioned preliminary investigation pursuant to Section 13. Coolidge was being held in jail overnight for an unrelated charge. They then asked the mother-in-law to leave and began questioning Mrs. to be decided by a judicial officer. Coolidge. under oath.

HON. wrote the Provincial Commander of Palawan requesting him to direct the detachment commander-in Balabac to impound and take custody of the motor launch. is actually committing or is about to commit an offense in his presence. Thus their apprehension without a warrant of arrest while committing a crime is lawful. In the case at bar. 1962. (b) who is reasonably believed to have committed an offense which has been actually committed. Palawan. HELD: YES. ISSUE: WON the seizure of the vessel. Jikil Taha through his counsel made representations with Fiscal Ponce de Leon to return the seized property to plaintiff-appellant Delfin Lim but Fiscal Ponce de Leon refused. for alleged violations of some provisions of the Fisheries Act. de Leon. because the vessel can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the search warrant must be sought before such warrant could be secured. nor did they justify a warrantless search.Jikil Taha sold to a certain Alberto Timbangcaya of Brooke's Point. and THE PHIL. JR. an item of evidence discovered in plain view could not be considered as such unless it was discovered while the search was in progress--and the discovery itself must be considered inadvertent. the two fishing boats were actually seized for illegal fishing with dynamite. A year later Timbangcaya filed a complaint with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Palawan alleging that after the sale Jikil Taha forcibly took away the motor launch from him. The same exception should apply to seizures of fishing vessels breaching our fishery laws. the car remained untouched throughout this event.. . upon being informed that the motor launch was in Balabac. Under our Rules of Court. ROLDAN. None of these theories validated the warrant provided by the state attorney general. Search and seizure without search warrant of vessels and air crafts for violations of the customs laws have been the traditional exception to the constitutional requirement of a search warrant. The CFI Manila granted it. ARSENIO N. It was deemed that this "automobile exception" was not applicable in this case. its equipment and dynamites therein was equally valid as an incident to a lawful arrest. on the ground that the same was the subject of a criminal offense. FRANCISCO PONCE DE LEON AND ORLANDO MADDELA FACTS: . or (c) who is a prisoner who has escaped from confinement while serving a final judgment or from temporary detention during the pendency of his case or while being transferred from one confinement to another. Winnie and Srta. hence it is not practicable to require a search warrant before such search or seizure can be constitutionally effected. The Supreme Court rightly believed that the police had a sufficient amountof time in which to obtain a valid warrant as the description and the location of the Pontiac were known in advance of the arrest. the seizure of the vessel. 1965.On June 15. its equipment and dynamites therein was valid. However. Consequently.Respondent company filed a case against Roldan. They are usually equipped with powerful motors that enable them to elude pursuing ships of the Philippine Navy or Coast Guard. a police officer or a private individual may. vs. for the recovery of fishing vessel Tony Lex VI which had been seized and impounded by petitioner Fisheries Commissioner through the Philippine Navy. also respectively called Srta. The second theory postulated by the state maintained that probable cause allowed for a warrantless search of an automobile. vs. arrest a person (a) who has committed.On September 20. Jr. Agnes. Coolidge was arrested without resistance in his own house. and MORABE. it would have been necessary for Coolidge to be in possession or control of the vehicle. NAVY. DE GUZMAN & COMPANY. without a warrant. DELFIN LIM and JIKIL TAHA. 1962. On August 5 or 6. Delfin Lim pleaded with Maddela to return the motor launch but the latter refused. the members of the crew of the two vessels were caught in flagrante illegally fishing with dynamite and without the requisite license. . as he made no attempt to escape. . HON. FRANCISCO ARCA. The state's final theory relied on the Pontiac as being an "instrumentality of the crime" that could be seized because it was in plain view.22 order for this to have been the case. .Petitioner requested the Philippine Navy to apprehend vessels Tony Lex VI and Tony Lex III. Palawan a motor launch named M/L "SAN RAFAEL". thus respondent company took Possession of the vessel Tony Lex VI. FACTS: .

plaintiffs a complaint for damages against defendants alleging that Maddela entered the premises of Lim without a search warrant and then and there took away the hull of the motor launch without his consent. They detained him and inspected the bag he was carrying. committing a crime nor was it shown that he was about to do so or that he had just done so. Under the old Constitution. He was arrested on June 25. to justify the issuance of a warrant. Art. the power to issue a search warrant is vested in a judge or magistrate and in no other officer and no search and seizure can be made without a proper warrant. He was identified by name. and approached him as he descended from the gangplank after the informer had pointed to him. that he effected the seizure upon order of Fiscal Ponce de Leon who knew fully well that his office was not vested with authority to order the seizure of a private property. the information was amended to include Farida Ali y Hassen. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. inspected his bag and finding what looked liked marijuana leaves took him to their headquarters for investigation. vs. the PC officers had earlier received a tip from one of their informers that the accusedappellant was on board a vessel bound for Iloilo City and was carrying marijuana. III of the Constitution]. Acting on this tip. No effort was made to comply with the law. And from the information they had received. From the conflicting declarations of the PC witnesses.All efforts to recover the motor launch is going to nothing. Later. The PC officers who were in fact waiting for him simply accosted him. His name was known. there was no warrant of arrest or search warrant issued by a judge after personal determination by him of the existence of probable cause. no public official has the right to enter the premises of another without his consent for the purpose of search and seizure. Moreover. The fact that a thing is a corpus delicti of a crime does not justify its seizure without a warrant. shortly after disembarking from the M/V Wilcon 9 in Iloilo City. indeed. there was no law or rule that recognized the authority of Provincial Fiscals to issue a search warrant. tried and found guilty of illegally transporting marijuana. When they were verified as marijuana leaves. In the case at bar. who had also been arrested with him that same evening and likewise investigated. had determined on his own authority that a "search warrant was not necessary. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. 2 principles are made clear.23 . HELD: NO. 2. Contrary to the averments of the government. they could have persuaded a judge that there was probable cause.Aminnudin claimed his business was selling watches but he was nonetheless arrested." In the case at bar. ISSUE: WON the marijuana allegedly found in his possession is inadmissible in evidence arrested because he was searched without warrant HELD: Yes [Sec. According to the prosecution. and (2) that in issuing a search warrant the judge alone determines whether or not there is a probable cause. vs. 1984. ISSUE: WON Fiscal de Leon had the power to order the seizure of the motor launch in question without a warrant of search and seizure even if the same was admittedly the corpus delicti of the crime. The date of its arrival was certain. MIKAEL MALMSTEDT FACTS: . The two bundles of suspect articles were confiscated from him and later taken to the NBI laboratory for examination. 1984. they waited for him in the evening of June 25. There can be no question that without the proper search warrant. it is clear that they had at least 2 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. IDEL AMINNUDIN y AHNI FACTS: . under Sections 2 and 3 of Rule 122 of the Rules of Court. namely: (1) that in the seizure of a stolen property search warrant is still necessary. at the moment of his arrest. The Bill of Rights was ignored altogether because the PC lieutenant who was the head of the arresting team. an information for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act was filed against him. Yet they did nothing. It was found to contain three kilos of what were later analyzed as marijuana leaves by an NBI forensic examiner. the accused-appellant was not. 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. At the time the act complained of was committed. The vehicle was identified.

