People vs.

Gerente [GR 95847-48, 10 March 1993]

Facts:
At about 7:00 a.m. of 30 April 1990, Gabriel Gerente, together with Fredo Echigoren
and Totoy Echigoren, allegedly started drinking liquor and smoking marijuana in
Gerente's house which is about 6 meters away from the house of Edna Edwina Reyes
who was in her house on that day. She overheard the three men talking about their
intention to kill Clarito Blace. She testified that she heard Fredo Echigoren saying,
"Gabriel, papatayin natin si Clarito Blace." Fredo and Totoy Echigoren and Gerente
carried out their plan to kill Clarito Blace at about 2:00 p.m. of the same day. Reyes
allegedly witnessed the killing. Fredo Echigoren struck the first blow against Clarito
Blace, followed by Totoy Echigoren and Gabriel Gerente who hit him twice with a piece
of wood in the head and when he fell, Totoy Echigoren dropped a hollow block on the
victim's head. Thereafter, the three men dragged Blace to a place behind the house of
Gerente. At about 4:00 p.m. of the same day, Patrolman Jaime Urrutia of the
Valenzuela Police Station received a report from the Palo Police Detachment about a
mauling incident. He went to the Valenzuela District Hospital where the victim was
brought. He was informed by the hospital officials that the victim died on arrival. The
cause of death was massive fracture of the skull caused by a hard and heavy object.
Right away, Patrolman Urrutia, together with Police Corporal Romeo Lima and
Patrolman Alex Umali, proceeded to Paseo de Blas where the mauling incident took
place. There they found a piece of wood with blood stains, a hollow block and two
roaches of marijuana. They were informed by Reyes that she saw the killing and she
pointed to Gabriel Gerente as one of the three men who killed Clarito. The policemen
proceeded to the house of Gerente, who was then sleeping. They told him to come out
of the house and they introduced themselves as policemen.
Patrolman Urrutia frisked Gerente and found a coin purse in his pocket which contained
dried leaves wrapped in cigarette foil. The dried leaves were sent to the National
Bureau of Investigation for examination. The Forensic Chemist found them to be
marijuana. Only Gerente was apprehended by the police. The other suspects, Fredo
and Totoy Echigoren, are still at large. On 2 May 1990, two separate informations were
filed by Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Benjamin Caraig against him for Violation of
Section 8, Art. II, of RA 6425, and for Murder. When arraigned on 16 May 1990,
Gerente pleaded not guilty to both charges. A joint trial of the two cases was held. On
24 September 1990, the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, Branch 172,
found Gerente guilty of Violation of Section 8 of Republic Act 6425 and sentenced him
to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a term of 12 years and 1 day, as minimum, to
20 years, as maximum; and also found him guilty of Murder for which crime he was
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Gerente appealed.
Issue:

Whether the police officers have the personal knowledge of the killing of Blace to allow
them to arrest, and the subsequent search Gerentes person, without the necessary
warrant.
Held:
The search of Gerente's person and the seizure of the marijuana leaves in his
possession were valid because they were incident to a lawful warrantless arrest.
Paragraphs (a) and (b), Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Court provide that
"A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When,
in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed,
and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has
committed it;" The policemen arrested Gerente only some 3 hours after Gerente and his
companions had killed Blace. They saw Blace dead in the hospital and when they
inspected the scene of the crime, they found the instruments of death: a piece of wood
and a concrete hollow block which the killers had used to bludgeon him to death. The
eye-witness, Edna Edwina Reyes, reported the happening to the policemen and
pinpointed her neighbor, Gerente, as one of the killers. Under those circumstances,
since the policemen had personal knowledge of the violent death of Blace and of facts
indicating that Gerente and two others had killed him, they could lawfully arrest Gerente
without a warrant. If they had postponed his arrest until they could obtain a warrant, he
would have fled the law as his two companions did. The search conducted on Gerente's
person was likewise lawful because it was made as an incident to a valid arrest. This is
in accordance with Section 12, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court which provides
that "A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything
which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant."
The frisk and search of Gerente's person upon his arrest was a permissible
precautionary measure of arresting officers to protect themselves, for the person who is
about to be arrested may be armed and might attack them unless he is first disarmed.
Padilla VS CA
Summary of the Case:
One night, Enrique Manarang noticed the accused appellants car running fast. After a
while, a screech of tires was heard and thus, made the officer run out and investigate.
Not so long, the car continued to run, so a hot-pursuit took place. Manarang then
radioed the incident to the Police. When the car was put to a stop, the driver rolled down
the windows with his hands raised. The officers then noticed that it was the famous
actor, Robin Padilla. While apprehended, because of the hit-and-run incident, the police
saw the revolver tucked in the left waist of Robin. So, the police insisted that the gun be
shown in the office if it was legal. The crowd had formed and Robin was shaking their
hands and pointing to the police while saying iyan kinuha ang baril ko, as if it was in
the movies. The gesture then revealed a magazine clip of a rifle which made the police
suspect that there is a rifle inside the vehicle. Then the rifle was seen. The other
firearms were voluntarily surrendered by Robin. Now, Robins defense was that his

arrest was illegal and consequently, the firearms and ammunitions taken in the course
thereof are inadmissible in evidence under the exclusionary rule. Robin Padilla was
arrested, tried, and convicted for illegal possession of firearms. He was in possession of
a .357 caliber revolver, Smith and Wesson with 6 live ammunitions, One M-16 baby
Armalite Rifle with ammunitions, One .380 Pietro Barreta with 8 live ammunitions, and
six live double action ammunitions of .38 caliber revolver.
Relation to Article3: Section 2.
Robin claimed that there was no search warrant or warrant of arrest thus, making his
arrest illegal and the evidences inadmissible. The Bill of rights purpose is to put limit to
the governments power. In the People vs. Marti case, the government was not
involved. In this case, the government is involved but it was not illegal.
Why? According to whats written in the case, a peace officer or a private person may
arrest a person: (a) when the person has committed, is actually committing or is
attempting to commit and offense, (b) when an offense has in fact just been committed,
and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has
committed it.
The instances above clearly explain the legality of the arrest. Robin Padilla, my idol had
first sideswept a balut vendor and the incident was heard by Manarang and he saw
Robin fled away from the scene, thus, committing a hit-and-run. And Enrique Manarang
was a peace officer.
When he was halted, the firearms were revealed to the police officers without their act
of searching. The firearms were in plain view. And the firearms were found by the
police in their pursuit of their official duties. And the police have the right as to where
they are because they were in pursuit of Robin when they found the firearms.
People vs. Sinoc [GR 113511-12, 1 July 1997]
Facts:
On 20 September 1991, at about 6:00 a.m., Isidoro Viacrusis, manager of Taganito
Mining
Corporation, was motoring from the company compound (at Taganito, Claver, Surigao
del Norte) to Surigao City. He was riding on a company vehicle, a Mitsubishi Pajero
(DFX-397), driven by Tarcisio Guijapon. As Viacrusis and Guijapon were approaching
the public cemetery of Claver, they were stopped by several armed men. The latter,
identifying themselves as members of the New People's Army (NPA), boarded the
Pajero and ordered Guijapon to proceed. When they reached Barobo, Surigao del
Norte, the armed men ordered Viacrusis and Guijapon to alight, led them, their hands
bound behind their back to a coconut grove some 6 meters from the road, and after
making them lie face down on the ground, shot them several times. Viacrusis
miraculously survived. The driver, Guijapon, was not as lucky; he died on the spot. At
about 7 a.m. the following day, a secret informant (known as a "civilian asset") named
Boyet reported to the police Station at Monkayo, Davao del Norte that the stolen
("carnapped") "Pajero" was parked behind the apartment of a certain Paulino Overa at

