You are on page 1of 12

PLACER VS VILLANUEVA

Facts: Certiorari and mandamus to compel respondent judge to issue warrants of arrest. The
City Fiscal of Butuan City and his assistants filed in the City Court of Butuan several
informations. Said informations were certified by the respective investigating Fiscals as having
probable cause after they have conducted the requisite examination of the complainant and his
witnesses. 4 of the informations were found to have established a prima facie case (upon
directive of the Minis-ter of Justice or City Fiscal). Judge then after receiving said informations
issued an order setting the hearing in order to determine if warrants of arrest should issue.
Afterwhich, Judge Villanueva issued orders requiring petitioners to submit to the court the
affidavits of the prosecution wit-nesses and other documentary evidence in support of the
informations to aid him in the exercise of his power of judicial review of the findings of probable
cause by petitioners (Fiscals). Petition-ers filed MRs contending that they are authorized to
determine the existence of a probable cause in a preliminary examination/investigation, and that
their findings as to the existence thereof con-stitute sufficient basis for the issuance of warrants
of arrest by the court. Judge Villanueva de-nied the same and reiterated his orders. Hence this
petition.
Meanwhile, Judge Villanueva received the Court’s resolution requiring him to comment on the
petition, which he interpreted as a denial of said petition, so the next day he issued an Omnibus
Order directing petitioners to submit immediately the supporting affidavits and other evidence.
Petitioners failed to secure a reconsideration so they finally submitted. Still, however, Judge Villanueva refused to issue warrants of arrest respecting some of the criminal cases (but he did
issue warrants of arrest), and instead ordered the records thereof remanded to the City Fiscal
“for fur-ther preliminary investigation or reinvestigation,” for on the bases of said affidavits,
respondent found no prima facie case against the accused.
Then petitioners filed a motion with SC to restrain respondent from enforcing the orders subject
of the main petition and to compel him to accept, and take cognizance of, all the informations
filed in his court. They contend that the fiscal's certification in the information of the existence of
probable cause constitutes sufficient justification for the judge to issue a warrant of arrest; and
that such certification binds the judge, it being supported by the presumption that the investigating fiscal had performed his duties regularly and completely. On the other hand, Judge Villanueva justifies his order as an exercise of his judicial power to review the fiscal's findings of
probable cause. He further maintains that the failure of petitioners to file the required affidavits
destroys the presumption of regularity in the performance of petitioners' official duties,
particularly in the light of the long standing practice of the City Fiscal of attaching to the
informations filed with the court the affidavits of prosecution witnesses and other documentary
evidence presented dur-ing the preliminary investigation.
Issue: Whether Villanueva (a judge) may, for the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest, compel
the fiscal to submit to the court the supporting affidavits and other documentary evidence presented during the preliminary investigation.
Held: Yes. The primary requirement for the issuance of a warrant of arrest is the existence of
probable cause (Sec. 3, Art. IV, 1973 CONST. which is basically similar to the provision in the
present CONST. in Art. III, Sec. 2). PD 911 authorizes the fiscal or state prosecutor to determine
the existence of probable cause. The judge therefore may rely upon the fiscal's certification of
the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest. But such
certifica-tion does not bind the judge to automatically issue a warrant of arrest. The issuance of a
warrant is not a mere ministerial function; it calls for the exercise of judicial discretion on the part
of the issuing magistrate (Sec. 6, Rule 112: “Warrant of arrest, when issued. If the judge be
satisfied from the preliminary examination conducted by him or by the investigating officer that
the of-fense complained of has been committed and that there is reasonable ground to believe
that the accused has committed it, he must issue a warrant or order for his arrest.”). This section
provides that the judge must satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause before issuing, a
warrant or order of arrest. If on the face of the information the judge finds no probable cause, he

may disre-gard the fiscal’s certification and require the submission of the affidavits of witnesses
to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of a probable cause.
Even the Rule on Summary Procedure in Special Cases requires the submission of affidavits of
witnesses (mandatory), together with the complaint or information. The obvious purpose of requiring the submission of affidavits of the complainant and of his witnesses is to enable the court
to determine whether to dismiss the case outright or to require further proceedings. Also, Judge
Villanueva’s remanding of some of the criminal cases to the City Fiscal for further preliminary
investigation or reinvestigation cannot be questioned. He acted fully within his authority.
Petition DISMISSED.

PEOPLE vs. INTING
187 SCRA 788
Facts: Mrs. Editha Barba filed a letter-complaint against OIC-Mayor Dominador Regalado of
Tanjay, Negros Oriental with the COMELEC for allegedly transferring her, a permanent Nursing
Attendant, Grade I, in the office of the Municipal Mayor to a very remote barangay and without
obtaining prior permission or clearance from COMELEC as required by law.
After a preliminary investigation of Barba’s complaint, Atty. Lituanas found a prima facie case.
Hence, on September 26, 1988, he filed with the respondent trial court a criminal case for
violation of section 261, Par. (h), Omnibus Election Code against the OIC-Mayor. In an Order
dated September 30, 1988, the respondent court issued a warrant of arrest against the accused
OIC Mayor.
However, in an order dated October 3, 1988 and before the accused could be arrested, the trial
court set aside its September 30, 1988 order on the ground that Atty. Lituanas is not authorized
to determine probable cause pursuant to Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. The trial
court later on quashed the information. Hence, this petition.
Issue: Does a preliminary investigation conducted by a Provincial Election Supervisor involving
election offenses have to be coursed through the Provincial Prosecutor, before the Regional Trial
Court may take cognizance of the investigation and determine whether or not probable cause
exists?
Held: The 1987 Constitution empowers the COMELEC to conduct preliminary investigations in
cases involving election offenses for the purpose of helping the Judge determine probable cause
and for filing an information in court. This power is exclusive with COMELEC. The evident
constitutional intendment in bestowing this power to the COMELEC is to insure the free, orderly
and honest conduct of elections, failure of which would result in the frustration of the true will of
the people and make a mere idle ceremony of the sacred right and duty of every qualified citizen
to vote. To divest the COMELEC of the authority to investigate and prosecute offenses
committed by public officials in relation to their office would thus seriously impair its effectiveness
in achieving this clear constitutional mandate. Bearing these principles in mind, it is apparent
that the respondent trial court misconstrued the constitutional provision when it quashed the
information filed by the Provincial Election Supervisor.
* We emphasize the important features of the constitutional mandate: (a) The determination of
probable cause is a function of the judge; it is not for the provincial fiscal or prosecutor to
ascertain. Only the judge and the judge alone makes this determination; (b) The preliminary
inquiry made by a prosecutor does not bind the judge. It merely assists him in making the
determination ofprobable cause. The judge does not have to follow what the prosecutor presents
to him. By itself, the prosecutor's certification of probable cause is ineffectual. It is the report, the
affidavits, the transcript of stenographic notes (if any), and all other supporting documents
behind the prosecutor's certification which are material in assisting the judge in his determination
of probable cause; and, (c)Judges and prosecutors alike should distinguish the preliminary
inquiry which determines probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest from the

