RULE 113 DOCTRINE: Personal examination by the Judge NOT REQUIRED
ARREST No. The interpretation is not accurate.
HOW IS ARREST MADE?
 Sec. 1, Rule 113 provides that an Arrest is the taking of a
person into custody in order that he may be bound to
answer the commission of an offense.
 In making an arrest, the person need not be actually
restrained by the person making the arrest. Under the
Rules of Court, submission to the custody of the person
making the arrest already constitutes an arrest. (Sec. 2,
Rule 113)
 Arrest may be made on any day, at any time of the day or
night
WHAT IS A “WARRANT OF ARREST”?
 It is a legal process issued by a competent authority,
directing the arrest of a person or persons upon the
grounds stated therein.
WHO CAN ISSUE A WOA?
 Sec. 2, Article III o the Consti provides that:
“No search warrant or warrant of arrest shall
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 be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.
The Constitution speaks of “judges” which means judges
of all levels. This power may not be limited much less
withdrawn by Congress. The power to determine the
existence of probable cause is a function of the judge and
such power lies in the judge alone (People v. Inting)
REQUISITES FOR ISSUANCE OF WOA (PPE-P)*****
1. It is constitutionally mandated that a warrant of arrest
shall issue only upon finding of probable cause
 “PROBABLE CAUSE” – such facts and
circumstances which would lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent man to believe that an
offense has bee committed by the person sought
to be arrested”
2. Such probable cause shall be personally determined by
the judge
3. after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he/ she may produce, and
4. particularly describing the person to be seized
What is the Effect of an Illegal Arrest on Jurisdiction of the Court?
 It bears stressing that the legality of the arrest affects only the
jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accuse. The
illegality of the arrest cannot, in itself, be a basis for acquittal. It
will not negate the validity of the conviction of the accused.
 By submitting oneself to the jurisdiction of the court as shown
by entering into a counsel-assisted plea, the active participation
in the trial and presenting evidence for the defense, the
accused is deemed to have waived his constitutional protection
against illegal arrest (People v. Rivera)
AAA v. Carbonell
The Court ruled in AAA v. Carbonell that what the Constitution
emphasizes is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the
issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable
cause.
In doing so, he is not required to personally examine the
complainant and its witness.
Instead, he may opt to:
1) PERSONALLY EVALUATE the report and supporting
documents submitted by the prosecutor or
2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause,
he may disregard the prosecutor’s report and require
the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to
aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of
probable cause.
"Sound policy dictates this procedure, otherwise judges
would be unduly laden with the preliminary
examination and investigation of criminal complaints
instead of concentrating on hearing and deciding cases
filed before their courts
The Court added its ruling in Webb vs. De Leon that, before
issuing warrants of arrest, judges merely determine the
probability, not the certainty, of guilt of an accused.
In doing so, judges do not conduct a de novo hearing to
determine the existence.
PERSONAL DETERMINATION NOT PERSONAL EXAMINATION
 Personal examination is not mandatory and indispensable
in the determination of probable cause for the issuance of
a warrant of arrest.
 Indeed, what the law requires as personal determination on
the part of the judge is that he should not rely solely on the
report of the investigating prosecutor.

