Additional Cases - Arrest

Additional cases on Rule 113 – ARREST
G.R. No. 182601 November 10, 2014 than their own spontaneous desistance, that is, said complainant was able to WHETHER OR NOT THE ORDER DENYING THE MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION IS VOID FOR FAILURE TO STATE THE FACTS AND THE LAW 1
parry the attack, to his damage and prejudice.
JOEY M. PESTILOS, DWIGHT MACAPANAS, MIGUEL GACES, JERRY UPON WHICH IT WAS BASED.
FERNANDEZ and RONALD MUNOZ, Petitioners, vs. MORENO GENEROSO CONTRARY TO LAW.11
The petitioners primarily argue that they were not lawfully arrested. No
and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
arrest warrant was ever issued; they went to the police station only as a
On March 7, 2005, the petitioners filed an Urgent Motion for Regular
response to the arresting officers' invitation. They even cited the Affidavit of
DECISION Preliminary Investigation12 on the ground that they had not been lawfully
Arrest, which actually used the word "invited. "
BRION, J.: arrested. They alleged that no valid warrantless arrest took place since the
police officers had no personal knowledge that they were the perpetrators of
The petitioners also claim that no valid warrantless arrest took place under
We resolve the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of the crime. They also claimed that they were just "invited" to the police
the terms of Rule 112, Section 7 of the Revised Rules of Court. The incident
Court challenging the decision1 dated January 21, 2008 and the resolution2 station. Thus, the inquest proceeding was improper, and a regular procedure
happened two (2) hours before the police officers actually arrived at the
dated April 17, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. SP No. 91541. for preliminary investigation should have been performed pursuant to Rule
crime scene. The police officers could not have undertaken a valid
112 of the Rules of Court.13
warrantless arrest as they had no personal knowledge that the petitioners
The appealed decision affirmed the Order dated March 16, 2005 of the
were the authors of the crime.
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 96, Quezon City, denying Joey M. Pestilos, On March 16, 2005, the RTC issued its order denying the petitioners' Urgent
Dwight Macapanas, Miguel Gaces, Jerry Fernandez, and Ronald Munoz's Motion for Regular Preliminary Investigation.14 The court likewise denied
The petitioners additionally argue that the R TC' s Order denying the Urgent
(petitioners) Urgent Motion for Regular Preliminary Investigation, as well as the petitioners' motion for reconsideration.15
Motion for Regular Preliminary Investigation is void because it was not
their subsequent motion for reconsideration.
properly issued.
The petitioners challenged the lower court's ruling before the CA on a Rule
The Antecedent Facts 65 petition for certiorari. They attributed grave abuse of discretion,
The Court's Ruling
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, on the R TC for the denial of their
The records of the case reveal that on February 20, 2005, at around 3: 15 in motion for preliminary investigation.16
We find the petition unmeritorious and thus uphold the RTC Order. The
the morning, an altercation ensued between the petitioners and Atty. Moreno
criminal proceedings against the petitioners should now proceed.
Generoso (Atty. Generoso) at Kasiyahan Street, Barangay Holy Spirit, Quezon The Assailed CA Decision
City where the petitioners and Atty. Generoso reside.3
It is unfortunate that the kind of motion that the petitioners filed has to reach
On January 21, 2008, the CA issued its decision dismissing the petition for
this Court for its resolution. The thought is very tempting that the motion
Atty. Generoso called the Central Police District, Station 6 (Batas an Hills lack of merit.17 The CA ruled that the word "invited" in the Affidavit of Arrest
was employed simply to delay the proceedings and that the use of Rule 65
Police Station) to report the incident.4 Acting on this report, Desk Officer executed by SP02 Javier carried the meaning of a command. The arresting
petition has been abused.
SPOl Primitivo Monsalve (SPOJ Monsalve) dispatched SP02 Dominador Javier officer clearly meant to arrest the petitioners to answer for the mauling of
(SP02 Javier) to go to the scene of the crime and to render assistance.5 SP02 Atty. Generoso. The CA also recognized that the arrest was pursuant to a
But accepting things as they are, this delay can be more than compensated by
Javier, together with augmentation personnel from the Airforce, A2C Alano valid warrantless arrest so that an inquest proceeding was called for as a
fully examining in this case the legalities surrounding warrantless warrants
Sayson and Airman Ruel Galvez, arrived at the scene of the crime less than consequence. Thus, the R TC did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in
and establishing the proper interpretation of the Rules for the guidance of
one hour after the alleged altercation6 and they saw Atty. Generoso badly denying the Urgent Motion for Regular Preliminary Investigation.
the bench and the bar. These Rules have evolved over time, and the present
beaten.7
case presents to us the opportunity to re-trace their origins, development
The CA saw no merit in the petitioners' argument that the order denying the
and the current applicable interpretation.
Atty. Generoso then pointed to the petitioners as those who mauled him. This Urgent Motion for Regular Preliminary Investigation is void for failure to
prompted the police officers to "invite" the petitioners to go to Batasan Hills clearly state the facts and the law upon which it was based, pursuant to Rule
I. Brief history on warrantless arrests
Police Station for investigation.8 The petitioners went with the police officers 16, Section 3 of the Revised Rules of Court. The CA found that the RTC had
to Batasan Hills Police Station.9 At the inquest proceeding, the City sufficiently explained the grounds for the denial of the motion.
The organic laws of the Philippines, specifically, the Philippine Bill of 1902,19
Prosecutor of Quezon City found that the petitioners stabbed Atty. Generoso
and the 1935,20 197321 and 198722 Constitutions all protect the right of the
with a bladed weapon. Atty. Generoso fortunately survived the attack.10 The petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied the motion in
people to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches and
its Resolution of April 17, 2008;18 hence, the present petition.
seizures. Arrest falls under the term "seizure. "23
In an Information dated February 22, 2005, the petitioners were indicted for
attempted murder allegedly committed as follows: The Issues
This constitutional mandate is identical with the Fourth Amendment of the
The petitioners cited the following assignment of errors: Constitution of the United States. The Fourth Amendment traces its origins to
That on or about the 20th h day of February, 2005, in Quezon City,
the writings of Sir Edward Coke24 and The Great Charter of the Liberties of
Philippines, the said accused, conspiring together, confederating with and I. England (Magna Carta Libertatum), sealed under oath by King John on the
mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, qualified with evident WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONERS WERE VALIDLY ARRESTED
bank of the River Thames near Windsor, England on June 15, 1215.25 The
premeditation, treachery and taking advantage of superior strength, did then WITHOUT A WARRANT.
Magna Carta Libertatum limited the King of England's powers and required
and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commence the commission of
II. the Crown to proclaim certain liberties26 under the feudal vassals' threat of
the crime of Murder directly by overt acts, by then and there stabbing one
WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONERS WERE LAWFULLY ARRESTED WHEN civil war.27 The declarations in Chapter 29 of the Magna Carta Libertatum
Atty. MORENO GENEROSO y FRANCO, with a bladed weapon, but said
THEY WERE MERELY INVITED TO THE POLICE PRECINCT. later became the foundational component of the Fourth Amendment of the
accused were not able to perform all the acts of execution which would
United States Constitution.28 It provides:
produce the crime of Murder by reason of some cause/s or accident other III.
No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised29 of his Freehold, temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being First. That the authority or agent had reasonable cause to believe that an
2
or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise transferred from one confinement to another. unlawful act, amounting to a crime had been committed.
destroyed; nor will we not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful
Judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land, We will sell to no man, we In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b) above, the person arrested Second. That the authority or agent had sufficient reason to believe that the
will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.30 [Emphasis without a warrant shall be forth with delivered to the nearest police station person arrested participated in the commission of such unlawful act or
supplied] or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule crime." [Emphasis and underscoring supplied]
112.
In United States v. Snyder,31 the United States Supreme Court held that this In the same decision, the Court likewise cited Section 3 7 of the Charter of
constitutional provision does not prohibit arrests, searches and seizures A warrantless arrest under the circumstances contemplated under Section Manila, which provided that certain officials, including police officers may,
without judicial warrant, but only those that are unreasonable.32 With 5(a) above has been denominated as one "in flagrante delicto," while that within the territory defined in the law, pursue and arrest without warrant,
regard to an arrest, it is considered a seizure, which must also satisfy the test under Section 5(b) has been described as a "hot pursuit" arrest.44 any person found in suspicious places or under suspicious circumstances,
of reasonableness.33 reasonably tending to show that such person has committed, or is about to
For purposes of this case, we shall focus on Section 5(b) – the provision commit any crime or breach of the peace.
In our jurisdiction, early rulings of the Court have acknowledged the validity applicable in the present case. This provision has undergone changes through
of warrantless arrests. The Court based these rulings on the common law of the years not just in its phraseology but also in its interpretation in our In Santos,46 the Court cited Miles v. Weston,47 which ruled that a peace
America and England that, according to the Court, were not different from the jurisprudence. officer may arrest persons walking in the street at night when there is
Spanish laws.34 These court rulings likewise justified warrantless arrests reasonable ground to suspect the commission of a crime, although there is no
based on the provisions of separate laws then existing in the Philippines.35 We shall first trace the evolution of Section 5(b) and examine the applicable proof of a felony having been committed.
American and Philippine jurisprudence to fully understand its roots and its
In 1905, the Court held in The United States v. Wilson36 that Section 3737 of appropriate present application. The Court ruled in Santos that the arresting officer must justify that there
Act No. 183, or the Charter of Manila, defined the arresting officer's power to was a probable cause for an arrest without a warrant. The Court defined
arrest without a warrant, at least insofar as the City of Manila was concerned. II. Evolution of Section 5(b), Rule 113 probable cause as a reasonable ground of suspicion, supported by
circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves as to warrant a reasonable
In The United States v. Vallejo, et al.,38 the Court held that in the absence of A. Prior to the 1940 Rules of Court man in believing that the accused is guilty. Besides reasonable ground of
any provisions under statutes or local ordinances, a police officer who held suspicion, action in good faith is another requirement. Once these conditions
similar functions as those of the officers established under the common law Prior to 1940, the Court based its rulings not just on American and English are complied with, the peace officer is not liable even if the arrested person
of England and America, also had the power to arrest without a warrant in common law principle on warrantless arrests but also on laws then existing turned out to be innocent.
the Philippines. in the Philippines. In Fortaleza,45 the Court cited Rule 28 of the Provisional
Law for the Application of the Penal Code which provided that: Based on these discussions, it appears clear that prior to the 1940 Rules of
The Court also ruled in The United States v. Santos39 that the rules on Court, it was not necessary for the arresting officer to first have knowledge
warrantless arrest were based on common sense and reason.40 It further Judicial and administrative authorities have power to detain, or to cause to be that a crime was actually committed. What was necessary was the presence
held that warrantless arrest found support under the then Administrative detained, persons whom there is reasonable ground to believe guilty of some of reasonably sufficient grounds to believe the existence of an act having the
Code41 which directed municipal policemen to exercise vigilance in the offense. It will be the duty of the authorities, as well as of their agents, to characteristics of a crime; and that the same grounds exist to believe that the
prevention of public offenses. arrest: person sought to be detained participated in it. In addition, it was also
established under the old court rulings that the phrase "reasonable
In The United States v. Fortaleza,42 the Court applied Rules 27, 28, 29 and First. Such persons as may be arrested under the provisions of rule 27. suspicion" was tantamount to probable cause without which, the warrantless
3043 of the Provisional Law for the Application of the Penal Code which were arrest would be invalid and the arresting officer may be held liable for its
provisions taken from the Spanish Law. Second. A person charged with a crime for which the code provides a penalty breach.48
greater than that of confinamiento.
These rules were subsequently established and incorporated in our Rules of In The US. v. Hachaw,49 the Court invalidated the warrantless arrest of a
Court and jurisprudence. Presently, the requirements of a warrantless arrest Third. A person charged with a crime for which the code provides a penalty Chinaman because the arresting person did not state in what way the
are now summarized in Rule 113, Section 5 which states that: Section 5. less than that of confinamiento, if his antecedents or the circumstances of the Chinaman was acting suspiciously or the particular act or circumstance
Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A peace officer or a private person case would warrant the presumption that he would fail to appear when which aroused the arresting person's curiosity.
may, without a warrant, arrest a person: summoned by the judicial authorities.
It appears, therefore, that prior to the establishment in our Rules of Court of
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not apply, however, to a the rules on warrantless arrests, the gauge for a valid warrantless arrest was
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; defendant who gives sufficient bond, to the satisfaction of the authority or the arresting officer's reasonable suspicion (probable cause) that a crime was
agent who may arrest him, and who it may reasonably be presumed will committed and the person sought to be arrested has participated in its
(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to appear whenever summoned by the judge or court competent to try him. commission. This principle left so much discretion and leeway on the part of
believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the the arresting officer. However, the 1940 Rules of Court has limited this
person to be arrested has committed it; and Fourth. A person coining under the provisions of the preceding paragraph discretion.
may be arrested, although no formal complaint has been filed against him,
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a provided the following circumstances are present: B. The 1940 Rules of Court
penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is (Restricting the arresting officer's determination of probable cause)
Rules 27 and 28 of the Provisional Law for the Application of the Penal Code transferred from one confinement to another. In cases falling under i) First Element of Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
3
were substantially incorporated in Section 6, Rule 109 of the 1940 Rules of paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested without a warrant shall be Procedure: Probable cause
Court as follows:50 forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail, and he shall be
proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112, Section 7. [Emphasis and The existence of "probable cause" is now the "objectifier" or the determinant
SEC. 6. Arrest without warrant - When lawful. - A peace officer or a private underscoring supplied] on how the arresting officer shall proceed on the facts and circumstances,
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: within his personal knowledge, for purposes of determining whether the
As amended, Section 5(b ), Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules of Court retained the person to be arrested has committed the crime.
(a) When the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or restrictions introduced under the 1964 Rules of Court. More importantly,
is about to commit an offense in his presence; however, it added a qualification that the commission of the offense should i.a) U.S. jurisprudence on probable cause in warrantless arrests
not only have been "committed" but should have been "just committed." This
(b) When an offense has in fact been committed, and he has reasonable limited the arresting officer's time frame for conducting an investigation for In Payton v. New York,52 the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourth
ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it; purposes of gathering information indicating that the person sought to be Amendment of the Federal Constitution does not prohibit arrests without a
arrested has committed the crime. warrant although such arrests must be reasonable. According to State v.
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a Quinn,53 the warrantless arrest of a person who was discovered in the act of
penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or D. The Present Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure violating the law is not a violation of due process.
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another. [Emphasis and underscoring Section 5(b ), Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure was further The U.S. Supreme Court, however indicated in Henry v. United States54 that
supplied] amended with the incorporation of the word "probable cause" as the basis of the Fourth Amendment limited the circumstances under which warrantless
the arresting officer's determination on whether the person to be arrested arrests may be made. The necessary inquiry is not whether there was a
These provisions were adopted in toto in Section 6, Rule 113 of the 1964 has committed the crime. warrant or whether there was time to get one, but whether at the time of the
Rules of Court. Notably, the 1940 and 1964 Rules have deviated from the old arrest probable cause existed. The term probable cause is synonymous to
rulings of the Court. Prior to the 1940 Rules, the actual commission of the Hence, as presently worded, Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of "reasonable cause" and "reasonable grounds."55
offense was not necessary in determining the validity of the warrantless Criminal Procedure provides that:
arrest. Too, the arresting officer's determination of probable cause (or In determining the existence of probable cause, the arresting officer should
reasonable suspicion) applied both as to whether a crime has been When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to make a thorough investigation and exercise reasonable judgment. The
committed and whether the person to be arrested has committed it. believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the standards for evaluating the factual basis supporting a probable cause
person to be arrested has committed it. assessment are not less stringent in warrantless arrest situation than in a
However, under the 1940 and the 1964 Rules of Court, the Rules required case where a warrant is sought from a judicial officer. The probable cause
that there should be actual commission of an offense, thus, removing the From the current phraseology of the rules on warrantless arrest, it appears determination of a warrantless arrest is based on information that the
element of the arresting officer's "reasonable suspicion of the commission of that for purposes of Section S(b ), the following are the notable changes: first, arresting officer possesses at the time of the arrest and not on the
an offense." Additionally, the determination of probable cause, or reasonable the contemplated offense was qualified by the word "just," connoting information acquired later.56
suspicion, was limited only to the determination of whether the person to be immediacy; and second, the warrantless arrest of a person sought to be
arrested has committed the offense. In other words, the 1940 and 1964 Rules arrested should be based on probable cause to be determined by the In evaluating probable cause, probability and not certainty is the determinant
of Court restricted the arresting officer's discretion in warrantless arrests arresting officer based on his personal knowledge of facts and circumstances of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment. Probable cause involves
under Section 6(b), Rule 113 of the 1964 Rules of Court. that the person to be arrested has committed it. probabilities similar to the factual and practical questions of everyday life
upon which reasonable and prudent persons act. It is a pragmatic question to
C. The more restrictive 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure It is clear that the present rules have "objectified" the previously subjective be determined in each case in light of the particular circumstances and the
determination of the arresting officer as to the (1) commission of the crime; particular offense involved.57
Section 6, Rule 113 of the 1964 Rules of Court again underwent substantial and (2) whether the person sought to be arrested committed the crime.
changes and was re-worded and re-numbered when it became Section 5, According to Feria, these changes were adopted to minimize arrests based on In determining probable cause, the arresting officer may rely on all the
Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, to wit: mere suspicion or hearsay.51 information in his possession, his fair inferences therefrom, including his
observations. Mere suspicion does not meet the requirements of showing
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when. lawful. - A peace officer or a private As presently worded, the elements under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the probable cause to arrest without warrant especially if it is a mere general
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure are: first, an offense has just been suspicion. Probable cause may rest on reasonably trustworthy information as
committed; and second, the arresting officer has probable cause to believe well as personal knowledge. Thus, the arresting officer may rely on
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be information supplied by a witness or a victim of a crime; and under the
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; arrested has committed it. circumstances, the arresting officer need not verify such information.58
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal For purposes of this case, we shall discuss these elements separately below, In our jurisdiction, the Court has likewise defined probable cause in the
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; starting with the element of probable cause, followed by the elements that context of Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
and the offense has just been committed, and the arresting officer's personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has In Abelita Ill v. Doria et al.,59 the Court held that personal knowledge of facts
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a committed the crime. must be based on probable cause, which means an actual belief or reasonable
penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or grounds of suspicion. The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being absence of actual belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion that the person
to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense is based on actual circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to arrest was invalid considering that the only information that the police
4
facts, i.e., supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be officers had in effecting the arrest was the information from a third person. It
create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. A reasonable arrested or held for trial, as the case may be. cannot be also said in this case that there was certainty as regards the
suspicion, therefore, must be founded on probable cause, coupled with good commission of a crime.
faith on the part of the peace officers making the arrest. However, while the arresting officer, the public prosecutor and the judge all
determine "probable cause," within the spheres of their respective functions, In People v. del Rosario,70 the Court held that the requirement that an
i.b) Probable cause under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of its existence is influenced heavily by the available facts and circumstance offense has just been committed means that there must be a large measure of
Criminal Procedure, distinguished from probable cause in preliminary within their possession. In short, although these officers use the same immediacy between the time the offense was committed and the time of the
investigations and the judicial proceeding for the issuance of a warrant of standard of a reasonable man, they possess dissimilar quantity of facts or arrest. If there was an appreciable lapse of time between the arrest and the
arrest circumstances, as set by the rules, upon which they must determine probable commission of the crime, a warrant of arrest must be secured.
cause.
The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to determine whether a crime The Court held that the arrest of del Rosario did not comply with these
has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the Thus, under the present rules and jurisprudence, the arresting officer should requirements because he was arrested only a day after the commission of the
accused is guilty of the crime and should be held for triat.60 In Buchanan v. base his determination of probable cause on his personal knowledge of facts crime and not immediately thereafter. Additionally, the arresting officers
Viuda de Esteban,61 we defined probable cause as the existence of facts and and circumstances that the person sought to be arrested has committed the were not present and were not actual eyewitnesses to the crime. Hence, they
circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the crime; the public prosecutor and the judge must base their determination on had no personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested
facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was the evidence submitted by the parties. had committed the offense. They became aware of del Rosario's identity as
guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted. the driver of the getaway tricycle only during the custodial investigation.
In other words, the arresting officer operates on the basis of more limited
In this particular proceeding, the finding of the existence of probable cause as facts, evidence or available information that he must personally gather within In People v. Cendana,71 the accused was arrested one (1) day after the killing
to the guilt of the respondent was based on the submitted documents of the a limited time frame. of the victim and only on the basis of information obtained from unnamed
complainant, the respondent and his witnesses.62 sources. The unlawful arrest was held invalid.
Hence, in Santos,66 the Court acknowledged the inherent limitations of
On the other hand, probable cause in judicial proceedings for the issuance of determining probable cause in warrantless arrests due to the urgency of its In Rolito Go v. CA,72 the arrest of the accused six ( 6) days after the
a warrant of arrest is defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances determination in these instances. The Court held that one should not expect commission of the crime was held invalid because the crime had not just
that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an too much of an ordinary policeman. He is not presumed to exercise the subtle been committed. Moreover, the "arresting" officers had no "personal
offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. reasoning of a judicial officer. Oftentimes, he has no opportunity to make knowledge" of facts indicating that the accused was the gunman who had
proper investigation but must act in haste on his own belief to prevent the shot the victim. The information upon which the police acted came from
Hence, before issuing a warrant of arrest, the judge must be satisfied that escape of the criminal.67 statements made by alleged eyewitnesses to the shooting; one stated that the
based on the evidence submitted, there is sufficient proof that a crime has accused was the gunman; another was able to take down the alleged
been committed and that the person to be arrested is probably guilty thereof. ii) Second and Third Elements of Section 5(b), Rule 113: gunman's car's plate number which turned out to be registered in the name
At this stage of the criminal proceeding, the judge is not yet tasked to review of the accused's wife. That information did not constitute "personal
in detail the evidence submitted during the preliminary investigation. It is The crime has just been committed/personal knowledge of facts or knowledge."
sufficient that he personally evaluates the evidence in determining probable circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it
cause63 to issue a warrant of arrest. In People v. Tonog, Jr.,73 the warrantless arrest which was done on the same
We deem it necessary to combine the discussions of these two elements as day was held valid. In this case, the arresting officer had knowledge of facts
In contrast, the arresting officer's determination of probable cause under our jurisprudence shows that these were usually taken together in the which he personally gathered in the course of his investigation, indicating
Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure is based on Court's determination of the validity of the warrantless arrests that were that the accused was one of the perpetrators.
his personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person sought to made pursuant to Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
be arrested has committed the crime. These facts or circumstances pertain to Procedure. In People v. Gerente,74 the policemen arrested Gerente only about three (3)
actual facts or raw evidence, i.e., supported by circumstances sufficiently hours after Gerente and his companions had killed the victim. The Court held
strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be In Posadas v. Ombudsman,68 the killing of Dennis Venturina happened on that the policemen had personal knowledge of the violent death of the victim
arrested. A reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on probable December 8, 1994. It was only on December 11, 1994 that Chancellor and of facts indicating that Gerente and two others had killed him. The
cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officers making.the Posadas requested the NBI's assistance. On the basis of the supposed warrantless arrest was held valid.
arrest. identification of two (2) witnesses, the NBI attempted to arrest Francis Carlo
Taparan and Raymundo Narag three (3) days after the commission of the In People v. Alvario,75 the warrantless arrest came immediately after the
The probable cause to justify warrantless arrest ordinarily signifies a crime. With this set of facts, it cannot be said that the officers have personal arresting officers received information from the victim of the crime. The
reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently knowledge of facts or circumstances that the persons sought to be arrested Court held that the personal knowledge of the arresting officers was derived
strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that the person committed the crime. Hence, the Court invalidated the warrantless arrest. from the information supplied by the victim herself who pointed to Alvario as
accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged,64 or an actual belief the man who raped her at the time of his arrest. The Court upheld the
or reasonable ground of suspicion, based on actual facts.65 Similarly, in People v. Burgos,69 one Cesar Masamlok personally and warrantless arrest. In People v. Jayson,76 there was a shooting incident. The
voluntarily surrendered to the authorities, stating that Ruben Burgos forcibly policemen who were summoned to the scene of the crime found the victim.
It is clear therefore that the standard for determining "probable cause" is recruited him to become a member of the NPA, with a threat of physical The informants pointed to the accused as the assailant only moments after
invariable for the officer arresting without a warrant, the public prosecutor, harm. Upon receipt of this information, a joint team of PC-INP units was the shooting. The Court held that the arresting officers acted on the basis of
and the judge issuing a warrant of arrest. It is the existence of such facts and dispatched to arrest Burgos who was then plowing the field. Indeed, the
personal knowledge of the death of the victim and of facts indicating that the seen someone actually fleeing, he could still make a warrantless arrest if, We deem it necessary to review the records of the CA because it has
5
accused was the assailant. Thus, the warrantless arrest was held valid. based on his personal evaluation of the circumstances at the scene of the misapprehended the facts in its decision.81 From a review of the records, we
crime, he could determine the existence of probable cause that the person conclude that the police officers had personal knowledge of facts or
In People v. Acol,77 a group held up the passengers in a jeepney and the sought to be arrested has committed the crime. However, the determination circumstances upon which they had properly determined probable cause in
policemen immediately responded to the report of the crime. One of the of probable cause and the gathering of facts or circumstances should be made effecting a warrantless arrest against the petitioners. We note, however, that
victims saw four persons walking towards Fort Bonifacio, one of whom was immediately after the commission of the crime in order to comply with the the determination of the facts in the present case is purely limited to the
wearing his jacket. The victim pointed them to the policemen. When the element of immediacy. resolution of the issue on the validity of the warrantless arrests of the
group saw the policemen coming, they ran in different directions. The Court petitioners.
held that the arrest was valid. In other words, the clincher in the element of ''personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances" is the required element of immediacy within which these Based on the police blotter82 entry taken at 4:15 a.m. on February 20, 2005,
In Cadua v. CA,78 there was an initial report to the police concerning a facts or circumstances should be gathered. This required time element acts as the date that the alleged crime was committed, the petitioners were brought
robbery. A radio dispatch was then given to the arresting officers, who a safeguard to ensure that the police officers have gathered the facts or in for investigation at the Batasan Hills Police Station. The police blotter
proceeded to Alden Street to verify the authenticity of the radio message. perceived the circumstances within a very limited time frame. This stated that the alleged crime was committed at 3:15 a.m. on February 20,
When they reached the place, they met with the complainants who initiated guarantees that the police officers would have no time to base their probable 2005, along Kasiyahan St., Brgy. Holy Spirit, Quezon City.
the report about the robbery. Upon the officers' invitation, the victims joined cause finding on facts or circumstances obtained after an exhaustive
them in conducting a search of the nearby area where the accused was investigation. The time of the entry of the complaint in the police blotter at 4:15 a.m., with
spotted in the vicinity. Based on the reported statements of the complainants, Atty. Generoso and the petitioners already inside the police station, would
he was identified as a logical suspect in the offense just committed. Hence, The reason for the element of the immediacy is this - as the time gap from the connote that the arrest took place less than one hour from the time of the
the arrest was held valid. commission of the crime to the arrest widens, the pieces of information occurrence of the crime. Hence, the CA finding that the arrest took place two
gathered are prone to become contaminated and subjected to external (2) hours after the commission of the crime is unfounded.
In Doria,79 the Court held that Section S(b ), Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules of factors, interpretations and hearsay. On the other hand, with the element of
Criminal Procedure does not require the arresting officers to personally immediacy imposed under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of The arresting officers' personal observation of Atty. Generoso's bruises when
witness the commission of the offense. Criminal Procedure, the police officer's determination of probable cause they arrived at the scene of the crime is corroborated by the petitioners'
would necessarily be limited to raw or uncontaminated facts or admissions that Atty: Generoso indeed suffered blows from petitioner
In this case, P/Supt. Doria alleged that his office received a telephone call circumstances, gathered as they were within a very limited period of time. Macapanas and his brother Joseph Macapanas,83 although they asserted that
from a relative of Rosa Sia about a shooting incident. He dispatched a team The same provision adds another safeguard with the requirement of they did it in self-defense against Atty. Generoso.
headed by SP03 Ramirez to investigate the incident. SP03 Ramirez later probable cause as the standard for evaluating these facts of circumstances
reported that a certain William Sia was wounded while Judge Abelita III, who before the police officer could effect a valid warrantless arrest. Atty. Generoso's bruises were also corroborated by the Medico-Legal
was implicated in the incident, and his wife just left the place of the incident. Certificate84 that was issued by East Avenue Medical Center on the same
P/Supt. Doria looked for Abelita III and when he found him, he informed him In light of the discussion above on the developments of Section 5(b), Rule date of the alleged mauling. The medical check-up of Atty. Generoso that was
of the incident report. P/Supt. Doria requested Abelita III to go with him to 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and our jurisprudence on the made about 8:10 a.m. on the date of the incident, showed the following
the police headquarters as he had been reported to be involved in the matter, we hold that the following must be present for a valid warrantless findings: "Contusion Hematoma, Left Frontal Area; Abrasion, T6 area, right
incident. Abelita III agreed but suddenly sped up his vehicle and proceeded to arrest: 1) the crime should have been just committed; and 2) the arresting midclavicular line periorbital hematoma, left eye; Abrasion, distal 3rd
his residence where P/Supt. Doria caught him up as he was about to run officer's exercise of discretion is limited by the standard of probable cause to posterolateral aspect of right forearm; Abrasion, 4th and fifth digit, right
towards his house. be determined from the facts and circumstances within his personal hand; Abrasion on area of ih rib (L ant. Chest wall), tenderness on L
knowledge. The requirement of the existence of probable cause objectifies peripheral area, no visible abrasion. In addition, the attending physician, Dr.
The police officers saw a gun in the front seat of the vehicle beside the the reasonableness of the warrantless arrest for purposes of compliance with Eva P. Javier, diagnosed Atty. Generoso of contusion hematoma, periorbital L.,
driver's seat as Abelita III opened the door. They also saw a shotgun at the the Constitutional mandate against unreasonable arrests. and traumatic conjunctivitis, o.s.
back of the driver's seat. The police officers confiscated the firearms and
arrested Abelita III. The Court held that the petitioner's act of trying to get Hence, for purposes of resolving the issue on the validity of the warrantless To summarize, the arresting officers went to the scene of the crime upon the
away, coupled with the incident report which they investigated, were enough arrest of the present petitioners, the question to be resolved is whether the complaint of Atty. Generoso of his alleged mauling; the police officers
to raise a reasonable suspicion on the part of the police authorities as to the requirements for a valid warrantless arrest under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of responded to the scene of the crime less than one (1) hour after the alleged
existence of probable cause. Based on these discussions, it appears that the the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure were complied with, namely: 1) has mauling; the alleged crime transpired in a community where Atty. Generoso
Court's appreciation of the elements that "the offense has just been the crime just been committed when they were arrested? 2) did the arresting and the petitioners reside; Atty. Generoso positively identified the petitioners
committed" and ''personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the officer have personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the as those responsible for his mauling and, notably, the petitioners85 and Atty.
person to be arrested committed it" depended on the particular petitioners committed the crime? and 3) based on these facts and Generoso86 lived almost in the same neighborhood; more importantly, when
circumstances of the case. However, we note that the element of ''personal circumstances that the arresting officer possessed at the time of the the petitioners were confronted by the arresting officers, they did not deny
knowledge of facts or circumstances" under Section S(b ), Rule 113 of the petitioners' arrest, would a reasonably discreet and prudent person believe their participation in the incident with Atty. Generoso, although they
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure requires clarification. that the attempted murder of Atty. Generoso was committed by the narrated a different version of what transpired.87
petitioners? We rule in the affirmative.
The phrase covers facts or, in the alternative, circumstances. According to the With these facts and circumstances that the police officers gathered and
Black's Law Dictionary,80 "circumstances are attendant or accompanying III. Application of Section S(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal which they have personally observed less than one hour from the time that
facts, events or conditions. " Circumstances may pertain to events or actions Procedure in the present case: there was a valid warrantless arrest they have arrived at the scene of the crime until the time of the arrest of the
within the actual perception, personal evaluation or observation of the police petitioners, we deem it reasonable to conclude that the police officers had
officer at the scene of the crime. Thus, even though the police officer has not personal knowledge of facts or circumstances justifying the petitioners'
warrantless arrests. These circumstances were well within the police person to be arrested, or by his submission to the custody of the person
6
officers' observation, perception and evaluation at the time of the arrest. making the arrest.91 Thus, application of actual force, manual touching of the SO ORDERED.
These circumstances qualify as the police officers' personal observation, body, physical restraint or a formal declaration of arrest is not required. It is
which are within their personal knowledge, prompting them to make the enough that there be an intention on the part of one of the parties to arrest
warrantless arrests. the other and the intent of the other to submit, under the belief and G.R. No. 197293 April 21, 2014
impression that submission is necessary.92
Similar to the factual antecedents in Jayson,88 the police officers in the ALFREDO C. MENDOZA, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
present case saw Atty. Generoso in his sorry bloodied state. As the victim, he Notwithstanding the term "invited" in the Affidavit of Arrest,93 SP02 Javier AND JUNO CARS, INC., Respondents.
positively identified the petitioners as the persons who mauled him; could not but have the intention of arresting the petitioners following Atty.
however, instead of fleeing like what happened in Jayson, the petitioners Generoso' s account. SP02 Javier did not need to apply violent physical DECISION
agreed to go with the police officers. restraint when a simple directive to the petitioners to follow him to the LEONEN, J.:
police station would produce a similar effect. In other words, the application
This is also similar to what happened in People v. Tonog, Jr.89 where Tonog of actual force would only be an alternative if the petitioners had exhibited While the determination of probable cause to charge a person of a crime is
did not flee but voluntarily went with the police officers. More than this, the resistance. the sole function of the. prosecutor, the trial court may, in the protection of
petitioners in the present case even admitted to have been involved in the one's fundamental right to liberty, dismiss the case if, upon a personal
incident with Atty. Generoso, although they had another version of what To be sure, after a crime had just been committed and the attending assessment of the evidence, it finds that the evidence does not establish
transpired. policemen have acquired personal knowledge of the incidents of the crime, probable cause.
including the alleged perpetrators, the arrest of the petitioners as the
In determining the reasonableness of the warrantless arrests, it is incumbent perpetrators pointed to by the victim, was not a mere random act but was in This is a petition for review on certiorari1 assailing the Court of Appeals'
upon the courts to consider if the police officers have complied with the connection with a particular offense. Furthermore, SP02 Javier had informed decision2 dated January 14, 2011, which reversed the Regional Trial Court's
requirements set under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of the petitioners, at the time of their arrest, of the charges against them before dismissal of the complaint against petitioner Alfredo C. Mendoza for qualified
Criminal Procedure, specifically, the requirement of immediacy; the police taking them to Batasan Hills Police Station for investigation.94 theft and estafa.
officer's personal knowledge of facts or circumstances; and lastly, the
propriety of the determination of probable cause that the person sought to be V. The Order denying the motion for preliminary This case stems from a complaint-affidavit filed by Juno Cars, Inc. through its
arrested committed the crime. investigation is valid representative, Raul C. Evangelista, on January 8, 2008 for qualified theft and
estafa against Alfredo.3
The records show that soon after the report of the incident occurred, SPOl In their last ditch attempt at avoidance, the petitioners attack the R TC Order
Monsalve immediately dispatched the arresting officer, SP02 Javier, to render denying the petitioners' urgent motion for regular preliminary investigation In the complaint-affidavit, Juno Cars alleged that on June 2, 2007, it hired
personal assistance to the victim.90 This fact alone negates the petitioners' for allegedly having been issued in violation of Article VIII, Section 14 of the Alfredo as Trade-In/Used Car Supervisor. On November 19, 2007, its
argument that the police officers did not have personal knowledge that a 1987 Constitution95 and Rule 16, Section 3 of the Revised Rules of Court.96 Dealer/Operator, Rolando Garcia, conducted a partial audit of the used cars
crime had been committed - the police immediately responded and had and discovered that five (5) cars had been sold and released by Alfredo
personal knowledge that a crime had been committed.1âwphi1 The RTC, in its Order dismissing the motion, clearly states that the Court is without Rolando’s or the finance manager’s permission.4
not persuaded by the evidentiary nature of the allegations in the said motion
To reiterate, personal knowledge of a crime just committed under the terms of the accused. Aside from lack of clear and convincing proof, the Court, in the The partial audit showed that the buyers of the five cars made payments, but
of the above-cited provision, does not require actual presence at the scene exercise of its sound discretion on the matter, is legally bound to pursue and Alfredo failed to remit the payments totalling ₱886,000.00. It was further
while a crime was being committed; it is enough that evidence of the recent hereby gives preference to the speedy disposition of the case." alleged that while there were 20 cars under Alfredo’s custody, only 18 were
commission of the crime is patent (as in this case) and the police officer has accounted for. Further investigation revealed that Alfredo failed to turn over
probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or We do not see any taint of impropriety or grave abuse of discretion in this the files of a 2001 Hyundai Starex and a Honda City 1.5 LXI. Juno Cars alleged
circumstances, that the person to be arrested has recently committed the Order. The RTC, in resolving the motion, is not required to state all the facts that taking into account the unremitted amounts and the acquisition cost of
crime. found in the record of the case. Detailed evidentiary matters, as the RTC the Honda City, Alfredo pilfered a total amount of ₱1,046,000.00 to its
decreed, is best reserved for the full-blown trial of the case, not in the prejudice and damage.5
Considering the circumstances of the stabbing, particularly the locality where preliminary incidents leading up to the trial.
it took place, its occasion, the personal circumstances of the parties, and the In his counter-affidavit, Alfredo raised, among others, Juno Cars’ supposed
immediate on-the-spot investigation that took place, the immediate and Additionally, no less than the Constitution itself provides that it is the failure to prove ownership over the five (5) cars or its right to possess them
warrantless arrests of the perpetrators were proper. Consequently, the decision that should state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on with the purported unremitted payments. Hence, it could not have suffered
inquest proceeding that the City Prosecutor conducted was appropriate which it is based. In resolving a motion, the court is only required to state damage.6
under the circumstances. clearly and distinctly the reasons therefor. A contrary system would only
prolong the proceedings, which was precisely what happened to this case. On March 4, 2008, Provincial Prosecutor Rey F. Delgado issued a Resolution7
IV. The term "invited" in the Affidavit of Arrest is construed to Hence, we uphold the validity of the RTC's order as it correctly stated the finding probable cause and recommending the filing of an information
mean as an authoritative command reason for its denial of the petitioners' Urgent Motion for Regular against Alfredo for qualified theft and estafa.
Preliminary Investigation. WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby
After the resolution of the validity of the warrantless arrest, the discussion of DENY the petition, and hereby AFFIRM the decision dated January 21, 2008 Alfredo moved for reconsideration, but the motion was denied.8 He then filed
the petitioners' second issue is largely academic. Arrest is defined as the and the resolution dated April 17, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP a petition for review with the Department of Justice on May 16, 2008.9
taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for No. 91541. The City Prosecutor of Quezon City is hereby ORDERED to
the commission of an offense. An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the proceed with the criminal proceedings against the petitioners.
While Alfredo’s motion for reconsideration was still pending before the Office cause."26 He argued that the findings of the trial court should be accorded The difference is clear: The executive determination of probable cause
7
of the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong, two informations for qualified theft10 greater weight than the appellate court’s. It merely reviewed the findings of concerns itself with whether there is enough evidence to support an
and estafa11 were filed before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 212, the trial court. Information being filed. The judicial determination of probable cause, on the
Mandaluyong City. On March 31, 2008, Alfredo filed a motion for other hand, determines whether a warrant of arrest should be issued. In
determination of probable cause12 before the trial court. On April 28, 2008, The primordial issue is whether the trial court may dismiss an information People v. Inting:33
he also filed a motion to defer arraignment. filed by the prosecutor on the basis of its own independent finding of lack of
probable cause. x x x Judges and Prosecutors alike should distinguish the preliminary inquiry
Several clarificatory hearings were scheduled but were not conducted.13 On which determines probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest from
February 4, 2009, the parties agreed to submit all pending incidents, Time and again, this court has been confronted with the issue of the the preliminary investigation proper which ascertains whether the offender
including the clarificatory hearing, for resolution.14 difference between the determination of probable cause by the prosecutor on should be held for trial or released. Even if the two inquiries are conducted in
one hand and the determination of probable cause by the judge on the other. the course of one and the same proceeding, there should be no confusion
On March 3, 2009, the trial court, through Presiding Judge Rizalina Capco- We examine these two concepts again. about the objectives. The determination of probable cause for the warrant of
Umali, issued an order15 dismissing the complaint, stating that: arrest is made by the Judge. The preliminary investigation proper—whether
Juno Cars filed a complaint against Alfredo for qualified theft27 and estafa or not there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the
After conducting an independent assessment of the evidence on record which under Article 315, fourth paragraph, no. 3(c)28 of the Revised Penal Code. offense charged and, therefore, whether or not he should be subjected to the
includes the assailed Resolution dated 04 March 2008, the court holds that Since qualified theft is punishable by reclusion perpetua, a preliminary expense, rigors and embarrassment of trial—is the function of the
the evidence adduced does not support a finding of probable cause for the investigation must first be conducted "to determine whether there is Prosecutor.34 (Emphasis supplied)
offenses of qualified theft and estafa. x x x.16 sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been
committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held While it is within the trial court’s discretion to make an independent
Juno Cars filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court denied on for trial," in accordance with Rule 112, Section 1 of the Rules on Criminal assessment of the evidence on hand, it is only for the purpose of determining
July 3, 2009.17 Procedure. whether a warrant of arrest should be issued. The judge does not act as an
appellate court of the prosecutor and has no capacity to review the
Juno Cars then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, At this stage, the conduct of the preliminary investigation and the subsequent prosecutor’s determination of probable cause; rather, the judge makes a
arguing that the trial court acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction and determination of the existence of probable cause lie solely within the determination of probable cause independent of the prosecutor’s finding.
with grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed the complaint. It argued discretion of the public prosecutor.29 If upon evaluation of the evidence, the
that "the determination of probable cause and the decision whether or not to prosecutor finds sufficient basis to find probable cause, he or she shall then People v. Court of Appeals and Jonathan Cerbo35 discussed the rationale. In
file a criminal case in court, rightfully belongs to the public prosecutor."18 cause the filing of the information with the court. that case, Jonathan Cerbo allegedly shot Rosalinda Dy in the presence of his
father, Billy Cerbo. An information for murder was filed against Jonathan
On January 14, 2011, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision,19 reversed Once the information has been filed, the judge shall then "personally evaluate Cerbo. The daughter of Rosalinda Dy, as private complainant, executed a
the trial court, and reinstated the case. In its decision, the appellate court the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence"30 to determine complaint-affidavit charging Billy Cerbo with conspiracy. The prosecutor
ruled that the trial court acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction "in whether there is probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest. At this stage, a then filed a motion to amend the information, which was granted by the
supplanting the public prosecutor’s findings of probable cause with her own judicial determination of probable cause exists. court. The information was then amended to include Billy Cerbo as one of the
findings of insufficiency of evidence and lack of probable cause."20 accused, and a warrant of arrest was issued against him.
In People v. Castillo and Mejia,31 this court has stated:
Aggrieved, Alfredo filed a petition for review under Rule 45 before this court. Billy Cerbo filed a motion to quash the warrant arguing that it was issued
In essence, he argued that the trial court was correct in finding that there was There are two kinds of determination of probable cause: executive and without probable cause. The trial court granted this motion, recalled the
no probable cause as shown by the evidence on record. He argued that judicial. The executive determination of probable cause is one made during warrant, and dismissed the case against him. The Court of Appeals affirmed
"judicial determination of probable cause is broader than [the] executive preliminary investigation. It is a function that properly pertains to the public this dismissal. This court, however, reversed the Court of Appeals and
determination of probable cause"21 and that "[i]t is not correct to say that prosecutor who is given a broad discretion to determine whether probable ordered the reinstatement of the amended information against Billy Cerbo,
the determination of probable cause is exclusively vested on the prosecutor x cause exists and to charge those whom he believes to have committed the stating that:
x x."22 crime as defined by law and thus should be held for trial. Otherwise stated,
such official has the quasi-judicial authority to determine whether or not a In granting this petition, we are not prejudging the criminal case or the guilt
In its comment,23 Juno Cars argued that Alfredo presented questions, issues, criminal case must be filed in court. Whether or not that function has been or innocence of Private Respondent Billy Cerbo. We are simply saying that, as
and arguments that were a mere rehash of those already considered and correctly discharged by the public prosecutor, i.e., whether or not he has a general rule, if the information is valid on its face and there is no showing of
passed upon by the appellate court. made a correct ascertainment of the existence of probable cause in a case, is a manifest error, grave abuse of discretion or prejudice on the part of the
matter that the trial court itself does not and may not be compelled to pass public prosecutor, courts should not dismiss it for ‘want of evidence,’ because
The Office of the Solicitor General, arguing for public respondent, stated in its upon. evidentiary matters should be presented and heard during the trial. The
comment24 that the appellate court correctly sustained the public functions and duties of both the trial court and the public prosecutor in "the
prosecutor in his findings of probable cause against Alfredo. Since there was The judicial determination of probable cause, on the other hand, is one made proper scheme of things" in our criminal justice system should be clearly
no showing of grave abuse of discretion on the part of Prosecutor Rey F. by the judge to ascertain whether a warrant of arrest should be issued understood.
Delgado, the trial court should respect his determination of probable cause. against the accused. The judge must satisfy himself that based on the
evidence submitted, there is necessity for placing the accused under custody The rights of the people from what could sometimes be an "oppressive"
In his reply,25 Alfredo reiterated that "judicial determination of probable in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. If the judge finds no probable exercise of government prosecutorial powers do need to be protected when
cause[,] while not a superior faculty[,] covers a broader encompassing cause, the judge cannot be forced to issue the arrest warrant.32 circumstances so require. But just as we recognize this need, we also
perspective in the disposition of the issue on the existence of probable acknowledge that the State must likewise be accorded due process. Thus,
when there is no showing of nefarious irregularity or manifest error in the must be resolved by the court within thirty (30) days from the filing of the WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision dated January 14, 2011
8
performance of a public prosecutor’s duties, courts ought to refrain from complaint of information. of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No. 110774 is REVERSED and SET
interfering with such lawfully and judicially mandated duties. ASIDE. Criminal Case Nos. MC08-11604-05 against Alfredo C. Mendoza are
In People v. Hon. Yadao:38 DISMISSED.
In any case, if there was palpable error or grave abuse of discretion in the
public prosecutor’s finding of probable cause, the accused can appeal such Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court gives the trial court three options SO ORDERED.
finding to the justice secretary and move for the deferment or suspension of upon the filing of the criminal information: (1) dismiss the case if the
the proceedings until such appeal is resolved.36 (Emphasis supplied) evidence on record clearly failed to establish probable cause; (2) issue a
warrant of arrest if it finds probable cause; and (3) order the prosecutor to A.M. No. MTJ-06-1641 July 27, 2006
(formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-1756-MTJ)
In this case, the resolution dated March 4, 2008 of Prosecutor Rey F. Delgado present additional evidence within five days from notice in case of doubt as
found that the facts and evidence were "sufficient to warrant the indictment to the existence of probable cause.
of [petitioner] x x x."37 There was nothing in his resolution which showed NOTAN LUMBOS, complainant, vs. JUDGE MARIE ELLENGRID
that he issued it beyond the discretion granted to him by law and But the option to order the prosecutor to present additional evidence is not S.L.BALIGUAT, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, General Santos
jurisprudence. mandatory.1âwphi1 The court’s first option under the above is for it to City, respondent.
"immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to
While the information filed by Prosecutor Delgado was valid, Judge Capco- establish probable cause." That is the situation here: the evidence on record RESOLUTION
Umali still had the discretion to make her own finding of whether probable clearly fails to establish probable cause against the respondents.39 AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
cause existed to order the arrest of the accused and proceed with trial. (Emphasis supplied)
Before us is an administrative complaint[1] dated July 28, 2005 filed by
Jurisdiction over an accused is acquired when the warrant of arrest is served. It is also settled that "once a complaint or information is filed in court, any Notan Lumbos (complainant) against Judge Marie Ellengrid S.L. Baliguat
Absent this, the court cannot hold the accused for arraignment and trial. disposition of the case, whether as to its dismissal or the conviction or the (respondent), Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1, General
acquittal of the accused, rests in the sound discretion of the court."40 Santos City, for Gross Ignorance of the Law, Grave Abuse of Authority,
Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution states: Dereliction of Duty, Grave Misconduct, Oppression and Disbarment (under
In this case, Judge Capco-Umali made an independent assessment of the Resolution A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC, October 1, 2002).