Dispositive: Petition granted. even Asst. 1985 Facts: The petitioner invokes the constitutionally protected right to life and liberty guaranteed by the due process clause. Umbal claims that Van Twest was completely burned into ashes with the use of gasoline and rubber tires from around ten o'clock in the evening to six o'clock the next morning. HELD: In the Order of respondent judge.Mendoza. "However. It is the report. and therefore. There is no reason to hold the accused for trial and further expose him to an open and public accusation of the crime when no cause exists. In the practice oftheir profession. Verily. nor have his remains been recovered. if not ridiculous. Solicitor General Estoesta believes that counsel of Van Twest doubted the latter's death.preliminary investigation proper which ascertainswhether the offender should be held for trial or released. FACTS: Petitioners Diosdado Jose Allado and Roberto L. the prosecutor's certification of probable cause is ineffectual. (b) The preliminary inquiry made by a prosecutor does not bind the judge. (b) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause. we are unable to see how respondent judge arrived at such ruling. Inting. alumni of the College of law. after Van Twest'sreported abduction which culminated in his decimation by cremation. May 5. The preliminary investigation proper whether or not there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and therefore. For one. Petitioners likewise assail the prosecutors' "clear sign of bias and partiality. Petitioner asks the Court to prohibit and prevent the respondents from using the iron arm of the law to harass. and. are partners of the Law Firm ofSalonga. alleging that no prima facie case has been established to warrant the filing of an information for subversion against him. A human body cannot be pulverized into ashes by simply burning it with the use of gasoline and rubber tires in an open field. In Soliven v. his counsel continued to represent him before judicial and quasijudicial proceedings. The PACC relies heavily on the sworn statement of Security Guard Umbal who supposedly confessed his participation in the alleged kidnapping and murder of Van Twest. the Office of the Solicitor General argues that the determination of probable cause is a function of the judge who is merely required to personally appreciate certain facts to convince him that the accused probably committed the crime charged. it is expressly stated that "[t]his court after careful evaluation of the evidence on record. (c)Judges and prosecutors alike should distinguish the preliminary inquiry which determines probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest from the preliminary investigation proper which ascertainswhether the offender should be held for trial or released. and persecute him. the trial judge. he would have found out thatthe evidence thus far presented was utterly insufficient to warrant the arrest of petitioners. there should be no confusion about their objectives. it is not for the provincial fiscal or prosecutor to ascertain. ." On the other hand. serious doubt on VanTwest's reported death since the corpus delicti has not been established. Only the judge and the judge alone makes this determination. the remains undergo a process where the bones are completely ground to dust. otherwise. finds that no probable cause exists. whether or not he should be subjected to the expense. On the contrary. rigors and embarrassment of trial is a function of the prosecutor." Petitioners maintain that the records of the preliminary investigation which respondent judge solely relied upon failed to establish probable cause against them to justify the issuance of the warrant of arrest. there is SALONGA vs PAÑO G. and all other supporting documents behind the prosecutor's certification which are material in assisting the judge in his determination of probable cause. on the basis thereof. Instead. Even if the two inquiries be conducted inthe course of one and the same proceeding. there should be no confusion about their objectives. respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the warrant for the arrest of petitioners it appearing that he did not personally examine the evidence nor did he call for the complainant and his witnesses in the face of their incredible accounts. rigors and embarrassment of trial is a function of the prosecutor. Hence. a warrant ofarrest should be issued. whether or not he should be subjected to the expense. We have painstakingly examined the records and we cannot find any support for his conclusion. Makasiar. The judge does not have to follow what the prosecutor presents to him. or. if not awkwardly. he must either call for the complainant and the witnesses themselves or simply dismiss the case. and on the basis of an allegedextrajudicial confession of a security guard (Umbal). we said that the judge (a)shall personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and. Thereafter. issue a warrant of arrest. we discern a number of reasons why we consider the evidence submitted to be insufficient for a finding of probable cause against petitioners. the transcript of stenographic notes (if any). The preliminary investigation proper whether or not there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and therefore. Petitioners filed this petition and principally contended that respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion and in excess of jurisdiction in "whimsically holding that there is probable cause against petitioners without determining the admissibility of the evidence against petitioners and without even stating the basis of his findings." and in "relying on the Resolution of the Panel and their certification that probable cause exists when the certification is flawed. he merely relied on the certification of the prosecutors that probable cause existed. The determination of probable cause for the warrant is made by the judge. Even if the two inquiries be conducted inthe course of one and the same proceeding. ISSUE: WON the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in the preliminary inquiry which determines probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. By itself. the affidavits. Hernandez and Allado. 1994 DOCTRINE: If upon the filing of the information in court. a member of the democratic opposition in the Philippines. believes and rules that probable cause exists. It merely assists him in making the determination ofprobable cause. No. University ofthe Philippines. ALLADO v DIOKNO 232 SCRA 192 BELLOSILLO. The determination of probable cause for the warrant is made by the judge. after reviewing the information and the document attached attached thereto. For. In People v. they have been accused of the heinous crime of kidnapping with murder of a German national named Van Twest by the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission (PACC) and ordered arrested without bail by respondent judge. Even crematoria use entirely closed incinerators where the corpse is subjected to intense heat. Strangely. oppress. may disregard the fiscal's report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion on the existence of probable cause. we emphasized the important features of the constitutional mandate: (a) The determination of probable cause is a function of the judge. L-59524 February 18.R. This is highly improbable.

and Artemio Fuentes were attacked and killed by a lone assassin. and despite assurance to the contrary. Vicente Lim. 1980. the designated investigator. and his security escorts. one of the victims of the bombing. including Salonga. Jimmy Cabarles. Sr. this decision has been rendered moot and academic by the action of the prosecution. He states that to sanction his further prosecution despite the lack of evidence against him would be to admit that no rule of law exists in the Philippines today. dated 12 March 1981. the Center’s new charter pursuant to the President’s legislative powers under martial law.Mayor Susana Lim of Masbate. he himself suffered a gunshot wound. -Thereafter.The case roots backs to the rash of bombings which occurred in the Metro Manila area in the months of August. a consensus on the Court’s judgment had been arrived at.Petitioners Vicente Lim. the Judge Advocate General sent the petitioner a “Notice of Preliminary Investigation” in People v. Jaime Liwanag. No. On 2 December 1981. 59 SCRA 183). doctrines. The resolutions of the said judge dated 2 December 1981 and 4 January 1982 are the subject of the present petition for certiorari. BP 31 and PD 1736. stating that “the preliminary investigation of the above-entitled case has been set at 2:30 o’clock p. Congressman Moises Espinosa. Nestor Lim. located at the municipality of Masbate province of Masbate. The Court had already deliberated on this case. Sr. Jr. Jr.In another manifestation. 1985. or rules. charging Salonga. as amended. Sr. the fact that the petition was moot and academic did not prevent this Court in the exercise of its symbolic function from promulgating one of the most voluminous decisions ever printed in the Reports. 1991) Facts: -On March 17. precepts. it has on several occasions rendered elaborate decisions in similar cases where mootness was clearly apparent. Jr. Jr. September and October of 1980. Harry O. of the PC Criminal Investigation Service at Camp Bagong Ibalon Legazpi City filed an amended complaint with the Municipal Trial Court of Masbate accusing. the court issued an order dated July 31. the prosecution restudied its evidence and decided to seek the exclusion of petitioner Jovito Salonga as one of the accused in the information filed under the questioned resolution. Zaldy Dumalag and Rene Tualla alias Tidoy. Florencio Fernandez. Dante Siblante another security escort of Congressman Espinosa. The Court also has the duty to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional principles. Issues: 1. if any. Insofar as the absence of a prima facie case to warrant the filing of subversion charges is concerned. On 15 October 1981. In the habeas corpus case of Aquino. Branch XVIII. Lim and Mayor Antonio Kho of the crime of multiple murder and frustrated murder in connectionwith the airport incident. It has the symbolic function of educating bench and bar on the extent of protection given by constitutional guarantees. Vicente Lim. Whether the above case still falls under an actual case 2. (which included petitioner as a coaccused).. Benigno Aquino. Gaspar Amaro. Enrile. he has not received any copies of the charges against him nor any copies of the so-called supporting evidence. .. Nonilon A. and for the purpose of preliminary investigation. Jolly T. The petitioner states that up to the time martial law was lifted on January 17. Victor Burns Lovely. Fernandez. On 4 January 1982. Judge Ernani Cruz Pano (Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal. (Article XV.m. SR. survived the assassination plot. at the vicinity of the airport road of the Masbate Domestic Airport. Nevertheless. Nonilon Bagalihog. Quezon City) denied the motion. It is the contention of Salonga that no prima facie case has been established by the prosecution to justify the filing of an information against him. 1981. concludes that a probable cause has been established for the issuance of a warrant of arrest of named accused in the amended complaint. Sr. Marcos (65 SCRA 624) whether or not the Cultural Center of the Philippines could validly be created through an executive order was mooted by Presidential Decree No. the counsel for Salonga filed a motion to dismiss the charges against Salonga for failure of the prosecution to establish a prima facie case against him. 1989. after weighing the affidavits and answers given by the witnesses for the prosecution during the preliminary examination in searching questions and answers. 2. Antonio Kho. VS JUDGE FELIXGR NOS. -An investigation of the incident then followed. namely Provincial Guards Antonio Cortes.. Jr. Sr. as amended by PD 885. when on January 18. among others. Prospero Olivas. The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. The court is constrained by this action of the prosecution and the respondent Judge to withdraw the draft ponencia from circulating for concurrences and signatures and to place it once again in the Court’s crowded agenda for further deliberations. Yes. he (Pano) issued a resolution ordering the filing of an information for violation of the Revised Anti-Subversion Act. The counsel for Salonga was furnished a copy of an amended complaint signed by Gen.. v. Jolly Fernandez. at about 7:30 o'clock in the morning. although. along with 39 other accused with the violation of RA 1700. implicated petitioner Salonga as one of those responsible. the obligation of fidelity on the part of lower court judges to the unequivocal command of the Constitution that excessive bail shall not be required. 1989 stating therein that: “.. 9211. Paragraph 2 of the Constitution). Bagalihog. et al. against 40 people. and a draft ponencia was circulating for concurrences and separate opinions.” In Gonzales v. 95954-7 (FEBRUARY 19. the court ruled that: “The fact that the case is moot and academic should not preclude this Tribunal from setting forth in language clear and unmistakable. On December 10. Susana Lim. respondent Judge Rodolfo Ortiz granted the motion of respondent City Fiscal Sergio Apostol to drop the subversion case against the petitioner. 1980″ and that petitioner was given ten (10) days from receipt of the charge sheet and the supporting evidence within which to file his counterevidence. Ronnie Fernandez. MayorNestor C. . TSg. Whether the above case dropped by the lower court still deserves a decision from the Supreme Court Held: 1. -After conducting the preliminary investigation. LIM.. the Court discussed the constitutional mandate on the preservation and development of Filipino culture for national Identity. Florencio T. Fernandez. pursuant to the mandatory mandate of the constitution that no warrant shall be issued unless the issuing magistrate shall have himself been personally convinced of such probable cause. . namely. In dela Camara vs Enage (41 SCRA 1). Despite the SC’s dismissal of the petition due to the case’s moot and academic nature.” . Pursuant to instructions of the Minister of Justice. 15. on December 12. Tantiado. Section 9. and Susana Lim filed with the respondent court several motions and manifestations which in substance prayed that an order be issued requiring the transmittal of the initial records of the preliminary inquiry or investigation conducted by the Municipal Judge Barsaga of Masbate for the best enlightenment regarding the existence of a probable cause or prima facie evidence as well as the determination of the existence of guilt. the Lims reiterated that the court conduct a hearing to determine if there really exists a prima facie case against them in the light of documents which are .