PRELIMINARY INQUIRY vs. PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
 PRELIMINARY INQUIRY determines probable cause for the
issuance of a warrant of arrest, while the PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION PROPER, which ascertains whether the
offender should be held for trial or be released.
 The determination of probable cause for purposes of
issuing a warrant of arrest is made by the judge. The
preliminary investigation proper — whether or not there is
reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of
the offense charged — is the function of the investigating
prosecutor.
METHOD OF ARREST WITH A WARRANT; WARRANT NEED NOT BE
IN POSSESSION OF THE OFFICER(IIP-D)
 When making an arrest by virtue of a warrant, the officer
shall: (CW)
(a) inform the person to be arrested of the cause
of his arrest, and
(b) inform him of the fact that a warrant has
been issued for his arrest.
 The information need not be made when the person to be
arrested: (FFI)
 (a) flees,
(b) forcibly resists, or
(c) the giving of the information will imperil the
arrest (Sec. 7, Rule 113, Rules of Court).
 The officer need not have the warrant in his possession at
the time of the arrest.
o However, after the arrest, the warrant shall be
shown to him as soon as practicable, if the
person arrested so requires (Sec. 7, Rule 113,
Rules of Court).
 The officer assigned to execute the warrant of arrest has
the duty to deliver the person arrested to the nearest
police station or jail without unnecessary delay (Sec. 3,
Rule 113, Rules of Court).
NOTE:
 The person arrested shall not be subject to a greater
restraint than is necessary for his detention (Sec. 2)
 In case, the officer cannot on his own effectively make the
arrest, the authority to effect an arrest carries with it an
authority to orally summon as many persons as he deems
necessary to assist him in effecting the arrest.
o Every person summoned by an officer is
required to give the assistance requested
provided he can do so without detriment to
himself (Sec. 10, Rule 113, Rules of Court).
EXCPTN:
o The duty of the person summoned does not arise
when rendering assistance would cause harm to
himself.
May Arresting officers break into any buildings or enclosure in
implementing the Arrest?
 YES, Sec 11, Rule 113 ROC authorized arresting officers to
break in, in order to make the arrest, when the person to
be arrested is believed to be inside the building or
enclosure and the officers were refused admittance even
after announcing their authority and purpose.
 Also, after entering the building or enclosure, he may
break out from said place if necessary to liberate himself
from the same place. (Sec. 12)
What are the instances of a valid warrantless arrest?
 GENERAL RULE:
As regards arrests, searches and seizures is that a warrant
is needed in order to validly effect the same. The
Constitutional prohibition against unreasonable arrests,
searches and seizures refers to those effected without a
validly issued warrant Hence, the doctrine is that a warrant
of arrest is required before an arrest is made.
 A warrantless arrest is the exception.
Section 5 of Rule 113 provides three (3) instances when
warrantless arrest may be lawfully effected: (FHP)
(a) arrest of a suspect in FLAGRANTE DELICTO;
 When in his presence, the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually
committing or is going to commit an
offense.
(b) arrest of a suspect in HOT PURSUIT
 When an offense has just been
committed and based on personal
knowledge of facts, there is a
reasonable ground to believe that the
person to be arrested has committed
it.
(c) arrest of a PDL who has escaped from custody
serving final judgment or temporarily confined
while his case is pending.
 Another ground for a warrantless arrest other than those
provided for under SEC 5, Rule 113 ROC, is:
o when a person PREVIOUSLY LAWFULLY
ARRESTED ESCAPES OR IS RESCUED.
 Under the Rules, any person may
immediately pursue or retake him
without a warrant at any time and in
any place within the Philippines
o When an ACCUSED RELEASED ON BAIL attempts
to depart from the Philippines.
“Arrest in Flagrante Delicto”
BASIS;
 Under Sec. 5(a), Rule 113, mere "suspicion" and "reliable
information" are not justifications for a warrantless arrest.
 The rule requires that the ACCUSED PERFORM SOME
OVERT ACT that would indicate that he has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense.
NOTE: In this type of warrantless arrest, the person making the
arrest himself WITNESS the crime and hence, he has personal
knowledge of the commission of the offense.
REQUISITES:
PEOPLE V. AMAGO
(carrying a firearm)
DOCTRINE: Requisite for In Flagrante Delicto; Warrantless
search incidental to Lawful Arrest
YES. The SC ruled that there have been a valid in flagrante
delicto arrests under Sec. 5(a), Rule 113 of ROC.
For this kind of arrest to be valid, two (2) requisites must
concur: (OP)
(a) the person arrested must execute an overt act
indicating that he or she has just committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit
a crime; and
(b) the overt act was done in the presence or
within the view of the arresting officer
It is apparent that Amago's act of making an abrupt U-turn,
instead of stopping at the checkpoint sign, made a
reasonable belief for the police officers to suspect that
accused-appellants might have committed some traffic
violations or delivering something illegal.
The police officers stopped them and, in the course, Amago
intentionally slumped down the motorcycle he was riding
causing his t-shirt to be lifted, thereby exposing the handle of
a handgun that was tucked in his waistband. At the same
time, Pińero saw a folding knife protruding from the left
pocket of Vendiola who had fallen from the motorcycle.
Due to the failure of Amago to produce any license to carry
the firearm and for the illegal possession of a bladed weapon
by Vendiola, they were arrested.
Under Sec. 13 Rule 126 a search incident to a lawful arrest
is valid even without a search warrant.
In lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty and
the right of the apprehending officers to conduct
 a warrantless search not only on the person of
the suspect, but also in the permissible area
within the latter's reach. Otherwise stated, a valid
arrest allows the seizure of evidence or
dangerous weapons either on the person of the
one arrested or within the area of his immediate
control.
The phrase "within the area of his immediate
control" means the area from within which he
might gain possession of a weapon or
destructible evidence. (People v. Uyboco)
In the instant case, tire shabu was found in a peppermint gum
container inside the utility box of accused-appellants' motorcycle
that was within their immediate control. Therefore, it is within the
permissible area that the apprehending officers could validly
execute a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest.
NOTE:
"TRANSPORT" as used under the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 means "to carry or
convey from one place to another." The
essential element of the charge is the
movement of the dangerous drug from one
place to another.
In People v. Del Mundo: The very act of
transporting a prohibited drug, like in the instant
case, is a malum prohibitum since it is punished
as an offense under a special law. The mere
commission of the act constitutes the offense
and is sufficient to validly charge and convict an
individual committing the act, regardless of
criminal intent.
Since the crime is malum prohibitum, it is inconsequential
to prove that the illegal drugs were delivered or
transported to another person. The only thing that had to
be proven was the movement of the illegal drugs from one
place to another.
DUROPAN V. PEOPLE :(Brgy.Kagawad)
G.R. No. 230825, June 10, 2020
DOCTRINE: In flagrante v. Hotpursuit; Terry-Stop-and-Frisk; Duty
of Brgy. Kagawad & Tanod to Arrest; Art. 269 RPC Unlawful
Arrest;
Invitation vs. Arrest
WON Pacis was arrested?
 YES. PACIS is arrested.
 The Court explained what may be deemed an arrest:
Application of actual force, manual touching of the
body, physical restraint or a formal declaration of
arrest is not required. It is enough that there be an
INTENT on the part of one of the parties to ARREST the
other and an intent on the part of the other to
SUBMIT, under the belief and impression that
SUBMISSION IS NECESSARY.
Although denominated as requests, invitations from
high-ranking officials to a hearing in a military camp
were deemed arrests. This Court characterized them as
authoritative commands which may not be reasonably
expected to be defied.
Intent to arrest by the arresting person or officer, whether
through actual restraint or other means, must also be clearly
established.
Petitioners' defense fails as it merely argues on semantics.
However they opt to call it, it was evident that Pacis was taken
into the barangay officials' custody based on their belief that he
committed a crime, either because he was allegedly committing
theft, or because he became violent. Their intent to arrest Pacis
was clearly established.
WON in flagrante delicto arrest was valid?
 NO. An in flagrante delicto arrest that does not comply
with the overt act test is constitutionally infirm.
 Two elements must concur, the person to be arrested must
execute an overt act indicating that he or she has just
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit a crime; and that such overt act is done in the
presence or within the view of the arresting officer.
The acts of petitioners in maliciously ignoring the claim of membership of
the private complainant, arresting the latter without reasonable ground,
and forcibly bringing the latter to the police station, sufficiently
constitutes bad faith.
All these factual circumstances are enough to rebut the presumption of
good faith and regularity in the performance of official duties in
petitioners' favor.
There was no overt act within petitioners' plain view which hinted that
Pacis was committing a crime. During his apprehension, Pacis has not
committed, was not committing, nor was he about to commit a crime.
The warrantless arrest in this case was unlawful.
.
 A public officer who has no duty to arrest or detain a
person is deemed a private individual, in contemplation of
Articles 267 and 268 of RPC.
 Even when a public officer has the legal duty to arrest or
detain another, but he or she fails to show legal grounds
for detention, "the public officer is deemed to have acted
in a private capacity and is considered a 'private
individual."'
 A barangay kagawad is a member of the
legislative council of the sangguniang barangay,
which enacts laws of local application. He or she is
a person in authority, per SEC. 388 of the LGC.
 Meanwhile, a barangay tanod is deemed as an
agent of persons in authority whose duties are
described in Section 388 of the Local Government
Code.
 While deemed as persons in authority and agents
of persons in authority, respectively, the barangay
kagawad and barangay tanod are not the public
officers whose official duty is to arrest or detain
persons contemplated within the purview of
Article 269 of the RPC.
Saraum v. People (Pata case: IFD v. HP)
DOCTRINE: In Flagrante v. HOT PURSUIT; PLAIN VIEW; MOTION
TO QUASH
WON in flagrante arrest is valid?
 YES, the arrest in flagrante delicto was valid.
 Saraum was arrested during the commission of a crime,
which instance does not require a warrant in accordance
 with Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of ROC.*INSERT REQUISITES*.
 Mere possession of the paraphernalia is an offense. While
the items have countless lawful uses by themselves, the
prosecution successfully proved their purpose for taking
drugs.
 Since the warrantless arrest was valid, the warrantless
seizure incidental to the arrest is also valid, and the seized
items are the corpus delicti of the offense itself.
WARRANTLESS SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO LAWFULL ARREST
(PLAIN VIEW)
 The 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. Considering that Saraum’s arrest was legal, the
search and seizure that resulted from it were likewise lawful.
The various drug paraphernalia that the police officers found and seized
in the shanty are, therefore, admissible in evidence for having proceeded
from a valid search and seizure. Since the confiscated drug paraphernalia
are the very corpus delicti of the crime charged, the Court has no choice
but to sustain the judgment of conviction
CHAIN OF CUSTODY UNDER RA 9165
 To ascertain the identity of the drugs and/or paraphernalia
presented before the court as the ones seized from the
accused, the prosecution must show:
o (a) the prescribed procedure under Section 21(1),
Article II of R.A. No. 9165 has been complied with
or falls within the saving clause provided in Section
21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165;17 and
o (b) there was an unbroken link (not perfect link) in
the chain of custody with respect to the
confiscated items.
 Although Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 mandates that the
apprehending team must immediately conduct a physical
inventory of the seized items and photograph them, non-
compliance therewith is NOT FATAL as long as:
o there is a justifiable ground and as long as
o the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
confiscated/seized items are properly preserved
by the apprehending team.
Effect of failure to timely file the Motion to Quash
 Saraum is deemed to have waived any objection thereto
when he did not raise the issue before entering his plea.
 "The established rule is that an accused may be estopped
from assailing the legality of his arrest if he failed to move
for the quashing of the Information against him before his
arraignment.
 Any objection involving the arrest or the procedure in the
court's acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of an
accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise
the objection is deemed waived."
 In this case, counsel for Saraum manifested its objection to
the admission of the seized drug paraphernalia, invoking
illegal arrest and search, only during the formal offer of
evidence by the prosecution.
While nowhere in the prosecution evidence show the "justifiable
ground" which may excuse the police operatives involved in the buy-
bust operation from making the physical inventory and taking a
photograph of the drug paraphernalia confiscated and/or seized, such
omission shall not render Saraum's arrest illegal or the items
seized/confiscated from him as inadmissible in evidence.
Said "justifiable ground" will remain unknown in the light of the
apparent failure of Saraum to specifically challenge the CUSTODY AND
SAFEKEEPING or the ISSUE OF DISPOSITION AND PRESERVATION of the
subject drug paraphernalia before the trial court. He cannot be allowed
too late in the day to question the police officers’ alleged non-
compliance with Section 21 for the first time on appeal.
VILLASANA V. PEOPLE
(relying on tip information, and no independent verification)
DOCTRINE: Relying on Tip Information With No Independent
Verification = UNLAWFUL
Was the immediate Arrest of the accused arising from a
“reliable tip” is sufficient to validate the in flagrante delicto
arrest?
 It is settled that "reliable information" provided by police
assets alone is not sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest.
 There must be independent circumstances perceivable by
the arresting officers suggesting that a criminal offense is
being committed to comply with the exacting requirements
of Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court.
 An accused must perform some overt act within plain view
of the police officers indicating that she or "he has just
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit a crime."
The prosecution failed to establish probable cause to justify the
in flagrante delicto arrest of petitioner.
 Thus, the ensuing seizure of the shabu purportedly in his
possession is unlawful, and the seized drug is, therefore,
inadmissible in evidence.
o Under the 1987 Constitution, all citizens are
protected against unreasonable searches and
seizures of their persons, houses, papers, and
effects.
 As a rule, a search and seizure must be carried out with a
search warrant validly issued by a judge upon personal
determination of probable cause; otherwise, the search
becomes unreasonable.
 It follows that any item or article obtained from such
search cannot be used as evidence for any purpose in any
proceeding.
 Jurisprudence, however, has recognized several exceptions
to the search warrant requirement. Among these exceptions
is a search incidental to a lawful arrest. In this instance, the
lawful arrest must precede the search; the process cannot
be reversed.
People v. YUSOP (LBC CASE)
(distinguish this case to villasana, information was verified)
DOCTRINE: Reliable information received was FIRST
VERIEFIED
1. Information must be Verified first
 Follow up operation should be conducted
2. must not rely on the tip, there must be acts conducted by the accuse