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and evidence on record and concluded that "the evidence adduced does not
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and support a finding of probable cause for the offenses of qualified theft and Complainant alleges that: he is one of the accused in a complaint for arson
for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of estafa."41 Specifically, she found that Juno Cars "failed to prove by competent and robbery in Criminal Cases Nos. 46246 and 46247 filed by P/Insp. Richie
arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by evidence"42 that the vehicles alleged to have been pilfered by Alfredo were Siong Bucol on July 14, 2004 before respondents sala; instead of dismissing
the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and lawfully possessed or owned by them, or that these vehicles were received by the case for patent lack of jurisdiction, respondent propounded a series of
the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be Alfredo, to be able to substantiate the charge of qualified theft. She also found leading questions on the witnesses i.e., Jose Orlando Acharon (Acharon) and
searched and the persons or things to be seized. that the complaint "[did] not state with particularity the exact value of the Edwin Yagat (Yagat) even without prior application for the issuance of
alleged office files or their valuation purportedly have been removed, warrant of arrest; with the object of issuing a warrant of arrest against all
The Constitution prohibits the issuance of search warrants or warrants of concealed or destroyed by the accused,"43 which she found crucial to the accused, respondent propounded a series of suggestive rather than searching
arrest where the judge has not personally determined the existence of prosecution of the crime of estafa under Article 315, fourth paragraph, no. questions on Acharon, who did not actually witness the alleged crime; the
probable cause. The phrase "upon probable cause to be determined 3(c) of the Revised Penal Code. She also noted that: purported eye witness Yagat never categorically named the alleged
personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the malefactors and their specific participation in the alleged crimes; respondent
complainant and the witnesses he may produce" allows a determination of x x x As a matter of fact, this court had even ordered that this case be set for merely tried to confirm her preconceived presumption of guilt of all accused
probable cause by the judge ex parte. clarificatory hearing to clear out essential matters pertinent to the offense via suggestive questions; respondent issued an Order for the issuance of a
charged and even directed the private complainant to bring documents warrant of arrest against complainant and his co-accused without giving
For this reason, Section 6, paragraph (a) of Rule 112 of the Rules on Criminal relative to the same/payment as well as affidavit of witnesses/buyers with them a fair chance to file their respective counter-affidavits; he with his co-
Procedure mandates the judge to "immediately dismiss the case if the the end view of satisfying itself that indeed probable cause exists to commit accused, filed two motions dated July 24, 2004 and August 17, 2004,
evidence on record fails to establish probable cause." Section 6, paragraph (a) the present case which private complainant failed to do.44 respectively, for purposes of lifting the warrant of arrest and proper referral
of Rule 112 reads: of subject cases to the Office of the City Prosecutor so they can file their
Accordingly, with the present laws and jurisprudence on the matter, Judge respective counter-affidavits; attached to the motion is an excerpt from the
Section 6. When warrant of arrest may issue. — (a) By the Regional Trial Capco-Umali correctly dismissed the case against Alfredo. police blotter certifying that on July 11, 2004 at 8:30 in the evening,
Court. — Within ten (10) days from the filing of the complaint or information, complainant was in Philippine National Police-Camp Lira, which is
the judge shall personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its Although jurisprudence and procedural rules allow it, a judge must always approximately 25 kilometers from Bawing, Tambler where the alleged
supporting evidence. He may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on proceed with caution in dismissing cases due to lack of probable cause, crimes were committed; his presence in Camp Lira was precipitated by the
record clearly fails to establish probable cause. If he finds probable cause, he considering the preliminary nature of the evidence before it. It is only when suspicious apprehension of some relatives who were detained in the said
shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment order if the accused has he or she finds that the evidence on hand absolutely fails to support a finding camp; on September 1, 2004, the Provincial Office of the National
already been arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by the judge who of probable cause that he or she can dismiss the case. On the other hand, if a Commission on Indigenous Peoples intervened through a Manifestation
conducted the preliminary investigation or when the complaint or judge finds probable cause, he or she must not hesitate to proceed with dated August 30, 2004, praying for the dismissal of the subject cases stating
information was filed pursuant to section 7 of this Rule. In case of doubt on arraignment and trial in order that justice may be served. that Acharon, the complainant in the said cases, has no real right or interest
the existence of probable cause, the judge may order the prosecutor to to protect, none of his rights were violated, he (Acharon) is even vulnerable
present additional evidence within five (5) days from notice and the issue to criminal prosecution under Republic Act No. 947, and, the filing of the
subject cases in an effort to restrain the legitimate claimants appears to be a Professional Ethics; and she had observed due process and did not misuse it them. The Court has likewise adopted the same rule and policy in the 1985
9
mockery of the judicial process; respondent issued an Order dated October to defeat the ends of justice. Rules on Criminal Procedure effective January 1, 1985 governing the
26, 2004 holding in abeyance the prayer for the lifting of the warrant of institution of all other offenses that in Metropolitan Manila and other
arrest, pending the submission of counter-affidavits within 10 days from In its Memorandum[4] dated November 21, 2005, the Office of the Court chartered cities, the complaint may be filed only with the office of the fiscal.
receipt of the Order. Administrator (OCA) submitted its evaluation and recommendation, to wit: (Rule 110, sec.1[b]).
In her Comment[2] dated September 9, 2005, respondent avers that: the EVALUATION: After a careful perusal and consideration of the parties Further, it is worthy to state herein that it is the Public Prosecutor who is
criminal cases subject of this complaint were filed before the MTCC, General respective positions and arguments, this Office finds no reasonable ground to given by law direction and control of all criminal actions. It is he who is
Santos City, for Preliminary Investigation (PI); on July 15, 2004, being the hold the respondent administratively liable. primarily responsible for ascertaining through a preliminary inquiry or
Executive Judge and by virtue of Sections 84 and 86, Republic Act No. proceeding whether there is reasonable ground to believe that an offense has
5412,[3] otherwise known as the City Charter of General Santos City, Acharon Paragraph (5) Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution provides as follows: been committed and the accused is probably guilty thereof. Therefore, the
(the complainant in the said cases) and Yagat (the eye witness to the alleged preliminary investigation proper is not a judicial function, but an executive
crimes) were duly examined under oath and through searching questions; Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: function, which is part of the prosecutions job. The assignment of this non-
finding probable cause, a warrant of arrest was issued against all the accused; judicial function to judges of inferior courts was dictated by necessity and
the accused were directed to file their counter-affidavits but, instead of doing xxx practical considerations because there are not enough fiscals and
so, the defense filed a Motion to Correct Caption and to Lift the Warrant of (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of prosecutors to investigate crimes in all municipalities all over the country. In
Arrest issued; the first prayer was granted but the resolution of the second constitutional rights, pleadings, practice and [enforcement of constitutional the case of Castillo vs. Villaluz, 171 SCRA 39, citing Salta vs. Court
motion was held in abeyance until the counter-affidavits of all the accused rights, pleading practice and] procedure in all courts, the admission to the Administrator, 143 SCRA 228, the Honorable Court ruled that:
are submitted; no counter-affidavits were filed so respondent resolved the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the
cases and forwarded its records to the City Prosecutors Office for the filing of underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive Whenever there are enough fiscals or prosecutors to conduct preliminary
proper Information. procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts investigation, courts are counseled to leave this job which is essentially
of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive executive to them.
Respondent claims that: the conduct of the PI and the subsequent issuance of rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall
the warrant of arrest are well within the authority given in the City Charter remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. It appears that the City of General Santos already has sufficient number of
which remains valid and enforceable until revoked by the Sangguniang prosecutors who can handle the preliminary investigation of criminal cases.
Panlungsod of General Santos City; there was no usurpation of authority of an Under the City Charter of General Santos City, the city court may also conduct Hence, the same should be referred to them for appropriate action.
RTC Judge when she issued the assailed warrant of arrest as she has preliminary investigation for any offense without regard to the limits of
authority to do so under the City Charter; she examined only Acharon and punishment and may release or commit and bind over any person charged It is worth mentioning here that lately, the Honorable Court in A.M. No. 05-8-
Yagat because they were the witnesses to the alleged crimes and the with such offense to secure his appearance before the proper court. However, 26-SC dated 30 August 2005 has already withdrawn the power to conduct
questions propounded were never leading; there was no grave abuse of considering the Honorable Courts power of supervision over all courts, rules preliminary investigation from the judges of the first level courts.
discretion when she held in abeyance the resolution of the prayer for the of pleading, practice and procedure in all courts have been promulgated. And
lifting of the warrant of arrest because the primary reason why it was as a matter of policy and procedure, criminal cases covered by the Rule and Insofar as the issuance of warrant of arrest is concerned, par. (b), Sec. 6, Rule
withheld was the complainants failure to submit a counter-affidavit; she did initiated by a complaint is being referred to the City Prosecutor for 112 provides:
not personally know Acharon as she did not grow up in General Santos City; appropriate action.
there is no conflict that the Rules on Criminal Procedure had undergone Sec. 6. When warrant of arrest may issue.
amendments but it would be very safe to say that the General Santos City In the case of Salcedo vs. Nobles-Banz, 134 SCRA 207, the Supreme Court xxx
Charter is not yet amended, hence, it still stands; and she believes that she ruled that: (b) By the Municipal Trial Court. When required pursuant to the second
did her duty to her very best in accordance with law and feels strongly paragraph of section 1 of this Rule, the preliminary investigation of cases
offended and harassed by the filing of the instant case. There is no question that under the Olongapo City Charter, the Municipal falling under the original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court,
Trial Court can conduct preliminary investigation of all offenses. That is Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court, or Municipal Circuit
For her defense, respondent avers that: in clean conscience she conducted substantive law. However, pursuant to our constitutional supervision over all Trial Court may be conducted by either the judge or the prosecutor. x x x.
the PI and thereafter issued the warrant of arrest in good faith and in Courts, as a matter of policy, we direct the Municipal Trial Court in the City of When the investigation is conducted by the judge himself, he shall follow the
accordance with law, jurisprudence and the rules and procedures; as a Olongapo [that] whenever a criminal case covered by the Rule is initiated by procedure provided in Section 3 of this Rule. If his findings and
government employee since 1979, she had maintained a clean reputation; complaint, to refer the same to the City Fiscal for the filing of the recommendations are affirmed by the provincial or city prosecutor, or by the
she even sacrificed and left her post as Senior Legal Officer of the Department corresponding Information x x x. Ombudsman or his deputy, and the corresponding information is filed, he
of Labor and Employment (DOLE), National Capital Region (NCR) in 1990 on shall issue a warrant of arrest. However, without waiting for the conclusion
the ground that she could not take the corruption around her; she had always xxx of the investigation, the judge may issue a warrant of arrest if he finds after
kept her impartiality in making her decisions and never looked into the The primary function of courts is to try and decide cases, not to conduct an examination in writing and under oath of the complainant and his
persons behind the party litigants; she rose through the ranks asking no preliminary investigation. Thus, in Section 9 of the Rule on Summary witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers, that a probable
favors from anyone and relied on her own skills, abilities, knowledge of the Procedure in Special Cases effective August 1, 1983, the Court provided cause exists and that there is a necessity of placing the respondent under
Constitution, laws, rules, regulations and jurisprudence and most especially expressly that in Metro-Manila and chartered cities, (criminal) cases shall be immediate custody not to frustrate the ends of justice.
her unblemished reputation; and with utmost dignity and head held high, commenced only by information at the instance of the metropolitan
respondent reiterates that she had not violated any of the provisions of the municipal trial court judges themselves who feared that they would be Under the above-quoted rule, the power or authority of the investigating
Constitution, or the Lawyers' and Judges' Oath, or any of the provisions of the swamped with preliminary investigation which they would have to conduct judge to issue a warrant of arrest is limited to those instances where there is
Code of Judicial Conduct, Code of Professional Responsibility, or Canons of (instead of cities fiscals) if criminal complaints were to be directly filed with a necessity of placing him in custody in order not to frustrate the ends of
justice. In the case of Mantaring vs. Roman, 254 SCRA 158, the respondent In her Compliance[7] dated March 10, 2006, respondent avers that despite aforementioned provision that city judges are authorized to conduct
10
judge was reprimanded for issuing a warrant without any finding that it was ample time given to the respondents to submit their counter-affidavit, they preliminary investigation and examination. The conduct by respondent of the
necessary to place the accused in immediate custody in order to prevent a failed to do so and attaching thereto the Resolution[8] dated January 14, PI and the subsequent issuance of the warrant of arrest are well within the
frustration of justice. And we quote: 2005, denying the Motion to Quash Warrant of Arrest for lack of merit and authority given under the substantive law as well as the Charter of General
forwarded the records of Criminal Cases Nos. 46246 and 46247-I to the Santos City.
Moreover, we think it was improper for respondent judge to have issued the Office of the City Prosecutor for further proceedings.
warrants of arrest against complainant and his son without any finding that it Salcedo v. Nobles-Bans,[14] cited by the complainant, is not on all fours with
was necessary to place them in immediate custody in order to prevent a At issue is whether or not the acts committed by respondent judge constitute the present case. In the said case, respondent judge dismissed the criminal
frustration of justice. It is now settled that in issuing warrants of arrest in gross ignorance of the law, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, and cases covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure, instead of referring the
preliminary investigations, the investigating judge must: oppression warranting dismissal from judicial service and disbarment. same to the City Fiscal for the filing of the corresponding Informations. In the
present case, what is being questioned was the PI conducted by the
(a) have examined in writing and under oath the complainant and his We adopt the evaluation and recommendation of the OCA. respondent and the subsequent issuance of the warrant of arrest, which is
witnesses by searching questions and answers; neither covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure nor dismissed by the
Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether respondent.
(b) be satisfied that probable cause exists; and there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has
been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be In Ribaya v. Binamira-Parcia,[15] we held that as long as the constitutional
(c) that there is a need to place the respondent under immediate custody in held for trial.[9] And prior to the issuance of A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC[10] which mandate was complied with, that is, the warrant of arrest was issued upon a
order not to frustrate the ends of justice. took effect on October 3, 2005, among the officers authorized by Sec. 2, Rule finding of probable cause personally by the judge after an examination under
In the instant case, it appears that respondent ordered the issuance of 112[11] of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure to conduct preliminary oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, the
warrants of arrest against the complainant and his co-accused not only investigation are the city prosecutors and judges of the MTC and MCTC. warrant of arrest was valid. After all, the purpose of issuing the warrant of
because of the existence of probable cause, but because of her finding that it arrest was to place the respondents under immediate custody in order not to
was necessary to place them under immediate custody in order not to As provided under Sec. 37 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Judges of frustrate the ends of justice;[16] and whether it is necessary to place the
frustrate the ends of justice. Pertinent portion of the Order of the court Metropolitan Trial Courts, except those in the National Capital Region, of accused in custody is left to the judges sound judgment.[17] As aptly found
during the preliminary investigation held on 15 July 2004 is hereunder Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall have by the OCA in its evaluation,[18] respondent ordered the issuance of the
quoted as follows: authority to conduct preliminary investigation of crimes alleged to have been warrants of arrest not only because of the existence of probable cause, but
committed within their respective territorial jurisdictions which are because of her finding that it was necessary to place the accused under
ORDER: For preliminary investigation and request for immediate issuance of cognizable by the Regional Trial Courts. x x x Provided, however, that, if after immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. We find
warrant of arrest. After a thorough examination of the complaining witness, the preliminary investigation the Judge finds a prima facie case, he shall nothing irregular in the course of action taken by the respondent.
Jose Orlando Acharon together with the eye-witness Edwin Yagat through forward the records of the case to the Provincial/City Fiscal for the filing of
searching questions under oath, the undersigned finds that there is reason to the corresponding information with the proper court. No warrant of arrest We held in Jamora v. Bersales,[19] that when a preliminary investigation is
believe that the crimes of arson and robbery and there is a need to place in shall be issued by the Judge in connection with any criminal complaint filed conducted by a municipal court trial judge, he is obligated, upon conclusion
custody the named accused herein in order not to frustrate the ends of justice with him for preliminary investigation, unless after an examination in writing of the preliminary investigation, to transmit to the provincial or city fiscal, for
and also to prevent them from possibly committing the same crime in the and under oath or affirmation of the complainant and his witnesses, he finds appropriate action, the resolution of the case. In this case, immediately after
other bunkhouses of the complaining witness, issue warrant of arrest against that a probable cause exists. x x x the determination of a probable cause, respondent judge forwarded the
all the named accused with bailbond fixed at P200,000.00 each for Robbery records of the criminal cases to the Office of the City Prosecutor for further
and no bail for Arson. x x x The Charter of General Santos City, specifically Sec. 84,[12] authorizes the proceedings which bespeaks of respondents knowledge of the law, both
city court to conduct preliminary investigations for any offense without substantive and procedural.
RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration and regard to the limits of punishment and may release or commit and bind over
approval of the Honorable Court our recommendations as follows: any person charge[d] with such offense to secure his appearance before the However, as adverted to earlier, under A.M. No 05-8-26-SC, which took effect
proper court. on October 3, 2005, the officers authorized to conduct preliminary
1. The instant case against Judge Marie Ellengrid S.L. Baliguat of investigations are the: (a) Provincial or City Prosecutors and their assistants;
MTCC, Branch 01 [G]eneral Santos City be DISMISSED for lack of merit; and Under Sec. 6(b), Rule 112 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, without (b) National and Regional State Prosecutors; and (c) other officers as may be
waiting for the conclusion of the investigation, the judge may issue a warrant authorized by law. xxx[20] The preliminary investigation of cases falling
2. Judge Baliguat be ADVISED to refer criminal cases filed for of arrest if he finds after an examination in writing and under oath of the under the original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal
preliminary investigation to the Office of the City Prosecutor, General Santos complainant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions and Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court or Municipal Circuit Trial Court
City for appropriate action.[5] answers, that a probable cause exists and that there is a necessity of placing shall be conducted by the prosecutor. xxx
the respondent under immediate custody not to frustrate the ends of justice.
The above-mentioned administrative matter included the following proviso:
Meanwhile, in a Resolution[6] dated February 22, 2006, respondent was And as can be gleaned from the provision of the Rules on Criminal
required to inform the Court as to the action taken by her on complainant's Procedure,[13] in Manila and other chartered cities, the complaint shall be All First Level Courts shall continue with the preliminary investigation of
and his co-accused's motions dated July 24, 2004 and August 17, 2004, filed with the office of the prosecutor unless otherwise provided in their cases pending with them and terminate them not later than December 31,
respectively, to lift the warrant of arrest and referral of Criminal Cases Nos. charters. 2005.
46246 and 46247 to the Office of the City Prosecutor.
Thus, respondent did not commit gross ignorance of the law nor grave abuse
of discretion in conducting the said PI. It is very clear from the
Upon the date of effectivity of these amendments, First Level Courts shall no Investigating Prosecutor, RAUL M. GONZALEZ, in his capacity as
11
longer accept new cases for preliminary investigation, which fall under the Secretary of the Department of Justice, Respondents. These are petitions for certiorari and prohibition2 seeking the annulment of
exclusive jurisdiction of courts of other levels. the orders and resolutions of public respondents with regard to the
x-----------------------x indictment and issuance of warrants of arrest against petitioners for the
It must be emphasized that the conduct of respondent in the handling of the G.R. No. 185587 crime of multiple murder.
PI and the subsequent issuance of the warrants of arrest is well within the
RANDALL B. ECHANIS, Petitioner, vs. HON. THELMA BUNYl-MEDINA, in her capacity
mandate of the law and not indicative of any grave abuse of discretion on her Police Chief Inspector George L. Almaden (P C/Insp. Almaden) of the
as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 32, HON. EPHREM S.
part. The criminal cases subject of this complaint were filed on July 15, 2004 ABANDO, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Hilongos, Philippine National Police (PNP) Regional Office 8 and Staff Judge Advocate
and still governed by Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure in Leyte, Branch 18, CESAR M. MERIN, in his capacity as Approving Prosecutor and Captain Allan Tiu (Army Captain Tiu) of the 8th Infantry Division of the
force at the time of the commission of the crime charged; while A.M. No. 05- Officer-in-Charge, ROSULO U. VIVERO, in his capacity as Investigating Prosecutor, Philippine Army sent 12 undated letters to the Provincial Prosecutor of Leyte
8-26-SC which took effect on October 3, 2005, commanded the first level RAUL M. GONZALEZ, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Justice, through Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Rosulo U. Vivero (Prosecutor
courts to continue with the preliminary investigation of cases pending with Respondents. Vivero).3 The letters requested appropriate legal action on 12 complaint-
them and terminate them not later than December 31, 2005. affidavits attached therewith accusing 71 named members of the Communist
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 185636
Party of the Philippines/New People’s Army/National Democratic Front of
It is settled that as a matter of policy, the acts of a judge in his judicial the Philippines (CPP/NPA/NDFP) of murder, including petitioners herein
capacity are not subject to disciplinary action. He cannot be subjected to RAFAEL G. BAYLOSIS, Petitioner, vs. HON. THELMA BUNYI-MEDINA, in her capacity along with several other unnamed members.
liability civil, criminal or administrative for any of his official acts, no matter as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 32, HON. EPHREM S.
how erroneous, as long as he acts in good faith.[21] To hold, otherwise, ABANDO, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Hilongos, The letters narrated that on 26 August 2006, elements of the 43rd Infantry
Leyte, Branch 18, CESAR M. MERIN, in his capacity as Approving Prosecutor and
would be to render judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try the Brigade of the Philippine Army discovered a mass grave site of the
Officer-in-Charge, ROSULO U. VIVERO, in his capacity as Investigating Prosecutor,
facts or interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be RAUL M. GONZALEZ, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Justice,
CPP/NPA/NDFP at Sitio Sapang Daco, Barangay Kaulisihan, Inopacan, Leyte.4
infallible in his judgment.[22] An inquiry into the administrative liability of a Respondents. Recovered from the grave site were 67 severely deteriorated skeletal
judge may be resorted to only after the available remedies have been remains believed to be victims of Operation VD.5
exhausted and decided with finality.[23] For until there is a final declaration x-----------------------x
by the appellate court that the challenged order or judgment is manifestly G.R. No. 190005 The PNP Scene of the Crime Operation (SOCO) Team based in Regional Office
erroneous, there will be no basis to conclude whether respondent is 8 was immediately dispatched to the mass grave site to conduct crime
VICENTE P. LADLAD, Petitioner, vs. HON. THELMA BUNYI-MEDINA, in her capacity
administratively liable.[24] as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 32, and the PEOPLE
investigation, and to collect, preserve and analyze the skeletal remains.6 Also,
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents. from 11-17 September 2006, an investigation team composed of intelligence
To constitute gross ignorance of the law, it is not enough that the subject officers, and medico-legal and DNA experts, conducted forensic crime
decision, order or actuation of the judge in the performance of his official DECISION analysis and collected from alleged relatives of the victims DNA samples for
duties is contrary to existing law and jurisprudence but, most importantly, he SERENO, CJ.: matching.7
must be moved by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, or corruption.[25] Good faith
and absence of malice, corrupt motives or improper considerations, are On 26 August 2006, a mass grave was discovered by elements of the 43rd The Initial Specialist Report8 dated 18 September 2006 issued by the PNP
sufficient defenses in which a judge charged with ignorance of the law can Infantry Brigade of the Philippine Army at Sitio Sapang Daco, Barangay Crime Laboratory in Camp Crame, Quezon City, was inconclusive with regard
find refuge.[26] In this case, we are convinced that respondent conducted the Kaulisihan, Inopacan, Leyte.1 The mass grave contained skeletal remains of to the identities of the skeletal remains and even the length of time that they
PI and the subsequent issuance of the warrants of arrest in clean conscience, individuals believed to be victims of "Operation Venereal Disease" (Operation had been buried. The report recommended the conduct of further tests to
in good faith and in accordance with law, jurisprudence, rules and VD) launched by members of the Communist Party of the Philippines/New confirm the identities of the remains and the time window of death.9
procedures. People’s Army/National Democratic Front of the Philippines
(CPP/NPA/NDFP) to purge their ranks of suspected military informers. However, in a Special Report10 dated 2 October 2006, the Case Secretariat of
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the administrative case against Judge the Regional and National Inter-Agency Legal Action Group (IALAG) came up
Marie Ellengrid S.L. Baliguat, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, While the doctrine of hierarchy of courts normally precludes a direct with the names of ten (10) possible victims after comparison and
General Santos City is DISMISSED. And in line with A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC, invocation of this Court’s jurisdiction, we take cognizance of these petitions examination based on testimonies of relatives and witnesses.11
withdrawing the power to conduct preliminary investigation from judges of considering that petitioners have chosen to take recourse directly before us
first level courts, she is ADVISED to refer criminal cases filed for preliminary and that the cases are of significant national interest. The 12 complaint-affidavits were from relatives of the alleged victims of
investigation to the Office of the City Prosecutor, General Santos City for Operation VD. All of them swore that their relatives had been abducted or
appropriate action. Petitioners have raised several issues, but most are too insubstantial to last seen with members of the CPP/NPA/NDFP and were never seen again.
require consideration. Accordingly, in the exercise of sound judicial
SO ORDERED. discretion and economy, this Court will pass primarily upon the following: They also expressed belief that their relatives’ remains were among those
discovered at the mass grave site.
1. Whether petitioners were denied due process during preliminary
G.R. No. 176830 February 11, 2014 investigation and in the issuance of the warrants of arrest. Also attached to the letters were the affidavits of Zacarias Piedad,12
Leonardo C. Tanaid, Floro M. Tanaid, Numeriano Beringuel, Glecerio Roluna
SATURNINO C. OCAMPO, Petitioner, vs. HON. EPHREM S. ABANDO, in his 2. Whether the murder charges against petitioners should be dismissed and Veronica P. Tabara. They narrated that they were former members of the
capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Hilongos, under the political offense doctrine. CPP/NPA/NDFP.13 According to them, Operation VD was ordered in 1985 by
Leyte, Branch 18, CESAR M. MERIN, in. his capacity as Approving the CPP/NPA/NDFP Central Committee.14 Allegedly, petitioners Saturnino C.
Prosecutor and Officer-in-Charge, ROSULO U. VIVERO, in his capacity as ANTECEDENT FACTS Ocampo (Ocampo),15 Randall B. Echanis (Echanis),16 Rafael G. Baylosis
(Baylosis),17 and Vicente P. Ladlad (Ladlad)18 were then members of the Order of Judge Abando and the 16 February 2007 Resolution of Prosecutor the request of then Secretary of Justice Raul Gonzales to transfer the venue of
12
Central Committee. Vivero.35 The petition prayed for the unconditional release of petitioner the case.
Ocampo from PNP custody, as well as the issuance of a temporary restraining
According to these former members, four sub-groups were formed to order/ writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the conduct of further The case was re-raffled to RTC Manila, Branch 32 (RTC Manila) presided by
implement Operation VD, namely, (1) the Intel Group responsible for proceedings during the pendency of the petition.36 Judge Thelma Bunyi-Medina (Judge Medina) and re-docketed as Criminal
gathering information on suspected military spies and civilians who would Case No. 08-262163.54 Petitioner Echanis was transferred to the PNP
not support the movement; (2) the Arresting Group charged with their Petitioner Ocampo argued that a case for rebellion against him and 44 others Custodial Center in Camp Crame, Quezon City. On 12 August 2008,
arrests; (3) the Investigation Group which would subject those arrested to (including petitioners Echanis and Baylosis37 and Ladlad38) docketed as petitioners Echanis and Baylosis filed their Supplemental Arguments to
questioning; and (4) the Execution Group or the "cleaners" of those Criminal Case No. 06-944 was then pending before the RTC Makati, Branch Motion for Reconsideration.55
confirmed to be military spies and civilians who would not support the 150 (RTC Makati).39 Putting forward the political offense doctrine, petitioner
movement.19 Ocampo argues that common crimes, such as murder in this case, are already In an Order56 dated 27 October 2008, Judge Medina suspended the
absorbed by the crime of rebellion when committed as a necessary means, in proceedings of the case pending the resolution of G.R. No. 176830 by this
From 1985 to 1992, at least 100 people had been abducted, hog-tied, connection with and in furtherance of rebellion.40 Court.
tortured and executed by members of the CPP/NPA/NDF20 pursuant to
Operation VD.21 We required41 the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to comment on the On 18 December 2008, petitioner Ladlad filed with the RTC Manila a Motion
petition and the prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order/ to Quash and/or Dismiss.57
On the basis of the 12 letters and their attachments, Prosecutor Vivero issued writ of preliminary injunction, and set42 the case for oral arguments on 30
a subpoena requiring, among others, petitioners to submit their counter- March 2007. The OSG filed its Comment on 27 March 2007.43 On 23 December 2008, petitioner Echanis filed before us a special civil action
affidavits and those of their witnesses.22 Petitioner Ocampo submitted his for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking the
counter-affidavit.23 Petitioners Echanis24 and Baylosis25 did not file The following were the legal issues discussed by the parties during the oral annulment of the 30 April 2008 Order of Judge Abando and the 27 October
counter-affidavits because they were allegedly not served the copy of the arguments: 2008 Order of Judge Medina.58 The petition, docketed as G.R. No. 185587,
complaint and the attached documents or evidence. Counsel of petitioner prayed for the unconditional and immediate release of petitioner Echanis, as
Ladlad made a formal entry of appearance on 8 December 2006 during the 1. Whether the present petition for certiorari and prohibition is the proper well as the issuance of a temporary restraining order/writ of preliminary
preliminary investigation.26 However, petitioner Ladlad did not file a remedy of petitioner Ocampo; injunction to restrain his further incarceration.59
counter-affidavit because he was allegedly not served a subpoena.27
2. Assuming it is the proper remedy, whether he was denied due process On 5 January 2009, petitioner Baylosis filed before us a special civil action for
In a Resolution28 dated 16 February 2007, Prosecutor Vivero recommended during preliminary investigation and in the issuance of the warrant of arrest; certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court also seeking
the filing of an Information for 15 counts of multiple murder against 54 the annulment of the 30 April 2008 Order of Judge Abando and the 27
named members of the CPP/NPA/NDFP, including petitioners herein, for the 3. Whether the murder charges against him are already included in the October 2008 Order of Judge Medina.60 The petition, docketed as G.R. No.
death of the following: 1) Juanita Aviola, 2) Concepcion Aragon, 3) Gregorio rebellion charge against him in the RTC.44 185636, prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order/ writ of
Eras, 4) Teodoro Recones, Jr., 5) Restituto Ejoc, 6) Rolando Vasquez, 7) Junior preliminary injunction to restrain the implementation of the warrant of
Milyapis, 8) Crispin Dalmacio, 9) Zacarias Casil, 10) Pablo Daniel, 11) Romeo Afterwards, the parties were ordered to submit their memoranda within 10 arrest against petitioner Baylosis.61
Tayabas, 12) Domingo Napoles, 13) Ciriaco Daniel, 14) Crispin Prado, and 15) days.45 On 3 April 2007, the Court ordered the provisional release of
Ereberto Prado.29 petitioner Ocampo under a ₱100,000 cash bond.46 The Court consolidated G.R. Nos. 185587 and 185636 on 12 January 2009.62
Acting on the observation of the Court during the oral arguments that the
Prosecutor Vivero also recommended that Zacarias Piedad, Leonardo Tanaid, single Information filed before the RTC Hilongos, Leyte was defective for On 3 March 2009, the Court ordered the further consolidation of these two
Numeriano Beringuel and Glecerio Roluna be dropped as respondents and charging 15 counts of murder, the prosecution filed a Motion to Admit cases with G.R. No. 176830.63 We required64 the OSG to comment on the
utilized as state witnesses, as their testimonies were vital to the success of Amended Information and New Informations on 11 April 2007.47 In an prayer for petitioner Echanis’s immediate release, to which the OSG did not
the prosecution.30 The Resolution was silent with regard to Veronica Tabara. Order dated 27 July 2007, Judge Abando held in abeyance the resolution interpose any objection on these conditions: that the temporary release shall
thereof and effectively suspended the proceedings during the pendency of only be for the purpose of his attendance and participation in the formal
The Information was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Hilongos, G.R. No. 176830 before this Court.48 peace negotiations between the Government of the Republic of the
Leyte, Branch 18 (RTC Hilongos, Leyte) presided by Judge Ephrem S. Abando Philippines (GRP) and the CPP/NPA/NDFP, set to begin in August 2009; and
(Judge Abando) on 28 February 2007, and docketed as Criminal Case No. H- While the proceedings were suspended, petitioner Echanis was arrested on that his temporary release shall not exceed six (6) months.65 The latter
1581.31 Petitioner Ocampo filed an Ex Parte Motion to Set Case for 28 January 2008 by virtue of the warrant of arrest issued by Judge Abando on condition was later modified, such that his temporary liberty shall continue
Clarificatory Hearing dated 5 March 2007 prior to receiving a copy of the 6 March 2007.49 On 1 February 2008, petitioners Echanis and Baylosis filed for the duration of his actual participation in the peace negotiations.66
Resolution recommending the filing of the Information.32 a Motion for Judicial Reinvestigation/ Determination of Probable Cause with
Prayer to Dismiss the Case Outright and Alternative Prayer to Recall/ On 11 August 2009, the Court ordered the provisional release of petitioner
On 6 March 2007, Judge Abando issued an Order finding probable cause "in Suspend Service of Warrant.50 Echanis under a ₱100,000 cash bond, for the purpose of his participation in
the commission by all mentioned accused of the crime charged."33 He the formal peace negotiations.67
ordered the issuance of warrants of arrest against them with no On 30 April 2008, Judge Abando issued an Order denying the motion.51
recommended bail for their temporary liberty.34 Petitioners Echanis and Baylosis filed a Motion for Reconsideration52 dated Meanwhile, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed its Opposition68 to
30 May 2008, but before being able to rule thereon, Judge Abando issued an petitioner Ladlad’s motion to quash before the RTC Manila. The trial court
On 16 March 2007, petitioner Ocampo filed before us this special civil action Order dated 12 June 2008 transmitting the records of Criminal Case No. H- conducted a hearing on the motion on 13 February 2009.69
for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and 1581 to the Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC Manila.53 The Order was issued
docketed as G.R. No. 176830 seeking the annulment of the 6 March 2007 in compliance with the Resolution dated 23 April 2008 of this Court granting
On 6 May 2009, Judge Medina issued an Order70 denying the motion to opportunity to be heard.89 Thus, one who has been afforded a chance to In this case, the Resolution stated that efforts were undertaken to serve
13
quash. The motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner Ladlad was also present one’s own side of the story cannot claim denial of due process.90 subpoenas on the named respondents at their last known addresses. This is
denied on 27 August 2009.71 sufficient for due process. It was only because a majority of them could no
Petitioners Echanis and Baylosis allege that they did not receive a copy of the longer be found at their last known addresses that they were not served
On 9 November 2009, petitioner Ladlad filed before us a special civil action complaint and the attached documents or evidence.91 Petitioner Ladlad copies of the complaint and the attached documents or evidence.
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking the annulment of claims that he was not served a subpoena due to the false address indicated
the 6 May 2009 and 27 August 2009 Orders of Judge Medina.72 The petition in the 12 undated letters of P C/Insp. Almaden and Army Captain Tiu to Petitioner Ladlad claims that his subpoena was sent to the nonexistent
was docketed as G.R. No. 190005. Prosecutor Vivero.92 Furthermore, even though his counsels filed their address "53 Sct. Rallos St., QC,"102 which had never been his address at any
formal entry of appearance before the Office of the Prosecutor, petitioner time.103 In connection with this claim, we take note of the fact that the
On 11 January 2010, we ordered the consolidation of G.R. No. 190005 with Ladlad was still not sent a subpoena through his counsels’ addresses.93 Thus, subpoena to Fides Lim, petitioner Ladlad’s wife,104 was sent to the same
G.R. Nos. 176830, 185587 and 185636.73 We also required the OSG to file its they were deprived of the right to file counter-affidavits. address, and that she was among those mentioned in the Resolution as
comment thereon. The OSG submitted its Comment74 on 7 May 2010. having timely submitted their counter-affidavits.
Petitioner Ocampo claims that Prosecutor Vivero, in collusion with P C/Insp.
On 27 July 2010, we likewise required the OSG to file its Comment in G.R. Almaden and Army Captain Tiu, surreptitiously inserted the Supplemental Despite supposedly never receiving a subpoena, petitioner Ladlad’s counsel
Nos. 185636 and 185587.75 These Comments were filed by the OSG on 13 Affidavit of Zacarias Piedad in the records of the case without furnishing filed a formal entry of appearance on 8 December 2006.105 Prosecutor
December 201076 and on 21 January 2011,77 respectively. Petitioners petitioner Ocampo a copy.94 The original affidavit of Zacarias Piedad dated Vivero had a reason to believe that petitioner Ladlad had received the
Echanis and Baylosis filed their Consolidated Reply78 on 7 June 2011. 14 September 2006 stated that a meeting presided by petitioner Ocampo was subpoena and accordingly instructed his counsel to prepare his defense.
held in 1984, when the launching of Operation VD was agreed upon.95
On 2 May 2011, petitioner Ladlad filed an Urgent Motion to Fix Bail.79 On 21 Petitioner Ocampo refuted this claim in his Counter-affidavit dated 22 Petitioner Ladlad, through his counsel, had every opportunity to secure
July 2011, petitioner Baylosis filed A Motion to Allow Petitioner to Post December 2006 stating that he was in military custody from October 1976 copies of the complaint after his counsel’s formal entry of appearance and,
Bail.80 The OSG interposed no objection to the grant of a ₱100,000 cash bail until his escape in May 1985.96 Thereafter, the Supplemental Affidavit of thereafter, to participate fully in the preliminary investigation. Instead, he
to them considering that they were consultants of the NDFP negotiating Zacarias Piedad dated 12 January 2007 admitted that he made a mistake in refused to participate.
team, which was then holding negotiations with the GRP peace panel for the his original affidavit, and that the meeting actually took place in June 1985.97
signing of a peace accord.81 Petitioner Ocampo argues that he was denied the opportunity to reply to the We have previously cautioned that "litigants represented by counsel should
Supplemental Affidavit by not being furnished a copy thereof. not expect that all they need to do is sit back, relax and await the outcome of
On 17 January 2012, we granted the motions of petitioners Ladlad and their case."106 Having opted to remain passive during the preliminary
Baylosis and fixed their bail in the amount of ₱100,000, subject to the Petitioner Ocampo also claims that he was denied the right to file a motion investigation, petitioner Ladlad and his counsel cannot now claim a denial of
condition that their temporary release shall be limited to the period of their for reconsideration or to appeal the Resolution of Prosecutor Vivero, because due process, since their failure to file a counter-affidavit was of their own
actual participation in the peace negotiations.82 the latter deliberately delayed the service of the Resolution by 19 days, doing.
effectively denying petitioner Ocampo his right to due process.98
Petitioner Ladlad filed his Reply83 to the OSG Comment on 18 January 2013. Neither do we find any merit in petitioner Ocampo’s allegation of collusion to
As to the claim of petitioners Echanis and Baylosis, we quote the pertinent surreptitiously insert the Supplemental Affidavit of Zacarias Piedad in the
OUR RULING portion of Prosecutor Vivero’s Resolution, which states: records. There was nothing surreptitious about the Supplemental Affidavit
since it clearly alludes to an earlier affidavit and admits the mistake
Petitioners were accorded due process during preliminary investigation In connection with the foregoing and pursuant to the Revised Rules of committed regarding the date of the alleged meeting. The date of the
and in the issuance of the warrants of arrest. Criminal Procedure[,] the respondents were issued and served with execution of the Supplemental Affidavit was also clearly stated. Thus, it was
Subpoena at their last known address for them to submit their counter- clear that it was executed after petitioner Ocampo had submitted his counter-
A. Preliminary Investigation affidavits and that of their witnesses. affidavit. Should the case go to trial, that will provide petitioner Ocampo with
the opportunity to question the execution of Zacarias Piedad’s Supplemental
A preliminary investigation is "not a casual affair."84 It is conducted to Majority of the respondents did not submit their counter-affidavits because Affidavit.
protect the innocent from the embarrassment, expense and anxiety of a they could no longer be found in their last known address, per return of the
public trial.85 While the right to have a preliminary investigation before trial subpoenas. On the other hand, Saturnino Ocampo @ Satur, Fides Lim, Neither can we uphold petitioner Ocampo’s contention that he was denied
is statutory rather than constitutional, it is a substantive right and a Maureen Palejaro and Ruben Manatad submitted their Counter-Affidavits. the right to be heard. For him to claim that he was denied due process by not
component of due process in the administration of criminal justice.86 However, Vicente Ladlad and Jasmin Jerusalem failed to submit the required being furnished a copy of the Supplemental Affidavit of Zacarias Piedad
Counter Affidavits in spite entry of appearance by their respective would imply that the entire case of the prosecution rested on the
In the context of a preliminary investigation, the right to due process of law counsels.99 Supplemental Affidavit. The OSG has asserted that the indictment of
entails the opportunity to be heard.87 It serves to accord an opportunity for petitioner Ocampo was based on the collective affidavits of several other
the presentation of the respondent’s side with regard to the accusation. Section 3(d), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, allows Prosecutor Vivero to witnesses107 attesting to the allegation that he was a member of the
Afterwards, the investigating officer shall decide whether the allegations and resolve the complaint based on the evidence before him if a respondent could CPP/NPA/NDFP Central Committee, which had ordered the launch of
defenses lead to a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed, and not be subpoenaed. As long as efforts to reach a respondent were made, and Operation VD.
that it was the respondent who committed it. Otherwise, the investigating he was given an opportunity to present countervailing evidence, the
officer is bound to dismiss the complaint. preliminary investigation remains valid.100 The rule was put in place in As to his claim that he was denied the right to file a motion for
order to foil underhanded attempts of a respondent to delay the prosecution reconsideration or to appeal the Resolution of Prosecutor Vivero due to the
"The essence of due process is reasonable opportunity to be heard and of offenses.101 19-day delay in the service of the Resolution, it must be pointed out that the
submit evidence in support of one's defense."88 What is proscribed is lack of period for filing a motion for reconsideration or an appeal to the Secretary of
Justice is reckoned from the date of receipt of the resolution of the judges in the issuance of warrants of arrest, this Court stated in Sarigumba v. Any ordinary act assumes a different nature by being absorbed in the crime
14
prosecutor, not from the date of the resolution. This is clear from Section 3 of Sandiganbayan117 as follows: of rebellion.122 Thus, when a killing is committed in furtherance of rebellion,
the 2000 National Prosecution Service Rule on Appeal: the killing is not homicide or murder. Rather, the killing assumes the political
x x x. The trial court's exercise of its judicial discretion should not, as a complexion of rebellion as its mere ingredient and must be prosecuted and
Sec. 3. Period to appeal. – The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days general rule, be interfered with in the absence of grave abuse of discretion. punished as rebellion alone.
from receipt of the resolution, or of the denial of the motion for Indeed, certiorari will not lie to cure errors in the trial court's appreciation of
reconsideration/ reinvestigation if one has been filed within fifteen (15) days the evidence of the parties, the conclusion of facts it reached based on the However, this is not to say that public prosecutors are obliged to consistently
from receipt of the assailed resolution. Only one motion for reconsideration said findings, as well as the conclusions of law. x x x. charge respondents with simple rebellion instead of common crimes. No one
shall be allowed. (Emphasis supplied) disputes the well-entrenched principle in criminal procedure that the
Whether or not there is probable cause for the issuance of warrants for the institution of criminal charges, including whom and what to charge, is
Thus, when petitioner Ocampo received the Resolution of Prosecutor Vivero arrest of the accused is a question of fact based on the allegations in the addressed to the sound discretion of the public prosecutor.123
on 12 March 2007,108 the former had until 27 March 2007 within which to Informations, the Resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor, including other
file either a motion for reconsideration before the latter or an appeal before documents and/or evidence appended to the Information. But when the political offense doctrine is asserted as a defense in the trial
the Secretary of Justice. Instead, petitioner Ocampo chose to file the instant court, it becomes crucial for the court to determine whether the act of killing
petition for certiorari directly before this Court on 16 March 2007. Here, the allegations of petitioners point to factual matters indicated in the was done in furtherance of a political end, and for the political motive of the
affidavits of the complainants and witnesses as bases for the contention that act to be conclusively demonstrated.124
B. Issuance of the Warrants of Arrest there was no probable cause for petitioners’ indictment for multiple murder
or for the issuance of warrants for their arrest. As stated above, the trial Petitioners aver that the records show that the alleged murders were
Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that "no search warrant or judge’s appreciation of the evidence and conclusion of facts based thereon committed in furtherance of the CPP/NPA/NDFP rebellion, and that the
warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined are not interfered with in the absence of grave abuse of discretion. Again, "he political motivation behind the alleged murders can be clearly seen from the
personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the sufficiently complies with the requirement of personal determination if he charge against the alleged top leaders of the CPP/NPA/NDFP as co-
complainant and the witnesses he may produce." reviews the [I]nformation and the documents attached thereto, and on the conspirators.
basis thereof forms a belief that the accused is probably guilty of the crime
Petitioner Ocampo alleges that Judge Abando did not comply with the with which he is being charged."118 We had already ruled that the burden of demonstrating political motivation
requirements of the Constitution in finding the existence of probable cause must be discharged by the defense, since motive is a state of mind which only
for the issuance of warrants of arrest against petitioners.109 Judge Abando’s review of the Information and the supporting documents is the accused knows.125 The proof showing political motivation is adduced
shown by the following portion of the judge’s 6 March 2007 Order: during trial where the accused is assured an opportunity to present evidence
Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest has been defined as supporting his defense. It is not for this Court to determine this factual
"such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and On the evaluation of the Resolution and its Information as submitted and matter in the instant petitions.
prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed by the person filed by the Provincial Prosecution of Leyte Province supported by the
sought to be arrested."110 Although the Constitution provides that probable following documents: Affidavits of Complainants, Sworn Statements of As held in the case of Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Zamboanga Del
cause shall be determined by the judge after an examination under oath or an Witnesses and other pertinent documents issued by the Regional Crime Norte v. CA,126 if during trial, petitioners are able to show that the alleged
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses, we have ruled that a Laboratory Office, PNP, Region VIII and Camp Crame, Quezon City, pictures of murders were indeed committed in furtherance of rebellion, Section 14, Rule
hearing is not necessary for the determination thereof.111 In fact, the judge’s the grave site and skeletal remains, this court has the findings [sic] of 110 of the Rules of Court provides the remedy, to wit:
personal examination of the complainant and the witnesses is not mandatory probable cause in the commission by all mentioned accused of the crime
and indispensable for determining the aptness of issuing a warrant of charged.119 SECTION 14. Amendment or substitution. — A complaint or information may
arrest.112 be amended, in form or in substance, without leave of court, at any time
At bottom, issues involving the finding of probable cause for an indictment before the accused enters his plea. After the plea and during the trial, a
It is enough that the judge personally evaluates the prosecutor’s report and and issuance of a warrant of arrest, as petitioners are doubtless aware, are formal amendment may only be made with leave of court and when it can be
supporting documents showing the existence of probable cause for the primarily questions of fact that are normally not within the purview of a done without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused.
indictment and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or if, on the petition for certiorari,120 such as the petitions filed in the instant
basis of his evaluation, he finds no probable cause, to disregard the consolidated cases. However, any amendment before plea, which downgrades the nature of the
prosecutor's resolution and require the submission of additional affidavits of offense charged in or excludes any accused from the complaint or
witnesses to aid him in determining its existence.113 The political offense doctrine is not a ground to dismiss the charge information, can be made only upon motion by the prosecutor, with notice to
against petitioners prior to a determination by the trial court that the the offended party and with leave of court. The court shall state its reasons in
Petitioners Echanis and Baylosis claim that, had Judge Abando painstakingly murders were committed in furtherance of rebellion. resolving the motion and copies of its order shall be furnished all parties,
examined the records submitted by Prosecutor Vivero, the judge would have especially the offended party. (n)
inevitably dismissed the charge against them.114 Additionally, petitioner Under the political offense doctrine, "common crimes, perpetrated in
Ocampo alleges that Judge Abando did not point out facts and evidence in the furtherance of a political offense, are divested of their character as "common" If it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake has been made in
record that were used as bases for his finding of probable cause to issue a offenses and assume the political complexion of the main crime of which they charging the proper offense, the court shall dismiss the original complaint or
warrant of arrest.115 are mere ingredients, and, consequently, cannot be punished separately from information upon the filing of a new one charging the proper offense in
the principal offense, or complexed with the same, to justify the imposition of accordance with Section 19, Rule 119, provided the accused shall not be
The determination of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest a graver penalty."121 placed in double jeopardy. The court may require the witnesses to give bail
against petitioners is addressed to the sound discretion of Judge Abando as for their appearance at the trial. (Emphasis supplied)
the trial judge.116 Further elucidating on the wide latitude given to trial
Thus, if it is shown that the proper charge against petitioners should have of the government to inform this Court the moment that peace negotiations 4) a Memorandum[8] dated 20 November 1994 from Enrique Montilla III.