Indubitably.On August 10.The next day. this depends on the circumstances of each case. 1985. to the provincial fiscal for appropriate action. However. respondent Judge examined personally the 3witnesses.On July 27.The first phase consists of an ex-parte inquiry into the sufficiency of the complaint and the affidavits and other documents offered in support thereof. the respondent court issued an order denying for lack of merit the motions and manifestations and issued warrants of arrest against the accused including the petitioners herein. Batuampar's letter and requesting that "all cases that may be filed relative . What in fact transpired is still unclear. Usually. have gone over the records of the preliminary examination conducted earlier in the light of the evidence now presented by the concerned witnesses in view of the "political undertones" prevailing in the cases. However. a criminal complaint for multiple murder was filed. 1985. a lawyer (Atty. The extent of the reliance depends on the circumstances of each case and is subject to the Judge's sound discretion. The Judge has to exercise sound discretion. At this stage also. The judge wrote. identified and promised that supporting affidavits would shortly be filed. or (2)that the complaint and the supporting documents show sufficient cause to continue with the inquiry and this ushers in the second phase. As mentioned in the facts (stated above). the general rule is that recantations are not given much weight in the determination of a case and in the granting of a new trial the respondent Judge before issuing his own warrants of arrest should. 1990 without having before him any other basis for his personal determination of the existence of a probable cause. 1985. Considering that both the two competent officers to whom such duty was entrusted by law have declared the existence of probable cause. Immediately the Provincial Fiscal addressed a"1st endorsement" to the respondent Judge. the Judge approved the complaint and issued a warrant of arrest against the14 petitioners (who were named by the witnesses) and 50 "John Does. with both attackers and defenders suffering casualties.This was equally true under the former rules. armed men had attacked a residence in Pantao. According to one version. however.. where the first phase of the investigation was expressly denominated "preliminary examination" to distinguish it from the second phase. The letter adverted to the possibility of innocent persons being implicated by the parties involved on both sides none of whom was. the Judge abuses that discretion when having no evidence before him. to the provincial fiscal. In making the required personal determination. Lalabuan. 6 of Rule 112 clearly authorizes the MTC to issue a warrant even before opening the second phase..On Aug 14. 1988 FACTS . RULING: The questioned Order of respondent Judge Nemesio S. an ex-parte motion was filed by Atty.What the Rule provides is that no complaint or information for an offense cognizable by the Regional Trial Court may be filed without completing that procedure.This second phase is designed to give the respondent notice of the complaint. The rule is and has always been that such issuance need only await a finding of probable cause. this Court finds it just and proper to rely on the prosecutor's certification in each information…” -Petitioners question the judgment of Judge Felix (statement immediately preceding this paragraph. need to be clarified. a shooting incident occurred in Pantao. not the completion . Felix of Branch 56. Another version has it that a group that was on its way to another place. The Prosecutor can perform the same functions as a commissioner for the taking of the evidence. 1990. transmitting Atty. Lanao del Sur. Masbate which found the existence of probable cause that the offense of multiple murder was committed and that all the accused are probably guilty thereof.. RD: As held in Soliven v. there should be necessary documents and a report supporting the Fiscal's bare certification. together with the record. April 14. (to the incident) that happened in the afternoon of July 27." hence the present petition. Thereafter. And it ends with the determination by the Judge either:(1) that there is no ground to continue with the inquiry. the respondent Judge (Felix) committed a grave error when he relied solely on the Prosecutor’s certification and issued the questioned Order dated July 5. together with the records of the case.The argument. or preliminary investigation proper . which "has first taken cognizance of said cases. had been ambushed. ISSUE: WON a judge may issue a warrant of arrest without bail by simply relying on the prosecution's certification and recommendation that a probable cause exists. either for dismissal of the complaint or holding the respondent for trial. he issues a warrant of arrest.Sec 3 of rule 112 consists of 2 phases:.1985.recantations of some witnesses in the preliminary investigation. ISSUE: WON the respondent Judge had the power to issue the warrant of arrest without completing the entire prescribed procedure for preliminary investigation HELD YES. Batuampar) of one of the widows filed a letter-complaint with the fiscal. 1990 is declared NULL and VOID and SET ASIDE. Regional Trial Court of Makati dated July 5." be forwarded to his office.It should also be noted that the Lims also presented to the respondent Judge documents of recantation of witnesses whose testimonies were used to establish a prima facie case against them. Sec. . . On the same day. at the very least. also in Masiu. in which case he dismisses the complaint and transmits the order of dismissal. each information is complete in form and substance. in his view. which was affirmed upon review by the Provincial Prosecutor who properly filed with the Regional Trial Court four separate informations for murder. asking for a “full blast preliminary investigation”. Batuampar seeking recall of the warrant of arrest and subsequent holding of a "thorough investigation" on the ground that the Judge's initial investigation had been "hasty and manifestly haphazard" with "no searching questions" having been propounded.. access to the complainant's evidence and an opportunity to submit counter-affidavits and supporting documents. after all. the personal determination is vested in the Judge by the Constitution. the Judge does not have to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. Masiu. to be sure. Although. the preliminary investigation was conducted by the Municipal Trial Court of Masbate. the Judge may conduct a hearing and propound to the parties and their witnesses questions on matters that. We cannot determine beforehand how cursory or exhaustive the Judge's examination should be.. . must be rejected that the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the warrant of arrest against petitioners without first completing the preliminary investigation in accordance with the prescribed procedure. and there is no visible defect on its face. PANGANDAMAN v CASAR 159 SCRA 599NARVASA.-On July 5. “In the instant cases. The respondent Judge denied the motion for "lack of basis. However. which left at least five persons dead and two others wounded. therefore. Masiu. the Judge must go beyond the Prosecutor's certification and investigation report whenever necessary. The second phase concludes with the Judge rendering his resolution. the Lims presented documents of recantations of the witnesses. which shall be transmitted. Makasiar.italicized). a Judge is not precluded from relying on the evidence earlier gathered by responsible officers. All of these should be before the Judge.