REQUISITES FOR HOT PURSUIT
Jurisprudence tells us that the following must be present for a
valid warrantless arrest under paragraph (b): (OA)
i) an offense has just been committed; and
ii) the arresting officer has probable cause to
believe based on personal knowledge of facts
or circumstances that the person to be
arrested has committed it.
The evidence on record clearly shows that the police officers had
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances upon which they
had properly determined probable cause in effecting a
warrantless arrest against Yusop.
Here, the PDEA agents immediately acted on a tip received from
a confidential informant that a substantial amount of shabu will
be shipped from Las Pinas to CDO.
The details regarding the shipment such as the names of the
shipper and consignee, contents of the subject package, and the
courier service were all accurate upon verification.
The PDEA agents then conducted surveillance operations at the
LBC branch where the package will be claimed.
The subject package was without a doubt retrieved a day later
by Yusop - who acted like a guilty person and attempted to run
when confronted by the authorities.
The foregoing pieces of information qualify as the PDEA agents'
personal observation, perception and evaluation, which are
necessarily within their personal knowledge, prompting them to
make the warrantless arrest. The Court is, thus, convinced that
the PDEA agents had personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances justifying Yusop's warrantless arrest.
SEC. 21 (2), Article II, RA 9165 applicable in Tranpo of Drugs
The prevailing law then requires that:
(1) the seized items be inventoried and photographed
immediately after seizure or confiscation; and
(2) the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the
presence of: (AEM-D)
(a) the accused or his/her representative or counsel,
(b) an elected public official,
(c) a representative from the media, and
(d) a representative from the DOJ,
All of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventoiy
and be given a copy of the same.
In the case of Lescano v. People, the Court held that non-
compliance with the chain of custody rule is tantamount to
failure in establishing identity of the corpus delicti which is an
essential element of the offense and engenders the acquittal of
an accused
Realistically speaking, strict compliance with the requirements
of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 is not always be
possible.1awp++i1 But, while the law excuses non-compliance
under justifiable grounds the same must be proven as a fact for
the Court cannot presume what they are or that they even exist ;
and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were
properly preserved.****
Disappointingly, here, there was No Effort at all on the part of
the prosecution to explain or justify why a representative from
the DOJ was not present during the inventory and photography
of the confiscated drugs nor was it shown that earnest efforts
were in fact exerted to secure or obtain their presence or
attendance thereat
Seemingly, in the present case, the PDEA agents failed to secure
the attendance of a DOJ representative during the inventory and
photography of the seized drug.
People vs. Estabillo
At any rate, the Court keenly notes that as in Maralit, the
arresting officers here were likewise able to preserve the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized items which were marked
inventoried, and photographed in front of an elected official and
two (2) media representatives. To be clear though, a media
representative is no substitute for a DOJ representative under RA
9165 prior to its amendment.
However, the arresting officers' decision to invite additional
witnesses than required is cogent proof of their good faith, if
not, earnest efforts to comply with the witness requirement
under Section 21, RA 9165, and more important, to ensure
transparency and dispel any kind of suspicion on the legitimacy
of the operation.
People v. Olarte (Toy-gun case)
DOCTRINE: In flagrante vs. HOT PURSUIT; PROBABLE CAUSE;
When the arresting officer has entered the premises and saw
accused holding a replica gun they are not obliged to wait if the
gun can shoot. It is sufficient that in their presence, there is an
attempt of committing a crime.
In flagrante vs Hot Pursuit
 The first instance in Sec. 5 of Rule 113, on which the subject
arrest was premised, is known as an in flagrante
delicto arrest where the accused was caught in the
act or attempting to commit, already committing or having
committed an offense.
 For a warrantless arrest of in flagrante delicto to be effected,
two elements must concur:
(a) 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
(b) such overt act is done in the presence or within the
view of the arresting officer.
Failure to comply with the overt act test renders an in flagrante
delicto arrest constitutionally infirm.
The concept of in flagrante delicto arrests should not be
confused with warrantless arrests based on probable cause as
contemplated in the second instance of Sec. 5 of Rule 113.
 In Hot pursuit, an accused may be arrested when there is
probable cause which is discernible by a peace officer or
private person that an offense "has just been committed."
Here, the offense had already been consummated but NOT
IN THE PRESENCE of the peace officer or private person
who, nevertheless, should have personal knowledge of
facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested had
committed it.
 More importantly, there is durational immediacy between
 the offense that had just been committed and the peace
officer or private person's perception or observation of the
accused's presence at the incident or immediate vicinity.
 Such is why probable cause is required to justify a
warrantless arrest in cases where the peace officer or
private person did not catch or witness the accused in the
act of committing an offense.
SUFFICIENCY OF PROBABLE CAUSE
 some of its yardsticks for determination may be of help in
ascertaining whether an accused is attempting to
commit an offense;
 Probable of guilt "must be based on commonsense
judgments and inferences about human behavior."
Under the circumstances, PO2 Intud and PO2 Monilar had a
reasonable suspicion to arrest accused-appellant who was seen
to have drawn a gun as he was about to enter LBC.
 Common sense dictates that police officers need not wait
for a serious crime, such as robbery, to be consummated
before they move in and make the arrest because it will
definitely endanger the lives and safety of the public, as
well as their own.
 This is consistent with the jurisprudential dictum that the
obligation to make an arrest by reason of a crime does not
presuppose, as a necessary requisite for the fulfillment
thereof, the indubitable existence of a crime.
Moreover, even if the firearm drawn turned out to be a replica,
the police officers were not expected to know on sight whether
the firearm was genuine or not, considering they had only a split
second to act on any indication of danger.
What was necessary was the presence of reasonably sufficient
ground to believe the existence of an act having the
characteristics of a crime; and that the same grounds exist to
believe that the person sought to be detained participated in it.
As a result of the validity of the accused-appellant's warrantless
arrest, the incidental search and seizure of the items in his
possession is also valid "to protect the arresting officer from
being harmed by the person arrested and to prevent the latter
from destroying evidence within reach."
NOTE:
EFFECT OF ILLEGALITY OF ARREST
 The legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the
court over the person of the accused.
 Furthermore, "it is much too late in the day to complain
about the warrantless arrest after a valid information had
been filed, the accused arraigned, trial commenced and
completed, and a judgment of conviction rendered against
him”
 It has been ruled time and again that an accused is
estopped from assailing any irregularity with regard to his
arrest if he fails to raise this issue or to move for the quashal
of the information against him on this ground before his
arraignment.
Besides, only those pieces of evidence obtained after an
unreasonable search and seizure are inadmissible in evidence for
any purpose in any proceeding.
Hot Pursuit Arrest
BASIS:
 SEC 5(b) Rule 11: For a hot pursuit arrest to be valid, there
must be an offense that was just committed, and the arresting
officer had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the
accused committed it.
NOTE:
 This exception does not require the arresting officers to
personally witness the commission of the offense with
their own eyes.
 Personal knowledge of facts must be based on probable
cause, which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds
of suspicion.
 The grounds are reasonable when the suspicion that the
person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the
offense is based on actual facts, i.e., supported by
circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create
the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested.
 A reasonable suspicion, therefore, must be founded on
probable cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the
peace officers making the arrest.
Pestilos v. Generoso (Gikulata si Atty)
DOCTRINE: Immediacy, Probable Cause vis-à-vis Personal
Knowledge of facts
WON PETITIONERS WERE VALIDLY ARRESTED WITHOUT A
WARRANT.
 YES. The warrantless arrest was valid.
 Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the ROC provides that:
When an offense has just been committed, and he has
probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to
be arrested has committed it.
 The facts and circumstances that the police officers gathered
and which they have personally observed LESS THAN ONE
HOUR from the time that they have arrived at the scene of
the crime until the time of the arrest of the petitioners,
 The circumstances qualify as the police officers’ personal
observation, which are within their personal knowledge,
prompting them to make the warrantless arrests.
REQUISITES FOR HOT PURSUIT
The requirements set under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of ROC are:
1. an offense has just been committed (Immediacy);
2. Police officer has personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances; and lastly,
3. Propriety of the determination of probable cause that
the person sought to be arrested committed the crime.
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.
People v. Pangcatan,
(Witness Renante)
DOCTRINE: Invitation v. Arrest; Immediacy Test
WON, Warrantless arrest was in Flagrante delicto or Hot
pursuit.
 NO. Arrest of Pangcatan cannot be justified as in flagrante
or hot pursuit.
 For warrantless arrest under Sec. 5 (a) Rule 113 to be valid..
*REMEMBER TO CITE THE REQ.*
 Noticeably, at the time Pangcatan was invited to the police
station two days after the incident, he was not committing
any crime nor was it shown that he was about to do so or
that he had just done so in the presence of the police
officers.
 Thus, the warrantless arrest of Pangcatan cannot be justified
under the in flagrante delicto exception in paragraph (a),
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules.
 Pangcatan's arrest also cannot be validated under the hot
pursuit arrest exception in Sec 5(b), Rule 113.
 The elements of a hot pursuit arrest are:
(1) an offense has just been committed; and
(2) the arresting officer has probable cause to believe
based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances
that the person to be arrested has committed it.
 Moreover, there must be no appreciable lapse of time
between the arrest and the commission of the crime.
Otherwise, a warrant of arrest must be secured.
 Here, it took two days for the police officers to arrest him, a
lapse of time which is inconsistent with the immediacy
requirement in hot pursuit arrests.
XXXXXXX
 Since Renante positively identified Pangcatan from the
photos shown to him on January 9, 2015, the police officers
had sufficient time to secure a warrant.
 Instead of applying for a warrant, the police officers lured
Pangcatan into placing him into their custody under the
guise of an invitation. Consequently, Pangcatan's arrest was
unlawful.
Nevertheless, the subsequent filing of charges against Pangcatan,
his plea of not guilty, and his active participation during trial now
preclude him from assailing the court's jurisdiction over him.
Significance of Immediacy Test
the Court explained the reason for the element of immediacy as
follows:
As the time gap from the commission of the crime to
the arrest widens, the pieces of information gathered
are prone to become contaminated and subjected to
external factors, interpretations and hearsay.
On the other hand, with the element of immediacy
imposed under Section 5 (b), Rule 113 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure, the police officer's
determination of probable cause would necessarily be
limited to raw or uncontaminated facts or
circumstances, gathered as they were within a very
limited period of time. The same provision adds
another safeguard with the requirement of probable
cause as the standard for evaluating these facts of
circumstances before the police officer could effect a
valid warrantless arrest
The test of immediacy is not a mere mathematical computation
of the lapse of time between the commission of the crime and
the arrest. It is evaluated based on the circumstances
surrounding each case.
WON the search and seizure made to pangcatan was justified by
the arrest?
 NO. The search incident to Pangcatan's arrest is also
unlawful.
 Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules states that:
o 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 a search warrant.
 To constitute a valid warrantless search under this
provision, it requires that there be first a lawful arrest
before a search can be made and this process cannot be
reversed. Absent the requisite lawful arrest that must
precede the search, it cannot be considered legal.
 Since the search on the person of Pangcatan cannot be
considered a search incident to a lawful arrest as
contemplated in Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules, the
pieces of evidence obtained from this search are
inadmissible
Vaporoso v. People
(Nangawat ug purse sa car)
DOCTRINE:
WON Police officers lawfully arrested petitioners without a
warrant
 YES. The warrantless arrest is one falling under Sec 5(b)Rule
113 of ROC.
 Verily, under the above cited provision, it is essential
that the element of personal knowledge must be coupled
with the element of immediacy
 with the element of immediacy imposed under Section 5
(b), Rule 113 of the ROC, the police officer's determination
of probable cause would necessarily be limited to RAW or
UNCONTAMINATED facts or circumstances , gathered as
they were within a verv limited period of time.
 otherwise, the arrest may be nullified, and resultantly, the
items yielded through the search incidental thereto will be
rendered inadmissible in consonance with the exclusionary
rule of the 1987 Constitution.
 Here, petitioners' sudden flight upon being flagged by a
police officer, coupled with Dombase's narration of what
had just transpired is enough to provide PO2 Torculas with
personal knowledge of facts indicating that a crime had just
been committed and that petitioners are the perpetrators
thereof. Moreover, upon gaining such personal knowledge,
not only did PO2 Torculas chase petitioners until they
entered a dark, secluded area, he also called for back-up and
conducted a "stake-out" right then and there until they were
able to arrest petitioners about six (6) hours later.
 These circumstances indubitably show that the twin
requisites of personal knowledge and immediacy in order
to effectuate a valid "hot pursuit" warrantless arrest are
present, considering that PO2 Torculas obtained personal
knowledge that a crime had just been committed and that
he. did not waver in his continuous and unbroken pursuit of
petitioners until they were arrested.
WON the “more thorough” search conducted at the Panabo
Police Station where the seized drugs were allegedly recovered
from them falls within the purview of a valid search incidental
to lawful arrest