15
been simple rebellion, the trial court shall dismiss the murder charges upon are concluded. Said documents were presented in an attempt to show that the respondent
the filing of the Information for simple rebellion, as long as petitioners would was appointed as agent by ISCI and not by Urban Bank or by the petitioners.
not be placed in double jeopardy. WHEREFORE, the instant consolidated petitions are DISMISSED. The RTC of
Manila, Branch 32, is hereby ORDERED to proceed with dispatch with the In view of the introduction of the above-mentioned documents, Atty. Pea filed
Section 7, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, states: hearing of Criminal Case No. 08-262163. Petitioner Saturnino C. Ocampo his Complaint-Affidavit[9] with the Office of the City Prosecutor, Bago
shall remain on temporary liberty under the same bail granted by this Court City.[10] He claimed that said documents were falsified because the alleged
SEC. 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy. — When an accused until the termination of the proceedings before the RTC Manila. Petitioners signatories did not actually affix their signatures, and the signatories were
has been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or Randall B. Echanis, Rafael G. Baylosis and Vicente P. Ladlad shall remain on neither stockholders nor officers and employees of ISCI.[11] Worse,
otherwise terminated without his express consent by a court of competent temporary liberty under the same bail granted by this Court until their actual petitioners introduced said documents as evidence before the RTC knowing
jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge participation as CPP-NDF consultants in the peace negotiations with the that they were falsified.
sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused government are concluded or terminated, or until the termination of the
had pleaded to the charge, the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the proceedings before the RTC Manila, whichever is sooner. In a Resolution[12] dated 24 September 1998, the City Prosecutor found
dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for the offense probable cause for the indictment of petitioners for four (4) counts of the
charged, or for any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for SO ORDERED. crime of Introducing Falsified Documents, penalized by the second paragraph
any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code. The City Prosecutor concluded that
offense charged in the former complaint or information. the documents were falsified because the alleged signatories untruthfully
G.R. No. 143591 May 5, 2010 stated that ISCI was the principal of the respondent; that petitioners knew
Based on the above provision, double jeopardy only applies when: (1) a first that the documents were falsified considering that the signatories were mere
jeopardy attached; (2) it has been validly terminated; and (3) a second TEODORO C. BORLONGAN, JR., CORAZON M. BEJASA, ARTURO E. dummies; and that the documents formed part of the record of Civil Case No.
jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first.127 MANUEL, JR., ERIC L. LEE, P. SIERVO H. DIZON, BENJAMIN DE LEON, 754 where they were used by petitioners as evidence in support of their
DELFIN C. GONZALES, JR., and BEN YU LIM, JR., Petitioners,
motion to dismiss, and then adopted in their answer and in their Pre-Trial
vs.
A first jeopardy attaches only after the accused has been acquitted or MAGDALENO M. PEÑA and HON. MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR., as Judge Brief.[13] Subsequently, the corresponding Informations[14] were filed with
convicted, or the case has been dismissed or otherwise terminated without Designate of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Bago City, Respondents. the MTCC, Bago City. The cases were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 6683,
his express consent, by a competent court in a valid indictment for which the 6684, 6685, and 6686. Thereafter, Judge Primitivo Blanca issued the
accused has entered a valid plea during arraignment.128 PEREZ, J.: warrants[15] for the arrest of the petitioners.
To recall, on 12 May 2006, an Information for the crime of rebellion, as The pivotal issue in this case is whether or not the Court of Appeals, in its On 1 October 1998, petitioners filed an Omnibus Motion to Quash, Recall
defined and penalized under Article 134 in relation to Article 135 of the Decision[1] dated 20 June 2000 in CA-G.R. SP No. 49666, is correct when it Warrants of Arrest and/or For Reinvestigation.[16] Petitioners insisted that
Revised Penal Code, docketed as Criminal Case No. 06-944 was filed before dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by petitioners Teodoro C. they were denied due process because of the non-observance of the proper
the RTC Makati against petitioners and several others.129 Borlongan, Jr., Corazon M. Bejasa, Arturo E. Manuel, Jr., Benjamin de Leon, P. procedure on preliminary investigation prescribed in the Rules of Court.
Siervo H. Dizon, Delfin C. Gonzales, Jr., Eric L. Lee and Ben Yu Lim, Jr., and Specifically, they claimed that they were not afforded the right to submit
However, petitioners were never arraigned in Criminal Case No. 06- ruled that the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Bago City, did not their counter-affidavit. Then they argued that since no such counter-affidavit
944.1awp++i1 Even before the indictment for rebellion was filed before the gravely abuse its discretion in denying the motion for reinvestigation and and supporting documents were submitted by the petitioners, the trial judge
RTC Makati, petitioners Ocampo, Echanis and Ladlad had already filed a recall of the warrants of arrest in Criminal Case Nos. 6683, 6684, 6685, and merely relied on the complaint-affidavit and attachments of the respondent
petition before this Court to seek the nullification of the Orders of the DOJ 6686. in issuing the warrants of arrest, also in contravention with the Rules of
denying their motion for the inhibition of the members of the prosecution Court. Petitioners further prayed that the information be quashed for lack of
panel due to lack of impartiality and independence.130 When the indictment The factual antecedents of the case are as follows: probable cause. Moreover, one of the accused, i.e., Ben Lim, Jr., is not even a
was filed, petitioners Ocampo, Echanis and Ladlad filed supplemental director of Urban Bank, contrary to what complainant stated. Lastly,
petitions to enjoin the prosecution of Criminal Case No. 06-944.131 We Respondent Atty. Magdaleno M. Pea (Atty. Pea) instituted a civil case for petitioners posited that the criminal cases should have been suspended on
eventually ordered the dismissal of the rebellion case. It is clear then that a recovery of agents compensation and expenses, damages, and attorneys the ground that the issue being threshed out in the civil case is a prejudicial
first jeopardy never had a chance to attach. fees[2] against Urban Bank and herein petitioners, before the Regional Trial question.
Court (RTC) of Negros Occidental, Bago City. The case was raffled to Branch
Petitioner Ocampo shall remain on provisional liberty under the ₱100,000 62 and was docketed as Civil Case No. 754. Atty. Pea anchored his claim for In an Order[17] dated 13 November 1998, the MTCC denied the omnibus
cash bond posted before the Office of the Clerk of Court. He shall remain on compensation on the Contract of Agency[3] allegedly entered into with the motion primarily on the ground that preliminary investigation was not
provisional liberty until the termination of the proceedings before the RTC petitioners, wherein the former undertook to perform such acts necessary to available in the instant case which fell within the jurisdiction of the first-level
Manila.1âwphi1 prevent any intruder and squatter from unlawfully occupying Urban Banks court. The court, likewise, upheld the validity of the warrant of arrest, saying
property located along Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City. Petitioners filed a that it was issued in accordance with the Rules of Court. Besides, the court
The OSG has given its conformity to the provisional liberty of petitioners Motion to Dismiss[4] arguing that they never appointed the respondent as added, petitioners could no longer question the validity of the warrant since
Echanis, Baylosis and Ladlad in view of the ongoing peace negotiations. Their agent or counsel. Attached to the motion were the following documents: 1) a they already posted bail. The court also believed that the issue involved in
provisional release from detention under the cash bond of ₱100,000 each Letter[5] dated 19 December 1994 signed by Herman Ponce and Julie Abad the civil case was not a prejudicial question, and, thus, denied the prayer for
shall continue under the condition that their temporary release shall be on behalf of Isabela Sugar Company, Inc. (ISCI), the original owner of the suspension of the criminal proceedings. Lastly, the court was convinced that
limited to the period of their actual participation as CPP-NDF consultants in subject property; 2) an unsigned Letter[6] dated 7 December 1994 addressed the Informations contained all the facts necessary to constitute an offense.
the peace negotiations with the government or until the termination of the to Corazon Bejasa from Marilyn G. Ong; 3) a Letter[7] dated 9 December
proceedings before the RTC Manila, whichever is sooner. It shall be the duty 1994 addressed to Teodoro Borlongan, Jr. and signed by Marilyn G. Ong; and
Petitioners immediately instituted a special civil action for Certiorari and arraignment, despite the petitioners refusal to enter a plea, the court a quo x x x The present defendants were arrested towards the end of January, 1929,
16
Prohibition with Prayer for Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Temporary entered a plea of Not Guilty for them. on the Island and Province of Marinduque by order of the judge of the Court
Restraining Order (TRO) before the Court of Appeals, ascribing grave abuse of First Instance of Lucena, Tayabas, at a time when there were no court
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the The erstwhile ruling of this Court was that posting of bail constitutes a sessions being held in Marinduque. In view of these circumstances and the
MTCC in issuing and not recalling the warrants of arrest, reiterating the waiver of any irregularity in the issuance of a warrant of arrest, that has number of the accused, it may properly be held that the furnishing of the
arguments in their omnibus motion.[18] They, likewise, questioned the already been superseded by Section 26, Rule 114 of the Revised Rule of bond was prompted by the sheer necessity of not remaining in detention, and
courts conclusion that by posting bail, petitioners already waived their right Criminal Procedure. The principle that the accused is precluded from in no way implied their waiver of any right, such as the summary
to assail the validity of the warrants of arrest. questioning the legality of the arrest after arraignment is true only if he examination of the case before their detention. That they had no intention of
voluntarily enters his plea and participates during trial, without previously waiving this right is clear from their motion of January 23, 1929, the same
On 20 June 2000, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. Thus, invoking his objections thereto. day on which they furnished a bond, and the fact that they renewed this
petitioners filed the instant petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of petition on February 23, 1929, praying for the stay of their arrest for lack of
the Rules of Court, raising the following issues: As held in Okabe v. Hon. Gutierrez: the summary examination; the first motion being denied by the court on
January 24, 1929 (G.R. No. 33708, page 8), and the second remaining
A. Where the offense charged in a criminal complaint is not It bears stressing that Section 26, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal undecided, but with an order to have it presented in Boac, Marinduque.
cognizable by the Regional Trial Court and not covered by the Rule on Procedure is a new one, intended to modify previous rulings of this Court
Summary Procedure, is the finding of probable cause required for the filing of that an application for bail or the admission to bail by the accused shall be Therefore, the defendants herein cannot be said to have waived the right
an Information in court? considered as a waiver of his right to assail the warrant issued for his arrest granted to them by section 13, General Order No. 58, as amended by Act No.
on the legalities or irregularities thereon. The new rule has reverted to the 3042.
If the allegations in the complaint-affidavit do not establish probable cause, ruling of this Court in People v. Red. The new rule is curative in nature
should not the investigating prosecutor dismiss the complaint, or at the very because precisely, it was designed to supply defects and curb evils in The rest of the issues raised by the petitioners may be grouped into two,
least, require the respondent to submit his counter-affidavit? procedural rules. Hence, the rules governing curative statutes are applicable. which are: (1) the procedural aspect, i.e., whether the prosecution and the
Curative statutes are by their essence retroactive in application. Besides, court a quo properly observed the required procedure in the instant case,
B. Can a complaint-affidavit containing matters which are not procedural rules as a general rule operate retroactively, even without and, (2) the substantive aspect, which is whether there was probable cause to
within the personal knowledge of the complainant be sufficient basis for the express provisions to that effect, to cases pending at the time of their pursue the criminal cases to trial.
finding of probable cause? effectivity, in other words to actions yet undetermined at the time of their THE PROCEDURAL ASPECT:
effectivity. Before the appellate court rendered its decision on January 31,
C. Where there is offense charged in a criminal complaint is not 2001, the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure was already in effect. It Petitioners contend that they were denied due process as they were unable
cognizable by the Regional Trial Court and not covered by the Rule on behoved the appellate court to have applied the same in resolving the to submit their counter-affidavits and were not accorded the right to a
Summary Procedure, and the record of the preliminary investigation does petitioners petition for certiorari and her motion for partial reconsideration. preliminary investigation. Considering that the complaint of Atty. Pea was
not show the existence of probable cause, should not the judge refuse to issue filed in September 1998, the rule then applicable was the 1985 Rules of
a warrant of arrest and dismiss the criminal case, or at the very least, require Moreover, considering the conduct of the petitioner after posting her Criminal Procedure.
the accused to submit his counter-affidavit in order to aid the judge in personal bail bond, it cannot be argued that she waived her right to question
determining the existence of probable cause? the finding of probable cause and to assail the warrant of arrest issued The provisions of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure relevant to the issue
against her by the respondent judge. There must be clear and convincing are Sections 1, 3(a) and 9(a) of Rule 112, to wit:
D. Can a criminal prosecution be restrained? proof that the petitioner had an actual intention to relinquish her right to
question the existence of probable cause. When the only proof of intention Section 1. Definition. Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding
E. Can this Honorable Court itself determine the existence of rests on what a party does, his act should be so manifestly consistent with, for the purpose of determining whether there is sufficient ground to
probable cause? and indicative of, an intent to voluntarily and unequivocally relinquish the engender a well founded belief that a crime cognizable by the Regional Trial
particular right that no other explanation of his conduct is possible. x x x. Court has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof,
On the other hand, respondent contends that the issues raised by the and should be held for trial.
petitioners had already become moot and academic when the latter posted
bail and were already arraigned. Herein petitioners filed the Omnibus Motion to Quash, Recall Warrants of Sec. 3. Procedure. Except as provided for in Section 7 hereof, no complaint or
On 2 August 2000, this Court issued a TRO enjoining the judge of the MTCC Arrest and/or For Reinvestigation on the same day that they posted bail. information for an offense cognizable by the Regional Trial Court shall be
from proceeding in any manner with Criminal Case Nos. 6683 to 6686, Their bail bonds likewise expressly contained a stipulation that they were filed without a preliminary investigation having been first conducted in the
effective during the entire period that the case is pending before, or until not waiving their right to question the validity of their arrest. On the date of following manner:
further orders of, this Court. their arraignment, petitioners refused to enter their plea due to the fact that
the issue on the legality of their arrest is still pending with the Court. Thus, (a) The complaint shall state the known address of the respondent and be
We will first discuss the issue of mootness. when the court a quo entered a plea of not guilty for them, there was no valid accompanied by affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses as well as
waiver of their right to preclude them from raising the same with the Court of other supporting documents, in such number of copies as there are
The issues raised by the petitioners have not been mooted by the fact that Appeals or this Court. The posting of bail bond was a matter of imperative respondents, plus two (2) copies for the official file. The said affidavits shall
they had posted bail and were already arraigned. necessity to avert their incarceration; it should not be deemed as a waiver of be sworn to before any fiscal, state prosecutor or government official
their right to assail their arrest. The ruling to which we have returned in authorized to administer oath, or, in their absence or unavailability, a notary
It appears from the records that upon the issuance of the warrant of arrest, People v. Red[25] stated: public, who must certify that he personally examined the affiants and that he
petitioners immediately posted bail as they wanted to avoid embarrassment, is satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits.
being then the officers of Urban Bank. On the scheduled date for the
Sec. 9. Cases not falling under the original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial
Isabela Sugar Company 17
Courts nor covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure. COMPLAINT AFFIDAVIT
By:
(a) Where filed with the fiscal. If the complaint is filed directly with the fiscal I, MAGDALENO M. PEA, Filipino, of legal age, with address at Brgy. Ubay,
or state prosecutor, the procedure outlined in Section 3(a) of this Rule shall Pulupandan, Negros Occidental, after having been sworn in accordance with HERMAN PONCE
be observed. The fiscal shall take appropriate action based on the affidavits law hereby depose and state:
and other supporting documents submitted by the complainant. JULIE ABAD
(underscoring supplied) 1. I am the Plaintiff in Civil Case No. 754 pending with the Regional
Trial Court of Bago City entitled Atty. Magdaleno M. Pea v. Urban Bank, et al
The crime to which petitioners were charged was defined and penalized Impleaded therein as defendants of the board of the bank, namely, Teodoro b. Memorandum dated 7 December 1994 supposedly executed by a certain
Marilyn Ong on behalf of ISC, a copy of which is hereto attached as annex F,
under second paragraph of Article 172 in relation to Article 171 of the Borlongan, Delfin Gonzales, Jr., Benjamin De Leon, P. Siervo Dizon, Eric Lee,
which states:
Revised Penal Code. Ben Lim Jr., Corazon Bejasa and Arturo Manuel.(underlining ours)
December 7, 1994
Art. 172. Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents. 2. I filed the said case to collect my fees as agent of Urban Bank,
The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and Inc.(hereinafter referred to as the bank) in ridding a certain parcel of land in To: ATTY. CORA BEJASA
a fine of not more than P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon: Pasay City of squatters and intruders. A certified true copy of the Complaint From: MARILYN G. ONG
in the said case is hereto attached as Annex A.
1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications RE: ISABELA SUGAR CO., INC.
enumerated in the next preceding article in any public or official document or 3. In the Motion to Dismiss dated 12 March 1996 (a certified true
letter of exchange or any other kind of commercial document; and copy of which is attached as Annex B), Answer dated 28 October 1996 Atty. Magdaleno M. Pea, who has been assigned by Isabela Sugar
(Annex C), and Pre-Trial Brief dated 28 January 1997 (Annex D) filed by the Company inc. to take charge of inspecting the tenants would like to
2. Any person who, to the damage of a third party, or with the intent to cause bank and the respondent members of the board, the said respondents used as request an authority similar to this from the Bank to new owners. Can
such damage, shall in any private document commit any of the acts of evidence the following documents: you please issue something like this today as he (unreadable) this.
falsification enumerated in the next preceding article.
a. Letter dated 19 December 1994 supposedly signed by a certain Herman
Any person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in any judicial Ponce and Julie Abad for Isabela Sugar Company (ISC) (a copy of which is b. Letter dated 9 December 1994 supposedly executed by the same
proceeding or to the damage of another or who, with the intent to cause such attached as Annex E), which states: Marilyn Ong, a copy of which is hereto attached as Annex G, which states:
damage, shall use any of the false documents embraced in the next preceding
article or in any of the foregoing subdivisions of this article, shall be punished December 19, 1994 December 9, 1994
by the penalty next lower in degree.
Urban Bank Atty. Ted Borlongan
Urban Avenue, Makati URBAN BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES
Metro Manila MAKATI, METRO MANILA
Prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods translates to
imprisonment of 2 years, 4 months and 1 day.[26] The next lower in degree Gentlemen:
to prision correccional is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision Attention: Mr. Ted Borlongan
correccional in its minimum period which translates to 4 months and 1 day Dear Mr. Borlongan
This has reference to your property located among Roxas Boulevard,
to 2 years and 4 months[27] of imprisonment. Since the crime committed is Pasay City which you purchased from Isabela Sugar Company under a
not covered by the Rules of Summary Procedure,[28] the case falls within the Deed of Absolute Sale executed on December 1, 1994. I would like to request for an authority from Urban Bank per attached
exclusive jurisdiction of the first level courts but applying the ordinary rules. immediately as the tenants are questioning authority of the people who
In line with our warranties as the Seller of the said property and our are helping us to take possession of the property.
In such instance, preliminary investigation as defined in Section 1, Rule 112
undertaking to deliver to you the full and actual possession and control
of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure is not applicable since such section of said property, free from tenants, occupants or squatters and from
covers only crimes cognizable by the RTC. That which is stated in Section any obstruction or impediment to the free use and occupancy of the
9(a) is the applicable rule. Marilyn Ong
property and to prevent the former tenants or occupants from entering
or returning to the premises. In view of the transfer of ownership of the
Under this Rule, while probable cause should first be determined before an property to Urban Bank, it may be necessary for Urban Bank to appoint
information may be filed in court, the prosecutor is not mandated to require Atty. Pea likewise as its authorized representative for purposes of c. Memorandum dated 20 November 1994, copy of which is attached as
holding/maintaining continued possession of the said property and to annex H, which states:
the respondent to submit his counter-affidavits to oppose the complaint. In
represent Urban Bank in any court action that may be instituted for the
the determination of probable cause, the prosecutor may solely rely on the abovementioned purposes.
complaint, affidavits and other supporting documents submitted by the MEMORANDUM
complainant. If he does not find probable cause, the prosecutor may dismiss It is understood that any attorneys fees, cost of litigation and any other To: Atty. Magadaleno M. Pea
outright the complaint or if he finds probable cause or sufficient reason to charges or expenses that may be incurred relative to the exercise by Director
proceed with the case, he shall issue a resolution and file the corresponding Atty. Pea of his abovementioned duties shall be for the account of
Isabela Sugar Company and any loss or damage that may be incurred to From: Enrique C. Montilla III
information.
third parties shall be answerable by Isabela Sugar Company. President
The complaint of respondent, verbatim, is as follows: Very truly yours,
Date: 20 November 1994 10. I am likewise executing this affidavit for whatever legal purpose it may Courts in resolving a motion to quash cannot consider facts contrary to those
18
serve. alleged in the information or which do not appear on the face of the
You are hereby directed to recover and take possession of the property information because said motion is hypothethical admission of the facts
of the corporation situated at Roxas Boulevard covered by TCT No. 5382 FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. alleged in the information x x x. (citations omitted.)
of the Registry of Deeds for Pasay City, immediately upon the expiration
of the contract of lease over the said property on 29 November 1994. Sgd. MAGDALENO M. PEA We cannot accept as mere oversight the mistake of respondent judge since it
For this purpose, you are authorized to engage the services of security was at the expense of liberty. This cannot be condoned.
guards to protect the property against intruders. You may also engage It is evident that in the affidavit-complaint, specifically in paragraph 1,
the services of a lawyer in case there is a need to go to court to protect respondent merely introduced and identified the board of the bank, namely, In the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the mandate of the Constitution is for
the said property of the corporation. In addition, you may take Teodoro Borlongan, Jr., Delfin Gonzales, Jr., Benjamin De Leon, P. Siervo the judge to personally determine the existence of probable cause:
whatever steps or measures are necessary to ensure our continued Dizon, Eric Lee, Ben Lim, Jr., Corazon Bejasa and Arturo Manuel, Sr. However,
possession of the property. in the accusatory portion of the complaint which is paragraph number 9, Mr. Section 2, Article III of the Constitution provides:
Ben Lim, Jr. was not included among those charged with the crime of use of
falsified documents under Article 172, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
ENRIQUE C. MONTILLA III Code. The omission indicates that respondent did not intend to criminally papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever
President implicate Mr. Ben Lim, Jr., even as he was acknowledged to be a member of nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or
the board. And there was no explanation in the Resolution and Information warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
4. The respondent member of the board of the bank used and introduced by the City Prosecutor why Mr. Ben Lim, Jr. was included. Moreover, as can be personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
the aforestated documents as evidence in the civil case knowing that the gleaned from the body of the complaint and the specific averments therein, complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing
same are falsified. They used thae said documents to justify their refusal to Mr. Ben Lim, Jr. was never mentioned. the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
pay my agents fees, to my damage and prejudice.
The City Prosecutor should have cautiously reviewed the complaint to Corollary thereto, Section 9(b) of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure
5. The 19 December 1994 letter (Annex E) is a falsified document, in that determine whether there were inconsistencies which ought to have been provides:
the person who supposedly executed the letter on behalf of ISC, a certain brought to the attention of the respondent or, on his own, considered for due
Herman Ponce and Julie Abad did not actually affix their signatures on the evaluation. It is a big mistake to bring a man to trial for a crime he did not Sec. 9. Cases not falling under the original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial
document. The execution of the letter was merely simulated by making it commit. Courts nor covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure.
appear that Ponce and Abad executed the letter on behalf of ISC when they
did not in fact do so. Prosecutors are endowed with ample powers in order that they may (a) x x x.
properly fulfill their assigned role in the administration of justice. It should
6. No persons by the name of Herman Ponce and Julie Abad were ever be realized, however, that when a man is hailed to court on a criminal charge, (b) Where filed directly with the Municipal Trial Court. If the complaint or
stockholders, officers, employees or representatives of ISC. In the letter, it brings in its wake problems not only for the accused but for his family as information is filed directly with the Municipal Trial Court, the procedure
Herman Ponce was represented to be the President of ISC and Julie Abad, the well. Therefore, it behooves a prosecutor to weigh the evidence carefully and provided for in Section 3(a) of this Rule shall likewise be observed. If the
Corporate Secretary. However, as of 19 December 1994, the real President of to deliberate thereon to determine the existence of a prima facie case before judge finds no sufficient ground to hold the respondent for trial, he shall
plaintiff was Enrique Montilla, III and Cristina Montilla was the Corporate filing the information in court. Anything less would be a dereliction of dismiss the complaint or information. Otherwise, he shall issue a warrant of
Secretary. A copy of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of ISC for the year duty.[29] arrest after personally examining in writing and under oath the complainant
1994, during which Montilla, et al. Were elected is hereto attached as Annex I. and his witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers.
On the otherhand, a list of the stockholders of ISC on or about the time of the Atty. Pea, in his Second Manifestation[30] dated 16 June 1999, averred that
transaction is attached as Annex J. petitioners, including Mr. Ben Lim, Jr., were already estopped from raising Enshrined in our Constitution is the rule that [n]o x x x warrant of arrest shall
the fact that Mr. Ben Lim, Jr. was not a member of the board of directors of issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge
7. The same holds true with respect to the Memorandum dated 7 Urban Bank, as the latter participated and appeared through counsel in Civil after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
December 1994 and athe letter dated 9 December 1994 allegedly written by Case No. 754 without raising any opposition. However, this does not detract witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing x x x the persons x x x
a ceratin Marilyn Ong. Nobody by the said name was ever a stockholder of from the fact that the City Prosecutor, as previously discussed, did not to be seized.[32] Interpreting the words personal determination, we said in
ISC. carefully scrutinize the complaint of Atty. Pea, which did not charge Mr. Ben Soliven v. Makasiar[33] that it does not thereby mean that judges are obliged
Lim, Jr. of any crime. to conduct the personal examination of the complainant and his witnesses
8. Lastly, with respect to the supposed Memorandum issued by Enrique themselves. To require thus would be to unduly laden them with preliminary
Montilla, III his signature thereon was merely forged by respondents. What tainted the procedure further was that the Judge issued a warrant for examinations and investigations of criminal complaints instead of
Enrique Montilla III, did not affix his signature on any such document. the arrest of the petitioners, including, Mr. Ben Lim, Jr. despite the filing of concentrating on hearing and deciding cases filed before them. Rather, what
the Omnibus Motion to Quash, Recall Warrants of Arrest and/or For is emphasized merely is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the
9. I am executing this affidavit for the purpose of charging Teodoro C. Reinvestigation raising among others the issue that Mr. Ben Lim, Jr., was not issuing judge to satisfy himself as to the existence of probable cause. To this
Borlongan, Corazon M. Bejasa and Arturo E. Manuel, Delfin C. Gonzales Jr., even a member of the board of directors. With the filing of the motion, the end, he may: (a) personally evaluate the report and the supporting
Benjamin L. De Leon, P. Siervo H. Dizon and Eric Lee, with the crime of use of judge is put on alert that an innocent person may have been included in the documents submitted by the prosecutor regarding the existence of probable
falsified documents under Artilce 172, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal complaint. In the Order[31] dated 13 November 1998, in denying the motion cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or (b) if on the basis
Code.(underlining ours) to quash, Judge Primitivo Blanca ruled that: thereof he finds no probable cause, disregard the prosecutor's report and
require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in
determining its existence. What he is never allowed to do is to follow blindly
the prosecutor's bare certification as to the existence of probable cause. 2. That the false document is embraced in Article 171 or in any dummies of ISCI and that they are not in fact officers, stockholders or
19
Much more is required by the constitutional provision. Judges have to go over subdivisions Nos. 1 or 2 of Article 172. representatives of the corporation. Again, there is no indication that the
the report, the affidavits, the transcript of stenographic notes if any, and 3. That he introduced said document in evidence in any judicial assertion was based on the personal knowledge of the affiant.
other documents supporting the prosecutor's certification. Although the proceeding.[49]
extent of the judge's personal examination depends on the circumstances of The reason for the requirement that affidavits must be based on personal
each case, to be sure, he cannot just rely on the bare certification alone but The falsity of the document and the defendants knowledge of its falsity are knowledge is to guard against hearsay evidence. A witness, therefore, may
must go beyond it. This is because the warrant of arrest issues not on the essential elements of the offense. The Office of the City Prosecutor filed the not testify as what he merely learned from others either because he was told
strength of the certification standing alone but because of the records which Informations against the petitioners on the basis of the Complaint-Affidavit of or read or heard the same. Such testimony is considered hearsay and may not
sustain it.[34] He should even call for the complainant and the witnesses to respondent Atty. Pea, attached to which were the documents contained in the be received as proof of the truth of what he has learned.[56] Hearsay is not
answer the court's probing questions when the circumstances warrant.[35] Motion to Dismiss filed by the petitioners in Civil Case No. 754. Also included limited to oral testimony or statements; the general rule that excludes
as attachments to the complaint were the Answers, Pre-Trial Brief, the hearsay as evidence applies to written, as well as oral statements.[57]
An arrest without a probable cause is an unreasonable seizure of a person, alleged falsified documents, copy of the regular meetings of ISCI during the
and violates the privacy of persons which ought not to be intruded by the election of the Board of Directors and the list of ISCI Stockholders.[50] Based The requirement of personal knowledge should have been strictly applied
State.[36] on these documents and the complaint-affidavit of Atty. Pea, the City considering that herein petitioners were not given the opportunity to rebut
Prosecutor concluded that probable cause for the prosecution of the charges the complainants allegation through counter-affidavits.
Measured against the constitutional mandate and established rulings, there existed. On the strength of the same documents, the trial court issued the
was here a clear abdication of the judicial function and a clear indication that warrants of arrest. Quite noticeable is the fact that in the letter dated 19 December 1994 of
the judge blindly followed the certification of a city prosecutor as to the Herman Ponce and Julie Abad, neither of the two made the representation
existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest with This Court, however, cannot find these documents sufficient to support the that they were the president or secretary of ISCI. It was only Atty. Pea who
respect to all of the petitioners. The careless inclusion of Mr. Ben Lim, Jr., in existence of probable cause. asserted that the two made such representation. He alleged that Marilyn Ong
the warrant of arrest gives flesh to the bone of contention of petitioners that was never a stockholder of ISCI but he did not present the stock and transfer
the instant case is a matter of persecution rather than prosecution.[37] On Probable cause is such set of facts and circumstances as would lead a book of ISCI. And, there was neither allegation nor proof that Marilyn Ong
this ground, this Court may enjoin the criminal cases against petitioners. As a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that the offense charged in was not connected to ISCI in any other way. Moreover, even if Marilyn Ong
general rule, criminal prosecutions cannot be enjoined. However, there are the Information or any offense included therein has been committed by the was not a stockholder of ISCI, such would not prove that the documents she
recognized exceptions which, as summarized in Brocka v. Enrile,[38] are: person sought to be arrested. In determining probable cause, the average signed were falsified.
man weighs the facts and circumstances without restoring to the calibrations
a. To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused; of the rules of evidence of which he has no technical knowledge. He relies on The Court may not be compelled to pass upon the correctness of the exercise
common sense. A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence of the public prosecutors function without any showing of grave abuse of
b. When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and that it discretion or manifest error in his findings.[58] Considering, however, that
oppression or multiplicity of actions;
was committed by the accused. Probable cause demands more than the prosecution and the court a quo committed manifest errors in their
c. When there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice; suspicion; it requires less than evidence that would justify conviction.[51] findings of probable cause, this Court therefore annuls their findings.
d. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority; As enunciated in Baltazar v. People,[52] the task of the presiding judge when Our pronouncement in Jimenez v. Jimenez[59] as reiterated in Baltazar v.
the Information is filed with the court is first and foremost to determine the People is apropos:
e. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation; existence or non-existence of probable cause for the arrest of the accused.
The purpose of the mandate of the judge to first determine probable cause It is x x x imperative upon the fiscal or the judge as the case may be, to relieve
f. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
for the arrest of the accused is to insulate from the very start those falsely the accused from the pain of going through a trial once it is ascertained that
g. Where the court had no jurisdiction over the offense; charged with crimes from the tribulations, expenses and anxiety of a public the evidence is insufficient to sustain a prima facie case or that no probable
trial.[53] cause exists to form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused. Although
h. Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution; there is no general formula or fixed rule for the determination of probable
We do not see how it can be concluded that the documents mentioned by cause since the same must be decided in the light of the conditions obtaining
i. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for respondent in his complaint-affidavit were falsified. In his complaint, Atty. in given situations and its existence depends to a large degree upon the
vengeance; and Pea stated that Herman Ponce, Julie Abad and Marilyn Ong, the alleged finding or opinion of the judge conducting the examination, such a finding
signatories of the questioned letters, did not actually affix their signatures should not disregard the facts before the judge nor run counter to the clear
j. When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion
to quash on that ground has been denied. therein; and that they were not actually officers or stockholders of ISCI.[54] dictates of reasons. The judge or fiscal, therefore, should not go on with the
He further claimed that Enrique Montillas signature appearing in another prosecution in the hope that some credible evidence might later turn up
THE SUBSTANTIVE ASPECT: memorandum addressed to respondent was forged.[55] These averments are during trial for this would be a flagrant violation of a basic right which the
mere assertions which are insufficient to warrant the filing of the complaint courts are created to uphold. It bears repeating that the judiciary lives up to
Petitioners were charged with violation of par. 2, Article 172 of the Revised or worse the issuance of warrants of arrest. These averments cannot be its mission by visualizing and not denigrating constitutional rights. So it has
Penal Code or Introduction of Falsified Document in a judicial proceeding. considered as proceeding from the personal knowledge of herein respondent been before. It should continue to be so.
The elements of the offense are as follows: who failed to, basically, allege that he was present at the time of the execution On the foregoing discussion, we find that the Court of Appeals erred in
of the documents. Neither was there any mention in the complaint-affidavit affirming the findings of the prosecutor as well as the court a quo as to the
1. That the offender knew that a document was falsified by another that herein respondent was familiar with the signatures of the mentioned existence of probable cause. The criminal complaint against the petitioners
person. signatories to be able to conclude that they were forged. What Atty. Pea should be dismissed.
actually stated were but sweeping assertions that the signatories are mere
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of A Complaint14 for violation of Section 11 (possession of dangerous drugs), administrative liability on their part. That failure does not cast doubt on the
20
Appeals dated 20 June 2000, in CA-G.R. SP No. 49666, is REVERSED and SET Article II of R.A. 9165, was drawn up and referred15 to the city prosecutor identity and integrity of the illegal drugs.24
ASIDE. The Temporary Restraining Order dated 2 August 2000 is hereby for the filing of charges before the court.
made permanent. Accordingly, the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Negros Thus, the CA affirmed the Decision of the RTC with the modification that the
Occidental, Bago City, is hereby DIRECTED to DISMISS Criminal Case Nos. On the other hand, petitioner narrated a different version of the incident. fine imposed was reduced from ₱500,000 to ₱300,000.25 As the motion for
6683, 6684, 6685 and 6686. According to him, on the date and time mentioned, he was at home with his reconsideration26 of petitioner was denied,27 he now comes before us
parents, sister, nephews and a visitor named Cassandra Francisco raising the same issues presented before the CA.
SO ORDERED. (Cassandra) when PO1 Pacis and PO1 Labaclado suddenly barged in.16 The
police officers searched the house, claiming that they were looking for OUR RULING
something.17 When the search proved fruitless, they arrested petitioner and
G.R. No. 188024 June 5, 2013 Cassandra and detained them at the Drug Enforcement Unit in Camarin, We acquit petitioner on the ground of reasonable doubt. We cannot uphold
Caloocan City.18 Cassandra was later released when her uncle allegedly gave the contention of petitioner that his warrantless arrest was illegal. The CA
RODRIGO RONTOS y DELA TORRE, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE money to the police officers.19 correctly ruled that his failure to question the legality of his arrest before
PHILIPPINES, Respondent. entering his plea during arraignment operated as a waiver of that defense. "It
After trial on the merits, the RTC rendered a Decision20 dated 23 August has been ruled time and again that an accused is estopped from assailing any
DECISION 2006, the dispositive portion of which states: irregularity with regard to his arrest if he fails to raise this issue or to move
SERENO, CJ.: for the quashal of the information against him on this ground before his
Wherefore, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding arraignment."28
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court accused RODRIGO RONTOS Y DELA TORRE guilty beyond reasonable doubt
assailing the Decision1 dated 28 October 2008 and Resolution2 dated 29 May of the crime of Violation of Section 11, Article II, RA 9165 and hereby In his arraignment before the trial court, petitioner never raised any issue
2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 30412. The CA Decision sentencing him to suffer imprisonment of TWELVE YEARS AND ONE DAY TO and instead "freely and voluntarily pleaded Not Guilty to the offense
affirmed the Decision3 in Criminal Case No. C-69394 of the Regional Trial THIRTEEN YEARS, NINE MONTHS AND TEN DAYS and to pay a fine of charged."29 Thus, he was estopped from raising the issue of the legality of his
Court of Caloocan City, Branch 123 (RTC) finding petitioner guilty beyond ₱500,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.21 arrest before the trial court, more so on appeal before the CA or this Court.
reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic
Act No. (R.A.) 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act). Through the testimonies of PO1 Pacis, PO1 Labaclado and P/Insp. dela Rosa, However, on the basis of the nonobservance of the rules of procedure for
the RTC ruled that the prosecution was able to establish the concurrence of handling illegal drug items, we resolve to acquit petitioner on the ground of
At 4:00 p.m. on 19 October 2003, PO2 Emil Masi (PO2 Masi) of the Caloocan all the elements of possession of dangerous drugs: (a) an item or object reasonable doubt.
North City Police Station dispatched PO1 Joven Pacis (PO1 Pacis) and PO1 identified to be a dangerous drug was in a person’s possession; (b) the
Greg Labaclado (PO1 Labaclado) of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Task Force possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the person freely and In illegal drugs cases, the identity and integrity of the drugs seized must be
to conduct surveillance in Sampaloc St., Camarin, Caloocan City because of consciously possessed the dangerous drug. The RTC also found no evil established with the same unwavering exactitude as that required to arrive at
reports of illegal drug activity in the said area.4 When they got there around motive on the part of the police officers to testify falsely against petitioner. a finding of guilt.30 The case against the accused hinges on the ability of the
5:00 p.m., PO1 Pacis and PO1 Labaclado noticed petitioner standing about Despite the defenses of denial, frame-up and evidence-planting interposed by prosecution to prove that the illegal drug presented in court is the same one
five meters away from them, apparently preoccupied with scrutinizing two petitioner, the RTC held that his guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. that was recovered from the accused upon his arrest.
plastic sachets in his hand.
On appeal to the CA, petitioner contended that, since his warrantless arrest The procedure set forth in Section 21 of R.A. 9165 is intended precisely to
Upon coming closer, they saw that the plastic sachets appeared to contain a was illegal, the allegedly confiscated items were inadmissible in evidence. He ensure the identity and integrity of dangerous drugs seized.31 This provision
white crystalline substance similar to shabu.5 PO1 Pacis approached further claimed that the police officers failed to faithfully comply with the requires that upon seizure of illegal drug items, the apprehending team
petitioner and confiscated the plastic sachets. Thereafter, he introduced procedure for ensuring the identity and integrity of the plastic sachets having initial custody of the drugs shall (a) conduct a physical inventory of
himself as a police officer and informed petitioner of the offense the latter containing shabu. the drugs and (b) take photographs thereof (c) in the presence of the person
had committed.6 The two police officers informed petitioner of his from whom these items were seized or confiscated and (d) a representative
constitutional rights, while he just remained silent.7 PO1 Pacis marked the The CA ruled22 that the question over the legality of the arrest was deemed from the media and the Department of Justice and any elected public official
plastic sachets with his initials "JCP-1" and JCP-2" and placed them in a waived by petitioner when he voluntarily submitted himself to the (e) who shall all be required to sign the inventory and be given copies
makeshift envelope.8 jurisdiction of the court by entering a plea of "Not Guilty" and participating in thereof.
the trial of the case.23 In any case, the CA explained that while the arrest was
They then brought petitioner to the station and turned him over to PO2 Masi without a warrant, it was with probable cause since petitioner was arrested This Court has emphasized the import of Section 21 as a matter of
together with the plastic sachets.9 PO2 Masi conducted an investigation and in flagrante delicto. He committed a crime in plain view of the police officers, substantive law that mandates strict compliance.32 It was laid down by
prepared a request for a laboratory examination10 of the contents of the as he was spotted in the act of holding and examining plastic sachets Congress as a safety precaution against potential abuses by law enforcement
plastic sachets.11 PO1 Pacis brought the request and the plastic sachets to containing shabu. agents who might fail to appreciate the gravity of the penalties faced by those
the crime laboratory, and forensic chemist Police Inspector Jessie dela Rosa suspected to be involved in the sale, use or possession of illegal drugs.33
(P/Insp. dela Rosa) conducted the examination.12 The tests on the contents While the CA admitted that no photograph or inventory of the confiscated Under the principle that penal laws are strictly construed against the
of the plastic sachets yielded a positive result for methylamphetamine items was taken or made, it entertained no doubt that the dangerous drugs government, stringent compliance therewith is fully justified.34
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug more commonly known as shabu.13 presented in court were the same ones confiscated from petitioner.
Furthermore, the failure of the police officers to observe the proper Here, the procedure was not observed at all. Where it is clear that Section 21
procedure for handling confiscated dangerous drugs may only result in was not observed, as in this case, such noncompliance brings to the fore the
question of whether the illegal drug items were the same ones that were The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is hereby ORDERED to immediately prosecution evidence sufficient to show that he had been lawfully arrested
21
allegedly seized from petitioner. RELEASE petitioner from custody, unless he is detained for some other for a traffic violation and then subjected to a valid search, which led to the
lawful cause. discovery on his person of two plastic sachets later found to contain shabu.
The direct testimony of PO1 Pacis in connection with his identification of the The RTC also found his defense of frame-up and extortion to be weak, self-
envelope where he placed the two plastic sachets allegedly confiscated from serving and unsubstantiated. The dispositive portion of its Decision held:
petitioner does not really inspire confidence, to wit: RODEL LUZ y ONG, Petitioner, - versus - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent. WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, finding accused RODEL LUZ y
Q: What did you do with the plastic sachet that you have confiscated from the ONG GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of violation of Section
accused? G. R. No. 197788 February 29, 2012 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and sentencing him to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and
A: After confiscating them, I marked them and placed them in an envelope in SERENO, J.: (1) day, as minimum, to thirteen (13) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of
order to preserve the evidence, ma‘am. Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱300,000.00).
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 seeking to set aside
Q: I am showing toy [sic] you this white envelope, will you please have a look the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision in CA-G.R. CR No. 32516 dated 18 The subject shabu is hereby confiscated for turn over to the Philippine Drug
at it and tell the Honorable Court if this is the same envelope which contained February 2011[2] and Resolution dated 8 July 2011. Enforcement Agency for its proper disposition and destruction in accordance
the two plastic sachets? with law.
Statement of the Facts and of the Case
A: I am not sure, ma‘am, it is not actually an envelope but an improvised SO ORDERED.[6]
envelope.35 The facts, as found by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which sustained the
version of the prosecution, are as follows: Upon review, the CA affirmed the RTCs Decision.
We cannot, in good conscience, affirm the conviction of petitioner for
possession of illegal drugs if the police officer charged with the preservation PO2 Emmanuel L. Alteza, who was then assigned at the Sub-Station 1 of the On 12 September 2011, petitioner filed under Rule 45 the instant Petition for
of the evidence cannot even be certain in the identification of the envelope Naga City Police Station as a traffic enforcer, substantially testified that on Review on Certiorari dated 1 September 2011. In a Resolution dated 12
that was presented in court. As held in Dolera v. People,36 there also exists in March 10, 2003 at around 3:00 oclock in the morning, he saw the accused, October 2011, this Court required respondent to file a comment on the
the present case a reasonable likelihood of substitution, in that the two who was coming from the direction of Panganiban Drive and going to Petition. On 4 January 2012, the latter filed its Comment dated 3 January
plastic sachets that tested positive for shabu and were presented in court Diversion Road, Naga City, driving a motorcycle without a helmet; that this 2012.
were not the items allegedly seized from petitioner.1âwphi1 This possibility prompted him to flag down the accused for violating a municipal ordinance
of substitution is fatal for the prosecution,37 for there is then a failure to which requires all motorcycle drivers to wear helmet (sic) while driving said Petitioner raised the following grounds in support of his Petition:
prove the identity of the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt.38 motor vehicle; that he invited the accused to come inside their sub-station
since the place where he flagged down the accused is almost in front of the (i) THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF THE ALLEGED SUBJECT SHABU IS
We are not unaware of the rule that justifiable grounds may excuse said sub-station; that while he and SPO1 Rayford Brillante were issuing a INVALID.
noncompliance with the requirements of Section 21 as long as the integrity citation ticket for violation of municipal ordinance, he noticed that the
and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.39 The accused was uneasy and kept on getting something from his jacket; that he (ii) THE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF
problem in this case is that the police officers presented no justifiable reason was alerted and so, he told the accused to take out the contents of the pocket DUTY OF THE POLICE OFFICER CANNOT BE RELIED UPON IN THIS CASE.
why they neglected to observe the proper procedure. Considering that PO1 of his jacket as the latter may have a weapon inside it; that the accused
Pacis himself expressed misgivings on the identity of the envelope shown to obliged and slowly put out the contents of the pocket of his jacket which was (iii) THE INTEGRITY AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE ALLEGED
him in court, with the envelope that he had placed the confiscated illegal drug a nickel-like tin or metal container about two (2) to three (3) inches in size, SUBJECT SPECIMEN HAS BEEN COMPROMISED.
items in, neither can we confirm that the chain of custody had been including two (2) cellphones, one (1) pair of scissors and one (1) Swiss knife;
sufficiently established. that upon seeing the said container, he asked the accused to open it; that (iv) THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-PETITIONER WAS NOT PROVEN
after the accused opened the container, he noticed a cartoon cover and BEYOND THE REASONABLE DOUBT (sic).[7]
Corpus delicti is the "actual commission by someone of the particular crime something beneath it; and that upon his instruction, the accused spilled out
charged."40 In illegal drug cases, it refers to the illegal drug item itself.41 the contents of the container on the table which turned out to be four (4) Petitioner claims that there was no lawful search and seizure, because there
When courts are given reason to entertain reservations about the identity of plastic sachets, the two (2) of which were empty while the other two (2) was no lawful arrest. He claims that the finding that there was a lawful arrest
the illegal drug item allegedly seized from the accused, the actual commission contained suspected shabu.[3] was erroneous, since he was not even issued a citation ticket or charged with
of the crime charged is put into serious question. In those cases, courts have violation of the city ordinance. Even assuming there was a valid arrest, he
no alternative but to acquit on the ground of reasonable doubt. Arraigned on 2 July 2003, petitioner, assisted by counsel, entered a plea of claims that he had never consented to the search conducted upon him.
Not guilty to the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Pretrial was
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 28 October 2008 in CA-G.R. CR No. 30412 of terminated on 24 September 2003, after which, trial ensued. On the other hand, finding that petitioner had been lawfully arrested, the RTC
the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. RODRIGO RONTOS y DELA held thus:
TORRE is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime of Violation of Section 11, Article II During trial, Police Officer 3 (PO3) Emmanuel Alteza and a forensic chemist
of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act) on the testified for the prosecution. On the other hand, petitioner testified for It is beyond dispute that the accused was flagged down and apprehended in
ground of reasonable doubt. himself and raised the defense of planting of evidence and extortion. this case by Police Officers Alteza and Brillante for violation of City Ordinance
No. 98-012, an ordinance requiring the use of crash helmet by motorcycle
In its 19 February 2009 Decision,[4] the RTC convicted petitioner of illegal drivers and riders thereon in the City of Naga and prescribing penalties for
possession of dangerous drugs[5] committed on 10 March 2003. It found the violation thereof. The accused himself admitted that he was not wearing a
helmet at the time when he was flagged down by the said police officers, m. If it concerns traffic violations, immediately issue a Traffic Citation Ticket aura of authority surrounding an armed, uniformed officer and the
22
albeit he had a helmet in his possession. Obviously, there is legal basis on the (TCT) or Traffic Violation Report (TVR). Never indulge in prolonged, knowledge that the officer has some discretion in deciding whether to issue a
part of the apprehending officers to flag down and arrest the accused because unnecessary conversation or argument with the driver or any of the vehicles citation, in combination, exert some pressure on the detainee to respond to
the latter was actually committing a crime in their presence, that is, a occupants; questions. But other aspects of the situation substantially offset these forces.
violation of City Ordinance No. 98-012. In other words, the accused, being Perhaps most importantly, the typical traffic stop is public, at least to some
caught in flagrante delicto violating the said Ordinance, he could therefore be At the time that he was waiting for PO3 Alteza to write his citation ticket, degree. x x x
lawfully stopped or arrested by the apprehending officers. x x x.[8] petitioner could not be said to have been under arrest. There was no
intention on the part of PO3 Alteza to arrest him, deprive him of his liberty, In both of these respects, the usual traffic stop is more analogous to a so-
We find the Petition to be impressed with merit, but not for the particular or take him into custody. Prior to the issuance of the ticket, the period during called Terry stop, see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968), than to a formal
reasons alleged. In criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide which petitioner was at the police station may be characterized merely as arrest. x x x The comparatively nonthreatening character of detentions of this
open for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though waiting time. In fact, as found by the trial court, PO3 Alteza himself testified sort explains the absence of any suggestion in our opinions that Terry stops
unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial courts that the only reason they went to the police sub-station was that petitioner are subject to the dictates of Miranda. The similarly noncoercive aspect of
decision based on grounds other than those that the parties raised as had been flagged down almost in front of that place. Hence, it was only for the ordinary traffic stops prompts us to hold that persons temporarily detained
errors.[9] sake of convenience that they were waiting there. There was no intention to pursuant to such stops are not in custody for the purposes of Miranda.
take petitioner into custody.
