AAA v Carbonell

AAA worked as sec at Arzadon Automotive

AAA was asked to deliver a book to another building, when she returned lights were off and she
just tried to get her handbag
On her way out Arzadon was beside a parked van with a pipe, threatened her with the pipe,
forced her to lie on pavement then raped her
Petitioner did not report on the incident because Arzadon threatened to kill her family, BUT
discovered that she got pregnant
She filed a complaint for rape against Arzadon
Assistant City Prosecutor Cosalan issued a resolution finding probable cause, and recommended
filing an information on rape. Arzadon moved for reconsideration and during clarificatory
hearing petitioner testified, failed to testify to subsequent hearing, case was provisionally
dismissed.
Petitioner filed another affidavit complaint with comprehensive account of alleged rape,
Investigating prosecutor issued a resolution finding that a prima facie case of rape exists and
recommending the filing of the information.
Arzadon moved for recon and requested a panel of prosecutors review the case, who found
probable cause
Information for rape filed in RTC. Arzadon filed a motion to hold in abeyance all court
proceedings including issuance of warrant of arrest.
Judge Carbonell granted motion and directed petitioner and her witnesses to take the witness
stand for determination of probable cause
DOJ: Found probable cause -> Acting SOJ Guttierez reversed -> Reversed by SOJ Raul Gonzales =
FOUND PROBABLE CAUSE
Arzadon filed an urgent motion for Judicial determination of probable cause for the purpose of
issuing a warrant of arrest.
Judge Carbonell granted motion and directed petitioner and her witnesses to take witness stand
INSTEAD of taking the witness stand, petitioner filed motion for recon claiming that the
documentary evidence sufficiently established existence of probable cause.
Judge Carbonell issued the assailed order dismissing Criminal Case No. 6983 for lack of probable
cause.

ISSUE: W/N Judge Carbonell acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal case for
lack of probable cause?
HELD: YES, Judge Carbonell dismissed the case stating there was no probable cause on the ground
that petitioner repeatedly refused to comply with courts orders despite repeated demands which
directed petitioner and witnesses to take stand for probing and clarificatory questions.

Claims that under Sec 2 of Art 3 of Consti. No warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable
cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complaint and the witnesses he may produce.
COURT HELD IN Soliven v Makasiar = Explained that this constitution provision does not
mandatorily require judge to personally examine complainant and her witnesses. He may opt to
personally evaluate the report and supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor or he may
disregard prosecutors report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses.
What the consti underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to
satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. Sound policy dictates this procedure, otherwise
judges would be unduly laden with prelim exam and inves crim complaints instead on concentrating
on hearing and deciding cases in their courts.
There are circumstances which call for judges personal examination of complainant and witnesses =
only when there is utter failure of the evidence to show existence of probable cause
NOT MANDATORY AND INDISPENSABLE.
If report, taken together with the supporting evidence is sufficient to sustain finding probable cause.
It is not compulsory that personal examinayion of complainant and his witnesses be conducted.
IN this case Judge Carbonell did not take into consideration resolutions of the assistant provincial
prosecutor, resolution of DOJ, resolution of panel of prosec. He failed to evaluate evidence in
support of finding probable cause.

Positively identified Arzadon

Bore child
Transcript of stenographic notes

Finding of probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence beyond reasonable
doubt. Just a well founded belief that crime has been commited, respondent probably committed it and
should be held for trial. Judge Carbonell committed GAD when he dismissed criminal case for lack of
probable cause on ground that petitioner and her witnesses failed to take stand.
Petition is granted.

People v Alunday

Two informations were filed against Alunday in RTC Bontoc for violation of RA 6425 known as
the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 and Sec 1 of PD 1866
RA 6425: At a marijuana plantation had willful intent to plant, did then and feloniously plant and
cultivate marijuana fruiting tops weighing 750 grams with an estimated value of 10 million.
Violation of Sec 1 of PD1866: At a marijuana plantation, had without license or permit an M16
with engraved marks of COREY BOKZ w/o any written authority or permit previously acquired
from authorities to carry or transport the same
Alunday pleaded not guilty to both charges. Thereafter a joint trial ensued
Prosecution presented witnesses from the PNP and Crime laboratory
Defense presented Alunday, aunt and daughter of accused appellant
PROSECUTION VERSION: Police Provincial office received a report from a confidential informant
of existing Marijuana Plantation. Police Senior Inspector Cayad engaged services of another
confidential informant to validate said report. Existence of marijuana plantation was confirmed.
Operation Banana commenced, PIA videotaped operation. SPO Saipen scouted vicinity saw
Alunday, Apprehended him introduced themselves as members of PNP. They brought Alunday
to nearby hut where they saw an old woman, m16, marijuana dried leaves. They proceeded to
uproot marijuana and collected samples.
ACCUSED VERSION: Vehemently denied accusations. Just went to Mount Churyon to haul
lumber that he had cut and left by the river. Spent night at hut of an old woman named Ligka
Baydon. Policement approached him and asked him if he owned marijuana plants growing, he
said no and policemen proceeded to uproot and burn marijuana plants. Took him to PNP
headquarters despite his refusal. Defense witnesses confirmed this story
GUILTY: VIOLATION OF RA6425
ACQUITTED: VIOLATION OF PRES DECREE ON REASONABLE DOUBT
Alunday filed notice for appeal, CA affirmed RTC ruling
Hence this petition, Alunday claims his conviction is improper asserting court never acquired
jurisdiction over him because he was arrested w/o warrant and warrantless arrest was not done
in accdce with Sec 5, Rule 113.
Police officers had 3 months to secure warrant upon finising out about existing marijuana
plantation

ISSUE: W/N CA GAD in giving credence to the prosecutions evidence despite its inadmissibility for
being the result of an unlawful arrest?