 NO. Under SEC 13, Rule 126:
 A valid arrest allows the seizure of evidence or dangerous
weapons either on the person of the one arrested or within
the area of his immediate control.
 The phrase "within the area of his immediate control"
means the area from within which he might gain
possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.
 On this note, case law requires a strict application of this
rule, that is, "to absolutely limit a warrantless search of a
person who is lawfully arrested to his or her person at the
time of and incident to his or her arrest and to 'dangerous
weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the
commission of the offense.' Such warrantless search
obviously cannot be made in a place other than the place of
arrest."
 Applying the foregoing parameters, the first search made on
petitioners, i.e., the cursory body search which, however,
did not yield any drugs but only personal belongings of
petitioners, may be considered as a search incidental to a
lawful arrest as it was done contemporaneous to their arrest
and at the place of apprehension.
 On the other hand, the same cannot be said of the second
search which yielded the drugs subject of this case,
considering that a substantial amount of time had already
elapsed from the time of the arrest to the time of the
second search, not to mention the fact that the second
search was conducted at a venue other than the place of
actual arrest, i.e., the Panabo Police Station.
 Resultantly, the illegal drugs allegedly recovered therefrom
constitutes inadmissible evidence pursuant to the
exclusionary clause enshrined in the 1987 Constitution.
 Since the illegally seized drugs is the corpus delicti of the
criminal charge, this causes for the dismissal of the case and
the acquittal of the accused.
PURPOSE OF SEC. 13, RULE 126
 It is therefore a reasonable exercise of the State's police
power to protect:
(a) law enforcers from the injury that may be inflicted on
them by a person they have lawfully arrested, whom
might be armed; and
(b) evidence from being destroyed by the arrestee.
 It seeks to ensure the safety of the arresting officers and the
integrity of the evidence under the control and within the
reach of the arrestee.
XXXXXXX
 Moreover, in lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty and
the right of the apprehending officers to conduct a
warrantless search not only on the person of the suspect,
but also in the permissible area within the latter's reach.
 Otherwise stated, a valid arrest allows the seizure of
evidence or dangerous weapons either on the person of the
one arrested or within the area of his immediate control .
The phrase "within the area of his immediate control"
means the area from within which he might gain
possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. A gun on
a table or in a drawer in front of one who is arrested can be
as dangerous to the arresting officer as one concealed in
the clothing of the person arrested.
Invitation for Questioning; Intent to make an Arrest
Pestilos v. Generoso (Gikulata si Atty)
DOCTINE: Invitation; Intent to Arrest
WON the accused was “arrested”
 YES. The accused was arrested and not merely invited.
 If after the officers have determined that a crime has just
been committed by the accused, the use of the term
“invited” in the affidavit of arrest is to be construed as an
authoritative command by the officer for the accused to
submit to the custody of the officer.
DUROPAN V. PEOPLE :(Brgy.Kagawad)
WON, the Barangay Officials has “arrested” Pacis
 YES. The Court ruled in Duropan v. People that:
Application of actual force, manual touching of the
body, physical restraint or a formal declaration of arrest
is not required. It is enough that there be an INTENT on
the part of one of the parties to ARREST the other and
an intent on the part of the other to SUBMIT, under the
belief and impression that SUBMISSION IS NECESSARY.
Although denominated as requests, invitations from
high-ranking officials to a hearing in a military camp
were deemed arrests. This Court characterized them as
authoritative commands which may not be reasonably
expected to be defied.
 Intent to arrest by the arresting person or officer, whether
through actual restraint or other means, must also be
clearly established.
 Petitioners' defense fails as it merely argues on semantics.
However they opt to call it, it was evident that Pacis was
taken into the barangay officials' custody based on their
belief that he committed a crime, either because he was
allegedly committing theft, or because he became violent.
Their intent to arrest Pacis was clearly established.
Rights of a Person Arrested, Detained, or under
Custodial Investigation
BASIS:
SEC 12, ARTICLE III og the Constitution
• Rights of person under investigation
o 1. Any person under investigation for the commission
of an 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. These rights cannot be
waived except in writing and in the presence of
counsel (Miranda Rights: • Protection from self-
incrimination •Right to counsel)
o 2. No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or
any other means which vitiate the free will shall be
used against him. Secret detention places, solitary,
incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention
are prohibited. (•Prohibition of torture)
o 3. Any confession or admission obtained in violation
of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in
 evidence against him. (• Regulation of evidence
collection)
 Sec 17 No person shall be compelled to be a
witness against himself.
(Prohibition against self-incrimination)
o 4. The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions
of violations of this section as well as compensation
to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar
practices, and their families. (Protection of victim’s
rights)
What are the Rights of a person arrested (R.A. 7438)?
 The rights of a person arrested, detained or under custodial
investigation are spelled out by Republic Act No.7438.
 These rights are: (ARI-V)
(a) The right to be assisted by counsel at all times (Sec.
2[a])
(b) The right to remain silent (Sec. 2[b]);
(c) The right to be informed of the above rights (Sec. 2[b]);
and
(d) The right to be visited by the immediate members of
his family, by his counsel, or by any non-governmental
organization, national
or international
When does Custodial Investigation commences?
 As a rule, custodial investigation begins to operate as soon as
the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an
unresolved crime and the interrogation is then aimed onf a
particular suspect who has been taken into custody and to
whom the police would then direct interrogatory questions that
tend to elicit incriminating statements.
 R.A. 7438 expanded the meaning of custodial investigation.
Under Sec. 2(f),” custodial investigation shall include the
practice of issuing an "invitation" to a person who is
investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to
have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the
"inviting" officer for any violation of law.”
 This means that even those who voluntarily surrendered
before a police officer must be apprised of their Miranda
rights.
When does the Right To Remain Silent be exercise?
 It extends to all kinds of questioning (i.e. Preliminary or
custodial investigation)
Right to Counsel
 The right to counsel upon being questioned for the commission
of a crime is part of the Miranda rights. (See Sec 12, Art. III
Consti)
 The Miranda rights were incorporated in our Constitution but
were modifies to include the statement that any waiver of the
right to counsel must be made in WRITING and in PRESENCE
OF COUNSEL.
NOTE: Presence of Counsel is MANDATORY in custodial
investigation; In general inquiry- right to counsel does not come in.
Brewer v. Williams
(The Christian Burial Speech Case)
DOCTRINE: Right to Remain Silent; Right to Legal Counsel during
Custodial Investigation
WON accused waived his right to counsel when interrogated
 NO. In determining the question of waiver of counsel - it is
incumbent upon the State to prove an intentional
relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or
privilege.
 The right to counsel does not depend upon a request by a
defendant, and courts indulge in every reasonable
presumption against waiver. This strict standard applies
equally to an alleged waiver of the right to counsel whether
at trial or at a critical stage of pretrial proceedings
 Here, Respodent did not waived his right to counsel but,
instead, he was deprived of his constitutional right to
assistance of counsel.
 An individual against whom adversary proceedings have
commenced has a right to legal representation when the
government interrogates him and since here the police
officer's "Christian burial speech" was tantamount to
interrogation, respondent was entitled to the assistance of
counsel at the time he made the incriminating statements.
 The circumstances of record provide, when viewed in light
of respondent's assertions of his right to counsel, no
reasonable basis for finding that respondent waived his right
to the assistance of counsel, the record falling far short of
sustaining the State's burden to prove "an intentional
relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or
privilege,"
People v. Licayan(5 year old Rowena Rape case)
DOCTRINE: Confession vs. Admission; Admission to a Private
Person; Courts go by the biblical truism that "the wicked flee
when no man pursueth but the righteous are as bold as a lion."
CONFESSION vs. ADMISSION (RULE 130)
SEC. 33. Confession. - The declaration of an accused
acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense
necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against
him.
SEC. 26. Admission of a party - The act, declaration or omission
of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against
him
Under SEC 3, RULE 113 of ROC, an extra-judicial confession shall
not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by
evidence of corpus delicti, which is defined as the body of the
crime and, in its primary sense, means a crime has actually been
committed.
WON an eyewitnesses could have identified the perpetrator of a
crime
 YES. It is settled that when conditions of visibility are
favorable, and the witnesses do not appear to be biased,
their assertion as to the identity of the malefactor should
normally be accepted.
 Illumination produced by kerosene lamp or a flashlight is
sufficient to allow identification of persons.
 Wicklamps, flashlights, even moonlight or starlight may, in
proper situations be considered sufficient
illumination making the attack on the credibility of
witnesses solely on that ground unmeritorious.
WON the statement made by Rogelio “JUN JUN” Dahilan as to
the location of the victim’s body is hearsay.
 NO. Any oral or documentary evidence is hearsay by
nature if its probative value is not based on the personal
knowledge of the witnesses but on the knowledge of some
other person who was never presented on the witness
stand, because it is the opportunity to cross-examine which
negates the claim that the matters testified to by a witness
are hearsay.
 In the instant case, Rogelio Dahilan, Jr. testified that
accused-appellant indeed told him where the victim’s body
can be found.
 What is more, the victim’s body was actually recovered at
the location pointed by accused-appellant.
WON the extrajudicial statements made by the accused to
Dahilan is inadmissible as it partakes an extrajudicial-confession
 NO. It not an extra-judicial confession, but merely an extra-
judicial admission.
 A CONFESSION is an acknowledgment in EXPRESS TERMS, by
