You are on page 1of 2

People v. Araneta RULING: YES.

In a buy-bust operation, the Court ruled that it was a

circumstance where a warrantless arrest is justified. It is a valid form
FACTS: Criminal informations were filed in the RTC against of entrapment, as the idea to commit a crime comes not from the police
respondents for Violation of Section 8 and Section 16 of RA No. 6425 officers but from the accused himself. The accused is caught in the act
(Dangerous Drugs Act pf 1972), as amended, and Section 15, Article and must be apprehended on the spot. From the very nature of a buy-
III in relation to Section 21, Article IV of RA No. 6425. The police bust operation, the absence of a warrant does not make the arrest
officers conducted a buy-bust operation from a confidential informant illegal. As it is, there was substantial compliance with the requirements
regarding the alleged peddling of illegal drugs of live-in couple. The under RA 9165, and the prosecution adequately established that there
RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and the CA was an unbroken chain of custody over the shabu seized from the
affirmed the decision. The accused stressed the inadmissibility of accused.
evidence due to their illegal arrest, and the inconsistency in the
testimonies of prosecution witnesses. They also pointed out that the
apprehending officers failed to establish that the corpus delicti (sachets Mallari vs. CA
of shabu or marijuana) were the very same ones sold by and seized
from them. Additionally, they claimed that the apprehending team, FACTS: Police Station, received reliable information that appellant
who had initial custody over the confiscated drug items, failed to make who has a standing warrant of arrest in connection with Criminal Case
an inventory and to photograph the same in their presence. for homicide, was seen at Tarlac. Upon reaching the place, the
arresting officers surrounded the house of appellant, arrested him and
ISSUE: WON the arrest of the accused and the seizure of the shabu told him to remain stationary. Thereupon, the arresting officers
and marijuana were lawful searched him and found a homemade gun (paltik) with one M-16 live
ammunition. After investigation, the petitioner was charged with the
RULING: YES. The prosecution was able to establish all the necessary crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition, and pleaded
elements required in the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous not guilty on arraignment. The Regional Trial Court convicted
drugs, namely: 1) the identity of the buyer and seller; 2) the identity of petitioner of the crime charged. CA affirmed in toto. Petitioner
the object of the sale and the consideration; and 3) the delivery of the questions the factual finding of the CA that at the time of his arrest,
thing sold upon payment. The Court holds that the seized items were there was a standing warrant against him and he posits that the absence
admissible. A search warrant or warrant of arrest was not needed of the requisite warrant is fatal and renders the search and seizure
because it was a buy-bust operation and the accused were caught in unlawful. Corrolarily, the handgun and ammunition seized from him
flagrante delicto in possession of, and selling, dangerous drugs to the are inadmissible in evidence.
ISSUE: WON the accused is guilty of the crime of Illegal Possession
People vs. Sembrano y Castro of Firearms and Ammunition

FACTS: The operatives of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs (SAID) of RULING: At this juncture, the Court would like to stress that this is
the Police Station arrested appellant in broad daylight (3:30 o’clock in not a case of a warrantless arrest but merely an instance of an arrest
the afternoon), in the course of a buy-bust operation and after a follow- effected by the police authorities without having the warrant in their
up search on him. The Assistant City Prosecutor filed two separate possession at that precise moment. The above quoted rule clearly
Informations against him for (1) illegal sale and (2) illegal possession allows a police officer to effect arrest without the warrant in his
of shabu, a dangerous drug. The RTC found accused guilty as charged. possession at the time of the arrest. Thus, appellant’s arrest being
The defense questioned the admissibility of the confiscated evidence lawful, the search and seizure made incidental thereto is likewise
on the ground of illegality of their arrest. CA affirmed the decision. valid, albeit conducted without a warrant. In the case of
People v. Acol, where the unlicensed firearms were found when the
ISSUE: WON the warrantless arrest against the appellant was unlawful police team apprehended the accused for robbery and not for illegal
possession of firearms and ammunition, this Court held that the
RULING: NO. On the legality of the warrantless arrest, the Court unlicensed firearms may be seized without the necessity of obtaining
reiterated that appellant was arrested during an entrapment operation a search warrant. But in this case, the SC acquitted the accused for
where he was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu. When an arrest insufficiency of evidence because the prosecution failed to discharge
is made during an entrapment operation, it is not required that a warrant its burden of proving that he did not have the requisite license for the
be secured in line with the provisions of Rule 113, Section 5 (a) of the firearm and ammunition found in his possession. . This is where the
Revised Rules of Court allowing warrantless arrests. Contrary to the prosecution’s case fails and miserably so.
defense's claim, it is not impossible for a buy-bust operation to be
conducted in broad daylight, as in the case at bar. Frame-up, like
denial, is viewed by this Court with disfavor for it can easily be Pestilos vs. People