the Bliss Housing Project at Poblacion, Monkayo. On instructions of the Station

Commander, a police team went to the place. They saw the "Pajero" and, their initial
inquiries having yielded the information that the man who had brought it there would
return that morning, posted themselves in such a manner as to keep it in view. Some 3
hours later, at about 10:30 a.m., they saw a man approach the "Pajero" who, on seeing
them, tried to run away. They stopped him. They found out that the man, identified as
Danilo Sinoc of Surigao del Norte, had the key of the "Pajero," and was acting under
instructions of certain companions who were waiting for him at the Star Lodge at
Tagum, Davao del Norte. Riding on the recovered "Pajero," the police officers brought
Sinoc to the Star Lodge only to discover that his companions were no longer there.
They later turned over Sinoc to the 459th Mobile Force, together with the "Pajero."
Sinoc, Vicente Salon @ "Dodong," Benjamin Espinosa @ "Benji," Jaime Jornales @
"James," Victorino Delegencia @ Jun-Gren," and one Roger Doe @ "Ram" (at large)
were charged on 23 January 1992. Only Sinoc and Vicente Salon were arraigned, on 14
July 1992, the other accused being then at large. Assisted by their respective counsel,
both Sinoc and Salon entered pleas of not guilty and were thereafter jointly tried. On 7
October 1993, the Regional Trial Court of Surigao City, Branch 30, found Sinoc guilty
beyond reasonable doubt in two cases jointly tried: one, of the special complex crime of
kidnapping with murder (under Article 267 in relation to Articles 248 2 and 48 3 of the
Revised Penal Code) in Criminal Case 3564; and the other, of the complex crime of
kidnapping with frustrated murder (under Articles 267, 248, 6 4 and 48 of the same
Code) in Criminal Case 3565. In each case, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was
imposed on him. Salon, on the other hand was acquitted inasmuch as conspiracy was
not proven. Sinoc appealed.
Issue:
Whether the police officer had personal knowledge of the crime Sinoc committed to
allow them to arrest the latter without a warrant of arrest.
Held:
The law provides that an arrest without warrant may be licitly effected by a peace
officer, inter alia. "When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has
personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it."
There is no question that the police officers in this case were aware that an offense had
just been committed; i.e., that some 12 hours earlier, a "Pajero" belonging to a private
company had been stolen ("carnapped") and its driver and passenger shot, the former
having died and the latter being on the verge of death. Nor is there any doubt that an
informer ("asset") had reported that the stolen "Pajero" was at the Bliss Housing Project
at Monkayo. It was precisely to recover the "Pajero" that a team composed of SPO1
Michael Aringo and "joint elements of 459 PNP MFC and Moncayo Police Station led by
Insptr Eden T. Ugale," went to that place and, on taking custody of the "Pajero,"
forthwith dispatched a radio message to "Higher Headquarters" advising of that fact.
There is no question either that when SPO1 Aringo and his companions reached the
place where the "Pajero" was parked, they were told by Paulino Overa, owner of the

apartment behind which the vehicle was parked, that the man who had brought the
"Pajero" would be back by 12:00 noon; that the person thus described did in fact show
up at about 10:00 A.M., and was immediately identified by Overa as "the one who rode
on that car 'Pajero;'" just as there is no question that when the police officers accosted
him, Sinoc had the key to the stolen "Pajero" and was in the act of moving toward it
admittedly to take possession of it (after having arrived by bus from Tagum together
with another suspect, "Ram"). Sinoc's link to the stolen vehicle (and hence to the
kidnapping and killing accompanying its transportation) was thus palpable. The
foregoing circumstances left the police officers no alternative save to arrest Sinoc and
take possession of the "Pajero." His arrest without warrant was justified; indeed, it was
in the premises the officers' clear duty to apprehend him; their omission to do so would
have been inexcusable.
People vs. Baula [GR 132671, 15 November 2000]
Facts:
On 13 December 1995, at around 8:00 p.m., Jupiter Caburao, allegedly decided to
follow his mother, Patrocinia Caburao, who had earlier left their house at Barangay
Siwasiw West, Sual, Pangasinan, to settle her due obligations at a store, about 1 1/2
kilometers away, owned by a certain Brigida Tumamang. While traversing the road
towards the store, Jupiter allegedly noticed a commotion near the creek about 10
meters away from him. He allegedly focused his flashlight towards the direction where
he heard the commotion and saw Crisanto Baula and Danilo Dacucos in the act of
hacking a person who was lying on the ground, while Robert Baula and Ruben Baula
stood as lookouts. The assault allegedly lasted for about 4minutes. The Baulas and
Dacucos allegedly fled but not before they had threatened Jupiter with death if he were
to divulge the incident to anyone. Jupiter went near the lifeless body of the victim who
turned out to be his own mother. Her head and face sustained four hacking wounds, two
of which damaged her brain tissues. Jupiter rushed home and brought his niece and
nephew to the house of a neighbor for their safety. For fear of reprisal from the Baulas,
et. al. and believing that the police would be able to solve the gory killing on their own,
Jupiter did not reveal the damage to either his relatives or the police. About 2:00 a.m. of
14 December 1995, the police authorities, led by SPO4 Fermin Mirande, went to the
locus criminis, and took pictures of the body of the victim. The investigation revealed
that before the victim was killed, she had been to Brigida Tumamang's store; that the
Baulas, et. al. were also at the store having a drinking spree; that the victim left the
store between 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., and that, 15 minutes later, the Baulas, et. al.
also left. SPO4 Mirande, with several policemen, repaired to the respective houses of
accused-appellants. The policemen asked Ruben Baula and Crisanto Baula for the
clothing they wore on the night of the murder. Ruben Baula gave his bloodstained pair
of short pants, and Crisanto Baula turned over his bloodstained polo shirt. The
policemen next went to the hut of Danilo Dacucos. Inside the hut, the group found
hanging on the wall a bloodstained bolo. The bloodstained pair of short pants, polo shirt
and bolo, together with the victim's dried blood samples, were sent on the same day to
the National Bureau of Investigation, Dagupan City Branch Office, for forensic