. . prompting the officer to open one of the wrapped objects. the officer noticed that there were bulges inside the same which did not feel like foam stuffing. But before he alighted from the bus. information was received by the Commanding Officer of NARCOM.Upon stepping out of the bus. CIC Galutan noticed a bulge on Malmstedt’s waist. A crime was actually being committed by the accused and he was caught in flagrante delicto.In the morning May 11. In the evening of 7 May 1989. the Special Operations Group. and gunrunning. or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. vs.In July 1987. The wrapped objects turned out to contain hashish . defendants. and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending. the Commanding Officer of the First Regional Command (NARCOM) stationed at Camp Dangwa.During the inspection.In the afternoon. or where the accused was acting suspiciously. Accused was searched and arrested while transporting prohibited drugs (hashish). Moreover. Tublay. Vasco. smuggling of contraband goods. the bus where accused was riding was stopped. La Trinidad. there’s an existence of a probable cause. At the investigation room. LIM CHENG HUAT alias ANTONIO LIM and REYNALDO TIA y SANTIAGO. Acop. Accused who was the sole foreigner riding the bus was seated at the rear thereof. together with Lim Cheng Huat alias Antonio Lim and Reynaldo Tia. accused was invited outside the bus for questioning. a derivative of marijuana. the officer required him to bring out whatever it was that was bulging on his waist. (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed.Malmstedt. and attempted to flee. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. that same morning. Benguet for further investigation. Moreover. therefore. . Suspecting the bulge on Malmstedt’s waist to be a gun. It was only after the officers had opened the bags that accused finally presented his passport. . a unit of the Criminal Investigation Service (CIS) of the Philippine Constabulary (PC). A teddy bear was found in each bag. A lawful arrest without a warrant may be made by a peace officer or a private person under the following circumstances: (a) When. which allow a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest. he left for Baguio City. The two (2) NARCOM officers started their inspection from the front going towards the rear of the bus. HELD: It was LEGAL and VALID.24 .Peter Lo. the search made upon his personal effects falls squarely under paragraph (1) of the foregoing provisions of law. Sgt. and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. After an evaluation . the officers opened the teddy bears and they were found to also contain hashish. LO HO WING alias PETER LO. Capt. Feeling the teddy bears. entered the Philippines for the third time in December 1988 as a tourist. ordered his men to set up a temporary checkpoint at Kilometer 14. were charged with a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. ISSUE: WON the search of the Malmstedt’s personal effects was illegal because it was made without a search warrant and. When accused failed to comply. Mountain Province.Accused was then brought to the headquarters of the NARCOM at Camp Dangwa. Thereafter. the prohibited drugs which were discovered during the illegal search are not admissible as evidence against him. a Swedish national. Only Peter Lo and Lim Cheng Huat were convicted. that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had in his possession prohibited drugs. Thus. Fider and CIC Galutan boarded the bus and announced that they were members of the NARCOM and that they would conduct an inspection. . The order to establish a checkpoint in the said area was prompted by persistent reports that vehicles coming from Sagada were transporting marijuana and other prohibited drugs. received a tip from one of its informers about an organized group engaged in the importation of illegal drugs. in his presence. the officer noticed 4 suspicious-looking objects wrapped in brown packing tape. LO HO WING alias PETER LO FACTS: . The bulging object turned out to be a pouch bag and when accused opened the same bag. the officers got the bags and opened them. where the smell of marijuana emanated from a plastic bag owned by the accused. the officer asked for Malmstedt’s passport and other identification papers. or is attempting to commit an offense. the person to be arrested has committed is actually committing. accused stopped to get 2 traveling bags from the luggage carrier. . for the purpose of checking all vehicles coming from the Cordillera Region.

