This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Chief of Staff, AFP [GR 64261, 26 December 1984] En Banc, Escolin (J): 10 concur, 1 took no part Facts: On 7 December 1982, Judge Ernani CruzPaño, Executive Judge of the then CFI Rizal [Quezon City], issued 2 search warrants where the premises at 19, Road 3, Project 6, Quezon City, and 784 Units C & D, RMS Building, Quezon Avenue, Quezon City, business addresses of the “Metropolitan Mail” and “We Forum” newspapers, respectively, were searched, and office and printing machines, equipment, paraphernalia, motor vehicles and other articles used in the printing, publication and distribution of the said newspapers, as well as numerous papers, documents, books and other written literature alleged to be in the possession and control of Jose Burgos, Jr. publisher-editor of the “We Forum” newspaper, were seized. A petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction was filed after 6 months following the raid to question the validity of said search warrants, and to enjoin the Judge Advocate General of the AFP, the city fiscal of Quezon City, et.al. from using the articles seized as evidence in Criminal Case Q-022782 of the RTC Quezon City (People v. Burgos). Issue: Whether allegations of possession and printing of subversive materials may be the basis of the issuance of search warrants. Held: Section 3 provides that no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the judge, or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law, 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. Probable cause for a search is defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. In mandating that “no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the judge, after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce”; the Constitution requires no less than personal knowledge by the complainant or his witnesses of the facts upon which the issuance of a search warrant may be justified. Herein, a statement in the effect that Burgos “is in possession or has in his control printing equipment and other paraphernalia, news publications and other documents which were used and are all continuously being used as a means of committing the offense of subversion punishable under PD 885, as amended” is a mere conclusion of law and does not satisfy the requirements of probable cause. Bereft of such particulars as would justify a finding of the existence of probable cause, said allegation cannot serve as basis for the issuance of a search warrant. Further, when the search warrant applied for is directed against a newspaper publisher or editor in connection with the publication of subversive materials, the application and/or its supporting affidavits must contain a specification, stating with particularity the alleged subversive material he has published or is intending to publish. Mere generalization will not suffice.
People vs. Chua Ho San [GR 128222, 17 June 1999] En Banc, Davide Jr. (CJ): 13 concur, 1 on leave Facts: In response to reports of rampant smuggling of firearms and other contraband, Jim Lagasca Cid, as Chief of Police of the Bacnotan Police Station, of La Union began patrolling the Bacnotan coastline with his officers. While
monitoring the coastal area of Barangay Bulala on 29 March 1995, he intercepted a radio call at around 12:45 p.m. from Barangay Captain Juan Almoite of Barangay Tammocalao requesting police assistance regarding an unfamiliar speedboat the latter had spotted, which looked different from the boats ordinarily used by fisherfolk of the area and was poised to dock at Tammocalao shores. Cid and 6 of his men led by his Chief Investigator, SPO1 Reynoso Badua, proceeded forthwith to Tammocalao beach, conferred with Almoite, and observed that the speedboat ferried a lone male passenger. When the speedboat landed, the male passenger alighted, and using both hands, carried what appeared a multicolored strawbag, and walked towards the road. By this time, Almoite, Cid and Badua, the latter two conspicuous in their uniform and issued side-arms, became suspicious of the man as he suddenly changed direction and broke into a run upon seeing the approaching officers. Badua, prevented the man from fleeing by holding on to his right arm. Although Cid introduced themselves as police officers, the man appeared impassive. Speaking in English, then in Tagalog, and later in Ilocano, Cid then requested the man to open his bag, but he seemed not to understand. Cid then resorted to “sign language,” motioning with his hands for the man to open the bag. The man apparently understood and acceded to the request. A search of the bag yielded several transparent plastic packets containing yellowish crystalline substances. As Cid wished to proceed to the police station, he signaled the man to follow, but the latter did not comprehend. Hence, Cid placed his arm around the shoulders of the man and escorted the latter to the police headquarters. At the police station, Cid then “recited and informed the man of his constitutional rights” to remain silent, to have the assistance of a counsel, etc. Eliciting no response from the man, Cid ordered his men to find a resident of the area who spoke Chinese to
act as an interpreter. In the meantime, Badua opened the bag and counted 29 plastic packets containing yellowish crystalline substances. The interpreter, Mr. Go Ping Guan, finally arrived, through whom the man was “apprised of his constitutional rights.” When the policemen asked the man several questions, he retreated to his obstinate reticence and merely showed his ID with the name Chua Ho San printed thereon. Chua’s bag and its contents were sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory at Camp Diego Silang, Carlatan, San Fernando, La Union for laboratory examination. In the meantime, Chua was detained at the Bacnotan Police Station. Later, Police Chief Inspector and Forensic Chemist Theresa Ann Bugayong Cid (wife of Cid), conducted a laboratory examination of 29 plastic packets, adn in her Chemistry Report D-025-95, she stated that her qualitative examination established the contents of the plastic packets, weighing 28.7 kilos, to be positive of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a regulated drug. Chua was initially charged with illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride before the RTC (Criminal Case 4037). However, pursuant to the recommendation of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of San Fernando, La Union, the information was subsequently amended to allege that Chua was in violation of Section 15, Article III of RA 6425 as amended by RA 7659 (illegal transport of a regulated drug). At his arraignment on 31 July 1995, where the amended complaint was read to him by a Fukien-speaking interpreter, Chua entered a plea of not guilty. Trial finally ensued, with interpreters assigned to Chua (upon the RTC’s direct request to the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in the Philippines, after its failure to acquire one from the Department of Foreign Affairs). Chua provided a completely different story, claiming that the bags belong to his employer Cho Chu Rong, who he accompanied in the speedboat; that they decided to dock
when they were low on fuel and telephone battery; that the police, with nary any spoken word but only gestures and hand movements, escorted him to the precinct where he was handcuffed and tied to a chair; that the police, led by an officer, arrived with the motor engine of the speedboat and a bag, which they presented to him; that the police inspected opened the bag, weighed the contents, then proclaimed them as methamphetamine hydrochloride. In a decision promulgated on 10 February 1997, the RTC convicted Chua for transporting 28.7 kilos of methamphetamine hydrochloride without legal authority to do so. Chua prays for the reversal of the RTC decision and his acquittal before the Supreme Court. Issue: Whether persistent reports of rampant smuggling of firearm and other contraband articles, Chua’s watercraft differing in appearance from the usual fishing boats that commonly cruise over the Bacnotan seas, Chua’s illegal entry into the Philippines, Chua’s suspicious behavior, i.e. he attempted to flee when he saw the police authorities, and the apparent ease by which Chua can return to and navigate his speedboat with immediate dispatch towards the high seas, constitute “probable cause.” Held: No. Enshrined in the Constitution is the inviolable right to privacy of home and person. It explicitly ordains that people have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose. Inseparable, and not merely corollary or incidental to said right and equally hallowed in and by the Constitution, is the exclusionary principle which decrees that any evidence obtained in violation of said right is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. The Constitutional proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures does not, of course, forestall reasonable searches and seizure. This
interdiction against warrantless searches and seizures, however, is not absolute and such warrantless searches and seizures have long been deemed permissible by jurisprudence. The Rules of Court recognize permissible warrantless arrests, to wit: (1) arrests in flagrante delicto, (2) arrests effected in hot pursuit, and (3) arrests of escaped prisoners. The prosecution and the defense painted extremely divergent versions of the incident, but the Court is certain that Chua was arrested and his bag searched without the benefit of a warrant. There are no facts on record reasonably suggestive or demonstrative of Chua’s participation in an ongoing criminal enterprise that could have spurred police officers from conducting the obtrusive search. The RTC never took the pains of pointing to such facts, but predicated mainly its decision on the finding that “accused was caught red-handed carrying the bagful of shabu when apprehended.” In short, there is no probable cause. Persistent reports of rampant smuggling of firearm and other contraband articles, Chua’s watercraft differing in appearance from the usual fishing boats that commonly cruise over the Bacnotan seas, Chua’s illegal entry into the Philippines, Chua’s suspicious behavior, i.e. he attempted to flee when he saw the police authorities, and the apparent ease by which Chua can return to and navigate his speedboat with immediate dispatch towards the high seas, do not constitute “probable cause.” None of the telltale clues, e.g., bag or package emanating the pungent odor of marijuana or other prohibited drug, 20 confidential report and/or positive identification by informers of courier(s) of prohibited drug and/or the time and place where they will transport/deliver the same, suspicious demeanor or behavior and suspicious bulge in the waist — accepted by the Court as sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest exists in the case. There was no classified information that a foreigner would disembark at Tammocalao beach bearing
There was no warrant of arrest and the warrantless arrest did not fall under the exemptions allowed by the Rules of Court as already shown. Pursuant to Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code and Rule 122. The police officers then ordered the “trisikad” to stop. (3) search in violation of customs laws. the same being the fruit of a poisonous tree. and sentenced both to suffer the penalty of death by lethal injection. SPO1 Paguidopon pointed to Mula and Molina as the pushers. On 25 April 1997. 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. Mula and Molina manifested no outward indication that would justify their arrest.m. as the pusher. contending that the marijuana allegedly seized from them is inadmissible as evidence for having been obtained in violation of their constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures. (2) search of a moving motor vehicle. Molina [GR 133917. Such response which allegedly reinforced the “suspicion” of the arresting officers that Mula and Molina were . At about 7:30 a. The fact that the vessel that ferried him to shore bore no resemblance to the fishing boats of the area did not automatically mark him as in the process of perpetrating an offense. and (6) stop and frisk situations (Terry search). which revealed dried marijuana leaves inside. From all indications. 3. at around 8:00 a. (4) seizure of evidence in plain view. by virtue or on the strength of a search warrant predicated upon the existence of a probable cause. the trial court rendered the decision. Matina. while the team were positioned in the house of SPO1 Paguidopon. To reiterate. Casting aside the regulated substance as evidence. feeble and ineffectual to sustain Chua’s conviction. A motion for reconsideration was filed by the accused. but this was likewise denied. SPO1 Paguidopon had no occasion to see him prior to 8 August 1996. Maa. The search cannot therefore be denominated as incidental to an arrest. Subsequently. The first time he came to see the said marijuana pusher in person was during the first week of July 1996. jointly filed a Demurrer to Evidence.m. the case was elevated to the Supreme Court on automatic review. Thereafter. Held: The fundamental law of the land mandates that searches and seizures be carried out in a reasonable fashion. the accused Mula and Molina. he called for assistance at the PNP. and the seizure of prohibited drugs that were in their possession. Davao City. a “trisikad” carrying Mula and Molina passed by. SPO1 Marino Paguidopon. Herein. they could not be said to be committing. (5) when the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and seizures. SPO2 Paguidopon (brother of SPO1 Marino Paguidopon). Mula. which immediately dispatched the team of SPO4 Dionisio Cloribel (team leader).. paragraph 2. of 8 August 1996. the search was nothing but a fishing expedition. the team boarded their vehicle and overtook the “trisikad. SPO1 Paguidopon was then with his informer when a motorcycle passed by. “Boss. through counsel. if possible we will settle this. who was holding a black bag. 30 meters from where Mula and Molina were accosted. The accused waived presentation of evidence and opted to file a joint memorandum. handed the same to Molina. is not without exceptions. Precinct 3. Section 10 of the Rules of Court. Matina. finding the accused guilty of the offense charged. and SPO1 Pamplona. Still. received an information regarding the presence of an alleged marijuana pusher in Davao City. At that point. to proceed to the house of SPO1 Marino Paguidopon where they would wait for the alleged pusher to pass by. On 6 December 1996. the search was not incidental to an arrest.m. Davao City any time that morning. As to Nasario Molina y Manamat (@ “Bobong”). Consequently. 19 February 2001] En Banc. Gregorio Mula y Malagura (@”Boboy”). Chua was not identified as a drug courier by a police informer or agent. Section 3. SPO1 Paguidopon received an information that the alleged pusher will be passing at NHA. SPO1 Pamplona introduced himself as a police officer and asked Molina to open the bag. At around 9:30 a. At that instance. Issue: Whether Mula and Molina manifested outward indication that would justify their arrest.” SPO1 Pamplona insisted on opening the bag. The demurrer was denied by the trial court. if possible we will settle this” to the request of SPO1 Pamplona to open the bag. It matters not that Molina responded “Boss. The first exception (search incidental to a lawful arrest) includes a valid warrantless search and seizure pursuant to an equally valid warrantless arrest which must precede the search. which bolsters and solidifies the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. the remaining evidence on record are insufficient. In holding a bag on board a trisikad. the law requires that there be first a lawful arrest before a search can be made — the process cannot be reversed. Thereupon. His informer pointed to the motorcycle driver. Complementary to the foregoing provision is the exclusionary rule enshrined under Article III. Davao City. The foregoing constitutional proscription. attempting to commit or have committed a crime. Mula and Molina were handcuffed by the police officers.” SPO1 Paguidopon was left in his house. that is. then a member of the Philippine National Police (PNP) detailed at Precinct No. People vs. however.prohibited drug on the date in question. Molina replied. Ynares-Santiago (J): 14 concur Facts: Sometime in June 1996.