While Manalangsang claims that the plan included Albior and "Jun" as look-outs. The accused Albior alleged that at the time of the commission of the crime. On the other hand. he categorically stated that Reyes and himself had no other companions when they perpetrated the robbery . Accused Vasquez was found guilty as an accessory to the crime of robbery. in view of the foregoing.k. the warrant must. (3) such judge must examine under oath or affirmation the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. the benefit of the legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed. shabu. with intent of gain and by means of force upon things. as these issues were never raised in the proceedings before the trial court. Nothing in the record before this Court belies or discredits those affirmations which have. to 1:00 p. he was at the house of his cousin. Sun Tee Sy y Chua were charged and convicted by the lower court for violation of Section 16. the arrest. Accused contends that the defect in the issuance of the search warrant. although the Court condemns in the strongest possible terms the brutal and shocking rape and slaying of Dana May Garces. the requirement of proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt has not been met. for their illegal possession of a regulated drug. a "John Doe" warrant satisfies the requirements so long as it contains a descriptio personae such as will enable the officer to identify the accused. rob. conspiring and confederating one another. These circumstances cannot but cast doubt on the trial court's conclusion that accused Albior participated in the robbery. A mistake in the name of the person to be searched does not invalidate the warrant. are contradictory as to whether or not Albior was actually part of the conspiracy. The trial court rendered the accused Albior guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide with rape." Clearly violative of the constitutional injunction that warrants of arrest should particularly describe the person or persons to be seized.Also without appreciable merit is petitioners' other argument that there was scarcely time to determine probable cause against sixty-four persons (the fourteen petitioners and fifty "Does") within a matter of hours on a Saturday when municipal trial courts are open only from 8:00 a. they cannot be considered and passed upon on appeal. the court affirms the illegality of the search conducted on the car for it was not part of the description of the place to be searched mentioned in the warrant. it finds itself with no other recourse but to apply the law and to acquit Francisco Albior of the crime charged.m. illegal. WHEREFORE. Ruling: 1 There are only four requisites for a valid warrant. Whether or not their was a valid search warrant. i.: (1) it must be issued upon "probable cause". and the correctness of the judgment of conviction imposed by the RTC.k. would make the search conducted and consequently. took part to its commission by helping the offenders to sell the goods.of the entire procedure of preliminary investigation.a. especially since in this case. (2) such possession is not authorized by law. one of a class of writs long proscribed as unconstitutional and once an athematized as "totally subversive of the liberty of the subject. Further. The accused Rodeolfo Vasquez. Clearly. The medico-legal officer testified that he conducted the autopsy on the victim and found a hematoma on the right parietal region and several contusions and abrasions on different parts of the body. FACTS: On or about May 30. rape and homicide of Dana May Garces. being a Cebuano. besides.m. Article III of the dangerous drug act of 1972. That accused Albior conspired with Bernard Reyes. no conviction can be had on the basis of these contradictory statements.Insofar. They appealed the decision of the lower court questioning the legality of the search warrant and the search and arrest conducted pursuant thereto. Dispositive Warrants against petitioners upheld. said that Albior and "Jun" were with Reyes and Manalangsang. and (4) the warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Issues: 1. but stated that Reyes and Manalangsang narrated during a drinking spree that only they were involved. the authorities had personal knowledge of the drug-related activities of the accused by virtue of the surveillance and test-buy operations of the said authorities. In fact. 1984. and carry away the personal properties of Florencio Garces. willfully and feloniously rob the house of Garces by destroying the window glass frame of complainant's house and when they went in. Without a doubt. accused Peter Doe Alias "Bernardo. the accused. as regards its unidentified subjects. for it was issued in the name of Timothy Tiu and did not include appellant Qui Yaling. it must be shown that (1) appellants were in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. However. However. and without having participated therein either as principal or accomplice. 2. and (3) the appellants were freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. a mistake in the identification of the owner of the place does not invalidate the warrant provided the place to be searched is properly described. nighttime purposely sought. Timothy Tiu and Qui Yaling y Chua a. That the evidence presented cannot be serve as basis for their conviction being fruits of an illegal search.a. the dialect in which the extra-judicial confession was written. the only evidence remaining against Albior with the rejection of his sworn statement. Since the crime is malum . FRANCISCO ALBIOR This is an appeal interposed by a suspected look-out sentenced to life imprisonment for robbery and the gruesome rape and slaying of a young nurse in her own bedroom.e. ISSUE: W/N At this the other evidence adduced by the prosecution would sustain a finding that accused was guilty RULING: The statement of Vasquez must however be taken with caution as in the proceedings before the trial court he testified that he was not allowed to read his statement before signing it and that he was threatened with physical violence during his custodial investigation. Whether or not the court correctly imposed judgment of conviction to the accused." had sexual intercourse with Dana Garces and hitting her with a wooden baluster on the different parts of her body causing her death and after which. no explanation was given by Vasquez how he came to know that Albior was one of those who participated in the robbery when he (Vasquez) did not participate in or even witness its commission. whose information was undoubtedly hearsay. Moreover. He said that he did not understand Tagalog. Thus. Tiu Won Chua 405 scra 280 Facts: Accused Tiu Won Chua a. accused-appellant Francisco Albior is hereby ACQUITTED. (2) probable cause must be determined personally by the judge. He also assailed the legality of his arrest and the seizure of the stolen goods by the CIS agents. The extrajudicial confessions of Manalangsang and Vasquez. however. be voided. Carlos Manalangsang and "Jun" to commit the robbery has not been established either. having knowledge of the crime of Robbery. warrants against John Does denied. it is of the nature of a general warrant. He also found lacerations on the victim's hymen. 2 In a prosecution for illegal possession of a dangerous drug. as said warrant is issued against fifty (50) "John Does" not one of whom the witnesses to the complaint could or would Identify.. and that he only signed it because he was told that if he did he would be released. People v. Vasquez. given the attendant circumstances.