HELD: NO, Sec 5(a) provides warrantless arrest is allowed in cases of flagrante delicto. In this case
Spo1 Saipen saw accused appellant personally cutting and gathering marijuana plants. Thus his
arresr was legal since he was caught in flagrante delicto, he was committing crime in presence of the
arresting officers.
People v Sucro: Police officer sees offense althought at a distance, this is deemed flagrante delicto
Spo1 Saipen testified in direct examination that he saw man cutting marijuana plants
Alunday went into arraignment and entered plea and actively participated in trial this is considered
waiver of any alleged defect in his arrest. He is considered to have voluntarily submitted to
jurisdiction of trial court. Counsel even assisted his plea.
Last contention Alunday imputes ill motive on officers = There is presumption of performance of
regular duties unless evidence to contrary.

People v Del Rosario

Joselito del Rosario, Marquez AKA Jun, Virgilio Santos AKA Boy Santos and John Doe AKA
Dodong were charged with special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide for having
robbed Virginia Bernas a 66 year old businesswoman of 200K in cash and jewelry and on
occasion shot and killed her
While accused Del Rosario pleaded not guilty, all others remained at large except for
Maruqez who was shot at a police enoucnter.
FACTS: Eyewitness = Alonzo (Tricycle driver), saw Del Rosario who had a tricycle in front of
him, saw 2 armed men grapple with woman for possession of a bag, one fended off a man
who tried to defend woman, one kicked woman and shot her. Tricycle used as getaway,
Alonzo recognized driver and plate number and went to nearest police head quarters and
reported the incident.
Del Rosario Version: Other co accused tricked him, they initially set out to pay him 120 to go
to Blas Edward Coliseum, ended up going to Market place. Incident with Virginia Bernas
happened, he couldnt leave tricycle since Boy Santos threatened to kill him. Co accused
used his tricycle as getaway car and when they left told him not to inform anyone. This is
why he didnt report to police or brgy captain.
Court a quo found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to death
Del Rosario avers that his arrest was unlawful since there was no warrant therefor.
Del Rosario claimed he acted under compulsion of an irresistible force
Trial court held this fear is merely speculative and gun point cannot be considered
uncontrollable since it fell short of test req by jurisprudence and law

ISSUE: W/N there was a lawful warrantless arrest within the meaning of Sec 5, Rule 113?
Held: NO, it must be recalled Del Rosario was arrested by SPO4 De Leon during the police raid at the
place of Jun Marquez at Brgy. Dicarma.
5 (a) Flagrante Delicto = Could not have been the case, since it is outside the purview of the rule aince
he was arrested the day following the commission of robbery with homicide
5 (b) 2 requirements
1. An offesnse has JUST BEEN committed
2. Person making arrest has personal knowledge of the facts indicating person to be arrested has
committed it.
Hence there is large immediacy to time of arrest and time offense was committed. IF there is an
appreciable lapse of time warrant must be secured. In this case arrest of Del Rosario does not comply,
arrest came day after and the crime had not been just committeed Arresting officers also had no
personal knowledge indicating that the person to be arrested had committed the offense since they
were not present or actual eye witnesses to the crime. They became aware of his identity thru custodial
investigation.

Person who acts under compulsion of an irresistible force is exempt from criminal liability because he
does not act with freedom. (An act done by me against my will is not my act) The force contemplated
must reduce person into a mere instrument. We hold trial court erred when it said that it was Boy
Santos who left tricycle to chase companion of victim and shot victim, instantly killing her.
A careful and meticulous scrutiny of the transcripts and records of the case, particularly testimonies of
witness Alonzo and del Rosario himself reveal it was Jun Marquez who killed victim.
Alonzo stated: There was passenger inside tryc, man holding gun behind driver, there was somebody in
tryc when handbag was given, Jun Maruqez shot woman
Del Rosario: Couldnt leave gun pointed at me, Jun Marquez shot woman
Both testimonies lead court to deduce Jun Marquez as one who killed victim and Boy Santos stayed in
tryc.

DEL ROSARIO ACQUITTED.