examination. The results of the examination disclosed that the bloodstains found in the
bolo, the bloodstains on the polo shirt and the bloodstains on the pair of short pants had
the same type "O" blood as that of the victim. On 7 August 1996, Crisanto Baula, Ruben
Baula, Robert Baula and Danilo Dacucos were charged with murder before the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, of Lingayen, Pangasinan. When arraigned, the
accused all entered a plea of not guilty to the offense charged. Trial shortly thereafter
ensued. The Baulas, et. al. denied their involvement in Patrocinias killing. The trial court
rendered its judgment on 17 November 1997, convicting Baula, et. al. of the crime
charged, and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay,
jointly and severally, the heirs of Patrocinia Caburao (a) 50,000.00 for the death of
Patrocinia Caburao; (b) P15,000.00 for funeral expenses; (c) moral damages of
P75,000.00; and (d) to pay proportionally the costs. Baula, et. al. appealed.
Issue:
Whether the Baulas can be arrested without warrant for the killing of Petrocinia
Caburao, and whether seizures can be effected pursuant to such arrests.
Held:
The proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures is not absolute, and the
Court has had occasions to rule that a warrantless search and seizure of property is
valid under certain circumstances. There can, for instance, be a lawful warrantless
search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12, Rules 126 of the Rules
of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence; or seizure of evidence in "plain view," its
elements being extant; or search of a moving vehicle; or consented search; or customs
search. The situation here in question, however, can hardly come within the purview of
any of the established exceptions. In a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest,
the arrest itself must have to be effected under the circumstances enumerated by law.
One such case is when an offense has in fact just been committed, and the peace
officer has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has
committed it. Danilo Dacucos, Crisanto Baula and Ruben Baula were not being arrested
at the time that the bloodstained bolo, polo shirt and short pants were allegedly taken
from them but were just being questioned by the police officers conducting the
investigation about the death of Patrocinia Caburao. The investigating officers had no
personal knowledge of facts indicating that the accused had committed the crime. Being
in no position to effect a warrantless arrest, the police officers were thus likewise barred
from effecting a warrantless search and seizure. The police officers acted on a mere
suspicion that Baula, et. al. could be responsible for the commission of the crime and
only because of their being at the store where the victim was last seen. Mere suspicion
cannot satisfy the requirement of probable cause which signifies a reasonable ground of
suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a
cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he
can be charged. An illegal search cannot be undertaken and then an arrest effected on
the strength of the evidence yielded by that search. The Court finds it less than credible
the stance of the prosecution that the polo shirt and short pants have been voluntarily

given. An alleged consent to a warrantless search and seizure cannot be based merely
on the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty. This presumption by itself,
cannot prevail against the constitutionally protected rights of an individual, and zeal in
the pursuit of criminals cannot ennoble the use of arbitrary methods that the
Constitution itself abhors.
People vs. Cubcubin [GR 136267, 10 July 2001]
Facts:
At about 3:30 a.m. of 26 August 1997, Sgt. Rogel, desk officer of the Cavite City police
station, received a telephone call that a person had been shot near the cemetery along
Julian Felipe Boulevard in San Antonio, Cavite City. For this reason, a police team,
composed of SPO1 Malinao, Jr., PO3 Rosal, PO3 Estoy, Jr., PO3 Manicio, and SPO3
Manalo, responded to the call and found Henry P. Piamonte slumped dead on his
tricycle which was then parked on the road. Police photographer Fred Agana took
pictures of the crime scene showing the victim slumped on the handle of the tricycle.
PO3 Rosal testified that a tricycle driver, who refused to divulge his name, told him that
Fidel Abrenica Cubcubin Jr. and the victim were last seen together coming out of the
Sting Cafe, located in San Antonio near the gate of Sangley Point, Cavite City, about a
kilometer and a half away from the crime scene. Forthwith, PO3 Rosal and SPO1
Malinao, Jr. went to the cafe and talked to Danet Garcellano, a food server/waitress in
Sting Cafe. Garcellano described Cubcubin as a lean, dark-complexioned, and
mustachioed man who had on a white t-shirt and brown short pants. Armando Plata,
another tricycle driver, told PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao, Jr. that Garcellano's
description fitted a person known as alias "Jun Dulce." Armando Plata, who knew where
Cubcubin lived, led PO3 Rosal, SPO1 Malinao, Jr., and Prosecutor Lu to Cubucubin's
house in Garcia Extension, Cavite City. The policemen knocked on the door for about 3
minutes before it was opened by a man who answered the description given by Danet
Garcellano and who turned out to be Cubcubin. The police operatives identified
themselves and informed him that he was being sought in connection with the shooting
near the cemetery. Cubcubin denied involvement in the incident. PO3 Rosal and SPO1
Malinao, Jr. then asked permission to enter and look around the house. SPO1 Malinao,
Jr. said that upon entering the house, he noticed a white t-shirt, bearing the brand name
"Hanes" and the name "Dhenvher" written in the inner portion of the shirt's hemline,
placed over a divider near the kitchen. Upon close examination, he said that he found it
to be "bloodied." When he picked up the t-shirt, two spent .38 caliber shells fell from it.
PO3 Rosal stayed with Cubcubin while he conducted a search. They then took the tshirt and the two bullet shells. SPO1 Malinao, Jr. then asked Cubcubin to go with them
to Sting Cafe for purposes of identification. There, Cubcubin was positively identified by
Danet Garcellano as the victim's companion. The police investigators asked Cubcubin
where the fatal gun was. SPO1 Malinao, Jr. said Cubcubin refused to tell him where he
hid the gun so he sought the latter's permission to go back to his house to conduct a
further search. Thereupon, SPO1 Malinao, Jr., accompanied by Prosecutor Lu, PO3
Estoy, Jr., PO3 Manicio, SPO3 Manalo, and PO3 Rosal, proceeded thereto. Inside the
house, they saw Cubcubin's 11-year old son Jhumar. PO3 Estoy, Jr. found on top of a

