Name GR
Cariaga accused Sapigao and Acosta,
DANILO CALIVO CARIAGA vs.
EMMANUEL D. SAPIGAO and
GINALYN C. ACOSTA
Duterte v. Sandiganbayan, 289
130191
SCRA 721 (1998)
(Mendoza vs. People, G.R. No.
197293
197293, 21 April 2014)(Third
Dimatulac v. Hon. Sesinando
Villon, G.R. No. 127107,
October 12, 1998).
Facts
Barangay officials of Brgy. Carosucan Sur, of
Falsification, False Certification, and
Slander by Deed. The OPP and the ORSP
dismissed the complaint for lack of
223844
probable cause. Cariaga appealed to the
CA, but the CA rejected the petition for not
exhausting administrative remedies.
Cariaga could have appealed to the SOJ
before going to the CA.
Petitioners were accused of graft for buying
computer hardware from Systems Plus,
Incorporated. They only learned of the
charge four years later, after they had
commented on a civil case and an
unverified complaint. They claimed they
were denied preliminary investigation, due
process and speedy disposition, but the
Sandiganbayan rejected their motions.
They filed this petition to quash the charge.
Mendoza, a car supervisor, sold five cars
without permission and did not remit the
payments. Juno Cars sued him for theft and
estafa, but he denied causing any damage.
The RTC dismissed the case for lack of
probable cause, but the CA reversed it and
upheld the public prosecutor’s findings.
Mendoza sought to quash the charge.
Mayor Yabut and his accomplices killed
PO3 Dimatulac at his house after forcing
him to apologize. Assistant prosecutor
Flores charged them with homicide and
127107
granted bail. The petitioner challenged
Flores’ resolution to the DOJ. Judge Roura
arraigned the case before the appeal was
resolved.
 Four former lawmakers were accused of
killing three AKBAYAN supporters. A panel
of prosecutors filed murder and kidnapping
Maza vs Turla GR No.
187094 charges against them. Judge Turla
187094
dismissed the cases for lack of preliminary
investigation. The petitioners appealed to
the Supreme Court to annul the charges.

Go shot Maguan in a traffic altercation and

(Go v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 101837, February 11,
1992).
fled. He surrendered to the police six days
later and was charged with murder. He
101837 challenged his arrest and the lack of
preliminary investigation. The CA upheld
the validity of his arrest and the filing of the
information.
 San Agustin, a barangay chairman, was
arrested by NBI for detaining Tan without
lawful ground. He was charged with
kidnapping/serious illegal detention, but he
claimed he was denied preliminary
San Agustin vs People G.R. No. investigation and should only face arbitrary
158211
158211 August 31, 2004 detention. The RTC ordered a
reinvestigation, which resulted in a new
charge of arbitrary detention, but San
Agustin still objected. He petitioned the
court to set aside the charge and order a
preliminary investigation.

Sanchez was convicted of selling shabu and

sentenced to life imprisonment by the RTC.
He was arrested in a buy-bust operation
and the drugs were confirmed by the
PEOPLE vs. ESPIRITU, G.R. No. 175832 laboratory. He appealed to the Court of
175832. October 15, 2008. Appeals, claiming that the police violated
the law on handling evidence. The Court
upheld his conviction, finding that the
evidence was sufficient.
 The accused were arrestd based on an
information that it is with their possession
some marijuana. Accused were found guilty
for violating the Dangerous Drugs Act and
were sentenced to death.
People of the Phils. vs Molina,
et.al. G.R. No. 133917, 133917
Accused-appelant jointly filed a demurrer
February 19, 2001
to evidence, contending that the marijuana
allegedly seized from them is inadmissible
as evidence for having been obtained in
violation of their constitutional rights
against unreasonable searches and seizure.

Villanueva was arrested by PO3 de Leon,

who saw him holding a sachet of shabu. He
was charged with illegal possession of
People v. Lualhati GR No.
201363 dangerous drugs. He claimed his arrest was
201363 | March 18, 2013
invalid because he was not committing any
crime. The RTC and the CA found him
guilty.
 The police tried to intercept a marijuana
PEOPLE V.
transport but failed. PO2 Pallayoc followed
MARIACOS
a tip and boarded a jeepney with bags of
188611 marijuana. He arrested two women who
G.R. NO. 188611
took the bags but one escaped. Belen
Mariacos, the other woman, was convicted
JUNE 16, 2010
of drug violation.