shouting. A tin can of tea was taken out of the red traveling bag of Peter. a total of 56 paper tea bags with white crystalline powder were found and tested and was found out that it was metamphetamine.25 of the information received. Afterwards. They went to a local store where Peter purchased 6 tin cans of tea. As a "deep penetration agent. 2. Some victims of these illegal operations have complained with increasing frequency that their money and valuables have disappeared after the said operations. they returned to the hotel.When the 2 arrived in the Phil. He was informed that their cargo consisted of Chinese drugs. In the course of their meetings in China." Tia regularly submitted reports of his undercover activities on the suspected criminal syndicate. al. a project codenamed "OPLAN SHARON 887" was created to bust the suspected syndicate. police and military units without any search warrant or warrant of arrest cordon an area of more than one residence and sometimes whole barangay or areas of barangay in Metro Manila. ISSUE: WON the police act is illegal. and [3] seizure of evidence in plain view. and COL. he saw two other men with Peter. BRIG. a valid warrant was not necessary to effect the search on appellant and his co-accused. ALFREDO LIM. that there’s no need to secure search warrants or warrants of arrest before any houses were searched or individuals roused from sleep were arrested . A warrantless search of a moving vehicle is justified on the ground that "it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. ISSUE: WON the warrantless search and seizure made against is illegal HELD: The search and seizure must be supported by a valid warrant. Peter kept the cans of tea in his hotel room. the recruitment of confidential men and "deep penetration agents' was carried out. The latter offered his services to Lim as his ompanion for his business nips abroad. One was fixing the tea bags. of which appellant was touted to be a member.Tia and Peter went to Guangzhou. et. 3 pcs.' These arrests are all conducted without any warrants of arrest duly issued by a judge. Therefore. The petitioners claim that the saturation drives follow a common pattern of human rights abuses. . JESUS GARCIA FACTS: . and asked the driver to open the baggage compartment. .. Tia saw the paper tea bags when the cans were opened for examination during the purchase. while the other was burning substance on a piece of aluminum foil using a cigarette lighter. During the investigation. of luggage were retrieved. In all drives. That evening. As part of the operations. 4. . it is alleged that the following were committed: 1. The belief was based on intelligence reports gathered from surveillance activities on the suspected syndicate. approached the taxicab. GEN. GEN. EDDIE GUAZON. Having no specific target house in mind. RENATO DE VILLA.. and then ordering the residents within to come out of their respective residences. Peter joined the second man and sniffed the smoke emitted by the burning substance. GEN. Tia went to Peter's room to talk to him. The circumstances of the case clearly show that the search in question was made as regards a moving vehicle. GEN. nor under the conditions that will authorize warrantless arrest. in the dead of the night or early morning hours. Tia was introduced to Peter Lo whom Tia found out to be the person he was to accompany to China in lieu of Lim. MAJ. kicking their doors open (destroying some in the process). One of those recruited was Reynaldo Tia." In the instant case. They requested from the suspects permission to search their luggage.There’s saturation drives conducted in 12 places in Metro Manila. it was firmly established from the factual findings of the trial court that the authorities had reasonable ground to believe that appellant would attempt to bring in contraband and transport it within the country. Tia asked the latter what they would be bringing back to the Philippines. RAMON MONTANO. ALEXANDER AGUIRRE. These raiders rudely rouse residents from their sleep by banging on the walls and windows of their homes. BRIG. is not an absolute rule. There are at least 3 well-recognized exceptions: [1] a search incidental to an arrest. the car of the operatives overtook the taxicab ridden by Peter and Tia and cut into its path forcing the taxi driver to stop his vehicle. [2] a search of a moving vehicle . 3. All men and some women who respond to these illegal and unwelcome intrusions are arrested on the spot and hauled off to waiting vehicles that take them to detention centers where they are interrogated and 'verified. BRIG. Upon entering. vs.

commanding officer of the said officer. The evidence adduced by the prosecution established that sometime before 5 April 1991. Sergeant-at-Arms. which he immediately reported to Maj. carrying and transporting of firearms or other deadly weapons.. Sgt. Sgt. since the warrantless arrest was incident to a lawful arrest. the members of the team proceeded to Lorega Street. After ascertaining that it was indeed marijuana. Sarong conducted another surveillance on the accused for the purpose of preparing for a buy-bust operation.Evelyn Garcia y Delima was charged with violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 for selling and delivering. Cebu City. He gave her the marked P20. The areal target zonings in this petition were intended to flush out subversives and criminal elements particularly because of the blatant assassinations of public officers and police officials by elements supposedly coddled by the communities where the "drives" were conducted. Serapio P. Taccad. positioned himself at the house of the informer's friend from where he had a clear view of her hangout. ANIAG.. Basilio Sarong to conduct a surveillance on her. the COMELEC issued Resolution No. proceeded to the slum area of Lorega and upon arrival thereat. vs. Sgt. 3 His surveillance yielded a positive result. HELD: YES.. the accused approached and asked him if he wanted to buy marijuana to which he answered yes. ISSUE: WON the marijuana is admissible as evidence. Sarong. CONGRESSMAN FRANCISCO B. round up suspected rebels and otherwise quell the mutiny or rebellion without having to secure search warrants and without violating the Bill of Rights. Sgt. COMELEC and DOJ SPECIAL TASK FORCE FACTS: . He opened one handrolled cigarette and smelled it. EVELYN GARCIA Y DELIMA FACTS: .On 10 April 1991. and organization or maintenance of reaction forces during the election period. a resident of Lorega St. There is no strong showing that the objectives sought to be attained by the "areal zoning" could not be achieved even as the rights of squatter and low income families are fully protected. he gave the pre-arranged signal (by scratching his head) to his companions who immediately closed in and arrested her. . Sarong." Mr. Peeping through a window. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. Sarong went directly to the hangout of the accused while his companions strategically posted themselves in a place where they could monitor Sgt. He then reported to Maj. the office of the NARCOM based in Cebu City received a report from an informer that the accused. Sarong saw her selling marijuana to certain persons. on security personnel or bodyguards. Sgt. Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. she could be lawfully arrested without a warrant and searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be sued as proof of the commission of the offense.m. pursuant to the "Gun Ban. Acting upon this information. the police or military may go in force to the combat areas. When he entered the hangout. Evelyn he was caught in flagrante in a buy-bust operation selling marijuana to the poseur-buyer.26 HELD: Where there is large scale mutiny or actual rebellion. Pursuant then to Section 5(a). When she came back. she delivered to him fifteen sticks of marijuana cigarettes. 2323 otherwise referred to as the "Gun Ban.On 10 January 1992. There appears to have been no impediment to securing search warrants or warrants of arrest before any houses were searched or individuals roused from sleep were arrested . The team recovered from her the P20.On 12 April 1991 at around 12:30 p. enter affected residences or buildings.00 marked bill. without authority of law 15 sticks of marijuana cigarettes. .In preparation for the synchronized national and local elections scheduled on 11 May 1992. House of Representatives wrote petitioner who was then Congressman of the 1st District of Bulacan requesting . . Hassan her illegal activity. On 5 April 1991. that there was no rebellion or criminal activity similar to that of the attempted coup d' etats. She told him to wait for a while and then left. accompanied by the informer. It is clear from the pleadings of both petitioners and respondents." promulgating rules and regulations on bearing. Rule 113 and Section 12. instructed Sgt.00 bill. Hassan who then formed a buy-bust team. Maj. Sarong's movements. was engaged in the sale of marijuana. JR. Esa Hassan. however. on bearing arms by members of security agencies or police organizations.