plastic water container (drum) outside the bathroom a homemade Smith and Wesson
caliber .38 revolver (six shooter), without a serial number. He found the gun loaded with
five live bullets. PO3 Estoy, Jr. said that he inscribed his initials "RDE" (for Raymundo
D. Estoy) on the cylinder of the gun with the use of a sharp object. While PO3 Estoy, Jr.
was conducting the search, SPO1 Malinao, Jr. and PO3 Rosal stayed with Cubcubin in
the sala. The .38 caliber gun, the white "Hanes" t-shirt, and the two spent .38 caliber
shells were all photographed. Cubcubin was then taken to the police station, where he
was photographed along with the things seized from him. Cubcubin was charged for the
crime of murder. On 5 October 1998, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 88, Cavite City,
found Cubcubin guilty of murder and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death.
Hence, the automatic review.
Issue:
Whether there was "probable cause" for PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao, Jr., the
arresting officers, to believe that Cubcubin committed the crime, to allow them to
conduct the latter's warrantless arrest.
Held:
Rule 113, 5 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, provides that "A
peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in
his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed,
and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has
committed it; (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a
penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined
while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement
to another." Under 5(b), two conditions must concur for a warrantless arrest to be valid:
first, the offender has just committed an offense and, second, the arresting peace officer
or private person has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be
arrested has committed it. It has been held that "personal knowledge of facts' in arrests
without a warrant must be based upon probable cause, which means an actual belief or
reasonable grounds of suspicion." Herein, the arrest of Cubcubin was effected shortly
after the victim was killed. There was no "probable cause, however, for PO3 Rosal and
SPO1 Malinao, Jr., the arresting officers, to believe that Cubcubin committed the crime.
The two did not have "personal knowledge of facts" indicating that Cubcubin had
committed the crime. Their knowledge of the circumstances from which they allegedly
inferred that Cubcubin was probably guilty was based entirely on what they had been
told by others, to wit: by someone who called the PNP station in San Antonio, Cavite
City at about 3:30 a.m. of 26 August 1997 and reported that a man had been killed
along Julian Felipe Boulevard of the said city; by an alleged witness who saw Cubcubin
and the victim coming out of the Sting Cafe; by Danet Garcellano, waitress at the Sting
Cafe, who said that the man last seen with the victim was lean, mustachioed, darkcomplexioned and was wearing a white t-shirt and a pair of brown short pants; by a
tricycle driver named Armando Plata who told them that the physical description given

by Garcellano fitted Cubcubin, alias "Jun Dulce" and who said he knew where Cubcubin
lived and accompanied them to Cubcubin's house. Thus, PO3 Rosal and SPO1
Malinao, Jr. merely relied on information given to them by others. Be that as it may,
Cubcubin cannot now question the validity of his arrest without a warrant. The records
show that he pleaded not guilty to the charge when arraigned on 11 November 1997.
Cubcubin did not object to the arraignment, and thus has waived the right to object to
the legality of his arrest. On the other hand, the search of Cubcubin's house was illegal
and, consequently, the things obtained as a result of the illegal search, i.e., the white
"Hanes" t-shirt, two spent shells, and the .38 caliber gun, are inadmissible in evidence
against him. It cannot be said that the .38 caliber gun was discovered through
inadvertence. After bringing Cubcubin to the Sting Cafe where he was positively
identified by a waitress named Danet Garcellano as the victim's companion, the
arresting officers allegedly asked Cubcubin where he hid the gun used in killing the
victim. According to SPO1 Malinao, Jr., when Cubcubin refused to answer, he sought
Cubcubin's permission to go back to his house and there found the .38 caliber revolver
on top of a plastic water container outside the bathroom. Thus, the gun was purposely
sought by the police officers and they did not merely stumble upon it. Nor were the
police officers justified in seizing the white "Hanes" t-shirt placed on top of the divider "in
plain view" as such is not contraband nor is it incriminating in nature which would lead
SPO1 Malinao, Jr. to conclude that it would constitute evidence of a crime. Contrary to
what SPO1 Malinao, Jr. said, the t-shirt was not "bloodied" which could have directed
his attention to take a closer look at it. From the photograph of the t-shirt, it is not visible
that there were bloodstains. The actual t-shirt merely had some small specks of blood at
its lower portion. Furthermore, there is no evidence to link Cubcubin directly to the
crime.
TIME OF ARREST
People vs. Rodrigueza [GR 95902, 4 February 1992]
Facts:
[Prosecution] At around 5:00 p.m. of 1 July 1987, CIC Ciriaco Taduran was in their
headquarters at
the Office of the Narcotics Regional Unit at Camp Bagong Ibalon, Legaspi City, together
with S/Sgt. Elpidio Molinawe, CIC Leonardo B. Galutan and their commanding officer,
Major Crisostomo M. Zeidem, when a confidential informer arrived and told them that
there was an ongoing illegal traffic of prohibited drugs in Tagas, Daraga, Albay. Major
Zeidem formed a team to conduct a buybust operation, which team was given P200.00
in different denominations to buy marijuana. These bills were treated with ultraviolet
powder at the Philippine Constabulary Crime Laboratory (PCCL). Sgt. Molinawe gave
the money to Taduran who acted as the poseur buyer. He was told to look for a certain
Don, the alleged seller of prohibited drugs. Taduran went to Tagas alone and, while
along the road, he met Samuel Segovia. He asked Segovia where he could find Don
and where he could buy marijuana. Segovia left for a while and when he returned, he
was accompanied by a man who was later on introduced to him as Don Rodrigueza.

After agreeing on the price of P200.00 for 100 grams of marijuana, Don halted a
passing tricycle driven by Antonio Lonceras. He boarded it and left Taduran and
Segovia. When he came back, Don gave Taduran "a certain object wrapped in a
plastic" which was later identified as marijuana, and received payment therefor.
Thereafter, Taduran returned to the headquarters and made a report regarding his said
purchase of marijuana. Based on that information, Major Zeidem ordered a team to
conduct an operation to apprehend the suspects. In the evening of the same date, CIC
Galutan and S/Sgt. Molinawe proceeded to Regidor Street, Daraga, Albay and arrested
Rodrigueza, Antonio Lonceras and Samuel Segovia. The constables were not,
however, armed with a warrant of arrest when they apprehended the three accused.
The arrests were brought to the headquarters for investigation. Thereafter, agents of the
Narcotics Command (NARCOM) conducted a raid in the house of Jovencio Rodrigueza,
Don's father. Taduran did not go with them. During the raid, they were able to confiscate
dried marijuana leaves and a plastic syringe, among others. The search, however, was
not authorized by any search warrant. The next day, Jovencio Rodrigueza was released
from detention but Don Rodrigueza was detained. [Defense] Don Rodrigueza, on the
other hand, claimed that on said date he was in the house of his aunt in San Roque,
Legaspi City. He stayed there overnight and did not leave the place until the next day
when his brother arrived and told him that their father was taken by some military men
the preceding night. Rodrigueza went to Camp Bagong Ibalon and arrived there at
around 8:00 a.m. of 2 July 1987. When he arrived, he was asked if he knew anything
about the marijuana incident, to which question he answered in the negative. Like
Segovia, he was made to hold a P10.00 bill and was brought to the crime laboratory for
examination. From that time on, he was not allowed to go home and was detained
inside the camp. He was also tortured in order to make him admit his complicity in the
alleged sale of marijuana. On 10 July 1987, Don Rodrigueza, Samuel Segovia and
Antonio Lonceras, for possession of 100 grams of marijuana leaves and for selling, in a
buy-bust operation, said 100 grams of dried marijuana leaves for a consideration of
P200.00. During the arraignment, all the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge
against them. The Regional Trial Court of Legaspi City, Branch 10, found Don
Rodrigueza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 4, Article II of the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (Republic Act 6425, as amended) and sentenced him to
suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P20,000.00 and costs. The
court, however, acquitted Segovia and Lonceres. Rodrigueza appealed.
Issue:
Whether the time of Don Rodriguezas arrest is material in determining his culpability in
the crime
charged.
Held:
As provided in the present Constitution, a search, to be valid, must generally be
authorized by a search warrant duly issued by the proper government authority. True, in
some instances, the Court has allowed government authorities to conduct searches and

seizures even without a search warrant. Thus, when the owner of the premises waives
his right against such incursion; when the search is incidental to a lawful arrest; when it
is made on vessels and aircraft for violation of customs laws; when it is made on
automobiles for the purpose of preventing violations of smuggling or immigration laws;
when it involves prohibited articles in plain view; or in cases of inspection of buildings
and other premises for the enforcement of fire, sanitary and building regulations, a
search may be validly made even without a search warrant. Herein, however, the raid
conducted by the NARCOM agents in the house of Jovencio Rodrigueza was not
authorized by any search warrant. It does not appear, either, that the situation falls
under any of the aforementioned cases. Hence, Rodrigueza's right against
unreasonable search and seizure was clearly violated. The NARCOM agents could not
have justified their act by invoking the urgency and necessity of the situation because
the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses reveal that the place had already been put
under surveillance for quite some time. Had it been their intention to conduct the raid,
then they should, because they easily could, have first secured a search warrant during
that time. Further, the inconsistencies made by prosecution witnesses give more
credibility to the testimony of Don Rodrigueza. While it is true that Rodrigueza's defense
amounts to an alibi, and as such is the weakest defense in a criminal prosecution, there
are, nonetheless, some evidentiary aspects pointing to the truth in his testimony. Firstly,
the Joint Affidavit of Arrest corroborates his testimony that he was not among those who
were arrested on the night of 1 July 1987. His co-accused Segovia also testified that
Rodrigueza was not with them when they were apprehended by the NARCOM agents.
Hence, Rodrigueza is acquitted of the crime charged, due to the failure of the
prosecution to establish its cause.
Go vs. Court of Appeals [GR 101837, 11 February 1992]
Facts:
On 2 July 1991, Eldon Maguan was driving his car along Wilson St., San Juan, Metro
Manila, heading towards P. Guevarra St. Rolito Go y Tambunting entered Wilson St.,
where it is a one-way street and started traveling in the opposite or "wrong" direction. At
the corner of Wilson and J. Abad Santos Sts., Go's and Maguan's cars nearly bumped
each other. Go alighted from his car, walked over and shot Maguan inside his car. Go
then boarded his car and left the scene. A security guard at a nearby restaurant was
able to take down Go's car plate number. The police arrived shortly thereafter at the
scene of the shooting and there retrieved an empty shell and one round of live
ammunition for a 9mm caliber pistol. Verification at the Land Transportation Office
showed that the car was registered to one Elsa Ang Go. The following day, the police
returned to the scene of the shooting to find out where the suspect had come from; they
were informed that Go had dined at Cravings Bake Shop shortly before the shooting.
The police obtained a facsimile or impression of the credit card used by Go from the
cashier of the bake shop. The security guard of the bake shop was shown a picture of
Go and he positively identified him as the same person who had shot Maguan. Having
established that the assailant was probably Go, the police launched a manhunt for Go.
On 8 July 1991, Go presented himself before the San Juan Police Station to verify news

reports that he was being hunted by the police; he was accompanied by two (2)
lawyers. The police forthwith detained him. An eyewitness to the shooting, who was at
the police station at that time, positively identified Go as the gunman. That same day,
the police promptly filed a complaint for frustrated homicide against Go with the Office of
the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal. First Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Dennis Villa
Ignacio ("Prosecutor") informed Go, in the Presence of his lawyers. that he could avail
himself of his right to preliminary investigation but that he must first sign a waiver of the
provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. Go refused to execute any such
waiver. On 9 July 1991, while the complaint was still with the Prosecutor, and before an
information could be filed in court, the victim, Eldon Maguan, died of his gunshot
wound(s). Accordingly, on 11 July 1991, the Prosecutor, instead of filing an information
for frustrated homicide, filed an information for murder before the Regional Trial Court.
No bail was recommended. At the bottom of the information, the Prosecutor certified
that no preliminary investigation had been conducted because the accused did not
execute and sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. In
the afternoon of 11 July 1991, Go's counsel filed with the prosecutor an omnibus motion
for immediate release and proper preliminary investigation, alleging that the warrantless
arrest of Go was unlawful and that no preliminary investigation had been conducted
before the information was filed. On 12 July 1991, Go filed an urgent ex-parte motion for
special raffle in order to expedite action on the Prosecutor's bail recommendation. The
case was raffled to the sala of Judge Benjamin V. Pelayo (Branch 168, RTC of Pasig
City), who, on the same date, approved the cash bond posted by Go and ordered his
release. Go was in fact released that same day. On 16 July 1991, the Prosecutor filed
with the Regional Trial Court a motion for leave to conduct preliminary investigation and
prayed that in the meantime all proceedings in the court be suspended. On the said
date, the trial court issued an Order granting leave to conduct preliminary investigation
and cancelling the arraignment set for 15 August 1991 until after the prosecution shall
have concluded its preliminary investigation. On 17 July 1991, however, the Judge motu
proprio issued an Order, (1) recalling the 12 July 1991 Order which granted bail:
petitioner was given 48 hours from receipt of the Order to surrender himself: (2)
recalling and cancelling the 16 July 1991 Order which granted leave to the Prosecutor
to conduct preliminary investigation: (3) treating Go's omnibus motion for immediate
release and preliminary investigation dated 11 July 1991 as a petition for bail and set for
hearing on 23 July 1991. On 19 July 1991, Go filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition
and mandamus before the Supreme Court assailing the 17 July 1991 Order. Go also
moved for suspension of all proceedings in the case pending resolution by the Supreme
Court of his petition: this motion was, however, denied by Judge Pelayo. On 23 July
1991, Go surrendered to the police. By a Resolution dated 24 July 1991, the Supreme
Court remanded the petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus to the Court of
Appeals. On 16 August 1991, Judge Pelayo issued an order in open court setting Go's
arraignment on 23 August 1991. On 19 August 1991, Go filed with the Court of Appeals
a motion to restrain his arraignment. On 23 August 1991, Judge Pelayo issued a
Commitment Order directing the Provincial Warden of Rizal to admit Go into his
custody at the Rizal Provincial Jail. On the same date, Go was arraigned. In view,
however, of his refusal to enter a plea, the trial court entered for him a plea of not guilty.
The trial court then set the criminal case for continuous hearings on 19, 24 and 26

September; on 2, 3, 11 and 17 October; and on 7, 8, 14, 15, 21 and 22 November 1991.

On 27 August 1991. Go filed a petition for habeas corpus in the Court of Appeals. On 30
August 1991, the Court of Appeals issued the writ of habeas corpus. The petition for
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, on the one hand, and the petition for habeas
corpus, upon the other, were subsequently consolidated in the Court of Appeals. The
Court of Appeals, on 2 September 1991, issued a resolution denying Go's motion to
restrain his arraignment on the ground that motion had become moot and academic. On
19 September 1991, trial of the criminal case commenced. On 23 September 1991, the
Court of Appeals rendered a consolidated decision dismissing the 2 petitions on the
grounds that Go's warrantless arrest was valid and Go's act of posting bail constituted
waiver of any irregularity attending his arrest, among others. On 3 October 1991, the
prosecution presented three (3) more witnesses at the trial. Go's Counsel also filed a
"Withdrawal of Appearance" with the trial court, with Go's conformity. On 4 October
1991, Go filed the present petition for Review on Certiorari. On 14 October 1991, the
Court issued a Resolution directing Judge Pelayo to held in abeyance the hearing of the
criminal case below until further orders from the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Whether Go was arrested legally without warrant for the killing of Maguan, and is thus
not entitled to be released pending the conduct of a preliminary investigation.
Held:
Go's warrantless "arrest" or detention does not fall within the terms of Section 5 of Rule
113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure which provides that "A peace officer or a
private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, the
person to be created has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
an offense; (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and (c)
When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while
his case is pending or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to
another. In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested
without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail, and he
shall be proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112, Section 7." Go's "arrest" took
place 6 days after the shooting of Maguan. The "arresting" officers obviously were not
present, within the meaning of Section 5(a), at the time Go had allegedly shot Maguan.
Neither could the "arrest" effected 6 days after the shooting be reasonably regarded as
effected "when [the shooting had] in fact just been committed" within the meaning of
Section 5 (b). Moreover, none of the "arresting" officers had any "personal knowledge"
of facts indicating that Go was the gunman who had shot Maguan. The information
upon which the police acted had been derived from statements made by alleged
eyewitnesses to the shooting -- one stated that Go was the gunman another was able to
take down the alleged gunman's car's plate number which turned out to be registered in
Go's wife's name. That information did not, however, constitute "personal knowledge." It

is thus clear to the Court that there was no lawful warrantless arrest of Go within the
meaning of Section 5 of Rule 113. It is clear too that Section 7 of Rule 112 is also not
applicable. Indeed, Go was not arrested at all. When he walked into the San Juan
Police Station, accompanied by two (2) lawyers, he in fact placed himself at the disposal
of the police authorities. He did not state that he was "surrendering" himself, in all
probability to avoid the implication he was admitting that he had slain Eldon Maguan or
that he was otherwise guilty of a crime. When the police filed a complaint for frustrated
homicide with the Prosecutor, the latter should have immediately scheduled a
preliminary investigation to determine whether there was probable cause for charging
Go in court for the killing of Eldon Maguan. Instead, as noted earlier, the Prosecutor
proceeded under the erroneous supposition that Section 7 of Rule 112 was applicable
and required Go to waive the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code as a
condition for carrying out a preliminary investigation. This was substantive error, for Go
was entitled to a preliminary investigation and that right should have been accorded him
without any conditions. Moreover, since Go had not been arrested; with or without a
warrant, he was also entitled to be released forthwith subject only to his appearing at
the preliminary investigation.
People vs. Calimlim [GR 123980, 30 August 2001]
Facts:
Lanie S. Limin was 14 years old and had been living with the family of Kagawad Manny
Ferrer and Cresencia Ferrer for the past 3 years. On the night of 2 April 1995, she was
left alone in one of the two houses of the Ferrers since her usual companions, the sons
of Manny and Cresencia, were out for the night (disco). The Ferrers were in the other
house about 15 meters away. At around 11:30 P.M., she was awakened when she
heard somebody, later identified as Manuel Calimlim y Muyano, enter her room.
Calimlim immediately poked a knife at the left side of her neck and said "Accompany me
because I killed my wife." She was then dragged to the pig pen, about 8-9 meters away
from the place where she slept. Afterwards, she was again forcibly taken back to her
room, then to her cousin's room and to the kitchen. In each of these places,Calimlim
forcibly had sexual intercourse with her while he poked a knife against her neck.
According to Limin, she first recognized Calimlim while they were in the kitchen when
she was able to remove the cloth covering his face. She stated that she knew Calimlim
because she had seen him always following her whenever she went to school. Limin
claimed that she did not struggle nor shout nor resist because she was afraid that
appellant might kill her. After the fourth intercourse, Calimlim threatened that he would
kill her if she reported the incidents. Despite the threat, she told her cousin, Manicris
Ferrer, who then reported the matter to Dr. Nancy Quinto who lived nearby. The rapes
were reported to the station of SPO1 Mario Suratos by Kagawad Ferrer. Dr. Ricardo
Ferrer conducted the physical examination on Lanie, and found that there was minimal
vaginal bleeding and there were lacerations in the hymen, the positions of which were at
9:00 o'clock, 6:00 o'clock and 3:00 o'clock, all fresh, indicating that there were insertions
within the past 24 hours. There was also a whitish vaginal discharge which was found
positive for spermatozoa. Manuel Calimlim denied the accusations. Calimlim was

charged in 4 informations for rape in Criminal Cases U-8525, 8638 to 8640. On 17

November 1995, the Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, Branch 46, Urdaneta,
Pangasinan found Calimlim guilty of 4 counts of rape and sentenced him to suffer the
penalty of death, to pay the offended party the amount of P50,000.00 as damages, and
to pay the costs, in each of the cases. Hence, the automatic review.
Issue:
Whether Calimlim may raise the illegality of the warrantless arrest conducted against
him, especially as the arrest was made a day after the crime was committed.
Held:
Calimlim avers that his arrest violated Section 5 of Rule 113, 40 since his arrest was
made one day
after the crime was committed, but without any judicial warrant, although the police had
ample time to get one. This he claims is also in violation of Article III, Sec. 2 of the
Constitution. But here it will be noted that Calimlim entered a plea of not guilty to each
of the informations charging him of rape. Thus, he had effectively waived his right to
question any irregularity which might have accompanied his arrest and the unlawful
restraint of his liberty. This is clear from a reading of Section 9 of Rule 117 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides that "the failure of the accused to
assert any ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or
information, either because he did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the same
in said motion, shall be deemed a waiver of any objections except those based on the
grounds provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g) and (i) of section 3 of this Rule." Given
the circumstances of his case the exceptions do not apply here and the Court is
constrained to rule that Calimlim is estopped from raising the issue of the legality of his
arrest. Moreover, the illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside
a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from error. The
defense's claim of warrantless arrest which is illegal cannot render void all other
proceedings including those leading to the conviction of Calimlim, nor can the state be
deprived of its right to convict the guilty when all the facts on
record point to his culpability.
People VS Vinalon
Facts:
On the 24th day of September, 1997, in Quezon City, Philippines, Vinalon with the other
accused, conspiring, confederating with each other and mutually helping one another,
with intent to gain and by means of violence and intimidation against persons, did, then
and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously rob PO1 Joseph H. Llave of the PNP
National Capital Region Command, Norman A. Mapa and Reynaldo B. Elidio while
posing themselves as passengers of a Jell Transport passenger bus with Plate No.
PXC-266 and while said bus was cruising along Commonwealth Avenue near Don
Antonio Avenue, Brgy. Old Balara, Quezon City, further that by reason or on the