Prudente’s office a bulging brown envelope with 3 live fragmentation hand grenades separately wrapped with old newspapers. (2) the examination of the said witness was not in the form of searching questions and answers. The probable cause must be in connection with one specific offense. in writing and under oath. denying Prudente’s motion and supplemental motion to quash. and forthwith seize and take possession of the following personal properties. now Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals. Prudente’s motion for reconsideration was likewise denied in the order dated 20 April 1988. 14 December 1989] En Banc. and that objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. Prudente moved to quash the search warrant. the applicant and his witness had no personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances which became the basis for issuing the questioned search warrant.) entitled “People of the Philippines vs. which is to be determined personally by the judge. filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. He claimed that (1) the complainant’s lone witness. presided over by Judge Abelardo Dayrit. for the reason that it did not particularly describe the place to be searched and that it failed to charge one specific offense. Thus.and the judge must. Mula and Molina could not be the subject of any suspicion. In his affidavit. had no personal knowledge of the facts which formed the basis for the issuance of the search warrant. alleged that he found in the drawer of a cabinet inside the wash room of Dr. etc. On 9 March 1988. they “gathered informations from verified sources” that the holders of the said firearms and explosives are not licensed to possess them. Florenio C. Florenio C. the Judge issued an order. Withal. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Second Floor and other rooms at the second floor. and that he “has verified the report and found it to be a fact. Angeles declared that. On 6 November 1987. for a valid search warrant to issue. Nemesio E. in his supporting deposition.” On the same day. Note that were it not for SPO1 Marino Paguidopon. personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers.38 and . Prudente vs. and P/Major Romeo Maganto. the complainant and any witness he may produce. Angeles in his deposition were sufficient basis for the issuance of a valid search warrant. in his application for search warrant. on facts personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn statements together with any affidavits submitted. Consequently. Issue: Whether the allegations contained in the application of P/ Major Alladin Dimagmaliw and the declaration of P/Lt. the search warrant was enforced by some 200 WPD operatives led by P/Col.” On the other hand. and such cannot lend a semblance of validity on the arrest effected by the peace officers. Padilla (J): 14 concur Facts: On 31 October 1987. to wit: (a) M 16 Armalites with ammunition. it would appear that the names and addresses of Mula and Molina came to the knowledge of SPO1 Paguidopon only after they were arrested. Florenio C. dated 2 November 1987. (b) office of the President. before issuing the warrant. an application for the issuance of a search warrant (Search Warrant 87-14) for violation of Presidential Decree 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms. a Sunday and All Saints Day. (c) explosives and hand grenades. Dr. Deputy Superintendent. a member of the searching team. the search conducted on their person was likewise illegal. (b) . Hence. after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce.45 Caliber handguns and pistols. Prudente. Dayrit [GR 82870. Held: The “probable cause” for a valid search warrant. the marijuana seized by the peace officers could not be admitted as evidence against them. and (4) the search warrant was issued in violation of Circular 19 of the Supreme Court in that the complainant failed to allege under oath that the issuance of the search warrant on a Saturday was urgent. reasonable or otherwise.” On 1 November 1987. and (d) assorted weapons with ammunitions. Angeles. there must be probable cause. but acquired knowledge thereof only through . WPD. the Judge issued the Search Warrant. Branch 33. Ricardo Abando y Yusay. as a result of their continuous surveillance for several days. P/Major Alladin Dimagmaliw stated that “he has been informed” that Nemesio Prudente “has in his control and possession” the firearms and explosives described therein. commanding Dimagmaliw “to make an immediate search at any time in the day or night of the premises of Polytechnic University of the Philippines. Chief of the Intelligence Special Action Division (ISAD) of the Western Police District (WPD). P/Lt. the Court holds that the arrest of Mula and Molina does not fall under the exceptions allowed by the rules. In other words. Edgar Dula Torre. is an equivocal statement which standing alone will not constitute probable cause to effect an in flagrante delicto arrest. more particularly (a) offices of the Department of Military Science and Tactics at the ground floor and other rooms at the ground floor. Further. has been defined “as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed. Prudente filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. (3) the search warrant was a general warrant. Precinct 8 Commander. Herein. Nemesio Prudente at PUP. Lt. P/Major Alladin Dimagmaliw.committing a crime.” This probable cause must be shown to be within the personal knowledge of the complainant or the witnesses he may produce and not based on mere hearsay.
spare parts of TVs and radios and other electrical appliances. nor will the fact that his family stays there with him alter the case.” On the other hand. the records yield no questions and answers. Val Martinez and Renato Sorima. may at any time enter.e. store or other building. the customs duties on which allegedly had not been paid. Angeles in his deposition were insufficient basis for the issuance of a valid search warrant. ASAC team leader Gener Sula. but there were none. Chia filed the petition for certiorari. when they (the goods) are openly offered for sale or kept in storage in a store as herein. Acting Collector of Customs [GR L43810. Section 2208 provides that “For the more effective discharge of his official duties. 2 days later. upon sworn application showing . and Manila policemen Rogelio Vinas and John Peralta. 26 September 1989] First Division. Manila Bay Area (RASAC-MBA) for the issuance of warrants of seizure and detention. assisted by two customs policemen. not being a dwelling house. (2) the Detective Bureau of the Manila Western Police District Headquarters (with 3 detectives). as well as. i. imported long playing records. together with his agents Badron Dobli. applicant P/Major Dimagmaliw stated that he verified the information he had earlier received that petitioner had in his possession and custody the firearms and explosives described in the application. (3) Precinct 3 of the Manila Western Police District which exercised jurisdictional control over the place to be raided. In fact. directing the Anti-Smuggling Action Center to seize the goods mentioned therein. whether searching or not. in the afternoon. While it is true that in his application for search warrant. They were turned over to the Customs Auction and Cargo Disposal Unit of the Bureau of Customs. Quiapo. Held: Not only may goods be seized without a search and seizure warrant under Section 2536 of the Customs and Tariff Code. A RASAC team was formed and given a mission order to enforce the warrants. yet there is nothing in the record to show or indicate how and when said applicant verified the earlier information acquired by him as to justify his conclusion that he found such information to be a fact.information from other sources or persons. recovered from the stores. phonograph needles (diamond). and that he found it to be a fact. On the strength of the warrants of seizure and detention. prohibition and mandamus before the Supreme Court to enjoin the Collector of Customs and/or his agents from further proceeding with the forfeiture hearing and prayed that the search warrants be declared null and void. A warehouse. car stereos. Arturo Manuel. He might have clarified this point if there had been searching questions and answers. who. the hearing officer of Acting Collector of Customs Alfredo Francisco conducted a hearing on the confiscation of the goods taken by Gener Sula and his agents. On 17 May 1976. the allegations contained in the application of P/ Major Alladin Dimagmaliw and the declaration of P/Lt. Florenio C. Chia vs. Grino-Aquino (J): 4 concur Facts: Acting on a verified report of a confidential informant that assorted electronic and electrical equipment and other articles illegally imported into the Philippines by a syndicate engaged in unlawful “shipside” activities (foreign goods are unloaded from foreign ships in transit through Philippine waters into motorized bancas and landed on Philippine soil without passing through the Bureau of Customs. the raid was conducted in the afternoon of 25 April 1976 at the 2 stores of Tomas Chia. which it implemented with the assistance of: (1) the National Customs Police (augmenting the team with 2 members). pass through or search any land or inclosure or any warehouse.)” — were searched upon warrants of search and detention issued by the Collector of Customs. After evaluation. The intended raid was entered in the respective police blotters of the police detective bureaus. Rodolfo Molina and Servillano Florentin of Camp Aguinaldo. portable TV sets. assorted electronic equipment and other articles. Issue: Whether the warrants issued by the Collector of Customs partakes the nature of a general warrants. under the 1973 Constitution. Manila. but the fact is that Chia’s stores — “Tom’s Electronics” and “Sony Merchandising (Phil. various electronic equipments like cassette tape recorders. Section 2209 provides that “A dwelling house may be entered and searched only upon warrant issued by a Judge of the court or such other responsible officers as may be authorized by law. Sections 2208 and 2209 of the Tariff and Customs Code provide when a search may be made without a warrant and when a warrant is necessary. was “a responsible officer authorized by law” to issue them. any person exercising the powers herein conferred. that the latter be ordered to return the confiscated articles to Chia. vis-a-vis the said applicant. Evidently. the Collector of Customs issued Warrants of Seizure and Detention 14925 and 14925-A. and thus are invalid. thereby evading payment of the corresponding customs duties and taxes thereon) were found inside “Tom’s Electronics” and “Sony Merchandising (Philippines)” stores located at 690 and 691 Gonzalo Puyat corner Evangelista Street. and to pay damages. a letter- request dated 23 April 1976 was addressed to the Collector of Customs by the Deputy Director of the Regional Anti-Smuggling Action Center. store or other building or inclosure used for the keeping or storage of articles does not become a dwelling house within the meaning hereof merely by reason of the fact that a person employed as watchman lives in the place. Quezon City.