The market price of one kilo of marijuana was then P1. pushed open the door and he and his companions entered and looked around the house for about three minutes. the prosecution sufficiently proved that the packs of shabu were found inside a room in the unit subject of the search warrant." There were many "Totoys" in their area and as the men questioning him were strangers." accused-appellants. SPO1 Badua recovered the marked bills from "Neneth. Simultaneous with the box's discovery. a 33-year old carpenter. Quezon City to prepare for the buy-bust operation. Her husband. P03 Manlangit ordered him and Violeta to go outside the house and board the car." For five (5) minutes. lack of criminal intent or good faith does not exempt appellants from criminal liability. The box was open and had something inside. Accused-appellant Doria further declared that his co-accused. "Jun" revealed that he left the money at the house of his associate named "Neneth. In the case at bar. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. He peeked inside the box and found that it contained ten (10) bricks of what appeared to be dried marijuana leaves.600. When Violeta entered her house. did. a 35-year old rice vendor. in relation to Sec. 00 to cover operational expenses.00 as PO3 Manlangit looked over "Neneth's" house. PO3 Manlangit entered "Neneth's" house and took hold of the box.00. she was at her house at Daang Bakal." together with the box. plaintiff-appellee.641. overheard one of the men say that they found a carton box. They frisked "Jun" but did not find the marked bills on him. Where the amount is less than 200 grams. Chief of the North Metropolitan District PNP Narcom. "Jun" identified the woman as his associate. whose handbag contained only 20. provides the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos where the amount of shabu involved is 200 grams or more. P03 Manlangit forthwith arrested "Jun" as SPO1 Badua rushed to help in the arrest. Doria knocked on the door of "Totoy's" house but no one answered. the above-named accused. 000. P03 Manlangit marked the bills with his initials and listed their serial numbers in the police blotter. As to the penalties imposed. "Jun" took out from his bag an object wrapped in plastic and gave it to P03 Manlangit. he is guilty of violating Section 16. An hour later. She was . This closeness. three men were already inside. then and there willfully. 1995 at E. unlawfully and feloniously sell. Mere possession of a regulated drug without legal authority is punishable under the Dangerous Drugs Act. Florencio Doria. It was only then that the police learned that "Jun" is Florencio Doria y Bolado while "Neneth" is Violeta Gaddao y Catama. Philippine National Police (PNP) Narcotics Command (Narcom). in connection with Section 20 (1 st paragraph). deemed to be owned by Tiu Won. confederating and mutually helping and aiding one another and without having been authorized by law. conspiring.600. 1995. From this sum.” "Jun" led the police team to "Neneth's" house nearby at Daang Bakal. The one (1) brick of dried marijuana leaves recovered from "Jun" plus the ten (10) bricks recovered from "Neneth's" house were examined at the PNP Crime Laboratory. P03 Manlangit handed "Jun" the marked bills worth P1. The plastic wrapper and its contents appeared similar to the marijuana earlier "sold" to him by "Jun. PO3 Manlangit noticed a carton box under the dining table. The meeting between NARCOM agents and Jun was scheduled on December 5. eleven (11) in all. the CI and the rest of the team were waiting. 21 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 That on or about the 5th day of December.641. hence. however. Upon inquiry. did not extend to Violeta. he was at the gate of his house reading a tabloid newspaper. Article III of R. They were brought to police headquarters where they were investigated. The prosecution contends the offense was committed as follows: In November 1995." The men took accused-appellant inside his house and accused him of being a pusher in their community. Jacinto Street in Mandaluyong City. At 7:20 of the same morning. the men led him to their car outside and ordered him to point out the house of "Totoy.600. Accused-appellant Doria. FLORENCIO DORIA y BOLADO and VIOLETA GADDAO y CATAMA @ "NENETH. PO3 Manlangit set aside P1. a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. is the wife of his acquaintance.5 grams of shabu were found inside the man’s handbag. the court did not sustain the trial court’s decision attributing to both appellants the illegal possession of the same amount of shabu. he gave in and took them to "Totoy's" house. since 234. Doria saw box on top of the table. Accused-appellants were charged with violation of Section 4. a housepainter. accused-appellant denied knowing any "Totoy. deliver and give away to another eleven (11) plastic bags of suspected marijuana fruiting tops weighing 7. gave the team P2.3673 grams of shabu is guilty of violating Section 20 thereof.00 — a one thousand peso bill and six (6) one hundred peso bills as money for the buy-bust operation. vs. The prosecution story was denied by accused-appellants Florencio Doria and Violeta Gaddao. the amount of the shabu from each accused was made the basis of the penalty imposed. Standing by the door. members of the North Metropolitan District." His suspicion aroused. The bricks. One of the men. FACTS .00.A. its contents and the marked bills and turned them over to the investigator at headquarters. were found to be dried marijuana fruiting tops of various weights totalling 7. Two men appeared and asked him if he knew a certain "Totoy.08 grams. Kamuning. When accused-appellant denied the charge. The team found the door of "Neneth's" house open and a woman inside. 1995 in the City of Mandaluyong.600.prohibitum. No. more particularly inside the man’s handbag and ladies’ handbag owned respectively by the accused. 1995. Section 16. Turning towards them. The Narcom agents formed Team. SPO1 Badua asked "Neneth" about the P1. The policemen came out of the house and they saw Violeta Gaddao carrying water from the well. at 7:00 in the morning. On December 5. Thus. CONTRARY TO LAW. The Narcom agents decided to entrap and arrest "Jun" in a buy-bust operation." The policemen arrested "Neneth. "Jun" appeared at the agreed place where P03 Manlangit." They took "Neneth" and "Jun. Mandaluyong City where she lived with her husband and five (5) children. 6425. Section 20 punishes the offender with the penalty ranging from prision correccional to reclusion perpetua. Violeta Gaddao. testified that on December 5. Totoy. Thereafter. at 6:00 in the morning. claimed that on December 5. He said that he and Totoy Gaddao sometimes drank together at the neighborhood store. had left for Pangasinan five days earlier. Violeta. later identified as P03 Manlangit. Accused-appellant Doria was left standing at the door.08 grams in violation of the above-cited law. then still at the door. Totoy Gaddao. Totoy's wife. 1995. administer. the CI went to the PNP Headquarters at EDSA. He saw that one of the box's flaps was open and inside the box was something wrapped in plastic. "Jun" appeared and the CI introduced PO3 Manlangit as interested in buying one (1) kilo of marijuana. Philippines. "Jun" instructed P03 Manlangit to wait for him at the corner of Shaw Boulevard and Jacinto Street while he got the marijuana from his associate. accused-appellant stayed in the car. while Qui Yaling. Since no conspiracy was proven. He asked Violeta where "Totoy" was but she replied he was not there. received information from two (2) civilian informants (CI) that one "Jun" was engaged in illegal drug activities in Mandaluyong City.

