§ Perry Chance is appealing because on the ground that his arrest was illegal because it

was made without probable cause or reasonable ground on the part of the arresting
officer.
§ Appellant argues, however, that the arrest actually took place when Officer Ritter
stopped the car, at a time when there was no probable cause.
§ W/N the arrest of Perry Chance was valid. - YES
§ The court ruled that the arrest took place when Officer Ritter drew his revolver and
handcuffed appellant.
Chance v. State of Florida
§ An arrest involves the following elements:
1. the intention to effect an arrest under a real or pretended authority,
2. an actual or constructive detention of the person to be arrested by a person
having present power to control the person arrested,
3. a communication by the arresting officer to the person being arrested of his
intention then and there to effect an arrest, and
4. an understanding by the person being arrested that it is the officer's intention
then and there to arrest and detain him.
§ The case began with the 1963 arrest of Phoenix resident Ernesto Miranda, who was
charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery. Miranda was a 24-year old high school
dropout who allegedly kidnapped, raped, and robbed his 18-year old victim.
§ On March 13, 1963, petitioner, Ernesto Miranda, was arrested at his home and taken in
custody to a Phoenix police station.
§ He was there identified by the complaining witness. The police then took him to
“Interrogation Room No. 2" of the detective bureau. There he was questioned by two
police officers.
§ The officers admitted at trial that Miranda was not advised that he had a right to have
an attorney present.
§ Police came up with a written confession signed by Miranda. At the top of the statement
was a typed paragraph stating that the confession was made voluntarily.
§ At his trial before a jury, the written confession was admitted into evidence over the
objection of defense counsel, and the officers testified to the prior oral confession made
by Miranda during the interrogation.
Miranda v. Arizona
§ W/N Miranda’s confession, without letting him know of his custodial rights and without
the presence of a counsel, should be admissible as evidence? - NO
§ Miranda Rights:
1. Right to remain silent.
2. Informed that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against
him.
3. He has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed.
4. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is
made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently
5. Even if the person consents to answer questions without the assistance of
counsel, the moment he asks for a lawyer at any point in the investigation, the
interrogation must cease until an attorney is present.
6. If the foregoing protections and warnings are not demonstrated during the trial
to have been observed by the prosecution, no evidence obtained as a result
of the interrogation can be used against him.
§ Felipe Ramos was an employee of PAL who was accused with irregularities in sales ticket
amounting to P76,700.65.
§ On the day before the schedule investigation, he sent a handwritten note offering a
compromise of his liabilities in connection to the alleged irregularities. During the
investigation, he agreed to have his answers recorded and were taken down in writing.
People v. Ayson § Subsequently, an information for estafa was filed against him allegedly committed in
Baguio City. The private prosecutor presented these two as evidence, which Judge
Ayson excluded for being inadmissible since it did not appear that Ramos was accorded
with his Miranda rights during the investigation.
§ W/N Judge Ayson committed grave abuse of discretion by reason of his exclusion of
the two pieces of evidence. – YES
 § The Court ruled that Ramos was not in a custodial investigation. He voluntarily answered
questions during the administrative investigation (Feb. 9, 1986) and agreed that the
proceedings should be recorded. The handwritten note he sent on Feb 8, 1986 offering
compromise for his liability was a free and spontaneous act. These may not be excluded
by reason of denial of the Miranda rights.
§ Bagas et al. were suspected of committing robbery and rape.
§ Bagas appealed that he was not informed of his Miranda Rights and he was without
counsel during a police line up.
§ W/N the right to be assisted by counsel can be claimed during identification in a
police line-up - NO
§ The guarantees of Sec 12(1), Art 3 of the 1987 Constitution, or the so-called Miranda
rights, may be invoked only by a person while he is under custodial investigation
People v. Amestuzo § Custodial investigation starts when the police investigation is no longer a general
inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect taken
into custody by the police who starts the interrogation and propounds questions to
the person to elicit incriminating statements.