occasion of the said robbery, with intent to kill and taking advantage of their superior
strength, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and use
personal violence upon the person of one PO1 Joseph H. Llave by then and there
shooting him on the different parts of his body thereby inflicting upon him serious and
mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death thereafter; that
likewise on the same occasion of the robbery appellants shot with the use of handguns
Norman A. Mapa hitting him on the face and Antonio C. Hernandez hitting him on the
hip thereby causing them serious physical injuries which have required medical
attendance for a period of more than 30 days, to the damage and prejudice of the said
offended parties. Upon arraignment, both appellants pleaded not guilty. Trial then
ensued. The prosecution presented Jimmy Solomon, the bus driver; Dr. Ma. Cristina
Freyra, a medico-legal officer from the PNP Crime Laboratory Services; PO3 Pedro
Walawala, the investigating officer; Dr. Reynaldo Perez, examining doctor of victims
Norman Mapa and Antonio Fernandez; Reynaldo Elidio, a passenger; and PO3 Bernard
Amigo, the arresting officer.The testimony of PO3 PEDRO WALAWALA was dispensed
with as both parties admitted that he was the investigator of the case and that he had no
personal knowledge of the incident itself. Appellant REYNALDO VIALON testified that
on September 23, 1997, his wife instructed him to go to Fairview, Quezon City for her
brothers despedida party. At around 10:30 P.M., he boarded a Jell bus bound for
Fairview and dozed off along the way. He was awakened by gunfire and realized he
was shot. He disclaimed taking part in the robbery. He also denied knowing his coappellant who took him to the Malvar General Hospital and added that it was his wife
who spent for his medical treatment. He claimed that the case against him was filed
without prior investigation.
Reynaldo Vialon y Agustin and Arnold Devera y Mocalen, was found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the Special Complex Crime of Robbery with Homicide defined in
and penalized by paragraph 1 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Republic Act 7659, and, there being one aggravating circumstance of Band
(paragraph 6, Article 14, Revised Penal Code) without any mitigating circumstance to
offset the same, are sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH.
Issue:
(1) the validity of the warrantless arrest and the search and seizure incident thereto
Held:
The arrest of appellants done immediately after the incident was valid for it was made
by the arresting officers after the victims of the robbery pointed to appellants as the
malefactors. Accordingly, the search and seizure that ensued are valid as incidental to
a lawful arrest.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RENANTE MENDEZ and

BABY CABAGTONG, accused-appellant.

Fact:
That on or about the 8th day of December, 1996, at about 7:30 in the evening, more or
less, at Sitio Tinotogasan, Brgy. Burabud, Gamay, Northern Samar, Philippines CANDY
DOLIM, a minor was raped and killed.
Based on the prosecutions evidence, Rico Dolim (father of the victim) testified that, in
the morning of December 8, 1996, Candy Dolim, then 13 years old, left their house to
collect bets on the PBA ending games from the local residents. When she did not
return home that evening, Rico asked his father Ambrosio and his daughter Jinky to
look for Candy, but they did not find her. Information that Candy was in Mapanas with
her mother proved wrong. On December 12, 1996, word reached Rico that a young girl
was found dead in Sitio Tinotogasan. Rico immediately went to the place and found the
lifeless body of Candy. Her panty and shorts were hanging from an ankle, while her
shirt was rolled up to her throat. She had wounds in different parts of her body.
Rico sought the help of the police and Barangay Captain Pedro Gomba. Having
heard that a certain Ronnie Cabagtong[4] was involved in the killing of his daughter, Rico
filed a complaint against Ronnie, who was then investigated by the police. While
Ronnie was under investigation at the police headquarters, his mother, Aurea
Cabagtong, came to the station. She told Rico Dolim that she knew what actually
happened to Candy and offered to be a witness. Aurea Cabagtong pointed to accusedappellants Baby Cabagtong and Renante Mendez as the perpetrators of the crime.
Aurea Cabagtong claimed that, on the night of December 8, 1996, accusedappellants Renante Mendez and Baby Cabagtong went to her house. They were
soaked from the rain. She said that her son Ronnie, who was already about to sleep,
asked her to let the two inside. She said her son talked with accused-appellants, but
she did not understand what they had been discussing. Aurea Cabagtong said she saw
accused-appellants washing their clothes to remove bloodstains on them. The two
spent the night in her house with her son Ronnie. When she woke up the following
morning, she found they had already left.
Mendez remained in custody for investigation, while the chief of police order
Cabagtong to be arrested.
Issue: Whether or not the arrest of the suspects without warrant is valid?

Held:
SPO2 Cernio did not have personal knowledge of the commission of the crime so
as to justify the warrantless arrest of Renante Mendez. Personal knowledge of facts in
arrests without warrant under 5(b) of Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure must
be based upon probable cause, which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds
of suspicion. The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when it is based on actual
facts, i.e., when it is supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to
create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested.

People vs. Enrile [GR 74189, 26 May 1993]