Hence. Armed with the search warrants. evidence constitutive of infringement of copyright laws or the piracy of intellectual property. 20th Century Fox Film Corporation vs. lifting the 3 search warrants issued earlier against them by the court. al. Video Cassettes Recorders. these articles and appliances are generally connected with. this actually happened in the present case. The decision of the Court of Tax Appeals may be elevated to the Supreme Court for review. al. Acting on the letter-complaint. Held: Television sets. In fact. (J): 4 concur Facts: In a letter-complaint dated 26 August 1985. video cassette recorders. his recourse to this Court is premature. 152950 August 3.”. Branch 132. et. the NBI conducted surveillance and investigation of the outlets pinpointed by the film corporation and subsequently filed 3 applications for search warrants against the video outlets owned by Eduardo M. The film corporation filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals to annul the orders of the lower court. So that a television set. and thus ordered the return of the articles to their respective owners. CHRISTOPHER CHOI (G. are items of legitimate business engaged in the video tape industry. raided the video outlets and seized the items described therein. or infringement of copyright laws. the lower court issued the desired search warrants. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. whose decision is appealable to the Court of Tax Appeals in the manner and within the period prescribed by law and regulations. Since Chia did not exhaust his administrative remedies. video cassette cleaners video cassette recorders as reflected in the Returns of Search Warrants. Specifically. Raul Sagullo. Court of Appeals [GR L-76649-51. but not to other articles that are usually connected with. In short. describing the articles sought to be seized as”(c) Television sets. The search and seizure is unreasonable. the letter-complaint alleged that certain videotape outlets all over Metro Manila are engaged in the unauthorized sale and renting out of copyrighted films in videotape form which constitute a flagrant violation of Presidential Decree 49 (Decree on the Protection of Intellectual Property). rental/lease. and Fortune Ledesma. equipments and other machines used or intended to be used in the unlawful reproduction. the lower court issued an order dated 8 October 1985. rewinders. 19 August 1988] Third Division. An inventory of the items seized was made and left with Barreto. Issue: Whether the inclusion of certain articles of property which are usually connected to legitimate business. 20th Century Fox Film Corporation through counsel sought the National Bureau of Investigation’s (NBI) assistance in the conduct of searches and seizures in connection with the NBI’s anti-film piracy campaign. Acting on a motion to lift search warrants and release seized properties filed by Barreto. a legitimate business. Upon effecting the seizure of the goods. due to the failure of the NBI to deliver the articles to the Court.. not involving piracy of intellectual property. The applications were consolidated and heard by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati.probable cause and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized. or related to. The petition was dismissed. or related to a legitimate business not necessarily involving piracy of intellectual property or infringement of copyright laws. The lower court denied a motion for reconsideration filed by the film corporation in its order dated 2 January 1986. the NBI accompanied by the film corporation’s agents. described the articles to be seized and specified the provision of the Tariff and Customs Code violated. including these articles without specification and/or particularity that they were really instruments in violating an Anti-Piracy law makes the search warrant too general which could result in the confiscation of all items found in any video store. accessories. The applicant and his agents therefore exceeded their authority in seizing perfectly legitimate personal property usually found in a video cassette store or business establishment. a party dissatisfied with the decision of the Collector may appeal to the Commissioner of Customs.” The warrants issued by the Collector of Customs in this case were not general warrants for they identified the stores to be searched. and which could not be the subject of seizure. Gutierrez J. Although the applications and warrants themselves covered certain articles of property usually found in a video store. rewinders and tape cleaners are articles which can be found in a video tape store engaged in the legitimate business of lending or renting out betamax tapes. the Court believes that the search party should have confined themselves to articles that are according to them.R. and a whiteboard listing Betamax tapes. Barreto. and not involving piracy of intellectual property or infringement of copyright laws. Further. et. 2006) . No. sale. a rewinder. renders the warrant to be unreasonable. distribution of the above-mentioned video tapes which she is keeping and concealing in the premises abovedescribed. tape head cleaners. On 4 September 1985. The 20th Century Fox Film Corporation filed the petition for review with the Supreme Court. the Bureau of Customs acquired exclusive jurisdiction not only over the case but also over the goods seized for the purpose of enforcing the tariff and customs laws.
Judge Lourdes F. THEREFORE. NIETO. 59587. 4 against respondent Christopher Choi for violation of Section 168.R. Carmenville Subd. SO ORDERED. Max Cavalera and David Lee Sealey. as well as cardboard cases of fake Marlboro Red Cigarettes (each cardboard case contains two (2) [m]aster [c]ases of Marlboro and each [m]aster case contains fifty (50) reams) being distributed. 1999. respondent filed a "motion to quash search warrant" 9 and a "supplemental motion to quash" 10 on June 22. the dispositive portion of which read: WHEREFORE. 1999 worded as follows: TO ANY PEACE OFFICER: G r e e t i n g s: On May 12.S.: This petition for review on certiorari 1 seeks the reversal of the decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated April 10. applied for a search warrant with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City. kept and sold thereat in violation of Section 168. Department of Finance. Angeles City. control and custody [r]eams and packs of fake Marlboro Red Cigarettes. Christopher Choi and Johnny Chang were turned over to you for examination. after examining under oath in the form of searching and probing questions. 2 and 3 (a) and (c) in relation to Section 169 of R. This was granted by the CA in a decision dated April 10. I. Respondent ATTY. 6 After examination of the applicant and his witnesses. MARIO P.A. According to the CA. your Honor. what did you do with the said merchandise. 9917 is deemed NULL and VOID and SET ASIDE. 8 were denied by Judge Gatbalite in an order dated November 29. if you did anything? A I examined the sample of cigarettes and their packaging bearing the Marlboro Trade Marks The factual antecedents follow. Pampanga. paragraphs 2 and 3 (a) and (c). Respondent also prayed that Atty. 99-8116. 25-13 Columbia Street. is that correct? A Yes. 2002 in CA-G. 8293. SP No. Case No. 12 On June 19. the applicant. 2002. On April 27. that fake Marlboro cigarettes bought by them from Michael Chua.. 15 Judge Gatbalite failed to ask searching and probing questions of witness David Lee Sealey. namely. 99-17 in Crim. in determining whether there was probable cause to believe that the cigarettes purchased by Nieto were fake and in violation of RA 8293. You are hereby commanded to make an immediate search at anytime of the day or night of the above-premises and forthwith seize and take possession of the aforedescribed items found at the residence/warehouse of Christopher Choi at No. BENNY NICDAO is prohibited from using in evidence the articles seized by virtue of Search Warrant No. Given under my hand this 27th day of April. 1999. respondent filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition 13 before the CA. 1999 at Angeles City. Economic Intelligence Investigation Bureau. Angeles City has in his possession. in relation to Section 169 of RA 8293. Branch 56.. Both . 99-17 dated April 27. J . the petition for certiorari and prohibition is GRANTED. Q After the same had been turned over to you. arguing that probable cause was not sufficiently established as the examination conducted was not probing and exhaustive and the warrant did not particularly describe the place to be searched. Mario Nieto and Max Cavalera. Mario P. Gatbalite issued Search Warrant No. seize and bring the said articles to the undersigned to be dealt with in accordance with law. 3 It appearing to the satisfaction of the undersigned. 1999. Intelligence Operative of the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau. par. 2000. 1999. 7 The search was conducted on the same date. 25-13 Columbia Street. 11 Reconsideration was likewise denied. Philippines. 16 The examination of Sealey went this way: Court: Q There was testimony here given by Mr. Department of Finance. You are hereby further directed to submit a return within ten (10) days from today. and his witnesses Max Cavalera and David Lee Sealey that there are good and sufficient reasons to believe that Christopher Choi of No. Intelligence Operative. Nieto.D ECISIO N CORONA. Search Warrant No. He alleged that Judge Gatbalite committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to quash the search warrant. Carmenville Subd. Bennie Nicdao 14 be prohibited from using as evidence the articles seized by virtue of the search warrant. No. 5 also known as the Intellectual Property Code.
Requisites for issuing search warrant. the CA ruled that Judge Gatbalite committed grave abuse of discretion when she merely relied on the conclusion of Sealey that the cigarettes he received from Nieto were fake. it is axiomatic that the examination must be probing and exhaustive. 21 We rule for the People of the Philippines. the complainant and the witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn statements. Q Whose signature is this appearing on the printed name David Lee Sealey? A This is my signature. Court: That’s all. (2) the examination must be under oath and (3) the examination must be reduced in writing in the form of searching questions and answers. 4. general. I concluded that they are counterfeit or unauthorized product[s]. Judge Gatbalite purportedly did not comply strictly with the requirement to determine the existence of probable cause by personally examining the applicant and his witnesses through searching questions and answers. do you know this David Lee Sealey? A Yes. your Honor. Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 126 state: Sec. this petition.which were suspected to be produc[ed] and manufactured by La Suerte or [with] the permission of Philip Morris. personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers. the color of the box and the printing on the front side of the packs and the cigarettes themselves. together with the affidavits submitted. v. record. — A search warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. your Honor. 19The People assail the finding of the CA that. 23 The searching questions propounded to the applicant and the witnesses depend largely on the discretion of the judge. She should have at least required Sealey to . Examination of complainant. Probable cause means such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. your Honor. 25 The questions should not merely be repetitious of the averments stated in the affidavits or depositions of the applicant and the witnesses. Court of Appeals. in writing and under oath. 18 Hence. Court of Appeals. 5. Sec. Q There is an affidavit here marked as exhibit. instead of relying on his testimony alone. 22 The determination of the existence of probable cause requires the following: (1) the judge must examine the complainant and his witnesses personally. your Honor. Inc. — The judge must. 17 present the alleged fake Marlboro cigarettes and the genuine ones for comparison. Q Do you have any knowledge of this person named Christopher Choi? A None. The People also assert that the CA erred in applying the doctrine in 20th Century Fox Film Corporation 20 since it had already been superseded by Columbia Pictures. Q Do you affirm and confirm other contents of this affidavit? A Yes. 26 If the judge fails to determine probable cause by personally examining the In addition. I am the one. peripheral. executed by one David Lee Sealey. not merely routinary. Although there is no hard-and-fast rule governing how a judge should conduct his examination. 24 The judge must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit but must make his own inquiry on the intent and justification of the application. The People of the Philippines aver that the CA erred in finding that Judge Gatbalite committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the search warrant allegedly because she failed to determine probable cause pursuant to Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. Q What was the result of your examination? A Based on the packaging of the packs. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines. a search warrant can be issued only upon a finding of probable cause. The CA reasoned that this was an absolute requirement under the Supreme Court ruling in 20th Century Fox Film Corporation v. before issuing the warrant. According to the foregoing provisions. in issuing the search warrant. perfunctory or pro-forma.
32 Max Cavalera. the representative and authority from the Philip Morris.. a certain Christopher Choi. in violation of Section 169 of R. can you point it out here? A: Yes. 31 In this case.. the samples that like what we did to the others were inspected by certain Mr. Q: Do you know from what particular place the house of Christopher Choi did he got (sic) those samples? A: The volume stocks were found inside the house. Carmenville Subd. not the exacting calibrations of a judge after a full-blown trial. As the term implies. 27 The determination of probable cause does not call for the application of rules and standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on the merits. he was one of those identified by the informant storing and selling counterfeit Marlboro cigarettes. The standards of judgment are those of a reasonably prudent man. your Honor. P17.A. your Honor.00 per pack. probable cause is concerned with probability. Q: As what? A: As the supplier for the goods. your Honor. Q: Upon arriving at the place what did you do? A: Upon arriving at the place.applicant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions before issuing a search warrant. 30 The entirety of the questions propounded by the court and the answers thereto must be considered by the judge. Angeles City. 28 No law or rule states that probable cause requires a specific kind of evidence. a witness who accompanied Nieto during the "test-buy" operation. 1999? A: Yes. Michael Chua told me that the bulk of supply if we need more supply we can get from the source. are you the same Mario Nieto who is the applicant in this application for search warrant filed today April 27. 8293. Q: There is a sketch here attached to your application. Michael Chua. aside from the testimony of Sealey. petitioner judge also heard the testimony of applicant Nieto: Q: In connection with Search Warrant 99-17. in the storage room as shown in the lay out of the house. your Honor. I got the samples form Mr. Q: Do you know this Christopher Choi referred to herein? A: Yes. Q: Why do you know him? A: He was introduced to us by Michael Chua. 25-13 Columbia St. David Lee Sealey. Q: You went to the warehouse? A: We were shown [the] entire area by the supplier. No formula or fixed rule for its determination exists. your Honor. not absolute or even moral certainty. 1999 we conducted a surveillance and we were . David Lee Sealey. 29 Probable cause is determined in the light of conditions obtaining in a given situation. Q: Subject of the application? A: Yes. your Honor. so on April 22. it is adjacent to the residential house as shown in the sketch. Q: How many Marlboro cigarettes did you buy? A: We bought only one ream. Christopher Choi and I submitted them to Mr. Q: Where did you see him. Christopher Choi. who lives in the same village and who is actually the supplier for the entire region. Q: How did you know him? A: When I was conducting a test-buy operation against Mr. Q: Did you actually buy those samples? A: Yes. As a matter of fact he was trying to show us how much volume he has and his capacity to supply. Q: Where? A: At No. 33 also testified: Q How about this Christopher Choi? A As I’ve said earlier. at the warehouse. This Christopher Choi? A: I went to his house. I introduced myself as the one who was referred by a certain Michael Chua who is interested in buying the Marlboro cigarettes from him and he accommodated me and showed me the sample that he has and I was able to procure the samples from him. Mr. Pampanga. your Honor. your Honor. they are almost everywhere in the house of Christopher Choi. grave abuse of discretion is committed.