a town approximately 8 kilometers away from Sampalucan. Consequently. the PNP set up a checkpoint outside the Batasan Complex some 20m away from its entrance. In the case at bench. the two police officers flagged down the vehicle. There was no evidence to show that the policemen were impelled to do so because of a confidential report leading them to reasonably believe that certain motorists matching the description furnished by their informant were engaged in gunrunning. The action then of the policemen unreasonably intruded into petitioner's privacy and the security of his property. a warrantless search had been upheld in cases of moving vehicles and the seizure of evidence in plain view. the police officers checked the cargo and they discovered bundles of 3. petitioner immediately instructed his driver. that either the motorist is a law-offender or they will find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime in the vehicle to be searched. the vehicle of the petitioner was flagged down because the police officers who were on routine patrol became .Rudy was found guilty of the crime of theft. On June 28.08 mm aluminum/galvanized conductor wires exclusively owned by NPC. About 30min. the search could not be valid. in violation of Sec. Pagsanjan. Thereafter. later. the checkpoint was set up 20m from the entrance to the Batasan Complex to enforce COMELEC’s Resolution. COURT OF APPEALS and PP FACTS: . Nor was there any indication from the package or behavior of Arellano that could have triggered the suspicion of the policemen. ISSUE: WON the flagging down of his vehicle by police officers who were on routine patrol. In the case at bar. The jeep was driven by Rudy. Upon being advised of the request. Ernesto Arellano to pick up the firearms from petitioner's house and return them to Congress. the policemen manning the outpost flagged down the car driven by Arellano as it approached the checkpoint. Sgt. the firearms obtained in violation of petitioner's right against warrantless search cannot be admitted for any purpose in any proceeding. Absent such justifying circumstances specifically pointing to the culpability of petitioner and Arellano. 244. HELD: When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search.45.However. Arellano was then apprehended and detained. merely on "suspicion" that "it might contain smuggled goods. When asked what was loaded on the jeep. He explained that he was ordered by petitioner to get the firearms from the house and return them to Sergeant-at-Arms Taccad of the House of Representatives. while on a routine patrol in Brgy. as well as the search conducted at police or military checkpoints as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body search.27 the return of the 2 firearms. COMELEC issued a Resolution directing the filing of information against petitioner and Arellano for violation of the Omnibus Election Code. on 6 April 1992. before the search. Rudy and the vehicle with the highvoltage wires were brought to the Pagsanjan Police Station. 2. As a rule. Alex de Castro. and the inspection of the vehicle is merely limited to a visual search." constitutes probable cause that will justify a warrantless search and seizure. he appeared pale and nervous. upon recommendation of its Law Department. Laguna. Noceja asked Rudy where the wires came from and Rudy answered that they came from Cavinti. a valid search must be authorized by a search warrant duly issued by an appropriate authority. With Rudy’s consent. . transporting firearms or in organizing special strike forces. Victorino Noceja and Pat. he did not answer. Sampalucan. spotted a passenger jeep unusually covered with "kakawati" leaves. An extensive search without warrant could only be resorted to if the officers conducting the search had reasonable or probable cause to believe before the search that either the motorist was a law offender or that they would find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to the commission of a crime in the vehicle to be searched. Suspecting that the jeep was loaded with smuggled goods. HELD: Yes. Art. III. However. They searched the car and found the firearms neatly packed in their gun cases and placed in a bag in the trunk of the car. of the Constitution. The conductor wires weighed 700 kilos and valued at P55. 1989. ISSUE: WON the warrantless search conducted by the PNP is illegal and the firearms seized cannot be used as evidence. such a warrantless search would be constitutionally permissible only if the officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe. RUDY CABALLES y TAIÑO vs. Meanwhile.

Information received from civilian informer was that Musa was engaged in selling marijuana in said place. T/Sgt. At this juncture. 1989. which she voluntary did. accused herein. he handed the three sticks of marijuana to the informant.On December 13. . that after the signal.00 bill from the boy. the package containing the packs of marijuana sticks were thus exposed in plain view to the member of the team. were charged with the violation of Dangerous Drug Act. Pfc. Romeo Cortes and Gualberto Gabales on a buy-bust operation for marijuana after receipt of information about marijuana pushers in Punta Princesa. He further declared that after the prearranged signal from their informant. the boy went inside the shanty and the moment he got out. he claimed that he observed that after the transaction. A crime was thus committed in the presence of the policemen. for selling and delivering.Pfc. ISSUE: WON the marijuana cigarettes seized from her are inadmissible in evidence because they were obtained in violation of the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure. that they brought Carmelina Tabar to Fuente Police Station for investigation. Zamboanga City. the fact that the vehicle looked suspicious simply because it is not common for such to be covered with kakawati leaves does not constitute "probable cause" as would justify the conduct of a search without a warrant. Josephus Trangia he was with Pfc. When she was asked to spread it out. was unusual and uncommon. Cebu City and that they had their informant go ahead of them after giving the P5. And that they saw a young boy approached their informant and handed cigarettes to him who in turn handed the marked money to the young boy. he and his companions immediately approached the young boy and the informant introduced them as police officers. instructed Sgt. and that Carmelina Tabar was holding white pants from where they found other marijuana sticks in cigarette packs which they confiscated. they met Carmelina Tabar. 3 sticks of marijuana cigarettes.00 bill for him to purchase marijuana. He claimed that there were 75 sticks of marijuana in the Hope Cigarette pack.Carmelina Tabar y Carmilotes and her nephew. by the name of Rommel Arriesgado y Tabar. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. In addition. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. Rommel Arriesgado and that they proceeded to confiscate the P5. according to them. they immediately proceeded to the scene and were given three sticks of marijuana by their informant after buying the same from the boy. in company with a NARCOM civilian informer. to the house of Mari Musa. However. vs. In fact. Gabales. Pursuant to Section 5. This young boy was about 16-17 years old.28 suspicious when they saw that the back of the vehicle was covered with kakawati leaves which. Josephus Trangia On February 8. He continued saying that their informant stood in front of a shanty while they posted themselves at a distance of about 50 meters from the place where their informant was standing. . Then. Amado Ani proceeded to Suterville. HELD: The evidence for the prosecution discloses that the appellant placed the packs of marijuana sticks under the rolled pair of pants which she was then carrying at the time she hurriedly left her shanty after noticing the arrest of Rommel. the leader of a NARCOM team based at Calarian. 1989. Belagra. their informant gave them the pre-arranged signal of scratching his head with his right hand. He had earlier pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of mere possession of marijuana He explained the initials GDG which stands for Gualberto G. CARMELINA TABAR y CARMILOTES and ROMMEL ARRIESGADO y TABAR FACTS: . The same civilian informer had also described to him the . he claimed that after the proceeding to the shanty. she could lawfully be arrested and searched for anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense without the corresponding arrest and search warrants . Amado Ani to conduct surveillance and test buy on Mari Musa of Suterville. his team member. without authority of law. Rommel Arriesgado y Tabar. 22 sticks of marijuana cigarettes in the Philip Morris pack and 99 sticks of marijuana in the Mark cigarette pack. So Sgt. the police authorities do not claim to have received any confidential report or tipped information that petitioner was carrying stolen cable wires in his vehicle which could otherwise have sustained their suspicion. Rule 113 and Section 12 Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court. Zamboanga City. MARI MUSA y HANTATALU FACTS: Mari Musa was found guilty of selling marijuana in violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.