First, there was no valid arrest of petitioner. When he was flagged down for xxxxxxxxx
committing a traffic violation, he was not, ipso facto and solely for this In Berkemer v. McCarty,[13] the United States (U.S.) Supreme Court We are confident that the state of affairs projected by respondent will not
reason, arrested. discussed at length whether the roadside questioning of a motorist detained come to pass. It is settled that the safeguards prescribed by Miranda become
pursuant to a routine traffic stop should be considered custodial applicable as soon as a suspects freedom of action is curtailed to a degree
Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he or she may be interrogation. The Court held that, such questioning does not fall under associated with formal arrest. California v. Beheler, 463 U. S. 1121, 1125
bound to answer for the commission of an offense.[10] It is effected by an custodial interrogation, nor can it be considered a formal arrest, by virtue of (1983) (per curiam). If a motorist who has been detained pursuant to a traffic
actual restraint of the person to be arrested or by that persons voluntary the nature of the questioning, the expectations of the motorist and the officer, stop thereafter is subjected to treatment that renders him in custody for
submission to the custody of the one making the arrest. Neither the and the length of time the procedure is conducted. It ruled as follows: practical purposes, he will be entitled to the full panoply of protections
application of actual force, manual touching of the body, or physical restraint, prescribed by Miranda. See Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U. S. 492, 495 (1977)
nor a formal declaration of arrest, is required. It is enough that there be an It must be acknowledged at the outset that a traffic stop significantly curtails (per curiam). (Emphasis supplied.)
intention on the part of one of the parties to arrest the other, and that there the freedom of action of the driver and the passengers, if any, of the detained
be an intent on the part of the other to submit, under the belief and vehicle. Under the law of most States, it is a crime either to ignore a The U.S. Court in Berkemer thus ruled that, since the motorist therein was
impression that submission is necessary.[11] policemans signal to stop ones car or, once having stopped, to drive away only subjected to modest questions while still at the scene of the traffic stop,
without permission. x x x he was not at that moment placed under custody (such that he should have
Under R.A. 4136, or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, the general been apprised of his Miranda rights), and neither can treatment of this sort
procedure for dealing with a traffic violation is not the arrest of the offender, However, we decline to accord talismanic power to the phrase in the Miranda be fairly characterized as the functional equivalent of a formal arrest.
but the confiscation of the drivers license of the latter: opinion emphasized by respondent. Fidelity to the doctrine announced in Similarly, neither can petitioner here be considered under arrest at the time
Miranda requires that it be enforced strictly, but only in those types of that his traffic citation was being made.
SECTION 29. Confiscation of Driver's License. Law enforcement and peace situations in which the concerns that powered the decision are implicated.
officers of other agencies duly deputized by the Director shall, in Thus, we must decide whether a traffic stop exerts upon a detained person It also appears that, according to City Ordinance No. 98-012, which was
apprehending a driver for any violation of this Act or any regulations issued pressures that sufficiently impair his free exercise of his privilege against violated by petitioner, the failure to wear a crash helmet while riding a
pursuant thereto, or of local traffic rules and regulations not contrary to any self-incrimination to require that he be warned of his constitutional rights. motorcycle is penalized by a fine only. Under the Rules of Court, a warrant of
provisions of this Act, confiscate the license of the driver concerned and issue arrest need not be issued if the information or charge was filed for an offense
a receipt prescribed and issued by the Bureau therefor which shall authorize Two features of an ordinary traffic stop mitigate the danger that a person penalized by a fine only. It may be stated as a corollary that neither can a
the driver to operate a motor vehicle for a period not exceeding seventy-two questioned will be induced to speak where he would not otherwise do so warrantless arrest be made for such an offense.
hours from the time and date of issue of said receipt. The period so fixed in freely, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S., at 467. First, detention of a motorist
the receipt shall not be extended, and shall become invalid thereafter. Failure pursuant to a traffic stop is presumptively temporary and brief. The vast This ruling does not imply that there can be no arrest for a traffic violation.
of the driver to settle his case within fifteen days from the date of majority of roadside detentions last only a few minutes. A motorists Certainly, when there is an intent on the part of the police officer to deprive
apprehension will be a ground for the suspension and/or revocation of his expectations, when he sees a policemans light flashing behind him, are that the motorist of liberty, or to take the latter into custody, the former may be
license. he will be obliged to spend a short period of time answering questions and deemed to have arrested the motorist. In this case, however, the officers
waiting while the officer checks his license and registration, that he may then issuance (or intent to issue) a traffic citation ticket negates the possibility of
Similarly, the Philippine National Police (PNP) Operations Manual[12] be given a citation, but that in the end he most likely will be allowed to an arrest for the same violation.
provides the following procedure for flagging down vehicles during the continue on his way. In this respect, questioning incident to an ordinary
conduct of checkpoints: traffic stop is quite different from stationhouse interrogation, which Even if one were to work under the assumption that petitioner was deemed
frequently is prolonged, and in which the detainee often is aware that arrested upon being flagged down for a traffic violation and while awaiting
SECTION 7. Procedure in Flagging Down or Accosting Vehicles While in questioning will continue until he provides his interrogators the answers the issuance of his ticket, then the requirements for a valid arrest were not
Mobile Car. This rule is a general concept and will not apply in hot pursuit they seek. See id., at 451. complied with.
operations. The mobile car crew shall undertake the following, when
applicable: x x x Second, circumstances associated with the typical traffic stop are not such This Court has held that at the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of
that the motorist feels completely at the mercy of the police. To be sure, the the arresting officer to inform the latter of the reason for the arrest and must
show that person the warrant of arrest, if any. Persons shall be informed of police procedures; (6) the defendants belief that no incriminating evidence (1968); conduct a Terry patdown of the passenger compartment of a vehicle
23
their constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel, and that any would be found; (7) the nature of the police questioning; (8) the environment upon reasonable suspicion that an occupant is dangerous and may gain
statement they might make could be used against them.[14] It may also be in which the questioning took place; and (9) the possibly vulnerable immediate control of a weapon, Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032, 1049
noted that in this case, these constitutional requirements were complied with subjective state of the person consenting. It is the State that has the burden of (1983); and even conduct a full search of the passenger compartment,
by the police officers only after petitioner had been arrested for illegal proving, by clear and positive testimony, that the necessary consent was including any containers therein, pursuant to a custodial arrest, New York v.
possession of dangerous drugs. obtained, and was freely and voluntarily given.[19] In this case, all that was Belton, 453 U. S. 454, 460 (1981).
alleged was that petitioner was alone at the police station at three in the
In Berkemer, the U.S. Court also noted that the Miranda warnings must also morning, accompanied by several police officers. These circumstances weigh Nor has Iowa shown the second justification for the authority to search
be given to a person apprehended due to a traffic violation: heavily against a finding of valid consent to a warrantless search. incident to arrestthe need to discover and preserve evidence. Once Knowles
was stopped for speeding and issued a citation, all the evidence necessary to
The purposes of the safeguards prescribed by Miranda are to ensure that the Neither does the search qualify under the stop and frisk rule. While the rule prosecute that offense had been obtained. No further evidence of excessive
police do not coerce or trick captive suspects into confessing, to relieve the normally applies when a police officer observes suspicious or unusual speed was going to be found either on the person of the offender or in the
inherently compelling pressures generated by the custodial setting itself, conduct, which may lead him to believe that a criminal act may be afoot, the passenger compartment of the car. (Emphasis supplied.)
which work to undermine the individuals will to resist, and as much as stop and frisk is merely a limited protective search of outer clothing for
possible to free courts from the task of scrutinizing individual cases to try to weapons. The foregoing considered, petitioner must be acquitted. While he may have
determine, after the fact, whether particular confessions were voluntary. failed to object to the illegality of his arrest at the earliest opportunity, a
Those purposes are implicated as much by in-custody questioning of persons In Knowles v. Iowa,[21] the U.S. Supreme Court held that when a police waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not, however, mean a waiver of
suspected of misdemeanors as they are by questioning of persons suspected officer stops a person for speeding and correspondingly issues a citation the inadmissibility of evidence seized during the illegal warrantless arrest.
of felonies. instead of arresting the latter, this procedure does not authorize the officer to
conduct a full search of the car. The Court therein held that there was no The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their
If it were true that petitioner was already deemed arrested when he was justification for a full-blown search when the officer does not arrest the persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and
flagged down for a traffic violation and while he waiting for his ticket, then motorist. Instead, police officers may only conduct minimal intrusions, such seizures.[23] Any evidence obtained in violation of said right shall be
there would have been no need for him to be arrested for a second timeafter as ordering the motorist to alight from the car or doing a patdown: inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. While the power to search
the police officers allegedly discovered the drugsas he was already in their In Robinson, supra, we noted the two historical rationales for the search and seize may at times be necessary to the public welfare, still it must be
custody. incident to arrest exception: (1) the need to disarm the suspect in order to exercised and the law implemented without contravening the constitutional
take him into custody, and (2) the need to preserve evidence for later use at rights of citizens, for the enforcement of no statute is of sufficient importance
Second, there being no valid arrest, the warrantless search that resulted from trial. x x x But neither of these underlying rationales for the search incident to to justify indifference to the basic principles of government.
it was likewise illegal. arrest exception is sufficient to justify the search in the present case.
The subject items seized during the illegal arrest are inadmissible.[25] The
The following are the instances when a warrantless search is allowed: (i) a We have recognized that the first rationaleofficer safetyis both legitimate and drugs are the very corpus delicti of the crime of illegal possession of
warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest; (ii) search of evidence in weighty, x x x The threat to officer safety from issuing a traffic citation, dangerous drugs. Thus, their inadmissibility precludes conviction and calls
plain view; (iii) search of a moving vehicle; (iv) consented warrantless however, is a good deal less than in the case of a custodial arrest. In for the acquittal of the accused.
search; (v) customs search; (vi) a stop and frisk search; and (vii) exigent and Robinson, we stated that a custodial arrest involves danger to an officer
emergency circumstances.[15] None of the above-mentioned instances, because of the extended exposure which follows the taking of a suspect into WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The 18 February 2011 Decision of
especially a search incident to a lawful arrest, are applicable to this case. custody and transporting him to the police station. 414 U. S., at 234-235. We the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 32516 affirming the judgment of
It must be noted that the evidence seized, although alleged to be recognized that [t]he danger to the police officer flows from the fact of the conviction dated 19 February 2009 of the Regional Trial Court, 5th Judicial
inadvertently discovered, was not in plain view. It was actually concealed arrest, and its attendant proximity, stress, and uncertainty, and not from the Region, Naga City, Branch 21, in Criminal Case No. RTC 2003-0087, is hereby
inside a metal container inside petitioners pocket. Clearly, the evidence was grounds for arrest. Id., at 234, n. 5. A routine traffic stop, on the other hand, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Rodel Luz y Ong is hereby ACQUITTED
not immediately apparent. a relatively brief encounter and is more analogous to a so-called Terry stop . . and ordered immediately released from detention, unless his continued
. than to a formal arrest. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U. S. 420, 439 (1984). See confinement is warranted by some other cause or ground.
Neither was there a consented warrantless search. Consent to a search is not also Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U. S. 291, 296 (1973) (Where there is no formal SO ORDERED.
to be lightly inferred, but shown by clear and convincing evidence.[17] It arrest . . . a person might well be less hostile to the police and less likely to
must be voluntary in order to validate an otherwise illegal search; that is, the take conspicuous, immediate steps to destroy incriminating evidence).
consent must be unequivocal, specific, intelligently given and G.R. No. 200304 January 15, 2014
uncontaminated by any duress or coercion. While the prosecution claims that This is not to say that the concern for officer safety is absent in the case of a
petitioner acceded to the instruction of PO3 Alteza, this alleged accession routine traffic stop. It plainly is not. See Mimms, supra, at 110; Wilson, supra, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DONALD VASQUEZ
does not suffice to prove valid and intelligent consent. In fact, the RTC found at 413-414. But while the concern for officer safety in this context may justify y SANDIGAN @ "DON," Accused-Appellant,
that petitioner was merely told to take out the contents of his pocket.[18] the minimal additional intrusion of ordering a driver and passengers out of
Whether consent to the search was in fact voluntary is a question of fact to be the car, it does not by itself justify the often considerably greater intrusion DECISION
determined from the totality of all the circumstances. Relevant to this attending a full fieldtype search. Even without the search authority Iowa LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
determination are the following characteristics of the person giving consent urges, officers have other, independent bases to search for weapons and
and the environment in which consent is given: (1) the age of the defendant; protect themselves from danger. For example, they may order out of a vehicle The case before this Court is an appeal from the Decision1 dated May 31,
(2) whether the defendant was in a public or a secluded location; (3) whether both the driver, Mimms, supra, at 111, and any passengers, Wilson, supra, at 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04201. Said decision
the defendant objected to the search or passively looked on; (4) the 414; perform a patdown of a driver and any passengers upon reasonable affirmed with modification the Joint Decision2 dated August 6 2009 of the
education and intelligence of the defendant; (5) the presence of coercive suspicion that they may be armed and dangerous, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 41, in Criminal Case Nos. 98-
164174 and 98-164175, which convicted the appellant Donald Vasquez y P/Insp. Fajardo testified that in the morning of April 1, 1998, a confidential to stop them from doing so. P/Insp. Fajardo took custody of the shabu. When
24
Sandigan of the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of regulated drugs informant went to their office and reported that a certain Donald Vasquez she asked alias Don if the latter had authority to possess or sell shabu, he
under Sections 15 and 16 Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, was engaged in illegal drug activity. This alias Don supposedly claimed that replied in the negative. P/Insp. Fajardo put her initials "JSF" on the genuine
otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. he was an employee of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). According ₱500.00 bills below the name of Benigno Aquino. After the arrest of the two
to the informant, alias Don promised him a good commission if he (the suspects, the buy-bust team brought them to the police station. The suspects’
Criminal Case No. 98-164174 stemmed from a charge of violation of Section informant) would present a potential buyer of drugs. P/Insp. Fajardo relayed rights were read to them and they were subsequently booked.20
15 Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended,3 which was allegedly the information to Police Superintendent (P/Supt.) Pepito Domantay, the
committed as follows: commanding officer of their office. P/Insp. Fajardo was then instructed to P/Insp. Fajardo said that she found out that alias Don was in fact the
form a team and conduct a possible buy-bust against alias Don. She formed a appellant Donald Vasquez. She learned of his name when he brought out his
That on or about April 3, 1998 in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said team on the same day, which consisted of herself, PO2 Trambulo, PO1 NBI ID while he was being booked. P/Insp. Fajardo also learned that the
accused not having been authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, Agravante, PO1 Pedrosa, PO1 Sisteno, and PO1 De la Rosa. P/Insp. Fajardo name of the appellant’s companion was Reynaldo Siscar, who was also
transport or distribute any regulated drug, did then and there [willfully], was the team leader. With the help of the informant, she was able to set up a arrested and brought to the police station. P/Insp. Fajardo explained that
unlawfully and knowingly sell or offer for sale, dispense, deliver, transport or meeting with alias Don. The meeting was to be held at around 9:00 p.m. on after she gave the buy-bust money to the appellant, the latter handed the
distribute 45.46 grams, 44.27 grams, 45.34 grams, 51.45 grams, 41.32 grams that day at Cindy’s Restaurant located in Welcome Rotonda. She was only same to Siscar who was present the entire time the sale was being
and 20.14 grams or with a total weight of TWO HUNDRED FORTY-SEVEN supposed to meet alias Don that night but she decided to bring the team consummated. Upon receiving the buy-bust money placed inside a green
POINT NINETY-EIGHT (247.98) grams contained in six (6) transparent along for security reasons.17 plastic bag, Siscar looked at the contents thereof and uttered "okey na to."
plastic sachets of white crystalline substance known as "Shabu" containing P/Insp. Fajardo marked the drug specimen and brought the same to the
methamphetamine hydrochloride, which is a regulated drug.4 At about 9:00 p.m. on even date, P/Insp. Fajardo and her team went to the Crime Laboratory. She was accompanied there by PO2 Trambulo and PO1
meeting place with the informant. The members of her team positioned Agravante. She handed over the drug specimen to PO1 Agravante who then
Criminal Case No. 98-164175, on the other hand, arose from an alleged themselves strategically inside the restaurant. The informant introduced turned it over to P/Insp. Taduran, the forensic chemist on duty. The police
violation of Section 16, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended,5 P/Insp. Fajardo to alias Don as the buyer of shabu. She asked alias Don if he officers previously weighed the drug specimen. Thereafter, the personnel at
which was said to be committed in this manner: was indeed an employee of the NBI and he replied in the affirmative. They the crime laboratory weighed the specimen again. P/Insp. Fajardo and her
agreed to close the deal wherein she would buy 250 grams of shabu for team waited for the results of the laboratory examination.21
That on or about April 3, 1998 in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said ₱250,000.00. They also agreed to meet the following day at Cindy’s
accused without being authorized by law to possess or use any regulated Restaurant around 10:00 to 11:00 p.m.18 P/Insp. Fajardo further testified that the six plastic bags of shabu seized
drug, did then and there [willfully], unlawfully and knowingly have in his during the buy-bust operation were actually contained in a self-sealing
possession and under his custody and control 1.61 grams, 0.58 grams, 0.29 In the evening of April 2, 1998, P/Insp. Fajardo and her team went back to plastic envelope placed inside a brown envelope. When the brown envelope
grams, 0.09 [grams], 0.10 grams, 0.17 grams, 0.21 grams, 0.24 grams, 0.12 Cindy’s Restaurant. Alias Don was already waiting for her outside the was confiscated from the appellant, she put her initials "JSF" therein and
grams, 0.06 grams, 0.04 grams, [0].51 grams or all with a total weight of four establishment when she arrived. He asked for the money and she replied that signed it. She noticed that there were markings on the envelope that read
point zero three grams of white crystalline substance contained in twelve she had the money with her. She brought five genuine ₱500.00 bills, which "DD-93-1303 re Antonio Roxas y Sunga" but she did not bother to check out
(12) transparent plastic sachets known as "SHABU" containing were inserted on top of five bundles of play money to make it appear that she what they were for or who made them. When she interrogated the appellant
methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug, without the had ₱250,000.00 with her. After she showed the money to alias Don, he about the brown envelope, she found out that the same was submitted as
corresponding license or prescription thereof.6 suggested that they go to a more secure place. They agreed for the sale to evidence to the NBI Crime Laboratory. She also learned that the appellant
take place at around 1:30 to 2:00 a.m. on April 3, 1998 in front of alias Don’s worked as a Laboratory Aide at the NBI Crime Laboratory. She identified in
Initially, Criminal Case No. 98-164175 was raffled to the RTC of Manila, apartment at 765 Valdez St., Sampaloc, Manila. The team proceeded to the court the six plastic sachets of drugs that her team recovered, which sachets
Branch 23. Upon motion7 of the appellant, however, said case was allowed to Western Police District (WPD) Station along U.N. Avenue for coordination. she also initialed and signed. P/Insp. Fajardo also stated that after the
be consolidated with Criminal Case No. 98-164174 in the RTC of Manila, Afterwards, the team held their final briefing before they proceeded to the appellant was arrested, PO2 Trambulo conducted a body search on the two
Branch 41.8 On arraignment, the appellant pleaded not guilty to both target area. They agreed that the pre-arranged signal was for P/Insp. Fajardo suspects. The search yielded 12 more plastic sachets of drugs from the
charges.9 The pre-trial conference of the cases was held on July 27, 1998, but to scratch her hair, which would signify that the deal had been consummated appellant. The 12 sachets were varied in sizes and were contained in a white
the same was terminated without the parties entering into any stipulation of and the rest of the team would rush up to the scene. The team then travelled envelope. P/Insp. Fajardo placed her initials and signature on the envelope.
facts.10 to the address given by alias Don.19 As to the 12 sachets, the same were initialed by P/Insp. Fajardo and signed
by PO2 Trambulo.22
During the trial of the cases, the prosecution presented the testimonies of the When the team arrived at the target area around 1:15 a.m. on April 3, 1998,
following witnesses: (1) Police Inspector (P/Insp.) Jean Fajardo,11 (2) the two vehicles they used were parked along the corner of the street. P/Insp. The testimony of PO2 Trambulo corroborated that of P/Insp. Fajardo’s. PO2
P/Insp. Marilyn Dequito,12 and (3) Police Officer (PO) 2 Christian Fajardo and the informant walked towards the apartment of alias Don and Trambulo testified that in the morning of April 1, 1998, a confidential
Trambulo.13 Thereafter, the defense presented in court the testimonies of: stood in front of the apartment gate. Around 1:45 a.m., alias Don came out of informant reported to them about the illegal drug activities of alias Don.
(1) the appellant Donald Vasquez y Sandigan,14 (2) Angelina Arejado,15 and the apartment with a male companion. Alias Don demanded to see the P/Supt. Domantay then tasked P/Insp. Fajardo to form a buy-bust team.
(3) Anatolia Caredo.16 money, but P/Insp. Fajardo told him that she wanted to see the drugs first. P/Insp. Fajardo was able to set up a meeting with alias Don at Cindy’s
Alias Don gave her the big brown envelope he was carrying and she checked Restaurant in Welcome Rotonda, Quezon City. At that meeting, PO2 Trambulo
The Prosecution’s Case the contents thereof. Inside she found a plastic sachet, about 10x8 inches in saw P/Insp. Fajardo talk to alias Don. P/Insp. Fajardo later told the members
size, which contained white crystalline substance. After checking the of the team that she convinced alias Don that she was a good buyer of shabu
The prosecution’s version of the events was primarily drawn from the contents of the envelope, she assumed that the same was indeed shabu. She and the latter demanded a second meeting to see the money. After the initial
testimonies of P/Insp. Fajardo and PO2 Trambulo. then gave the buy-bust money to alias Don and scratched her hair to signal meeting, P/Insp. Fajardo briefed P/Supt. Domantay about what happened.
the rest of the team to rush to the scene. P/Insp. Fajardo identified herself as PO2 Trambulo stated that on April 2, 1998, P/Insp. Fajardo was furnished
a narcotics agent. The two suspects tried to flee but PO2 Trambulo was able with five genuine ₱500.00 bills together with the boodle play money. P/Insp.
Fajardo placed her initials in the genuine bills below the name "Benigno substances were positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.26 She also to his work as a laboratory aide. The drugs came from two (2) cases and
25
Aquino, Jr." Afterwards, the team left the office. When they arrived at Cindy’s examined the contents of 12 heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets that also marked as DD-93-1303 owned by Antonio Roxas, and DD-96-5392 owned by
Restaurant past 10:00 p.m., alias Don was waiting outside. P/Insp. Fajardo contained crystalline substances. The 12 plastic sachets were marked "B-1" SPO4 Emiliano Anonas. The drug specimen contained in the envelope marked
showed the boodle money to alias Don and after some time, they parted to "B-12." The white crystalline powder inside the 12 plastic sachets also as DD-93-1303 was intended for presentation on 3 April 1998. Aside from
ways. P/Insp. Fajardo later told the team that alias Don decided that the drug tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. P/Insp. Dequito’s the drug specimens, the policemen also took his jewelry, a VHS player, and
deal would take place in front of alias Don’s rented apartment on Valdez St., findings were contained in Physical Science Report No. RD-17-98.27 his wallet containing ₱2,530.00.
Sampaloc, Manila. After an hour, the team went to Valdez St. to familiarize
themselves with the area. They then proceeded to the WPD station to The prosecution, thereafter, adduced the following object and documentary Angelina Arejado, Donald’s neighbor, witnessed the policemen entering the
coordinate their operation. Thereafter, P/Insp. Fajardo conducted a final evidence: (1) photocopies of the five original ₱500.00 bills28 used as buy- apartment and apprehending Donald and Reynaldo from the apartment
briefing wherein PO2 Trambulo was designated as the immediate back-up bust money (Exhibits A-E); (2) Request for Laboratory Examination29 dated terrace.40 (Citations omitted.)
arresting officer. The agreed pre-arranged signal was for P/Insp. Fajardo to April 3, 1998 (Exhibit F); (3) Initial Laboratory Report30 dated April 3, 1998,
scratch her hair to indicate the consummation of the deal. PO2 Trambulo was stating that the specimen submitted for examination tested positive for The defense then offered the following evidence: (1) NBI Disposition Form41
to signal the same to the other members of the team.23 methylamphetamine hydrochloride (Exhibit G); (4) Court Order31 dated dated April 3, 1998 (Exhibit 1); (2) Sworn Statement of Idabel Bernabe
September 2, 1998 (Exhibit H); (5) Physical Sciences Report No. D-1071- Pagulayan42 (Exhibit 2); (3) Photocopy of the buy-bust money43 (Exhibit 3);
The buy-bust team went to the target area at around 1:30 to 2:00 a.m. on 9832 dated April 3, 1998 (Exhibit I); (6) Drug specimens A-1 to A-6 (Exhibits (4) List of Hearings44 attended by Donald Vasquez (Exhibit 4); (5)
April 3, 1998. P/Insp. Fajardo and the informant walked towards the J-O); (7) Big brown envelope (Exhibit P); (8) Small white envelope (Exhibit Authorization Letter45 prepared by Acting Deputy Director Arturo A.
direction of alias Don’s apartment, while PO2 Trambulo positioned himself Q); (9) Drug specimens B-1 to B-12 (Exhibits R-CC); (10) Physical Sciences Figueras dated March 27, 1998 (Exhibit 5); and (6) List of Evidence46 taken
near a parked jeepney about 15 to 20 meters from the apartment gate. The Report No. RD-17-9833 (Exhibit DD); (11) Joint Affidavit of Arrest34 (Exhibit by Donald Vasquez from 1996-1998 (Exhibit 6).
rest of the team parked their vehicles at the street perpendicular to Valdez St. EE); (12) Play money (Exhibit FF); (13) Booking Sheet and Arrest Report35
Later, alias Don went out of the gate with another person. PO2 Trambulo saw (Exhibit GG); (14) Request for Medical Examination36 (Exhibit HH); (15) The Decision of the RTC
alias Don gesturing to P/Insp. Fajardo as if asking for something but P/Insp. Medico Legal Slip37 of Donald Vasquez (Exhibit II); and (16) Medico Legal
Fajardo gestured that she wanted to see something first. Alias Don handed Slip38 of Reynaldo Siscar (Exhibit JJ). On August 6, 2009, the RTC convicted the appellant of the crimes charged.
P/Insp. Fajardo a big brown envelope, which the latter opened. P/Insp. The RTC gave more credence to the prosecution’s evidence given that the
Fajardo then handed to alias Don a green plastic bag containing the buy-bust The Defense’s Case presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty on the part of
money and gave the pre-arranged signal. When PO2 Trambulo saw this, he the police officers was not overcome. The trial court held that the appellant
immediately summoned the rest of the team and rushed to the suspects. He As expected, the defense belied the prosecution’s version of events. The did not present any evidence that would show that the police officers in this
was able to recover the buy-bust money from alias Don’s male companion. appellant’s brief39 before the Court of Appeals provides a concise summary case were impelled by an evil motive to charge him of very serious crimes
Upon frisking alias Don, PO2 Trambulo retrieved 12 pieces of plastic sachets of the defense’s counter-statement of facts. According to the defense: and falsely testify against him. Also, the trial court noted that the volume of
of suspected drugs. The same were placed inside a white envelope that was the shabu involved in this case was considerable, i.e., 247.98 grams and 4.03
tucked inside alias Don’s waist. PO2 Trambulo marked each of the 12 sachets Donald Vasquez was a regular employee of the NBI, working as a Laboratory grams for illegal sale and illegal possession, respectively. To the mind of the
with his initials "CVT" and the date. The police officers then informed the Aide II at the NBI Forensics Chemistry Division. His duties at the time trial court, such fact helped to dispel the possibility that the drug specimens
suspects of their rights and they proceeded to the police headquarters in Fort included being a subpoena clerk, receiving chemistry cases as well as seized were merely planted by the police officers. Furthermore, the RTC
Bonifacio.24 requests from different police agencies to have their specimens examined by ruled that the positive testimonies of the police officers regarding the illegal
the chemist. He also rendered day and night duties, and during regular office drug peddling activities of the appellant prevailed over the latter’s bare
As regards the brown envelope that alias Don handed to P/Insp. Fajardo, the hours and in the absence of the laboratory technician, he would weigh the denials.
latter retained possession thereof. The envelope contained six pieces of specimens. As subpoena clerk, he would receive subpoenas from the trial
plastic bags of white crystalline substance. When they got back to their office, courts. When there is no chemist, he would get a Special Order to testify, or Assuming for the sake of argument that the appellant was merely framed up
the team reported the progress of their operation to P/Supt. Domantay. The bring the drug specimens, to the courts. by the police, the trial court pointed out that:
arrested suspects were booked and the required documentations were
prepared. Among such documents was the Request for Laboratory On 1 April 1998, Donald Vasquez took his examination in Managerial [T]he accused should have reported the said incident to the proper
Examination of the drug specimens seized. PO2 Trambulo said that he was Statistics between 6:00 to 9:00 o’clock p.m. Thereafter, he took a jeepney and authorities, or asked help from his Acting Chief [Idabel] Pagulayan from the
the one who brought the said request to the PNP Crime Laboratory, along alighted at Stop and Shop at Quiapo. From there, he took a tricycle to his NBI to testify and identify in Court the xerox copy of the Disposition Form
with the drug specimens.25 house, arriving at 9:45 o’clock that evening, where he saw Reynaldo Siscar which she issued to the accused and the Affidavit dated April 17, 1998 (xerox
and Sonny San Diego, the latter a confidential informant of the narcotics copy) executed by her or from Mr. Arturo A. Figueras, Acting Deputy Director,
P/Insp. Marilyn Dequito, the forensic chemist, testified on the results of her agents. Technical Services of the NBI to testify and identify the Letter issued by the
examination of the drug specimens seized in this case. She explained that said Acting Deputy Director in order to corroborate and strengthen his
P/Insp. Macario Taduran, Jr. initially examined the drug specimens but the On 3 April 1998, at 1:45 o’clock in the morning, Donald’s household help, testimony that he was indeed authorized to keep in his custody the said
latter was already assigned to another office. The results of the examination Anatolia Caredo, who had just arrived from Antipolo that time, was eating shabu to be presented or turned over to the Court as evidence, and he should
of P/Insp. Taduran were laid down in Physical Science Report No. D-1071-98. while Donald was asleep. She heard a knock on the door. Reynaldo Siscar have filed the proper charges against those police officers who were
P/Insp. Dequito first studied the data contained in Physical Science Report opened the door and thereafter two (2) men entered, poking guns at responsible for such act. But the accused did not even bother to do the same.
No. D-1071-98 and retrieved the same from their office. She entered that fact Reynaldo. They were followed by three (3) others. The door to Donald’s room Further, the pieces of evidence (Disposition Form, Affidavit of [Idabel]
in their logbook RD-17-98. She then weighed the drug specimens and was kicked down and they entered his room. Donald, hearing noise, woke up Pagulayan and Letter dated March 27, 1998 issued by Acting Deputy
examined the white crystalline substance from each of the plastic sachets. to see P./Insp. Fajardo pointing a gun at him. He saw that there were six (6) Director) presented by the accused in Court could not be given weight and
She examined first the specimens marked as "A-1," "A-2," "A-3," "A-4," "A-5" policemen searching his room, picking up what they could get. One of them credence considering that the said persons were not presented in Court to
and "A-6." P/Insp. Dequito’s examination revealed that the white crystalline opened a cabinet and got drug specimens in [Donald’s] possession in relation
identify the said documents and that the prosecution has no opportunity to possess the illegal drugs seized from him.51 He argues that the police officers identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by
26
cross-examine the same, thus, it has no probative value.47 did not have a search warrant or a warrant of arrest at the time he was law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.58
arrested. This occurred despite the fact that the police officers allegedly had
The trial court, thus, decreed: ample time to secure a warrant of arrest against him. Inasmuch as his arrest In the case at bar, the testimonies of P/Insp. Fajardo and PO2 Trambulo
was illegal, the appellant avers that the evidence obtained as a result thereof established that a buy-bust operation was legitimately carried out in the wee
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows: was inadmissible in court. As the corpus delicti of the crime was rendered hours of April 3, 1998 to entrap the appellant. P/Insp. Fajardo, the poseur-
inadmissible, the appellant posits that his guilt was not proven beyond buyer, positively identified the appellant as the one who sold to her six
1. In Crim. Case No. 98-164174, finding accused, DONALD VASQUEZ y reasonable doubt. Appellant further insists that he was able to prove that he plastic bags of shabu that were contained in a big brown envelope for the
SANDIGAN @ "DON" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation was authorized to keep the drug specimens in his custody, given that he was price of ₱250,000.00. She likewise identified the six plastic bags of shabu,
of Sec. 15, Art. III in Relation to Sec. an employee of the NBI Forensic Chemistry Laboratory who was tasked with which contained the markings she placed thereon after the same were seized
the duty to bring drug specimens in court. from the appellant. When subjected to laboratory examination, the white
2 (e), (f), (m), (o), Art. I of R.A. No. 6425 and hereby sentences him to suffer crystalline powder contained in the plastic bags tested positive for shabu. We
the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of ₱5,000,000.00; and 2. In Crim. After an assiduous review of the evidence adduced by both parties to this find that P/Insp. Fajardo’s testimony on the events that transpired during the
Case No. 98-164175, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused, case, we resolve to deny this appeal. conduct of the buy-bust operation was detailed and straightforward. She was
DONALD VASQUEZ y SANDIGAN @ "DON" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of also consistent and unwavering in her narration even in the face of the
the crime of Violation of Sec. 16, Art. III in Relation to Sec. 2 (e-2) Art. I of R.A. At the outset, the Court rules that the appellant can no longer assail the opposing counsel’s cross-examination.
6425 as Amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 179 and hereby sentences him validity of his arrest. We reiterated in People v. Tampis52 that "[a]ny
to suffer the penalty of SIX (6) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY to FOUR (4) YEARS objection, defect or irregularity attending an arrest must be made before the Apart from her description of the events that led to the exchange of the drug
and a fine of FOUR THOUSAND (₱4,000.00) PESOS. accused enters his plea on arraignment. Having failed to move for the specimens seized and the buy-bust money, P/Insp. Fajardo further testified
quashing of the information against them before their arraignment, as to the recovery from the appellant of another 12 pieces of plastic sachets
The subject shabu (247.98 grams and 4.03 grams, respectively) are hereby appellants are now estopped from questioning the legality of their arrest. of shabu. After the latter was arrested, P/Insp. Fajardo stated that PO2
forfeited in favor of the government and the Branch Clerk of Court is hereby Any irregularity was cured upon their voluntary submission to the trial Trambulo conducted a body search on the appellant. This search resulted to
directed to deliver and/or cause the delivery of the said shabu to the court’s jurisdiction."53 Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that the the confiscation of 12 more plastic sachets, the contents of which also tested
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), upon the finality of this appellant was caught in flagrante delicto of selling illegal drugs to an positive for shabu. The testimony of P/Insp. Fajardo was amply corroborated
Decision.48 undercover police officer in a buy-bust operation. His arrest, thus, falls within by PO2 Trambulo, whose own account dovetailed the former’s narration of
the ambit of Section 5(a), Rule 11354 of the Revised Rules on Criminal events. Both police officers also identified in court the twelve plastic sachets
The Judgment of the Court of Appeals Procedure when an arrest made without warrant is deemed lawful. Having of shabu that were confiscated from the appellant.
established the validity of the warrantless arrest in this case, the Court holds
On appeal,49 the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of the appellant. that the warrantless seizure of the illegal drugs from the appellant is likewise In People v. Ting Uy,59 the Court explains that "credence shall be given to the
The appellate court ruled that the prosecution sufficiently proved the valid. We held in People v. Cabugatan55 that: narration of the incident by prosecution witnesses especially so when they
elements of the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu. The are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a
testimony of P/Insp. Fajardo on the conduct of the buy-bust operation was This interdiction against warrantless searches and seizures, however, is not regular manner, unless there be evidence to the contrary." In the instant case,
found to be clear and categorical. As the appellant failed to adduce any absolute and such warrantless searches and seizures have long been deemed the appellant failed to ascribe, much less satisfactorily prove, any improper
evidence that tended to prove any ill motive on the part of the police officers permissible by jurisprudence in instances of (1) search of moving vehicles, motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses as to why they would falsely
to falsely charge the appellant, the Court of Appeals held that the (2) seizure in plain view, (3) customs searches, (4) waiver or consented incriminate him. The appellant himself even testified that, not only did he not
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties on the part of searches, (5) stop and frisk situations (Terry search), and search incidental to have any misunderstanding with P/Insp. Fajardo and PO2 Trambulo prior to
the police officers had not been controverted in this case. a lawful arrest. The last includes a valid warrantless arrest, for, while as a his arrest, he in fact did not know them at all.60 In the absence of evidence of
rule, an arrest is considered legitimate [if] effected with a valid warrant of such ill motive, none is presumed to exist.61
The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals decision stated: arrest, the Rules of Court recognize permissible warrantless arrest, to wit: (1)
arrest in flagrante delicto, (2) arrest effected in hot pursuit, and (3) arrest of The records of this case are also silent as to any measures undertaken by the
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The escaped prisoners. (Citation omitted.) appellant to criminally or administratively charge the police officers herein
August 6, 2009 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 41 of the City of for falsely framing him up for selling and possessing illegal drugs. Such a
Manila in Criminal Cases No. 98-164174-75, finding appellant Donald Thus, the appellant cannot seek exculpation by invoking belatedly the move would not have been a daunting task for the appellant under the
Vasquez y Sandigan guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crimes of invalidity of his arrest and the subsequent search upon his person. circumstances. Being a regular employee of the NBI, the appellant could have
Violation of Section 15 and Section 16, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425 is easily sought the help of his immediate supervisors and/or the chief of his
AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that in Criminal Case No. 98-164175, We now rule on the substantive matters. office to extricate him from his predicament. Instead, what the appellant
appellant is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six offered in evidence were mere photocopies of documents that supposedly
months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two years, four months and one To secure a conviction for the crime of illegal sale of regulated or prohibited showed that he was authorized to keep drug specimens in his custody. That
day of prision correccional in its medium period, as maximum.50 drugs, the following elements should be satisfactorily proven: (1) the identity the original documents and the testimonies of the signatories thereof were
of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery not at all presented in court did nothing to help the appellant’s case. To the
The Ruling of the Court of the thing sold and the payment therefor.56 As held in People v. Chua Tan mind of the Court, the evidence offered by the appellant failed to persuade
Lee,57 in a prosecution of illegal sale of drugs, "what is material is proof that amid the positive and categorical testimonies of the arresting officers that the
The appellant appealed his case to this Court to once again impugn his the accused peddled illicit drugs, coupled with the presentation in court of appellant was caught red-handed selling and possessing a considerable
conviction on two grounds: (1) the purported illegality of the search and the the corpus delicti." On the other hand, the elements of illegal possession of amount of prohibited drugs on the night of the buy-bust operation.
ensuing arrest done by the police officers and (2) his supposed authority to drugs are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is
It is apropos to reiterate here that where there is no showing that the trial 8. In the case of other dangerous drugs, the quantity of which is far beyond
27
court overlooked or misinterpreted some material facts or that it gravely therapeutic requirements, as determined and promulgated by the Dangerous Incidentally, the Court notes that both parties in this case admitted that the
abused its discretion, the Court will not disturb the trial court’s assessment of Drugs Board, after public consultations/hearings conducted for the purpose. appellant was a regular employee of the NBI Forensics Chemistry Division.
the facts and the credibility of the witnesses since the RTC was in a better Such fact, however, cannot be taken into consideration to increase the
position to assess and weigh the evidence presented during trial. Settled too Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties in this case to the maximum, in accordance with Section 24 of
is the rule that the factual findings of the appellate court sustaining those of penalty shall range from prision correccional to reclusion perpetua Republic Act No. 6425, as amended.66 Such a special aggravating
the trial court are binding on this Court, unless there is a clear showing that depending upon the quantity. (Emphases supplied.) circumstance, i.e., one that which arises under special conditions to increase
such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable the penalty for the offense to its maximum period,67 was not alleged and
error.62 In Criminal Case No. 98-164174 involving the crime of illegal sale of charged in the informations. Thus, the same was properly disregarded by the
regulated drugs, the appellant was found to have sold to the poseur-buyer in lower courts.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Court is convinced that the prosecution was this case a total of 247.98 grams of shabu, which amount is more than the
able to establish the guilt of the appellant of the crimes charged. minimum of 200 grams required by the law for the imposition of either All told, the Court finds no reason to overturn the conviction of the appellant.
reclusion perpetua or, if there be aggravating circumstances, the death
The Penalties penalty. WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals Decision dated May 31, 2011 in CA-G.R.
CR.-H.C. No. 04201 is AFFIRMED. No costs.
Anent the proper imposable penalties, Section 15 and Section 16, Article III, Pertinently, Article 6363 of the Revised Penal Code mandates that when the
in relation to Section 20(3) of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties and there are
Act No. 7659, state: neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the G.R. No. 208170, August 20, 2014
crime, the lesser penalty shall be applied.1âwphi1 Thus, in this case,
SEC. 15. Sale, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Transportation and considering that no mitigating or aggravating circumstances attended the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PETRUS YAU
Distribution of Regulated Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death appellant’s violation of Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as A.K.A. “JOHN” AND “RICKY” AND SUSANA YAU Y SUMOGBA A.K.A.
and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos amended, the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the trial court’s imposition “SUSAN”, Accused-Appellants.
shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, of reclusion perpetua. The ₱5,000,000.00 fine imposed by the RTC on the
dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug. appellant is also in accord with Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. DECISION
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of this Act to the contrary, if the 6425, as amended. MENDOZA, J.:
victim of the offense is a minor, or should a regulated drug involved in any
offense under this Section be the proximate cause of the death of a victim As to the charge of illegal possession of regulated drugs in Criminal Case No. This is an appeal from the September 7, 2012 Decision1 of the Court of
thereof, the maximum penalty herein provided shall be imposed. SEC. 16. 98-164175, the Court of Appeals properly invoked our ruling in People v. Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03446, which affirmed the December 14,
Possession or Use of Regulated Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to Tira64 in determining the proper imposable penalty. Indeed, we held in Tira 2007 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 214, Mandaluyong City
death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million that: (RTC), in Criminal Case No. MC-04-7923.
pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall possess or use any
regulated drug without the corresponding license or prescription, subject to Under Section 16, Article III of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, the imposable The RTC found accused-appellant Petrus Yau (Petrus) guilty beyond
the provisions of Section 20 hereof. penalty of possession of a regulated drug, less than 200 grams, in this case, reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of kidnapping for ransom and
shabu, is prision correccional to reclusion perpetua. Based on the quantity of serious illegal detention, as defined and penalized in Article 267 of the
SEC. 20. Application of Penalties, Confiscation and Forfeiture of the Proceeds the regulated drug subject of the offense, the imposable penalty shall be as Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, (R.A. No.
or Instruments of the Crime. - The penalties for offenses under Sections 3, 4, follows: 7659), and convicted accused-appellant Susana Yau y Sumogba (Susana) as
7, 8 and 9 of Article II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15 and 16 of Article III of this Act an accomplice to the commission of the same crime.
shall be applied if the dangerous drugs involved is in any of the following QUANTITY IMPOSABLE PENALTY
quantities: Less than one (1) gram to 49.25 grams prision correccional The Facts
49.26 grams to 98.50 grams prision mayor
1. 40 grams or more of opium; 98.51 grams to 147.75 grams reclusion temporal Petrus and Susana were charged with the crime of Kidnapping For Ransom in
147.76 grams to 199 grams reclusion perpetua the Information,3 dated February 13, 2004, the accusatory portion of which
2. 40 grams or more of morphine; (Emphases ours.) reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
3. 200 grams or more of shabu or methylamphetamine hydrochloride; Given that the additional 12 plastic sachets of shabu found in the possession That on or about January 20, 2004, at around 2:00 P.M. in the vicinity of
of the appellant amounted to 4.03 grams, the imposable penalty for the crime Shoemart Mega Mall, Mandaluyong City, the above-named accused,
4. 40 grams or more of heroin; is prision correccional. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, there conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with the use of a
being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance in this case, the imposable sleeping substance, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
5. 750 grams or more of Indian hemp or marijuana; penalty on the appellant should be the indeterminate sentence of six months kidnap and take away ALASTAIR JOSEPH ONGLINGSWAM in the following
of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four years and two months of prision manner, to wit: while said ALASTAIR JOSEPH ONGLINGSWAM was on board
6. 50 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil; correccional, as maximum. The penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals, a white Toyota taxi cab with plate number PVD-115 being driven by the
thus, falls within the range of the proper imposable penalty. In Criminal Case above-named accused Petrus Yau a.k.a. “John” and “Ricky” and the taxi cab
7. 40 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrocholoride; or No. 98-164175, no fine is imposable considering that in Republic Act No. was travelling along Epifanio Delos Santos (EDSA) Avenue, he suddenly fell
6425, as amended, a fine can be imposed as a conjunctive penalty only if the unconscious and upon regaining consciousness he was already handcuffed
penalty is reclusion perpetua to death.65 and in chains inside a house located at B23, L2, Ponsettia St., Camilla Sorrento
Homes, Panapaan IV, Bacoor, Cavite, where he was kept for twenty two (22) complainant’s brother Aaron Onglingswam made eight (8) deposits to Ong Accused Petrus Yau denied having committed the crime. He averred that the
28
days, which house is owned by accused Susana Yau y Sumogba and while Kwai Ping’s account in Metro Bank, amounting to Two Hundred Thousand supposed kidnap victim coordinated with the police to set up the subject case
therein he was maltreated; that ransom in the amount of SIX HUNDRED Pesos (Php200,000.00), to ensure his brother’s safety and eventual release. against him and his family. He is a British national. He had been in the
THOUSAND DOLLARS (US$600,000.00) and TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS Philippines for many times since he was 14 years old. He came to the country
(Php20,000.00) for each day of detention was demanded in exchange for his During private complainant’s twenty-two (22) days of captivity, while he was in July 2001 for a vacation and had not left since then. On September 2001, he
safe release until he was finally rescued on February 11, 2004, by PACER allowed to communicate with his family almost daily to prove that he was got married to Susana Yau. Prior thereto, he was in Singapore running some
operatives of the Philippine National Police. still alive and was served with meals almost five times a day either by John or businesses.
CONTRARY TO LAW.chanrobleslaw the other accused Susan Yau, he was also maltreated i.e. beaten with sticks,
made to lay-down biting a piece of wood which was made as target for a rifle. On January 20, 2004, at around 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon (the date and
Version of the Prosecution time the victim was kidnapped), Petrus Yau was at home sleeping.
On February 10, 2004, the PACER received information that a taxi with plate
In the Appellee’s Brief,4 the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) presented number PVD 115 plying along Bacoor was victimizing passengers. Upon On February 11, 2004 (the date the victim was allegedly rescued) at around
the following narration of the kidnapping: instructions of P/Supt. Isagani Nerez, members of the Police Anti-Crime and 8:30 – 9:00 o’clock in the morning, he went to his wife Susana in her shop
Emergency Response Task Force (PACER) were ordered to proceed to and got money to be deposited to the Asia Trust Bank. He parked his car
On January 20, 2004, at around 1:30 in the afternoon, private complainant Bacoor, Cavite to look for Toyota Corolla White Taxicab with Plate No. PVD outside the bank. After he alighted from his car, three (3) men bigger than
Alastair Onglingswam, who is a practicing lawyer and businessman from the 115. him held his hands: one (1) of them held his neck. They pushed him inside
United States, went out of Makati Shangrila Hotel, where he was billeted, and their van. They tied his hands with packing tape, covered his eyes with the
hailed a white Toyota taxi cab with plate number PVD-115 to take him from On February 11, 2004, at around 4:00 o’clock in the morning, the PACER same tape, and his head with a plastic bag. They kicked and beat him until he
the said hotel to Virra Mall Shopping Center in San Juan, Metro Manila. While group proceeded to Bacoor and positioned themselves along Aguinaldo became unconscious.
the said taxicab was plying along EDSA, and within the vicinity of SM Highway under the overpass fronting SM Bacoor. Not having caught sight of
Megamall, private complainant received a phone call from his associate Kelly the taxi, after three hours, the group moved to a different location along the When he regained consciousness, he was inside an air-conditioned room. His
Wei in Hong Kong. He noted that while he was on the phone conversing with Aguinaldo Highway where they were able to chance upon the said vehicle. hands were handcuffed and he felt very cold because his body was wet. His
his associate, appellant Petrus Yau, whom he noted to have short black hair, a Thus, they followed it, then flagged it down and approached the driver. The head was still being covered. He shouted asking where he was. People came
moustache and gold framed eyeglasses, would from time to time turn to him driver was asked to scroll down his window and was told that the vehicle in and he heard them talking in Tagalog. They kicked him for about twenty
and talk as if he was also being spoken to. Thereafter, he felt groggy and was being used to victimize foreign nationals. Appellant did not offer to make (20) seconds. Later, he was made to sit, as he was lying on the floor. He said
decided to hang-up his phone. He no longer knew what transpired except any comment. Hence, this prompted the officers to ask for his name and since that he could not see anything, thus, someone removed the cover of his head.
that when he woke up lying down, his head was already covered with a he answered that he was Petrus Yau, a British national, they asked him for his They accused him of being a kidnapper, to which he replied that he was not.
plastic bag and he was handcuffed and chained. driver’s license and car registration but appellant was not able to produce He pleaded to them to allow him to make a call to the British Embassy, his
any. Since he could not produce any driver’s license and car registration, they friends and his wife, but to no avail.