with the merit that in this class of evidence the ascertainment of the controverted fact is made through demonstrations involving the direct use of the senses of the presiding magistrate. depositions. The reviewing court can overturn such findings only upon proof that the judge disregarded the facts before him or ignored the clear dictates of reason. Carmenville Subd. as intimated by 20th Century Fox) not provided nor implied in the law for a finding of probable cause is beyond the realm of judicial competence or statesmanship. inconvenience or expenses out of proportion to its evidentiary value. Judicial dicta should always be construed within the factual matrix of their parturition. the presentation of master tapes of the copyrighted films is always necessary to meet the requirement of probable cause and that. however. there can be no finding of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant. Such auxiliary procedure. Her questions were sufficiently probing. 20th Century Fox Film Corporation. 34 Given the foregoing testimonies and applying the established standards in determining probable cause. Choi had been convinced of our intention to buy cigarettes from him.. v. no law or rule which requires that the existence of probable cause is or should be determined solely by a specific kind of evidence. An objective and careful reading of the decision in said case could lead to no other conclusion than that said directive was hardly intended to be a sweeping and inflexible requirement in all or similar copyright infringement cases.. he brought us to his warehouse where he showed to us several cardboard cases of Marlboro cigarettes. does not rule out the use of testimonial or documentary evidence. admissions or other classes of evidence tending to prove the factum probandum. as correctly pointed out by petitioners.m.able to confirm that the said cigarettes are being stored at the subject place. this could not have been contemplated by the framers of the Constitution. 35 the findings of the judge deserve great weight. It serves no purpose but to stultify and constrict the judicious exercise of a court’s prerogatives and to denigrate the judicial duty of determining the existence of probable cause to a mere ministerial or mechanical function. Since probable cause is dependent largely on the opinion and findings of the judge who conducted the examination and who had the opportunity to question the applicant and his witnesses. 1999 at about 8:30 p. 37 (emphasis supplied) It is obvious that 20th Century Fox Film Corporation should not be applied to the present case since this involves the offense of unfair . we cannot say that Judge Gatbalite committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the search warrant. Q At what place? A At 25-13 Columbia St. in the absence thereof.. It is true that such master tapes are object evidence. the supposed pronunciamento in said case regarding the necessity for the presentation of the master tapes of the copyrighted films for the validity of search warrants should at most be understood to merely serve as a guidepost in determining the existence of probable cause in copyright infringement cases where there is doubt as to the true nexus between the master tape and the pirated copies. it is felt that the reasonableness of the added requirement in 20th Century Fox calling for the production of the master tapes of the copyrighted films for determination of probable cause in copyright infringement cases needs revisiting and clarification. Court of Appeals: More to the point. insofar as it required the presentation of the master tapes for comparison with the pirated copies for a search warrant to issue. On April 23. to repeat. as the ruling in 20th Century Fox may appear to do. The testimonies and other evidence on record constituted adequate bases to establish probable cause that the alleged offense had been committed. that in copyright infringement cases. [A]fter Mr. Surely. and we do not believe that the Court intended the statement in 20th Century Foxregarding master tapes as the dictum for all seasons and reasons in infringement cases. 36 We thus find no reason to disturb Judge Gatbalite’s findings. to restrict the exercise of discretion by a judge by adding a particular requirement (the presentation of master tapes. especially where the production in court of object evidence would result in delay. Inc. otherwise a careless interpretation thereof could unfairly fault the writer with the vice of overstatement and the reader with the fallacy of undue generalization. Furthermore. Mario Nieto and I again went to the subject place to conduct a test-buy operation. not at all superficial and perfunctory. xxx xxx xxx Accordingly. The testimonies were consistent with each other and the narration of facts was credible. Angeles City. There is. xxx xxx xxx It is evidently incorrect to suggest. xxx xxx xxx In fine. had already been superseded by Columbia Pictures.
99-17 as VALID. Investigation.competition and not copyright infringement. Presiding Judge Isaac R. COURT OF APPEALS (G. WHEREFORE. to wit: 01. Factual Antecedents The petitioner is a lawyer in the Register of Deeds of the province of Isabela. Inc. Alibagu. 3019 (Anti-Graft) and are hidden or being kept in the said office. Branch 16. filed a sworn application for search warrant before the Regional Trial Court of Iligan. Revised Penal Code. on information which I have personally investigated and founded as follows: The Office of the Registry (sic) of Deeds of Isabela is keeping and hiding Fake Land Titles. 59587 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. 24265 dismissing the petitioner's petition as well as its Resolution dated November 28. 2002 denying the motion to admit petition for certiorari. all of which documents are being used or intended to be used in the commission of a felony that is FALSIFICATION OF LAND TITLES under Article 171. I have caused to believe and verily believe that the said Office of the Registry (sic) of Deeds located at the Provincial Capital. Article 213. RPC and R. RPC and R.A 3019 (Anti-Graft) has been committed or is about to be committed and that there are good and sufficient reasons to believe that the Registry (sic) of Deeds. Javier. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 10.. Isabela hereby requests that a Search Warrant be issued on the Office of the Registry (sic) of Deeds. 156413 April 14. Judicial Form No. 39 known as Our Primary Entry Book under no. 2000-03 against the petitioner. Official Receipts in the Cashier's Office. Isabela has in its possession and control the following: 1. VALLEJO vs. 03. 496 and other pertinent documents related therewith. No. a peace officer. to review and reverse the Resolution1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Agent. Provincial Capitol. Official Receipts in the ARIEL C. worded as follows: COMES NOW the undersigned HEAD AGENT of the National Bureau of . That upon the facts above-stated. the judge’s exercise of discretion should not be unduly restricted by adding a requirement that is not sanctioned by law. the petition is hereby GRANTED. 2004) CALLEJO SR. Alibaga. Iligan for the purpose of seizing the following documents. Cagayan Valley Regional Office Ilagan.R. Revised Penal Code.2 On the same date. SP No. as pronounced by the Court in Columbia Pictures. SO ORDERED. Ilagan. 02.R. This application is founded on a confidential information received by the undersigned. No. 2000. as amended. More importantly.. 2002 in CA-G. Undetermined number of Land Transfer transactions without the corresponding payment of Documentary Stamps and Capital Gains Tax.A. Isabela and/or in the said Office of the Registry (sic) of Deeds the abovedescribed documents are hidden and kept. Franklin M. and embezzling or stealing from the government thru non-payment of Capital Gains Tax and Documentary Stamps. 171. Blank Forms of Land Titles kept inside the drawers of every table of employees of the Registry (sic) of Deeds. Ilagan.R. On February 16. Judgment is hereby rendered declaring Search Warrant No. Undetermined number of FAKE LAND TITLES. Javier and his witness that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Falsification of Land Titles under Art.: This is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court. Isabela. Provincial Capitol. J . Alibagu. thusly worded: TO ANY PEACE OFFICER: GREETINGS: It appearing to the satisfaction of the undersigned after examining under oath NBI Head Agent Franklin M. de Alban issued Search Warrant No. Undetermined number of Fake Land Titles. Article 213.
hence.3 On February 17. 2000. in relation to Rule 124. to provide the court with the . MS. On May 4. In a Resolution dated September 6.5 On 16 February 2000. after confirming information relayed to us by witness MS. filed his comment on the petition where he alleged his version of the facts as follows: 4.4. Found and seized inside the premises of the Register of Deeds if Ilagan. the petitioner filed a motion to quash the search warrant. the undersigned received a "tip-off" (i.1 On 08 December 1999. Isabela. null and void. (sic) As a result thereof. conducted surveillance and entrapment operations to confirm the veracity of reported. likewise. Judicial Form No. 39 known as Primary Entry Book under No. (Rule 41. …5 Respondent Javier asserted that contrary to the position of the petitioner. a Return of the search warrant was made informing the respondent presiding judge of its positive findings. 2nd paragraph.e. 2. if not impossible. 171 of the Revised Penal Code. Ilagan. 2. it would be difficult. 2000. considering the volume of the documents to be seized. operatives of CAVRO headed by the undersigned served aforecited search warrant. Sec. Revised Rules of Court). 2000-03. 3. The case was docketed as CA-G. 496 and other pertinent documents related therewith. 2000. The respondent presiding Judge HON. 1 (i) and Sec. 1 (c).R. The motion was. which the trial court denied in its Order dated February 29.2 The undersigned together with other operatives of the Cagayan Valley Regional Office (CAVRO) NBI. Rule 50. from the respondent himself. Isabela. the things to be seized were particularly described in the questioned warrant. Isabela. the undersigned applied for a search warrant against the Office of the Register of Deeds. On 2 March 2000. 24265.4 The petitioner filed a motion to admit petition for certiorari on August 29. Ilagan. for and in behalf of the NBI. denied for lack of merit. 4. On 16 February 2000. the appeal is hereby DISMISSED.Cashier's Office.3 Thereafter a certain. volunteered to provide CAVRO operatives vital information and later on turned witness considering her knowledge of the "scheme" being used by corrupt employees assigned at the said office. Furthermore. 4. Isabela for Falsification of Public Document under Art. 4. ATTY. 4. CR No. Isabela were several fake titles/documents. Respondent Franklin M. 18. Blank Forms of Land Titles kept inside the drawers of every table of employees of the Registry (sic) of Deeds. REMEDIOS BIRI. the appellate court dismissed the petitioner's appeal as follows: The appealed order denying a motion to quash the search warrant is interlocutory and not appealable. the petitioner filed a notice of appeal and prayed that the entire record of the case be elevated to the Court of Appeals. Javier. 2000 before the Court of Appeals. Sec. ARIEL VALLEJO) about the presence of "fixers" who were allegedly submitting to him fake titles. Ilagan finding the existence of "probable cause" issued Search Warrant No. the "fixer" was later apprehended in "flagrante delicto" and was subjected to investigation together with other employees of the Register of Deeds of Ilagan. ISAAC DE ALBAN of the Regional Trial Court. You are hereby commanded to make an immediate search anytime of the day or night of the premises above-mentioned and forthwith seize and take possession of the above mentioned documents/subject of the offense and bring to this court said documents and persons to be dealt with as the law may direct. 2000. a clerk assigned at the Register of Deeds of Isabela. SO ORDERED. Branch 16. You are further directed to submit return within 10 days from today. Accordingly. Undetermined number of land Transfer transactions without the corresponding payment of Capital Gains Tax and payment of documentary Stamps. Sec. REMEDIOS BIRI. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the said order on the ground that the questioned search warrant was in the form of a general warrant for failure to describe the persons or things to be seized and was violative of the Constitution.