a party in a criminal case, of his GUILT of the crime charged,
while
 an ADMISSION is a statement by the accused, direct or
implied, of facts pertinent to issue, and tending, in
connection with proof of other facts, to PROVE HIS GUILT.
 In other words, an admission is something less than a
confession and is but an acknowledgment of some fact or
circumstance which in itself is insufficient to authorize a
conviction, and which tends only to establish the ultimate
fact of guilt.
 In this case, Rogelio "Jun-jun" Dahilan was neither a law
enforcement nor a public officer conducting a custodial
interrogation of accused-appellant. He was merely an
acquaintance of accused-appellant who asked the
whereabouts of the missing child of his kumpadre because
the victim was last seen with the latter.
 Neither was he instructed by the police to extract
information from accused-appellant on the details of the
crime.
 Well settled in number of jurisprudences that:
Constitutional procedure on custodial investigation do not
apply to a spontaneous statement not elicited through
questioning by the authorities, but given in an ordinary
manner whereby the accused orally admitted having
committed the crime.
 Even assuming arguendo that accused-appellant’s
admissions indeed partake of an extra-judicial confession,
the same would still be admissible not only on account of
the foregoing considerations but also because it is
corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.
 SEC 3, RULE 113 of ROC, an extra-judicial confession shall
not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated
by evidence of corpus delicti.
 In this case, aside from the admission made by accused-
appellant, the bruised and battered body of the victim
herself recovered at the exact spot described by accused-
appellant conclusively established the corroborating
evidence of corpus delicti.
PN: Simply put, the extrajudicial confession is admissible
because it was given during a GENERAL INQUIRY, Renante’s
inquiry did not equate to a custodial investigation as the latter is
not making an arrest nor he intended to make one. Violation of
Bill of rights apply only to the officers of the State (Police
officers); It does not apply to Private individuals who are not
making an arrest.
People v. Taboga (Media)
DOCTRINE: Extrajudicial Confession made through Media
WON the extrajudicial confession made by the accused to a
radio reporter who was allegedly acting as an agent for the
prosecution is in violation of the procedural safeguards enshrine
in the Constitution and admissible as evidence
 NO. The Court ruled in People vs. Taboga that videotaped
confessions given before media men by an accused with
the knowledge of and in the presence of police officers are
impermissible.
 Such confession did not form part of custodial
investigation. It was not given to police officers but to a
media man in an apparent attempt to elicit sympathy.
 The record even discloses that accused-appellant admitted
to the Barangay Captain that he clubbed and stabbed the
victim even before the police started investigating him at the
police station. Besides, if he had indeed been forced into
confessing, he could have easily asked help from the
newsman
Voluntariness of Extrajudicial Confession and its Admissibility
 If a confession be free and voluntary the deliberate act of
the accused with a full comprehension of its significance,
there is no impediment to its admission as evidence, and it
becomes evidence of a high order; since it is supported by
the presumption a very strong presumption that no person
of normal mind will deliberately and knowingly confess
himself to be a perpetrator of a crime, especially if it be a
serious crime, unless prompted by truth and conscience.
 Under Rule 133, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, an
extrajudicial confession made by an accused shall not be a
sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by
evidence of corpus delicti. As defined, it means the body of
the crime and, in its primary sense, means a crime has
actually been committed. Applied to a particular offense, it is
the actual commission by someone of the particular crime
charged.
In the case at bar, the confession made by accused-appellant
was corroborated by several items found by the authorities, to
wit: the knife which was used to kill the victim and the charred
body of the victim.
People v. Cabug (Hammer case)
DOCTRINE: Right to Counsel; When does Custodial investigation
commences
WON, alleged extra-judicial confession to SPO3 Bernard
Rafanan is inadmissible for having been given without the
presence of counsel.
 NO. The confession of accused-appellant is inadmissible
 The right to counsel attaches upon the start of
investigation, i.e., when the investigating officer starts to
ask questions to elicit information and/or confessions or
admissions from the accused.
 In this case, SPO3 Rafanan testified that he approached
accused-appellant in order to make queries on what
happened on the night of August 15, 1992.
 He further said that after this voluntary confession from
accused-appellant, he ceased to ask questions because he
 knew that at that point that the latter appellant needed the
assistance of counsel.
 The interrogation of accused-appellant by SPO3 Rafanan
ceased to be a general exploratory investigation of a crime
and entered the stage of custodial interrogation where Art.
III, 12(1) of the Constitution applied.
NOTE: This is probably the reason why the trial court never fully
relied on accused-appellant's extra-judicial confession, although
it mentioned it in among the circumstances duly proven in court.
Instead, the trial court gave weight to the circumstantial
evidences which point to accused- appellant's liability. For even
disregarding the extra-judicial confession of accused-appellant,
there is sufficient circumstantial evidence which would clearly
establish his conviction.
People v. Cabanada (Housemaid; Qualified Theft)
DOCTRINE: Admission during general exploratory investigation
v. Admission during Custodial Investigation
WON, the admission of accused is made during Custodial
Investigation
 Custodial investigation commences when a person is taken
into custody and is singled out as a suspect in the
commission of a crime under investigation and the police
officers begin to ask questions on the suspect's
participation therein and which tend to elicit an admission.
 RA 7438 expanded the definition of custodial investigation
This means that even those who voluntarily surrendered
before a police officer must be apprised of their Miranda
rights The same pressures of a custodial setting exist in this
scenario.
 Applying the foregoing, Cabanada was not under custodial
investigation when she made the confession, without
counsel, to PO2 Cotoner that she took the missing
₱20,000.00.
 The prosecution established that the confession was elicited
during the initial interview of the police after Catherine
called to report the missing money and personal effects.
 The investigation was still a general inquiry of the crime
and has not focused on a particular suspect. Also, she
admitted to the crime while at the residence of her
employer, thus, she was not yet taken into custody or
otherwise deprived of her freedom.
 However, the subsequent confession of Cabanada at the CIU
office can be considered as having been done in a custodial
setting.
WON, the admission of accused is Admissible in evidence
 The answer requires distinction.
 It was ruled that any statement obtained in violation of the
constitutional provision, whether exculpatory or
inculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in
evidence. Even if the confession contains a grain of truth, if
it was made without the assistance of counsel, it becomes
inadmissible in evidence, regardless of the absence of
coercion or even if it had been voluntarily given.
 Cabanada's confession without counsel at the police
station, which led to the recovery of the other items at her
house, is inadmissible.
 Nevertheless, the inadmissibility of Cabanada's admission
made in CIU does not necessarily entitle her to a verdict of
acquittal. Her admission during the general inquiry is still
admissible.
MIRANDA RIGHTS
Sec. 12, Article III of the Consti embodies the Miranda rights.
The Miranda doctrine requires that:
(a) any person under custodial investigation has the
right to remain silent;
(b) anything he says can and will be used against him in
a court of law;
(c) he has the right to talk to an attorney before being
questioned and to have his counsel present when being
questioned; and
(d) if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided
before any questioning if he so desires.
Miranda rights are intended to protect ordinary citizens from
the pressure of custodial setting.
In the case of Luz v. People25 citing Berkemer v. McCarty,26 it was
explained that:
The purposes of the safeguards prescribed by Miranda
are to ensure that the police do not coerce or trick
captive suspects into confessing, to relieve the
"inherently compelling pressures" "generated by the
custodial setting itself," "which work to undermine the
individual's will to resist," and as much as possible to
free courts from the task of scrutinizing individual cases
to try to determine, after the fact, whether particular
confessions were voluntary. Those purposes are
implicated as much by in-custody questioning of
persons suspected of misdemeanors as they are by
questioning of persons suspected of felonies.
The "investigation" in Section 12, paragraph 1 of the Bill of Rights
pertains to "custodial investigation." Custodial investigation
commences when a person is taken into custody and is singled
out as a suspect in the commission of a crime under investigation
and the police officers begin to ask questions on the suspect's
participation therein and which tend to elicit an admission.
Distinction between Custodial Investigation and Preliminary
Investigation; Admissibility of an Extrajudicial Confession taken
during a PI
People v. Omilig
DOCTRINE:
WON, the extrajudicial confessions were valid
 In Ladiana v. People, the Court defined the difference
between custodial investigation and preliminary
investigation: Custodial Interrogation/Investigation“ is the
questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a
person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of
his freedom of action in any significant way”;
 on the other hand, Preliminary Investigation “is an inquiry or
a proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient
ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has
been committed, and that the respondent is probably guilty
thereof and should be held for trial.
 In Ladiana, this Court has unequivocally declared that a
person undergoing preliminary investigation cannot be
considered as being under custodial investigation.
Resultingly, as pronounced in Ladiana, the claim by the
accused of inadmissibility of his extrajudicial confession is
unavailing because his confessions were obtained during a
preliminary investigation and even if accused-appellant
Peñaflor’s extrajudicial confessions were obtained under
 custodial investigation, these are admissible.
 To be admissible, a confession must comply with the
following requirements: it “must be
(a) voluntary;
b) made with the assistance of a competent and
independent counsel;
c) express; and
d) in writing.”
In the case at bar, the prosecution did not present proof of the
absence of any of these requirements.
TOPIC: Assistance of competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice
WON Peñaflor’s two extrajudicial confessions were inadmissible
because he was assisted by an “incompetent and not an