People v Jayson

Wenceslao Jayson was charged with PD NO 1866 in RTC Davo City. The Amended info alleged:
o Jayson willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with intent to possess had in his possession
and under his custody .38 revolver and 4 live ammunitions inside chamber of revolver
w/o license.
o Same .38 caliber revolver was used in killing Nelson Jordan
Prosecution evidence shows Jayson a bouncer at the ihaw ihaw night club shot Nelson Jordan.
He was arrested after he had been pointed by eyewitnesses as the gunman. The firearm was
recovered, and was covered by a memorandum receipt and mission order by Major Arquillano
authorizing Jayson to carry it for a 3 month duration but subject to conditions.
CA held Major Arquillano was not authorized to issue mission orders to civilian agents.
Major Arquillano claimed that Col. Calida had authorized him, but CA rejected such assertion as
there was no written delegation and it is doubtful w/n Calida had authority to delegate this
authority to a deputy.
Jayson was inititially charged with murder in RTC, was allowed to plead to lesser offense of
homicide
Jayson was subsequently charged with illegal possession of ifrearm was sentenced to 20 years,
since found to be in good faith believing mission order was valid.
CA increased penalty to reclusion perpetua
Jayson filed an appeal, stressing he was in good faith and prosecution failed to present witness
the govt official who certified that Jayson was not a holder or firearm license is FATAL to
prosecution case.
Althought not raised as an error, it is pertinent to consider circumstances surrounding accused
appelants arrest and seizure of firearm since both were made w/o warrant.

ISSUE: W/N the arrest of Jayson and seizure of his firearm where lawful despite lack of warrant?
HELD: YES, In the case at bar there was a shooting. The policemen summoned to the scene of the
crime found the victim. Jayson was pointed to them as an assailant only moments after the
shooting. Jason had not gone very far, although he was fleeing. The officers acted on basis of
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of the death of the victim and of facts indicating that Jayson was the
assailant.
People v Tonog Jr: Had information of the person who stabbed someone to death, saw accused with
blood stained pants, same blood type as that of knife. Court upheld warrantless arrest, the pants
being incident of lawful arrest was admissible
People v Gerente: Accused arrested three hours after victim got killed, went to scene of crime saw
block of wood used to bludgeon victim to death. Neighbor pointed out accused who witnessed the
killing, arret was held valid under 113 5(b)

People v Acol: Group held up jeepney, policemen responded and group ran, they were caught and
arrested each found with unlicensed revolver charged with illegal firearms. Court held search was
valid incident of lawful arrest.
The subsequent issue is the seizure of the firearm which the court held was lawful.
People v Lua: buy bust operation ,accused had something buldging in his waist line which turned out
to be unlicensed .38 caliber paltik with two live bullets. Accused was charged with illegal possession
of firearm. The search was held to be valid incident to lawful arrest.

People of the Phil v Edano

Prosecution charged appellant and Siochi with violation of Sec. 11 Art 2 of RA. 9165 under
two separate informations. 2 criminal cases docketed.
Both pleaded not guilty to charge on arraignment, joint trial on the merits followed.
Prosecution presented as its witness Police inspector Casignia and Corbe.
Appelant, Siochi and Forteza took witness stand for the defense.
Prosecution version: Appelant arrived on board a space wagon driven by Siochi. Informant
approached the appellant and talked to him in the vehicle, informant then waived at PO3
Corbe. When Corbe approached, latter went out of vehicle and ran away but was caught
and a knot tied transparent plastic bag was seized and another PO seized a gun in
appelaants waist. Other memebers of police arrested Siochi. Upon examination presence of
Shabu was discovered.
Appelant Version: He met with Vanessa at mcdonals, vehicle of siochi with Ruben
proceeded to restaurant. Vanessa told him to enter cars rear. Driver alighted from car and
entered rear, Appelant went out of car but male driver followed him. He heard gunshot and
4 persons approached him and tied him with masking tape. Police brought him to
interrogation room, where they punched him and placed a plastic on his head.
RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of shabu under
Sec 11 Art 2 of RA 9165. Life and 500k fine
RTC however acquitted Siochi on ground of reasonable doubt.
CA affirmed decision of RTC, since appelants act of running when Corbe approached him
showed that something was amiss.
Appellant argued that warrantless arrest was illegal since he was not committing any crime
when the police arrested him. Police did not mark and photograph the seized items and that
there was a broken chain of custody over the confiscated drugs.
OSG: Appelants arrest was valid, seized shabu was admissible.

ISSUE: W/N warrantless arrest of appellant was valid and were seized items admissible?
HELD: NO, In present case there was no overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise that could
be attrivuted to rouse suspicioun in mind of PO3 Corbe that appellant had just committed, was
actually committing, or was attempting to commit a crime. PO3 Corbe testified that the
appellant and nformant were just talking when he approached them. (No exchange of money or
drugs) also admitted he had no personal knowledge on whether there was prohibited durg and
gun inside space wagon.
Appelants running is irrelevant and cannot equate to personal knowledge of appealant engaging
in criminal actibity. There are many innocent reasons for flight, inwillingness to appear as
witnesses, fear for being wrongfully apprehended. Considering that the appelants warrantless
arrest was illegal the search and seizure that resulted from it was likewise illegal. That plastic
bag of shabu is a inadmissible. Court hold appelants acquittal is in order since evidence acquired
was a proverbial fruit from a poisonous tree and failure to comply with chain of custody req