American federal courts and a majority of state courts use the "subjective" or "origin of intent" test laid down in Sorrells v. She denied the charge against her and Doria and the allegation that marked bills were found in her person. 13 of Republic Act No. the transactions leading up to the offense. 4 of Republic Act No. She said she did not know anything about the box and its contents. trickery. A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment employed by peace officers as an effective way of apprehending a criminal in the act of the commission of an offense. his reputation. even if his guilt has been established. The predisposition test emphasizes the accused's propensity to commit the offense rather than the officer's misconduct and reflects an attempt to draw a line between a "trap for the unwary innocent and the trap for the unwary criminal. the burden shifts to the government to show otherwise. It is a judicially created twentieth-century American doctrine… Entrapment sprouted from the doctrine of estoppel and the public interest in the formulation and application of decent standards in the enforcement of criminal law. Some states. the methods employed on behalf of the government to bring about the crime "cannot be countenanced. ISSUES: WON the buy-bust operation is valid. the gravity of the crime. are considered to assess his state of mind before the crime. or that the accused is aided in the commission of the crime in order to secure the evidence necessary to prosecute him. The inquiry is focused on the inducements used by government agents. etc. confederating or mutually helping one another for purposes of gain in the commission of any crime." To some extent. there is a certain amount of entrapment used to outwit the persons violating or about to violate the law. it is presumed that a lawabiding person would normally resist the temptation to commit a crime that is presented by the simple opportunity to act unlawfully. there is entrapment and no conviction may be had. an accused has the burden of providing sufficient evidence that the government induced him to commit the offense. The box was closed and tied with a piece of green straw. Where the criminal intent originates criminal in the mind of the entrapping person and the accused is lured into the commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him. Once established. This was the first time she saw the box. 23. not on the accused and his predisposition to commit the crime. Proponents of this test believe that courts must refuse to convict an entrapped accused not because his conduct falls outside the legal norm but rather because. Not every deception is forbidden. The law tolerates the use of decoys and other artifices to catch a criminal. The focus of the inquiry is on the accused's predisposition to commit the offense charged. his state of mind and inclination before his initial exposure to government agents. the Florida Supreme Court declared that the permissibility of police conduct must first be . the "seduction" of an otherwise innocent person into a criminal career. and the evidences obtained therefrom are valid/admissible? HELD Accused-appellants were caught by the police in a buy-bust operation. the criminal intent originates in the mind of the accused and the criminal offense is completed. It is recognized that in every arrest. the interaction between the accused and law enforcement officer and the accused's response to the officer's inducements. the entrapment defense will fail even if a police agent used an unduly persuasive inducement. activities. the first Supreme Court decision to acknowledge the concept: "Entrapment is the conception and planning of an offense by an officer. the fact that a person acting as a decoy for the state. 7659 which cover violations of Sec. Taking into consideration. All relevant facts such as the accused's mental and character traits. have adopted the "objective" test. It is a positive defense. 234 SCRA 555. the court considers the nature of the police activity involved and the propriety of police conduct. and the difficulty of detecting instances of its commission are considered in judging what the effect of the officer's conduct would on a normal person. Simon. United States. Inside her house were her co-accused Doria and three (3) other persons. According to the amendatory provisions of Sec. Here. SO ORDERED. and his procurement of its commission by one who would not have perpetrated it except for the trickery. the provisions of Sec. or fraud carried out by law enforcement officers or the agents to induce a defendant to commit a crime. The test of entrapment is whether the conduct of the law enforcement agent was likely to induce a normally law-abiding person. or public officials furnished the accused an opportunity for commission of the offense. his eagerness in committing the crime. They asked her about a box on top of the table. Initially. this reflects the notion that the courts should not become tainted by condoning law enforcement improprieties. Entrapment was unknown in common law. The men opened the box and showed her its contents. United States to determine whether entrapment actually occurred. such that the crime is the product of the creative activity of the law enforcement officer. 6425 and which was exhaustively discussed in People v. The man pulled her and took her to her house. also of Republic Act No." It consists of two (2) elements: (a) acts of persuasion.000. WON the warrantless arrest of Violeta and the search of her person and house. For the goal of the defense is to deter unlawful police conduct. however. for purposes of this test. persuasion or fraud of the officers. The classic definition of entrapment is that articulated by Justice Roberts in Sorrells v. Some states in the United States now combine both the "subjective" and "objective" In Cruz v. When entrapment is raised as a defense. She found out later that the man was P03 Manlangit. State. his past offenses. however. on police conduct. 7659 which explicitly state that: The maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offense was committed by any person who belongs to an organized/syndicated crime group. She also confirmed Doria was a friend of her husband.00 each.. other than one who is ready and willing. to commit the offense. the penalty imposable in this case is reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos. The type of entrapment the law forbids is the inducing of another to violate the law. This test was first authoritatively laid down in the case of Grossman v. Both the "subjective" and "objective" approaches have been criticized and objected to…Objections to the two tests gave birth to hybrid approaches to entrapment. and (b) the origin of the criminal design in the minds of the government officials rather than that of the innocent defendant. An organized/syndicated crime group means a group of two or more persons collaborating. Entrapment is recognized as a valid defense that can be raised by an accused and partakes of the nature of a confession and avoidance. State 38 rendered by the Supreme Court of Alaska. there is no entrapment and the accused must be convicted. Entrapment has received judicial sanction when undertaken with due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards. however.pumping water when a man clad in short pants and denim jacket suddenly appeared and grabbed her left wrist. It also took off from a spontaneous moral revulsion against using the powers of government to beguile innocent but ductile persons into lapses that they might otherwise resist. RTC: Convicted the accused and sentenced both to death and pay a fine of P500. Where. Hence." If the accused was found to have been ready and willing to commit the offense at any favorable opportunity.

either by showing lack of predisposition to commit the crime for which he is charged. . we held: ENTRAPMENT AND INSTIGATION. rely. The use of shady underworld characters as informants. These offenses are carried on in secret and the violators resort to many devices and subterfuges to avoid detection. The manner by which the initial contact was made. rape. etc. ways and means are resorted to by the peace officer for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreaker in the execution of his criminal plan. It is instigation that is a defense and is considered an absolutory cause. has often been condemned and has sometimes been held to prevent the act from being criminal or punishable. Frequently. wiretapping. the general rule is that it is no defense to the perpetrator of a crime that facilities for its commission were purposely placed in his way. The pronouncement of the Court of Appeals in People v. The "objective" test first applied in United States v. They are rules of convenience designed to secure a more orderly regulation of the affairs of society. therefore. The distinction above-quoted was reiterated in two (2) decisions of the Court of Appeals. Tiu Ua. Criminals must be caught but not at all cost. As well put by the Supreme Court of California in People v. adopting the "objective" approach has not precluded us from likewise applying the "subjective" test. At the same time. become as objectionable police methods as the coerced confession and the unlawful search. In Baca v. and their violation gives rise to crimes mala prohibita. Anti-narcotics laws. This means that the police must be present at the time the offenses are committed either in an undercover capacity or through informants. and while instigation. illegal detention and the third degree. assists the thief in carrying out the plan. the offer to purchase. This Court has taken judicial notice of this ugly reality in a number of cases where we observed that it is a common modus operandi of corrupt law enforcers to prey on weak and hapless persons. but against public order. Equally odious is the bitter reality of dealing with unscrupulous. that government in detecting and punishing violations of these laws. pimp. The distinction between entrapment and instigation has proven to be very material in anti-narcotics operations. we further held. Nevertheless. when dealing with known criminals of the 'criminal class. although necessary weapons in the arsenal of the police officer. that deal with crimes mala in se or those inherently wrongful and immoral. Though considered essential by the police in enforcing vice legislation. Violation is deemed a wrong against society as a whole and is generally unattended with any particular harm to a definite person. It is the duty of courts to preserve the purity of their own temple from the prostitution of the criminal law through lawless enforcement. The fact that an agent of an owner acts as a supposed confederate of a thief is no defense to the latter in a prosecution for larceny. — While it has been said that the practice of entrapping persons into crime for the purpose of instituting criminal prosecutions is to be deplored. arson. the relative ease with which illegal drugs may be planted in the hands or property of trusting and ignorant persons. extortion. as distinguished from mere entrapment. juris tantum. Barraza. the New Mexico Supreme Court modified the state's entrapment analysis by holding that "a criminal defendant may successfully assert a defense of entrapment. if the offense was committed by him. Phelps has been followed in a series of similar cases. Along with illegal search and seizures. They all spring from common motivations. and the imposed secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals have compelled this Court to be extra-vigilant in deciding drug cases. the Court of Appeals further declared that "entrapment is no bar to the prosecution and conviction of the lawbreaker. In People v.' justifies the employment of illegal means. Criminal activity is such that stealth and strategy. It is necessary. In entrapment. or other petty criminal. and where a person approached by the thief as his confederate notifies the owner or the public authorities. it has become common practice for law enforcement officers and agents to engage in buy-bust operations and other entrapment procedures in apprehending drug offenders. not the predisposition of the accused to commit the crime. To determine whether there is a entrapment or instigation. pickpocket. the offer to purchase the drug. it is a type of lawless enforcement. is not contrary to public policy. The hybrid approaches combine and apply the "objective" and "subjective" tests alternatively or concurrently. or. the payment of the "buy-bust" money. false arrest. We therefore stress that the "objective" test in buy-bust operations demands that the details of the purported transaction must be clearly and adequately shown. If this objective test is satisfied. Lua Chu and Uy Se Tieng 63 we first laid down the distinction between entrapment vis-a-vis instigation or inducement. Each is condoned by the sinister sophism that the end. This must start from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher. Especially is this true in that class of cases where the offense is one of a kind habitually committed. whether to the informant alone or the police officer. This presumption should not by itself prevail over the presumption of innocence and the constitutionally-protected rights of the individual. Entrapment in the Philippines is not a defense available to the accused. [E]ntrapment is a facet of a broader problem. being authorised by them to do so. whether or not through an informant. theft. particularly unsuspecting provincial hicks.determined. must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense. the spectacle that government is secretly mated with the underworld and uses underworld characters to help maintain law and order is not an inspiring one. free from the influence or instigation of the detective. In recent years. blackmail. or that detectives feigning complicity in the act were present and apparently assisting in its commission. like anti-gambling laws are regulatory statutes. unscrupulous law enforcers' motivations are legion — harassment. provided the original design was formed independently of such agent. however. or that the criminal act was done at the 'decoy solicitation' of persons seeking to expose the criminal. a person who accepts payment from the police in the apprehension of drug peddlers and gamblers also accept payment from these persons who deceive the police. the confidential informant system breeds abominable abuse. the appellate court declared that "there is a wide difference between entrapment and instigation. It is thus imperative that the presumption. They are not the traditional type of criminal law such as the law of murder. but upon the diligence of its own officials. and the delivery of the illegal drug. that the police exceeded the standards of proper investigation. In People v. Quoting 16 Corpus Juris. Like the informant. The informant himself maybe a drug addict. or a desire to report an accomplishment to their superiors. spies or stool pigeons. For whatever noble purpose it serves. corrupt and exploitative law enforcers. Galicia was affirmed by this Court in People v. not against particular individuals. vengeance. then the analysis turns to whether the accused was predisposed to commit the crime. of regularity in the performance of official duty by law enforcement agents raised by the Solicitor General be applied with studied restraint. not upon the voluntary action of aggrieved individuals. In the case of People v. Tan Tiong." The instigator practically induces the would-be accused into the commission of the offense and himself becomes a co-principal. the promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale. Laws defining crimes mala prohibita condemn behavior directed. Mere deception by the detective will not shield defendant. and. our courts have mainly examined the conduct of the apprehending officers. Each is a substitute for skillful and scientific investigation. Entrapment. and the solicitation merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct. State. It is instigation that is deemed contrary to public policy and illegal It can thus be seen that the concept of entrapment in the American jurisdiction is similar to instigation or inducement in Philippine jurisprudence. the larceny is nevertheless committed. Galicia.