The correct dismissal of an appeal becomes a final judgment of the appellate court after the lapse of 15 days from service of a copy thereof upon the accused or his counsel. SEEKING TO CORRECT THE ERROR OF JURISDICTION COMMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT REGIONAL TRIAL COURT. as no such search warrant could be granted. the Court of Appeals allowed technicality rather than Third. including the reference number or mark of the documents. According to respondent Javier. 2002 on the following grounds: countenanced. PETITIONER'S APPEAL ON THE RESPONDENT'S REGIONAL TRIAL COURT'S ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO QUASH SEARCH WARRANT. the instant petition.7 The Court of Appeals denied the petitioner's motion in its Resolution dated November 28. by its failure to consider the petition on the merits. 39 known as the Primary Entry Book" could not or would not have been mistaken for any other documents." Second. similarly the "Blank Forms of Land Titles kept inside the drawer of every table of employees of the Register of Deeds" clearly indicates the documents to be seized.9 According to the petitioner. the dismissed appeal cannot be incorporated with movant's petition for certiorari which should have been first resorted to upon denial of his motion to quash and docketed as a special civil action (SP). COURT OF APPEALS DISMISSING First. B. To require such task is to render the application of the search warrant nil. Movant himself has conceded that: "the relief that was resorted to by your appellant from the denial of his motion to quash search warrant subject of the case was under the imports of an ordinary appeal and that it was not the proper remedy under the premises. AS THERE WAS GRAVE ABUSE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO EXCESS OR LACK OF JURISDICTION IN DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE SAID REGIONAL TRIAL COURT'S ORDER DENYING THE MOTION TO QUASH SEARCH WARRANT. ACCORDINGLY. Thus. Movant cannot simultaneously or alternately resort to a petition for review under Rule 45 (ordinary appeal) and/or petition for certiorari under Rule 65 (special civil action). Movant's petition for certiorari under rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure purportedly to cure the procedural defect he incurred cannot be . He admitted that his petition was filed beyond the reglementary period.6 Respondent Javier also posited that the article "Judicial Form No. The law does not require that the things to be seized must be described in precise and minute details as to leave no room for doubt on the part of the searching authorities. FAILING TO APPRECIATE AND CONSIDER SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE ON PETITIONER'S APPEAL OR CASE. DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ON THE RESOLUTION OF THE RESPONDENT HON. SO ORDERED. the motion for reconsideration and the motion to admit petition for certiorari are DENIED for lack of merit. C. The Petitioner's Arguments The petitioner asserts that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in committing the following: A. D. there was no way that the court could determine with precision the exact details of the things to be seized. DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO ADMIT PETITION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65 OF THE REVISED RULES OF COURT. We earlier dismissed movant's appeal because it was a wrong choice of remedy to assail an order denying a motion to quash the search warrant. They are mutually exclusive remedies having different legal grounds for their availment.8 Hence.technical descriptions of all the official receipts and the titles. FAILING TO ACT UPON PETITIONER'S PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND MAKE A RULING ON THE MATTER OF THE PATENT NULLITY OF THE SEARCH WARRANT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT REGIONAL TRIAL COURT THAT IN ITS EXECUTION EXTREME PREJUDICE RESULTED AND THAT BY REASON FOR WHICH RELIEF IS EXTREMELY URGENT. AND BY REASON OF THIS FAILURE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS SERIOUSLY INJURED AND MADE SUBSERVIENT TO THE TECHNICALITY OF THE RULES.
as there are millions of documents on various land transactions kept in the registry. The Position of the Office of the Solicitor General 10 The Office of the Solicitor General. Second. and millions of such titles are kept thereat. violated the constitutional as well as the statutory requirements for its issuance. Section 2. agrees with the petitioner and opines that the strict application of the rules of procedure should be relaxed in this case. Act No. Third. The things to be seized were not particularly described in the search warrant. namely: violation of a) Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code (Falsification by public officer. Isabela were fake. b) Article 213 of the same Code (Frauds against the public treasury and similar offenses). The phrase "undetermined number of land transfer transactions without the corresponding payment of capital gains tax and payment of documentary stamps" is. The petitioner concludes that the search warrant in question. sweeping authority for the NBI agents who raided the Registry Offices and confiscated and seized every document in sight. but also in the business transactions involving lands in the province of Isabela. is null and void. but for at least three offenses. and. According to the petitioner. and. considering that the issue involved is a constitutional right. for its part. millions of documents of various nature were seized and hauled out of the premises of the office by the respondent Javier. and as such. no less than the right of one to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. The petitioner points out that the Register of Deeds is the repository of all land titles within the territorial jurisdiction of the province of Isabela. the warrant was a wanton. likewise. the raiding team could not have distinguished which of the land titles kept in the custody of the Register of Deeds in Iligan. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). A Relaxation of Technical Rules Is Warranted in this Case According to the OSG. The petitioner further asserts that the search warrant issued by the RTC is in the nature of a general warrant. 2002 for the reason that the subject search warrant is a patent nullity. c) Rep. of the 1987 Constitution. The subject search warrant issued by the RTC was not just for one offense. The OSG also asserts that it cannot sustain the questioned CA Resolutions of September 6. The petitioner also contends that the warrant is patently objectionable for having been issued despite the fact that the application therefor contained more than one offense. being in the nature of a general warrant. There was no mention in the warrant of the names of the employees who purportedly kept the blank forms. the petitioner asserts that not every employee can take hold of such blank forms but only those designated as examiners. as it was the normal practice for employees to have such blank forms in hand. There was no particularity as to what documents were to be searched and seized. the petitioner's motion to admit petition for certiorari was filed beyond the . The warrant did not define the parameters upon which the fake land titles could be gauged with sufficient clarity and definiteness. Anent the phrase "blank forms of land titles kept inside the drawers of every table of employees of the Register of Deeds. Fourth. damages of far reaching implications were sustained not only in the functional operations of the Office of the Register of Deeds. According to the petitioner. The issue regarding the validity of a Torrens title is a judicial question. From the contents of the search warrant itself. However.substantial justice to prevail. The Court's Ruling The issues in this case are as follows: a) whether or not the technical rules of procedure may be relaxed in the case at bar. if so b) whether or not the warrant issued by the RTC was valid. in preparation for their issuance after thorough examination of the propriety of documents submitted in support thereof. leaving the officer of the law with limitless discretion in its implementation on what articles to seize. It was a "fishing expedition" for the raiding party to obtain any kind of conceivable evidence to support the offense for which it was applied. the OSG prays that the instant petition be granted." there was no mention of which titles were spurious. which continue to be in the latter's custody. employee or notary or ecclesiastical minister)." the petitioner asserts that no conceivable wrong could have been committed therein. a dangerous supposition. such as distinguishing marks. While the warrant made mention of "fake land titles. in violation of Article III. Thus. The petitioner claims that in the implementation of the questioned search warrant. 2000 and November 28. and which of them were genuine. It submitted the following reasons for such conclusion: First.
and. 200003. – The judge must. Thus. the appellate court gravely abused its discretion.: Sec. but such discretion must be a sound one. he had only until May 5. 2000 denying the motion to quash search warrant on March 6. No. 2000. The right of the people to be secure in their persons. and other evidence. if. Furthermore. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines. 24265 by delving into and resolving the issue raised therein on whether or not Judge de Alban of the RTC of Isabela. Thus. The petitioner received a copy of the trial court's Order dated February 29. having in mind the circumstances obtaining in each case. the appellate court should have relaxed the stringent application of technical rules of procedure and yielded to considerations of substantial justice. thereafter. record. rather than dispose of the case on technicality and cause grave injustice to the parties. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Sec. Sec 2.16 searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable. the petitioner filed his motion to admit petition for certiorari only on August 29. way beyond the reglementary period. 2000. Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides the requisites for the issuance of a search warrant. The appellate court should have.14 The consequence of our ruling would be for the Court to direct the Court of Appeals to resolve on its merits CA-G. personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers. the matter can readily be ruled upon. viz. We shall act on the petition. However. the court has discretion to dismiss or not to dismiss an appeal. the judge must strictly comply with the foregoing constitutional and statutory requirements. pleadings.12 The issue involved in this case is no less than the legality of the issuance of a warrant of arrest. such step would unduly prolong the resolution of the case. the motion to admit petition forcertiorari. Requisites for issuing search warrant. considering that the petitioner has presented a good cause for the proper and just determination of his case. Indeed. It is an accepted rule that the Court may resolve the dispute and serve the ends of justice instead of remanding the case to the lower court for further proceedings.13 It behooved the Court of Appeals to look past rules of technicality and to resolve the case on its merits. in writing and under oath. We agree. – A search warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. This is in keeping with the principle that rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice and that strict and rigid application of rules which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice must always be avoided.11 It is a far better and more prudent cause of action for the court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a review of the case to attain the ends of justice. Realizing that the appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court he earlier filed with the Court of Appeals was not the proper remedy. Article III of the 1987 Constitution guarantees the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. the complainant and the witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn statements.sixty-day reglementary period. The Search Warrant in Question is Constitutionally Infirm. committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing Search Warrant No. However.15 We take cognizance of this petition in view of the seriousness and urgency of the constitutional issues raised.R. considered the petitioner's appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. papers and effects against unreasonable . 2000 within which to file a petition for certiorari. before issuing the warrant. thus. in issuing a search warrant. Void for Lack of Particularity Section 2. Thus. as a special civil action forcertiorari under Rule 65 of the said Rules. houses. 4. to be exercised in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play. together with the affidavits submitted. Branch 16. based on the records. giving a false impression of speedy disposal of cases while actually resulting in more delay. and no such search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. considering that the petitioner therein was invoking a constitutional right. considering that the lone issue raised is one of law. The Court has allowed some meritorious cases to proceed despite inherent procedural defects and lapses. Examination of complainant. 5. in dismissing the petitioner's appeal. and an invocation of a constitutional right at that. if not a miscarriage of justice.
Veloso:26 A search warrant must conform strictly to the requirements of the constitutional and statutory provisions under which it was issued. Otherwise. Such tenor of a seizure warrant contravenes the explicit command of the Constitution that there be a particular description of the things to be seized. Judicial Form No. however. a careful perusal of the application for the warrant shows that the applicant did not allege any specific act performed by the petitioner constituting a violation of any of the aforementioned offenses. 3019. Undetermined number of land Transfer transactions without the corresponding payment of Capital Gains Tax and payment of Documentary Stamps. for there is not a description of process known to law.failure to comply therewith constitutes grave abuse of discretion. the law does not require that the things to be seized must be described in precise and minute detail as to leave no room for doubt on the part of the searching authorities. the execution of which is more distressing to the citizen. going into the full length of requiring technical accuracy. The warrant will always be construed strictly without.18 Indeed.23 As correctly pointed out by the petitioner and the OSG. is repugnant to the Constitution. The questioned warrant directed the peace officers to search and seize the following in the petitioner's office at the Register of Deeds of Isabela: 4. otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. 5. Technical precision of description is not required. it would be virtually impossible for the applicants to obtain a warrant as they would not know exactly what kind of things to look for. Act No. Blank Forms of Land Titles kept inside the drawers of every table of employees of the Registry of Deeds. Perhaps there is none which excites such intense feeling in consequence of its humiliating and degrading effect. Diokno:30 To uphold the validity of the warrant in question would be to wipe out completely one of the most fundamental rights guaranteed in our Constitution. for it would place the sanctity of the domicile and the privacy of communication and correspondence at the mercy of the whims. As the Court. caprice. the specific property to be searched for should be so particularly described as to preclude any possibility of seizing any other property. As to what is to be taken.29 In fact. No presumptions of regularity are to be invoked in aid of the process when an officer undertakes to justify under it. Thus. so that the warrant shall not be a mere roving commission. 6.22 A perusal of the tenor of the search warrant in question readily shows that it failed to pass this test of particularity.24 The executing officer's sole function is to apply the description to its subject matter. The proceedings upon search warrants. with the obvious intent of subjecting all the records pertaining to all the transactions of the petitioner's office at the Register of Deeds to search and seizure. 496 and other pertinent documents related therewith. Official Receipts in the Cashier's Office. the Rules of Criminal Procedure. the terms expressly used in the warrant were too all-embracing. It is only necessary that there be reasonable particularity and certainty as to the identity of the property to be searched for and seized. which function may frequently involve the exercise of limited discretion in identifying the property described. nothing is left to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant. and existing jurisprudence.Falsification of Land Titles under Article 171 and Article 213 of the Revised Penal Code.17 The things to be seized must be described with particularity. 39 known as Primary Entry Book under No. If this were the rule. it has rightly been held. or passion of peace officers. it is void.20 However. and violation of Rep.21 Thus.19 Any description of the place or thing to be searched that will enable the officer making the search with reasonable certainty to locate such place or thing is sufficient.. through Justice Concepcion held in the landmark case of Stonehill v.27 The Search Warrant Must Be Issued for One Specific Offense The questioned warrant in this case is a scattershot warrant28 for having been issued for more than one offense . the questioned warrant must be struck down for having been issued in contravention of the 1987 Constitution.25 As we held in the early case ofPeople v. A warrant must be issued upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense. as to lodge in the executing officer virtually unlimited discretion as to what property shall be seized. Undetermined number of Fake Land Titles. A description of such generality. the requirement that search warrants shall particularly describe the things to be seized makes general searches under them impossible and prevents the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another. This is precisely the evil sought to be remedied . however. must be absolutely legal.