The NARCOM agents had to move from one portion of the house to another before they sighted the plastic bag. warehouse. respondent Ricardo Santos. When the appellant refused to respond. who came out of his house. looked into the records of his office. inclosure. while the rest of the NARCOM group positioned themselves at strategic places about 90 to 100 meters from Mari Musa's house. on July 22. General Affairs Administration of the Department of National Defense. they opened it and found the marijuana. its owner Donald James Hatch being taxexempt. Convinced that the contents were marijuana. The plastic bag was. Stated differently. petitioner. On the strength thereof. by Department of National Defense agents who were authorized to do so by virtue of the said warrant. authority to issue such warrant of seizure and detention. Pamaran for preliminary investigation. Ani opened the two wrappers and inspected the contents. PEDRO PACIS vs. and asked Ani what he wanted. The Code authorizes persons having police authority under Section 2203 of the Tariff and Customs Code to enter.00 marked money. had the requisite authority for the issuance of the contested warrant of seizure and detention for the automobile owned by respondent Ricardo Santos. ISSUE: WON the petitioner.Respondent Ricardo Santos is the owner of a Mercury automobile. They had to ask the appellant what the bag contained. Moreover. 1964. it must be immediately apparent to the police that the items that they observe may be evidence of a crime. Based on such discrepancy. 3 On June 25. Ani said he wanted some more stuff. ISSUE: WON the plastic bag marijuana it contains is admissible. Belarga could see what went on between Ani and suspect Musa from where he was. therefore. or otherwise subject to seizure. MANUEL R. wrote to the petitioner asking that such warrant of seizure and detention issued against his car be withdrawn or dissolved and the car released on his contention that the issuance of the warrant was unauthorized. more or less. Thus he did ascertain that although the amount of P311. Ani proceeded to the house of Musa. contraband. In the instant case. a letter to the effect that the Land Transportation Commission reported that such automobile was a "hot car.00.500. Manila. After receiving the money. Musa went back to his house and came back and gave Amado Ani two newspaper wrappers containing dried marijuana. model 1957. denying the request for the release of the car and adverting that the petitioner had. PAMARAN and RICARDO SANTOS FACTS: . they had no clue as to its contents. HELD: The Tariff and Customs Code does not require said warrant in the instant case. The two NARCOM teams. Ani walked back towards his companions and raised his right hand.29 appearance of Mari Musa. not being a dwelling house and also . It was assigned to then respondent Fiscal Manuel R. 1964. Arriving at the target site. 1964 received from the Administrator. It was then brought to the General Affairs Administration compound. 1964 of a criminal complaint for usurpation of judicial functions with the City Fiscal of Manila. the automobile was taken while it was parked on Economia Street. 1964. Ani. the amount collectible on said car should be P2. Ani gave Musa the P20. T/Sgt. Petitioner on July 22. under the law. he instituted seizure proceedings and issued a warrant of seizure and detention. It was brought into this country without the payment of customs duty and taxes." By virtue thereof. pass through or search any land. he paid P311. HELD: It has been suggested that even if an object is observed in "plain view." the "plain view" doctrine will not justify the seizure of the object where the incriminating nature of the object is not apparent from the "plain view" of the object. through counsel. this action was instituted. sped towards Sgt. as Acting Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila. the NARCOM agents searched the whole house and found the plastic bag in the kitchen. when the NARCOM agents saw the plastic bag hanging in one corner of the kitchen. store or building. What followed was the filing by respondent Ricardo Santos on September 15. through his subordinates. Then on August 26. He likewise threatened to proceed against the petitioner for violation of Article 241 of the Revised Penal Code and for damages. Sgt. Petitioner on August 31. the appellant was arrested and his person searched in the living room. Failing to retrieve the marked money which they hoped to find. It was from him that respondent Santos acquired said car.00 for customs duty and taxes. not within their "plain view" when they arrested the appellant as to justify its seizure. Ani joined Belarga's team and returned to the house. 1964 answered counsel of respondent Ricardo Santos.00 was already paid for customs duty. Ani approached Musa. As the latter respondent was bent on proceeding with the charge against petitioner. riding the two civilian vehicles.