The NARCOM set up a checkpoint to catch

PEOPLE VS MALMSTEDT, G.R.
91107
No. 91107 June 19, 1991
drug traffickers from Sagada. They stopped
a bus and found a pouch of hashish on the
waist of a Caucasian passenger. They also
searched his two bags and discovered more
hashish hidden in stuffed toys. The
passenger was arrested and charged with
drug possession.

The police arrested Mengote and Morellos,

who were acting suspiciously, and found a
gun and a knife on them. Mengote was
convicted of illegal possession of firearms
People vs. Mengote G.R. No.
87059 and appealed, claiming that the gun was
87059 June 22, 1992
illegally seized. The Government argued
that the gun was lawfully seized as part of a
valid arrest. The court had to decide on the
admissibility of the gun as evidence.
 The petitioners were raided by the military
for illegal firearms and fought back,
resulting in casualties. They were arrested
Rizal Alih et al vs Castro GR No and subjected to various tests and seizures,
L-69401 which they challenged in court as violations
L-64401
of their rights. They claimed that the search
June 23, 1987 and seizure were unlawful without a
warrant. The respondent defended their
actions as following orders and maintaining
peace and order.

Leviste was charged with homicide for

Leviste vs. Alameda G.R. No.
182677 August 3, 2010
killing De las Alas and released on bond.
The heirs of De las Alas asked the RTC to
defer the arraignment and allow the
prosecution to reinvestigate the case. The
RTC granted the motion but Leviste
challenged it before the Court of Appeals.
Leviste argued that only the DOJ could
order a reinvestigation and that he had the
right to preliminary investigation.
 issue ruling

No. the CA erred in completely dismissing

Whether or not the CA correctly dismissed of administrative remedies, as only the
Cariaga's petition for review before it on
the ground
of nonexhaustion of administrative
remedies.
Cariaga's petition before it on the ground
of nonexhaustion
ORSP ruling regarding the crime of
Falsification of
Public Documents may be referred to the
SOJ, while the ORSP ruling regarding the
crimes of False
Certification and Slander by Deed may
already be elevated before the courts.

YES. The preliminary investigation of the

W/N the petitioners right to speedy trial
was violated by the inordinate delay in
theconduct of the preliminary
investigation?
charges against petitioners has been
conducted not in the manner laid down in
Administrative Order No. 07. The
inordinate delayin the conduct of the
preliminary investigation infringed upon
their constitutionally guaranteed right to a
speedy disposition of their case.[22] In
Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan,[23]we held that
an undue delay of close to three (3) years
in the termination of the preliminary
investigation in the light of the
circumstances obtaining in that case
warranted the dismissalof the case.

No. While the determination of probable

cause charge a person of a crime is the sole
Whether or not the trial court erred in function of the prosecutor, the trial court
dismissing the information filed by the may, in the prosecution of one’s
prosecutor on basis of its own independent fundamental right to liberty, dismiss the
finding of lack of probable cause? case, if upon a personal assessment of the
evidence, it finds that the evidence does
not establish probable cause.

The Rules use the word

Issue: Whether or not arraignment to
lesser penalty oh homicide is proper while
the case is pending in the DOJ subject for
Review.
“custody” to signify that bail is only
available for someone who is
under the custody of the law Hence, A
cannot seek
any judicial relief if he does not submit his
person to the jurisdiction of
the court
 Yes, they cannot remand the case
foranother conduct of preliminary
investigation on the ground that theearlier
preliminary investigation was improperly
whether respondent Judge Turla gravely conducted. The determination of probable
abused her discretion when she remanded cause for filing an informationin court and
the Palayan cases to the Provincial that for issuance of an arrest warrant are
Prosecutor for the conductof preliminary different. Once theinformation is filed in
investigation court, the trial court acquires jurisdiction
and anny disposition of the case as to its
dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of
the accused rests in the sound discretion of
the Court.

no. WARRANTLESS ARREST INVALID. A

warrantless arrest requires that the crime
has in fact just
been committed and the police arresting
has personal knowledge of
1. WON warrantless arrest was lawful 2. facts that the person to be arrested has
WON Prelim Inv was validly waived committed it (Sec. 5, Rule
petitioner being granted provisional liberty 113). Here, the crime has not just been
on a cash bond of P100,000.00 committed since a period of
two days had already lapsed, and the police
arresting has no such
personal knowledge because he was not
present when the incident
happened. Also NO WAIVER OF PRELIM INV
 YES The Inquest investigation conducted by
the State Prosecutor is void because under
Rule 112 Sec. 7 of ROC, an inquest
investigation is only valid when the suspect
is lawfully arrested without warrant. In this
case, San Agustin was not lawfully arrested.
HOWEVER, lack of preliminary investigation
Whether a preliminary investigation is
does not affect jurisdiction of courts,
needed before filing of an Information
neither does it affect the validity of the
Information. Thus, it is not a valid ground
to quash the Information or release the
petitioner from detention. The proper
procedure is for the RTC to suspend the
proceedings and order a preliminary
investigation