2000 and November 28. 2002 are SET ASIDE AND REVERSED. Pat. finding Sucro guilty of the sale of prohibited drug and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment. when the officer sees the offense. in times of keen political strife. Sucro [GR 93239. People vs. As planned. . the person to be arrested has committed.. Pat. When confronted. It was at this instance that Pat. Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides for the instances where arrest without warrant is considered lawful. Iloilo City for analysis.” An offense is committed in the presence or within the view of an officer. Trial ensued and a judgment of conviction was rendered. The respondent National Bureau of Investigation is hereby ORDERED to return to the petitioner all items seized from the subject premises. What is paramount is that probable cause existed. Quimpo and Veterans Sts. assisted by counsel. Aklan) to monitor the activities of Edison Sucro. police officers have personal knowledge of the actual commission of the crime when it had earlier conducted surveillance activities of the accused.M.. Kalibo. at Camp Delgado. was instructed by P/Lt. Sucro appealed. The police team was able to overtake and arrest Sucro at the corner of C. Aldie Borromeo. the fruits obtained from such lawful arrest are admissible in evidence. whether the evidence resulting from such arrest is admissible. Sucro was charged with violation of Section 4. 31 WHEREFORE. to arrest Sucro who was in fact selling marijuana and to seize the contraband. the team of P/Lt Seraspi proceeded to the area and while the police officers were at the Youth Hostel at Maagma St. (J): 4 concur Facts: On 21 March 1989. 12. at about 5:00 P. Fulgencio radioed P/Lt. Rule 126 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. a member of the INP. Thereafter. taking something which turned out later to be marijuana from the compartment of a cart found inside the chapel. The specimens were all found positive of marijuana. as there is nothing unlawful about the arrest considering its compliance with the requirements of a warrantless arrest. within the meaning of the rule authorizing an arrest without a warrant. Sucro. Vicente Seraspi. Seraspi instructed Pat. and then return to the street where he handed the same to a buyer. without warrant. arrest a person: (a) When in his presence. (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed. Macabante threw something to the ground which turned out to be a tea bag of marijuana. was a chapel. and costs. when the party in power feels that the minority is likely to wrest it. Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act. P/ Lt. Upon arraignment. ergo. the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated September 6. SO ORDERED. Pat. Macabante readily admitted that he bought the same from Sucro in front of the chapel. and pay a fine of P20. on said date. The rule states that “A peace officer or private person may. Fulgencio to continue monitoring developments. The teabags of marijuana were sent to the PC-INP Crime Laboratory Service. or hears the disturbances created thereby and proceeds at once to the scene thereof. Thus. although at a distance. that searches and seizures must be supported by a valid warrant is not an absolute rule. The failure of the police officers to secure a warrant stems from the fact that their knowledge acquired from the surveillance was insufficient to fulfill the requirements for the issuance of a search warrant. about 2 meters away. Seraspi and reported the activity going on P/Lt. Pat. Fulgencio again called up Seraspi to report that a third buyer later identified as Ronnie Macabante. Pat. (Station Commander of the INP Kalibo. Fulgencio saw Sucro enter the chapel. was transacting with Sucro. Upon seeing the police. Herein. which provides that a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense. Roy Fulgencio. Aklan. Under the circumstances (monitoring of transactions) there existed probable cause for the arresting officers. and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. is actually committing. entered a plea of “not guilty” to the offense charged.M. without a search warrant. Issue: Whether the arrest without warrant of the accused is lawful and consequently.by the constitutional provision abovequoted – to outlaw the so-called general warrants. Held: Section 5. Quimpo Street. Jr. because of information gathered by Seraspi that Sucro was selling marijuana. Still. Seraspi to intercept Macabante and Sucro. Fulgencio told P/Lt. Among the exceptions granted by law is a search incidental to a lawful arrest under Sec. It is not difficult to imagine what would happen. or is attempting to commit an offense. 18 March 1991] Third Division. Seraspi and his team caught up with Macabante at the crossing of Mabini and Maagma Sts.000. The police recovered 19 sticks and 4 teabags of marijuana from the cart inside the chapel and another teabag from Macabante. Gutierrez Jr. in front of the Aklan Medical Center. At about 6:30 P. At that point. Adjacent to the house of Regalado. even though by legal means. Fulgencio positioned himself under the house of a certain Arlie Regalado at C. After a while Sucro went back to the chapel and again came out with marijuana which he gave to a group of persons.
Ynares-Santiago (J): 4 concur Facts: On 22 October 1992. he may be lawfully searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense. the Court of Appeals affirmed Go’s conviction but modified the penalty imposed by the trial court by sentencing him. with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Held: The constitutional proscription. Calamba. SPO3 Liquido took the ID card and found that the same belonged to SPO4 Zenaida Bagadiong. which was later identified as a 9mm Walther P88. which contained shiny white substance wrapped in cellophane. The Rules of Court and jurisprudence recognize exceptional cases where an arrest may be effected without a warrant. enter the Flamingo Disco House with two women. 14 March 2001]. The waiter turned on the lights. The owner allowed them in and told a waiter to accompany them. Go was invited to the police precinct for questioning. an improvised burner. When the later did so. magazines and newspapers. The two cases were subsequently consolidated. The police officers asked Go for his driver’s license and the registration papers of the vehicle. Through the windshield. The investigator found eight cellophane bags containing granules suspected to be shabu in one of the clutch bags. Go could not show any license for the firearm. Instead. and he said no. is not a hard-and-fast rule. Court of Appeals [GR 123943] First Division. is actually committing. Go [GR 116001. They identified themselves and asked Go to stand up. or when an offense has in fact just been committed. When they arrived at the precinct. the police officers found that it also contained three glass tooters. also Go vs. or shabu.. with a magazine containing 10 rounds of live ammunition. On the other hand. whether at the time of his arrest or thereafter. There were two black clutch bags inside. went to the police outpost at Crossing. Panuringan said that he spotted a gun tucked in Go’s waist. Herein. and in Criminal Case 3309-92-C to suffer an imprisonment of reclusion perpetua. SPO3 Liquido replied that they should talk at the police headquarters.” whereby they search for illegally possessed firearms. When the attaché case was opened. Go brought his appeal of the judgment in Criminal Case 330892-C before the Court of Appeals. SPO3 Liquido noticed a Philippine National Police identification card hanging from the rearview mirror. at around 10:00 p. Together. the police officers informed the owner that they were conducting an “Operation Bakal. members of the Intelligence and Follow-up Unit of the Calamba Police. Laguna. the three policemen proceeded to the Flamingo. When they arrived at the Flamingo. He asked Go if he was a member of the PNP. Police civilian agent Ronnie Panuringan arrived and reported to them that he saw Luisito Go. and Criminal Case 3309-92-C. Serial Number 006784. a Honda Civic with license plate number TCM-789. but he did not say anything. and sentencing him in Criminal Case 3308-92-C to a penalty of imprisonment of 6 years and 1 day to 12 years and a fine of P12. to pay a fine of P6. in the presence of a peace officer. They asked Go why he had these items. Go asked permission to bring his car.00. to follow up an intelligence report that methamphetamine hydrochloride. Thus. the person to be arrested has committed.000. which was parked outside. they turned over the attaché case together with the two black clutch bags to the investigator. which was located about a hundred meters away from the outpost. but he was unable to produce them. in addition to imprisonment of 6 years and 1 day to 12 years. the police saw the gun tucked in Go’s waist when he stood up. On the way out of the disco. without a search . SPO1 Mauro Piamonte and SPO3 Candido Liquido. In an Amended Decision dated 21 February 1996. or is attempting to commit an offense. The police officers brought Go to the police station. The police officers saw pieces of glass tooters and tin foils on the backseat and floor of the car. Consequently.People vs. tin foils. No search was conducted as none was necessary. he was in effect committing a crime in the presence of the police officers. They went up to the second floor of the disco. also known as “King Louie”. for violation of PD 1866) After a joint trial.000. The second bag contained P120. for violation of Article III of RA 6452 or the Dangerous Drugs Act. two Informations were filed against Go before the Regional Trial Court of Calamba. The gun was plainly visible. SPO1 Piamonte asked for the license of the gun. Go filed the petition for review (GR 123943). was being supplied there. Instead. Go opened the first bag. When Go opened the door. Go suggested that they talk the matter over. Issue: Whether Go was legally arrested without warrant for illegal possession of firearms and illegal drugs. it being one of the recognized exceptions under the Rules. SPO1 Piamonte confiscated the gun. As a consequence of Go’s valid warrantless arrest. Branch 34 (Criminal Case 3308-92-C. Among these are when. and the police officers saw Go and his lady companions seated at a table. and intimated that he had money. The police officers accompanied Go to his car. No warrant of arrest was necessary in such a situation.000. Go brought out the driver’s license of a certain Tan Antonio Lerios. the lower court rendered judgment convicting Go in the two criminal cases. Go appealed his conviction in Criminal Case 3309- 92-C directly to the Supreme Court (GR 116001).00. and the arresting officer has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. the policemen saw the gun tucked in his waist. a regulated drug. citing Section 8 of RA 6425. that no person shall be arrested without any warrant of arrest having been issued prior thereto. Go took out an attaché case from the car and opened it.00 in cash.m. Laguna. but Go was unable to produce any.