Celso Tan and two other policemen who later found out that he was a suspect in the killing of Charlie. meted David Salvatierra the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the payment of the amounts of P30. that except in the case of the search of a dwelling house.4 received a complaint that David was creating a commotion along Miguelin Street. Police Station No. upon being informed that David was transferred to the WPD. all three persons scampered away. reported the crime to the police and since the victim could not be interviewed as he was then undergoing operation. Thereafter. Pat. On August 1990. or stop and search and examine any vehicle. Charlie’s father. the RTC of Manila.00 as indemnity to the heirs of the victim.30 to inspect. plus the cost of suit.000. who thrust a pointed instrument at Charlie. He was able to parry the thrust but David swung the instrument anew hitting Charlie at the left breast. On November 15. went to the station where she executed a sworn statement implicating David to the crime. Charlie still managed to walk home to tell his father about the incident but suddenly collapsed. he was turned over to the WPD. One of them was David Salvatierra. Charlie was walking towards Quiapo when suddenly. persons exercising police authority under the customs law may effect search and seizure without a search warrant in the enforcement of customs laws. she pinpointed David as the person who stabbed Charlie. 1990 at about 4:35 in the afternoon. The assault was witnessed by Milagros Martinez. therefore. another vendor who stopped by to rest at the right side of the street. without mentioning the need of a search warrant in said cases. package. Amores prepared a booking sheet and arrest order which David signed. Charlie died the following day because of hemorrhage secondary to the stab wound on the anterior chest wall. Marciano. search and examine any vessel or aircraft and any trunk. the Code provides that said "dwelling house may be entered and searched only upon warrant issued by a judge or justice of the peace. another stab wound on the left forearm and an incised wound on the left wrist. The medical report showed that Charlie sustained. Marciano went back to Police Station to inform the authorities that his son had died." It is our considered view." Stephanie Lucman PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. A relative of the victim informed the police that David was one of the suspects in the crime. Later that day. aside from the stab wound on the chest. beast or person suspected of holding or conveing any dutiable or prohibited article introduced into the Philippines contrary to law. they proceeded to the crime scene to get information about the incident but their effort was fruitless as no one in the area would volunteer to identify the culprits. He was thereby taken in custody by Pat. Milagros. three persons met him. In a police line-up.183. Thereafter. He was advised to report the matter to the Homicide Section of the Western Police District where advance information was prepared indicating that 4 unidentified persons perpetrated the crime. But in the search of a dwelling house. She told the incident only to her daughter and did not immediately report the incident to the police authorities because she was afraid. DAVID SALVATIERRA y EGUIA Facts: • • For the fatal stabbing of a vendor named Charlie Fernandez.25 as actual damages and P50. • • • • • • . He was taken immediately to the hospital where he was operated on. box or envelope or any person on board.

Their bedroom window had panes through which the light filtered in. thus. that the latter had gone home to Negros Occidental. his claim that the case against him should be dismissed for violation of his constitutional rights.31 Issue: WoN the warrantless arrest is valid. Facts: • Michelle. Allan and Pacita Aguillon went to Negros Occidental and found him w/ the help of the police. Tancinco learned from Fidel Hinolan. Because he refused to do so. Furthermore. As such. RD: His arrest on suspicion that he was involved in the killing of Charlie was made almost three months after the commission of the crime and only after he had been taken in police custody for a minor offense. he • • • • • . because no warrant had been obtained during the 3-month intervening period between the commission of the crime and his apprehension. Tancinco.) Decision: AFFIRMED. Visibility was not a problem because while there were some pedestrians in the area. PEOPLE vs. ANTHONY ESCORDIAL Petition: Review from the decision of RTC finding him guilty of robbery with rape. From her testimony. While they were asleep in the evening of December 27. She testified that she had gone to the Coffee Break Corner and usually passed by there when going home and Anthony would often whistle at her and call her a beautiful girl. After getting their money. Erma claimed she was able to see through her blindfold and that she saw the man’s face because of the light coming from the lamp post outside the boarding house. his arrest would have ordinarily been rendered unconstitutional and illegal. must fail because he is estopped from questioning the legality of his arrest considering that he never raised this before entering his plea. When the policemen arrived. Michelle said that although she was blindfolded and could not see. one of the police who responded to the report shortly after the commission of the crime. she could feel that the man had no cover on his face when he was raping her. Indeed. the objection is deemed waived. it is clear that although Milagros did not know appellant’s name. also testified to the prosecution. Michelle. She felt that his chest was rough and had some scars. Mark testified that he was in his bedroom on the second floor. she remembered his features and recognize him as the perpetrator of the crime. Anthony testified that on the way to Bacolod City. the man gave a t-shirt to Erma to blindfold Teresa and another to Michelle to blindfold Erma. identifying Anthony as the person who had robbed and raped her. traffic light was light and could not have obstructed Milagros’ view. Erma and Teresa were living in a boarding house. Erma was awakened by the presence of a man who had covered his head with a t-shirt to prevent identification and carried a knife. He threatened her so Michelle and Teresa were also awakened. While these arguments may be valid. Michelle executed an affidavit. He blindfolded Michelle himself and then raped her. it was 4:30 in the afternoon when the day was still bright. The element of immediacy between the time of the commission of the offense and the time of the arrest had not been complied with. she could not have failed to identify him because she was only eight meters away when the assault occurred. when he saw from his bedroom window a man wearing denim shorts coming out of the boarding house and identified Anthony Escordial as the man he saw that night. she felt that it was also rough. The women w/ the police looked for the man but did not find him. the owner of Coffee Break Corner and employer of the accused. (It was an illegal arrest but it is not a sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment. He told Michelle that he used to call her a beautiful girl whenever she passed by his place but she had ignored him. When he placed her hands on his nape. Michelle told them that she could only identify his voice and his eyes. Tancinco began beating him and hitting him with the butt of a shotgun to force him to admit liability for the crime. 1996. On the other hand.