independent counsel of his choice”
 The argument is untenable.
 To be a competent and independent counsel in a custodial
investigation, the lawyer so engaged should be present at
all stages of the interview, counseling or advising caution
reasonably at every turn of the investigation, and stopping
the interrogation once in a while either to give advice to
the accused that he may either continue, choose to remain
silent or terminate the interview.”
 It has been made clear that counsel should be present and
able to advise and assist his client from the time the
confessant answers the first question until the signing of
the extrajudicial confession.
 In the case, there was no evidence, not even an allegation,
that the counsel who assisted accused-appellant Peñaflor
when his extrajudicial confessions were obtained were
absent at any stage of the duration of the proceedings.
 Based on his admission, Atty. Cavales was the last person to
arrive for the conduct of preliminary investigation. However,
the preliminary investigation commenced only after he
arrived. Only then were questions propounded to accused-
appellant Peñaflor.
 With regard to the submission that accused-appellant
Peñaflor’s appointed counsel is not of his own choice as
warranted by Article III, Section 12 of the Constitution, the
Court cited its discussion in People v. Tomaquin on the
meaning of “preferably” is relevant:
Ideally, the lawyer called to be present during such
investigations should be as far as reasonably possible,
the choice of the individual undergoing questioning, but
the word "preferably" does not convey the message
that the choice of a lawyer by a person under
investigation is exclusive as to preclude other equally
competent and independent attorneys from handling
his defense.
What is imperative is that the counsel should be
competent and independent.
As borne by the records, the appointments of Atty. Cavales and
Atty. Cristobal as counsel de officio were with the conformity of
accused appellant Peñaflor.
They succeeded Atty. Padilla upon his discharge as counsel for
accused-appellant Peñaflor. The prosecutors allowed
accusedappellant Peñaflor to engage the services of the new
counsel.
“a confession is admissible until the accused successfully proves
that it was given as a result of violence, intimidation, threat or
promise of reward or leniency.”
The prosecution in this case failed to adduce evidence to prove
the presence of any circumstance that would negate the
admissibility of his confession.
The presumption of regularity in the performance of duty prevails
over mere allegations. The presumption of regularity operates
when the prosecution proffers that government officials tasked
with responsibilities regarding the enforcement of our laws and
procedures submit that the crime has been duly proven,41 which,
however, may be refuted by the defense. It is upon the defense
to disprove such presumption by adducing no less than clear and
convincing evidence, showing that the performance of functions
was tainted with irregularity and that the official had motive to
falsify,42 such that, any taint of irregularity renders the
presumption unavailable. In the case at bar, the defense failed to
refute such presumption. In the end, “[w]hat is sought to be
protected by the Constitution is the compulsory disclosure of
incriminating facts. The right is guaranteed merely to preclude
the slightest coercion as would lead the accused to admit
something false not to provide him with the best defense. "
Ladiana v. People
DOCTRINE: Admission in Preliminary Investigation; A statement
by the accused admitting the commission of the act charged
against him but denying that it was done with criminal intent is
an admission, not a confession.
WON the Counter-affidavit of the accused-petitioner may be
admitted against him as evidence of guilt beyond reasonable
doubt even if he was not assisted then by counsel.
 Yes. The Constitution bars the admission in evidence of any
statement extracted by the police from the accused
without the assistance of competent and independent
counsel during a custodial investigation. However, a
counter-affidavit voluntarily presented by the accused
during the preliminary investigation, even if made without
the assistance of counsel, may be used as evidence against
the affiant.
 Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or a proceeding to
determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a
well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, and
that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should
be held for trial.
 The Court has unequivocally declared that a defendant on
trial or under preliminary investigation is not under
custodial interrogation.
Interrogation by the police, if any there had been would
already have been ended at the time of the filing of the
criminal case in court (or the public prosecutor’s office).
Hence, with respect to a defendant in a criminal case
already pending in court (or the public prosecutor’s
office), there is no occasion to speak of his right while
under ‘custodial interrogation’ laid down by the second
and subsequent sentences of Section 20, Article IV of
the 1973 Constitution [now Section 12, Article III of the
1987 Constitution], for the obvious reason that he is no
longer under ‘custodial interrogation.
 There is no question that even in the absence of counsel, the
admissions made by petitioner in his Counter-Affidavit are
not violative of his constitutional rights. It is clear tha it was
not exacted by the police while he was under custody or
interrogation.
 Hence, the constitutional rights of a person under custodial
investigation as embodied in Article III, Section 12 of the
1987 Constitution, are not at issue in this case.
NOTE: However, the accused -- whether in court or undergoing
preliminary investigation before the public prosecutor --
unquestionably possess rights that must be safeguarded.
These include:
1) the right to refuse to be made witnesses;
2) the right not to have any prejudice whatsoever
imputed to them by such refusal;
3) the right to testify on their own behalf, subject to
cross-examination by the prosecution; and
4) while testifying, the right to refuse to answer a
specific question that tends to incriminate them for
some crime other than that for which they are being
prosecuted
Whether or not the accused’s confession is an extrajudicial
admission.
 No. We do not, however, agree with the Sandiganbayan’s
characterization of petitioner’s Counter-Affidavit as an
extrajudicial confession. It is only an admission.
 Sections 26 and 33 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on
Evidence distinguish one from the other as follows:
o "SEC. 26. Admissions of a party. – The act,
declaration or omission of a party as to
arelevant fact may be given in evidence
against him."
o SEC. 33. Confession. – The declaration of an
accused acknowledging his guilt of theoffense
charged, or of any offense necessarily
included therein, may be given in evidence
against him.
 "In a confession, there is an acknowledgment of guilt; in an
admission, there is merely a statement of fact not directly
involving an acknowledgment of guilt or of the criminal
intent to commit the offense with which one is charged.
 Thus, in the case, a statement by the accused admitting the
commission of the act charged against him but denying
that it was done with criminal intent is an admission, not a
confession.
 The Counter-Affidavit in question contains an admission that
petitioner actually shot the victim when the latter was
attacking him but denies having done it with any criminal
intent. In fact, he claims he did it in self-defense.
Nevertheless, whether categorized as a confession or as an
admission, it is admissible in evidence against him
Timeliness of Challenging the Validity of an Arrest
People v. Estabillo
Effect of an Illegal Arrest or Waiver of an Illegal Arrest
People v. Velasco
Also, even if the warrantless arrest of an accused is later to be
proven invalid, such fact is not sufficient cause to set aside a valid
judgement rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free
from error.
People v. Pangcatan, supra
DOCTRINE: Motion to quash was timely filed however, Accused
entered Plea
SYPNOSIS: Pangcatan raised the validity of his arrest and the seizure of
weapons in his possession in his Motion to Quash and to Suppress
Evidence timely filed prior to his arraignment. He alleged that his arrest
was illegal likewise the body search conducted upon him, thus making the
evidences inadmissible and that the court holds no jurisdiction of his
person by virtue of illegal arrest. He repeatedly raised these arguments
when he filed a petition for certiorari in the CA.
WON, the Court has jurisdiction over the person of the accused
 YES. Although Pangcatan was not validly arrested, he is
now estopped from assailing the court's jurisdiction over
his person
 It is settled that any objection to the arrest or acquisition of
jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made
before he enters his plea, otherwise the objection is
deemed waived.
 An accused submits to the jurisdiction of the trial court upon
entering a plea and participating actively in the trial and this
precludes him from invoking any irregularity that may have
attended his arrest. He is deemed to have waived his
objections when he entered a plea and participated actively
in the trial.
 In this case, the denial of the Motion to Quash is not the
proper subject of an appeal because it is an interlocutory
order.
 Since Pangcatan had already filed a petition for certiorari to
assail the interlocutory order and the issue concerning the
validity of his arrest and the admissibility of the evidence
against him had already been put to rest.
 Nevertheless, the subsequent filing of charges against
Pangcatan, his plea of not guilty, and his active participation
during trial now preclude him from assailing the court's
jurisdiction over him.
NOTE: Effect of an Appeal
In criminal cases, "an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review and the
reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed
judgment or even reverse the trial court's decision based on grounds other than
those that the parties raised as errors. The appeal confers the appellate court full
jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records,
revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper
provision of the penal law."
What is the remedy when a motion to quash is denied?
For petitioners to go to trial, without prejudice to reiterating the
special defenses invoked in their motion to quash. An appeal is
not allowed because a denial of a motion to quash is an
interlocutory order.
A petition for certiorari is likewise not allowed.
Exception: (when a petition for certiorari Rule 65 may be allowed)
When the court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with
grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to quash.
PROPER ACTION: Here, dapat wala ni enter ug plea si Pangcata,
instead he should have prompted in filing a petition for certiorari
under 65 assailing the decision on denying his Motion to Quash.
The petition shall then become a prejudicial question, which
requires to be resolved first before adjudicating the crime
charged against him.
On Bench Warrants
As a consequence of failing to attend the trial when so
required, a bench warrant was issued against complainant:
A bench warrant is defined as a writ issued directly by a
judge to a law-enforcement officer, especially for the
arrest of a person who has been held in contempt, has
disobeyed a subpoena, or has to appear for a hearing or
trial.