When arraigned on 16 May 1990. On 2 May 1990. of RA 6425. 10 March 1993] First Division. Patrolman Urrutia frisked Gerente and found a coin purse in his pocket which contained dried leaves wrapped in cigarette foil. Gabriel Gerente. as one of the killers. Art. Reyes allegedly witnessed the killing. They were informed by Reyes that she saw the killing and she pointed to Gabriel Gerente as one of the three men who killed Clarito. The eye-witness. without the necessary warrant. cannot be said to have been made during an illegal search. .m. Patrolman Urrutia. he would have fled the law as his two companions did. they found the instruments of death: a piece of wood and a concrete hollow block which the killers had used to bludgeon him to death. two separate informations were filed by Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Benjamin Caraig against him for Violation of Section 8. He was informed by the hospital officials that the victim died on arrival. together with Fredo Echigoren and Totoy Echigoren. proceeded to Paseo de Blas where the mauling incident took place. since the policemen had personal knowledge of the violent death of Blace and of facts indicating that Gerente and two others had killed him. Besides. She overheard the three men talking about their intention to kill Clarito Blace. which was later identified as shabu. Only Gerente was apprehended by the police. A joint trial of the two cases was held. She testified that she heard Fredo Echigoren saying. which states that any evidence obtained in violation of the right against warrantless arrest cannot be used for any purposes in any proceeding. Thereafter. Paragraphs (a) and (b). Fredo and Totoy Echigoren. the seized items do not fall within the exclusionary clause. Metro Manila. as minimum. not being fruits of the poisonous tree. who was then sleeping. as provided in Rule 126. of the same day. Gerente pleaded not guilty to both charges. The subsequent discovery in his car of drug paraphernalia and the crystalline substance. in his presence. As such. The other suspects. arrest a person: (a) When. “Gabriel. it has been held that drugs discovered as a result of a consented search is admissible in evidence. they could lawfully arrest Gerente without a warrant. and the subsequent searchly Gerente’s person. reported the happening to the policemen and pinpointed her neighbor.” The policemen arrested Gerente only some 3 hours after Gerente and his companions had killed Blace. The dried leaves were sent to the National Bureau of Investigation for examination. can be used as evidence against appellant. There they found a piece of wood with blood stains. papatayin natin si Clarito Blace. At about 4:00 p. together with Police Corporal Romeo Lima and Patrolman Alex Umali. (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed. as maximum. He went to the Valenzuela District Hospital where the victim was brought. are still at large. Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Court provide that “A peace officer or a private person may. allegedly started drinking liquor and smoking marijuana in Gerente’s house which is about 6 meters away from the house of Edna Edwina Reyes who was in her house on that day. is actually committing. followed by Totoy Echigoren and Gabriel Gerente who hit him twice with a piece of wood in the head and when he fell. This is . Grino-Aquino (J): 3 concur Facts: At about 7:00 a.warrant. such as the firearm. The policemen proceeded to the house of Gerente. If they had postponed his arrest until they could obtain a warrant. II. the person to be arrested has committed. so to speak. to 20 years. the objects found at the scene of the crime. Edna Edwina Reyes. and also found him guilty of Murder for which crime he was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. People vs. without a warrant. though in a distant place from where the illegal possession of firearm was committed. This is a valid search incidental to the lawful arrest. Issue: Whether the police officers have the personal knowledge of the killing of Blace to allow them to arrest. of 30 April 1990. On 24 September 1990. They saw Blace dead in the hospital and when they inspected the scene of the crime. Held: The search of Gerente’s person and the seizure of the marijuana leaves in his possession were valid because they were incident to a lawful warrantless arrest. Fredo Echigoren struck the first blow against Clarito Blace. Under those circumstances. Patrolman Jaime Urrutia of the Valenzuela Police Station received a report from the Palo Police Detachment about a mauling incident.” Fredo and Totoy Echigoren and Gerente carried out their plan to kill Clarito Blace at about 2:00 p. They told him to come out of the house and they introduced themselves as policemen. Section 12. Hence. Gerente. Right away. Branch 172. the three men dragged Blace to a place behind the house of Gerente. or is attempting to commit an offense. and for Murder. Gerente appealed. the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela. of the same day.m. and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. The cause of death was massive fracture of the skull caused by a hard and heavy object.m. Gerente [GR 95847-48. The search conducted on Gerente’s person was likewise lawful because it was made as an incident to a valid arrest. Totoy Echigoren dropped a hollow block on the victim’s head. the shabu and the drug paraphernalia. Section 5. The Forensic Chemist found them to be marijuana. a hollow block and two roaches of marijuana. found Gerente guilty of Violation of Section 8 of Republic Act 6425 and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a term of 12 years and 1 day.
PO3 Rosal stayed with Cubcubin while he conducted a search. PO3 Estoy. PO3 Rosal testified that a tricycle driver. composed of SPO1 Malinao.. Jr. SPO1 Malinao. Jr. Thereupon. Jr.38 caliber shells were all photographed. Cavite City. The police operatives identified themselves and informed him that he was being sought in connection with the shooting near the cemetery. PO3 Rosal. He found the gun loaded with five live bullets. dark-complexioned. the Regional Trial Court.” When he picked up the t-shirt. two conditions must concur for a warrantless arrest to be valid: first. SPO3 Manalo. Jr. provides that “A peace officer or a private person may. While PO3 Estoy. located in San Antonio near the gate of Sangley Point. where he was photographed along with the things seized from him. On 5 October 1998. Cavite City. They then took the t-shirt and the two bullet shells. second. that Garcellano’s description fitted a person known as alias “Jun Dulce. said that he inscribed his initials “RDE” (for Raymundo D. and PO3 Rosal stayed with Cubcubin in the sala. Piamonte slumped dead on his tricycle which was then parked on the road. Held: Rule 113. PO3 Manicio. (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. Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court which provides that “A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense.” Armando Plata. about a kilometer and a half away from the crime scene. is actually committing. without a warrant. found on top of a plastic water container (drum) outside the bathroom a homemade Smith and Wesson caliber . as amended. found Cubcubin guilty of murder and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death.. of 26 August 1997. said Cubcubin refused to tell him where he hid the gun so he sought the latter’s permission to go back to his house to conduct a further search.38 caliber shells fell from it. For this reason. 1 on official business. or is attempting to commit an offense. Upon close examination. another tricycle driver. 1 on leave Facts: At about 3:30 a.. the arresting officers. 10 July 2001] En Banc.” Under §5(b). Rogel.in accordance with Section 12. PO3 Estoy. he said that he found it to be “bloodied. Branch 88. and the victim were last seen together coming out of the Sting Cafe.38 caliber gun. he noticed a white t-shirt. two spent . to allow them to conduct the latter’s warrantless arrest. proceeded thereto. Forthwith.m. and SPO3 Manalo. Jr. Jr. PO3 Estoy. the person to be arrested has committed. Jr. a police team. Cubcubin was positively identified by Danet Garcellano as the victim’s companion. without a search warrant. told him that Fidel Abrenica Cubcubin Jr. desk officer of the Cavite City police station. Cubcubin was then taken to the police station. bearing the brand name “Hanes” and the name “Dhenvher” written in the inner portion of the shirt’s hemline. Hence. placed over a divider near the kitchen. SPO1 Malinao. the white “Hanes” t-shirt. and Prosecutor Lu to Cubucubin’s house in Garcia Extension.. went to the cafe and talked to Danet Garcellano. People vs. There. or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. Jr. and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. they saw Cubcubin’s 11-year old son Jhumar. PO3 Estoy. PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao. Jr. SPO1 Malinao. the automatic review. then asked Cubcubin to go with them to Sting Cafe for purposes of identification. who knew where Cubcubin lived. Jr. Estoy) on the cylinder of the gun with the use of a sharp object. and PO3 Rosal. Cubcubin [GR 136267. without a serial number. (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed. Sgt. Mendoza (J): 12 concur. Cubcubin denied involvement in the incident. PO3 Manicio. Cavite City.” The frisk and search of Gerente’s person upon his arrest was a permissible precautionary measure of arresting officers to protect themselves. who refused to divulge his name. a food server/waitress in Sting Cafe. The policemen knocked on the door for about 3 minutes before it was opened by a man who answered the description given by Danet Garcellano and who turned out to be Cubcubin. the arresting peace officer or private person has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to .. Armando Plata. received a telephone call that a person had been shot near the cemetery along Julian Felipe Boulevard in San Antonio. for the person who is about to be arrested may be armed and might attack them unless he is first disarmed. led PO3 Rosal. arrest a person: (a) When. to believe that Cubcubin committed the crime. SPO1 Malinao. Jr.38 revolver (six shooter). Garcellano described Cubcubin as a lean. Cubcubin was charged for the crime of murder. SPO1 Malinao. in his presence. said that upon entering the house. accompanied by Prosecutor Lu. the offender has just committed an offense and. and mustachioed man who had on a white t-shirt and brown short pants. was conducting the search. told PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao.. §5 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. Cavite City. Jr. SPO1 Malinao. then asked permission to enter and look around the house. Jr. Jr. The police investigators asked Cubcubin where the fatal gun was. Jr. Inside the house. and the two spent . Police photographer Fred Agana took pictures of the crime scene showing the victim slumped on the handle of the tricycle. PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao. Issue: Whether there was “probable cause” for PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao. responded to the call and found Henry P. Jr. The .
on 11 July 1991. and before an information could be filed in court. he sought Cubcubin’s permission to go back to his house and there found the . however. and thus has waived the right to object to the legality of his arrest.38 caliber gun. On 8 July 1991. alias “Jun Dulce” and who said he knew where Cubcubin lived and accompanied them to Cubcubin’s house. i.38 caliber gun was discovered through inadvertence. At the corner of Wilson and J. there is no evidence to link Cubcubin directly to the crime. he was accompanied by two (2) lawyers.m. merely relied on information given to them by others. The two did not have “personal knowledge of facts” indicating that Cubcubin had committed the crime. the police launched a manhunt for Go. Court of Appeals [GR 101837. Jr. Go presented himself before the San Juan Police Station to verify news reports that he was being hunted by the police. Eldon Maguan was driving his car along Wilson St. The security guard of the bake shop was shown a picture of Go and he positively identified him as the same person who had shot Maguan. Abad Santos Sts. Go vs. by a tricycle driver named Armando Plata who told them that the physical description given by Garcellano fitted Cubcubin. mustachioed. it is not visible that there were bloodstains. Go alighted from his car. Eldon Maguan. for PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao. Guevarra St. the arrest of Cubcubin was effected shortly after the victim was killed. Cubcubin cannot now question the validity of his arrest without a warrant. when Cubcubin refused to answer. Thus. The following day. The records show that he pleaded not guilty to the charge when arraigned on 11 November 1997. the victim. It has been held that “personal knowledge of facts’ in arrests without a warrant must be based upon probable cause. Their knowledge of the circumstances from which they allegedly inferred that Cubcubin was probably guilty was based entirely on what they had been told by others.. they were informed that Go had dined at Cravings Bake Shop shortly before the shooting. said. After bringing Cubcubin to the Sting Cafe where he was positively identified by a waitress named Danet Garcellano as the victim’s companion. who said that the man last seen with the victim was lean.” Herein. On the other hand. of 26 August 1997 and reported that a man had been killed along Julian Felipe Boulevard of the said city. Having established that the assailant was probably Go. According to SPO1 Malinao. Cubcubin did not object to the arraignment. while the complaint was still with the Prosecutor. Accordingly..38 caliber revolver on top of a plastic water container outside the bathroom. instead of filing an information for frustrated homicide.. in the Presence of his lawyers. positively identified Go as the gunman. the arresting officers allegedly asked Cubcubin where he hid the gun used in killing the victim. that he could avail himself of his right to preliminary investigation but that he must first sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. Nor were the police officers justified in seizing the white “Hanes” t-shirt placed on top of the divider “in plain view” as such is not contraband nor is it incriminating in nature which would lead SPO1 Malinao. the gun was purposely sought by the police officers and they did not merely stumble upon it. The actual t-shirt merely had some small specks of blood at its lower portion. died of his gunshot wound(s)... Jr. Thus. are inadmissible in evidence against him. to believe that Cubcubin committed the crime. to wit: by someone who called the PNP station in San Antonio. dark-complexioned and was wearing a white t-shirt and a pair of brown short pants. by Danet Garcellano. the search of Cubcubin’s house was illegal and. Go refused to execute any such waiver. Metro Manila. by an alleged witness who saw Cubcubin and the victim coming out of the Sting Cafe. Furthermore. Cavite City at about 3:30 a. From the photograph of the t-shirt. who was at the police station at that time. where it is a one-way street and started traveling in the opposite or “wrong” direction. Contrary to what SPO1 Malinao. Go then boarded his car and left the scene. It cannot be said that the .. filed an . Jr. to conclude that it would constitute evidence of a crime. heading towards P. and the . which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion. the t-shirt was not “bloodied” which could have directed his attention to take a closer look at it. waitress at the Sting Cafe. PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao. walked over and shot Maguan inside his car. the police promptly filed a complaint for frustrated homicide against Go with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal. That same day. The police arrived shortly thereafter at the scene of the shooting and there retrieved an empty shell and one round of live ammunition for a 9mm caliber pistol. A security guard at a nearby restaurant was able to take down Go’s car plate number. 11 February 1992] En Banc. the white “Hanes” t-shirt. The police forthwith detained him. Rolito Go y Tambunting entered Wilson St. the Prosecutor. the police returned to the scene of the shooting to find out where the suspect had come from.be arrested has committed it. two spent shells. An eyewitness to the shooting. consequently. Feliciano (J): 5 concur Facts: On 2 July 1991. Verification at the Land Transportation Office showed that the car was registered to one Elsa Ang Go. San Juan. There was no “probable cause. Be that as it may. First Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Dennis Villa Ignacio (”Prosecutor”) informed Go.e. On 9 July 1991. the arresting officers. the things obtained as a result of the illegal search. The police obtained a facsimile or impression of the credit card used by Go from the cashier of the bake shop. Jr. Jr. Go’s and Maguan’s cars nearly bumped each other.