(3) search in violation of customs laws. 1996 but Anthony was arrested only on January 3. 1997. FLORENCIO DORIA and VIOLETA GADDAO Facts: • On December 1995 in Mandaluyong City. and reporters from Bombo Radyo. its contents and the marked bills and turned them over to the investigator at headquarters. The police officers neither had personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that would lead them to believe that he had just committed a crime. • On January 6. Gemarino. The Narcom agents decided to entrap him in a buy-bust operation. RD: The warrantless arrest of Doria is lawful since he was caught in the act of committing an offense. They took "Neneth” and "Jun. Philippine National Police Narcotics Command. (Valid. Tancinco put a knife to his neck. she was going about her daily chores . A person may be arrested without a warrant if he "has committed. (2) search of a moving motor vehicle. accused was watching a game in a basketball court and was not committing or attempting to commit a crime when he was arrested by the police on that day. The crime took place on December 27. a certain Inspector Tamayo. 1997. in relation to Section 21 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. He had a limp because his feet were injured so they brought him to the hospital for treatment. went to the Bacolod police station to visit Anthony and found him tied to a chair.32 was taken to a lodging house where he was tortured. The one brick of dried marijuana leaves recovered from "Jun" plus the ten bricks recovered from "Neneth's" house were examined at the PNP Crime Laboratory and were found to be dried marijuana fruiting tops. as the latter had a heavier build and longer hair. The arresting officers had no reason for not securing a warrant. Previously on November. Section 5 w/c enumerates the circumstances wherein a person may arrest another w/o a warrant. PEOPLE vs. It was only then that the police learned that "Jun" is Florencio Doria while "Neneth" is Violeta Gaddao. (Unlawful) Decision: REVERSED and the accused is ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt. in fact. is actually committing. At the time of his arrest. “Neneth”. 1995. On December 5. members of the North Metropolitan District. Issue: WoN the warrantless arrest was lawful. telling him that he would be killed if he refused to admit that he was the culprit. (4) seizure of evidence in plain view. the accused mutually helped one another and sold 11 plastic bags of suspected marijuana fruiting tops. SPO3 Manlangit arrested “Jun” and the latter led them to his associate." The warrantless search and arrest of Gaddao is unlawful. • • Issue: WoN the warrantless arrest was valid. together with Anthony’s grandfather. or is attempting to commit an offense." together with the box. they could not have “personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances of the commission of the crime” so as to be justified in the belief that he was guilty of the crime. Search and seizure may be made without a warrant and the evidence obtained therefrom may be admissible in the following instances: (1) search incident to a lawful arrest. Tancinco took Anthony to a house so that he could be identified by another complainant but she likewise said that he was not the assailant. Gaddao was not caught red-handed during the buy-bust operation to give ground for her arrest under Section 5 (a) of Rule 113. (5) when the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and seizures. RD: The arrest of Anthony does not fall under Rule 113. They were subsequently charged with violation of Section 4. Dojillo. She was not committing any crime. received information that one “Jun” was engaged in illegal drug activities in Mandaluyong City.) Decision: Florencio Doria was convicted and Violeta Gaddao was aquitted. and Villaspen. As the arresting officers were not present when the crime was committed. as regards Doria’s arrest.

but as the person with whom he left the marked bills. a sizeable quantity of printing paraphernalia. the petition is likewise declared moot and academic. and the last one on July 15. Tito Tanguilig. Facts: • At the time of the arrest of the 9 detainees. and the case heard on August 26. the motion for reconsideration should have been granted. and LT. the Supreme Court may review its issuance when challenged. correspondence. The court decided to dismiss the petition on the application of habeas corpus. Prior thereto. Decision: Pursuant to Section 8 of PD No. Mariano Soriano. another four on July 7.33 when the policemen pounced on her. Juanito Granada. supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. is based on actual facts.e. 1877. General Ramos.. 1982. Doria did not point to Gaddao as his associate in the drug business. Narcom agents had no reasonable grounds to believe that she was engaged in drug pushing. and Tom Vasquez. COL. This identification does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Gaddao conspired with her co-accused in pushing drugs. As to Dr. periodicals. Aurora Parong as their headquarters. ROLITO GO vs. nine of whom were arrested on July 6. Eufronio Ortiz. pamphlets. Caught in flagrante delicto. Benjamin Pineda. stationeries. • Issue: WoN the arrest was illegal since they were not caught in flagrante delicto. for illegal possession of firearm and ammunitions. Since the warrantless arrest of Gaddao was illegal. all the 14 detainees were under surveillance as they were then identified as members of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) engaging in subversive activities and using the house of detainee Dr. Garcia Padilla et al vs. 1982.. but in the light of the foregoing manifestation as to Norberto Portuguese. Also found were one revolver. which were then seized. Bienvenida Garcia. ammunition for M16 armalite. COURT OF APPEALS . their arrest was illegal and void. and that even it be assumed that he has such a power. the suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense. since a warrant of arrest against her was issued by the municipal court of Bayombong on August 4. Padilla moved for reconsideration. the 9 detainees mentioned scampered towards different directions leaving on top of their conference table numerous subversive documents. 1982. respondents were required to make a return. Zenaida Mallari. i. It was finally alleged that since petitioners were not caught in flagrante delicto. the petition as to them has been declared moot and academic. Parong's. General Fabian. having been released. Neither could her arrest be justified under "Personal knowledge" of facts because it must be based upon "probable cause" which means an "actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion. Imelda de los Santos. The writ was issued. Letty Ballogan. including a plan on how they would infiltrate the youth and student sector (code-named YORK). they were having conference in the dining room of Dr. 1982. Sabino Padilla. Gaddao was arrested solely on the basis of the alleged identification made by her co-accused. The motion asserted further that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus does not vest the President with the power to issue warrants of arrest or presidential commitment orders. books. Francis Divina gracia. and other papers. Minister Enrile. Jr. Coronel Petition: An application for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus on behalf of fourteen detainees. cash and assorted medicine packed and ready for distribution. Aurora Parong. in the absence of actual belief of the arresting officers." The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when. 1982. it follows that the search of her person and home and the subsequent seizure of the marked bills and marijuana cannot be deemed legal as an incident to her arrest. and the writ of habeas corpus ordering the release of the detainees covered by such Section 8 issued.