The provision on bench warrant is expressed under Section

9, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court which states that "[w]hen a
respondent released on bail fails to appear on the day
fixed for the hearing, the court may issue another order of
arrest or may order the bond for his appearance to be
forfeited and confiscated, or both."
 would tend to show specific location
that a crime has been
committed and that
a particular person
committed it
SEARCH and SEIZURE (Rule 126)  Remains valid until  Only valid for 10 days
BASIS: Constitutional Right to Privacy such time that the
person stated in
SEC. 2, Article III of the Constitution WOA arrested;
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,  body cameras are
papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of  Body worn camera is MANDATORY
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no required but it is not
fatal to invalidate
search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
arrest, so long as 
probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after justified
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the  personal examination
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place Miguel v.  not necessarily of the complainant
to be searched and the persons or things to be seized" required to make a and the witnesses is
People personal examination required
(HUBADERO) before issuing a
SEACH WARRANT warrant of arrest  Failure to execute
GR No. the "Knock and
A search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of the
227038, July 31, 2017 announce" rule shall
People of the Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace invalidate the search
officer, commanding him to search for personal property described
therein and bring it before the court (Sec. 1, Rule 126, Rules of DOCTRINE: Arrest and Search by Person acting under state-
Court) related function; Agent of Law

Characteristics:  YES. The Court ruled that Bantay Bayan or any barangay-
 A search warrant is a police weapon, issued under the police based or other volunteer organizations in the nature of
power watch groups - relating to the preservation of peace and
 it is not a criminal case and not bound by the regular rules of order in their respective areas have the color of a state-
jurisdiction
related function.
 this is criminal process, it is the inherent right of the COURT; can
be issued even if there is still no warrant yet
 this is criminal process, it is the inherent right of the COURT;
 It is not a proceeding against a person but is solely for the
discovery and to get possession of personal property.
 It is a special and peculiar remedy, drastic in nature, and made
necessary because of public necessity.
 It resembles in some respects with what is commonly known as
John Doe proceedings.

SURVEILLANCE vs. SW
Surveillance per se is not illegal nor does it requires a warrant because it is not a search.

In search, officers are actively looking for something or specific object relative to a crime
committed while in surveillance, there is still no knowledge that a crime was or is committed.

However, if surveillance involves intrusion of data i.e. wire-tapping, a warrant must first be
sought.
WOA vs.
Purpose & Nature SW
Rule on unreasonable search and seizure is protection against government intrusion.
ARREST SEARCH WARRANT
HENCE, if a person desires to challenge the validity of search (Search is with or w/o warrant) the  Cannot be issued  can be issued w/o
complaint should be RIGHT AGAINST SEARCHES AND SEIZURES but when the search was made without a complaint/ complaint or
by a private individual not the officers of the State the complaint that should be filed is the RIGHT information filed information
TO PRIVACY. before court;

 Object is the person  Object is personal

to be arrested; it property; its rule
involves taking of a covers a wider
person to custody spectrum of matters
on the search of both
persons and places
and the seizure of
things found therein.

 In order to determine  Probable cause to

probable cause to search requires facts
arrest, the judge (not to show that
the prosecutor) must particular things
have sufficient facts connected with a
in his hands that crime are found in a
would tend to show specific location
that a crime has been
committed and that
a particular person
committed it

 Remains valid until  Only valid for 10 days

such time that the
person stated in
WOA arrested;
 body cameras are
 Body worn camera is MANDATORY
required but it is not
fatal to invalidate
arrest, so long as 
justified
 personal examination

 As such, they should be deemed as law enforcement
RULE ON ARREST & SEARCH OF PRIVATE PERSON vs.
Agents/LAW ENFORCERS
The Bill of Rights does not govern relationships between
individuals; it cannot be invoked against the acts of private
individuals.
However, if the search is made upon the request of law
enforcers, a warrant must generally be first secured if it is to
pass the test of constitutionality.
If the search is made at the behest or initiative of the proprietor
of a private establishment for its own and private purpose, and
without the
Instances where
intervention
the “rightoftopolice
privacy”
authorities,
in non-governmental
the right against
unreasonable
intrusion has been
search
upheld:
and seizure cannot be invoked for only the
act of private individual, not the law enforcers, is involved.
Hing v. Choachuy (Installation of CCTV)
In sum, the protection
G.R. No.against
179736, unreasonable
June 26, 2013 searches and
DOCTRINE: Right to privacy covers Private Business Offices;
Intrusion by mere Private person
 Yes. There is a violation of the petitioner’s right to privacy.
 The right to privacy is enshrined in our Constitution and in
our laws*SEE Art. 26 of CC*
 It is the right of an individual “to be free from unwarranted
publicity, or to live without unwarranted interference by
the public in matters in which the public is not necessarily
concerned.” Simply put, the right to privacy is “the right to
be let alone.”
 Sec. 26(1) of the Civil Code specifically mentions "prying
into the privacy of another's residence." This does not
mean, however, that only the residence is entitled to
privacy, because the law covers also "similar acts.”
 A business office is entitled to the same privacy when the
public is excluded therefrom and only such individuals as
are allowed to enter may come in.
Zulueta v. CA (Marital Status)
G.R. No. 107383, Feb. 20, 1996
DOCTRINE: Right to privacy between Husband and Wife;
Admissibility of Evidence obtained without consent and
knowledge of the other spouse
WON, the papers and other materials obtained by the wife
through forcible intrusion and unlawful means are admissible as
evidence in court regarding marital separation and
disqualification from medical practice of his husband
 NO. The documents and papers in question are inadmissible
in evidence. The constitutional injunction declaring "the
privacy of communication and correspondence to be
inviolable" is no less applicable simply because the
petitioner and respondent are husband and wife.
 The only exception to the prohibition in the Constitution is if
there is a "lawful order from a court or when public safety or
order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law." Any
violation of this provision renders the evidence obtained
inadmissible "for any purpose in any proceeding."
 The law insures absolute freedom of communication
between the spouses by making it privileged. Neither
husband nor wife may testify for or against the other
without the consent of the affected spouse while the
marriage subsists. Neither may be examined without the
consent of the other as to any communication received in
confidence by one from the other during the marriage, save
for specified exceptions. But one thing is freedom of
communication; quite another is a compulsion for each one
to share what one knows with the other. And this has
nothing to do with the duty of fidelity that each owes to
the other.
World Wide Web Corp. v. People (Data Theft)
G.R. No. 161106 and G.R. No. 161266, January 13, 2014
DOCTRINE: Nature of SW, not a criminal proceeding but a
special criminal process; Particularity of Description in SW
Here, the Court relaxed the rule. Generally, the search warrants
issued must be described in particularity. Technical precision of
description is not required. It is only necessary that there be
reasonable particularity and certainty as to the identity of the
property to be searched for and seized.
Hence, if the item to be seized cannot be described, general
description would be sufficient. (Now it is already covered with
Cyber warrants.)
Is an application for a search warrant a criminal action?
NO. An application for a search warrant is a “special criminal
process,” rather than a criminal action.
A search warrant is in the nature of a criminal process akin to a
writ of discovery. It is a special and peculiar remedy, drastic in
its nature, and made necessary because of a public necessity.
State the rule in describing the place to be searched and the
things to be seized in a search warrant.
 The search warrant must satisfy the requirement of
particularity in the description of the things to be seized
A search warrant need not describe the items to be seized in
precise and minute detail. The warrant is valid when it enables
the police officers to readily identify the properties to be seized
and leaves them with no discretion regarding the articles to be
seized.
A search warrant fulfills the requirement of particularity in the
description of the things to be seized when the things described
are limited to those that bear a direct relation to the offense for
which the warrant is being issued.
In this case, PLDT was able to establish the connection between
the items to be searched as identified in the warrants and the
crime of theft of its telephone services and business. Prior to the
application for the search warrants, Rivera conducted
ocular inspection of the premises of petitioners and was then
able to confirm that they had utilized various telecommunications
equipment consisting of computers, lines, cables, antennas,
modems, or routers, multiplexers, PABX or switching equipment,
and support equipment such as software, diskettes, tapes,
manuals and other documentary records to support
the illegal toll bypass operations.”

May an order quashing a search warrant be the proper subject

of an appeal?
It depends. Where the search warrant is issued as an incident in
a pending criminal case, the quashal of a search warrant is
merely interlocutory. There is still “something more to be done in
the said criminal case, i.e., the determination of the guilt of the
accused therein.”

In contrast, where a search warrant is applied for and issued in

anticipation of a criminal case yet to be filed, the order quashing
the warrant (and denial of a motion for reconsideration of the
grant) ends the judicial process.

There is nothing more to be done thereafter.

In this case, the applications for search warrants were instituted
as principal proceedings and not as incidents to pending criminal
actions. When the search warrants issued were subsequently
quashed by the RTC, there was nothing left to be done by the trial
court.

Thus, the quashal of the search warrants were final orders, not
interlocutory, and an appeal may be properly taken therefrom.
NOTE:
 In Motion to Quash, all grounds available upon the filing of the
motion must be included, otherwise that ground will be waived
except those grounds that are not waivable i.e. lack of
jurisdiction, the information does not charge an offense, and
double jeopardy.
 Motion to Suppress is based from Exclusionary Rule found in
Sec 3, Art, 3 Constitution which provides that any evidence
obtained through unreasonable searches and seizures shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. *Fruit of
Poisonous Tree Doctrine*
 If BOTH intrinsic and extrinsic is defective file Motion to Quash
With Motion To Suppress.
Who can challenge validity of the warrant?
Normally, the people and the accused. However, in search
warrant, the court ruled in SEC vs. Mendoza Any party
affected can actually challenge it.
Where to file the Motion to quash the warrant?
With the Court which issued the warrant, provided there is
no case filed yet arising from that warrant. to another
Court. Otherwise, the Motion should be filed to the court
hearing the case.
Once the case is filed in court, after the search warrant has
been enforced, and the case filed is in relation to the
enforcement of the said warrant, the issuing Court will
have to forward the records of the warrant to the Court
where the case is filed.
When to challenge the Warrant?
In Abuan vs. People: in the earliest opportunity even if
theirs is no arraignment yet– accused must make known
the objective either orally or through motion.
The REQUISITES for the issuance of a search warrant are: (PDE-FTS)
(1) probable cause is present and that probable cause
must be for specific one offense;
(2) such probable cause must be determined personally
by the judge;
(3) the judge must examine, in writing and under oath
or affirmation, the complainant and the witnesses he or
she may produce;
(4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on the facts
personally known to them; and
(5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be
searched and the things to be seized
TAKE NOTE:
 Different cases in Territorial Jurisdiction, Judicial Region
with Compelling Reasons and SW issued by Executive
Judges
 Territory in proviso if there is a criminal case filed it should
be filed with the Court hearing the Case; SW can be filed
even if there’s already a case filed before the Court.
(usually occur in Cyber Warrants.)
 Within Judicial Region of the court but there must be
compelling reason
PEOPLE VS CASTILLO
DOCTRINE: Jurisdiction on SW vs Jurisdiction on Criminal case
Judge Marcelo C. Cabalbag of the MTC of Gattaran issued a
warrant for search and seizure of drugs in the premises of
Petitioner Rabino. Shabu was found. Rabino filed a Motion To
Quash alleging that Castillo has no jurisdiction to issue a SW
because the imposable penalty of Sec. 11 RA 9165 is more than
6 year, MTC has no jurisdiction over the case. Respondent Judge
Castillo granted the Motion to quash. Was the Judge correct?
Rule on the case.
ANSWER:
 NO. The Judge is incorrect.
 A search warrant may be issued by any court pursuant to
Section 2, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and the resultant
case may be filed in another court that has jurisdiction over
the offense committed.
 What controls here is that a search warrant is merely a
process, generally issued by a court in the exercise of its
ancillary jurisdiction, and not a criminal action to be
entertained by a court pursuant to its original jurisdiction.
 Thus, in certain cases when NO CRIMINAL ACTION HAS YET
BEEN FILED, ANY COURT MAY ISSUE A SEARCH WARRANT
even though it has no jurisdiction over the offense
allegedly committed, provided that all the requirements for
the issuance of such warrant are present. *cite the
requisites*
 PHILIPPINE SHELL PETROLEUM v. ROMARS Int.
(LPGcase Naga/Iriga)
DOCTRINE: Jurisdiction Courts issuing SW; the POWER TO ISSUE
SW IS INHERENT IN ALL COURTS; Compelling Reason under Sec.
2(b), Rule 126 of ROC; Effect of Failure to file Motion to Quash
before Arraignment;
Romars is found to be engaged in unauthorized distribution and
reselling LPG with same container as the petitioners. Said LPGs
are being refilled in the premises of the respondent located in
Iriga City. Petitioner asked the NBI to investigate and the
mentioned facts were confirmed. SW were issued and served at
the same day, articles described therein were seized. Romars
filed a Motion Quash Search Warrants. Denied. On his MR, he
raised for the first time, the impropriety of filing the Application
of SW in RTC Naga for failing to state compelling reason to
justify filing of SW in said Court in violation of Sec. 2(b), Rule
126 of ROC. RTC Naga granted the MR. If you are the Judge will
you do the same?
ANSWER:
 NO. The procedure and purpose for the issuance of a
search warrant are completely different from those for the
institution of a criminal action.
 The proceedings for applications for SW are not criminal in
nature and, thus, the rule that venue is jurisdictional does
not apply thereto.
 While it is true that the NBI failed to comply with Sec. 2(b),
Rule 126 of ROC which mandates that the application for
search warrant should state the compelling reasons why the
search warrants were being filed with the RTC-Naga instead
of the RTC-Iriga City, considering that it is the latter court
that has territorial jurisdiction over the place where the
alleged crime was committed and also the place where the
search warrant was enforced, the issue of whether the
application should have been filed in RTC-Iriga City or RTC-
Naga, is not one involving jurisdiction because the POWER
TO ISSUE A SPECIAL CRIMINAL PROCESS IS INHERENT IN ALL
COURTS
 Further, under OMNIBUS MOTION RULE 15, Sec. 8, it is
essential that all available objections be included in a
party’s motion and should be filed BEFORE ARRAIGNMENT,
otherwise, said objections shall be deemed waived; and, the
only grounds the court could take cognizance of, even if not
pleaded in said motion are:
(a) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter;
(b) existence of another action pending between the
same parties for the same cause; and
(c) bar by prior judgment or by statute of limitations.
In accordance with the omnibus motion rule, therefore, the trial
court could only take cognizance of an issue that was not raised
in the motion to quash if:
(1) said issue was not available or existent when they
filed the motion to quash the search warrant; or
(2) the issue was one involving jurisdiction over the
subject matter.
Obviously, the issue of the defect in the application was available
and existent at the time of filing of the motion to quash.
 Hence, It was improper for the RTC-Naga to have taken into
consideration an issue which respondent failed to raise in its
motion to quash, as it did not involve a question of
jurisdiction over the subject matter.
 It is clear that the RTC-Naga had jurisdiction to issue
criminal processes such as a search warrant.
RULE ON JURISDICTION IN CRIMINAL CASES (RULE 110)
It is jurisprudentially settled that the concept of venue of
actions in criminal cases, unlike in civil cases, is jurisdictional.
The place where the crime was committed determines not only
the venue of the action but is an essential element of jurisdiction.
It is a fundamental rule that for jurisdiction to be acquired by
courts in criminal cases, the offense should have been committed
or any one of its essential ingredients should have taken place
within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the
court has jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try the offense
allegedly committed therein by the accused.
Thus, it cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged with an
offense allegedly committed outside of that limited territory.
EXAMPLE OF COMPELLING REASON:
 The police feared that filing of case will enable the accused
to escape upon knowledge of such filing since person to be
arrested is known in the area i.e. to ENSURE
CONFIDENTIALITY and URGENCY.
(PEOPLE VS. CHUI)
SEC v. Mendoza
(Gilumluman ang Evidence, wa gibalik sa court)
DOCTRINE: Proper forum to file Motion to Quash when no
criminal case has been filed yet
NBI secured a SW from RTC Makati City for search and seizure of
documents being used for violation of RA 8799 and Art. 315 RTC
(Estafa). Articles and documents were seized in the office of the
respondents located in Makati City. For failure to turn over the
seized items to the issuing court after 3 months, respondents
filed a Prohibition and Injunction before RTC Muntinlupa to
prevent the use of seized documents to prosecute them, for
violating Sec. 1, Rule 126 ROC which mandates the immediate
turn over of seized items to issuing court. RTC Makati nullified
the SW. CA rendered its decision without taking into
consideration the decision of RTC Makati (Should be dismissed
for mootness).
CA held that the proceedings before the Makati RTC and the
Muntinlupa RTC are separate and distinct. The object of the
motion to quash search warrant, file with the Makati RTC, the
issuing court, was to test the validity of its issuance. On the
other hand, the object of the Muntinlupa injunction case is to
prevent the three agencies from using the seized articles in any
criminal proceeding against Mendoza, et al. considering the SEC
and the NBI’s failure to immediately turn over the seized
articles to the court that issued the warrant as the rules require.
Was CA Correct in its ruling?
ANSWER:
 NO. Section 14 of Rule 126 is clear.
 Questions concerning both:
1) the issuance of the search warrant and
2) the suppression of evidence seized under it are matters
that can be raised only with the issuing court if, as in the
present case, no criminal action has in the meantime been
filed in court.
 The prohibition and injunction filed by Mendoza is actually
a Motion to Suppress that should have been filed with RTC
 Makati, not RTC Muntinlupa.
 The issuing court is the right forum for such motion given
that no criminal action had as yet been filed against
Mendoza, et al. in some other court.

HOW TO EXAMINE THE WITNESS?