When private complainant complained that the handcuffs were too tight, a were supposed to bring him to the police station for investigation, however,
man who was wearing a red mask and introduced himself as “John” when shown a picture of private complainant and asked if he knew him, he When he was taken into custody, he had his wedding ring, watch and a waist
approached him and removed the plastic bag from his head and loosened his answered that the man is being kept in his house. He was immediately bag containing his British passport, alien certificate, driver’s license, Asia
handcuff. John informed him that he was being kidnapped for ransom and informed that he was being placed under arrest for kidnapping private Trust bankbook in the name of Susana Yau, ATM Cards (in his name) of
that he will be allowed to make phone calls to his family and friends. Hours complainant Alastair Onglingswam after being informed of his constitutional Metrobank, PCI Equitable Bank and Banco de Oro, VISA Card, and some cash
later, John returned with telephony equipment, tape recorder, phone and a rights. Thereafter, appellant’s cellphones, a QTEK Palmtop and Sony Erickson given to him by his wife . He lost those personal properties.
special antennae cap for the cellphone. With these equipment, private were confiscated. Upon instructions of P/Supt. Nerez, [appellant] was
complainant was allowed to call his girlfriend and father and asked them for brought to the parking lot of SM City Bacoor for a possible rescue operations After four (4) to five (5) hours, he was transferred to another room without a
the PIN of his ATM cards and for money, however, with instructions not to of the victim. window. The following day, he was brought to and detained at the PACER
inform them that he was kidnapped. A day after, he was told by his captor to Custodial Center.
call his girlfriend and father to tell them that he was still alive as well as to Appellant led the team to his house and after opening the gate of his
reveal to them that he was kidnapped for ransom and his kidnappers were residence, he was led back to the police car. The rest of the members of Petrus Yau can speak English but he is better in the Chinese language, both
demanding Six Hundred Thousand Dollars (US$600,000.00) as ransom and PACER proceeded inside the house and found a man sitting on the floor Mandarin and Cantonese. He bought the taxi he was driving in August 2003
Twenty Thousand Pesos (Php20,000.00) a day as room and board fee. chained and handcuffed. The man later identified himself as Alastair for Eighty Five Thousand Pesos (Php85,000.00) for personal use and/or for
Onglingswam. resale. It had a defective engine (usually overheats), without an aircon and
The private complainant’s family, girlfriend (Iris Chau) and friends received a cannot travel for long journey. He does not drive a taxi to earn a living. He
text message purportedly from the former informing them that he was During the trial of the case, private complainant positively identified Petrus had police friends who told him that he cannot drive a taxi as an occupation
kidnapped and ransom for his liberty was demanded. Yau as his captor and the taxi driver. Test conducted by the United States since his driver’s license is non-professional.
Federal Bureau of Investigation reveals that the DNA found in the mask used
On January 21, 2004, the family of the victim informed the United States by private complainant’s captor matched that of appellant Petrus Yau.5 Sometime on June 2003, he and his wife Susana had a heated argument over
Embassy in Manila about the situation and a meeting with the his womanizing. Hence, she decided to live separately from him (though she
representatives of the Philippine National Police was arranged. Version of the Defense was pregnant at that time) and moved to another house (Block 5, Lot 4, Tulip
Street, Andrea Village, Bacoor, Cavite). Sometimes, she would visit him.
Subsequently, Chau received an email from the purported kidnapper Petrus and Susana denied the accusation, and stated the following in their
demanding US$2,000.00. Chau then wired US$1,000.00, upon instructions, to Brief6 to substantiate their claim of innocence: Petrus claimed that his house does not have a basement, contrary to the
Ong Kwai Ping thru Metro Bank and Trust Company. Likewise, private victim’s testimony that he was placed in the basement. He was not in his
house when the police officers allegedly rescued the kidnapped victim. He With respect to Susana, the RTC wrote that she was positively identified by THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THERE WAS
POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT AS THE ALLEGED 29
left his house in good condition in the morning before his arrest. The white Alastair as the Filipino woman who fed him or accompanied Petrus in
Toyota Corolla taxi he was driving had markings of faded grey, not black, as bringing him food during his 22 days of captivity and, for said reason, should KIDNAPPER.
claimed by Alastair. be held liable as an accomplice.
III
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
During the inquest proceedings, Petrus Yau was not assisted by a counsel and The RTC rejected the twin defenses of alibi and frame-up submitted by Petrus GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED.
was not informed of his constitutional rights. and Susana because the same were unsubstantiated by clear and convincing
evidence. The dispositive portion of the said decision Susana insisted that the trial court erred: 1] in not giving credence to her
Susana Sumogba Yau denied the accusation that she was in the company of states:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary claim that she was living separately with her husband, Petrus Yau; 2] in not
the kidnapper every time the latter served Alastair’s food (lunch and dinner). considering that she was not mentioned in the sworn statement executed by
She is legally married to Petrus Yau. They have two (2) children named WHEREFORE, this court renders judgment finding the accused Petrus Yau Alastair, dated February 12, 2004, even when said victim was asked if there
Charlie and Vivian. On February 11, 2004, she lived at Block 5, Lot 4, Tulips GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT as principal of the crime of was another person assisting Petrus in the perpetration of the crime; 3] in
Street, Andrea Village, Bacoor, Cavite, while Petrus Yau lived at Block 23, Lot kidnapping for ransom and serious illegal detention and pursuant to not considering the Resolution of the Department of Justice, dated February
2, Ponsettia Street, Sorrento Town Homes, Bacoor, Cavite, with his girlfriend. Republic Act No. 9346, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the prison term of 13, 2004, finding probable cause against her because she is the registered
Susana and Petrus were separated since June 2003. RECLUSION PERPETUA. The court also finds the accused Susana Yau GUILTY owner of the house where Alastair was held captive and not because she
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT as accomplice to the commission of the crime served food on the victim; and 4] in convicting her as an
On February 11, 2004, she called him to pick up the amount of Php7,000.00 of kidnapping for ransom and serious illegal detention and applying to her accomplice.11cralawred
(earnings of her sari-sari store) and to deposit it in her account at Asia Trust the benefit of the Indeterminate Sentence Law wherein her minimum penalty
Bank. She would request Petrus to do such errand for her as she does not shall be taken from the penalty next lower in degree of the imposable penalty On September 11, 2013, the Court issued a resolution12 notifying the parties
trust her househelp. Petrus came to her at around 7:00 o’clock in the of RECLUSION TEMPORAL which is prision mayor, she is hereby therefore that they could file their respective supplemental briefs if they so desire. The
morning. At around 11:00 o’clock a.m. of the same day, four (4) to five (5) sentenced to suffer the prison term of EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of People of the Philippines, represented by the OSG, opted not to file any
policemen arrived at her residence and told her to come with them to the PRISION MAYOR MINIMUM AS MINIMUM to TWELVE (12) YEARS and TEN supplemental brief, maintaining its positions and arguments in its brief
hospital where Petrus was brought because he met a vehicular accident along (10) MONTHS of RECLUSION TEMPORAL MINIMUM AS MAXIMUM. Accused earlier filed in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03446.13 Petrus filed his Supplemental
Aguinaldo Highway. are credited in full of the preventive imprisonment they have already served Brief14 on December 27, 2013 in amplification of his arguments raised in his
in confinement. brief filed before the CA.
Susana, together with her children and helpers, went with them, and rode in
their van. They, however, were not brought to the hospital but to an office. Further, both accused are sentenced to pay, jointly and severally, the victim The Court’s Ruling
Thereat, Susana saw her husband (almost dead) inside a small room with a ALASTAIR JOSEPH ONGLINGSWAM actual damages of Two Hundred Seventy
one-way mirror. She was not able to talk to him. She, together with her Three Thousand and One Hundred Thirty Two Pesos (P273, 132.00) plus The appeal is bereft of merit.
children and helpers, were detained for three (3) days inside a small room. interest from the filing of the information until full payment, moral damages
After three (3) days, her children and helpers were released and they went of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00), and exemplary damages of Two Encapsulated, the issues herein focus on: (a) the credibility of the
home. At that time, she was not provided with the assistance of a counsel. Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00). prosecution witnesses; (b) the sufficiency of the prosecution evidence to
prove the commission of kidnapping for ransom and the identity of the
Susana stated that her husband’s name is Petrus Yau. He is not known either SO ORDERED. culprits thereof; and (c) the degree of responsibility of each accused-
as John or Ong Kwai Ping. He is engaged in the business of buying cars for appellant for the crime of kidnapping for ransom.
resale. They owned three (3) houses and lots, all registered in her name. At Unfazed, Petrus and Susana appealed the RTC judgment of conviction before
the time she was taken into custody by the police, she had with her Five the CA. Worth reiterating on the issue of the credibility of the witnesses is the ruling
Thousand Pesos cash, Allied Bank passbook and ATM Cards (Allied Bank and of the Court in People v. Maxion15 that:
Asia Trust Bank), VISA card, passport, wedding ring, necklace and cellphone, The Ruling of the CA
which were taken away by persons whom she does not know.7 The issue raised by accused-appellant involves the credibility of witness,
The CA affirmed the conviction of Petrus and Susana. 9 The appellate court which is best addressed by the trial court, it being in a better position to
The Ruling of the RTC likewise lent credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, who decide such question, having heard the witness and observed his demeanor,
were able to establish with certitude the commission of the crime and the conduct, and attitude under grueling examination. These are the most
In its judgment, dated December 14, 2007, the RTC convicted Petrus Yau, as identities of the culprits thereof. significant factors in evaluating the sincerity of witnesses and in unearthing
principal, of the crime of kidnapping for ransom and serious illegal detention, the truth, especially in the face of conflicting testimonies. Through its
and Susana Yau, as an accomplice to the commission thereof. The RTC found Hence, this appeal. observations during the entire proceedings, the trial court can be expected to
the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses credible and sufficient, with determine, with reasonable discretion, whose testimony to accept and which
their versions of the incident dovetailing with each other even on minor ASSIGNED ERRORS: witness to believe. Verily, findings of the trial court on such matters will not
details. It observed that Petrus failed to rebut his positive identification by be disturbed on appeal unless some facts or circumstances of weight have
the victim, Alastair and his brother Aaron John Onglingswam (Aaron John), I been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted so as to materially
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED- affect the disposition of the case.16
with whom he talked for several times over the phone. It stated that the
APPELLANT WAS ILLEGALLY ARRESTED AND AS SUCH, THE PIECES OF
circumstantial evidence proffered by the prosecution had adequately OBJECT EVIDENCE ALLEGEDLY SEIZED ARE INADMISSIBLE.
reinforced its theory that Petrus was the perpetrator of the heinous act. It has been an established rule in appellate review that the trial court’s
II factual findings, such as its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, the
probative weight of their testimonies, and the conclusions drawn from the
factual findings, are accorded great respect and have even conclusive effect. must constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable victim of his liberty; and (c) motive of the accused, which is extorting ransom
30
Such factual findings and conclusions assume even greater weight when they conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty for the release of the victim.24cralawred
are affirmed by the CA.17cralawred person.22cralawred
All of the foregoing elements were duly established by the testimonial and
In the case at bench, the RTC gave more weight and credence to the The combination of the following established facts and circumstances affirm documentary evidences for the prosecution in the case at bench. First, Petrus
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses compared to those of the accused- the findings of guilt by the RTC and the CA: is a private individual. Second, Petrus kidnapped Alastair by using sleeping
appellants. After a judicious review of the evidence on record, the Court finds substance which rendered the latter unconscious while inside a taxicab
no cogent reason to deviate from the factual findings of the RTC and the CA, 1] The victim was rescued by the police inside the house owned by Petrus driven by the said accused-appellant. Third, Petrus took and detained
and their respective assessment and calibration of the credibility of the and Susana, located at Block 23, Lot 2, Ponsettia St., Camella Sorrento Homes, Alastair inside the house owned by him and Susana Yau in Bacoor, Cavite,
prosecution witnesses. Bacoor, Cavite; where said victim was handcuffed and chained, and hence, deprived of his
liberty. Fourth, Alastair was taken against his will. And fifth, Petrus made
In every criminal case, the task of the prosecution is always two-fold, that is, 2] The Toyota Corolla white taxicab bearing Plate No. PVD 115, which the demands for the delivery of a ransom in the amount of US$600,000.00 for the
(1) to prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime charged; victim recalled boarding in going to Virra Mall Greenhills Shopping Center on release of the victim.
and (2) to establish with the same quantum of proof the identity of the the afternoon of January 20, 2004 and where he lost consciousness, was
person or persons responsible therefor, because, even if the commission of found in the possession of the accused-appellant Petrus on February 11, Anent the criminal liability of each accused-appellant, there is no doubt that
the crime is a given, there can be no conviction without the identity of the 2004;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Petrus is liable as principal of the crime of kidnapping for ransom. Susana, on
malefactor being likewise clearly ascertained.18 Here, the prosecution was the other hand, is liable only as an accomplice to the crime as correctly found
able to satisfactorily discharge this burden. 3] The driver’s license of Petrus and an ATM card in the name of Ong Kwai by the lower courts. It must be emphasized that there was no evidence
Ping were recovered inside the Toyota Corolla taxicab of Petrus indubitably proving that Susana participated in the decision to commit the
Victim Alastair positively identified Petrus as the driver of the white Toyota Yau;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary criminal act. The only evidence the prosecution had against her was the
Corolla taxicab with Plate No. PVD 115 which he boarded before he lost testimony of Alastair to the effect that he remembered her as the woman who
consciousness on the afternoon of January 20, 2004. He claimed that while he 4] In the house where the victim was rescued, the following evidence were gave food to him or who accompanied his kidnapper whenever he would
was conversing with his business associate Kelly Wei over his phone inside found: one (1) chain with padlock; handcuffs; short broken chain; checkered bring food to him every breakfast, lunch and dinner.
the taxicab, Petrus would turn his face towards him, from time to time, and pajama; black blazer; one (1) Onesimus black coat; two (2) video camera
would talk as if he was being spoken to. Alastair claimed that he had a good cartridges, one showing the victim in lying down position and family Jurisprudence25 is instructive of the elements required, in accordance with
look and an ample opportunity to remember the facial features of the driver footages, and the other one labeled “sex scandal”; eight (8) pieces of Article 18 of the RPC, in order that a person may be considered an
as to be able to recognize and identify him in court. It is the most natural cellphones; notebook; two (2) Talk n Tex SIM cards; Globe SIM card; two (2) accomplice, namely, (1) that there be a community of design; that is, knowing
reaction for victims of crimes to strive to remember the faces of their Transfer Certificates of Title for two pieces of land in Bacoor, Cavite, under the criminal design of the principal by direct participation, he concurs with
accosters and the manner in which the craven acts are the name of Susana Sumogba; original copy of the Official Receipts and the latter in his purpose; (2) that he cooperates in the execution by previous
committed.19cralawred Certificate of Registration of a Suzuki 1993 motorcycle bearing Plate No. or simultaneous act, with the intention of supplying material or moral aid in
2M9748; business license and mayor’s permit issued to Susana Yau; marriage the execution of the crime in an efficacious way; and (3) that there be a
Alastair also recognized the voice behind the red mask used by his kidnapper contract of Petrus Yau and Susana Yau; birth certificate of Susana Sumogba; relation between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to the
as belonging to Petrus. It was established that from the first to the twentieth birth certificates of their children; ACR of Petrus Yau; Meralco bills; Asia person charged as accomplice.
day of Alastair’s captivity, his kidnapper would meet him five times a day and Trust deposit slips; five ATM deposit slips; and PLDT
would talk to him for an hour, thus, enabling him to remember the culprit’s bills;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary In the case at bench, Susana knew of the criminal design of her husband,
voice which had a unique tone and noticeable Chinese accent. Alastair Petrus, but she kept quiet and never reported the incident to the police
declared with certainty that it was the voice of Petrus. Witness Aaron John 5] Two (2) cellphones, a QTEK Palmtop and a Sony Erickson were found in authorities. Instead, she stayed with Petrus inside the house and gave food to
insisted that the person who introduced himself as Ong Kwai Ping and with the possession of Petrus. Incidentally, it was reported that the owner of the the victim or accompanied her husband when he brought food to the victim.
whom he had talked over the phone for three weeks, demanding necessity QTEK Palmtop cellphone was a certain Jasper Beltran, also a kidnapped Susana not only countenanced Petrus’ illegal act, but also supplied him with
money and ransom for the release of his brother Alastair, was Petrus because victim whose whereabouts had not been known yet; material and moral aid. It has been held that being present and giving moral
of the distinct tone of his voice with Chinese accent. There was no showing andChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary support when a crime is being committed make a person responsible as an
that Alastair and Aaron John had any ill motive to falsely testify against accomplice in the crime committed.26 As keenly observed by the RTC, the act
Petrus. As a rule, absent any evidence showing any reason or motive for 6] The DNA examination on the red mask worn by the kidnapper that was of giving food by Susana to the victim was not essential and indispensable for
prosecution witnesses to perjure, the logical conclusion is that no such recovered inside the house and on the buccal swab taken from Petrus the perpetration of the crime of kidnapping for ransom but merely an
improper motive exists, and their testimonies are, thus, worthy of full faith showed that both DNA profiles matched.23 expression of sympathy or feeling of support to her husband.27 Moreover,
and credit.20cralawred this Court is guided by the ruling in People v. De Vera,28 where it was
The Court agrees with the findings of the RTC and the CA that the foregoing stressed that in case of doubt, the participation of the offender will be
Further, the prosecution presented credible and sufficient pieces of pieces of circumstantial evidence, when analyzed and taken together, considered as that of an accomplice rather than that of a principal.
circumstantial evidence that led to the inescapable and reasonable definitely lead to no other conclusion than that Petrus was the author of the
conclusion that Petrus committed the crime charged. The settled rule is that a kidnapping for ransom. When viewed as a whole, the prosecution evidence Alastair’s positive identification of Susana is not in any bit prejudiced by his
judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld only effectively established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. failure to mention her name in his sworn statement, dated February 12,
if the following requisites concur: (1) there is more than one circumstance; 2004. It is well-settled that affidavits, being ex parte, are almost always
(2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the The elements of Kidnapping For Ransom under Article 267 of the RPC, as incomplete and often inaccurate, but do not really detract from the credibility
combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce conviction beyond amended by R.A. No. 7659, are as follows: (a) intent on the part of the of witnesses.29 Oftentimes, the allegations contained in affidavits involved
reasonable doubt.21 The corollary rule is that the circumstances proven accused to deprive the victim of his liberty; (b) actual deprivation of the mere passive mention of details anchored entirely on the investigator’s
questions. The discrepancies between a sworn statement and a testimony in aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free appellants Petrus Yau and Susana Yau y Sumogba are ordered to pay the
31
court do not outrightly justify the acquittal of an accused, as testimonial from error.37cralawred victim Alastair Joseph Onglingswam moral damages in the amount of
evidence carries more weight than an affidavit.30 Testimonies given during P200,000.00 and exemplary damages in the amount of P100,000.00. The
the trial are more exact and elaborate. Besides, sworn statements are often With respect to the penalty, the Court finds that the RTC was correct in award of actual damages in the amount of P273,132.00 is maintained. The
executed when an affiant’s mental faculties are not in such a state as to afford imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility of parole civil liabilities of the accused-appellants shall be apportioned as follows:
the affiant a fair opportunity of narrating in full the incident which against Petrus as principal in the charge of kidnapping for ransom in view of
transpired.31cralawred R.A. No. 9346, prohibiting the death penalty. Also, the Court finds that the 1] Petrus Yau is directed to pay actual damages in the amount of
penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to P182,088.00; moral damages in the amount of P133,333.33; and exemplary
Given the overwhelming picture of their complicity in the crime, this Court twelve (12) years and ten (10) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum, damages in the amount of P66,666.67; and
cannot accept the defenses of alibi and frame-up interposed by the accused- meted out against Susana, an accomplice, to be proper.
appellants. Alibi is the weakest of all defenses, for it is easy to contrive and 2] Susana Yau y Sumogba is directed to pay actual damages in the amount of
difficult to prove. Alibi must be proven by the accused with clear and The Court also sustains the RTC in awarding actual damages in the amount of P91,044.00, moral damages in the amount of ?66,666.67 and exemplary
convincing evidence; otherwise it cannot prevail over the positive P273,132.00 plus interest committed from the filing of the information until damages in the amount of P33,333.33.
testimonies of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. 32 The fully paid. As regards the moral damages against the accused-appellants, the
defense of frame-up, like alibi, has been invariably viewed by this Court with Court finds the award of P1,000,000.00 to be exorbitant. Hence, the same is G.R. No. 199042 November 17, 2014
disfavor, for it can easily be concocted but is difficult to prove. In order to being reduced to P200,000.00, as the reasonable compensation for the
prosper, the defense of frame-up must be proven by the accused with clear ignominy and sufferings that Alastair and his family endured because of the DANILO VILLANUEVA y ALCARAZ, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
and convincing evidence.33 Apart from their bare allegations, no competent accused-appellants’ inhumane acts of detaining him in handcuffs and chains, PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
and independent evidence was adduced by the accused-appellants to and mentally torturing him and his family to raise the ransom money. The
substantiate their twin defenses of alibi and frame-up and, thus, remain self- fact that they suffered the trauma from mental, physical and psychological DECISION
serving and do not merit any evidentiary value. More importantly, nowhere ordeal which constitutes the basis for moral damages under Article 2219 of SERENO, CJ:
in the records does it show of any dubious reasons or improper motive that the Civil Code is too obvious to still require its recital at the trial through the
could have impelled the prosecution witnesses, particularly victim Alastair superfluity of a testimonial charade. The Court also finds the award of We resolve the Petition1 filed by Danilo Villanueva y Alcaraz from the
Onglingswam, to falsely testify and fabricate documentary or object evidence exemplary damages to be in order in view of the presence of the qualifying Decision2 dated 4 May 2011 and Resolution3 dated 18 October 2011 issued
just to implicate accused-appellants in such a heinous crime as kidnapping circumstance of demand for ransom, and to serve as an example and by the Fourteenth Division of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. C.R. No.
for ransom. Their only motive was to see to it that the kidnapper be brought deterrence for the public good. The Court, however, reduces the amount from 32582.
to justice and sentenced with the appropriate penalty. P200,000.00 to P100,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.
THE ANTECEDENT FACTS
As a last-ditch effort to exculpate themselves from any criminal culpability, The RTC, however, erred in ruling that Susana was solidarily liable with
the accused-appellants questioned the legality of their warrantless arrests. Petrus for the payment of damages. This is an erroneous apportionment of Petitioner Danilo Villanueva was charged with violation of Section 11, Article
This too must fail. the damages awarded because it does not take into account the difference in II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
the nature and degree of participation between the principal, Petrus, and the Act of 2002. The Information4 reads:
Any objection to the procedure followed in the matter of the acquisition by a accomplice, Susana. The ruling of this Court in People v. Montesclaros39 is
court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be opportunely instructive on the apportionment of civil liabilities among all the accused- That on or about the 15th day of June 2004 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila,
raised before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed appellants. The entire amount of the civil liabilities should be apportioned and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named
waived.34 The accused-appellants never objected to or questioned the among all those who cooperated in the commission of the crime according to accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there, willfully,
legality of their warrantless arrests or the acquisition of jurisdiction by the the degrees of their liability, respective responsibilities and actual unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control
RTC over their persons before they entered their respective pleas to the participation. Accordingly, Petrus should shoulder a greater share in the total METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (Shabu) weighing 0.63 gram
kidnapping for ransom charge. Considering this lapse and coupled with their amount of damages than Susana who was adjudged only as an accomplice. knowing the same to [be a] dangerous drug under the provisions of the
full and active participation in the trial of the case, accused-appellants were above-cited law.
deemed to have waived any objection to their warrantless arrests. The In fine, the accused-appellants are ordered to pay the victim, Alastair
accused-appellants voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the RTC Onglingswam actual damages in the amount of P273,132.00; moral damages CONTRARY TO LAW.
thereby curing whatever defects that might have attended their arrest. It in the amount of P200,000.00; and exemplary damages in the amount of
bears stressing that the legality of the arrest affects only the jurisdiction of P100,000.00, or a total amount of P573,132.00. Taking into consideration the On 15 July 2004, the accused, duly assisted by counsel de oficio, pleaded not
the court over their persons.35 Their warrantless arrests cannot, by degree of their participation, the principal, Petrus, should be liable for two- guilty to the offense charged.5
themselves, be the bases of their acquittal. thirds (2/3) of the total amount of the damages (P573,132.00 x 2/3) or
P382,088.00; and the accomplice, Susana, should be ordered to pay the PROSECUTION’S VERSION
Even assuming arguendo that the accused-appellants made a timely objection remaining one-third (1/3) or P191,044.00. Specifically, Petrus shall be liable
to their warrantless arrests, jurisprudence is replete with rulings that for actual damages in the amount of P182,088.00; moral damages in the Four witnesses testified for the prosecution: (1) Police Senior Inspector (PSI)
support the view that their conviction was proper despite being illegally amount of P133,333.33; and exemplary damages in the amount of Albert Arturo, (2) Police Officer (PO) 3 Jonathan Coralde, (3) PO2 Reynante
arrested without a warrant. In People v. Manlulu,36 the Court ruled that the P66,666.67; and Susana for the amount of P91,044.00 as actual damages; Mananghaya, and (4) Senior Police Officer 1 (SPO1) Antonio Asiones.6 Their
illegality of the warrantless arrest cannot deprive the State of its right to P66,666.67 as moral damages; and P33,333.33 as exemplary damages. testimonies reveal that a Complaint was filed by Brian Resco against Danilo
prosecute the guilty when all other facts on record point to their culpability. Villanueva for allegedly shooting the former along C-3 Road, Navotas City.
Indeed, the illegal arrest of an accused is not a sufficient cause for setting WHEREFORE, the September 7, 2012 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA- After recording the incident in the police blotter, PO3 Jonathan Coralde, SPO3
G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03446 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that accused- Enrique de Jesus, SPO2 Henry Martin and SPO1 Anthony Asiones, together
with Resco, proceeded to the house of Villanueva. They informed Villanueva REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 DESPITE THE ILLEGALITY OF THE ARREST AND
32
about the Complaint lodged against him. They invited him to the police THE LAPSES ON THE PART OF THE POLICE OFFICERS IN THE HANDLING OF Jurisprudence is replete with pronouncements on when a warrantless search
station. There, he was subjected to a body search and, in the process, a plastic THE CONFISCATED DRUG.15 can be conducted.1âwphi1 These searches include: (1) search of a moving
sachet of shabu was recovered from the left pocket of his pants. PO3 Coralde vehicle; (2) seizure in plain view; (3) customs search; (4) waiver or
marked the sachet with the initial "DAV 06-15-04", and PO2 Reynante Petitioner claims that his arrest does not fall within the purview of valid consented search; (5) stop-and-frisk situation; (6) search incidental to a
Mananghaya brought it to the National Police District Scene of the Crime warrantless arrests, since it took place on the day of the alleged shooting lawful arrest and (7) exigent and emergency circumstance.19
Operatives (NPD-SOCO) for examination.7 DEFENSE’S VERSION incident. Hence, to "invite" him to the precinct without any warrant of arrest
was illegal. The evidence obtained is, consequently, inadmissible. The Office The search made was not among the enumerated instances. Certainly, it was
The accused testified that at the time of the incident, he was at home of the Solicitor General filed its Comment16 stating that the shabu not of a moving vehicle, a customs search, or a search incidental to a lawful
watching TV when PO3 Coralde, along with three others, invited him to go confiscated from petitioner was admissible in evidence against him; that the arrest. There could not have been a seizure in plain view as the seized item
with them to the police station. Informed that he had been identified as search conducted on him was valid; and that he cannot raise the issue was allegedly found inside the left pocket of accused-appellant’s pants.
responsible for shooting Resco, the accused was then frisked and detained at regarding the apprehending officers’ non-compliance with Section 21, Article Neither was it a stop-and-frisk situation. While thistype may seemingly fall
the police station.8 II of R.A. 9165 for the first time on appeal. under the consented search exception, we reiterate that "[c]onsent to a
search is not to be lightly inferred, but shown by clear and convincing
RULING OF THE RTC OUR RULING evidence."20
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 127 of Caloocan City, in its Decision9 We find the instant appeal meritorious. Consent must also be voluntary inorder to validate an otherwise illegal
dated 6 April 2009, convicted petitioner of the offense charged. The search; that is, the consent mustbe unequivocal, specific, intelligently given,
dispositive portion of the Decision reads: Accused-appellant is estopped from questioning the legality of his arrest. and uncontaminated by any duress or coercion.21 In this case, petitioner was
merely "ordered" to take out the contents of his pocket. The testimony of the
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring Accused-appellant was arrested without a warrant. Section 5, Rule 113 of the police officer on the matter is clear:
accused DANILO VILLANUEVA y ALCARAZ, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, lays down the basic rules on lawful
DOUBT of the offense of Violation of Section 11, Article II,R.A. 9165. warrantless arrests either by a peace officer or a private person, as follows: Q: And what did you do when you frisked a small plastic sachet?
Henceforth, this Court hereby sentences him to suffer an imprisonment of A: When I felt something inside his pocket, I ordered him to bring out the
twelve (12) years and one (1) day as the minimum to seventeen (17) years Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. – A peace officer or a private thing which I felt.
and eight (8) months as the maximum and to pay the fine of Three Hundred person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
Thousand Pesos (₱300,000.00). Q. : And what did Danilo Villanueva do when you instructed him to bring out
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is the contents of his pocket?
The drugs subject matter of this case is ordered confiscated and forfeited in actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; A: He took out the contents of his pocket and I saw the plastic containing
favor of the government to be dealt with in accordance with the law. shabu.22
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to
SO ORDERED.10 believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the The evidence obtained is not admissible.
person to be arrested has committed it; and
The CA reviewed the appeal, which hinged on one issue, viz: Having been obtained through an unlawful search, the seized item is thus
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a inadmissible in evidence against accused-appellant. Obviously, this is an
THE COURT A QUOGRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING AS ILLEGAL THE penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is instance of seizure of the "fruit of the poisonous tree." Hence, the confiscated
ACCUSED-APPELLANT’S WARRANTLESS ARREST AND SEARCH.11 temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being item is inadmissible in evidence consonant with Article III, Section 3(2) of the
transferred from one confinement to another. 1987 Constitution: "Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the
RULING OF THE CA preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
The circumstances that transpired between accused-appellant and the proceeding."23 Without the seized item, therefore, the conviction of accused
On 4 May 2011, the CA affirmed the ruling of the lower court: arresting officer show none of the above that would make the warrantless appellant cannot be sustained. This being the case, we see no more reason to
arrest lawful. Nevertheless, records reveal that accused-appellant never discuss the alleged lapses of the officers in the handling of the confiscated
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision dated April 6, 2009 of the Regional Trial objected to the irregularity of his arrest before his arraignment. He pleaded drug.
Court, Branch 127, Caloocan City in Criminal Case No. 70854 finding the not guilty upon arraignment. He actively participated in the trial of the case.
accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt is hereby AFFIRMED. Thus, he is considered as one who had properly and voluntarily submitted As a final word, we reiterate that "[ w ]hile this Court appreciates and
himself to the jurisdiction of the trial court and waived his right to question encourages the efforts of law enforcers to uphold the law and to preserve the
SO ORDERED.12 the validity of his arrest.17 peace and security of society, we nevertheless admonish them to act with ·
deliberate care and within the parameters set by the Constitution and the
On 27 May 2011, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration,13 which the The warrantless search conducted is not among those allowed by law. law. Truly, the end never justifies the means."24
CA denied in a Resolution14 dated 18 October 2011.
A waiver of an illegal arrest, however, is not a waiver of an illegal search.18 WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision dated 4 May 2011
Hence, the instant Petition, which revolves around the following lone issue: Records have established that both the arrest and the search were made and Resolution dated 18 October 2011 issued by the Fourteenth Division of
without a warrant. While the accused has already waived his right to contest the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. C.R. No. 32582 are SET ASIDE. Petitioner is
WHETHER THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING the legality of his arrest, he is not deemed to have equally waived his right to hereby ACQUITTED.
THE PETITIONER’S CONVICTION FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 11 OF contest the legality of the search.
xxxx
33
After the reinvestigation, the Office of the City Prosecutor issued a Resolution To confirm respondent/accused [Rolando] delos Reyes claim, that he was
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - dated April 3, 2000, recommending that the RTC proceed with the indictment arrested in Brgy. Manggahan, Pasig City, and not in the vicinity of Whistletop
ROLANDO S. DELOS REYES, alias Botong, and RAYMUNDO G. REYES, alias of accused-appellant Reyes and Emmanuel de Claro, and dismiss the charges Bar and Restaurant in Mandaluyong City, respondent/accused [Emmanuel]
Mac-Mac, Accused-Appellants. against accused-appellant Rolando delos Reyes and Lantion-Tom. The Office de Claros spouse submitted a certified true xerox copy of barangay blotter of
of the City Prosecutor considered the different versions of events presented Barangay Manggahan, Pasig City, reflecting the entry on 19 February 2000
G.R. No. 174774 August 31, 2011 by the parties during the preliminary investigation and reinvestigation made by Mrs. Delos Reyes, on the incident reported to by Marlon David thus:
(except accused-appellant Reyes who did not participate in the proceedings),
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: which it summarized as follows: BLOTTER
On appeal is the Decision[1] dated July 12, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in In their Joint Affidavit of Arrest, the arresting officers, members of the Dumulog po rito sa himpilan ng Punong Barangay si Gng. Virginia Delos
CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01733, which affirmed with modification the Decision[2] Intelligence and Investigation of the Regional Mobile Group (RMG) of the Reyes, upang ipagbigay alam ang pagkawala ng kanyang asawa na si Mr.
dated September 23, 2003 of Branch 214 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of National Capital Region Police Office (NCRPO) claims that on 17 February Rolando delos Reyes, nuong petsa 17 ng Pebrero taong dalawang libo (2000)
Mandaluyong City in Criminal Case No. MC-00-2375-D. The Court of Appeals 2000 a confidential informant called up relative to a narcotics drug deal to na ayon sa batang pamangkin na si Marlon David, ay hinuli ng mga hindi
found accused-appellants Rolando S. delos Reyes and Raymundo G. Reyes commence at the vicinity of the parking area of Shangrila Plaza Hotel, kilalang lalaki sa Buenas Market, Manggahan, Pasig City nais niyang alamin
(Reyes) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 21 of Article Mandaluyong City; that they were dispatched to verify the reports and kung ang nasabing insidente ay coordinated dito sa himpilan o tanggapan ng
IV, in relation to Section 16 of Article III, of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise conduct police operations; that about 2:00 p.m. after meeting with the Barangay.
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, and imposing upon them the confidential agent, they strategically positioned themselves at the vicinity
penalty of reclusion perpetua. parking area of said hotel; that about 10:00 p.m., accused/respondent Reyes (Sgd) Virginia delos Reyes
The following antecedent facts are culled from the records: a.k.a. Mac-Mac, on board a white Toyota Corolla, and accused/respondent Nagpapahayag
[Rolando] delos Reyes, a.k.a. Botong, on board a red Toyota Corolla, arrived
On February 17, 2000, accused-appellants Rolando S. delos Reyes and with accused/respondent Reyes subsequently proceeding inside Whistletop The blotter was apparently made after Marlon David informed Mrs. [Virginia]
Raymundo G. Reyes, Emmanuel de Claro, and Mary Jane Lantion-Tom Bar and Restaurant, and accused/respondent [Rolando] delos Reyes calling Delos Reyes of the incident upon his release on 18 February 2000. Another
(Lantion-Tom) were all arrested for illegal possession, sale, delivery, accused/respondent [Emmanuel] de Claro through his cellular phone; that witness, one Joel Navarro, claims having seen the actual incident confirming
distribution, and/or transportation of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a accused/respondent [Rolando] delos Reyes and [Emmanuel] de Claro then the events as narrated to by accused/respondent [Rolando] delos Reyes and
regulated drug commonly known as shabu. The Office of the City Prosecutor proceeded to the latters parked Mazda car where respondent Lantion-Tom Marlon David.
of Mandaluyong City, in its Resolution dated March 3, 2000, found probable was waiting; from the parked car, a box in transparent plastic bag was taken,
cause to indict accused-appellants, together with Emmanuel de Claro, for which accused/respondent [Emmanuel] de Claro handed-over to Accused/respondent [Emmanuel] de Claro and his common law wife,
violation of Republic Act No. 6425, and resolved to continue the preliminary accused/respondent [Rolando] delos Reyes; accused/respondent [Rolando] respondent Lantion-Tom, submitted their separate Counter-Affidavits jointly
investigation in so far as Lantion-Tom was concerned. The criminal delos Reyes in turn handed the box in a plastic bag to accused/respondent denying the charges and claiming that they were at the Whistlestop Bar and
information against accused-appellants and Emmanuel de Claro, filed with Reyes; that the arresting officers accosted the accused/respondents who Restaurant to talk to respondent Lantion-Toms accountant Ms. Daisy Milan
the RTC, reads: according to the arresting officers admitted having in their possession illegal regarding the Mayors Permit, Business Location Clearance issued by the
drugs; that the recovered items containing ten (10) pcs. of heat sealed Office of the Barangay Captain, insurance documents, BIR Certificate of
The undersigned 2nd Asst. City Prosecutor accuses ROLANDO DELOS REYES transparent plastic bags of white crystalline substance with a total weight of Registration of her business; that they were with accused/respondent
y SANTOS @ BOTONG, RAYMUNDO REYES y GUINZON @ MAC-MAC and 980.9 grams turned positive to the test for methylamphetamine [Emmanuel] de Claros brother, Roberto and a friend, James, with the two
EMMANUEL DE CLARO y ENRIQUEZ @ COCOY of the crime of VIOLATION OF hydrochloride or shabu, a regulated drug. remaining outside the restaurant; that respondent Lantion-Tom went to
SEC. 21 ART. IV IN REL. TO SEC. 16 ART. III OF R.A. 6425 AS AMENDED, accompany Ms. Milan, while accused/respondent [Emmanuel] de Claro was
committed in the manner herein narrated as follows: In his Sinumpaang Kontra-Salaysay, accused/respondent [Rolando] delos left inside; that after Ms. Milan left, respondent Lantion-Tom was suddenly
Reyes claims that on 17 February 2000, he went to Buenas Market, surrounded by men who introduced themselves as police officers and were
That on or about the 17th day of February, 2000, in the City of Mandaluyong, Manggahan, Pasig City, together with a neighbor, one Marlon David, to talk to arresting them for being the source of shabu in a drug deal; that all of them,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- Raymundo Reyes who was to pay his indebtedness; that while looking for a accused/respondent [Emmanuel] de Claro, Roberto and James were likewise
named accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess any regulated drug, parking space, several men with firearms suddenly appeared, with one arrested and continuously questioned on their complicity in the drug deal;
conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping and aiding one shouting, buksan mo ang pintuan ng sasakyan at kung hindi babasagin ko ito; that they were taken to Camp Bagong Diwa, Taguig, Metro Manila and
another, commit to sell, deliver, distribute and/or transport a carton of ten that he and Marlon David were forced out of their vehicle with one of the subjected to further investigation; that Roberto and James were released the
(10) heat-sealed transparent plastic bags containing white crystalline armed men bringing out a plastic shopping bag of Shoe Mart, asking where following day. Both respondents maintain that the allegations of the arresting
substance with the following grams, to wit: 99.2, 94.9, 99.6, 93.5, 98.3, 99.5, the said bag allegedly containing shabu came from; that accused/respondent officers as to the circumstances on the alleged drug deal leading to their
99.6, 99.5, 98.4 and 98.4 grams or a total of 980.9 grams, which substance [Rolando] delos Reyes answered hindi ko alam, that he and Marlon David arrest are unfounded and purely fabricated.
when submitted for drug examination, were found positive to the test for were blindfolded when forcibly taken to the groups vehicle and continuously
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, a regulated asked who the source of the shabu was, with respondent/accused [Rolando] During the preliminary investigation proceedings on 21 March 2000, the
drug, without the corresponding license and prescription.[3] delos Reyes replying, hindi ko alam at wala akong kinalaman diyan; that arresting officers manifested that they are going to submit reply-affidavit on
Marlon David was separated from accused/respondent [Rolando] delos 29 March 2000. However, no such reply-affidavit was submitted.[5]
On March 7, 2000, accused-appellant Rolando delos Reyes, Emmanuel de Reyes and later released on 18 February 2000; that when
Claro, and Lantion-Tom, insisting on their innocence, moved for a accused/respondent [Rolando] delos Reyes blindfold was removed, he found The Office of the City Prosecutor pointed out that the arresting police officers
reinvestigation of their case before the RTC, which said trial court granted in himself at Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, Taguig, Metro Manila. failed to refute accused-appellant Rolando delos Reyes counter-allegation
an Order[4] dated March 15, 2000. that he was not arrested at Shangri-La Plaza in Mandaluyong City, but he was
illegally arrested without warrant at Buenas Market in Cainta, Rizal, as PO3 Santiago further recounted that at around 10:00 p.m., the suspected At around 10:00 p.m., the confidential informant identified the suspected
34
corroborated by Marlon David and Joel Navarro (Navarro) in their respective vehicles arrived, both stopping along the driveway of Shangri-La Plaza. The drug dealers Botong and Mac-Mac, who were arriving in two cars. After
sworn statements (Sinumpaang Salaysay) dated March 14, 2000. The Office drivers of the vehicles alighted and talked to each other. The confidential conversing for a moment with Mac-Mac, Botong went inside Whistle Stop
of the City Prosecutor also observed that Lantion-Tom was merely in the informant recognized the driver of the white Toyota car as Mac-Mac and the Restaurant to talk to Cocoy. Botong and Cocoy then went outside the
company of the other respondents without performing any overt act showing driver of the red Toyota car as Botong. After a few minutes, Botong made a restaurant and approached another car. Cocoy took a white plastic bag from
her to be part of the illicit transaction and her drug test revealed negative call on his cellular phone and then proceeded inside Whistle Stop Restaurant, the car, which he handed to Botong. Thereafter, Cocoy went back inside the
results. On the other hand, it considered the conflicting claims of Emmanuel leaving Mac-Mac behind. Inside the restaurant, Botong talked to another restaurant, while [Botong] proceeded to his car near [Mac-Mac]. SPO1
de Claro (i.e., that he was illegally arrested and that the drug deal was a mere person, who was identified during the investigation as Emmanuel de Claro Lectura was positioned at the other lane of the road, approximately 10 to 15
fabrication) and the arresting officers (i.e., that Emmanuel de Claro was the alias Cocoy. PO3 Santiago was about three to five meters away. Thereafter, meters away from the suspects. At that moment, SPO1 Lectura sensed that
seller/pusher in the drug deal and the shabu was seized from his vehicle) Botong and Cocoy went out of the restaurant and approached a car parked the drug deal had been consummated, so he decided to already arrest the
would be best ventilated during the trial on the merits. right outside. The person at the back seat of the car, later on identified as suspects. SPO1 Lectura arrested Mac-Mac, from whom he seized the white
Lantion-Tom, handed to Cocoy a white plastic bag containing a box. Cocoy plastic bag. PO3 Yumul and PO3 Padpad arrested Botong; and PO3 Santiago
In accordance with the foregoing resolution, the prosecution filed with the gave the bag to Botong, who, in turn, handed the same bag to Mac-Mac. In the apprehended Cocoy. The police team brought the arrested suspects to the
RTC a motion with leave of court to admit amended information. meantime, Cocoy went back inside the restaurant. police office for investigation.
In its Order[6] dated April 4, 2000, the RTC denied the prosecutions motion. PO3 Santiago related that their team leader sensed that the drug deal had SPO1 Lectura submitted to SPO1 David the white plastic bag containing a box
Contrary to the finding of the Office of the City Prosecutor, the RTC adjudged already been consummated, so the police team immediately effected the with 10 heat-sealed plastic sachets inside. In front of SPO1 Lectura, SPO1
that probable cause exists not only against accused-appellant Reyes and arrest of the suspected drug dealers. PO3 Santiago and PO3 Yumul arrested David marked the said articles with his initials. After physical and chemical
Emmanuel de Claro, but accused-appellant Rolando delos Reyes as well. Cocoy and Lantion-Tom, while SPO1 Lectura and the remaining police team examinations revealed that the contents of the sachets were shabu, SPO1
members arrested Botong and Mac-Mac. The plastic bag containing the box Lectura signed the Joint Affidavit of Arrest dated February 18, 2000.