FACTS: Atty Generoso had an altercation with the petitioners in which

People vs. Elizabeth Marcelino he called the Central Police District to report the incident. They arrived
at the scene of the crime less than one hour after the alleged altercation
FACTS: The buy-bust team, headed for Bulacan at around half past and saw Atty. Generoso badly beaten. Atty. Generoso then pointed to
seven in the evening. The RTC found accused guilty of violating the petitioners as those who mauled him. This prompted the police
sections 5 and 11 of RA No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous officers to "invite" the petitioners for investigation. At the inquest
Drugs Act of 2002. Accused argued that that the police officers who proceeding, the City Prosecutor found that the petitioners stabbed Atty.
arrested her at her home were not the same ones that the prosecution Generoso with a bladed weapon. In an Information, the petitioners
presented as members of the buy-bust operation. That the evidence were indicted for attempted murder. The petitioners filed an Urgent
presented against her was inadmissible, since it was acquired during Motion for Regular Preliminary Investigation on the ground that they
her unlawful arrest. CA affirmed the decision. had not been lawfully arrested. They alleged that no valid warrantless
arrest took place since the police officers had no personal knowledge
ISSUE: WON the arrest was valid that they were the perpetrators of the crime. They also claimed that
they were just "invited" to the police station. Thus, the inquest
proceeding was improper, and a regular procedure for preliminary
investigation should have been performed. The RTC issued its order
denying the petitioners' Urgent Motion for Regular Preliminary
Investigation. The court likewise denied the petitioners' motion for
reconsideration. Petition for certiorari was also dismissed by CA.

ISSUE: WON the petitioners were validly arrested without a warrant

RULING: YES. The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and our

jurisprudence on the matter, we hold that the following must be present
for a valid warrantless arrest: 1) the crime should have been just
committed; and 2) the arresting officer's exercise of discretion is
limited by the standard of probable cause to be determined from the
facts and circumstances within his personal knowledge. The
requirement of the existence of probable cause objectifies the
reasonableness of the warrantless arrest for purposes of compliance
with the Constitutional mandate against unreasonable arrests. The
court deemed it reasonable to conclude that the police officers had
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances justifying the petitioners'
warrantless arrests. These circumstances were well within the police
officers' observation, perception and evaluation at the time of the
arrest. These circumstances qualify as the police officers' personal
observation, which are within their personal knowledge, prompting
them to make the warrantless arrests. To reiterate, personal knowledge
of a crime just committed under the terms of the above-cited provision,
does not require actual presence at the scene while a crime was being
committed; it is enough that evidence of the recent commission of the
crime is patent (as in this case) and the police officer has probable
cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances, that the person to be arrested has recently committed
the crime. Considering the circumstances of the stabbing, particularly
the locality where it took place, its occasion, the personal
circumstances of the parties, and the immediate on-the-spot
investigation that took place, the immediate and warrantless arrests of
the perpetrators were proper. Consequently, the inquest proceeding
that the City Prosecutor conducted was appropriate under the