Bernardo, Samantha C.

IV-A
 NARRATIVE REPORT: BANK ROBBERY

On or about 11:11 in the morning of September 26, 2020, at Tanso-Ginto-Pilak Bank

(TGP Bank), Makagradwar Tayon City, Los Vamonos, two (2) men and two (2) women with

stockings in their head enter the bank premises while armed with caliber .45 and declared bank

robbery. They then instructed all the clients and security guards to lay on the ground, while the

bank tellers were instructed to move 10 feet away from their desks. The two (2) female robbers,

one approximately 5’ in height in her 20’s, wearing white shirt and black shorts, and another one

heavy set, wearing black shirt and black leggings in her 30’s poses as the lookout.

After failing in opening the bank vault, one of the bank robbers, male approximately 5’6

in height muscular, wearing blue jeans, and white shirt have some altercation with the bank

security guard and accidentally shot him in the head, during that altercation the bank manager

then alerted the authorities with the means of the panic button under her table, another bank

robber male approximately 5’4 in height, wearing black hoodie jacket and black jeans saw her,

then shot her on different parts of the body. The victims then are on the ground gushing blood.

The bank robbers then resorted in robbing the bank clients and bank tellers. They have

with them are the cash money, jewelries, and gadgets of the bank clients and bank tellers. They

leave the bank premises on board two (2) black Yamaha NMax. Last seen heading uphill towards

the Los Vamonos Provincial Capitol in Aguila Road.

 Few minutes after the bank robbers leave the authorities arrive, then ambulance was

called and the bank security guard and bank manager were then rushed to Final Destination

Regional Medical Center (FDRMC), Makagradwar Tayon City, Los Vamonos, for medical

treatment but was pronounced dead on arrival (DOA) by the attending physician thereat.

The police officers act immediately upon receiving a complaint from one of the victims

inside the bank establishment. The bank robbers were then apprehended downhill the Los

Vamonos Provincial Capitol in Aguila Road, then they were sent to the nearest police station.
 BLOTTER ENTRY

ENTR DATE TIME INCIDENTS / EVENTS DISPOSITION

Y NO.
001-12 Sept. 26, 11:11 AM NATURE: Bank Robbery  Team of the police
2020 VICTIM : One Bank Security personnel responded to
Guard Aldous David y Payter
the said report and
and One Bank Manager
Guinevere Cruz y Mage conducted further
SUSPECT : 2 men and 2 investigation.
women armed with Caliber .45
 Case is still under
investigation.
On or about 11:11 in the
morning on September 26,
2020, at Tanso-Ginto-Pilak
Bank (TGP Bank),
Makagradwar Tayon City, Los
Vamonos, 2 men and 2 women
armed with Caliber .45 enter the
bank premises and declare bank
robbery.

The victim one bank security

guard, and one bank manager
both sustained gunshot wounds
were rushed to Final Destination
Regional Medical Center
(FDRMC), Makagradwar Tayon
City, Los Vamonos, for medical
treatment but was pronounced
dead on arrival (DOA) by the
attending physician thereat.
 The suspects are 2 males and
2 females, armed with caliber .
45, and wearing stockings on
their head. Sus (1) male,
approximately 5’6 in height,
muscular, wearing blue jeans,
and white shirt, Sus (2) male,
approximately 5’4 in height,
wearing black hoodie jacket and
black jeans, Sus (3)
approximately 5’ in height,
female, in her 20’s wearing
white shirt and black shorts, Sus
(4) female, heavy set, wearing
black shirt and black leggings,
in her 30’s.

After robbing the bank, they

fled the scene on board two (2)
black Yamaha NMax. Last seen
heading uphill towards the Los
Vamonos Provincial Capitol in
Aguila Road.

For records purposes only.

 PROBABLE CAUSE

Criminal Procedure described the probable cause as the existence of such facts and
circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the
knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was
prosecuted.

The 1987 Philippine Constitution protects the right of the people against unreasonable
searches and seizure, this was embodied under Article 3, section 2 “no warrant or warrant of
arrest shall be issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce and
particularly describing the place to searched and person or things to be seized. While under PNP
Manual probable cause are the facts that within totality of the circumstances, lead an officer to
reasonably suspect or to have probable cause to believe, that criminal activity has been, is being,
or is about to be committed.

Arrest without warrant can be executed when an offense has been committed and the
officers or private person has probable cause to believe, based on personal knowledge of the
facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested committed it.

Search warrant shall be issued only upon probable cause in connection with one specific
offense.

Search of moving vehicle can on be executed if the police officers who will conduct the
search have reasonable or probable cause to believe, before the search, that either the motorist is
a law offender or they will find instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime in the vehicle to
be searched, the vehicle may be stopped and subjected to an extensive search.

Tipped information is sufficient to provide probable cause to effect warrantless search

and seizure, if the police officers have reasonable grounds to believe that the subject are engaged
in illegal activities.

Spot Check/Accosting or the brief stopping of an individual, whether on foot or in a

vehicle, based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause, for the purpose of determining the
individual’s identity and resolving the officer’s suspicion concerning criminal activity.
 Based on the scenario, probable cause is best justified when the police officers decided to
pull over the car, and when they asked the driver and the passenger to step outside the car,
because that means they have reasonable suspicion that the car, the driver and the passenger has
indeed committed the bank robbery recently took place, and when the police officers decided to
search the vehicle and when they take the driver and passenger into their custody they may
justify it based on probable cause because of the reluctant attitude of the driver to cooperate with
the police officers, it raises suspicion on whether or not they are innocent.

Probable cause is always required when police officers perform their action, because
there are instances that they have to implement warrantless arrest, warrantless search and seizure
and in flagging down suspected vehicles. Without sufficient probable cause, the police officers
will be deemed abusing their authority and will be violating the constitutional rights of the
public.
 SEARCH AND SEIZURE

Under the general rule, before any search and seizure, police officers must first secure a
search warrant. Rules of Court, Rule 126 section 1 defines search warrant as an order in writing
issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by the judge and directed to a peace
officer, commanding him to search for personal property described therein and bring it before th
court.

Rules of Court, Rule 126 section 13 states that a person lawfully arrested may be
searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have used or constitute proof in the
commission of an offense without search warrant. This means that if the arrest was done
unlawfully and search and seizure were conducted any evidence found therein were deemed
inadmissible as it falls under exclusionary rule principle and the doctrine of fruit of the
poisonous tree.

Under Rule 126 section 2 an application for search warrant shall be filed with any court
within those territorial jurisdictions a crime was committed, and for compelling reasons stated in
the application, any court within the judicial region where the crime was committed if the place
of the commission of the crime is known, or any court within the judicial region where the
warrant shall be enforced. However, if the criminal action has already been filed, the application
shall only be made in the court where the criminal action is pending.

Requisites for issuing search warrant is stated under Rule 126, section 4, search warrant
shall not be issue except upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be
determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complaint
and the witness he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be search and the things
to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines.

Rule 126, section 9 states that a warrant must direct that it be served in the daytime,
unless the affidavit asserts that the property is on the person in the place ordered to be searched,
in which case a direction may be inserted that it be served at any time of the day or night.

Rule 126, section 10 says that it shall be valid for ten (10) days from its date. Thereafter it
shall be void.
 Rule 126, section 13 states that a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous
weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an
offense without search warrant.

Warrantless search of moving vehicle is allowed when it is not practicable to secure a

warrant.

It is unreasonable search if it is made without a warrant, or the warrant was invalidly

issued. In all instances, what constitute reasonable or unreasonable search or seizure is a purely
judicial question determinable from a consideration of the attendant circumstances. Police
officers are not allowed to seize anything not included in the warrant, EXCEPT if it is mala
prohibita, in which case, the seizure is justified under the plain view rule doctrine. Even if the
object was related to the crime, but is not mentioned in the warrant nor is it mala prohibita, it is
still cannot be seized.

The police officers have probable cause to search the vehicle, but the manner they
conducted it is awful. They could’ve respectfully asked the driver and the passenger to cooperate
and for their permission to conduct search, but instead the police officer used force and
intimidation resulting to violation of the constitutional rights of the driver and the passenger.

Under PNP Manual, the following is the procedure in searching vehicle during ho pursuit
or after stopping the car:

a. Call Headquarters to provide information on the make or type and plate number of the motor
vehicle to be accosted and, if possible, identity of occupants;

b. State the reason(s) for the planned intervention of the suspected motor vehicle;

c. Give the mobile car’s location and its direction before making actual intervention;

d. Try to get alongside the suspects’ vehicle and check the occupants without alarming them of
your purpose. You can even overtake the vehicle and wait for it at an advantageous location
before stopping the suspects’ vehicle;

e. Determine whether the suspects are hostile or not;

f. Make known to the suspect that you are after them through the use of a siren or megaphone; g.
Instruct the driver to pull over or stop on the side of the road;

h. Park behind the suspect’s vehicle at an appropriate distance and cautiously approach the
vehicle on the driver’s side;

i. If the vehicle’s windows are heavily tinted and the occupants cannot be seen, instruct the
driver to open all windows to have a clear view of the interior of the vehicle;

j. Instruct the driver to turn off the ignition, if this was not done when the vehicle stopped; in
case of motorcycle instruct the driver to remove the key and disembark;

k. The other members of the team must be on guard for any eventuality while the vehicle is
being approached;

l. Talk to the driver in a most courteous manner and inform him of the nature of his violation.
Demand to see the driver’s license, photocopies of the certificate of registration and the official
receipt. Examine these documents and counter-check the driver on the information reflected
therein;

m. If it concerns traffic violations, immediately issue a Traffic Citation Ticket (TCT) or Traffic
Violation Report (TVR). Never indulge in prolonged, unnecessary conversation or argument
with the driver or any of the vehicle’s occupants;

n. In case of other violations that require the impounding of the vehicle, inform the driver
regarding this situation and instruct him to follow you, after issuing the TCT/ TVR; and

o. Before moving out, inform Headquarters regarding the situation/status and disposition of the
person and motor vehicle accosted.
 Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
REGION 1
Branch 187, City of Makagradwar Tayon

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SEARCH WARRANT NO. 143

Plaintiff, FOR: Violation of Article 294, RPC
(Robbery with Homicide)

-versus-

Claude Dima y Kulangan,

Gusion Nagrigat y Biyag,
Hilda Casino y Moto,
Odette Grande y Mariposa
Respondents
x----------------------------------------x

APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT

COMES NOW, the undersigned, P/Lt Lancelot I Galahad, presently assigned at

Makagradwar Tayon City, Los Vamonos Police Station and having been duly sworn to in
accordance with law do hereby depose and state the following under oath:

1. That he was informed and verily believes that Claude Dima y Kulangan, Gusion Nagrigat
y Biyag, Hilda Casino y Moto, and Odette Grande y Mariposa, who may be found at the
premises inside their getaway vehicle two (2) black Yamaha NMax downhill of the Los
Vamonos Provincial Capitol in Aguila Road, where they were apprehended after they
allegedly rob Tanso-Ginto-Pilak Bank (TGP Bank), is in possession or has in his control a
property stolen from clients of the bank aforementioned five (5) smart phone, ten (10) atm
cards, five (5) Rolex wrist watches, two (2) laptops, Php 100,000.00, four (4) caliber 45
pistol, which they are keeping and concealing in the premises above described.
 2. That the undersigned has verified the report and found it to be a fact and was
confirmed to him by his witnesses, Police Officer Pat Miya M. Archer and Police Officer Pat
Gomo N. Bravo, who were able to gain entry into the aforementioned premises of the
respondent, and has therefore reason to believe that search warrant should be issued to enable the
undersigned to take possession and bring to this Court the following described property:
a. Five (5) smart phone (rose gold Samsung S10, black Apple XR, blue Oppo Reno,
black Asus ROG, black Lenovo Legion Pro).
b. Ten (10) atm cards (5 pieces American Express Centurion Card, 2 Stratus
Rewards Visa, 2 Citigroup Chairman Card, 1 JP Morgan Chase Palladium Visa).
c. Five (5) Rolex wrist watches (1 Antimagnetique Reference 4113, 2 Rolex bao, 1
Paul Newman’s Rolex Daytona, 1 Rolex Daytona Reference 626 Unicorn (1971)).
d. Two (2) laptops (1 Huawei MateBook X Pro, 1 Apple MacBook Pro).
e. Php 100,000.00 (in Php 1000.00 denomination)
f. Four (4) Caliber 45 pistol (silver with white color combination).

3. WHEREFORE, the undersigned prays to this Honorable Court to issue a search

warrant authorizing him and or his men or any peace officer to search the premises and if
machines are attached to the ground, padlock the premises described in this application and to
seize and bring to this Honorable Court the personal property above described to be dealt with
the full accord with existing laws.
City of Makagradwar Tayon City, Los Vamonos, Philippines, 26th day of September,
2020.