§ Police line-up is not part of the custodial investigation; hence, the right to counsel
guaranteed by the Constitution cannot yet be invoked at this stage
§ However, the complainants' out-of-court identification of Bagas was seriously flawed as
to preclude its admissibility. Bagas is acquitted.
§ This case is about the conviction of Hilarion C. Teves of the crime of parricide for
allegedly killing his wife.
§ Teves was alone inside the investigation room of the Santa Rosa, Laguna Police Station
and without his counsel.
§ He was ordered by Supt. Castillo to board his passenger jeep, extend part of his body
outside of the vehicle while waving his hand, as if doing some kind of a re-enactment.
The barangay tanods identified him.
§ W/N the pre-trial identification of Teves and his passenger jeep during the custodial
investigation amounted to an uncounseled confession in violation of his constitutional
People v. Teves
rights – YES.
§ The pre-trial identification of the appellant and his passenger jeep during the custodial
investigation was conducted in an irregular manner.
§ Such pre-trial identification in which the prosecution witness was made to identify the
suspect (Teves) in a one-on-one confrontation, was pointedly suggestive, generated
confidence where there was none, activated visual imagination and, all told, subverted
the identification of the appellant by the witness.
§ This method of identification is as tainted as an uncounseled confession and thus, falls
within the same ambit of the constitutionally entrenched protection.
§ Bobby Andan was charged with the crime of with the rape and homicide of a second-
year nursing student named Marianne Guevarra.
§ During a private conversation with Mayor Trinidad he said "Mayor, patawarin mo ako! I
will tell you the truth. I am the one who killed Marianne." This
§ The mayor opened the door of the room to let the public and media representatives
witness the confession. Since no lawyer was available he ordered the proceedings
photographed and videotaped. In the presence of the mayor, the police,
representatives of the media and appellant's own wife and son, Andan admitted to the
crime and disclosed how he killed Marianne and that he falsely implicated the 2
People v. Andan neighbors because of ill-feelings against them.
§ On arraignment, however, appellant entered a plea of "not guilty." Appellant claimed
that after he was picked up by the police on February 24, he was tortured and coerced
to confess that he raped and killed Marianne. Fearing for his life, appellant did as he
was told.
§ W/N the admission of Andan to the mayor without the assistance of counsel is in
violation of the constitution and cannot be admitted as evidence in court. – NO
§ Constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to a spontaneous
statement, not elicited through questioning by the authorities, but given in an ordinary
manner whereby appellant orally admitted having committed the crime.
 § Andan’s confession to the mayor was not made in response to any interrogation by the
latter. In fact, the mayor did not question appellant at all and no police authority ordered
the appellant to talk to the mayor. It was the appellant who spontaneously, freely and
voluntarily sought the mayor for a private meeting.
§ The appellant's confession to the mayor was correctly admitted by the trial court.
Appellant's confessions to the media were likewise properly admitted. The confessions
were made in response to questions by news reporters, not by the police or any other
investigating officer hence they are voluntary and are admissible in evidence.
§ Elmer (Barbie) was found dead inside his parlor. Later, Chavez who was accompanied
by this mother, voluntarily surrendered at the police station. The mother was informed
by the investigating officer of the consequences of executing a written statement
without the assistance of a lawyer but she proceeded to give her statement on her son's
confession.
§ Chavez appeal his conviction of the crime of robbery with homicide. He contested
among others that the prosecution relied on purely circumstantial evidence and that
conviction must rest on a moral certainty of guilt on his part. Further, he argues that his
mother's statement was inadmissible as hearsay since she was not presented before the
court to testify as a witness.
§ W/N Chavez’s mother's statement was inadmissible as hearsay - YES
People v. Chavez
§ Republic Act No. 7438 expanded the definition of custodial investigation to include
those who voluntarily surrendered before a police officer. For one, the same pressures
of a custodial setting exist in this scenario.
§ This means that even those who voluntarily surrendered before a police officer must be
apprised of their Miranda rights. For one, the same pressures of a custodial setting exist
in this scenario.
§ Chavez is also being questioned by an investigating officer in a police station. As an
additional pressure, he may have been compelled to surrender by his mother who
accompanied him to the police station.
§ So, the testimony of the mother is not reliable because it was made without the presence
of a lawyer.
§ Jalosjos onvicted for statutory rape on two counts and acts of lasciviousness on six
counts, but is currently pending appeal
§ He filed a motion asking that he be allowed to fully discharge the duties of a
Congressman, including attendance at legislative sessions and committee meetings
despite his having been convicted in the first instance of a non-bailable offense.
§ W/N membership in Congress exempt an accused from statutes and rules which apply
People v. Jalosjos
to validly incarcerated persons in general?
§ Being a Congressman does not exempt an accused from the from laws which apply to
validly incarcerated persons in general. The functions and duties of the office are not
substantial distinctions which lift the congressman from the class of prisoners. Lawful
arrest and confinement are germane to the purposes of the law and apply to all those
belonging to the same class.
§ Upon reliable information that Mallari, who has a standing warrant of arrest in connection
with Criminal for Homicide in 1989, was seen at Sitio 14, Sta. Rita, Capas, Tarlac.
§ Upon receipt of such information, the policemen, with personal knowledge of the
existence of a standing warrant of arrest against Mallari in connection with Criminal Case
for Homicide, immediately proceeded to the place, arrested him and told him to remain
stationary. They found a handgun with live ammunition on him.
§ RTC charged Mallari with the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition
Mallari v. CA which CA concurred and that the search conducted on Mallari and the seizure of the
subject rearm and ammunition were done on the occasion of a lawful arrest as there was
then an outstanding warrant
§ W/N Mallari's arrest is lawful, the search and seizure made incidental thereto is likewise
valid, albeit conducted without a warrant - YES
§ This is not a case of a warrantless arrest but merely an instance of an arrest effected by
the police authorities without having the warrant in their possession at that precise
moment. According to Sec 7, Rule 113 - The officer need not have the warrant in his
 possession at the time of the arrest but after the arrest, if the person arrested so requires,
the warrant shall be shown to him as soon as practicable.
§ Petitioners Allado and Mendoza are charged of kidnapping with murder. The source of
the information is a sworn statement by Security Guard Umbal, implicating petitioners
as the brains behind the alleged kidnapping and killing of Van Twest, a German.
§ The prosecutor issued a resolution finding a prima facie case against petitioners. The
case was raffled to the court presided by respondent judge Diokno. Respondent then
issued a warrant of arrest against petitioners on the basis of the certifications of the
prosecution. Petitioners assailed the issued warrant of arrest.
§ W/N the warrant issued was valid? – NO
§ The SC held that respondent judge was wrong for issuing the warrant. A warrant of arrest
shall issue only upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
Allado v. Diokno
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce.
§ Accordingly, before issuing a warrant of arrest, the judge must satisfy himself that based
on the evidence submitted there is sufficient proof that a crime has been committed
and that the person to be arrested is probably guilty.
§ 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.
Instead, he merely relied on the certification of the prosecutors that probable cause
existed.
§ An Information charging petitioners with the crime of estafa claiming petitioners
connived in convincing private respondents to part with their P260,000.00 in
consideration of a pledge of two motor vehicles which the latter had misrepresented to
be owned by Aguinaldo.
§ Petitioners jointly filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Manila their
Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for the Withdrawal of the Information
Prematurely. The OCP, however, denied the motion for reconsideration. As a
consequence, petitioners filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ) a petition for
review.
§ Petitioners filed an Urgent Motion to Cancel Arraignment and Suspend Further
Proceedings, until their petition for review before the DOJ is resolved with finality.
Aguinaldo v. Ventus
§ Respondent filed a Motion to Reinstate Case and to Issue Warrant of Arrest.
§ Public Respondent granted the motion and issued warrants of arrest. Petitioners claim
that the court erred in reinstating the case and they were deprive of due process
because the 60 day limit on the suspension of arraignment is merely directory.
§ Whether or not Section 11, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court limiting the suspension for
arraignment to only sixty (60) days is merely directory.
§ NO. The Court disagrees with petitioners' contention that the provision of Section 11
(c), Rule 116 of the Rules of Court limiting the suspension for arraignment to only sixty
days is merely directory. Relaxation or suspension of procedural rules, or the exemption
of a case from their operation, is warranted only by compelling reasons or when the
purpose of justice requires it.
§ A team of police officers were dispatched after SPO Paguidopon received an
information from his informer that an alleged marijuana pusher will be passing at that
place anytime that morning.
§ Paguidopon then pointed at Nasario and Gregorio as the pushers. The team then
immediately boarded the vehicle, overtook the "trisikad" and then requested it to stop.
Mula then handed the black bag, which he was holding to Molina. After introducing
People v. Molina himself as police officer, Pamplona requested Molina to open the bag, which revealed
the marijuana leaves inside.
§ For unlawful possession of 946.9 grams of dried marijuana, accused-Nasario Molina and
Gregorio Mula were found by the Regional Trial Court of Davao City guilty of violation
of Section 8, of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (Republic Act No. 6425)
§ W/N there was a valid search and seizure making the marijuana admissible. – NO
§ Whether there was a lawful arrest. - NO
 § In flagrante delicto arrests, it is settled that "reliable information" alone, absent any
overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise in the presence and within the view of the
arresting officers, are not sufficient to constitute probable cause that would justify an in
flagrante delicto arrest.
§ Clearly, to constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, two requisites must concur:
i. the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and
ii. such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.
§ Supreme Court held that the accused-appellants manifested no outward indication that
would justify their arrest. In holding a bag on board a trisikad, accused-appellants could
not be said to be committing, attempting to commit or have committed a crime.
§ Moreover, it could not be said that accused-appellants waived their right against
unreasonable searches and seizure. Implied acquiescence to the search, if there was
any, could not have been more than mere passive conformity given under intimidating
or coercive circumstances and is thus considered no consent at all within the purview of
the constitutional guarantee.
§ Policemen spotted two men, Comerciante and Dasilla as were allegedly making
“improper and unpleasant movements”, with one of them handing out plastic sachets
to the other. Thinking that the plastic sachets might have shabu, Agent Radan and PO3
Calag immediately stopped and approached Comerciante and Dasilla.
§ PO3 Calag introduced himself as a police officer and confiscated two plastic sachets
containing white crystalline substance. A laboratory examination confirmed that it was
shabu.
§ The RTC and CA found Comerciante guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of
Section 11, Article II of RA 9165.
§ W/N there was a valid stop and frisk made on the petitioner leading to his warrantless
arrest. - NO
§ Furthermore, there were no overt acts that could be attributed to Comerciante to arouse
Commerciante v. People
suspicion that a crime was committed, is being committed, or will be committed.
§ The acts of standing around and handing something over cannot in anyway be
considered criminal acts. Even if Comerciante was showing improper and unpleasant
movements, it is still not sufficient in order to effect a lawful arrest under Sec. 5 (a) of
Rule 113.
§ It nevertheless holds that mere suspicion, or a hunch will not validate a "stop and frisk."
A genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officer's experience and surrounding
conditions, to warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons concealed about
him.
§ Therefore, there was neither a valid warrantless arrest nor a valid stop and frisk made on
Comerciante. Thus, the shabu that was allegedly seized from is rendered inadmissible
in evidence for being a fruit of the poisonous tree.
§ An altercation ensued between petitioners Pestilos et. al. and Atty. Generoso at
Kasiyahan Street, Barangay Holy Spirit QC.
§ Generoso called the police for assistance and the latter found him badly beaten and
with stab wounds. When Generoso pointed out those who mauled him, the officers
invited petitioners to go to Batasan Hills Police Station for investigation. From their
findings, an information for attempted murder was filed against petitioners.
§ Petitioners assail this information on the round that there was no lawful warrantless
arrest for merely being invited for questioning to the police station.
Pestilos v. Generoso
§ W/N there was a valid warrantless arrest? YES
§ The officers had personal knowledge of facts that petitioners committed the crime as it
was only an hour from the actual commission of the crime. The report states that they
immediately respondent to the complaint raised by Atty. Generoso’s call to the police
station and that the offense happened in the immediate neighborhood.
§ Based on the facts, there is reasonable belief that accused is involved because
Petitioner-accused were positively identified by Generoso.
§ By inviting the petitioners, the police intended them following Generoso’s complaint.
§ Eldon Maguan was shot inside his car along Wilson Street, San Juan, Metro Manila. After
Go v. CA
conducting an investigation of the shooting incident, the police identified petitioner
 Rolito Go as the prime suspect. Petitioner, accompanied by two lawyers, presented
himself before the San Juan Police Station.
§ He was arrested and booked for the shooting of Maguan. The police filed a complaint
for frustrated homicide with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal. An
information for murder was filed against petitioner before the RTC, Pasig, Metro Manila.
§ Whether a lawful warrantless arrest had been effected by the San Juan Police in respect
of petitioner. – NO.
§ There was neither an in flagrante delicto or hot pursuit arrest.
§ When he walked into the San Juan Police Station, accompanied by two (2) lawyers, he
in fact placed himself at the disposal of the police authorities. He did not state that he
was "surrendering" himself, in all probability to avoid the implication he was admitting
that he had slain Eldon Maguan or that he was otherwise guilty of a crime.
§ Veridanio is assailing the decision of the CA which convicted him of illegal possession
of dangerous drugs. A tip about Veridanio was given to the police officers, who then set
up a checkpoint at Nagcarlan, Laguna. When came across Veridanio in a jeepney, the
officers flagged it down and conducted a search. Cabello, one of the officers,
confiscated the tea bag, arrested Veridiano, and brought him to the police station.
§ W/N there was a valid warrantless arrest – NO
§ It cannot be justified by flagrante delicto because he was not committing a crime at the
checkpoint. Petitioner was merely a passenger who did not exhibit any unusual conduct
Sapi v. People
in the presence of the law enforcers that would incite suspicion. In effecting the
warrantless arrest, the police officers relied solely on the tip they received. Reliable
information alone is insufficient to support a warrantless arrest absent any overt act from
the person to be arrested indicating that a crime has just been committed, was being
committed, or is about to be committed.
§ It likewise cannot be justified by hot pursuit because the law enforcers had no personal
knowledge of any fact or circumstance indicating that petitioner had just committed an
offense.
§ Based on a report from a confidential informant (CI), a buy-bust operation was
conducted by Intelligence Officers Orella, Orcales, and Carin. They prepared a P500 bill
as buy-bust money. Along with the CI, they went to Lim’s house and was able to arrest
him after the latter, upon instruction to Gorres to get a plastic box, handed it over where
it contained a plastic sachet containing the shabu in exchange for the bill.
§ While in the house, the plastic sachets and the P500 bill were marked. There were no
media representatives in the scene when this was done. Lim and Gorres were brought
to the PDEA Office where they were booked. There, an Inventory Receipt was prepared,
but it was not signed by Lim and Gorres. There was also no signature of an elected
public official and the representative of the DOJ, nor the media and witnesses. RTC
found Romy guilty but acquitted Gorres on the basis that there was no evidence that he
knew what the plastic box contained. CA affirmed the RTC’s ruling.
§ W/N Romy should be acquitted. -YES
People v. Lim
§ The SC reversed and acquitted Romy based on reasonable doubt, ruling that the
evidence was not obtained in compliance with RA 9165.
§ The absence of the media and witnesses during the marking of the evidence, and the
absence of the signatures of an elected public official and representative of the DOJ, or
media witnesses, violated the rules required in drug cases.
§ SC used the Chain-of-custody Rule from RA 9165 saying that in a criminal case, the
prosecution must offer sufficient evidence from which the trier of fact could reasonably
believe that an item still is what the government claims it to be.
§ The absence of these required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items
inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine
and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165 must
be adduced. The reason for their absence in this case is because that it was nighttime
and that it was raining. These reasons are unacceptable. Romy must be acquitted.
§ Police assistance was requested by Almoite regarding an unfamiliar speedboat and the
People v. Chua Ho San same was poised to dock at Tammocalao shores. CID, Almoite and six other policemen
observed the speedboat.
 § A male passenger alighted carrying a strawbag and run after seeing the officers. They
were able to stop the man and introduced themselves as officers. The man seem not to
understand them using different languages so they resorted to “sign language” and
asked him to open the bag. It contained packets of yellowish crystals. They asked him
to follow them but he did not understand so CID placed his arms around him and
escorted him to the station. They looked for an interpreter to apprise his rights. He was
charged, tried and convicted of transporting shabu.
§ Whether the accused who was acting suspiciously constitute Probable Cause impelling
the police officers from effecting an in flagrante delicto arrest. - NO
§ None of the telltale clues, e.g., bag or package emanating the pungent odor of
marijuana or other prohibited drug, confidential report and/or positive identification by
informers of courier(s) of prohibited drug and/or the time and place where they will
transport/deliver the same, suspicious demeanor or behavior and suspicious bulge in
the waist — accepted by this Court as sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest exists in
this case.
§ Specifically with respect to arrests, it is such facts and circumstances which would lead
a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed
by the person sought to be arrested.
§ In cases of in fragrante delicto, arrests, a peace officer or a private person may without
a warrant, arrest a person, when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.
§ Manotoc has a pending case befor the SEC. When a Torrens title submitted to and
accepted by Manotoc Securities, Inc. was suspected to be a fake, six of its clients filed
six separate criminal complaints against Manotoc.
§ In all cases, Manotoc has been admitted to bail. Manotoc then filed before each of the
trial courts a motion entitled, "motion for permission to leave the country", stating as
ground therefor his desire to go to the United States, "relative to his business
transactions and opportunities." Denied. CA petition likewise Denied hence the present
Manotoc v. CA
petition.
§ W/N a person facing a criminal indictment and provisionally released on bail have an
unrestricted right to travel. NO
§ A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines.
This is a necessary consequence of the nature and function of a bail bond. The condition
imposed upon petitioner to make himself available at all times whenever the court
requires his presence operates as a valid restriction on his right to travel.
§ DOJ Secretary De Lima pursuant to said Circular, put petitioners Genuino, Macapagal-
Arroyo and her husband in the WLO after a case was filed against them in relation to
malversation, graft and corruption and the like.
§ The petitioners are assailing the validity of the Circular No. 41, for the reason that it
exceeds the power delegated to Department of Justice and it also violates the right to
travel which is guaranteed by Section 6 of the Bill of Rights.
§ W/N the DOJ has the power to issue HDOs or WLOs – NO
§ The DOJ has the power to investigate the commission of crimes and prosecute
Genuino v. De Lima offenders. However, it does not carry with it the power to indiscriminately devise all
means it deems proper in performing its functions without regard to constitutionally-
protected rights.
§ The DOJ has no power to issue a Hold Departure Orders through a circular as such
orders infringe upon a person’s right to travel. Under Sec 6, Art. 3 of the 1987
Constitution provides three considerations that may permit a restriction on the right to
travel: national security, public safety or public health. As a further requirement, there
must be an explicit provision of statutory law or the Rules of Court providing for the
impairment.