and on 7. 15. At the bottom of the information. on 2 September 1991. Go filed an urgent ex-parte motion for special raffle in order to expedite action on the Prosecutor’s bail recommendation. The Court of Appeals. Pelayo (Branch 168. Go was arraigned. who. the trial court entered for him a plea of not guilty. Neither could the “arrest” effected 6 days after the shooting be reasonably regarded as effected “when [the shooting had] in fact just been committed” within the meaning of Section 5 (b). alleging that the warrantless arrest of Go was unlawful and that no preliminary investigation had been conducted before the information was filed. Issue: Whether Go was arrested legally without warrant for the killing of Maguan. on 2. without a warrant. the prosecution presented three (3) more witnesses at the trial. within the meaning of Section 5(a). prohibition and mandamus. (1) recalling the 12 July 1991 Order which granted bail: petitioner was given 48 hours from receipt of the Order to surrender himself: (2) recalling and cancelling the 16 July 1991 Order which granted leave to the Prosecutor to conduct preliminary investigation: (3) treating Go’s omnibus motion for immediate release and preliminary investigation dated 11 July 1991 as a petition for bail and set for hearing on 23 July 1991. is actually committing. RTC of Pasig City). and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. On 19 September 1991. trial of the criminal case commenced. On 23 July 1991. Held: Go’s warrantless “arrest” or detention does not fall within the terms of Section 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure which provides that “A peace officer or a private person may. No bail was recommended. in his presence. Judge Pelayo issued a Commitment Order directing the Provincial Warden of Rizal to admit Go into his custody at the Rizal Provincial Jail. By a Resolution dated 24 July 1991. none of the “arresting” officers had any “personal knowledge” of facts indicating that Go . On 19 July 1991. On 14 October 1991. Go filed the present petition for Review on Certiorari. Go filed with the Court of Appeals a motion to restrain his arraignment. 14. Moreover. at the time Go had allegedly shot Maguan. On 16 July 1991. 24 and 26 September. were subsequently consolidated in the Court of Appeals. of his refusal to enter a plea. among others. 11 and 17 October. On 30 August 1991. denied by Judge Pelayo. 3. In the afternoon of 11 July 1991. The trial court then set the criminal case for continuous hearings on 19. the Court issued a Resolution directing Judge Pelayo to held in abeyance the hearing of the criminal case below until further orders from the Supreme Court. arrest a person: (a) When. Judge Pelayo issued an order in open court setting Go’s arraignment on 23 August 1991. The “arresting” officers obviously were not present. the Judge motu proprio issued an Order. however. however.information for murder before the Regional Trial Court. issued a resolution denying Go’s motion to restrain his arraignment on the ground that motion had become moot and academic. and the petition for habeas corpus. On the said date. with Go’s conformity. 8. On 23 September 1991. (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed. or is attempting to commit an offense. 21 and 22 November 1991. Go was in fact released that same day. Go’s counsel filed with the prosecutor an omnibus motion for immediate release and proper preliminary investigation. the Court of Appeals issued the writ of habeas corpus. On 16 August 1991. on the one hand. however. On 27 August 1991. 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 or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. the Prosecutor filed with the Regional Trial Court a motion for leave to conduct preliminary investigation and prayed that in the meantime all proceedings in the court be suspended. On 12 July 1991. the Court of Appeals rendered a consolidated decision dismissing the 2 petitions on the grounds that Go’s warrantless arrest was valid and Go’s act of posting bail constituted waiver of any irregularity attending his arrest.” Go’s “arrest” took place 6 days after the shooting of Maguan. On 19 August 1991. approved the cash bond posted by Go and ordered his release. on the same date. the trial court issued an Order 9 granting leave to conduct preliminary investigation and cancelling the arraignment set for 15 August 1991 until after the prosecution shall have concluded its preliminary investigation. prohibition and mandamus before the Supreme Court assailing the 17 July 1991 Order. Go’s Counsel also filed a “Withdrawal of Appearance” with the trial court. Go filed a petition for certiorari. In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof. On 17 July 1991. Go surrendered to the police. the Supreme Court remanded the petition for certiorari. the Prosecutor certified that no preliminary investigation had been conducted because the accused did not execute and sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. Go also moved for suspension of all proceedings in the case pending resolution by the Supreme Court of his petition: this motion was. On 3 October 1991. On the same date. and he shall be proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112. Go filed a petition for habeas corpus in the Court of Appeals. Section 7. The case was raffled to the sala of Judge Benjamin V. upon the other. the person to be created has committed. prohibition and mandamus to the Court of Appeals. and is thus not entitled to be released pending the conduct of a preliminary investigation. On 4 October 1991. On 23 August 1991. In view. the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail. The petition for certiorari.
constitute “personal knowledge. the Prosecutor proceeded under the erroneous supposition that Section 7 of Rule 112 was applicable and required Go to waive the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code as a condition for carrying out a preliminary investigation. When he walked into the San Juan Police Station. It is clear too that Section 7 of Rule 112 is also not applicable. with or without a warrant. Go was not arrested at all. however. . for Go was entitled to a preliminary investigation and that right should have been accorded him without any conditions. Instead. as noted earlier. accompanied by two (2) lawyers. That information did not. He did not state that he was “surrendering” himself. he was also entitled to be released forthwith subject only to his appearing at the preliminary investigation.” It is thus clear to the Court that there was no lawful warrantless arrest of Go within the meaning of Section 5 of Rule 113. he in fact placed himself at the disposal of the police authorities. When the police filed a complaint for frustrated homicide with the Prosecutor. Indeed. Moreover. the latter should have immediately scheduled a preliminary investigation to determine whether there was probable cause for charging Go in court for the killing of Eldon Maguan. The information upon which the police acted had been derived from statements made by alleged eyewitnesses to the shooting — one stated that Go was the gunman another was able to take down the alleged gunman’s car’s plate number which turned out to be registered in Go’s wife’s name. in all probability to avoid the implication he was admitting that he had slain Eldon Maguan or that he was otherwise guilty of a crime. This was substantive error.was the gunman who had shot Maguan. since Go had not been arrested.
Go’s Counsel also filed a “Withdrawal of Appearance” with the trial court. The petition for certiorari.” Go’s “arrest” took place 6 days after the shooting of Maguan. 8. with Go’s conformity. were subsequently consolidated in the Court of Appeals. however. Go surrendered to the police. and he shall be proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112. Moreover. Go filed with the Court of Appeals a motion to restrain his arraignment. Issue: Whether Go was arrested legally without warrant for the killing of Maguan. On the same date. approved the cash bond posted by Go and ordered his release. Pelayo (Branch 168. 21 and 22 November 1991. the Supreme Court remanded the petition for certiorari. 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 or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. RTC of Pasig City). among others. The “arresting” officers obviously were not present. and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. On 23 July 1991. Neither could the “arrest” effected 6 days after the shooting be reasonably regarded as effected “when [the shooting had] in fact just been committed” within the meaning of Section 5 (b). and is thus not entitled to be released pending the conduct of a preliminary investigation. the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail. the Court of Appeals issued the writ of habeas corpus. prohibition and mandamus. 11 and 17 October.conducted before the information was filed. Judge Pelayo issued an order in open court setting Go’s arraignment on 23 August 1991. on the same date. trial of the criminal case commenced. On 23 August 1991. Go filed a petition for habeas corpus in the Court of Appeals. denied by Judge Pelayo. On 4 October 1991. Section 7. the Prosecutor filed with the Regional Trial Court a motion for leave to conduct preliminary investigation and prayed that in the meantime all proceedings in the court be suspended. who. Go was arraigned. In view. On 16 July 1991. On 19 July 1991. 15. prohibition and mandamus before the Supreme Court assailing the 17 July 1991 Order. On the said date. issued a resolution denying Go’s motion to restrain his arraignment on the ground that motion had become moot and academic. By a Resolution dated 24 July 1991. Held: Go’s warrantless “arrest” or detention does not fall within the terms of Section 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure which provides that “A peace officer or a private person may. the trial court entered for him a plea of not guilty. is actually committing. upon the other. none of the “arresting” officers had any “personal knowledge” of facts indicating that Go was the gunman . On 23 September 1991. On 14 October 1991. or is attempting to commit an offense. Go also moved for suspension of all proceedings in the case pending resolution by the Supreme Court of his petition: this motion was. arrest a person: (a) When. on the one hand. and on 7. On 27 August 1991. (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed. in his presence. the person to be created has committed. however. On 3 October 1991. at the time Go had allegedly shot Maguan. the trial court issued an Order 9 granting leave to conduct preliminary investigation and cancelling the arraignment set for 15 August 1991 until after the prosecution shall have concluded its preliminary investigation. On 16 August 1991. In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof. On 19 August 1991. the Judge motu proprio issued an Order. On 17 July 1991. 14. On 12 July 1991. however. The Court of Appeals. Judge Pelayo issued a Commitment Order directing the Provincial Warden of Rizal to admit Go into his custody at the Rizal Provincial Jail. The trial court then set the criminal case for continuous hearings on 19. the prosecution presented three (3) more witnesses at the trial. (1) recalling the 12 July 1991 Order which granted bail: petitioner was given 48 hours from receipt of the Order to surrender himself: (2) recalling and cancelling the 16 July 1991 Order which granted leave to the Prosecutor to conduct preliminary investigation: (3) treating Go’s omnibus motion for immediate release and preliminary investigation dated 11 July 1991 as a petition for bail and set for hearing on 23 July 1991. the Court of Appeals rendered a consolidated decision dismissing the 2 petitions on the grounds that Go’s warrantless arrest was valid and Go’s act of posting bail constituted waiver of any irregularity attending his arrest. within the meaning of Section 5(a). On 19 September 1991. The case was raffled to the sala of Judge Benjamin V. without a warrant. prohibition and mandamus to the Court of Appeals. 24 and 26 September. and the petition for habeas corpus. Go filed an urgent ex-parte motion for special raffle in order to expedite action on the Prosecutor’s bail recommendation. on 2. Go filed the present petition for Review on Certiorari. Go was in fact released that same day. Go filed a petition for certiorari. 3. of his refusal to enter a plea. the Court issued a Resolution directing Judge Pelayo to held in abeyance the hearing of the criminal case below until further orders from the Supreme Court. On 30 August 1991. on 2 September 1991.
Instead. When he walked into the San Juan Police Station. as noted earlier. . This was substantive error. he in fact placed himself at the disposal of the police authorities. the latter should have immediately scheduled a preliminary investigation to determine whether there was probable cause for charging Go in court for the killing of Eldon Maguan. accompanied by two (2) lawyers. He did not state that he was “surrendering” himself. Go was not arrested at all. When the police filed a complaint for frustrated homicide with the Prosecutor. for Go was entitled to a preliminary investigation and that right should have been accorded him without any conditions. Moreover. since Go had not been arrested. he was also entitled to be released forthwith subject only to his appearing at the preliminary investigation. with or without a warrant. the Prosecutor proceeded under the erroneous supposition that Section 7 of Rule 112 was applicable and required Go to waive the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code as a condition for carrying out a preliminary investigation. in all probability to avoid the implication he was admitting that he had slain Eldon Maguan or that he was otherwise guilty of a crime. Indeed.” It is thus clear to the Court that there was no lawful warrantless arrest of Go within the meaning of Section 5 of Rule 113.who had shot Maguan. The information upon which the police acted had been derived from statements made by alleged eyewitnesses to the shooting — one stated that Go was the gunman another was able to take down the alleged gunman’s car’s plate number which turned out to be registered in Go’s wife’s name. It is clear too that Section 7 of Rule 112 is also not applicable. constitute “personal knowledge. That information did not. however.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?