P/Lt Lancelot I Galahad

Applicant

RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR FILING: APPROVED FOR

FILING:

P/Capt Donna A DeBarge P/LtCol Akon T Pain

 (Unit Head) (Chief of Office)

ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

Admissibility means the character or quality which any material must necessarily possess
for it to be accepted and allowed to be presented or introduced as evidence in the court. Evidence
will be admissible if it is relevant to the issue and not excluded by the law of the Rules of
Evidence.

According to Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 128 section 3, evidence is admissible

when it is relevant to the issue and not excluded by the Constitution, the law or these rules.

Pieces of evidence acquired during this scenario are not admissible, because the police
officers acquired those during unlawful arrest and under exclusionary rule and the doctrine of
fruit of the poisonous tree evidence acquired or uncovered through illegal arrest, unreasonable
search, coercive interrogation, or violation of a particular exclusionary law, must be excluded
from the trial and will not be admitted as evidence.

The pieces of evidence collected in the scenario, under the general rule will be
inadmissible, as all of it were collected unjustly and not in accordance with the law. But if the
police officers can prove to the court that they can still uncover those evidence through legal
process, then they still can use it to indict the suspects, as these will fall under the doctrine of
inevitable discovery.
 MIRANDA WARNING

1987 Philippine Constitution states under Article III section 12 (1) that any person under
the investigation for the commission of the offense shall have the right to be informed of his
right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own
choice if the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. Those
rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

Unlawful arrest is committed by any person, whether a private person or public officers,
who arrest or detains a person without reasonable ground therefore, for the purpose of delivering
him to the proper authorities. (a) the public officer is one who has no power to arrest or order the
detention of another, else it is arbitrary detention. (b) the situation is that the arrest is not a valid
warrantless arrest but the victim is brought before the police or prosecutor’s office or court, for
the purpose of filing charges against the victim. (c) If the purpose is otherwise, the crime may be
detention or coercion or abduction. (d) the term is not illegal arrest. (e) this maybe complexed
with incrimination machination. E.g., a person placed a knife in the bag of another and then
arrest him and brings him to the police station.

Article III section 12 (3) states that any confession or admission obtained in violation of
this or section 17 hereof should be inadmissible in evidence against him.

Under Miranda Warning these are the rights stated: (a) Right to remain silent, (b) Right to
be informed of the nature and kind of the offense charged against him, (c) Right to have a
competent counsel of his or her choice, and if he or she cannot afford the services of a lawyer,
one shall be provided for free by the state.
 FRUIT OF POISONOUS TREE

Under exclusionary rule any evidence obtained from an illegal arrest, unreasonable
search or coercive investigation, or in violation of a particular law, must be excluded from the
trial and will not be admitted as evidence. This principle is to be applied only if it is so expressly
provided for by the constitution or by a particular law. Even if the manner of obtaining the
evidence is in violation of a certain law but the law does not declare that the evidence is
inadmissible, then such evidence will be admissible.

There are exceptions to the two (2) principles, that those evidence is still admissible
despite the commission of an illegal arrest, search or interrogation, or violation of a particular
exclusionary law. The Doctrine of Inevitable Discovery states that evidence is still admissible
even if the evidence is obtained through an unlawful arrest, search, interrogation or violation of
an Exclusionary law, if it can be established to a very high degree of probability, that normal
police investigation would have inevitably led to the discovery of the evidence. While under
Independent Source Doctrine, evidence is still admissible is knowledge of the evidence is gained
from separate or independent source that is completely unrelated to the illegal act of the law
enforces.

Under the general rule pieces of evidence collected without a valid search warrant were
all deemed inadmissible in the court of law. As 1987 Philippine Constitution protects the people
against unreasonable search and seizure. As well as the Rules of Court, as they believe that using
the pieces of evidence collected in violation of existing law further taints all those subsequently
obtained.
 Republic of the Philippines
Department of Interior and Local Government
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
REGION 1
Makagradwar Tayon City, Los Vamonos

Date: September 26, 2020

INVENTORY SHEET/RECEIPT FOR PROPERTY/GOODS RECOVERED

Inventory Sheet of article/items seized from the premise/establishment inside the

compartment of the suspects getaway vehicle black Yamaha NMax located at downhill of
the Los Vamonos Provincial Capitol in Aguila Road, where they were apprehended by
virtue of Search Warrant Issued by the Region 1, RTC Branch 187.