the police launched a manhunt for him. Pistol and Casio wristwatch said to belong to Alfaro. some nineteen hours later. the police returned to the scene of the shooting and were informed that Go had dined at Cravings Bake Shop shortly before the shooting. The killing took place at one o’clock in the morning. An eyewitness to the shooting. 5. Go alighted from his car. The Provincial Prosecutor is ORDERED to conduct a preliminary investigation of the charge of murder against Go. none of the arresting officers had any "personal knowledge" of facts indicating that he was the gunman who had shot Maguan. ISSUE: Whether or not the arrest and seizure of the gun and the watch was valid. Go is ORDERED released upon posting of a cash bail bond. Having established that the assailant was probably Go. Moreover. HELD: The warrantless arrest was invalid." His identity had been established through investigation. The information upon which the police acted had been derived from statements made by alleged eyewitnesses to the shooting — one stated that petitioner was the gunman. Manlulu and Samson were arrested nineteen hours after the incident. without a warrant and without informing Manlulu of his right to counsel. The following day." People v. The police obtained a facsimile or impression of the credit card used by Go from the cashier. A security guard at a nearby restaurant was able to take down petitioner's car plate number. Patrolman Perez seized from Manlulu the . The police arrived shortly retrieved an empty shell and one round of live ammunition for a 9 mm caliber pistol. one witness positively identified petitioner as the culprit. positively identified petitioner as the gunman. The arrest and the consequent search and seizure came at around seven o’clock that evening. there had been an existing manhunt for him. another was able to take down the alleged gunman's car's plate number which turned out to be registered in petitioner's wife's name. shot Maguan and left. His arrest took place 6 days after the shooting. At the time he showed up at the police station. RD: The warrantless arrest or detention of Go does not fall within the terms of Section 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. Manlulu FACTS: Alfaro. (It was unlawful.34 Facts: • Maguan was driving his car heading towards P. prohibition and mandamus before the Supreme Court but was remanded to the CA. During the confrontation at the San Juan Police Station. Guevarra St while Go entered a one-way street and started travelling in the wrong direction. Go presented himself before the police and was detained. That information did not. constitute "personal knowledge. Patrolman Perez arrested Manlulu on the information given by Manlapaz. • • • • Issue: WoN a lawful warrantless arrest had been effected by the San Juan Police. The security guard of the bake shop was shown Go’s picture and identified him as the same person who had shot Maguan. This instance cannot come within the purview of a valid warrantless arrest. who was at the police station at that time. Go’s and Maguan's cars nearly bumped each other. who was also drinking with the accused and the victim. Verification at the Land Transportation Office showed that the car was registered to one Elsa Ang Go. Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that the arresting officer must have “personal . was stabbed and shot in a drinking spree. Go contends that his warrantless arrest was unlawful and that no preliminary investigation had been conducted before the information was filed.) Decision: Decision of CA is reversed. CA dismissed the petitions ruling that the petitioner's warrantless arrest was valid because the offense for which he was arrested and charged had been "freshly committed.45 cal. however. The arresting officers obviously were not present at the time Go had allegedly shot Maguan. Paragraph (b) Sec. His drinking companions. He filed a petition for certiorari. a NARCOM agent.

Taduran acted as the poseur buyer and was told to look for a certain Don. They arrested Don. Major Zeidem formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation. He was then made to hold a P10. Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. In spite of the nullification of the arrest of accused Manlulu.00 bill treated with ultraviolet powder. Perez may have personally gathered the information which led to the arrest of Manlulu. Taduran did not go with them. said dried marijuana leaves. However. These bills were treated with ultraviolet powder at the Philippine Constabulary Crime Laboratory (PCCL).00 in different denominations to buy marijuana. Don halted a passing tricycle driven by Antonio Lonceras. Antonio Lonceras and Samuel Segovia without a warrant of arrest. He boarded it and left Taduran and Segovia. Samuel Segovia and Antonio Lonceras. Samuel Segovia testified that he was forced to board the vehicle w/ armed men and was hit by the butt of a gun. When he came back. was sworn to by him before the assistant city prosecutor. they were able to confiscate dried marijuana leaves w/o a search warrant. The law requires “personal knowledge”.00 bill and was brought to the crime laboratory for examination. Jovencio Rodrigueza was released but Don was detained. the flaw.” While Pat. Appellant had no counsel when his sworn statement was taken during that custodial investigation. deviating from his conventional stance in the prosecution of criminal cases. father of Don. in a buy-bust operation. He went alone and met Samuel Segovia who introduced Don to him. PEOPLE vs. The three accused presented different versions of their alleged participations. becomes moot in view of the eyewitness account of Manlapaz which the Court found credible.35 knowledge” nor was the offense “in fact just been committed. Don Rodrigueza. When he was taken to the PCCL and examined he was found positive of the ultraviolet powder. The court rendered judgment acquitting Samuel Segovia and Antonio Lonceras but convicting appellant. recommends the acquittal of appellant for the reasons stated in his Manifestation for Acquittal filed with the Court. CIC Taduran was in their headquarters at the Office of the Narcotics Regional Unit when a confidential informer arrived and told them that there was an ongoing illegal traffic of prohibited drugs in Albay. Facts: • • However. as well as his extra-judicial confession which was taken in violation of the Constitution. still the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He was also made to sign some papers but he did not know what they were all about. that is not enough. Obviously. DON RODRIGUEZA Petition: Appeal on the decision of RTC finding Rodrigueza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 4. allegedly taken from and executed by him. An affidavit. Don gave Taduran marijuana. The arrestees were also examined by personnel of the PCCL and were found positive for ultraviolet powder. fatal as it may be. the Solicitor General. Don testified that he was made to hold a P10. he was • • • • . From that time on. which team was given P200. Major Zeidem ordered a team to conduct an operation to apprehend the suspects. allegedly having in their custody and possession marijuana leaves and for selling. Taduran returned to the headquarters and made a report. “personal gathering of information” is different from personal knowledge. The agents of the Narcotics Command conducted a raid in the house of Jovencio Rodrigueza. The rule requires that the arrest immediately follows the commission of the offense. not some nineteen hours later. and the exclusion of real evidence. During the raid.

CIC Taduran immediately released Rodrigueza instead of arresting and taking him into his custody. In the present case. RD: A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment employed by peace officers to trap and catch a malefactor in flagrante delicto. . The term in flagrante delicto requires that the suspected drug dealer must be caught red-handed in the act of selling marijuana or any prohibited drug to a person acting or posing as a buyer. Issue: WoN the court erred in admitting as evidence the sworn statement of Don w/c was obtained in violation of his rights. Don is ordered acquitted. In the instant case. such waiver must be made not only voluntarily. This act of Taduran is contrary to the natural course of things and inconsistent with the purpose of a buy-bust operation. the waiver made by Don being without the assistance of counsel.36 not allowed to go home and was detained inside the camp. knowingly and intelligently but also in the presence and with the assistance of counsel. An examination of said sworn statement shows that appellant was informed of his constitutional right to remain silent and to be assisted by counsel during custodial examination. He was also tortured in order to make him admit his complicity in the alleged sale of marijuana. He was also asked if he was waiving his right to be assisted by counsel and he answered in the affirmative. However. the procedure adopted by the NARCOM agents failed to meet this qualification. The sworn statement allegedly executed by Don is inadmissible in evidence against him. Decision: Reversed. after the alleged consummation of the sale of dried marijuana leaves. while the rights of a person under custodial investigation may be waived. Based on the very evidence of the prosecution. this omission alone is sufficient to invalidate said sworn statement.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful