1.

Discuss the distinction between a warrantless arrest by a peace officer and a

citizen’s arrest. Illustrate by citing 3 cases of recent jurisprudence (2010 -
2019).

The main difference between a peace officer making an arrest and a private
individual making an arrest is that the Peace Officer needs to introduce his
authority to the accused/violator/perpetrator and subsequently inform him of his
rights and that he is being arrested. On the other hand, the Private Individual needs
only to inform the violator that he is currently being arrested via Citizen’s arrest.
Here lies the distinction, informing the accused/violator/perpetrator of his rights is
part of due process and may not be dispensed with, further, without which it may
cause an unlawful arrest.

In Antiquera v People, police officers were conducting a police visibility patrol in

Pasay City when they saw two unidentified men rush out of a house and boarded a
jeep. Believing that there was a crime, the police officers approached the house.
When they peeked through the partially opened door, they saw Antiquera and Cruz
engaged in a pot session. The police officers entered the house, introduced
themselves and arrested Antiquera and Cruz. While inspecting the vicinity, PO1
Cabutihan saw a jewellery box which contained shabu and unused paraphernalia. 

In this case, there was unlawful arrest because the circumstances here do not make
out a case of arrest made in flagrante delicto. Admittedly, the police officers did
not notice anything amiss going on in the house from the street where they stood.
Indeed, even as they peeked through its partially opened door, they saw no activity
that warranted their entering it. Clearly, no crime was plainly exposed to the view
of the arresting officers that authorized the arrest of accused Antiquera without
warrant under the above-mentioned rule. Considering that his arrest was illegal, the
search and seizure that resulted from it was likewise illegal.

In Luz v People, PO2 Emmanuel L. Alteza testified that he saw the accused
driving a motorcycle without a helmet and this prompted him to flag down the
accused for violating a municipal ordinance which requires all motorcycle drivers
to wear helmet while driving said motor vehicle. He invited the accused to come
inside their sub-station since the place where he flagged down the accused is
almost in front of the sub-station to where he is assigned as a traffic enforcer.
While he and SPO1 Rayford Brillante were issuing a citation ticket for violation of
municipal ordinance, he noticed that the accused was uneasy and kept on getting
something from his jacket. He was alerted and so, he told the accused to take out
the contents of the pocket of his jacket as the latter may have a weapon inside it.
The accused obliged and slowly put out the contents of the pocket of his jacket
which included two (2) plastic sachets of suspected shabu. The RTC convicted
petitioner of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. It found the prosecution
evidence sufficient to show that he had been lawfully arrested for a traffic violation
and then subjected to a valid search, which led to the discovery on his person of
two plastic sachets later found to contain shabu.

In this case, there was no valid arrest. Even if one were to work under the
assumption that petitioner was deemed arrested upon being flagged down for a
traffic violation and while awaiting the issuance of his ticket, then the requirements
for a valid arrest were not complied with. At the time a person is arrested, it shall
be the duty of the arresting officer to inform the latter of the reason for the arrest
and must show that person the warrant of arrest, if any. Persons shall be informed
of their constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel, and that any statement
they might make could be used against them. It may also be noted that in this case,
these constitutional requirements were complied with by the police officers only
after petitioner had been arrested for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

In a 2016 case, Sauram vs People, the accused was apprehended at the very
moment he is committing or has just committed an offense in the presence of the
arresting officer. The Police Officers were originally in pursuit of another person,
who happened to be living in the same house as Sauram. When the Police Officers
caught the person in hot pursuit, the buy-bust team saw Saraum and Peter
Esperanza, in the other room, who were holding drug paraphernalia apparently in
preparation to have a "shabu" pot session. The accused was apprehended. Valid
warrantless arrest gave the officers the right to search the shanty for objects
relating to the crime and seize the drug paraphernalia they found. In the course of
their lawful intrusion, they inadvertently saw the various drug paraphernalia. As
these items were plainly visible, the police officers were justified in seizing them.

2. Prepare a flowchart for securing bail for your client charged with
Estafa under paragraph 1.
 3. As prosecutor, prepare a judicial affidavit of a witness showing that
evidence of guilt is strong in a murder charge.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 199, LAS PIÑAS CITY

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

- versus - CRIM. CASE NO. 2018-0023

For MURDER

JUAN DELA CRUZ,

Accused.

x------------------------------- ---------------- x

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
OF
WITNESS TSUNADE SENJU IN QUESTION AND
ANSWER FORM AS HER TESTIMONY IN LIEU OF
DIRECT EXAMINATION

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

 I am Tsunade Senju, of legal age, with address at Block 7, Lot 30, Uzumaki
Street, Hidden Leaf Village, Quezon City. I state under oath as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The person examining me is Atty. Sarutobi Hiruzen, with office address at

Unit No. 1003, HKG Urban Complex, Konoha Drive, Alabang, Muntinlupa City.
The examination was held at the same address on 16 may 2029. Questions were
propounded by the said counsel in Tagalog, which I fully understand while the
ANSWERS were given/made by me in Tagalog which is herein translated by
counsel to English. I am answering his questions fully conscious that I do so under
oath and may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury.

PURPOSE: This Judicial Affidavit of the witness is executed to serve as her

direct testimony. The Judicial Affidavit is offered to prove: (1) The identity of the
person whose fingerprints were found in the crime scene; and (2) For other
purposes material and relevant to the Petition.

Q1: Please state your current employment.

A1: I am working as a Forensic Examiner at the Philippine National Police - Crime
Laboratory Office

Q2: How long have you been employed with the PNP – Crime Laboratory
Office?
A2: I have been working at my office for 25 years beginning 1995 up to present.

Q3: As a Forensic Examiner, what are your duties and responsibilities?

A3: The following are my duties and responsibilities, Sir.

1. Examination of the fingerprints including the determination of its identity;

 2. Checking on the Tenprint Database and Latent to Print Inquiries. The
Latent print Database is used to check if the arrested suspect has committed a
previous crime;
3. Checking if the collected Latent print match with another unsolved crimes;
4. Retrieval of the images of candidate fingerprints are retrieved from the
Fingerprint Image Database and displayed on the fingerprint workstation;
5. Verification of the fingerprint and latent prints which are stored on i-
storage disk;
6. Evaluate and review reports of other forensic examiners;
7. Conducts research works, lectures, trainings and seminars on forensic
examination, particularly on fingerprint examination.
8. Appear and testify in courts and other quasi-judicial bodies as an expert
technical witness.

Q4: Have you undergone trainings and seminars to qualify you as Questioned
Documents Examiner?
A4: Yes, I have attended numerous trainings and seminars in the Philippines and
overseas such as:
1.16th Annual International Convention of Forensic Examination in Oxford on
April 12, 2010;
2. Fingerprint Analysis Seminar in Florida on March 3, 2011;
3. International Conference of Forensic Examiners in Berlin, Germany on
August 5, 2013.

Q2: Under what circumstances did you come to examine the fingerprint
record of Juan Dela Cruz?
A2: The request came from PC Insp. Dan Kato, lead investigator of the murder
case of Nawaki Uzumaki. The request for examination of the then unknown
fingerprint record was made on February 14, 2018.

Q3: After receiving such request, what did you do next, if any?
A3: After receiving the request for fingerprint examination together with the
sample of the fingerprint record recovered at the crime scene, I forwarded the
sample specimen to the PNP Crime Laboratory Office for examination.
Q4: Was there a submission of the sample specimen of Juan Dela Cruz?
A4: No sir, because at that time there was no possible suspect identified by any
witness.

Q5: What specific fingerprint specimen were submitted for examination?

A5: Several documents were submitted bearing the fingerprint specimen such as
the following:
1.Fingerprint specimen taken from the kitchen knife in the house of the crime
scene;
2. Fingerprint specimen taken from the floor where the victim was found;
3. Fingerprint specimen taken from the glass of water inside the house where
the victim was found.

Q6: What did you do next, Ms. Witness?

A6: I immediately made an initial examination at the PNP – Automated
Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS).

Q7: What was the next step you have taken?

A7: I proceeded to Latent Print Inquiry examination. This inquiry compares a
latent print from a crime scene with the fingerprint that are stored in the
database to identify the perpetrator of the crime.

I immediately followed the Offense Inquiry examination. This inquiry

compares the ten print of offender with latent prints on file from unsolved
crimes to see if the suspect committed previous offenses.

Q8: After that, what happened next?

A8: I conducted the Serial Crimes Inquiry. This inquiry compares a latent print
from a crime scene with latent prints on file from unsolved crimes to see if the
same person has committed other crimes.

Q9: In the analysis of the specimen fingerprints which was submitted for your
examination, what was your findings?
A9: The result of our examination revealed that the fingerprint specimens found at
the crime scene and based on our existing fingerprint database, both revealed
that Francisco Samaniego’s fingerprint was one and the same.

Q10: Was your examination reduced into writing?

A10: Yes sir.

Q11: If the document is shown to you, will you be able to identify the same?
A11: Yes sir.

Q12: Mr. Witness, I am showing to you a document denominated as

Fingerprint Examination Result No. 2023-05 dated January 10, 2023, is
this the same document you mentioned earlier?
A12: Yes sir.

Q13: On page 2 of the said document at the left bottom portion thereof, there
appears a signature above the typewritten name Tsunade Senju, whose
signature is this?
A13: It is my signature, Sir.

I am executing this judicial affidavit freely and voluntarily, to attest to the

truth and veracity of the foregoing facts for all legal intents and purposes. I hereby
confirm and affirm that the signature that appears above my name as written below
is my signature which I personally affixed to this document at the time of
notarization.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this

_____________ at ________________________.

TSUNADE SENJU
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on the date and place above
written Affiant exhibiting to me her ______________

NOTARY PUBLIC
Doc. No. ______
Page No. ______
Book No. ______
Series of 2017.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES }

} S.S.
SWORN ATTESTATION OF COUNSEL
 I, Atty. Sarutobi Hiruzen, of legal age, with office address at Unit No. 1003,
HKG Urban Complex, Konoha Drive, Alabang, Muntinlupa City 1781, after
having been sworn to, in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state:

1. That I faithfully recorded the questions asked and the corresponding

answers that TSUNADE SENJU gave; and

2. Neither I nor any other person then present coached the said witness into
giving her answers to the said questions.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this

_____________ in the ________________________.

ATTY.SARUTOBI HIRUZEN
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on the date and place above

written by the affiant exhibiting his Valid I.D. No.
_____________________________________________________.

NOTARY PUBLIC
Doc. No. ______
Page No. ______
Book No. ______
Series of 2020.

4. Outline in paragraph form, the rules for continuous trial of criminal

cases.

Trial once commenced shall continue from day to day as far as

practicable until terminated; but it may be postponed for a reasonable period
of time for good cause. It shall in no case exceed 180 days from the first day
of the trial, except as otherwise provided by the Supreme Court. Said
limitation shall not apply where special laws or circular of the Supreme
Court provide for a shorter period of time.

Cases Where Trial Is for Shorter Period:

1. Drug Cases (RA 9165) – Trial must be finished not later than 60 days
from filing of Information and Decision within 15 days from
submission.
2. Environmental Cases – Trial shall commence 30 days from
arraignment and pre-trial and must be finished within 3 months. After
the 30-day period for filing of memoranda, there must be a decision
within 60 days.
3. Intellectual Property Rights Cases – Trial shall commence 30 days
from arraignment and pre-trial and must be finished within 120 days.
After the 30-day period for filing of memoranda, there must be a
decision within 90 days.

The trial dates may be shortened depending on the number of witnesses to be

presented.
A motion for postponement is prohibited except if it is based on acts of
God, force majeure, or physical inability of the witness to appear and testify.
In any case, the presentation of evidence must still be finished on the dates
previously agreed upon.

In the absence of counsel de parte, the hearing shall proceed upon

appointment by the court of a counsel de officio.