ITEMS/ARTICLES QUANTITY/UNITS

 smart phone (rose gold Samsung  Five (5)

S10, black Apple XR, blue Oppo
Reno, black Asus ROG, black
Lenovo Legion Pro)
 atm cards (5 pieces American
 Ten (10)
Express Centurion Card, 2 Stratus
Rewards Visa, 2 Citigroup Chairman
Card, 1 JP Morgan Chase Palladium
Visa).
 Rolex wrist watches (1
Antimagnetique Reference 4113, 2  Five (5)
Rolex bao, 1 Paul Newman’s Rolex
Daytona, 1 Rolex Daytona Reference
626 Unicorn (1971)).
 laptops (1 Huawei MateBook X Pro,
1 Apple MacBook Pro).  Two (2)
 Php 100,000.00 (in Php 1000.00
denomination)
 Caliber 45 pistol (silver with white  Four (4)
color combination).

Witness by: P/SSgt Makapa B Sin

(Seizing Officer)
Pat Arianna C Venti
Kgg. Juan D Tres

Republic of the Philippines

Department of the Interior and Local Government
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
Makagradwar Tayon City
Los Vamonos

COMPLAINT SHEET
Complaint No. 001-12 Date: September 26, 2020

1. REPORTED THRU 2. Previously Reported to other agency:

[ ] In Person [ ] Yes [ ] No
[ ] Telephone If yes:
[ ] Other a. To what agency

b. BY whom

c. Date/Time

3. Nature of Complaint/Info 4. Place of Occurrence/Incident 5.Date/Time

BANK ROBBERY with HOMICIDE Tanso-Ginto-Pilak Bank at Sept. 26, 2020
Sakalam, Los Vamonos / 11:11am
6. Name of Complainant/Informer 7. Address 8. Tel No.
Luzviminda Covidubi y Dapdap Hannga Malagip, Los Vamonos 0991-876-1523

9. Names(s) of Victim(s) 10. Age 11. Sex 12. Address 13. Tel No.
Guinevere Cruz y Mage 45 F Dittoy Nga Road, La Cuacha 0971-156-2121
Aldous David y Payter 35 M Idjay Nga Road, La Cuacha 0922-526-2871

14. Name(s) of Suspect(s) 15. Alias 16. Sex 17.Age 18. Address
Claude Dima y Kulangan MM M 38
Gusion Nagrigat y Biyag Jungler M 28 Adda Papanak,
Hilda Casino y Moto Tank F 34 Los Vamonos
Odette Grande y Mariposa Mid F 25

19. Name(s) of Witness(es) 20. Address 21. Tel No.

Esmaralda Regen y Push Daanan, Dikammo, 0987-143-1225
Lolita Ally y Buff Los Vamonos 0925-938-7325
0916-172-4746
Masha Gord y Chang’e
22. Brief facts/narrative of complaint (Use back page if necessary)
On or about 11:11 in the morning on September 26, 2020, at Tanso-Ginto-Pilak Bank (TGP
Bank), San Fernando City, La Union, 2 men and 2 women armed with Caliber .45 enter the bank
premises and declare bank robbery. The bank robbers were then apprehended on the downhill of
the Los Vamonos Provincial Capitol in Aguila Road.
Two (2) of the victims sustained gunshot wounds on different parts of the body were rushed to
Final Destination Regional Medical Center (FDRMC), Makagradwar Tayon City, Los Vamonos,
for medical treatment but was pronounced dead on arrival (DOA) by the attending physician
thereat.

23. Remarks of the receiving officer (especially if reporter refused to be identified).

a. Dialect (Accent): Filipino

b. Female/Male: Female
c. Possible Age: Mid 30’s
d. Possible place where the caller is: Laying down inside the establishment
e. Intoxicated or not: Not
f. Others: Panic can be heard through her voice, she is whispering throughout the
conversation.

24. I certify that the details of the 25.SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me
complaint/info stated above are true this 26th day of September, 2020at
and correct to the best of my Cam’on, Los Vamonos.
knowledge.

Luzviminda Covidubi y Dapdap

Printed Name & Signature of Complainant/Informer

26. Date/Time/Complaint/Info Received 27.Printed name/Signature of Receiving Officer

September 26, 2020 / 12:15 pm Pat. Miya M. Archer

28. Assigned to: 29.Noted by:

P/Lt. Lancelot I. Galahad Pat. Miya M. Archer

CONFIDENTIAL