the testimony of the informant may be dispensed with as it will merely be corroborative of the apprehending officers' eyewitness testimonies. the warrantless arrest of appellant Gaddao must fall under any of the three (3) instances enumerated in Section 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as aforequoted. P03 Manlangit handed the marked money to accused-appellant Doria as advance payment for one (1) kilo of marijuana. The prosecution admits that appellant Gaddao was arrested without a warrant of arrest and the search and seizure of the box of marijuana and the marked bills were likewise made without a search warrant. It is well-settled that except when the appellant vehemently denies selling prohibited drugs and there are material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the arresting officers. his back-up security. (4) seizure of evidence in plain view. supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the . the evidence shows that it was the confidential informant who initially contacted accused-appellant Doria. she was going about her daily chores when the policemen pounced on her. Contrary to the finding of the trial court. Under Section 5 (a). is based on actual facts. arrest a person: (finally!!) In the case at bar. and the seizure of the box of marijuana and marked bills are different matters. When an accused is apprehended in flagrante delicto as a result of a buy-bust operation. however. or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. the person to be arrested has committed. to wit: (a) When. (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending." The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when. straightforward and categorical manner and his credibility was not crumpled on cross-examination by defense counsel. Accused-appellant Doria was apprehended when he later returned and handed the brick of marijuana to P03 Manlangit. If there is overwhelming evidence of habitual delinquency. The non-presentation of the confidential informant is not fatal to the prosecution. It is claimed. This is why the carton box contained eleven (11) bricks of marijuana when brought before the trial court. is actually committing. were identified and marked in court. the one kilo of marijuana "sold" by him to PO3 Manlangit was actually identified by PO3 Manlangit himself before the trial court. or is attempting to commit an offense. Accused-appellant Gaddao was not caught red-handed during the buy-bust operation to give ground for her arrest under Section 5 (a) of Rule 113. The warrantless arrest of appellant Violeta the search of her person and residence. recidivism or plain criminal proclivity. or is attempting to commit an offense. xxx xxx xxx 103 The inconsistencies in P03 Manlangit's and SPO1 Badua's testimonies and the other police officers' testimonies are minor and do not detract from the veracity and weight of the prosecution evidence. Sec. the police are not only authorized but duty-bound to arrest him even without a warrant. "Personal knowledge" of facts in arrests without warrant under Section 5 (b) of Rule 113 must be based upon "probable cause" which means an "actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion. however. The direct testimony of PO3 Manlangit. — A peace officer or a private person may. a person may be arrested without a warrant if he "has committed. (2) search of a moving motor vehicle. She was not committing any crime. is actually committing. then this must also be considered. the decisive fact is that the poseur-buyer received the marijuana from the accused-appellant. in his presence." Appellant Doria was caught in the act of committing an offense. Neither could the arrest of appellant Gaddao be justified under the second instance of Rule 113. as above-quoted. Moreover. without a warrant. Appellant cannot capitalize on the circumstance that the money and the marijuana in the case at bar did not change hands under the usual "kaliwaan" system. To be lawful.e. the arresting officer. when lawful. Contrary to accused-appellant Doria's claim. the Narcom agents placed this one (1) brick of marijuana recovered from appellant Doria inside the carton box lumping it together with the ten (10) bricks inside. After appellants' apprehension.600. spontaneous. there was no occasion at all for appellant Gaddao to flee from the policemen to justify her arrest in "hot pursuit. in the absence of actual belief of the arresting officers. The rule is. Informants are usually not presented in court because of the need to hide their identity and preserve their invaluable service to the police." In fact. We also hold that the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant Doria is not unlawful. 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.00 strains credulity. The source of the money for the buy-bust operation is not a critical fact in the case at bar.. or that only the informant was the poseur-buyer who actually witnessed the entire transaction. (5) when the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Courts should look at all factors to determine the predisposition of an accused to commit an offense in so far as they are relevant to determine the validity of the defense of inducement. however. We also reject appellant's submission that the fact that P03 Manlangit and his team waited for almost one hour for appellant Doria to give them the one kilo of marijuana after he "paid" P1. the informant was accompanied by PO3 Manlangit who posed as the buyer of marijuana. or there are reasons to believe that the arresting officers had motives to testify falsely against the appellant. At the pre-arranged meeting. 5. (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed. i. that the warrants were not necessary because the arrest was made in "hot pursuit" and the search was an incident to her lawful arrest.examining the conduct of the police should not disable courts into ignoring the accused's predisposition to commit the crime. and PO3 Manlangit testified in a frank. however shows otherwise. not absolute. Arrest without warrant. the suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense. There is no rule of law which requires that in "buy-bust" operations there must be a simultaneous exchange of the marked money and the prohibited drug between the poseur. Again. and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. P03 Manlangit's testimony was corroborated on its material points by SPO1 Badua. Our Constitution proscribes search and seizure without a judicial warrant and any evidence obtained without such warrant is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.buyer and the pusher. (3) search in violation of customs laws. It is enough that the prosecution proved that money was paid to accusedappellant Doria in consideration of which he sold and delivered the marijuana. Warrantless arrests are allowed in three instances as provided by Section 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. The one (1) brick recovered from appellant Doria and each of the ten (10) bricks. There is no need to present the informant in court where the sale was actually witnessed and adequately proved by prosecution witnesses.