No. The prohibited drug is an integral part

of the corpus delicti of the crime
ofpossession or selling of
regulated/prohibited drug; proof of its
identity, existence,and presentation in
court are crucial.The Court found three
Whether petitioner is guilty beyond errors by the authorities in handling the
reasonable doubt seized items. They did not follow the rule
on taking photographs and having
witnesses sign the inventory. They did not
establish the chain of custody to show that
the evidence was not tampered with. They
did not identify who handled the items
from the arrest to the tr
 No. There was no probable cause that leads
to the arrest of the accused-appellants. the
law also requires that there be first a lawful
arrest before a search can be made. In the
case at bar, there was no warrant of arrest.
Because the arrest was illegal, so was the
Whether or not the conduct of searches
search made by the police officers,
and seizures were valid.
therefore the seized marijuana were
inadmissible as evidence.

Therefore, for lack of evidence to establish

their guilt beyond reasonable doubt,
accused-appellants were acquitted.

No. The police officer's testimony does not

provide sufficient evidence to justify the
arrest.
The Court emphasizes that personal
knowledge of the arresting officer that a
crime had in fact just been committed is
required for a lawful warrantless arrest.
The Court concludes that the appellant's
acts of walking along the street and holding
Whether the CA erred in affirming in toto something in his hands, even if they
the RTC’s Decision convicting appellant of appeared dubious, are not sufficient to
theoffense charged? incite suspicion of criminal activity or
create probable cause for a warrantless
arrest.
The Court also notes that flight per se is not
synonymous with guilt and should not be
automatically attributed to consciousness
of guilt.
Therefore, the seized shabu is rendered
inadmissible as evidence, and the appellant
is acquitted on reasonable doubt.
 Yes. The search of a moving vehicle is one
of the doctrinally accepted exceptions to
the Constitutionalmandate that no search
Whether or not the warrantless search and
or seizure shall be made except by virtue of
arrest of accused Mariacos was lawful
a warrant issued by a judge afterpersonally
determining the existence of probable
cause.

No,Accused was searched and arrested

while transporting prohibited drugs. A
crime was actually being committed by the
Whether or not there is a violation of the accused and he was caught in flagrante
constitutional right against unreasonable delicto, thus the search made upon his
search and seizure personal effects falls squarely under
paragraph 1 of the foregoing provision of
law, which allows a warrantless search
incident to a lawful arrest.

NO. At the time of the arrest, accused-

appellant was merely "looking from side to
side" and "holding his abdomen." There
was apparently no offense that had just
been committed or was being actually
Whether or not the arrest is valid.
committed or at least being attempted by
Mengote in their presence.
There was nothing to support the arresting
officers' suspicion other than Mengote's
darting eyes and his hand on his abdomen.
 No, superior orders cannot countermand
the Constitution. There is no excuse for the
constitutional shortcuts done by the
military. Also, the aggravation of peace and
order problem in their place does not
excuse the non-observance of the
constitutional guaranty against
Whether or not the confiscated items shall unreasonable searches and seizure (Art III
be considered admissible. Sec. 2, 1973 Philippine Constitution).

Whether or not the finger-printing,
photographing and paraffin-test is
protected by the constitutional right
against selfincrimination.
The arrest does not fall also under the
warrantless arrest provided for by Rule 113
Sec. 5 of the Rules of Court. Therefore, all
the firearms and ammunition taken from
the raided compound are inadmissible in
evidence in any proceedings against
petitioners. With respect to the finger-
printing, photographing and paraffin-
testing, the acts are not covered by the
protection against self-incrimination, for it
only applies to testimonial compulsion.

The Court holds that the private

complainant can move for reinvestigation.

All criminal actions commenced by a

complaint or information shall be
Whether or not private respondent has the prosecuted under the direction and control
right to cause the reinvestigation of the of the public prosecutor The private
criminal case when the criminal complainant in a criminal case is merely a
information had already been filed with the witness but in cases where the private
lower court. complainant is allowed to intervene by
counsel in the criminal action, and is
granted the authority to prosecute, the
private complainant, by counsel and with
the conformity of the public prosecutor,
can file a motion for reinvestigation.