Facts:
At about 6:30 p.m. of 25 October 1985, a buy-bust team composed of Pat. Jaime Flores
and Pat. Wilson Rances of the Quezon City Police Anti-Narcotics Unit was dispatched
to entrap Rogelio Abugatal at Roosevelt Avenue in San Francisco del Monte, Quezon
City. The plan was made on the strength of a tip given by Renato Polines, a police
informer, who was himself to pose as the buyer. On that occasion the policemen saw
Polines hand over to Abugatal the marked money representing payment for the mock
transaction. Abugatal left with the money and returned 10 minutes later with a wrapped
object which he gave Polines. The two policemen then approached Abugatal and
placed him under arrest, at the same time confiscating the wrapped object. Subsequent
laboratory examination revealed this to be marijuana with flowering tops weighing 22
grams. Upon prodding, Abugatal led the policemen to a house at 20 De Vera Street,
also in San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City, where he called out for Antonio Enrile.
Enrile came out and met them at the gate. Abugatal pointed to Enrile as the source of
the marijuana, whereupon the policemen immediately arrested and frisked him. They
found in the right front pocket of his trousers the marked money earlier delivered to
Abugatal. At the police headquarters, Abugatal signed a sworn confession. Enrile
refused to make any statement pending consultation with a lawyer. Antonio Enrile y
Villaroman and Rogelio Abugatal y Marquez were charged for violation of the
Dangerous Drug Act by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. The RTC, after trial
and on 14 February 1986, found Enrile and Abugatal guilty beyond reasonable doubt
and sentenced them to life imprisonment and a fine of P30,000.00. Both appealed.
Abugatal, however, was killed in an attempted jailbreak and thus the appeal is
dismissed as to him.
Issue:
Whether the mark money found in Enriles possession, pursuant to a warrantless arrest,
search and seizure, provide for his criminal culpability.
Held:
It was Abugatal who was allegedly caught red-handed by the policemen as he sold the
marijuana to Polines. Enrile was not even at the scene of the entrapment at that time.
Abugatal said he did lead the policemen to Enrile's house where he pointed to Enrile as
the source of the marijuana. Even assuming this to be true, that circumstance alone did
not justify Enrile's warrantless arrest and search. Under Rule 113, Section 5, of the
Rules of Court, a peace officer or a private person may make a warrantless arrest only
under any of the following circumstances: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of
facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and (c) When the
person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or
place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is
pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
Paragraphs (a) and (b) are clearly inapplicable. Paragraph (b) is also not in point
because the policemen who later arrested Enrile at his house had no personal
knowledge that he was the source of the marijuana. According to the policemen
themselves, what happened was that they asked Abugatal who gave him the marijuana
and were told it was Enrile. It was for this reason that they proceeded to Enrile's house
and immediately arrested him. What the policemen should have done was secure a
search warrant on the basis of the information supplied by Abugatal and then, with such
authority, proceeded to search and, if the search was fruitful, arrest Enrile. They had no
right to simply force themselves into his house on the bare (and subsequently
disallowed) allegations of Abugatal and bundle Enrile off to the police station as if he
had been caught in flagrante delicto. The discovery of the marked money on him did not
mean he was caught in the act of selling marijuana. The marked money was not
prohibited per se. Even if it were, that fact alone would not retroact

People vs. Pasudag [GR 128822, 4 May 2001]

Facts:
On 26 September 1995, at around 1:30 p.m., SPO2 Pepito Calip of the PNP Sison,
Pangasinan, went to Brgy. Artacho to conduct anti-jueteng operations. He urinated at a
bushy bamboo fence behind the public school. About 5 meters away, he saw a garden
of about 70 square meters. There were marijuana plants in between corn plants and
camote tops. He inquired from a storekeeper nearby as to who owned the house with
the garden. The storeowner told him that Alberto Pasudag y Bokang owned it. SPO2
Calip went to the Police Station and reported to Chief of Police Romeo C. Astrero. The
latter dispatched a team (composed of SPO2 Calip, SPO3 Fajarito, SPO3 Alcantara
and PO3 Rasca) to conduct an investigation. At around 2:30 p.m., the team arrived at
Brgy. Artacho and went straight to the house of Pasudag. SPO3 Fajarito looked for
Pasudag and asked him to bring the team to his backyard garden which was about 5
meters away. Upon seeing the marijuana plants, the policemen called for a
photographer, who took pictures of Pasudag standing beside one of the marijuana
plants. They uprooted 7 marijuana plants. The team brought Pasudag and the
marijuana plants to the police station. On 17 December 1996, 4th Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor of Pangasinan Emiliano M. Matro filed with the Regional Trial Court,
Pangasinan, Urdaneta an Information charging Pasudag with violation of RA 6425, Sec.
9. On 10 February 1997, the trial court arraigned the accused. He pleaded not guilty.
Trial ensued. The Regional Trial Court, Pangasinan, Branch 46, Urdaneta found
Pasudag guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal cultivation of marijuana and
sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P500,000.00, without
subsidiary penalty and other accessories of the law. Pasudag appealed.

Issue:
Whether time was of the essence to uproot and confiscate the marijuana plants.
Held:
As a general rule, the procurement of a search warrant is required before a law
enforcer may validly search or seize the person, house, papers or effects of any
individual. The Constitution provides that "the right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable." Any evidence obtained in
violation of this provision is inadmissible. Herein, the police authorities had ample
opportunity to secure from the court a search warrant. SPO2 Pepito Calip inquired as to
who owned the house. He was acquainted with marijuana plants and immediately
recognized that some plants in the backyard of the house were marijuana plants. Time
was not of the essence to uproot and confiscate the plants. They were three months old
and there was no sufficient reason to believe that they would be uprooted on that same
day. With the illegal seizure of the marijuana plants, the seized plants are inadmissible
in evidence against Pasudag.
People vs. Aminnudin [GR L-74860, 6 July 1988]
Facts:
Idel Aminnudin y Ahni was arrested on 25 June 1984, shortly after disembarking from
the M/V Wilcon 9 at about 8:30 p.m., in Iloilo City. The PC officers who were in fact
waiting for him simply accosted him, inspected his bag and finding what looked liked
marijuana leaves took him to their headquarters for investigation. The two bundles of
suspect articles were confiscated from him and later taken to the NBI laboratory for
examination. When they were verified as marijuana leaves, an information for violation
of the Dangerous Drugs Act was filed against him. Later, the information was amended
to include Farida Ali y Hassen, who had also been arrested with him that same evening
and likewise investigated. Both were arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Subsequently,
the fiscal filed a motion to dismiss the charge against Ali on the basis of a sworn
statement of the arresting officers absolving her after a "thorough investigation." The
motion was granted, and trial proceeded only against Aminnudin, who was eventually
convicted, and sentenced to life imprisonment plus a fine of P20,000.00.
Issue:
Whether there was ample opportunity to obtain a warrant of arrest against Aminnudin,
for alleged possession and transport of illegal drugs.
Held:

It is not disputed, and in fact it is admitted by the PC officers who testified for the
prosecution, that they had no warrant when they arrested Aminnudin and seized the
bag he was carrying. Their only justification was the tip they had earlier received from a
reliable and regular informer who reported to them that Aminnudin was arriving in Iloilo
by boat with marijuana. Their testimony varies as to the time they received the tip, one
saying it was two days before the arrest (this was the declaration of the chief of the
arresting team, Lt. Cipriano Querol, Jr.), another two weeks and a third "weeks before
June 25." There was no warrant of arrest or search warrant issued by a judge after
personal determination by him of the existence of probable cause. Contrary to the
averments of the government, Aminnudin was not caught in flagrante nor was a crime
about to be committed or had just been committed to justify the warrantless arrest
allowed under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. Even expediency could not be invoked to
dispense with the obtention of the warrant. The present case presented no urgency.
From the conflicting declarations of the PC witnesses, it is clear that they had at least
two days within which they could have obtained a warrant to arrest and search
Aminnudin who was coming Iloilo on the M/V Wilcon 9. His name was known. The
vehicle was identified. The date of its arrival was certain. And from the information they
had received, they could have persuaded a judge that there was probable cause,
indeed, to justify the issuance of a warrant. Yet they did nothing. No effort was made to
comply with the law. The Bill of Rights was ignored altogether because the PC
lieutenant who was the head of the arresting team, had determined on his own authority
that "search warrant was not necessary."