Accused-appellants were arraigned on May 23, 2000,[7] while Emmanuel de was seized from Mac-Mac. The arrested suspects were brought to the police
Claro was arraigned on July 12, 2000.[8] All three pleaded not guilty. After office for investigation. The plastic bag, the box, and the 10 heat-sealed During cross-examination, SPO1 Lectura initially denied that Marlon David
the pre-trial conference, trial ensued. sachets of white crystalline substance inside the box, were marked for was with Botong when the latter was arrested, but he later admitted that the
The prosecution presented in evidence the testimonies of Police Officer (PO) identification and physical examination at the police office. police also arrested Marlon David. Marlon David was brought to Camp
3 Virgilio Santiago,[9] Senior Police Officer (SPO) 1 Eraldo Lectura,[10] PO3 Bagong Diwa, Taguig, together with the other arrested suspects, for
Angel Yumul,[11] and SPO1 Benjamin David,[12] members of the Regional According to PO3 Santiago, the physical examination of the contents of each verification, and was released the following day. SPO1 Lectura also admitted
Mobile Group (RMG) of the Philippine National Police (PNP) National Capital of the 10 heat-sealed sachets yielded positive test results for that during the preliminary investigation, he and PO3 Corbe, PO3 Arcancia,
Regional Police Office (NCRPO) who apprehended and/or investigated the methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. PO3 Santiago then signed a Joint and PO3 Javier, answered that it was PO3 Santiago who seized the shabu
case against accused-appellants, Emmanuel de Claro, and Lantion-Tom; and Affidavit of Arrest dated February 18, 2000 together with the other arresting from Mac-Mac; but SPO1 Lectura explained that what the investigating
P/Insp. Benjamin Cruto, Jr.[13] (Cruto), the forensic chemist of the PNP police officers, namely, SPO1 Lectura, PO3 Corbe, PO3 Arcancia, PO3 Fuentes, prosecutor actually asked during preliminary investigation was who saw
Crime Laboratory. and PO3 Nelson Gene Javier. where the shabu came from and that he signed the minutes of the
preliminary investigation without reading the same. SPO1 Lectura
PO3 Santiago was one of the police officers who arrested Emmanuel de Claro On cross-examination, PO3 Santiago admitted that he did not actually see maintained that it was he who recovered the shabu from Mac-Mac. Lastly,
and Lantion-Tom on February 17. 2000. He testified that at around 10:30 what was inside the plastic bag and that he did not even see Botong hand SPO1 Lectura acknowledged that his team heavily relied on the information
a.m., their operation chief, Major Arnold Aguilar, received information from a over such plastic bag to Mac-Mac. From PO3 Santiagos position, he could not given by the confidential informant in identifying the suspects in the illegal
confidential informant regarding an illegal drug deal that would take place conclude that the suspects were committing an illegal drug deal as he had no drug deal, who were eventually arrested.
between Botong and Mac-Mac at the parking lot of Shangri-La Plaza in prior knowledge of the contents of the plastic bag, and that he and the other
Madaluyong City. Botong and Mac-Mac were identified during the arresting officers just relied on the information relayed by the confidential PO3 Yumul substantially narrated the same version of events as that of PO3
investigation as accused-appellants Rolando delos Reyes and Reyes, informant. Also, the police team did not recover any money from the arrested Santiago and SPO1 Lectura. On February 17, 2000, he was assigned at the
respectively. suspects. The confidential informant merely informed the police the Intelligence Investigation Division of the RMG based in Camp Bagong Diwa,
following morning that the money for the illegal drugs was already deposited Bicutan, Taguig. He was with SPO1 Lectura, PO3 Santiago, PO3 Fuentes, PO3
As narrated by PO3 Santiago, a team to bust the illegal drug deal was in the bank. The police, however, failed to make further queries from the Padpad, and several other police officers at the vicinity of Shangri-La Plaza in
organized by Major Aguilar, composed of PO3 Santiago himself, SPO1 confidential informant about the bank. Mandaluyong City, conducting surveillance operation regarding the tipped-
Lectura, and PO3 Yumul, along with PO3 Elmer Corbe, PO3 Marcelo Arcancia, off illegal drug deal. He was with SPO1 Lectura and PO3 Padpad in the car
Jr., PO3 Randy Fuentes, PO3 Dennis Padpad, and PO3 Edwin dela Cruz. At SPO1 Lectura related that their office received a telephone call from a parked in front of Shangri-La Plaza, while PO3 Fuentes, PO3 Dela Cruz, and
around 1:00 p.m. of the same day, the police team was dispatched, using four confidential informant about an illegal drug deal involving Cocoy, Botong, their confidential informant were in another car also parked along the
vehicles, to the location of the drug deal and upon arrival, they waited for the and Mac-Mac in the vicinity of Shangri-La Plaza in Mandaluyong City on driveway of Shangri-La Plaza. PO3 Santiago, PO3 Arcancia, and PO3 Corbe
confidential informant to arrive. When the confidential informant arrived at February 17, 2000. SPO1 Lectura was designated as the leader of the team were in the car stationed in front of Whistle Stop Restaurant. PO3 Yumul
around 3:30 p.m., he told the police team that the drug deal would possibly that will bust said illegal drug deal. After the briefing, SPO1 Lecturas team could not recall where the other members of the team were located.
take place between 6:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m., and that the suspects would proceeded to the subject location.
utilize a red Toyota Corolla with plate number TRP-868 and a white Toyota At around 10:00 p.m., the suspects Botong and Mac-Mac arrived in separate
Corolla with plate number ULF-706. The police team then positioned their The confidential informant arrived and met SPO1 Lecturas team at around cars, stopping in front of Shangri-La Plaza. Botong and Mac-Mac alighted
cars strategically in such a way that they could see the vehicles coming from 3:30 p.m. SPO1 Lectura conducted a short briefing then positioned his team from their cars and talked to each other. At that time, PO3 Yumul was about
St. Francis Street and EDSA. strategically within the vicinity. The confidential informant told the police five meters away from the two suspects. Moments later, Botong called
team that the drug deal would take place between 6:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. someone on his cellular phone, and then went inside Whistle Stop
Restaurant, leaving Mac-Mac behind. PO3 Yumul followed Botong inside the Physical Sciences Report No. D-097-2000 dated February 18, 2000 which surrounded by four armed men. The armed men poked their guns at him and
35
restaurant and saw the latter talking to Cocoy. PO3 Yumul though did not revealed that the contents of the 10 heat-sealed plastic sachets positively Marlon David, shouting at them to open the car doors. He lowered the car
hear the conversation between Botong and Cocoy. Afterwards, Botong and tested for methamphetamine hydrochloride;[19] and the Letter (Referral of window and the armed men opened the car door. The armed men forced him
Cocoy went out of the restaurant and approached a parked car. From his the case to the Office of the City Prosecutor)[20] dated February 18, 2000. and Marlon David to get down from the front seats of the car and to transfer
position about three meters away, PO3 Yumul saw the passenger at the back The RTC admitted all the aforementioned evidence for the prosecution in its to the back seat, blindfolded them, and asked them who were the owners of
seat of the car, Lantion-Tom, opening the window and handing over a white Order[21] dated March 1, 2001. the SM plastic bag. After they left Buenas Market, he noticed that they were
plastic bag with carton inside to Cocoy, who, in turn, gave the plastic bag to just driving around. The car stopped only when Marlon David was taken out
Botong. Cocoy then returned inside the restaurant and [Botong] went back to The defense, on the other hand, presented the testimonies of Marlon and transferred to another car. It was already late in the evening when the
[Mac-Mac]. PO3 Yumul followed Cocoy inside the restaurant. A few minutes David,[22] accused-appellant Rolando delos Reyes,[23] Emmanuel de car finally stopped. He then realized, after his blindfold had been removed,
later, PO3 Santiago also went inside the restaurant informing PO3 Yumul that Claro,[24] Roberto de Claro,[25] and Mary Jane Lantion-Tom.[26] Accused- that he was at Camp Bagong Diwa in Bicutan, Taguig.
they would be arresting Cocoy, and that Botong and Mac-Mac were already appellant Reyes did not testify.
arrested outside the restaurant. PO3 Santiago, assisted by PO3 Yumul, Accused-appellant Rolando delos Reyes denied the accusation of the police
approached Cocoy and arrested him. The police team proceeded to the police Marlon David was 17 years old and a fourth year high school student of Rizal that he was selling or delivering shabu to anyone. He asserted that he was not
office with all the arrested suspects for further investigation. PO3 Yumul, High School in Pasig City. He recalled that on February 17, 2000, at about arrested at Whistle Stop restaurant in Mandaluyong City, rather, he was
however, failed to join the other arresting officers in signing the Joint 1:00 p.m., he accompanied accused-appellant Rolando delos Reyes, whom he illegally arrested at Buenas Market in Cainta, Rizal. Accused-appellant Reyes
Affidavit of Arrest dated February 18, 2000. referred to as Kuya Botong, to the Buenas Market in Cainta, Rizal, to collect or Mac-Mac was his friend who owed him money. He and accused-appellant
some money. Reyes agreed to meet at Buenas Market for the settlement of the latters loan,
SPO1 David was an investigator at the Intelligence and Investigation Section but the meeting did not take place because the armed men arrived. He
of the RMG at Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, Taguig, assigned to the instant While accused-appellant Rolando delos Reyes and Marlon David were inside further claimed that he only met Emmanuel de Claro at Camp Bagong Diwa in
case following the arrests of accused-appellants, Emmanuel de Claro and their car at the parking area of said market, another car suddenly arrived, Bicutan, Taguig. He never knew Emmanuel de Claro before that time, and he
Lantion-Tom. He also referred the case for inquest to the Office of the City from which an armed male passenger alighted and approached them. Four found out the latters name only when they were already detained at the
Prosecutor. other armed men followed and poked their guns at accused-appellant Mandaluyong City Jail.
Rolando delos Reyes and Marlon David. The armed men, in civilian attire,
SPO1 David testified that on February 17, 2000, he received from SPO1 were carrying an SM plastic shopping bag and questioned accused-appellant Emmanuel de Claro or Cocoy testified that on February 17, 2000 at around
Lectura a plastic bag containing a box with 10 heat-sealed sachets of Rolando delos Reyes if he knew the owner of said plastic bag. Accused- 10:00 a.m., he was at the Department of Trade and Industry in Buendia,
suspected shabu inside. SPO1 Lectura told SPO1 David that the articles were appellant Rolando delos Reyes denied any knowledge about the plastic bag. Makati City, with his common-law wife Mary Jane Lantion-Tom to follow up
seized from the suspected drug dealers. SPO1 David marked his initials BSD Marlon David was also asked and he answered that he knew nothing about their application for business permit. At around 1:00 p.m., they had lunch at
on the confiscated articles, then prepared a request to the PNP Crime the plastic bag. Glorietta. Emmanuel de Claro was no longer feeling well so he and Lantion-
Laboratory for examination of the specimens. SPO1 David disclosed that he Tom passed by the house of his brother Roberto de Claro to request the latter
prepared the Affidavit of Arrest of the arresting officers. Thereafter, the armed men, who later introduced themselves as police to drive for them. James, Roberto de Claros friend, also went with them.
officers, pulled accused-appellant Rolando delos Reyes from the driver seat
The last witness for the prosecution was P/Insp. Cruto of the PNP Crime of the latters car, transferred him and Marlon David to the back seat of said The vehicle driven by Emmanuel de Claro was a rented car because his own
Laboratory. P/Insp. Cruto was the forensic chemist who conducted the car, and blindfolded both of them. Two of the armed men sat in the front car was in the auto shop. Emmanuel de Claro, Lantion-Tom, Roberto de Claro,
physical, chemical, and confirmatory examinations of the contents of the 10 seats of the car, while one of them sat at the back, beside accused-appellant and James first went to Las Pias City to check on Emmanuel de Claros car at
heat-sealed plastic sachets submitted by the RMG-NCRPO on February 18, Rolando delos Reyes and Marlon David. The armed men drove the car around the auto shop. From there, they proceeded to Libertad in Pasay City and ate
2000. (paikot-ikot). The armed men then separated accused-appellant Rolando dinner at the Duty Free Philippines. Afterwards, the group made their way to
delos Reyes from Marlon David. They ordered Marlon David to alight from Mandaluyong City where Lantion-Tom had a scheduled appointment with
P/Insp. Cruto conducted the physical examination by weighing the contents the car and transfer to another vehicle. While in the other car, the armed men Daisy Milan (Milan), her accountant. Emmanuel de Claro and Lantion-Tom
of each sachet, revealing that two sachets weighed 99.6 grams each; two boxed and mauled Marlon David to force him to admit to be the source of the met Milan at Whistle Stop Restaurant located at Shangri-La Plaza in
sachets, 99.5 grams each; one sachet, 99.2 grams; two sachets, 98.4 grams plastic bag. Each question was accompanied with one punch. Marlon David Mandaluyong City. Milan and Lantion-Tom discussed matters pertaining to
each; one sachet, 98.3 grams; one sachet, 94.9 grams; and one sachet, 93.5 remained blindfolded until they arrived at the police camp in Bicutan, Taguig, the business permit. Emmanuel de Claro stepped outside the restaurant for a
grams. P/Insp. Cruto then took a representative sample from each plastic where he again saw accused-appellant Rolando delos Reyes. Marlon David moment to smoke a cigarette, then, returned inside to wait for the meeting
sachet and proceeded with his chemical and confirmatory examinations. The was released the following morning, leaving accused-appellant Rolando delos between Lantion-Tom and Milan to finish. After their meeting, Lantion-Tom
contents of the 10 heat-sealed plastic sachets all tested positive for Reyes behind at the police camp. Marlon David went home and told Virginia walked Milan outside the restaurant, while Emmanuel de Claro waited for
methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu. P/Insp. Cruto delos Reyes, the wife of accused-appellant Rolando delos Reyes, about the Lantion-Tom inside.
recorded the result of the examinations in his Physical Sciences Report No. D- incident.
097-2000.[14] Three male persons suddenly approached Emmanuel de Claro and
Marlon David, during his cross examination, denied knowing any person with introduced themselves as police officers. They warned Emmanuel de Claro
The prosecution submitted the following object and documentary evidence: the name Mac-Mac. Marlon David additionally relayed that he was told by not to make a scene and just go with them peacefully. Emmanuel de Claro
the Joint Affidavit of Arrest[15] dated February 18, 2000 signed by SPO1 accused-appellant Rolando delos Reyes that the latter was likewise mauled obeyed. He was brought outside the restaurant and was forced to get into a
Lectura, PO3 Santiago, PO3 Corbe, PO3 Arcancia, PO3 Dela Cruz and PO3 by the armed men. waiting car. For about three hours inside the car, he was punched,
Javier; the Sketch prepared in open court by SPO1 Lectura;[16] the 10 heat- handcuffed, blindfolded, and told to bow down his head. He was likewise
sealed plastic sachets recovered from the possession of accused- Accused-appellant Rolando delos Reyes or Botong gave a similar account of being forced to admit something about the shabu, but he denied knowing
appellants;[17] the PNP-RMG Request for Laboratory Examination of the the incident that took place at 1:00 p.m. on February 17, 2000, while he and anything about it. He heard from the radio inside the car that the police
contents of the 10 heat-sealed plastic sachets;[18] the PNP Crime Laboratory Marlon David were at the Buenas Market in Cainta, Rizal. Their car was officers were waiting for another car. After three hours of traveling, the car
finally stopped and when his blindfold was removed, he learned that they Mandaluyong City for her alleged involvement in an illegal drug deal. At the (3) ACCUSED WERE PICKED-UP AT THE VICINITY OF EDSA SHANGRI-LA
36
were already at Camp Bagong Diwa in Bicutan, Taguig. time of the arrest, she was with Emmanuel de Claro, Roberto de Claro, and PLAZA HOTEL.
James. She was also brought to Camp Bagong Diwa in Taguig where she was
Emmanuel de Claro was placed in one room where he stayed for almost an interrogated without a lawyer. She was shown a box containing shabu which II. THAT THE HONORABLE COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING
hour, until he was called into another room where he met his co-accused for she had never seen before. Lantion-Tom insisted that she was in THAT THE WARRANTLESS ARREST WAS LAWFUL SINCE THE ACCUSED
the first time. He later saw Lantion-Tom at the office of one of the police Mandaluyong City to meet her accountant, Milan, regarding her application WERE CAUGHT IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO.
officers. They were interrogated by the police and being forced to admit that for a business permit. Lantion-Tom pointed out that the charge against her
the drugs being shown to them belonged to them. They asked for a lawyer was eventually dismissed. III. THE HONORABLE COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT
but their plea was ignored. The police told Emmanuel de Claro and Lantion- THERE WAS CONSPIRACY AMONG THE THREE (3) ACCUSED IN THE
Tom that somebody should be held responsible for the shabu so they were The documentary evidence for the defense consisted of Emmanuel de Claros ALLEGED COMMISSION OF THE CRIME OF UNLAWFUL SALE, DELIVERY AND
made to choose whether both of them or only one of them would be charged. Counter Affidavit dated March 23, 2000,[27] Lantion-Toms Counter Affidavit TRANSPORTATION OF THE PROHIBITED DRUG.
Emmanuel de Claro was compelled to choose the latter option. dated March 23, 2000,[28] Emmanuel de Claro and Lantion-Toms
Supplemental Affidavit dated March 29, 2000,[29] Roberto de Claros Witness IV. THE HONORABLE COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING BOTH
Roberto de Claro corroborated Emmanuel de Claros testimony. On February Affidavit dated March 29, 2000,[30] Marlon Davids Sinumpaang Salaysay ACCUSED GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED
17, 2000, Roberto de Claro was at home playing video games when his dated March 14, 2000,[31] Virginia delos Reyes Sinumpaang Salaysay dated IN THE INFORMATION ON THE BASIS MAINLY OF A DISPUTABLE
brother Emmanuel de Claro and the latters wife, Lantion-Tom, arrived and March 14, 2000,[32] Navarros Sinumpaang Salaysay dated March 14, PRESUMPTION OF LACK OF IMPROPER MOTIVE ON THE PART OF THE
requested him to drive their car because Emmanuel was not feeling well. 2000,[33] accused-appellant Rolando delos Reyes Sinumpaang Kontra POLICE OFFICERS.
James, Roberto de Claros friend, rode with them. They first went to Las Pias Salaysay dated March 14, 2000,[34] and a Barangay Blotter dated February
City to check on Emmanuel de Claros car at the auto shop, then they 19, 2000 by Virginia delos Reyes.[35] The RTC admitted all these V. THAT THE HONORABLE COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN ITS FAILURE
proceeded to Libertad, Pasay City, where they had dinner at Duty Free documentary evidence for the defense in its Order[36] dated September 13, TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT ACCUSED EMMANUEL DE CLARO WAS NOT
Philippines. They next drove to Whistle Stop Restaurant at Shangri-La Plaza 2002. AFFORDED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS DURING CUSTODIAL
in Mandaluyong City to meet Ms. Milan. Only Emmanuel de Claro and INVESTIGATION.[43]
Lantion-Tom went inside the restaurant. Roberto de Claro and James stayed In its Decision dated September 23, 2003, the RTC found accused-appellants
in the car. and Emmanuel de Claro guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
charged, and decreed: Emmanuel de Claro principally contended that the accusation that he was
Two hours later, Roberto de Claro saw Lantion-Tom and Ms. Milan walking WHEREFORE, the prosecution having successfully proved the guilt of the engaging in an illegal drug deal, levied against him by prosecution witnesses
towards them. As the two women were approaching, armed men suddenly accused beyond reasonable doubt for unlawfully possessing/selling, SPO1 Lectura, PO3 Santiago, and PO3 Yumul was suspicious, if not incredible.
appeared, surrounded their car, and pointed guns at them. Roberto de Claro delivering, transporting and distributing methamphetamine hydrochloride Emmanuel de Claro pointed out that although these police officers testified
got terrified. It was as if an armed robbery (hold-up) was taking place. The otherwise known as shabu, a regulated drug, without lawful authority in that Lantion-Tom, from the car, handed to him the plastic bag containing the
armed men knocked at the car window. Out of fear, Roberto de Claro opened violation of Sections 15 and 16 of Article III in relation to Section 21 of Article box with sachets of shabu, the prosecution still dropped the criminal charges
the window, then the door of the car. Roberto de Claro, James, and Lantion- IV of R.A. No. 6425, as amended, they are hereby sentenced to suffer the against Lantion-Tom. Emmanuel de Claro also strongly argued that the
Tom were made to sit at the back seat of the car. Two of the armed men sat penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of P20,000.00 each and the prosecution failed to contradict his well-supported alibi that he, his wife, and
on the front seats of the car, while one sat at the back with Roberto de Claro, costs of suit. his brother went to Shangri-La Plaza in Mandaluyong City to meet his wifes
James, and Lantion-Tom. The armed men introduced themselves as police accountant, so they could attend to several documents pertaining to a
officers. Further, all the methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) taken and seized business permit. Emmanuel de Claro further insisted that the RTC should
from the accused during the aforesaid operation are forfeited and confiscated have highly regarded accused-appellant Rolando delos Reyes testimony
Inside the car, the police officers mauled (siniko, sinuntok sa ulo) Roberto de in favor of the government shall be turned over to the PDEA pursuant to law which directly contradicted the police officers statements.
Claro, James, and Lantion-Tom, all the while ordering them to keep their for proper disposal without delay.[37]
heads bowed down. The police officers drove the car for two hours, stopping In its Order[44] dated November 11, 2003, the RTC granted Emmanuel de
at a gas station for about five minutes. At this moment, Roberto de Claro was Claros motion to withdraw his notice of appeal and required the prosecution
able to raise his head but was immediately told to bow down his head again. Emmanuel de Claro filed his notice of appeal[38] on October 23, 2003. to comment to his motions for reconsideration.
Roberto de Claro also heard from the police officers radio that they were still Accused-appellants Roberto delos Reyes and Reyes each filed his notice of
waiting for somebody. They travelled again for quite a long time and stopped appeal[39] on October 29, 2003 and December 30, 2003, respectively. The prosecution filed its Comment/Opposition[45] on December 19, 2003,
in a dark place. The police officers took Roberto de Claros wallet containing Emmanuel de Claro, however, subsequently moved to withdraw his notice of objecting to Emmanuel de Claros motions for reconsideration and
P7,000.00 cash. Early in the following morning, they arrived at the police appeal,[40] instead, filing before the RTC an Omnibus Motion for maintaining that its police-witnesses categorical, consistent, and straight-
station where Roberto de Claro saw his brother Emmanuel de Claro once Reconsideration and to Re-Open Proceedings Pursuant [to] Section 24, Rule forward testimonies were sufficient to convict Emmanuel de Claro.
more. They stayed in one room until Roberto de Claro and James were 119 of the Rules of Court[41] on October 30, 2003, and a Supplemental
released by the police the next day. Motion for Reconsideration[42] on November 3, 2003. Emmanuel de Claro In a complete turnabout from its previous findings and conclusion, the RTC,
asked the RTC to review its judgment of conviction based on the following in its Order[46] dated January 12, 2004, acquitted Emmanuel de Claro of the
When Lantion-Tom was called to testify, the prosecution and the defense grounds: crime charged. The RTC explicitly admitted that it erred in giving full faith
agreed to consider her Counter Affidavit dated March 23, 2000 and and credit to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses SPO1 Lectura, PO3
Supplemental Affidavit dated March 29, 2000 as her direct examination. I. THE HONORABLE COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT THE Santiago, and PO3 Yumul, and in entirely rejecting the alibi of the defense.
ACCUSED DEFENSE OF FRAME-UP IS A MERE ALIBI AND HAS THUS ERRED Thus, the RTC disposed:
On cross-examination, Lantion-Tom confirmed that she was among those IN ADOPTING THE THEORY OF THE PROSECUTION THAT ALL THE THREE
arrested on February 17, 2000 at the vicinity of Shangri-La Plaza in
WHEREFORE, the motion of accused-movant Emmanuel De Claro is hereby II. ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE WARRANTLESS ARREST WAS
37
GRANTED and a new one entered, ACQUITTING him of the crime charged. VALID, ACCUSED-APPELLANT RAYMUNDO REYES CANNOT BE CONVICTED Plaintiff-appellee avers that the inconsistencies in the police officers
Consequently, his immediate release from detention is hereby ordered unless FOR VIOLATION OF R.A. 6425.[57] statements, as pointed out by accused-appellants, are trivial and do not affect
he is detained for other cause or causes.[47] the weight of their testimonies; while accused-appellants defenses of denial
Accused-appellants essentially assert that the charge of illegal drug deal and frame-up could be easily concocted and, thus, should be looked upon
lodged against them by the police is a complete fabrication and frame-up. with disfavor. Moreover, there is no need for proof of consideration for the
Nevertheless, in view of the pending notices of appeal of accused-appellants, Accused-appellants called attention to the material inconsistencies in the illegal drug deal, since consideration is not an element of the crime charged.
the RTC forwarded the complete records of the case to us on March 29, 2004, prosecutions evidence. PO3 Santiago testified during direct examination that
and we gave due course to the said appeals in our Resolution[48] dated June accused-appellant Rolando delos Reyes handed the plastic bag with box Plaintiff-appellee avows that accused-appellants were caught while in the
21, 2004. inside to accused-appellant Reyes, but he admitted during cross-examination commission of a crime or in flagrante delicto, which justifies their
that he did not see such transfer. The prosecution was unable to present any warrantless arrests under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.
Accused-appellant Rolando delos Reyes filed his Appellants Brief[49] on evidence to prove the source of the plastic bag containing the box with Accused-appellants were arrested while in possession and in the act of
September 15, 2004, while accused-appellant Reyes filed his Appellants sachets of shabu, and the money paid as consideration for the illegal drugs. distributing, without legal authority, a total of 980.9 grams of
Brief[50] on November 26, 2004. Pursuant to our pronouncement in People The prosecution likewise failed to rebut accused-appellant Rolando delos methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, on the night of February 17,
v. Mateo,[51] we transferred the case to the Court of Appeals for appropriate Reyes straightforward, coherent, and truthful narration, corroborated by 2000 at the parking area of Shangri-La Plaza in Mandaluyong City. In
action and disposition.[52] Accordingly, the plaintiff-appellee, represented by Marlon David, that he was illegally arrested at Buenas Market in Cainta, Rizal, addition, in the absence of satisfactory proof to the contrary, the warrantless
the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed before the appellate court its and not at Shangri-la Plaza in Mandaluyong City. arrests executed by the police officers enjoy the presumption that official
Consolidated Brief[53] on January 21, 2005. duty has been regularly performed.
Accused-appellants additionally argued that even the prosecutions version of
The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated July 12, 2006, sustained the the arrests of the suspects and seizure of the shabu shows that the same were We grant the appeal and reverse the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals.
conviction of accused-appellants, and merely modified the penalty imposed effected in violation of accused-appellants fundamental rights. The arrests
upon them, from life imprisonment to reclusion perpetua. According to the were executed without any warrant or any of the exceptional circumstances At the outset, we observe that the prosecutors and the RTC both displayed
appellate court, the police officers testimonies deserve credence than to justify a warrantless arrest. The suspects, including accused-appellants, uncertainty as to the facts surrounding accused-appellants arrest on the
accused-appellants defenses of denial and alibi, there being no evidence to were arrested without warrants based on a mere tip from a confidential night of February 17, 2000.
rebut the presumption that the police officers regularly performed their informant and not because of any apparent criminal activity. A tip does not
official duties. constitute probable cause for a warrantless arrest or search and seizure The Office of the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City, after preliminary
incidental thereto. Thus, the shabu allegedly seized from accused-appellants investigation and reinvestigation, recommended that the RTC drop accused-
The case was then elevated to us for final review. In our Resolution[54] dated is inadmissible in evidence. appellant Rolando delos Reyes and Lantion-Tom from the criminal charge.
January 31, 2007, we required the parties to submit their supplemental The RTC only partially adopted the recommendations of the Office of the City
briefs. Plaintiff-appellee and accused-appellants Rolando delos Reyes and Plaintiff-appellee, on the other hand, stand by the convictions of accused- Prosecutor: dropping the criminal charge against Lantion-Tom, but still
Reyes filed their manifestations[55] on March 14, 2007, April 10, 2007, and appellants, maintaining that: finding probable cause against accused-appellant Rolando delos Reyes.[59]
April 13, 2007, respectively, opting to stand by the briefs they had already
filed before the Court of Appeals. I. THE POSITIVE AND CREDIBLE TESTIMONIES OF THE Even after trial, the RTC wavered in its findings and conclusion. In its
PROSECUTION WITNESSES HAVE ESTABLISHED THE GUILT OF Decision[60] dated September 23, 2003, the RTC initially convicted accused-
In his Appellants Brief, accused-appellant Rolando delos Reyes assigned the APPELLANTS BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. appellants and Emmanuel de Claro, but acting on Emmanuel de Claros
following errors of the RTC: motions for reconsideration, said trial court, in its Order[61] dated January
II. THE WARRANTLESS ARREST CONDUCTED BY THE POLICE IS 12, 2004, totally reversed itself and acquitted Emmanuel de Claro. This time,
I. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FAILING TO RESOLVE THE VALID SINCE IT FALLS SQUARELY UNDER RULE 113, SECTION 5(A) OF THE the RTC gave more weight to the evidence presented by the defense.
CONTRADICTORY TESTIMONY AS TO THE PLACE OF THE ARREST IN FAVOR REVISED RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
OF THE ACCUSED. The Court of Appeals, on appeal, refused to consider the subsequent acquittal
III. THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION MORE THAN of Emmanuel de Claro by the RTC. Instead, the appellate court upheld the
II. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING [THE] TESTIMONIES OF SUFFICE TO CONVICT APPELLANTS OF THE CRIME CHARGED. earlier ruling of the RTC giving absolute credence to the testimonies of the
PO3 VIRGILIO SANTIAGO CREDIBLE. prosecution witnesses and convicted accused-appellants of the crime
IV. CONSPIRACY ATTENDED THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE. charged. Despite the varying judgments of the RTC, the Court of Appeals
III. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THE speciously ratiocinated in its assailed decision that when the issue involves
PROSECUTIONS EVIDENCE WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY CATEGORIZE[D] AS V. MERE DENIAL AND HULIDAP, WITHOUT MORE, CANNOT the credibility of a witness, the trial courts assessment is entitled to great
WEAK WHEN THE COURT A QUO GRANTED BAIL TO THE ACCUSED.[56] EXCULPATE APPELLANTS FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY. weight.
VI. THE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF Guided by the settled rule that where the inculpatory facts admit of several
Accused-appellant Reyes cited these errors in his Appellants Brief: OFFICIAL DUTY UNDER SECTION 3(M) OF RULE 131 OF THE REVISED interpretations, one consistent with accused's innocence and another with
RULES OF COURT HAD NOT BEEN OVERCOME BY DEFENSE EVIDENCE. his guilt, the evidence thus adduced fail[ed] to meet the test of moral
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THE WARRANTLESS certainty,[63] we find that the findings and conclusion of the RTC in its
ARREST OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT RAYMUNDO REYES AS UNLAWFUL. VII. CONCLUSION OF THE TRIAL JUDGE REGARDING THE CREDIBILITY subsequent Order[64] dated January 12, 2004 (in which it acquitted
OF WITNESSES COMMANDS GREAT RESPECT AND CONSIDERATION.[58] Emmanuel de Claro) is more in keeping with the evidence on record in this
case. It bears to stress that the very same evidence were presented against
Emmanuel de Claro and accused-appellants; if the evidence is insufficient to There are also material inconsistencies between the police-witnesses sworn Complementary to the above provision is the exclusionary rule enshrined in
38
convict the former, then it is also insufficient to convict the latter. statements following accused-appellants arrest and their testimonies before Section 3, paragraph 2 of Article III of the Constitution, which solidifies the
the RTC. The police officers attested in their Joint Affidavit of Arrest dated protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, thus:
Indeed, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses SPO1 Lectura, PO3 February 18, 2000 that upon sensing suspicious transactions being
Santiago, and PO3 Yumul are unreliable and suspiciously fabricated. In its undertaken thereat, team leader thru hand signaled immediately accosted Section 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be
Order dated January 12, 2004, the RTC correctly observed that: the suspects and introduced themselves as Police Officers and after that, inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or
subject persons deliberately admitted that they have in their possession order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
Viewed vis--vis the peculiar factual milieu of this case, not to say the illegal drugs and thereafter showed the same to the herein undersigned
insistence by the accused-movant [Emmanuel de Claro] that a reevaluation or arresting officers thus they were placed under arrest.[66] Yet, during trial (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall
reassessment of the evidence by the prosecution be considered, this court before the RTC, the police officers uniformly testified that they brought be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. (Emphases supplied.)
has decided to revisit the evidence put forward by the prosecution through accused-appellants, Emmanuel de Claro and Lantion-Tom to the police office
the crucible of a severe testing by taking a more than casual consideration of after arresting the four suspects in flagrante delicto, without mention at all of The foregoing constitutional proscription is not without exceptions. Search
every circumstance of the case. the suspects purported admission. and seizure may be made without a warrant and the evidence obtained
therefrom may be admissible in the following instances: (1) search incident
It is noted that the testimony given by the witnesses for the prosecution and We also consider the fact that Lantion-Tom was never charged with any to a lawful arrest; (2) search of a moving motor vehicle; (3) search in
that of the defense are diametrically opposed to each other. While this court criminal involvement even when, according to the prosecutions version of violation of customs laws; (4) seizure of evidence in plain view; (5) when the
had already made its conclusion that the testimonies of prosecution events, she was the first person to deliver the shabu. This seriously dents the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and seizures;
witnesses PO3 Santiago, SPO1 Lectura and PO3 Yumul are given full faith and prosecutions sequence of events on the night of February 17, 2000. and (6) stop and frisk situations.[67]
credit and reject the frame-up and alibi story of the accused-movant
[Emmanuel de Claro], nonetheless, upon reassessment of the same it appears In contrast, accused-appellants presented clear and convincing evidence in The first exception (search incidental to a lawful arrest) includes a valid
that the court erred. support of their defenses, which the prosecution failed to rebut. Specifically, warrantless search and seizure pursuant to an equally valid warrantless
accused-appellant Rolando delos Reyes testified that he was illegally arrested arrest which must precede the search. In this instance, the law requires that
In sum, the conveniently dovetailing accounts of the prosecution without warrant at Buenas Market, Cainta, Rizal, not at Shangri-La Plaza in there be first a lawful arrest before a search can be made the process cannot
eyewitnesses, all of them police officers, with regard to the material facts of Mandaluyong City; and that he and Marlon David were coerced to incriminate be reversed. As a rule, an arrest is considered legitimate if effected with a
how the crime was allegedly committed engenders doubt as to their themselves for possession of shabu. His claims were corroborated by Marlon valid warrant of arrest. The Rules of Court, however, recognizes permissible
credibility. Firstly, the court noted that these police officers gave identical Davids testimony and Navarros Sinumpaang Salaysay dated March 14, 2000. warrantless arrests. Thus, a peace officer or a private person may, without
testimonies of the events that happened from the moment they arrived at 2 Also, Emmanuel de Claro, Lantion-Tom, and Roberto de Claro consistently warrant, arrest a person: (a) when, in his presence, the person to be arrested
oclock in the afternoon until the arrest of the accused at 10:30 oclock in the testified that they were at Shangri-La Plaza to meet Milan, Lantion-Toms has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense
evening at the EDSA Shangri-La premises. This uniform account given by accountant, regarding documents for a business permit (photocopies of the (arrest in flagrante delicto); (b) when an offense has just been committed and
these witnesses cannot but generate the suspicion that the material said documents were presented during trial); and that they were illegally he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances testified to by them were integral parts of a well thought-out arrested without warrant and forced to admit criminal liability for circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it (arrest
and prefabricated story. Because of the close camaraderie of these witnesses possession of shabu. These pieces of evidence are overwhelmingly adequate effected in hot pursuit); and (c) when the person to be arrested is a prisoner
who belong to the same police force it is not difficult for them to make the to overthrow the presumption of regularity in the performance by the who has escaped from a penal establishment or a place where he is serving
same story. Furthermore, their testimonies are so general which shows only arresting police officers of their official duties and raise reasonable doubt in final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has
too clearly that they testified uniformly only as to material facts but have not accused-appellants favor. escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another (arrest of
given the particulars and the details having relation with the principal facts. escaped prisoners).[68]
While they testified that they were at Shangri-La from 2 in the afternoon to Furthermore, even assuming that the prosecutions version of the events that
10 in the evening, they were not able to tell the court how their group took place on the night of February 17, 2000 were true, it still failed to In People v. Molina,[69] we cited several cases involving in flagrante delicto
positioned strategically at the premises without being noticed by their target. establish probable cause to justify the in flagrante delicto arrests of accused- arrests preceding the search and seizure that were held illegal, to wit:
They could not also gave (sic) an explanation how their confidential appellants and search of accused-appellants persons, incidental to their In People v. Chua Ho San, the Court held that in cases of in flagrante delicto
informant was able to obtain information regarding the drug deal that was arrests, resulting in the seizure of the shabu in accused-appellants arrests, a peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
supposed to take place on that date involving several personalities. Except possession. person when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
for their bare allegation that they have that information regarding the drug actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. The arresting
deal they were not able to present any proof of such report, say, entry in their Section 2, Article III of the Constitution provides: officer, therefore, must have personal knowledge of such fact or, as recent
logbook of such confidential report and a spot report. Even their operation is case law adverts to, personal knowledge of facts or circumstances
not recorded as no documentary evidence was presented. Worth Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, convincingly indicative or constitutive of probable cause. As discussed in
remembering in this regard is People v. Alviar, 59 SCRA 136, where it is said papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever People v. Doria, probable cause means an actual belief or reasonable grounds
that: . . . [i]t often happens with fabricated stories that minute particulars nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or of suspicion. The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of
have not been thought of. It has also been said that an honest witness, who warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined actual belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion that the person to be
has sufficient memory to state one fact, and that fact a material one, cannot personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense, is based on actual facts,
be safely relied upon as such weakness of memory not only leaves the case complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing i.e., supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create
incomplete, but throws doubt upon the accuracy of the statements made. the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. A reasonable
Such a witness may be honest, but his testimony is not reliable.[65] suspicion therefore must be founded on probable cause, coupled with good
(Emphasis supplied.) faith on the part of the peace officers making the arrest.
As applied to in flagrante delicto arrests, it is settled that "reliable a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of xxxx
Q: Did you see that something that was taken inside that car? 39
information" alone, absent any overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise the arresting officer.[70] (Emphases supplied.)
in the presence and within the view of the arresting officers, are not sufficient A: White plastic bag, sir.
to constitute probable cause that would justify an in flagrante delicto arrest. Similar to the above-cited cases in Molina, there is a dearth of evidence in this
Q: What happened after that?
Thus, in People v. Aminnudin, it was held that "the accused-appellant was case to justify the in flagrante delicto arrests of accused-appellants and A: Cocoy went inside the Whistle Stop, sir.
not, at the moment of his arrest, committing a crime nor was it shown that he search of their persons incidental to the arrests.
was about to do so or that he had just done so. What he was doing was Q: With the bag?
descending the gangplank of the M/V Wilcon 9 and there was no outward A close examination of the testimonies of SPO1 Lectura, PO3 Santiago, and A: No, it was left with Botong, sir.
indication that called for his arrest. To all appearances, he was like any of the PO3 Yumul reveal that they simply relied on the information provided by
other passengers innocently disembarking from the vessel. It was only when their confidential informant that an illegal drug deal was to take place on the Q: What happened next after that?
A: Botong proceeded to his car near Mac-Mac, sir.
the informer pointed to him as the carrier of the marijuana that he suddenly night of February 17, 2000 at Shangri-la Plaza in Mandaluyong City. Without
became suspect and so subject to apprehension." any other independent information, and by simply seeing the suspects pass Q: What happened next after that?
from one to another a white plastic bag with a box or carton inside, the police A: We already sensed that drug deal has transpired, sir. We accosted him.
Likewise, in People v. Mengote, the Court did not consider "eyes . . . darting team was already able to conclude that the box contained shabu and sensed
from side to side . . . [while] holding . . . [one's] abdomen," in a crowded street that an illegal drug deal took place. xxxx
at 11:30 in the morning, as overt acts and circumstances sufficient to arouse Q: What did you do?
suspicion and indicative of probable cause. According to the Court, "[b]y no SPO1 Lectura testified on direct examination as follows: A: I arrested Mac-Mac, sir.
stretch of the imagination could it have been inferred from these acts that an Q: What was the information gathered by your informant?
A: That there will be a drug deal between 6 to 11 in the evening, sir. xxxx
offense had just been committed, or was actually being committed, or was at Q: Who of your companion apprehended Botong or Rolando delos Reyes?
least being attempted in [the arresting officers'] presence." So also, in People A: Botong was arrested by Yumul and Padpad, sir.
Q: You were there as early as 2:00 p.m.?
v. Encinada, the Court ruled that no probable cause is gleanable from the act A: Yes, sir.
of riding a motorela while holding two plastic baby chairs. Q: How about De Claro?
Q: What did you do after briefing? A: Arrested by Santiago, sir.
Then, too, in Malacat v. Court of Appeals, the trial court concluded that A: We positioned ourselves strategically, we waited for the arrival of the
subject, sir. xxxx
petitioner was attempting to commit a crime as he was "'standing at the Q: Then what did you do after apprehending these people?
corner of Plaza Miranda and Quezon Boulevard' with his eyes 'moving very A: We brought them to our office for investigation, sir.[71] (Emphases
xxxx
fast' and 'looking at every person that come (sic) nearer (sic) to them."' In supplied.)
Q: When you are already positioned in your respective area at the vicinity of
declaring the warrantless arrest therein illegal, the Court said: Shangri-La Plaza, what happened next, if any?
A: At around 10:00 p.m. two (2) cars arrived and they were identified by the
Here, there could have been no valid in flagrante delicto ... arrest preceding informant that they were the personalities involved. PO3 Santiagos testimony also did not offer much justification for the
warrantless arrest of accused-appellants and search of their persons:
the search in light of the lack of personal knowledge on the part of Yu, the
xxxx Q: When these two (2) persons went out of the restaurant and went to the
arresting officer, or an overt physical act, on the part of petitioner, indicating place where blue Mazda car was parked, what happened next?
that a crime had just been committed, was being committed or was going to Q: When this two (2) cars arrive what happened next?
A: They talked for a while after few minutes Botong entered, sir. A: The person inside the Mazda car, from the backseat, handed a white plastic
be committed. bag with a box inside to Emmanuel de Claro [Cocoy], sir. Then, Emmanuel de
xxxx Claro [Cocoy] gave it to Rolando Delos Reyes [Botong], sir.
It went on to state that Q: Do you know this Botong prior this incident?
A: No, sir. Q: You mentioned about somebody handling box to De Claro [Cocoy] from
inside that Mazda car?
Second, there was nothing in petitioner's behavior or conduct which could
Q: How did you come to know that he is Botong? A: Yes, sir.
have reasonably elicited even mere suspicion other than that his eyes were
A: Through our informant, sir.
"moving very fast" an observation which leaves us incredulous since Yu and Q: Who was this somebody handling that box?
his teammates were nowhere near petitioner and it was already 6:30 p.m., Q: When Botong went to the Whistle Stop, what happened next? A: It was Mary Jane Lantion, sir.
thus presumably dusk. Petitioner and his companions were merely standing A: According to my other companion he talked to another person then after
at the corner and were not creating any commotion or trouble . . . that they went out, sir. xxxx
Q: When you see De Claro [Cocoy] handling the box to Botong, what
xxxx happened after that?
Third, there was at all no ground, probable or otherwise, to believe that A: Botong proceeded to the place of Mac-Mac and Emmanuel De Claro
petitioner was armed with a deadly weapon. None was visible to Yu, for as he Q: How long did Botong stay in Whistle Stop Restaurant?
A: One (1) minute, sir. [Cocoy] returned back inside the said restaurant, sir.
admitted, the alleged grenade was "discovered" "inside the front waistline" of
petitioner, and from all indications as to the distance between Yu and xxxx Q: Where was Mac-Mac then at that time?
petitioner, any telltale bulge, assuming that petitioner was indeed hiding a Q: When you say they who is the companion? A: Near their car, sir. He was waiting for Botong.
grenade, could not have been visible to Yu. A: Cocoy, sir.
Q: After that what happened next?
xxxx A: When Botong returned to Mac-Mac, he gave white plastic bag with box
Clearly, to constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, two requisites must inside to Mac-Mac, sir.
concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating Q: What happened next after they went out to the car?
A: They went to another car and Cocoy got something from his car and
that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit Q: What happened after that?
handed to Botong, sir.
A: Our team leader, sensing that the drug deal have been consummated, we A: In the evening, sir, of February 17, 2000, sir.
apprehended them, sir. xxxx 40
Q: And you stated that two vehicles arrived? Q: Were you able to know the person inside that car and who handed to
Q: How did you come to know that there was a drug deal at that particular A: Yes, sir. Cocoy the white plastic bag?
place and time? A: Yes, sir.
A: Because of the information given to us by the informant, sir. xxxx
Q: So what happened when this vehicle arrived? Q: Who was that person?
Q: Are you aware of the contents of that box at that time? A: The red Toyota corolla follows, sir. A: Mary Jane Lantion, sir.
A: No, sir.
xxxx xxxx
Q: How did you come to know that there was a consummation of a drug deal? Q: Then what happened? What did you do, if any? Q: And when this white plastic bag with carton placed inside handed to
A: Because of the information given to us by the informant that there will be a A: Our confidential informant told us that, that is our subject, sir. Cocoy, what did you do?
drug-deal, sir. A: It was first handed by Cocoy to Botong, the plastic bag and then they
xxxx walked in different direction, Cocoy went back inside the Whistle Stop and
xxxx Q: What happened next, if any, were they alighted from the car? then Botong went back to Mac-Mac, sir.
Q: Then what did you do? A: Yes, sir.
A: We brought them to our office for proper investigation, sir. xxxx
xxxx Q: And then what happened next after that?
Q: At your office, what else did you do? Q: Then, what happened next, if any? A: I followed Cocoy inside the Whistle Stop, sir.
A: We confiscated the evidence, marked them and a request for laboratory A: They talked after they alighted from their car, sir.
examination was made and other pertaining papers regarding the arrest of xxxx
the accused. Q: When you say nag-usap sila to whom are you referring? Q: So what did you do then?
A: To Mac-Mac and Botong, sir. A: I observed him inside but after a few minutes PO3 Virgilio Santiago went
Q: You mentioned about the confiscated evidence. What is that confiscated inside and told me that we will going to get them, sir.
evidence that you are saying? xxxx
A: Ten (10) pieces of white plastic transparent plastic bag with white Q: What happened next after you see them talking to each other? Q: Why are you going to get them?
crystalline substance suspected to be methamphetamine hydrochloride, sir. A: When they talk Mac-Mac called through cellphone, sir. A: Because the two were already arrested outside the Whistle Stop, Mac-Mac
and Botong, sir.
Q: How were these evidences confiscated by your group? Q: By the way, did you hear the conversation of this two?
A: They were confiscated from Mac-Mac, sir. A: No, sir. xxxx
Q: So what did you do when PO3 Santiago told you that?
Q: In what condition were they at that time that they were confiscated from xxxx A: PO3 Santiago approached Cocoy and I am just assisting him, PO3 Santiago
Mac-Mac? Q: How about the one calling over the cellphone, did you hear also what was to avoid commotion, sir.
A: They were placed inside the box, sir.[72] (Emphases supplied.) the subject of their conversation?
A: No, sir. Q: Then what did you do next after that?
A: We were able to get Cocoy and we went outside, sir.
PO3 Yumuls narration of events was not any different from those of SPO1 Q: So what happened next after seeing them having a conversation with each
Lectura and PO3 Santiago: other? Q: And then what did you do, if any?
A: Botong immediately walked and proceeding to the Whistle Stop, sir. A: After arresting them we boarded to the car and we went to the office,
Q: When did you meet the confidential informant? sir.[73] (Emphases supplied.)
A: At the vicinity of EDSA Shangri-La Plaza, sir. xxxx
Q: Then what happened when Botong went to Whistle Stop? Evident from the foregoing excerpts that the police officers arrested accused-
Q: And what was the information that was relayed to you by the confidential A: He talked to somebody inside, sir. appellants and searched the latters persons without a warrant after seeing
informant? Rolando delos Reyes and Emmanuel de Claro momentarily conversing in the
A: The identities of the persons, sir. xxxx
restaurant, and witnessing the white plastic bag with a box or carton inside
Q: And did you hear what was the subject of their conversation?
Q: What did he particularly tells you in that particular time you meet the A: No, sir. being passed from Lantion-Tom to Emmanuel de Claro, to accused-appellant
confidential informant at the vicinity of EDSA Shangri-La Plaza? Rolando delos Reyes, and finally, to accused-appellant Reyes. These
A: That there will be a drug-deal and the people involved will arrived Q: Then what happened next when Botong talked to somebody inside the circumstances, however, hardly constitute overt acts indicative of a felonious
together with their car, sir. Whistle Stop? enterprise. SPO1 Lectura, PO3 Santiago, and PO3 Yumul had no prior
A: The companion stood up and they went outside and both of them went to knowledge of the suspects identities, and they completely relied on their
xxxx the side of Whistle Stop in front of the blue car, sir. confidential informant to actually identify the suspects. None of the police
Q: And what happened after the confidential informant relayed to you the
officers actually saw what was inside that box. There is also no evidence that
information? xxxx
A: After we were brief by the confidential informant, we strategically Q: What did you do then? the confidential informant himself knew that the box contained shabu. No
positioned ourselves in the place where the drug-deal will occur, sir. A: Somebody opened the window in back of the blue car, sir. effort at all was taken to confirm that the arrested suspects actually knew
that the box or carton inside the white plastic bag, seized from their
xxxx Q: And then what happened next, if any? possession, contained shabu. The police officers were unable to establish a
Q: So what did you do after positioning yourselves in that place of EDSA A: A white plastic bag was handed to him with carton inside, sir. cogent fact or circumstance that would have reasonably invited their
Shangri-La Plaza and Whistle Stop restaurant, what happened next after that? attention, as officers of the law, to suspect that accused-appellants,
A: At around 10:00, one car arrived, a white Toyota corolla . . . xxxx
Emmanuel de Claro, and Lantion-Tom has just committed, is actually
Q: And who received that item or article from the car?
Q: 10:00 what? In the morning or in the evening? A: Cocoy, sir.
committing, or is attempting to commit a crime, particularly, an illegal drug evidence, as in this case, . . . [it] cannot be regarded as binding truth. Second, there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, control and
41
deal. the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot custody, 0.1017 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly
preponderate over the presumption of innocence that prevails if not known as “shabu,” a dangerous drug, in violation of the provisions of
Finally, from their own account of the events, the police officers had overthrown by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous
compromised the integrity of the shabu purportedly seized from accused- Drugs Act of 2002.
appellants. xxxx When arraigned, Sanchez pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. During
The government's drive against illegal drugs needs the support of every the pre-trial, the prosecution and the defense stipulated on the existence and
In People v. Sy Chua,[74] we questioned whether the shabu seized from the citizen. But it should not undermine the fundamental rights of every citizen due execution of the following pieces of evidence: 1] the request for
accused was the same one presented at the trial because of the failure of the as enshrined in the Constitution. The constitutional guarantee against laboratory examination; 2] certification issued by the National Bureau of
police to mark the drugs at the place where it was taken, to wit: warrantless arrests and unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be so Investigation (NBI); 3] Dangerous Drugs Report; and 4] transparent plastic
Furthermore, we entertain doubts whether the items allegedly seized from carelessly disregarded as overzealous police officers are sometimes wont to sachet containing small transparent plastic sachet of white crystalline
accused-appellant were the very same items presented at the trial of this do. Fealty to the constitution and the rights it guarantees should be substance.6 Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
case. The record shows that the initial field test where the items seized were paramount in their minds, otherwise their good intentions will remain as
identified as shabu, was only conducted at the PNP headquarters of Angeles such simply because they have blundered. The criminal goes free, if he must, Version of the Prosecution
City. The items were therefore not marked at the place where they were but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more
taken. In People v. Casimiro, we struck down with disbelief the reliability of quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the The prosecution’s version of the events as summarized by the Office of the
the identity of the confiscated items since they were not marked at the place charter of its own existence.[78] Solicitor General (OSG) in its Comment7 on the petition is as follows:
where they were seized, thus:
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated July 12, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA- Around 2:50 pm of March 19, 2003, acting on the information that Jacinta
The narcotics field test, which initially identified the seized item as G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01733 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused- Marciano, aka “Intang,” was selling drugs to tricycle drivers, SPO1 Elmer
marijuana, was likewise not conducted at the scene of the crime, but only at appellants Rolando delos Reyes and Raymundo Reyes are ACQUITTED on the Amposta, together with CSU Edmundo Hernandez, CSU Jose Tagle, Jr., and
the narcotics office. There is thus reasonable doubt as to whether the item ground of reasonable doubt and they are ORDERED forthwith released from CSU Samuel Monzon, was dispatched to Barangay Alapan 1-B, Imus, Cavite to
allegedly seized from accused-appellant is the same brick of marijuana custody, unless they are being lawfully held for another crime. conduct an operation.
marked by the policemen in their headquarters and given by them to the
crime laboratory.[75] (Emphases supplied.) While at the place, the group waited for a tricycle going to, and coming from,
G.R. No. 204589, November 19, 2014 the house of Jacinta. After a few minutes, they spotted a tricycle carrying
In the instant case, SPO1 Lectura, PO3 Santiago, and PO3 Yumul uniformly Rizaldy Sanchez coming out of the house. The group chased the tricycle. After
testified before the RTC that they brought the arrested suspects to the police RIZALDY SANCHEZ Y CAJILI, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, catching up with it, they requested Rizaldy to alight. It was then that they
office for investigation. SPO1 Lectura and PO3 Santiago were vague as to how Respondent. noticed Rizaldy holding a match box.
they ascertained as shabu the contents of the box inside the white plastic bag,
immediately after seizing the same from accused-appellant Reyes and before MENDOZA, J.: SPO1 Amposta asked Rizaldy if he could see the contents of the match box.
proceeding to the police office; while PO3 Yumul explicitly testified on cross- Rizaldy agreed. While examining it, SPO1 Amposta found a small transparent
examination[76] that he saw the shabu for the first time at the police office. This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 seeking to reverse and set aside plastic sachet which contained a white crystalline substance. Suspecting that
At any rate, all three police officers recounted that the shabu was marked by the July 25, 2012 Decision1 and the November 20, 2012 Resolution2 of the the substance was a regulated drug, the group accosted Rizaldy and the
SPO1 Benjamin David only at the police office. Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CR No. 31742 filed by petitioner Rizaldy tricycle driver. The group brought the two to the police station.