Since the warrantless arrest of Violeta was illegal. the arrest is legally objectionable. The difficulty arises when the object is inside a closed container. He said that if the informant has given the cops the information about his arrival as early as the day before his apprehension. the cops should have ample time to secure a search warrant. the Narcom agents had no reasonable grounds to believe that she was engaged in drug pushing. they are: (1) customs searches." A close scrutiny of the records reveals that the plastic wrapper was not colorless and transparent as to clearly manifest its contents to a viewer. A reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on probable cause. P03 Manlangit and the police team were at appellant Gaddao's house because they were led there by appellant Doria. if the package proclaims its contents. knowledge of facts implicating the person arrested to the perpetration of a criminal offense. The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can particularly view the area. Each of the ten (10) bricks of marijuana in the box was individually wrapped in old newspaper and placed inside plastic bags — white. contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. It must be immediately apparent to the police that the items that they observe may be evidence of a crime. PO3 Manlangit. The marijuana was not in plain view and its seizure without the requisite search warrant was in violation of the law and the Constitution.person to be arrested. He averred that the search and seizure conducted was illegal for there was no warrant and that he should have been given the opportunity to cross examine the informant. In his direct examination. Sec 2 Art 3 of the Constitution has its exception when it comes to warrantless searches. (6) “stop and frisk” measures have been invariably recognized as the traditional exceptions. (b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent. Appellant Doria may have left the money in her house. whether by its distinctive configuration. (5) searches incidental to a lawful arrest. It is clear that an object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly exposed to sight. pink or blue in color. Montilla was then apprehended and he was caught in possession of a bag and a carton worth 28 kilos of marijuana. (4) consented searches. Two and a half meters away was the dining table and underneath it was a carton box. P03 Manlangit had a view of the interior of said house. It was not immediately apparent to PO3 Manlangit that the content of the box was marijuana. it follows that the search of her person and home and the subsequent seizure of the marked bills and marijuana cannot be deemed legal as an incident to her arrest. This identification does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that appellant Gaddao conspired with her co-accused in pushing drugs. (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime. then the article is deemed in plain view. Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and maybe introduced in evidence. PO3 Manlangit himself admitted on cross-examination that the contents of the box could be items other than marijuana. with or without any conspiracy. Doria did not point to appellant Vileta as his associate in the drug business. or if its contents are obvious to an observer. contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. declared in his direct examination that appellant Doria named his co-accused in response to his (PO3 Manlangit's) query as to where the marked money was. Dasmariňas. if the package is such that an experienced observer could infer from its appearance that it contains the prohibited article. the object itself is not in plain view and therefore cannot be seized without a warrant. he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The object must be open to eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent. its transparency. PO3 Manlangit said that he was sure that the contents of the box were marijuana because he himself checked and marked the said contents. The Narcom agents testified that they had no information on appellant Gaddao until appellant Doria name her and led them to her. On cross- examination. In other words. If there is no showing that the person who effected the warrantless arrest had. (3) seizure of evidence in plain view. but as the person with whom he left the marked bills. then the contents are in plain view and may be seized. She was arrested solely on the basis of the alleged identification made by her coaccused. (2) searches of moving vehicles. PEOPLE VS MONTILLA On 19 June 1994 at about 2pm. Standing by the door of appellant Gaddao's house. It was fruit of the poisonous tree and should have been excluded and never considered by the trial court. the informant pointed at Montilla as the courier who was waiting in a waiting shed Brgy Salitran. Where the object seized was inside a closed package. with or without her knowledge. The next day. police officers Talingting and Clarin were informed by an asset that a drug courier would be arriving from Baguio to Dasmariňas carrying an undetermined amount of marijuana. in his own right. The "plain view" doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area. However. The box was partially open and revealed something wrapped in plastic. HELD: The SC ruled that the warrantless arrest is legal and so was the warrantless search. Montilla denied the allegation and he said he came to Cavite from Baguio for work and he does not have any effects with him at that time except for some pocket money. he admitted that he merely presumed the contents to be marijuana because it had the same plastic wrapping as the "buy-bust marijuana. He was sentenced to death thereafter. Save for accused-appellant Doria 's word. making its warrantless seizure valid. In the course of such lawful intrusion. This brings us to the question of whether the trial court correctly found that the box of marijuana was in plain view. however. He did not know exactly what the box contained that he had to ask appellant Gaddao about its contents. however. ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless arrest conducted is legal. coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officers making the arrest. .

however powerful. On such bare information. if indeed they had reasonable ground to believe that the accused had truly committed a crime. Held: Records disclose that when the police went to defendant’s house to arrest him upon the information given by Masamlok. sec 2). The trial court justified the warrantless arrest under Rule 113 Sec 6 of the RoC: a) b) c) When the person to be arrested has committed. under these circumstances. doesn’t have access to a man’s home. G. and was not committing any “subversive” act—he was plowing his field. the records do not reveal that he knew him by name. Likewise. the state. We fail to see why they failed to first go through the process of obtaining a warrant of arrest. Defendant denies being involved in any subversive activities and claims that he has been tortured in order to accept ownership of subject firearm and that his alleged extrajudicial statements have been made only under fear. In determining the opportunity for obtaining warrants. and A person charged with an offense may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense. the search of his home. as above contemplated. There is no showing that there was a real apprehension that the accused was on the verge of flight or escape. Issue: If defendant’s arrest. Pol of the NPA. The test of reasonable ground applies only to the identity of the perpetrator. His extra-judicial confession. vs.In the case at bar. When an offense has in fact been committed. and that the trial court erred in holding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of PD 9 in relation to GOs 6and 7. allegedly a man defendant tried to recruit into the NPA. However. a man’s house. 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 A legitimate warrantless arrest. the firearm. he wasn’t in actual possession of any firearm or subversive document. Art III) and thus inadmissible as evidence. 1994. the defendant was never informed of his constitutional rights at the time of his arrest. the police authorities arrest defendant and had his house searched. assuming they were really illegal. Furthermore. not only the intervening time is controlling but all the coincident and ambient circumstances should be considered. Subsequently. and on which there is no evidence presented by the defense. the information relayed was too sketchy and not detailed enough for the obtention of the corresponding arrest or search warrant. are confiscated. the defendant was not accorded his constitutional right to be assisted by counsel during the custodial interrogation. Even assuming that the policemen were not pressed for time.R. that the trial court erred in holding the search warrant in his house for the firearm lawful. assuming that they could readily have access to a judge or a court that was still open by the time they could make preparations for applying therefor. his haven of refuge where his individuality can assert itself in his choice of welcome and in the kind of objects he wants around him. An essential precondition is that a crime must have beenin fact or actually have been committed first. and thus is outlawed any unwarranted intrusion by the government. allegedly issued and used by one Alias Cmdr. however humble. In the traditional formulation. plaintiff-appellee. is his castle. is actually committing. defendant is acquitted on grounds of reasonable doubt of the crime with which he has been . certain NPA-related documents and a firearm. especially in rural areas. No. and he has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it. He avers that his arrest is unlawful as it is done without valid warrant. In proving the ownership of the questioned firearm and alleged subversive documents. In light of the aforementioned. It is not enough that there is reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a crime in a warrantless arrest. necessarily cloaks the arresting police officer with authority to validly search and seize from the offender: and the confiscation of the firearm under Rule 126. L-68955 September 4. 1986 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. the trial court has erred in its conclusion that said warrantless arrest is under the ambit of aforementioned RoC. threat and intimidation on his person and his family. it isn’t enough to suspect a crime may have been committed. this would be beside the point for. At the time of defendant’s arrest. thus the admissions obtained are in violation of the constitutional right against self-incrimination under Sec 20 Art IV (now Sec 12. and the subsequent confiscation of a firearm and several NPA-related documents are lawful. Sec 12: (1) dangerous weapons. or is about to commit an offense in his presence. As the Court held in Villanueva vs Querubin. Facts: Defendant is charged with illegal possession of firearm in furtherance of subversion (tasks such as recruiting members to the NPA and collection of contributions from its members) and found guilty by the RTC of Digos. The Court also finds no compelling reason for the haste with which the arresting officers sought to arrest the accused. defendant-appellant. the police authorities could not have properly applied for a warrant. Davao del Sur. they had neither search nor arrest warrant with them—in wanton violation of ArtIV. RUBEN BURGOS y TITO. (2) those that may be used as proof of the commission of an offense. Sec 3 (now Art III. and the alleged subversive documents are all inadmissible as evidence. From the information filed by the police authorities upon the information given by Masamlok. there is no showing that the whereabouts of the accused were unknown. While there is an indication that the informant knew the courier. it should be noted that the information relayed by informant to the cops was that there would be delivery of marijuana at Barangay Salitran by a courier coming from Baguio in the “early morning” of June 20.

The Court also maintains that violations of human rights do not help in overcoming a rebellion. “while the government should continue to repel the communists. the rebels. it should always be remembered that whatever action is taken must always be within the framework of our Constitution and our laws. the subversives.charged. Subject firearm and alleged subversive documents have been disposed of in accordance with law. and the lawless with the means at its command. Reiterating Morales vs Enrile.” .