Sanchez y Cajili (Sanchez), affirming the April 21, 2005 Decision3 of the
Without valid justification for the in flagrante delicto arrests of accused- Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite, Branch 20 (RTC), which convicted him On March 20, 2003, Salud M. Rosales, a forensic chemist from the NBI,
appellants, the search of accused-appellants persons incidental to said for Violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165. The submitted a Certification which reads:
arrests, and the eventual seizure of the shabu from accused-appellants dispositive portion of the RTC decision reads:
possession, are also considered unlawful and, thus, the seized shabu is This certifies that on the above date at 9:25 a.m. one PO1 Edgardo Nario of
excluded in evidence as fruit of a poisonous tree. Without the corpus delicti WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is rendered convicting accused Imus, Mun. PS, PNP, Imus, Cavite submitted to this office for laboratory
for the crime charged, then the acquittal of accused-appellants is inevitable. Rizaldy Sanchez y Cajili of Violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act examinations the following specimen/s to wit:
No. 9165 and hereby sentences him to suffer imprisonment from twelve (12)
As we aptly held in People v. Sy Chua[77]: to fifteen (15) years and to pay a fine of Php300,000.00. White crystalline substance contained in a small plastic sachet, marked
“RSC,” placed in a plastic pack, marked “Mar. 19, 2003.” (net wt. = 0.1017
All told, the absence of ill-motive on the part of the arresting team cannot SO ORDERED.4 gm)…
simply validate, much more cure, the illegality of the arrest and consequent Sanchez was charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165,
warrantless search of accused-appellant. Neither can the presumption of otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, in the Examinations conducted on the above-mentioned specimen/s gave POSITIVE
regularity of performance of function be invoked by an officer in aid of the Information,5 dated March 20, 2003, filed before the RTC and docketed as RESULTS for METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE.
process when he undertakes to justify an encroachment of rights secured by Criminal Case No. 10745-03. The accusatory portion of the Information
the Constitution. In People v. Nubla, we clearly stated that: indicting Sanchez reads: Said specimen/s were allegedly confiscated from RIZALDY SANCHEZ y CAJILI
and DARWIN REYES y VILLARENTE.
The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot be That on or about the 19th day of March 2003, in the Municipality of Imus,
used as basis for affirming accused-appellant's conviction because, first, the Province of Cavite, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Official report follows:
presumption is precisely just that a mere presumption. Once challenged by Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and
This certification was issued upon request for purpose of filing the case. Sanchez was then and there committing a crime considering that he was seen
42
leaving the residence of a notorious drug dealer where, according to a tip Preliminarily, the Court notes that this petition suffers from procedural
Version of the Defense they received, illegal drug activities were being perpetrated. It concluded that infirmity. Under Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the proper remedy
the confiscation by the police operative of the subject narcotic from Sanchez to question the CA judgment, final order or resolution, as in the present case,
In the present petition,9 Sanchez denied the accusation against him and was pursuant to a valid search. The CA then went on to write that non- is a petition for review on certiorari, which would be but a continuation of
presented a different version of the events that transpired in the afternoon of compliance by the police officers on the requirements of Section 21, the appellate process over the original case.16 By filing a special civil action
March 19, 2003, to substantiate his claim of innocence: paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, particularly on the conduct of for certiorari under Rule 65, Sanchez therefore clearly availed himself of the
inventory and photograph of the seized drug, was not fatal to the wrong remedy.
On 24 February 2005, the accused Rizaldy Sanchez took the witness stand. prosecution’s cause since its integrity and evidentiary value had been duly
He testified that on the date and time in question, he, together with a certain preserved. The fallo of the decision reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Be that as it may, the Court, in several cases before, had treated a petition for
Darwin Reyes, were on their way home from Brgy. Alapan, Imus, Cavite, WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Imus, certiorari as a petition for review under Rule 45, in accordance with the
where they transported a passenger, when their way was blocked by four (4) Cavite dated April 21, 2005 and Order dated October 1, 2007 in Criminal Case liberal spirit and in the interest of substantial justice, particularly (1) if the
armed men riding an owner-type jeepney. Without a word, the four men No. 10745-03 finding accused-appellant Rizaldy C. Sanchez guilty beyond petition was filed within the reglementary period for filing a petition for
frisked him and Darwin. He protested and asked what offense did they reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. review; (2) errors of judgment are averred; and (3) there is sufficient reason
commit. The arresting officers told him that they had just bought drugs from 9165, is AFFIRMED. to justify the relaxation of the rules.17 The case at bench satisfies all the
Alapan. He reasoned out that he merely transported a passenger there but above requisites and, hence, there is ample justification to treat this petition
the policemen still accosted him and he was brought to the Imus Police SO ORDERED.13 for certiorari as a petition for review. Besides, it is axiomatic that the nature
Station where he was further investigated. The police officer, however, let Sanchez filed a motion for reconsideration of the July 25, 2012 Decision, but of an action is determined by the allegations of the complaint or petition and
Darwin Reyes go. On cross-examination, the accused admitted that it was the it was denied by the CA in its November 20, 2012 Resolution. the character of the relief sought.18 Here, stripped of allegations of “grave
first time that he saw the police officers at the time he was arrested. He also abuse of discretion,” the petition actually avers errors of judgment rather
disclosed that he was previously charged with the same offense before Hence, this petition. than of jurisdiction, which are the appropriate subjects of a petition for
Branch 90 of this court which was already dismissed, and that the police review on certiorari.
officers who testified in the said case are not the same as those involved in Bewailing his conviction, Sanchez filed the present petition for “certiorari”
this case.10 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and anchored on the following Going now into the substance of the petition, the Court finds the same to be
impressed with merit.
The Ruling of the RTC GROUNDS:
Although it is true that the trial court’s evaluation of the credibility of
On April 21, 2005, the RTC rendered its decision11 finding that Sanchez was 1. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, witnesses and their testimonies is entitled to great respect and not to be
caught in flagrante delicto , in actual possession of shabu. It stated that the COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK AND/OR disturbed on appeal, this rule, however, is not a hard and fast one. It is a time-
police operatives had reasonable ground to believe that Sanchez was in EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT HELD THAT ACCUSED WAS CAUGHT IN honored rule that the assessment of the trial court with regard to the
possession of the said dangerous drug and such suspicion was confirmed FLAGRANTE DELICTO, HENCE, A SEARCH WARRANT WAS NO LONGER credibility of witnesses deserves the utmost respect, if not finality, for the
when the match box Sanchez was carrying was found to contain shabu. The NECESSARY; AND reason that the trial judge has the prerogative, denied to appellate judges, of
RTC lent credence to the testimony of prosecution witness, SPO1 Elmer observing the demeanor of the declarants in the course of their testimonies.
Amposta (SPO1 Amposta) because there was no showing that he had been 2. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, WITH DUE RESPECT, COMMITTED But an exception exists if there is a showing that the trial judge overlooked,
impelled by any ill motive to falsely testify against Sanchez. The dispositive GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK AND/OR EXCESS OF misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and
portion of which reads: JURISDICTION WHEN IT HELD THAT NON-COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 21, substance that would have affected the case.19 After going over the records
PARAGRAPH 1, ARTICLE II OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 DOES NOT of the case at bench, the Court finds some facts of weight and substance that
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is rendered convicting accused AUTOMATICALLY RENDER THE SEIZED ITEMS INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE. have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied by the trial court
Rizaldy Sanchez y Cajili of Violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act which cast doubt on the guilt of Sanchez.
No. 9165 and hereby sentences him to suffer imprisonment from twelve (12) Sanchez insists on his acquittal. He argues that the warrantless arrest and
to fifteen (15) years and to pay a fine of Php300,000.00. search on him were invalid due to the absence of probable cause on the part In sustaining the conviction of Sanchez, the CA ratiocinated that this was a
of the police officers to effect an in flagrante delicto arrest under Section 15, clear case of an in flagrante delicto arrest under paragraph (a) Section 5, Rule
SO ORDERED.12 Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. He also contends that the failure of the police 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. In this regard, the CA
Unfazed, Sanchez appealed the RTC judgment of conviction before the CA. He operatives to comply with Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 wrote:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
faulted the RTC for giving undue weight on the testimony of SPO1 Amposta renders the seized item inadmissible in evidence and creates reasonable In the case at Bar, the acquisition of the regulated drug by the police officers
anchored merely on the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty doubt on his guilt. qualifies as a valid search following a lawful operation by the police officers.
of the said arresting officer. He insisted that the prosecution evidence was The law enforcers acted on the directive of their superior based on an
insufficient to establish his guilt. By way of Comment15 to the petition, the OSG prays for the affirmance of the information that the owner of the residence where Sanchez came from was a
challenged July 25, 2012 decision of the CA. The OSG submits that the notorious drug dealer. As Sanchez was seen leaving the said residence, the
The Ruling of the CA warrantless search and seizure of the subject narcotic were justified under law enforcers had probable cause to stop Sanchez on the road since there
the plain view doctrine where a police officer is not searching for evidence was already a tip that illegal drug-related activities were perpetrated in the
The CA found no cogent reason to reverse or modify the findings of facts and against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an place where he came from and seeing a match box held on one hand, the
conclusions reached by the RTC and, thus, upheld the conviction of the incriminating object. police officers’ action were justified to inspect the same. The search
accused for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. According to therefore, is a sound basis for the lawful seizure of the confiscated drug,
the CA, there was probable cause for the police officers to believe that The Court’s Ruling arrest and conviction of Sanchez.
We now proceed to the justification for and allowable scope of a “stop-and- Our superior gave us the information that there were tricycle drivers buying
drugs from “Intang” or Jacinta Marciano. 43
The case of People vs. Valdez (G.R. No. 127801, March 3, 1999) is instructive. frisk” as a "limited protective search of outer clothing for weapons," as laid
In that case, the police officers, by virtue of an information that a person down in Terry, thus: Q:
What did you do after that?
having been previously described by the informant, accosted Valdez and
A:
upon inspection of the bag he was carrying, the police officers found the We merely hold today that where a police officer observes unusual conduct We waited for a tricycle who will go to the house of Jacinta Marciano.
information given to them to be true as it yielded marijuana leaves hidden in which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that Q:
the water jug and lunch box inside Valdez’s bag. The Supreme Court in criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing After that what did you do?
affirming the trial court’s ruling convicting Valdez declared that: may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigating A:
this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable A tricycle with a passenger went to the house of “Intang” and when the
In this case, appellant was caught in flagrante since he was carrying inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to passenger boarded the tricycle, we chase[d] them.
Q:
marijuana at the time of his arrest. A crime was actually being committed by dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is entitled for the
After that, what happened next?
the appellant, thus, the search made upon his personal effects falls squarely protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited A:
under paragraph (a) of the foregoing provisions of law, which allow a search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover When we were able to catch the tricycle, the tricycle driver and the passenger
warrantless search incident to lawful arrest. While it is true that SPO1 weapons which might be used to assault him. Such a search is a reasonable alighted from the tricycle.
Mariano was not armed with a search warrant when the search was search under the Fourth Amendment x x x x. Q:
conducted over the personal effects of appellant, nevertheless, under the What did you do after they alighted from the tricycle?
circumstances of the case, there was sufficient probable cause for said police Other notable points of Terry are that while probable cause is not required to A:
I saw the passenger holding a match box.
officer to believe that appellant was then and there committing a crime. conduct a “stop-and-frisk,” it nevertheless holds that mere suspicion or a
Q:
hunch will not validate a “stop-and-frisk.” A genuine reason must exist, in What did you do after you saw the passenger holding a match box?
The cited case is akin to the circumstances in the instant appeal as in this light of the police officer's experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant A:
case, Sanchez, coming from the house of the identified drug dealer, the belief that the person detained has weapons concealed about him. Finally, I asked him if I can see the contents of the match box.
previously tipped by a concerned citizen, walked to a parked tricycle and a “stop-and-frisk” serves a two-fold interest: (1) the general interest of Q:
sped towards the direction of Kawit, Cavite. The search that gave way to the effective crime prevention and detection, which underlies the recognition Did he allow you?
A:
seizure of the match box containing shabu was a reasonable course of event that a police officer may, under appropriate circumstances and in an
Yes, mam. He handed to me voluntarily the match box.
that led to the valid warrantless arrest since there was sufficient probable appropriate manner, approach a person for purposes of investigating Court:
cause for chasing the tricycle he was in. (Underscoring supplied) possible criminal behavior even without probable cause; and (2) the more Q:
pressing interest of safety and self-preservation which permit the police Who, the driver or the passenger?
A judicious examination of the evidence on record belies the findings and officer to take steps to assure himself that the person with whom he deals is A:
conclusions of the RTC and the CA. not armed with a deadly weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used The passenger, sir.
against the police officer. Pros. Villarin:
Q:
At the outset, it is observed that the CA confused the search incidental to a
After that what did you find out?
lawful arrest with the stop-and-frisk principle, a well-recognized exception to In the case at bench, neither the in flagrante delicto arrest nor the stop- and- A:
the warrant requirement. Albeit it did not expressly state so, the CA labored frisk principle was applicable to justify the warrantless search and seizure I opened the match box and I found out that it contained a small transparent
under the confused view that one and the other were indistinct and identical. made by the police operatives on Sanchez. An assiduous scrutiny of the plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance.23
That confused view guided the CA to wrongly affirm the petitioner's factual backdrop of this case shows that the search and seizure on Sanchez A search as an incident to a lawful arrest is sanctioned by the Rules of
conviction. The Court must clear this confusion and correct the error. was unlawful. A portion of SPO1 Amposta’s testimony on direct examination Court.24 It bears emphasis that the law requires that the search be incidental
is revelatory, viz: to a lawful arrest. Therefore it is beyond cavil that a lawful arrest must
precede the search of a person and his belongings; the process cannot be
It is necessary to remind the RTC and the CA that the Terry20 stop- and-frisk
reversed.
search is entirely different from and should not be confused with the search Pros. Villarin:
incidental to a lawful arrest envisioned under Section 13, Rule 126 of the Q:
Here, the search preceded the arrest of Sanchez. There was no arrest prior to
Rules on Criminal Procedure. The distinctions have been made clear in On March 19, 2003 at around 2:50 p.m., can you recall where were you?
A: the conduct of the search. Arrest is defined under Section 1, Rule 113 of the
Malacat v. Court of Appeals21:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Rules of Court as the taking of a person into custody that he may be bound to
Yes, Mam.
In a search incidental to a lawful arrest, as the precedent arrest determines Q: answer for the commission of an offense. Under Section 2, of the same rule,
the validity of the incidental search, the legality of the arrest is questioned in Where were you? an arrest is effected by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested or by
a large majority of these cases, e.g., whether an arrest was merely used as a A: his voluntary submission to the custody of the person making the arrest.26
pretext for conducting a search. In this instance, the law requires that there We were in Brgy. Alapan 1-B, Imus, Cavite.
first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made -- the process cannot be Q:
Even casting aside the petitioner’s version and basing the resolution of this
reversed. At bottom, assuming a valid arrest, the arresting officer may search What were you doing at Alapan 1-B, Imus, Cavite?
A: case on the general thrust of the prosecution evidence, no arrest was effected
the person of the arrestee and the area within which the latter may reach for by the police operatives upon the person of Sanchez before conducting the
We were conducting an operation against illegal drugs.
a weapon or for evidence to destroy, and seize any money or property found Q: search on him. It appears from the above quoted testimony of SPO1 Amposta
which was used in the commission of the crime, or the fruit of the crime, or Who were with you? that after they caught up with the tricycle, its driver and the passenger,
that which may be used as evidence, or which might furnish the arrestee with A: Sanchez, alighted from it; that he noticed Sanchez holding a match box; and
the means of escaping or committing violence. CSU Edmundo Hernandez, CSU Jose Tagle, Jr. and CSU Samuel Monzon. that he requested Sanchez if he could see the contentsof the match box, to
Q:
which the petitioner acceded and handed it over to him. The arrest of
xxxx Was the operation upon the instruction of your Superior?
A: Sanchez was made only after the discovery by SPO1 Amposta of the shabu
inside the match box. Evidently, what happened in this case was that a search cautious man's belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense with was even no allegation that Sanchez left the house of the drug dealer in haste
44
was first undertaken and then later an arrest was effected based on the which he is charged.28 The police officers in this case had no inkling or that he acted in any other suspicious manner. There was no showing
evidence produced by the search. whatsoever as to what Sanchez did inside the house of the known drug either that he tried to evade or outmaneuver his pursuers or that he
dealer. Besides, nowhere in the prosecution evidence does it show that the attempted to flee when the police officers approached him. Truly, his acts and
Even granting arguendo that Sanchez was arrested before the search, still the drug dealer was conducting her nefarious drug activities inside her house so the surrounding circumstances could not have engendered any reasonable
warrantless search and seizure must be struck down as illegal because the as to warrant the police officers to draw a reasonable suspicion that Sanchez suspicion on the part of the police officers that a criminal activity had taken
warrantless arrest was unlawful. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal must have gotten shabu from her and possessed the illegal drug when he place or was afoot.
Procedure lays down the basic rules on lawful warrantless arrests, either by came out of the house. In other words, there was no overt manifestation on
a peace officer or a private person, as follows: the part of Sanchez that he had just engaged in, was actually engaging in or In the recent case of People v. Cogaed,33 where not a single suspicious
was attempting to engage in the criminal activity of illegal possession of circumstance preceded the search on the accused, the Court ruled that the
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A peace officer or a private shabu. Verily, probable cause in this case was more imagined than real. questioned act of the police officer did not constitute a valid stop-and-frisk
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: operation. Cogaed was a mere passenger carrying a blue bag and a sack and
(a) In the same vein, there could be no valid “stop-and-frisk” search in the case at travelling aboard a jeepney. He did not exhibit any unusual or suspicious
When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actuallly bench. Elucidating on what constitutes “stop-and-frisk” operation and how it behavior sufficient to justify the law enforcer in believing that he was
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; is to be carried out, the Court in People v. Chua29 wrote: engaged in a criminal activity. Worse, the assessment of suspicion was made
(b) not by the police officer but by the jeepney driver, who signaled to the police
When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to A stop and frisk was defined as the act of a police officer to stop a citizen on officer that Cogaed was “suspicious.” In view of the illegality of the search and
believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the the street, interrogate him, and pat him for weapon(s) or contraband. The seizure, the 12,337.6 grams of marijuana confiscated from the accused was
person to be arrested has committed it; and police officer should properly introduce himself and make initial inquiries, held as inadmissible.
(c) approach and restrain a person who manifests unusual and suspicious
When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal conduct, in order to check the latter’s outer clothing for possibly concealed The OSG characterizes the seizure of the subject shabu from Sanchez as
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily weapons. The apprehending police officer must have a genuine reason, in seizure of evidence in plain view. The Court disagrees.
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred accordance with the police officer’s experience and the surrounding
from one confinement to another. conditions, to warrant the belief that the person to be held has weapons (or Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in the plain view of an officer
contraband) concealed about him. It should therefore be emphasized that a who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure
xxx search and seizure should precede the arrest for this principle to apply.30 and may be presented as evidence.34 The plain view doctrine applies when
For warrantless arrest under paragraph (a) of Section 5 (in flagrante delicto In this jurisdiction, what may be regarded as a genuine reason or a the following requisites concur: (1) the law enforcement officer in search of
arrest) to operate, two elements must concur: (1) the person to be arrested reasonable suspicion justifying a Terry stop-and-frisk search had been the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from
must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually sufficiently illustrated in two cases. In Manalili v. Court of Appeals and which he can view a particular area; (2) the discovery of the evidence in plain
committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is People,31 a policeman chanced upon Manalili in front of the cemetery who view is inadvertent; and (3) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the
done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.27 On the appeared to be “high” on drugs as he was observed to have reddish eyes and item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise
other hand, paragraph (b) of Section 5 (arrest effected in hot pursuit) to be walking in a swaying manner. Moreover, he appeared to be trying to subject to seizure.35
requires for its application that at the time of the arrest, an offense has in fact avoid the policemen and when approached and asked what he was holding in
just been committed and the arresting officer has personal knowledge of his hands, he tried to resist. When he showed his wallet, it contained Measured against the foregoing standards, it is readily apparent that the
facts indicating that the person to be apprehended has committed it. These marijuana. The Court held that the policeman had sufficient reason to accost seizure of the subject shabu does not fall within the plain view exception.
elements would be lacking in the case at bench. Manalili to determine if he was actually “high” on drugs due to his suspicious First, there was no valid intrusion. As already discussed, Sanchez was illegally
actuations, coupled with the fact that the area was a haven for drug addicts. arrested. Second, subject shabu was not inadvertently discovered, and third,
The evidence on record reveals that no overt physical act could be properly it was not plainly exposed to sight. Here, the subject shabu was allegedly
attributed to Sanchez as to rouse suspicion in the minds of the police In People v. Solayao,32 the Court also found justifiable reason for the police inside a match box being then held by Sanchez and was not readily apparent
operatives that he had just committed, was committing, or was about to to stop and frisk the accused after considering the following circumstances: or transparent to the police officers. In fact, SPO1 Amposta had to demand
commit a crime. Sanchez was merely seen by the police operatives leaving the drunken actuations of the accused and his companions; the fact that his from Sanchez the possession of the match box in order for him to open it and
the residence of a known drug peddler, and boarding a tricycle that companions fled when they saw the policemen; and the fact that the peace examine its content. The shabu was not in plain view and its seizure without
proceeded towards the direction of Kawit, Cavite. Such acts cannot in any officers were precisely on an intelligence mission to verify reports that the requisite search warrant is in violation of the law and the Constitution.
way be considered criminal acts. In fact, even if Sanchez had exhibited armed persons where roaming the vicinity. Seemingly, the common thread of
unusual or strange acts, or at the very least appeared suspicious, the same these examples is the presence of more than one seemingly innocent activity, In the light of the foregoing, there being no lawful warrantless arrest and
would not have been considered overt acts in order for the police officers to which, taken together, warranted a reasonable inference of criminal activity. warrantless search and seizure, the shabu purportedly seized from Sanchez
effect a lawful warrantless arrest under paragraph (a) of Section 5, Rule 113. It was not so in the case at bench. is inadmissible in evidence for being the proverbial fruit of the poisonous
tree. As the confiscated shabu is the very corpus delicti of the crime charged,
It has not been established either that the rigorous conditions set forth in The Court does not find the totality of the circumstances described by SPO1 the accused must be acquitted and exonerated from the criminal charge of
paragraph (b) of Section 5 have been complied with in this warrantless Amposta as sufficient to incite a reasonable suspicion that would justify a violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
arrest. When the police officers chased the tricycle, they had no personal stop-and-frisk search on Sanchez. Coming out from the house of a drug
knowledge to believe that Sanchez bought shabu from the notorious drug pusher and boarding a tricycle, without more, were innocuous movements, Furthermore, the Court entertains doubts whether the shabu allegedly seized
dealer and actually possessed the illegal drug when he boarded the tricycle. and by themselves alone could not give rise in the mind of an experienced from Sanchez was the very same item presented during the trial of this case.
Probable cause has been held to signify a reasonable ground of suspicion and prudent police officer of any belief that he had shabu in his possession, or The Court notes that there were several lapses in the law enforcers’ handling
supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a that he was probably committing a crime in the presence of the officer. There
of the seized item which, when taken collectively, render the standards of DECISION Elections, as provided by the COMELEC Resolution 2828 in relation to
45
chain of custody seriously breached. GARCIA, J.: Republic Act 7166.
Chain of custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and On pure questions of law, petitioner People of the Philippines has directly Contrary to law. 4
custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals from the time of come to this Court via this petition for review on certiorari to nullify and set
seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to aside the Resolution1 dated 13 March 1997 of the Regional Trial Court of During his arraignment, accused Wang refused to enter a plea to all the
presentation in court for destruction.36 The function of the chain of custody Manila, Branch 18, in Criminal Case Nos. 96-149990 to 96-149992, entitled Informations and instead interposed a continuing objection to the
requirement is to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized People of the Philippines v. Lawrence Wang y Chen, granting private admissibility of the evidence obtained by the police operatives. Thus, the trial
items are preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts as to the identity of respondent Lawrence C. Wang’s Demurrer to Evidence and acquitting him of court ordered that a plea of "Not Guilty" be entered for him.5 Thereafter,
the evidence are removed.37 Thus, the chain of custody requirement has a the three (3) charges filed against him, namely: (1) Criminal Case No. 96- joint trial of the three (3) consolidated cases followed.
two-fold purpose: (1) the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value 149990 for Violation of Section 16, Article III in relation to Section 2(e)(2),
of the seized items, and (2) the removal of unnecessary doubts as to the Article I of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act); (2) Criminal The pertinent facts are as follows:
identity of the evidence.38 Case No. 96-149991 for Violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 (Illegal
Possession of Firearms); and (3) Criminal Case No. 96-149992 for Violation On 16 May 1996, at about 7:00 p.m., police operatives of the Public
In this case, the prosecution failed to account for each and every link in the of Comelec Resolution No. 2828 in relation to R.A. No. 7166 (COMELEC Gun Assistance and Reaction Against Crime of the Department of Interior and
chain of custody of the shabu, from the moment it was allegedly confiscated Ban). Local Government, namely, Captain Margallo, Police Inspector Cielito Coronel
up to the time it was presented before the court as proof of the corpus delicti. and SPO3 Reynaldo Cristobal, arrested SPO2 Vergel de Dios, Rogelio Anoble
The testimony of SPO1 Amposta was limited to the fact that he placed the The three (3) separate Informations filed against Lawrence C. Wang in the and a certain Arellano, for unlawful possession of methamphetamine
marking “RSC” on the seized drug; and that he and the three other police court of origin respectively read: hydrochloride, a regulated drug popularly known as shabu. In the course of
officers brought Sanchez and the subject shabu to their station and turned the investigation of the three arrested persons, Redentor Teck, alias Frank,
them over to their investigator. The prosecution evidence did not disclose Criminal Case No. 96-149990 (Violation of Dangerous Drugs Act): and Joseph Junio were identified as the source of the drug. An entrapment
where the marking of the confiscated shabu took place and who witnessed it. operation was then set after the three were prevailed upon to call their
The evidence does not show who was in possession of the seized shabu from That on or about the 17th day of May 1996, in the City of Manila, Philippines, source and pretend to order another supply of shabu.
the crime scene to the police station. A reading of the Certification, dated the said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have
March 20, 2003, issued by Forensic Chemist Salud Rosales shows that a in his possession and under his custody and control a bulk of white and At around 11:00 p.m. that same date, Redentor Teck and Joseph Junio were
certain PO1 Edgardo Nario submitted the specimen to the NBI for laboratory yellowish crystalline substance known as SHABU contained in thirty-two arrested while they were about to hand over another bag of shabu to SPO2
examination, but this piece of evidence does not establish the identity of the (32) transparent plastic bags weighing approximately 29.2941 kilograms, De Dios and company. Questioned, Redentor Teck and Joseph Junio informed
police investigator to whom SPO1 Amposta and his group turned over the containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug, without the the police operatives that they were working as talent manager and gymnast
seized shabu. The identities of the person who received the specimen at the corresponding license or prescription therefor. instructor, respectively, of Glamour Modeling Agency owned by Lawrence
NBI laboratory and the person who had the custody and safekeeping of the Wang. Redentor Teck and Joseph Junio did not disclose their source of shabu
seized marijuana after it was chemically analyzed pending its presentation in Contrary to law.2 but admitted that they were working for Wang.6 They also disclosed that
court were also not disclosed. they knew of a scheduled delivery of shabu early the following morning of 17
Criminal Case No. 96-149991 (Illegal Possession of Firearms): May 1996, and that their employer (Wang) could be found at the Maria Orosa
Given the procedural lapses pointed out above, a serious uncertainty hangs Apartment in Malate, Manila. The police operatives decided to look for Wang
over the identity of the seized shabu that the prosecution introduced in That on or about the 17th day of May 1996, in the City of Manila, Philippines, to shed light on the illegal drug activities of Redentor Teck and Joseph Junio.
evidence. The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody, the said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have Police Inspector Cielito Coronel and his men then proceeded to Maria Orosa
resulting in rendering the seizure and confiscation of the shabu open to in his possession and under his custody and control one (1) DAEWOO Cal. Apartment and placed the same under surveillance.
doubt and suspicion. Hence, the incriminatory evidence cannot pass judicial 9mm, automatic pistol with one loaded magazine and one AMT Cal. .380
scrutiny. 9mm automatic backup pistol with magazine loaded with ammunitions Prosecution witness Police Inspector Cielito Coronel testified that at about
without first having secured the necessary license or permit therefor from 2:10 a.m. of 17 May 1996, Wang, who was described to the operatives by
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed July 25, 2012 Decision the proper authorities. Teck, came out of the apartment and walked towards a parked BMW car. On
and the November 20, 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR nearing the car, he (witness) together with Captain Margallo and two other
No. 31742 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Rizaldy Sanchez y Cajili Contrary to law. 3 police officers approached Wang, introduced themselves to him as police
is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Court orders the officers, asked his name and, upon hearing that he was Lawrence Wang,
immediate release of the petitioner, unless the latter is being lawfully held for Criminal Case No. 96-149992 (Violation of Comelec Gun Ban): immediately frisked him and asked him to open the back compartment of the
another cause; and to inform the Court of the date of his release, or reason for BMW car.7 When frisked, there was found inside the front right pocket of
his continued confinement, within ten (10) days from receipt of notice. That on or about the 17th day of May 1996, in the City of Manila, Philippines, Wang and confiscated from him an unlicensed AMT Cal. 380 9mm automatic
the said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have Back-up Pistol loaded with ammunitions. At the same time, the other
in his possession and under his custody and control one (1) DAEWOO Cal. members of the operatives searched the BMW car and found inside it were
G.R. No. 128587 March 16, 2007 9mm automatic pistol with one loaded magazine and one (1) AMT Cal. 380 the following items: (a) 32 transparent plastic bags containing white
9mm automatic backup pistol with magazine loaded with ammunitions, crystalline substance with a total weight of 29.2941 kilograms, which
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. HON. PERFECTO A.S. carrying the same along Maria Orosa St., Ermita, Manila, which is a public substance was later analyzed as positive for methamphetamine
LAGUIO, JR., in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Branch 18, RTC, Manila, place, on the date which is covered by an election period, without first hydrochloride, a regulated drug locally known as shabu; (b) cash in the
and LAWRENCE WANG Y CHEN, Respondents. securing the written permission or authority from the Commission on amount of ₱650,000.00; (c) one electronic and one mechanical scales; and (d)
an unlicensed Daewoo 9mm Pistol with magazine. Then and there, Wang XXX IN HOLDING, IN EFFECT, THAT A WARRANTLESS SEARCH IS An order granting an accused’s demurrer to evidence is a resolution of the
CONSTITUTIONALLY ALLOWABLE AND CAN ONLY BE VALID AS AN 46
resisted the warrantless arrest and search.8 case on the merits, and it amounts to an acquittal. Generally, any further
INCIDENT TO A LAWFUL ARREST. prosecution of the accused after an acquittal would violate the constitutional
On 6 December 1996, the prosecution rested its case and upon motion, proscription on double jeopardy. To this general rule, however, the Court has
lII
accused Wang was granted 25 days from said date within which to file his XXX IN DECLARING THE WARRANTLESS ARREST OF THE ACCUSED AND previously made some exceptions.
intended Demurrer to Evidence.9 On 19 December 1996, the prosecution THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF HIS HANDGUNS UNLAWFUL.
filed a Manifestation10 to the effect that it had rested its case only in so far as The celebrated case of Galman v. Sandiganbayan22 presents one exception to
the charge for Violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act in Criminal Case No. 96- IV the rule on double jeopardy, which is, when the prosecution is denied due
149990 is concerned, and not as regards the two cases for Illegal Possession XXX IN NOT DECLARING THE ACCUSED AS HAVING WAIVED, AS A RESULT process of law:
of Firearms (Crim. Case No. 96-149991) and Violation of the Comelec Gun OF HIS SUBMISSION AND FAILURE TO PROTEST THE SEARCH AND HIS
ARREST, HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCH
Ban (Crim. Case No. 96-149992). Accordingly, trial continued. No court whose Presiding Justice has received "orders or suggestions" from
AND SEIZURE AND HIS OBJECTION TO THE ADMISSION OF THE EVIDENCE
SEIZED. the very President who by an amendatory decree (disclosed only at the
On 9 January 1997, Wang filed his undated Demurrer to Evidence,11 praying hearing of oral arguments on November 8, 1984 on a petition challenging the
for his acquittal and the dismissal of the three (3) cases against him for lack V referral of the Aquino-Galman murder cases to the Tanodbayan and
of a valid arrest and search warrants and the inadmissibility of the XXX IN NOT ADMITTING IN EVIDENCE THE EVIDENCE SEIZED AND Sandiganbayan instead of to a court martial, as mandatorily required by the
prosecution’s evidence against him. Considering that the prosecution has not OFFERED BY THE PROSECUTION AND IN NOT DENYING ACCUSED'S known P.D. 1850 at the time providing for exclusive jurisdiction of courts
yet filed its Opposition to the demurrer, Wang filed an Amplification12 to his DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE. martial over criminal offenses committed by military men) made it possible
Demurrer of Evidence on 20 January 1997. On 12 February 1997, the to refer the cases to the Sandiganbayan, can be an impartial court, which is
In its Resolution16 of 9 July 1997, the Court, without giving due course to the
prosecution filed its Opposition13 alleging that the warrantless search was the very essence of due process of law. As the writer then wrote, "jurisdiction
petition, required the public and private respondents to comment thereon
legal as an incident to the lawful arrest and that it has proven its case, so it is over cases should be determined by law, and not by preselection of the
within ten days from notice. Private respondent Wang filed his
now time for the defense to present its evidence. Executive, which could be much too easily transformed into a means of
comment17on 18 August 1997.
predetermining the outcome of individual cases." This criminal collusion as
On 13 March 1997, the respondent judge, the Hon. Perfecto A.S. Laguio, Jr., to the handling and treatment of the cases by public respondents at the
On 10 September 1997, the Court required the People to file a reply,18 which
issued the herein assailed Resolution14 granting Wang’s Demurrer to secret Malacañang conference (and revealed only after fifteen months by
the Office of the Solicitor General did on 5 December 1997, after several
Evidence and acquitting him of all charges for lack of evidence, thus: Justice Manuel Herrera) completely disqualified respondent Sandiganbayan
extensions.19
and voided ab initio its verdict. This renders moot and irrelevant for now the
WHEREFORE, the accused's undated Demurrer to Evidence is hereby extensive arguments of respondents accused, particularly Generals Ver and
On 20 October 2004, the Court resolved to give due course to the petition and
granted; the accused is acquitted of the charges against him for the crimes of Olivas and those categorized as accessories, that there has been no evidence
required the parties to submit their respective memoranda,20 which they
Violation of Section 16, Article III of the Dangerous Drugs Act, Illegal or witness suppressed against them, that the erroneous conclusions of Olivas
did.
Possession of Firearms, and Violation of Comelec Gun Ban, for lack of as police investigator do not make him an accessory of the crimes he
evidence; the 32 bags of shabu with a total weight of 29.2941 kilograms and investigated and the appraisal and evaluation of the testimonies of the
The case presents two main issues: (a) whether the prosecution may appeal
the two unlicensed pistols, one AMT Cal. .380 9mm and one Daewoo Cal. witnesses presented and suppressed. There will be time and opportunity to
the trial court’s resolution granting Wang’s demurrer to evidence and
9mm. are ordered confiscated in favor of the government and the branch present all these arguments and considerations at the remand and retrial of
acquitting him of all the charges against him without violating the
clerk is directed to turn over the 32 bags of shabu to the Dangerous Drugs the cases herein ordered before a neutral and impartial court.
constitutional proscription against double jeopardy; and (b) whether there
Board in Intramuros, Manila, and the two firearms to the Firearms and
was lawful arrest, search and seizure by the police operatives in this case
Explosive Units, PNP, Camp Crame, Quezon City, for proper disposition, and The Supreme Court cannot permit such a sham trial and verdict and travesty
despite the absence of a warrant of arrest and/or a search warrant.
the officer-in-charge of PARAC, Department of Interior and Local of justice to stand unrectified. The courts of the land under its aegis are
Government, is ordered to return the confiscated amount of P650,000.00 to courts of law and justice and equity. They would have no reason to exist if
First off, it must be emphasized that the present case is an appeal filed
the accused, and the confiscated BMW car to its registered owner, David Lee. they were allowed to be used as mere tools of injustice, deception and
directly with this Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
No costs. duplicity to subvert and suppress the truth, instead of repositories of judicial
in relation to Rule 41, Section 2, paragraph (c) of the Rules of Court raising
power whose judges are sworn and committed to render impartial justice to
only pure questions of law, ordinary appeal by mere filing of a notice of
SO ORDERED. all alike who seek the enforcement or protection of a right or the prevention
appeal not being allowed as a mode of appeal directly to this Court. Then, too,
or redress of a wrong, without fear or favor and removed from the pressures
it bears stressing that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part
Hence, this petition15 for review on certiorari by the People, submitting that of politics and prejudice. More so, in the case at bar where the people and the
of due process, it being merely a statutory privilege which may be exercised
the trial court erred - world are entitled to know the truth, and the integrity of our judicial system
only in the manner provided for by law (Velasco v. Court of Appeals21).
is at stake. In life, as an accused before the military tribunal Ninoy had
Although Section 2, Rule 122 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure states that
I pleaded in vain that as a civilian he was entitled to due process of law and
any party may appeal, the right of the People to appeal is, in the very same
XXX IN HOLDING THAT THE UNDISPUTED FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DID trial in the regular civil courts before an impartial court with an unbiased
provision, expressly made subject to the prohibition against putting the
NOT CONSTITUTE PROBABLE CAUSE WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF prosecutor. In death, Ninoy, as the victim of the "treacherous and vicious
accused in double jeopardy. It also basic that appeal in criminal cases throws
SECTION 2, ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND IN HOLDING THAT assassination" and the relatives and sovereign people as the aggrieved
the whole records of the case wide open for review by the appellate court,
SUCH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES NEITHER JUSTIFIED THE parties plead once more for due process of law and a retrial before an
that is why any appeal from a judgment of acquittal necessarily puts the
WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF ACCUSED'S VEHICLE AND THE SEIZURE OF THE impartial court with an unbiased prosecutor. The Court is constrained to
accused in double jeopardy. In effect, the very same Section 2 of Rule 122 of
CONTRABAND THEREIN. declare the sham trial a mock trial — the non-trial of the century — and that
the Rules on Criminal Procedure, disallows appeal by the People from
the predetermined judgment of acquittal was unlawful and void ab initio.
judgments of acquittal.
ll
1. No double jeopardy. — It is settled doctrine that double jeopardy cannot Way, People v. Bringas, Gandicela v. Lutero, People v. Cabarles, People v. Bao, demurrer, such order amounts to an acquittal and any further prosecution of
47
be invoked against this Court's setting aside of the trial courts' judgment of to name a few, are illustrative cases. The fundamental philosophy behind the the accused would violate the constitutional proscription on double jeopardy.
dismissal or acquittal where the prosecution which represents the sovereign constitutional proscription against double jeopardy is to afford the This constitutes an exception to the rule that the dismissal of a criminal case
people in criminal cases is denied due process. As the Court stressed in the defendant, who has been acquitted, final repose and safeguard him from made with the express consent of the accused or upon his own motion bars a
1985 case of People vs. Bocar, government oppression through the abuse of criminal processes. As plea of double jeopardy. The finality-of-acquittal rule was stressed thus in
succinctly observed in Green v. United States "(t)he underlying idea, one that People v. Velasco:
Where the prosecution is deprived of a fair opportunity to prosecute and is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence, is
prove its case, its right to due process is thereby violated. that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make The fundamental philosophy highlighting the finality of an acquittal by the
repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby trial court cuts deep into the "humanity of the laws and in jealous
The cardinal precept is that where there is a violation of basic constitutional subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to watchfulness over the rights of the citizens, when brought in unequal contest
rights, courts are ousted of their jurisdiction. Thus, the violation of the State's live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the with the State xxx. Thus Green expressed the concern that "(t)he underlying
right to due process raises a serious jurisdictional issue (Gumabon vs. possibility that even though innocent, he may be found guilty." (Underscoring idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo-American system of
Director of the Bureau of Prisons, L-30026, 37 SCRA 420 [Jan. 30, 1971]) supplied) jurisprudence, is that the State with all its resources and power should not be
which cannot be glossed over or disregarded at will. Where the denial of the allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged
fundamental right of due process is apparent, a decision rendered in The same rule applies in criminal cases where a demurrer to evidence is offense thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and
disregard of that right is void for lack of jurisdiction (Aducayen vs. Flores, L- granted. As held in the case of People v. Sandiganbayan: compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well
30370 [May 25, 19731, 51 SCRA 78; Shell Co. vs. Enage, L-30111-12, 49 SCRA as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent, he may be found
416 Feb. 27, 1973]). Any judgment or decision rendered notwithstanding The demurrer to evidence in criminal cases, such as the one at bar, is "filed guilty."
such violation may be regarded as a "lawless thing, which can be treated as after the prosecution had rested its case," and when the same is granted, it
an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever it exhibits its head" calls "for an appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and its It is axiomatic that on the basis of humanity, fairness and justice, an acquitted
(Aducayen vs. Flores, supra). sufficiency to warrant conviction beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in a defendant is entitled to the right of repose as a direct consequence of the
dismissal of the case on the merits, tantamount to an acquittal of the finality of his acquittal. The philosophy underlying this rule establishing the
Respondent Judge's dismissal order dated July 7, 1967 being null and void for accused." Such dismissal of a criminal case by the grant of demurrer to absolute nature of acquittals is "part of the paramount importance criminal
lack of jurisdiction, the same does not constitute a proper basis for a claim of evidence may not be appealed, for to do so would be to place the accused in justice system attaches to the protection of the innocent against wrongful
double jeopardy (Serino vs. Zosa, supra). double-jeopardy. The verdict being one of acquittal, the case ends there. conviction." The interest in the finality-of-acquittal rule, confined exclusively
(Italics in the original) to verdicts of not guilty, is easy to understand: it is a need for "repose", a
xxx xxx xxx desire to know the exact extent of one’s liability. With this right of repose, the
Legal jeopardy attaches only (a) upon a valid indictment, (b) before a Like any other rule, however, the above-said rule is not absolute. By way of criminal justice system has built in a protection to insure that the innocent,
competent court, (c) after arraignment, (d) a valid plea having been entered; exception, a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case may be assailed in a even those whose innocence rests upon a jury’s leniency, will not be found
and (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court upon a clear guilty in a subsequent proceeding.
consent of the accused (People vs. Ylagan, 58 Phil. 851). The lower court was showing by the petitioner that the lower court, in acquitting the accused,
not competent as it was ousted of its jurisdiction when it violated the right of committed not merely reversible errors of judgment but also grave abuse of Given the far-reaching scope of an accused’s right against double jeopardy,
the prosecution to due process. discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or a denial of due even an appeal based on an alleged misappreciation of evidence will not lie.
process, thus rendering the assailed judgment void. (Emphasis supplied.) The only instance when double jeopardy will not attach is when the trial
In effect, the first jeopardy was never terminated, and the remand of the court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
criminal case for further hearing and/or trial before the lower courts In Sanvicente v. People,24 the Court allowed the review of a decision of the jurisdiction, such as where the prosecution was denied the opportunity to
amounts merely to a continuation of the first jeopardy, and does not expose Court of Appeals (CA) which reversed the accused’s acquittal upon demurrer present its case or where the trial was a sham. However, while certiorari may
the accused to a second jeopardy. to evidence filed by the accused with leave of court, the CA ruling that the be availed of to correct an erroneous acquittal, the petitioner in such an
trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in preventing the prosecution extraordinary proceeding must clearly demonstrate that the trial court
Another exception is when the trial court commits grave abuse of discretion from establishing the due execution and authenticity of certain letter marked blatantly abused its authority to a point so grave as to deprive it of its very
in dismissing a criminal case by granting the accused’s demurrer to evidence. therein as Exhibit "LL," which supposedly "positively identified therein power to dispense justice. (Emphasis supplied.)
In point is the fairly recent case of People v. Uy,23 which involved the trial petitioner as the perpetrator of the crime charged." The Court, in a petition
court’s decision which granted the two separate demurrers to evidence filed for certiorari, sustained the CA’s power to review the order granting the By this time, it is settled that the appellate court may review dismissal orders
by the two accused therein, both with leave of court, resulting in their demurrer to evidence, explaining thus: of trial courts granting an accused’s demurrer to evidence. This may be done
acquittal of their respective charges of murder due to insufficiency of via the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 based on the ground of
evidence. In resolving the petition for certiorari filed directly with this Court, Under Rule 119, Section 23 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Such
we had the occasion to explain: amended, the trial court may dismiss the action on the ground of dismissal order, being considered void judgment, does not result in jeopardy.
insufficiency of evidence upon a demurrer to evidence filed by the accused Thus, when the order of dismissal is annulled or set aside by an appellate
The general rule in this jurisdiction is that a judgment of acquittal is final and with or without leave of court. In resolving accused’s demurrer to evidence, court in an original special civil action via certiorari, the right of the accused
unappealable. People v. Court of Appeals explains the rationale of this rule: the court is merely required to ascertain whether there is competent or against double jeopardy is not violated.
sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment or support a verdict of guilt.
In our jurisdiction, the finality-of-acquittal doctrine as a safeguard against Unfortunately, what petitioner People of the Philippines, through then
double jeopardy faithfully adheres to the principle first enunciated in Kepner The grant or denial of a demurrer to evidence is left to the sound discretion Secretary of Justice Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr. and then Solicitor General
v. United States. In this case, verdicts of acquittal are to be regarded as of the trial court and its ruling on the matter shall not be disturbed in the Silvestre H. Bello, III, filed with the Court in the present case is an appeal by
absolutely final and irreviewable. The cases of United States v. Yam Tung absence of a grave abuse of discretion. Significantly, once the court grants the way of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 raising a pure
question of law, which is different from a petition for certiorari under Rule petition for review should be filed and served within fifteen days from the The threshold issue raised by the accused in his Demurrer to Evidence is
48
65. notice of denial of the decision, or of the petitioner’s timely filed motion for whether his warrantless arrest and search were lawful as argued by the
new trial or motion for reconsideration. In an appeal by certiorari, the prosecution, or unlawful as asserted by the defense.
In Madrigal Transport Inc. v. Lapanday Holdings Corporation,25 we have petition should be filed also within fifteen days from the notice of judgment
enumerated the distinction between the two remedies/actions, to wit: or final order, or of the denial of the petitioner’s motion for new trial or Under Section 5, Rule 113 of the New Rules of Court, a peace officer may
motion for reconsideration. arrest a person without a warrant: (a) when in his presence, the person to be
Appeal and Certiorari Distinguished arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
On the other hand, a petition for certiorari should be filed not later than sixty an offense; (b) when an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has
Between an appeal and a petition for certiorari, there are substantial days from the notice of judgment, order, or resolution. If a motion for new personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has
distinctions which shall be explained below. trial or motion for reconsideration was timely filed, the period shall be committed it, and (c) when the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
counted from the denial of the motion. escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final
As to the Purpose. Certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors judgment or temporarily confined while being transferred from one
of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. In Pure Foods Corporation v. NLRC, As to the Need for a Motion for Reconsideration. A motion for confinement to another. None of these circumstances were present when the
we explained the simple reason for the rule in this light: reconsideration is generally required prior to the filing of a petition for accused was arrested. The accused was merely walking from the Maria Orosa
certiorari, in order to afford the tribunal an opportunity to correct the alleged Apartment and was about to enter the parked BMW car when the police
"When a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error committed while so engaged errors. Note also that this motion is a plain and adequate remedy expressly officers arrested and frisked him and searched his car. The accused was not
does not deprive it of the jurisdiction being exercised when the error is available under the law. Such motion is not required before appealing a committing any visible offense at the time of his arrest. Neither was there an
committed. If it did, every error committed by a court would deprive it of its judgment or final order. indication that he was about to commit a crime or that he had just committed
jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. This an offense. The unlicensed AMT Cal.380 9mm Automatic Back-up Pistol that
cannot be allowed. The administration of justice would not survive such a Also in Madrigal, we stressed that the special civil action of certiorari and the accused had in his possession was concealed inside the right front pocket
rule. Consequently, an error of judgment that the court may commit in the appeal are two different remedies mutually exclusive; they are neither of his pants. And the handgun was bantam and slim in size that it would not
exercise of its jurisdiction is not correct[a]ble through the original civil action alternative nor successive. Where appeal is available, certiorari will not give an outward indication of a concealed gun if placed inside the pant's side
of certiorari." prosper. In the dismissal of a criminal case upon demurrer to evidence, pocket as was done by the accused. The arresting officers had no information
appeal is not available as such an appeal will put the accused in double and knowledge that the accused was carrying an unlicensed handgun, nor did
The supervisory jurisdiction of a court over the issuance of a writ of jeopardy. Certiorari, however, is allowed. they see him in possession thereof immediately prior to his arrest.
certiorari cannot be exercised for the purpose of reviewing the intrinsic
correctness of a judgment of the lower court -- on the basis either of the law For being the wrong remedy taken by petitioner People of the Philippines in Ditto on the 32 bags of shabu and the other unlicensed Daewoo Cal. 9mm
or the facts of the case, or of the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision. this case, this petition is outrightly dismissible. The Court cannot reverse the Pistol with magazine that were found and seized from the car. The
Even if the findings of the court are incorrect, as long as it has jurisdiction assailed dismissal order of the trial court by appeal without violating private contraband items in the car were not in plain view. The 32 bags of shabu
over the case, such correction is normally beyond the province of certiorari. respondent’s right against double jeopardy. were in the trunk compartment, and the Daewoo handgun was underneath
Where the error is not one of jurisdiction, but of an error of law or fact -- a the driver’s seat of the car. The police officers had no information, or
mistake of judgment -- appeal is the remedy. Even assuming that the Court may treat an "appeal" as a special civil action of knowledge that the banned articles were inside the car, or that the accused
certiorari, which definitely this Court has the power to do, when there is a had placed them there. The police officers searched the car on mere suspicion
As to the Manner of Filing. Over an appeal, the CA exercises its appellate clear showing of grave abuse of discretion committed by the lower court, the that there was shabu therein.
jurisdiction and power of review. Over a certiorari, the higher court uses its instant petition will nevertheless fail on the merits as the succeeding
original jurisdiction in accordance with its power of control and supervision discussion will show. On this matter, pertinent portions of the testimonies of Police Inspector
over the proceedings of lower courts. An appeal is thus a continuation of the Cielito Coronel and SP03 Reynaldo are hereunder quoted:
original suit, while a petition for certiorari is an original and independent There are actually two (2) acts involved in this case, namely, the warrantless
action that was not part of the trial that had resulted in the rendition of the arrest and the warrantless search. There is no question that warrantless POLICE INSPECTOR CIELITO CORONEL’S TESTIMONY
judgment or order complained of. The parties to an appeal are the original search may be conducted as an incident to a valid warrantless arrest. The law
parties to the action. In contrast, the parties to a petition for certiorari are the requires that there be first a lawful arrest before a search can be made; the "PROSECUTOR TO WITNESS: Direct-Examination
aggrieved party (who thereby becomes the petitioner) against the lower process cannot be reversed.26 However, if there are valid reasons to conduct
court or quasi-judicial agency, and the prevailing parties (the public and the lawful search and seizure which thereafter shows that the accused is Q. Mr. Witness, what was your role or participation in this case?
private respondents, respectively). currently committing a crime, the accused may be lawfully arrested in A. I am one of those responsible for the arrest of the accused.
flagrante delicto27 without need for a warrant of arrest.
xxx xxx xxx
As to the Subject Matter. Only judgments or final orders and those that the
Q. Where did you make that arrest, Mr. Witness?
Rules of Court so declared are appealable. Since the issue is jurisdiction, an Finding that the warrantless arrest preceded the warrantless search in the A. The apprehension was made in front of an apartment along Maria Orosa
original action for certiorari may be directed against an interlocutory order case at bar, the trial court granted private respondent's demurrer to evidence Street, Ermita, Manila.
of the lower court prior to an appeal from the judgment; or where there is no and acquitted him of all the three charges for lack of evidence, because the
appeal or any plain, speedy or adequate remedy. unlawful arrest resulted in the inadmissibility of the evidence gathered from Q. What date was that when you arrested the accused?
an invalid warrantless search. The trial court’s ratiocination is quoted as A. It was on May 17, 1996, at about 2:10 a.m.
As to the Period of Filing. Ordinary appeals should be filed within fifteen days follows:
xxx xxx xxx
from the notice of judgment or final order appealed from. Where a record on
Q. What was the reason why you together with other policemen effected the
appeal is required, the appellant must file a notice of appeal and a record on arrest of the accused?
appeal within thirty days from the said notice of judgment or final order. A
A. We arrested him because of the information relayed to us by one of those Q. Redentor Teck told you that he is a talent manager at the Glenmore
whom we have previously apprehended in connection with the delivery of Modeling Agency, is it not? COURT: The same date? 49
shabu somewhere also in Ermita, Manila. A. Yes, Sir. A. May 16, about 11:00 p.m. They were arrested and when they were
investigated, Teck mentioned the name of Lawrence Wang as his employer.
xxx xxx xxx .Q. The Glenmore Modeling Agency is owned by Lawrence Wang, is it not?
Q. When you established that he was somewhere at Maria Orosa, what did A. I supposed, Sir. COURT: Why were these people, arrested?
you do? A. For violation of R.A. 6425.
A. We waited for him. Q. And that is why immediately after Redentor Teck told you that he is an
employee of the Glenmore Modeling Agency owned by Lawrence Wang, COURT: How were they arrested?
xxx xxx xxx naturally, you and your companions look for Lawrence Wang to shed light on A. They were arrested while in the act of transporting shabu or handling
Q. You yourself, Mr. Witness, where did you position yourself during that the transporting of shabu by Redentor Teck and Joseph Junio, is it not? shabu to another previously arrested person. It was a series of arrest.
time? A. Yes, Sir.
A. I was inside a vehicle waiting for the accused to appear. COURT: So, this involved a series of operation?
Q. Thereafter, you spotted a person previously described by Redentor Teck A. Yes, Your Honor. About 11:00 p.m. of May 16, we arrested three (3)
Q. What about your other companions where were they? as Lawrence Wang, is it not? persons, SPO2 Vergel de Dios, a certain Arellano and a certain Rogelio Noble.
A. They were position in strategic places within the area. When they were arrested they divulged the name of the source.
A. Yes, Sir.
Q. What happened when you and your companions were positioned in that Q. While you were arresting Lawrence Wang, your companions at the same COURT: They were arrested for what, for possession?
place? time searched the BMW car described in your affidavit of arrest, is it not? A. Yes, Your Honor. For unlawful possession of shabu . Then they divulged to
A. That was when the accused arrived. A. Yes, Sir. us the name of the person from whom they get shabu.
Q. How many of your approached him. xxx xxx xxx COURT: Whose name did they mention:
A. Inspector Margallo, myself and two other operatives. A. One Alias Frank, who turned out to be Redentor Teck and Joseph Junio. We
Q. Lawrence Wang was not inside the BMW car while the same was searched, let them call Redentor Teck and Joseph Junio thru the cellphone and pretend
Q. What happened when you approached the accused, Mr. Witness? is it not? and to order another supply of shabu.
A. We introduced ourselves as police officers and we frisked him and we A. He was outside, Sir.
asked him to open the back compartment of his car. COURT: So there was an entrapment?
Q. The driver of the car was inside the car when the arrest and search were A. Yes, Your Honor.
Q. You said you frisked him, what was the result of that? made, is it not?
A. He was likewise outside, Sir. COURT: So, these two (2) were arrested?
A. He was found in possession of one back-up pistol with one loaded A. While they were about to hand over another bag of shabu to Noble and
magazine and likewise when the compartment was opened several plastic Q. Lawrence Wang did resist arrest and search is it not? company.
bags containing white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu (were A. Yes, Sir.
found). COURT: And these two reveals (revealed) some information to you as to the
Q. When you effected the arrest, there was no warrant of arrest, is it not? source of the shabu?
Q. What did you do when you found out Mr. Witness? A. Yes, Sir. A. Yes, Your Honor.
A. When the car was further search we later found another firearm, a Daewoo
Pistol at the place under the seat of the driver. Q. When the search was made on the BMW car, there was no search warrant, COURT: What was the information?
is it not? A. Teck told us that he is an employee of Lawrence Wang.
Q. Then what happened? A. Yes, none, Sir. (TSN, pp. 3-12, November 15, 1996)
A. He was brought to our headquarters at Mandaluyong for further COURT: What did you do when you were told about that?
investigation. SPO3 REYNALDO CRISTOBAL’S TESTIMONY A. They also told us that there was an ongoing delivery of shabu on that
morning.
Q. What about the suspected shabu that you recovered, what did you do with PROSECUTOR TO WITNESS: DIRECT EXAMINATION
that? COURT: When?
A. The suspected shabu that we recovered were forwarded to the NBI for Q. What is you role or participation in this case? A. Of that date early morning of May 17, 1996.
laboratory examination. A. I was one of the arresting officers and investigator, Sir.
COURT: At what place?
Q. Did you come to know the results? xxx xxx xxx A. We asked them where we could find Lawrence Wang and Teck lead us to
A. It was found positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. (TSN, pp. 3-8, Q. What kind of specific offense did the accused allegedly do so that you Maria Orosa Apartment where we conducted a stake out which lasted up to
November 15, 1996). arrested him, Mr. Witness? 2:00 a.m.
A. He was arrested on the basis of the recovered drugs in his possession
ATTY. LOZANO TO WITNESS: CROSS placed inside his car. xxx xxx xxx
COURT: What happened during the stake out?
Q. You arrested Joseph Junio and Redentor Teck for alleged transporting of xxx xxx xxx A. When the person of the accused was identified to us, we saw him opening
shabu on May 16, 1996, at 11:00 p.m., is it not? Q. Mr. witness, you said that you recovered drug from the car of the accused, his car together with his driver.
A. Yes, Sir. please tell us the antecedent circumstances which led you to recover or
confiscate these items? COURT: So, he was about to leave when you saw him?
Q. You asked Redentor Teck where he is employed, is it not? A. Earlier in the evening about 11:00 p.m. of May 16, we arrested one A. Probably, Sir.
A. Yes, Sir. Redentor Teck and Joseph Junio.
COURT: What did you do?
xxx xxx xxx COURT: Where did you arrest these people? A. We saw him opened his car and we have a suspicion that there was a
A :They were arrested in Metro Manila also. shabu inside the compartment of the car.
involved in the transaction that lead (led) to the arrest of Redentor and certiorari where the factual findings of the trial court are binding upon the
xxx xxx xxx Joseph? 50
Court. Since a dismissal order consequent to a demurrer to evidence is not
COURT: All right, when you saw the accused opened his car, what did you do? A: Yes, Sir. We suspected that he was the source of the shabu. subject to appeal and reviewable only by certiorari, the factual finding that
A. We approached him.
the arrest preceded the search is conclusive upon this Court. The only legal
xxx xxx xxx
COURT: What happened when you approached him? Q: When you saw the accused walking towards his car, did you know whether basis for this Court to possibly reverse and set aside the dismissal order of
A. We suspected the shabu inside the compartment of his car. he was carrying a gun? the trial court upon demurrer to evidence would be if the trial court
A: No, Sir. It cannot be seen. committed grave abuse of discretion in excess of jurisdiction when it ruled
COURT: And this shabu that you saw inside the compartment of the car, what that there was no legal basis to lawfully effect a warrantless arrest.
did you do with that? Q: It was concealed?
A. Well, he was first arrested by Captain Margallo and Lt. Coronel while I was A: Yes, Sir. The pertinent provisions of Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure on
the one who inspected and opened the compartment of the car and saw the
warrantless arrest provide:
shabu. (TSN, pp. 15-24, December 16, 1996). Q: So, the only time that you and your team learned that he was in possession
of the gun is when he was bodily search?
CLARIFICATORY QUESTIONING OF SPO3 CRISTOBAL BY THE COURT A: Yes, Sir. That is the only time that I came to know about when Capt. Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A peace officer or a private
Margallo handed to me the gun. person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
COURT: From your testimony and that of Police Inspector Cielito Coronel,
this Court has gathered that prior to the arrest of the accused there were Q: Other than walking towards his car, the accused was not doing anything a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
three (3) men that your team arrested. One of whom is a police officer. else? committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
A: Yes, Sir. A: None, Sir.
xxx xxx xxx Q: That would invite your suspicion or give indication that he was intending b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to
COURT: And on the occasion of the arrest of these three men shabu were to do something unlawful or illegal? believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the
confiscated from them? A: No, Sir. person to be arrested has committed it; and
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: When you searched the car, did the accused protest or try to prevent your c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a
Q: And in the course of the investigation of these three men, you were able to team from searching his car?
penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is
discover that Redentor Teck and Joseph Junio were the source of the A: No, Sir." (TSN pp. 3-16, Feb. 26, 1997)
regulated drug that were confiscated from the three men that you have temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being
arrested? Clearly therefore, the warrantless arrest of the accused and the search of his transferred from one confinement to another.
A: Yes, Sir. person and the car were without probable cause and could not be licit. The
arrest of the accused did not fall under any of the exception to the Section 5, above, provides three (3) instances when warrantless arrest may
Q: Now, thru entrapment base[d] on your testimony you were able to be lawfully effected: (a) arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto; (b) arrest of a
apprehend also these two men, Redentor Teck and Joseph Junio? requirements of warrantless arrests, (Sec. 5, Rule 113, Rules of Court) and is
therefore, unlawful and derogatory of his constitutional right of liberty. x x x suspect where, based on personal knowledge of the arresting officer, there is
A: Yes, Sir.
probable cause that said suspect was the author of a crime which had just
xxx xxx xxx The trial court resolved the case on the basis of its findings that the arrest been committed; (c) arrest of a prisoner who has escaped from custody
Q: These two men, Redentor Teck and Joseph Junio they were also preceded the search, and finding no basis to rule in favor of a lawful arrest, it serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending.
investigated by your team? ruled that the incidental search is likewise unlawful. Any and all pieces of
A: Yes, Sir. For a warrantless arrest of an accused caught in flagrante delicto under
evidence acquired as a consequence thereof are inadmissible in evidence.
Thus, the trial court dismissed the case for lack of evidence. paragraph (a) of Section 5 to be valid, two requisites must concur: (1) the
Q: You were present while they were investigated? person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just
A: I was the one whom investigated them.
Contrary to its position at the trial court, the People, however, now posits committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and
xxx xxx xxx that "inasmuch as it has been shown in the present case that the seizure (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting
Q: Did you ask Redentor and Joseph the source of shabu that you confiscated without warrant of the regulated drugs and unlicensed firearms in the officer.291awphi1.nét
from them at the time of the (their) arrest? accused’s possession had been validly made upon probable cause and under
A: Yes, Sir. They refuse to say the source, however, they told me that they The facts and circumstances surrounding the present case did not manifest
exigent circumstances, then the warrantless arrest of the accused must
were working for the accused. any suspicious behavior on the part of private respondent Lawrence Wang
necessarily have to be regarded as having been made on the occasion of the
commission of the crime in flagrante delicto, and therefore constitutionally that would reasonably invite the attention of the police. He was merely
Q: You also testified that Redentor informed you that there was another
delivery of shabu scheduled that morning of (stop) was it May 16 or 17? The and statutorily permissible and lawful."28 In effect, the People now contends walking from the Maria Orosa Apartment and was about to enter the parked
other delivery that is scheduled on? that the warrantless search preceded the warrantless arrest. Since the case BMW car when the police operatives arrested him, frisked and searched his
A: On the 17th. falls under an exception to the general rule requiring search warrant prior to person and commanded him to open the compartment of the car, which was
a valid search and seizure, the police officers were justified in requiring the later on found to be owned by his friend, David Lee. He was not committing
xxx xxx xxx any visible offense then. Therefore, there can be no valid warrantless arrest
Q: Did he tell you who was to make the delivery? private respondent to open his BMW car’s trunk to see if he was carrying
illegal drugs. in flagrante delicto under paragraph (a) of Section 5. It is settled that
A: No, Sir.
"reliable information" alone, absent any overt act indicative of a felonious
xxx xxx xxx The conflicting versions as to whether the arrest preceded the search or vice enterprise in the presence and within the view of the arresting officers, is not
Q: At that time when you decided to look for the accused to ask him to shed versa, is a matter of credibility of evidence. It entails appreciation of sufficient to constitute probable cause that would justify an in flagrante
light on the matter concerning the arrest of these two employees in evidence, which may be done in an appeal of a criminal case because the delicto arrest.30
possession of shabu. Did you and did your team suspect the accused as being
entire case is thrown open for review, but not in the case of a petition for
Neither may the warrantless arrest be justified under paragraph (b) of should escape than that the government should play an ignoble part." It is At 11:00 p.m. of the same day, Estacio alighted from a Toyota Vios car at the
51
Section 5. What is clearly established from the testimonies of the arresting simply not allowed in free society to violate a law to enforce another, Jollibee branch located at the corner of Commonwealth Avenue and Tandang
officers is that Wang was arrested mainly on the information that he was the especially if the law violated is the Constitution itself.34 Sora. PO2 Frando, accompanied by the CI, approached Estacio. After PO2
employer of Redentor Teck and Joseph Junio who were previously arrested Frando was introduced to Estacio as the prospective buyer, the latter
and charged for illegal transport of shabu. Teck and Junio did not even WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. demanded to see the payment. However, PO2 Frando asked him to first show
categorically identify Wang to be their source of the shabu they were caught the ecstasy pills.7 Estacio then opened the doors of the vehicle and
with in flagrante delicto. Upon the duo’s declaration that there will be a G.R. No. 184658 March 6, 2013 introduced his two companions, Carlo and Jonathan (later identified as
delivery of shabu on the early morning of the following day, May 17, which is herein respondents Jonathan Dy and Carlo Castro), to PO2 Frando and the CI.
only a few hours thereafter, and that Wang may be found in Maria Orosa PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. JUDGE RAFAEL R. Respondent Castro handed PO2 Frando one sealed plastic sachet containing
Apartment along Maria Orosa Street, the arresting officers conducted LAGOS, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL several pink pills. The latter gave the "boodle" money to respondent Dy and
"surveillance" operation in front of said apartment, hoping to find a person COURT, QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 79, JONATHAN DY y RUBIC, CASTEL immediately removed his baseball cap. The removal of the cap was the
which will match the description of one Lawrence Wang, the employer of VINCI ESTACIO y TOLENTINO, AND CARLO CASTRO y CANDO, prearranged signal to the rest of the buy-bust team that the transaction was
Teck and Junio. These circumstances do not sufficiently establish the Respondents. complete.8
existence of probable cause based on personal knowledge as required in
paragraph (b) of Section 5. DECISION PO2 Frando introduced himself as a police officer and informed respondents
SERENO, CJ.: of their constitutional rights.9 PO2 Cubian frisked respondent Dy and was
And doubtless, the warrantless arrest does not fall under paragraph (c) of able to recover the buy-bust money.10 Respondents were then escorted to
Section 5. Before this Court is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 seeking the AIDSOTF office in Camp Crame, where they identified themselves as
to reverse the following Orders in Criminal Case No. Q-07-146628 issued by Castel Vinci Estacio y Tolentino, Carlo Castro y Cando, and Jonathan Dy y
The inevitable conclusion, as correctly made by the trial court, is that the public respondent Judge Rafael R. Lagos (Judge Lagos), presiding judge of the Rubic. As officer in charge of the inventory of the evidence seized, PO2
warrantless arrest was illegal. Ipso jure, the warrantless search incidental to Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 79: Cubian turned over the plastic sachet to PO3 Jose Rey Serrona, who was in
the illegal arrest is likewise unlawful. charge of the investigation.11 On 31 March 2007, forensic chemist and Police
1. The Order issued on 23 April 2008, granting respondents' Petition for Bail Senior Inspector Yelah C. Manaog (P S/Insp. Manaog) conducted a laboratory
In People v. Aminnudin,31 the Court declared as inadmissible in evidence the and Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence;1 examination of the contents of the sachet, which was completed at 10:50 a.m.
marijuana found in appellant’s possession during a search without a warrant, that same day.12 The 30 pink pills were found positive for
because it had been illegally seized, in disregard of the Bill of Rights: 2. The Order issued on 24 June 2008 granting the demurrer to evidence filed methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) hydrochloride, commonly
by respondents and acquitting them of the crime of illegal sale of drugs known as ecstasy, a dangerous drug.13
In the case at bar, the accused-appellant was not, at the moment of his arrest, punishable under Section 5, Article II, Republic Act 9165;2
committing a crime nor was it shown that he was about to do so or that he An Information dated 3 April 2007 was filed against respondents for the sale
had just done so. What he was doing was descending the gangplank of the 3. The Order issued on 24 July 2008, which: a) denied petitioner's Motion for of dangerous drugs, in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No.
M/V Wilcon 9 and there was no outward indication that called for his arrest. Inhibition, b) denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of the 24 July (R.A.) 9165. The case was raffled to the sala of Judge Fernando Sagum, Jr. of
To all appearances, he was like any of the other passengers innocently 2008 Order; and c) granted respondents’ Motion to withdraw their cash the Quezon City RTC. Upon arraignment, respondents pleaded not guilty to
disembarking from the vessel. It was only when the informer pointed to him bonds.3 the charges. Trial ensued, and the prosecution presented its evidence,
as the carrier of the marijuana that he suddenly became a suspect and so including the testimonies of four witnesses: PO2 Marlo V. Frando, PO2 Ruel P.
subject to apprehension. It was the fugitive finger that triggered his arrest. On 30 March 2007, at 11:00 a.m., a confidential informant (CI) appeared Cubian, Police Senior Inspector Yelah C. Manaog, and PO3 Jose Rey Serrona.
The identification of the informer was the probable cause as determined by before the Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force (AIDSOTF) of the After the prosecution submitted its Formal Offer of Evidence on 17
the officer (and not a judge) that authorized them to pounce upon Aminnudin Philippine National Police (PNP) in Camp Crame, Quezon City. The CI relayed November 2007, respondents filed a Motion for leave of court to file their
and immediately arrest him. to Police Senior Inspector Fidel Fortaleza, Jr. (P S/Insp. Fortaleza) that an demurrer, as well as a Motion to resolve their Petition for Bail. On 2 January
individual using the alias "Brian" was engaged in the illegal sale of the 2008, Judge Sagum issued a Resolution denying both the Petition for Bail and
The People’s contention that Wang waived his right against unreasonable prohibited drug "ecstasy" in BF Homes, Parañaque City.4 The CI further the Motion for leave of court to file a demurrer. Respondent Estacio then
search and seizure has no factual basis. While we agree in principle that reported that "Brian," who was later identified as herein private respondent sought the inhibition of Judge Sagum, a move subsequently adopted by
consent will validate an otherwise illegal search, however, based on the Castel Vinci Estacio y Tolentino (Estacio), promised a commission from any respondents Dy and Castro. On 15 January 2008, Presiding Judge Sagum
evidence on record, Wang resisted his arrest and the search on his person transaction the former would help arrange. P S/Insp. Fortaleza, as team inhibited himself from the case. On 31 January 2008, the case was re-raffled
and belongings.32 The implied acquiescence to the search, if there was any, leader of the AIDSOTF, assembled and briefed the team that would conduct to public respondent Judge Lagos.
could not have been more than mere passive conformity given under the buy-bust operation. Police Officer (PO) 2 Marlo V. Frando (PO2 Frando)
intimidating or coercive circumstances and is thus considered no consent at was assigned to act as the poseur-buyer and PO2 Ruel P. Cubian (PO2 Judge Lagos issued the first assailed Order on 23 April 2008 granting
all within the purview of the constitutional guarantee.33 Moreover, the Cubian) as back-up, while the rest of the team members were to serve as respondents’ Petition for Bail and allowing them to file their demurrer. On 24
continuing objection to the validity of the warrantless arrest made of record perimeter security. P S/Insp. Fortaleza and PO2 Leonard So prepared and June 2008, he issued the second assailed Order, acquitting all the accused. On
during the arraignment bolsters Wang’s claim that he resisted the dusted two ₱500 bills for use as buy-bust money. The CI then called Motion for Reconsideration filed by the People, he issued the third assailed
warrantless arrest and search. respondent Estacio, informing him that a prospective buyer wished to Order denying the above motion and granting the Motion to Withdraw Cash
purchase thirty (30) tablets of ecstasy with a total value of ₱50,000.5 That Bonds filed by the accused.
We cannot close this ponencia without a word of caution: those who are afternoon, respondent Estacio instructed them to proceed to Tandang Sora
supposed to enforce the law are not justified in disregarding the rights of the Avenue, Quezon City, where the transaction was to take place.6 Before this Court, the prosecution argues that Judge Lagos committed grave
individual in the name of order. Order is too high a price for the loss of abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction in granting
liberty. As Justice Holmes once said, "I think it is less evil that some criminals the demurrer despite clear proof of the elements of the illegal sale, the
existence of the corpus delicti, and the arrest in flagrante delicto.14 Private clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were However, there is no basis for this conclusion, as Ong involved a conviction
52
respondents counter that the Petition is dismissible on the ground of double inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, based on the lone testimony of one apprehending officer, Senior Police
jeopardy and is violative of the principle of hierarchy of courts. their testimonies on the operation deserve faith and credit. 21 Officer (SPO1) Gonzales. The Court found that SPO1 Gonzales was merely the
deliveryman, while the CI was the one who acted as the poseur-buyer. In this
We grant the petition. The Court has held that when police officers have no motive to testify falsely case, one of the witnesses, PO2 Frando, was a buy-bust team member who
against the accused, courts are inclined to uphold the presumption of also acted as the poseur-buyer. He participated in the actual sale transaction.
Respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the regularity accorded to them in the performance of their official duties.22 In His testimony was a firsthand account of what transpired during the buy-
demurrer. the present case, there is no contention that the members of AIDSOTF who bust and thus stemmed from his personal knowledge of the arrest in
conducted the buy-bust operation were motivated by ill will or malice. flagrante delicto.
It has long been settled that the grant of a demurrer is tantamount to an Neither was there evidence adduced to show that they neglected to perform
acquittal. An acquitted defendant is entitled to the right of repose as a direct their duties properly. Hence, their testimonies as to the conduct of the buy- Requiring the CI to testify is an added imposition that runs contrary to
consequence of the finality of his acquittal.15 This rule, however, is not bust operation deserves full faith and credence. jurisprudential doctrine, since the Court has long established that the
without exception. The rule on double jeopardy is subject to the exercise of presentation of an informant is not a requisite for the prosecution of drug
judicial review by way of the extraordinary writ of certiorari under Rule 65 Respondent judge harps on the fact that it was the CI who had personal cases. The testimony of the CI is not indispensable, since it would be merely
of the Rules of Court. The Supreme Court is endowed with the power to knowledge of the identity of the seller, the initial offer to purchase the corroborative of and cumulative with that of the poseur-buyer who was
determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion ecstasy pills, and the subsequent acceptance of the offer. It is clear from the presented in court, and who testified on the facts and circumstances of the
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or testimonies of PO2 Frando and the other arresting officers that they sale and delivery of the prohibited drug.24
instrumentality of the government.16 Here, the party asking for the review conducted the buy-bust operation based on the information from the CI.
must show the presence of a whimsical or capricious exercise of judgment However, the arrest was made, not on the basis of that information, but of the Informants are usually not presented in court because of the need to hide
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction; a patent and gross abuse of discretion actual buy-bust operation, in which respondents were caught in flagrante their identities and preserve their invaluable services to the police. Except
amounting to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a delicto engaged in the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Due to the investigative when the accused vehemently denies selling prohibited drugs and there are
duty imposed by law or to act in contemplation of law; an exercise of power work of the AIDSOTF members, the illegal sale was consummated in their material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the arresting officers, or there
in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility; or a presence, and the elements of the sale – the identity of the sellers, the are reasons to believe that the officers had motives to falsely testify against
blatant abuse of authority to a point so grave and so severe as to deprive the delivery of the drugs, and the payment therefor – were confirmed. That the CI the accused, or that it was the informant who acted as the poseur-buyer, the
court of its very power to dispense justice.17 In such an event, the accused initially provided this information or "tip" does not negate the subsequent informant's testimony may be dispensed with, as it will merely be
cannot be considered to be at risk of double jeopardy.18 consummation of the illegal sale. corroborative of the apprehending officers' eyewitness accounts.25 In People
v. Lopez, the Court ruled that the "informant's testimony, then, would have
The trial court declared that the testimonies of PO2 Frando, PO2 Cubian, P In the Court’s Resolution on People v. Utoh, the accused was caught in been merely corroborative and cumulative because the fact of sale of the
S/Insp. Manaog, and AIDSOTF Chief Leonardo R. Suan were insufficient to flagrante delicto selling ₱36,000 worth of shabu in a buy-bust operation prohibited drug was already established by the direct testimony of SP04
prove the culmination of the illegal sale, or to show their personal knowledge conducted by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). The accused Jamisolamin who actively took part in the transaction. If the prosecution has
of the offer to sell and the acceptance thereof. In granting the demurrer filed argued that mere reliable information from the CI was an insufficient ground several eyewitnesses, as in the instant case, it need not present all of them
by the accused, respondent judge surmised that it was the CI who had for his warrantless arrest. The Court stated: but only as many as may be needed to meet the quantum of proof necessary
initiated the negotiation of the sale and should have thus been presented at to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt."26
trial. Utoh was arrested not, as he asserts, on the basis of "reliable information"
received by the arresting officers from a confidential informant. His arrest Similarly, in the present case, the fact of the illegal sale has already been
Accused were caught in flagrante delicto; AIDSOTF police officers witnessed came as a result of a valid buy-bust operation, a form of entrapment in which established by testimonies of the members of the buy-bust team. Judge Lagos
the actual sale. the violator is caught in flagrante delicto. The police officers conducting a need not have characterized the Cl's testimony as indispensable to the
buy-bust operation are not only authorized but also duty-bound to prosecution's case. We find and so hold that the grant of the demurrer for
The trial court’s assessment that the witnesses had no personal knowledge of apprehend the violators and to search them for anything that may have been this reason alone was not supported by prevailing jurisprudence and
the illegal sale starkly contrasts with the facts borne out by the records. PO2 part of or used in the commission of the crime. constituted grave abuse of discretion. The prosecution's evidence was, prima
Frando was present during the negotiation and the actual buy-bust facie, sufficient to prove the criminal charges filed against respondents,
operation. PO2 Frando himself acted as the poseur-buyer and testified in The testimonies of arresting officers IOI Apiit and IOI Mosing were subject to the defenses they may present in the course of a full-blown trial.
open court. PO2 Cubian frisked the accused and recovered the buy-bust straightforward, positive, and categorical. From the time they were tipped off
money; he also testified in court. P S/Insp. Manaog testified as to the corpus by the confidential informant at around 9:00 a.m. of November 22, 2008 or WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Orders of the Regional Trial
delicti of the crime; and the 30 pills of ecstasy were duly marked, identified, up to the time until the informant confirmed Utoh’s impending arrival at a Court dated 23 April 2008, 24 June 2008, and 24 July 2008 are ANNULLED
and presented in court. The validity of buy-bust transactions as an effective very late hour that night, and the latter's eventual arrest, the intelligence and SET ASIDE. The RTC is ORDERED to reinstate Criminal Case No. Q-07-
way of apprehending drug dealers in the act of committing an offense is well- officers credibly accounted for the briefings held, the preparations, and 146628 to the court's docket and proceed with trial.
settled.19 actions taken by them.23
SO ORDERED.
The only elements necessary to consummate the crime of illegal sale of drugs It is well-settled that the testimony of the CI in the sale of illegal drugs is not
is proof that the illicit transaction took place, coupled with the presentation indispensable.
in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.20 In buy-bust
operations, the delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the Given the foregoing, respondent Judge Lagos erred in requiring the testimony A.M. No. MTJ-06-1658 July 3, 2007
[Formerly OCA IPI No. 01-1014-MTJ]
seller’s receipt of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust of the CI.1âwphi1 Respondent judge based his ruling on a 2004 case, People
transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused. Unless there is v. Ong, the facts of which purportedly "mirror" those of the present case.
MIGUEL E. COLORADO, complainant, vs. JUDGE RICARDO M. On November 8, 2005, respondent paid the fine of P1,000.00 imposed on him 4. An intention on the part of respondent to prevent complainants
AGAPITO Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Laur, Nueva Ecija, respondent. 53
in the Resolution of August 24, 2005 and submitted his Comment on the appearance in court by sending an envelope, with a supposed notice of
complaint. hearing but with nothing inside.
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In his Comment[3] dated October 31, 2005, respondent denied the xxxx
Before us is a sworn letter-complaint[1] dated January 31, 2001 of Miguel E. allegations contained in the complaint reasoning that he acted in good faith Respondent judge argued that under Administrative Circular No. 14-93 dated
Colorado (complainant) charging Judge Ricardo M. Agapito (respondent), and within the scope of his duties. He further contends: Based on August 3, 1993 issued by this Court as Guidelines for the Implementation of
Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Laur, Nueva Ecija, with Gross Administrative Circular No. 140-93, the crimes committed by the accused are the Barangay Conciliation Procedure, based on the Local Government Code of
Ignorance of the Law and Grave Abuse of Authority relative to Criminal Case not within the Katarungan Pambarangay Law because the imposable penalty 1991, R.A. 7160, which took effect on January 1, 1992, one of the exceptions
Nos. 3461-G and 3462-G, entitled People v. Miguel Colorado, with Grave exceeds one year. Both cases are within the original jurisdiction of the court to the coverage of the circular is Offense[s] for which the law prescribes a
Slander and Grave Threats. and, finding a probable cause against the accused, the court issued the maximum penalty of imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or a fine over five
warrant of arrest. There is no law or circular issued by this Court that a court thousand pesos (P5,000.00). Considering that the offenses for which accused
Complainant alleges: He is the accused in the aforementioned criminal cases. cannot issue a warrant of arrest on Friday. If the accused was not able to post was charged have corresponding penalties of more than one year there is no
The cases were directly filed with the court without first passing the Office of bail on time, it is not his fault or of the court. The motion for inhibition filed need for a certification to file action from the Barangay.
the Barangay Chairman, although he and private complainants are by complainant must be set for hearing. But in spite of several settings to
permanent residents of Barangay Bagong Sikat, Gabaldon, Nueva Ecija. hear the motion, complainant failed to appear. In the hearing of both cases, There was likewise no grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of warrant of
Respondent ignored the glaring deficiency in private complainants filing of complainant failed to appear in court; thus, the assistant provincial arrest. The subject criminal cases were within the original jurisdiction of the
the cases without attaching the requisite certifications to file action from the prosecutor moved for the arrest of the complainant. At the hearing of MTC and after finding probable cause against the accused, respondent issued
barangay. On the date the two cases were filed, respondent immediately November 17, 2000 and January 5, 2001, complainant failed to appear in the questioned warrant of arrest. Respondent pointed out that there is no law
issued two warrants for his arrest. He was arrested on a Friday and court, and orders of arrest were issued against him, but said orders were or circular issued by the Honorable Court prohibiting the issuance of a
languished in the municipal jail for two days and two nights. He posted bail reconsidered by the court. In spite of all the orders of the court for the arrest warrant of arrest on Friday.
and filed a motion to inhibit respondent from hearing the case, but the same of complainant, none of the orders were implemented. Neither was the
was not acted upon. He received an envelope from the court with nothing accused arrested and detained in jail. And if the complainant received an With regard to the charge of grave abuse of discretion relative to the motion
inside and found out later that the same was supposed to be a notice of envelope from the MCTC of Laur without content, complainant should have for inhibition, respondent submitted that there should be a hearing on the
hearing; thus, he was ordered arrested in view of his non-appearance in immediately informed the court of the said circumstance so that proper motion before it could be acted upon. But in spite of the several settings of
court. action may be done on the employee in charge of the mailing of notices. said motion the complainant as accused failed to appear.
On February 22, 2001, respondent compulsorily retired from the judiciary. In the Resolution of March 29, 2006, the Court referred back the instant Respondent contended that if it were true that complainant received an
administrative matter to the OCA for evaluation, report and envelope from the MCTC of Laur, Nueva Ecija, without any contents, he
In a 1st Indorsement dated June 8, 2001, respondent was directed to file his recommendation. should have immediately informed the court about it so that the proper
comment on the complaint. A 1st Tracer dated October 17, 2001 was sent to action could have been done.
respondent giving him a non-extendible period of five days to file his In a letter[4] dated November 21, 2005, respondent requested the Court that
comment. However, the said tracer was returned unserved due to his retirement benefits be released subject to the withholding of P20,000.00 Lastly, respondent invited the Courts attention to the fact that complainant
respondents retirement from the judiciary. Another Tracer dated July 30, pending resolution of the present complaint. was also accused of Grave Slander by Darlito Urbano and Violeta Urbano
2002 was sent to respondent in his residential address giving him a chance to In the Resolution[5] of June 28, 2006, the Court granted the partial release of which case were docketed as Criminal Case No. 3648-G and 3649-G, MCTC
file his comment, but none was filed. respondent's compulsory retirement benefits and withheld therefrom the Laur-Gabaldon, Nueva Ecija. It is argued that this shows the character of
amount of P20,000.00 to answer for whatever liability respondent may incur Miguel Colorado.
Acting on the complaint, the Court, in its Resolution of March 24, 2003, in the present administrative case.
required respondent to manifest whether he was willing to submit the After careful evaluation of the record of the case, the undersigned finds merit
administrative matter against him for resolution without his comment. In the Agenda Report dated August 30, 2006, the OCA submitted its in the neglect of respondent judge to resolve the pending issue of the motion
Respondent failed to comply with the Court Resolution. Thus, in the evaluation and recommendation, to wit: for inhibition which was not acted upon up to the time of his compulsory
Resolution of January 26, 2005, the Court ordered respondent to show cause retirement from the service.
why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt for failure The charges against respondent judge are summarized as follows:
to manifest and to comply with the Resolution of March 24, 2003. Still, It should be noted that respondent never gave any valid justification for the
respondent failed to comply with the Resolution of January 26, 2005. In the 1. Gross Ignorance of the law for his failure to remand or dismiss the case delay in the filing of his comment. It seems that he believed that the mere
Resolution of August 24, 2005, the Court imposed upon respondent a fine of in view of the absence of the requisite certificate to file action issued by the payment of the fine obliterated the charge of contumacious refusal to obey
P1,000.00 and deemed respondent to have waived the filing of a comment on Barangay as a mandatory requirement of the Katarungan Pambarangay Law the order of this Court. Respondent's conduct cannot be left unnoticed by the
the complaint. and the Local Government Code. Court. Judges are the visible representations of law and justice, from whom
the people draw the will and inclination to obey the law (Moroo v. Lomeda,
In the Agenda Report[2] dated October 12, 2005, the Office of the Court 2. Grave abuse of authority for the issuance of a warrant of arrest on a 316 Phil. 103, July 14, 1995) How can the respondent judge expect others to
Administrator (OCA) found respondent guilty as charged and recommended Friday to ensure complainants incarceration for two days. respect the law when he himself cannot obey orders as simple as the show-
that he be fined in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) to be cause resolution? {Longboan v. Hon. Polig (A.M. No. R-704-RTJ, June 14, 1990,
deducted from his retirement benefits. 3. Grave abuse of authority and bias in continuing the hearing of the cases 186 SCRA 557) cited in the case of Bonifacio Guintu v. Judge Aunario L.
and for failure to act on the motion for inhibition. Lucero, A.M. No. MTJ-93-794, August 23, 1996}.
In a catena of cases this Court has unhesitatingly imposed the penalty of

54
dismissal on those who have persistently failed to comply with orders In the present case, the first two requisites are present. The sworn letter- Section 6, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that
requiring them either to file comment or to show cause and comply. complaint was received by the Office of the Court Administrator on January an arrest may be made on any day and at any time of the day or night.
Respondent's belated filing of his comment cannot cure or obliterate[d] his 31, 2001. The respondent retired compulsorily from the service barely three
shortcomings with this Court. The fact remains that he ignored the lawful weeks after or on February 22, 2001; and the ground for disciplinary action It is of no moment that the warrant of arrest was issued by respondent on a
directive of the Court and in fact offered no valid justification or excuse for it. alleged to have been committed by the respondent occurred five months Friday, because it is clear from the foregoing that an arrest may be made on
This Court could have imposed the penalty of dismissal and forfeiture of all of before the respondents separation from the service. any day regardless of what day the warrant of arrest was issued. Nowhere in
respondent's retirement benefit had it not been for this Courts compassion in the Rules or in our jurisprudence can we find that a warrant of arrest issued
allowing him to retire with the mere retention of P20,000.00. Respondents As to the third requirement, although the first and second charges against on a Friday is prohibited.
comment should not have been received in the first place as the same was respondent are outrightly without merit as aptly found by the OCA, the
already considered waived pursuant to the Resolution of the Honorable complaint that respondent failed to act on his motion for inhibition and Granting that complainant was arrested on a Friday, he was not without
Court dated 24 August 2005. intentionally prevented complainant from appearing in a scheduled hearing recourse, as he could have posted bail for his temporary liberty in view of
was not prima facie shown to be without merit; nor was the filing thereof Supreme Court Circular No. 95-96[10] dated December 5, 1996, providing for
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the undersigned respectfully recommends to shown to be intended merely to harass the respondent. Thus, the OCA a skeletal force on a Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. primarily to act on
the Honorable Court that: correctly proceeded with the administrative case against respondent. petitions for bail and other urgent matters. And on Saturday afternoons,
Sundays and non-working holidays, any judge may act on bailable offenses.
1. Judge Ricardo M. Agapito, former judge of MCTC, Laur, Nueva Ecija be Moreover, the fact that a judge has retired or has otherwise been separated Thus, we agree with the OCA that respondent did not commit grave abuse of
found guilty of gross neglect for failure to act on the motion for inhibition from the service does not necessarily divest the Court of its jurisdiction to authority for issuing the warrant of arrest on a Friday, the same not being
filed by accused-complainant and for his failure to promptly comply with the determine the veracity of the allegations of the complaint, pursuant to its prohibited by law.
lawful order of Court and not offering a valid excuse therefor and should be disciplinary authority over members of the bench. As we held in Gallo v.
FINED in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000); and Cordero,[8] citing Zarate v. Judge Romanillos: 3. Grave abuse of authority and bias in continuing the hearing of the cases
and for failure to act on the motion for inhibition.
2. The withheld amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000) shall be The jurisdiction that was ours at the time of the filing of the administrative
considered the payment of the fine.[6] complaint was not lost by the mere fact that the respondent had ceased in While there is no evidence in support of the claim that respondent committed
office during the pendency of his case. The Court retains jurisdiction either to grave abuse of authority and bias in continuing the hearing of cases, we find
We agree in toto with the findings and recommendations of the OCA. pronounce the respondent public official innocent of the charges or declare respondent liable for failure to act upon complainants motion for inhibition.
him guilty thereof. A contrary rule would be fraught with injustice and
First of all, we deem it necessary to determine the applicability of A.M. No. pregnant with dreadful and dangerous implications... If innocent, respondent As borne by the records, complainant filed his motion for respondent's
03-10-01-SC, a Resolution Prescribing Measures to Protect Members of the public official merits vindication of his name and integrity as he leaves the inhibition sometime in September 2000 but up to the time of respondents
Judiciary from Baseless and Unfounded Administrative Complaints, which government which he has served well and faithfully; if guilty, he deserves to compulsory retirement from the judiciary on February 22, 2001, the same
took effect on November 3, 2003. receive the corresponding censure and a penalty proper and imposable remained unacted upon. Verily, the undue delay of respondent by five
under the situation. months in resolving the pending incident before his court erodes the peoples
Recognizing the proliferation of unfounded or malicious administrative or faith in the judiciary and the same is tantamount to gross inefficiency.
criminal cases against members of the judiciary for purposes of harassment, We now go to the four charges against respondent. Respondents explanation that despite the fact that the motion was set for
we issued said Resolution, which provides: hearing several times, complainant repeatedly failed to appear thereat, is
1. Gross Ignorance of the law for his failure to remand or dismiss the case in untenable. Respondent must know that he may act motu proprio on the
2. If the complaint is (a) filed within six months before the compulsory view of the absence of the requisite certificate to file action issued by the motion for inhibition without requiring the attendance of complainant. A
retirement of a Justice or Judge; (b) for an alleged cause of action that barangay as a mandatory requirement of the Katarungan Pambarangay Law judge, in the exercise of his sound discretion, may disqualify himself from
occurred at least a year before such filing; and (c) shown prima facie that it is and the Local Government Code. sitting on a case for just or valid reasons.[11]
intended to harass the respondent, it must forthwith be recommended for
dismissal. If such is not the case, the Office of the Court Administrator must As we earlier stated, the Court finds that the OCA is correct in not finding Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
require the respondent to file a comment within ten (10) days from receipt of respondent administratively liable therefor. Complainant is charged with Judiciary,[12] mandates judges to perform all judicial duties, including the
the complaint, and submit to the Court a report and recommendation not grave slander, the maximum penalty for which is 2 years and 4 months under delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable
later than thirty (30) days from receipt of the comment. The Court shall act Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, respondent is not guilty of gross promptness. Similarly, Supreme Court Circular No. 13 dated July 1, 1987
on the recommendation before the date of compulsory retirement of the ignorance of the law in taking jurisdiction over said criminal case, directs judges to observe unscrupulously the periods prescribed by the
respondent, or if it is not possible to do so, within six (6) months from such considering that prior recourse to barangay conciliation is not required Constitution in the adjudication and resolution of all cases or matters
date without prejudice to the release of the retirement benefits less such where the law provides a maximum penalty of imprisonment exceeding one submitted to their court.
amount as the Court may order to be withheld, taking into account the year.
gravity of the cause of action alleged in the complaint. In Visbal v. Buban,[13] the Court held that failure to decide cases and other
Thus, in order for an administrative complaint against a retiring judge or 2. Grave abuse of authority for the issuance of a warrant of arrest on a Friday matters within the reglementary period constitutes gross inefficiency and
justice to be dismissed outright, the following requisites must concur: (1) the to ensure complainants incarceration for two days. warrants the imposition of administrative sanction against the erring
complaint must have been filed within six months from the compulsory magistrate.[14] Delay in resolving motions and incidents pending before a
retirement of the judge or justice; (2) the cause of action must have occurred Complainant faults respondent for having been arrested on a Friday, causing judge within the reglementary period of ninety (90) days fixed by the
at least a year before such filing; and (3) it is shown that the complaint was him to languish in jail for two days and two nights. Respondent cannot be Constitution and the law is not excusable and constitutes gross
intended to harass the respondent. held administratively liable for this particular matter. inefficiency.[15] Further, such delay constitutes a violation of Rule 3.05,
Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which mandates that a judge should
55
dispose of the courts business promptly and decide cases within the required
periods. As a trial judge, respondent is a frontline official of the judiciary and
should at all times act with efficiency and with probity.[16] Undue delay in
the disposition of cases and motions erodes the faith and confidence of the
people in the judiciary and unnecessarily blemishes its stature.
4. An intention on the part of respondent to prevent complainants

appearance in court by sending an envelope, with a supposed notice of
hearing but with nothing inside.
Suffice it to be stated that in the absence of evidence to show that the sending
of an empty envelope to complainant was malicious on the part of
respondent, he cannot be held liable therefor.
Section 9 (1) and 11 (B), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M.
No. 01-8-10-SC, classifies gross neglect or undue delay in rendering a
decision or order as a less serious charge which carries any of the following
sanctions: suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not
less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months or a fine of more than
P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00. We adopt the recommendation of
the OCA that respondent should be imposed a fine in the amount of
P20,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Judge Ricardo M. Agapito guilty of

gross neglect and is FINED in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos
(P20,000.00). The withheld amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.0)
from respondents retirement benefits is considered as payment of the fine.
SO ORDERED.

Additional Cases - Arrest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Additional Cases - Arrest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Additional Cases - Arrest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Additional cases on Rule 113 – ARREST

In a catena of cases this Court has unhesitatingly imposed the penalty of

4. An intention on the part of respondent to prevent complainants

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Judge Ricardo M. Agapito guilty of

You might also like