E. Section 2. Arrest Warrants only Boy Bicol’s companion.

Dela Cruz denied

under oath that the gun and drugs seized were
People vs Dela Cruz found in his possession and testified that he was
G.R. No. 182348, November 20, 2008 only invited by Boy Bicol to get the motorcycle
571 SCRA 469 from his house.

ADDITIONAL FACTS:
FACTS: 1. The RTC acquitted accused-appellant of
illegal possession of firearm and ammunition but
ACCORDING TO THE PROSECUTION: convicted him of possession of dangerous
1.On October 20, 2002, an informant tipped off drugs.
the Drug Enforcement Unit of the Marikina 2. The CA sustained accused-appellant's
Police Station that wanted drug pusher Wifredo conviction.
Loilo alias "Boy Bicol" was at his nipa hut
hideout in San Mateo, Rizal. ISSUE:
2. A team was organized to arrest Boy Bicol. WON the court a quo gravely erred in convicting
3. On the site, they saw Boy Bicol by a table the accused-appellant of the offense charged
talking with Dela Cruz. The team shouted, "Boy despite the patent illegality of his arrest,
Bicol sumuko ka na may warrant of arrest ka.
(Surrender yourself Boy Bicol you have a HELD:
warrant of arrest.)
4. Upon hearing, Boy Bicol engaged them in a
Yes, since accused-appellant was not in
shootout and was fatally shot.
5. On the other hand, Dela Cruz was seen possession (whether in its actual or constructive
holding a shotgun through a window. He sense) of the illegal drugs in Boy Bicol's nipa
dropped his shotgun when a police officer hut, his subsequent arrest was also invalid. Rule
pointed his firearm at him. 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure on
6. The team entered the nipa hut and warrantless arrest provides:
apprehended Dela Cruz. They saw a plastic bag
of suspected shabu, a digital weighing scale,
drug paraphernalia, ammunition, and magazines Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when
lying on the table. PO1 Calanoga, Jr. put the lawful.--A peace officer or a private
markings "CVDC," the initials of accused- person may, without a warrant, arrest a
appellant, on the bag containing the seized drug. person:
7. Accused-appellant, Dela Cruz, was
subsequently arrested.
a) When, in his presence, the person to
8. The substance seized from the hideout was
sent to the Philippine National Police crime be arrested has committed, is actually
laboratory for examination and tested positive committing, or is attempting to commit
for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. an offense;

ACCORDING TO THE DEFENSE: b) When an offense has just been

1. Accused-Appellant, Dela Cruz was at Boy committed, and he has probable cause
Bicol's house having been asked to do a welding
to believe based on personal knowledge
job for Boy Bicol's motorcycle
2. While Dela Cruz was there, persons who of facts or circumstances that the
identified themselves as police officers person to be arrested has committed it;
approached the place, prompting accused- and
appellant to scamper away.
3. He laid face down when gunshots rang. The
buy-bust team then helped him get up. He saw
the police officers searching the premises and
finding shabu and firearms, which were on top of
a table or drawer.
4. When Dela Cruz was asked for the reason of
his apprehension, he answered because he was
 c) When the person to be arrested is a gate near the emergency room. Appellant then
prisoner who has escaped from a penal entered the hospital.
establishment or place where he is 5. Alonzo examined the VHS box then took off
his cap to signal the buy-bust team. The buy-
serving final judgment or is temporarily
bust team immediately proceeded to the scene.
confined while his case is pending, or Alonzo told the team that appellant had entered
has escaped while being transferred the hospital. Alonzo handed the VHS box to
from one confinement to another. Ablang.
6. Upon examination, the box was found to
The warrantless arrest of accused-appellant was contain four (4) plastic bags of a crystalline
effected under Sec. 5(a), arrest of a suspect in substance that the team suspected was shabu.
7. Ablang instructed Salazar, Police, to
flagrante delicto. For this type of warrantless
inform the appellant that his car had been
arrest to be valid, two requisites must concur: (1) bumped. Appellant then exited from the
the person to be arrested must execute an overt hospital via the emergency room door
act indicating that he has just committed, is 8. Salazar introduced himself as a policeman
actually committing, or is attempting to commit a and attempted to arrest Agojo. Agojo resisted,
crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the but the other team members handcuffed him.
The team recovered ₱10,000.00 of the buy-bust
presence or within the view of the arresting
money. Ablang opened appellant’s car and
officer recovered a .45 caliber pistol containing seven
(7) bullets and a Panasonic cellular phone from
the passenger seat. 
Thus, SC reversed the decision held by CA and 9. The seized items were requested for a
RTC. Accused-appellant Carlos Dela Cruz laboratory examination. The examination
is ACQUITTED  revealed that the sachets contained
methamphetamine hydrochloride with a total
People vs Agojo weight of 206.32 grams.
G.R. No. 181318  , April 16, 2009
585 SCRA 652
ACCORDING TO THE DEFENSE:
FACTS: 1. On August 27, 1999, appellant arrived at
Mercado Hospital. He stayed in the room of a
ACCORDING TO THE PROSECUTION: certain Imelda Papasin. At this time, his wife,
1. On August 23, 1999, Rodolfo Alonzo, a Precilla was also confined in the hospital. She
civilian informant, reported the drug trading had asked him to bring money to settle her bills,
activities of appellant, Agojo to Police Chief so she could be discharged the next day
Inspector Ablang. Alonzo narrated that appellant 2. The security guard informed Agojo that his car
agreed to sell him 200 grams of shabu  for had been sideswiped. Thus, Agojo went down.
₱70,000.00 on a 50% cash and 50% credit The police later arrested him when he reached
basis. The sale was to take place in front of the the ground floor. The police later opened his car.
Mercado Hospital in Tanauan, Batangas. 3. He was made to board a police vehicle. While
2. On August 27, 1999 at 11:30 p.m. Chief aboard, the police confiscated ₱6,000.00 in
Inspector formed a team to conduct the buy-bust cash, a wrist watch and a necklace from him. He
operation. was brought to the police headquarters in
3. On August 27, 1999, the team proceeded to Kumintang Ilaya, Batangas City. 
Mercado Hospital. Ablang then entrusted Alonzo
with ₱71,000.00 each marked "JUA." Alonzo ADDITIONAL FACTS:
was instructed to remove his hat to signal the 1. The RTC held that appellant was guilty
team that the sale had been consummated. beyond reasonable doubt of the charge against
4. Appellant, Agojo approached Alonzo to ask if him for violation of Section 15 of R.A. No. 6425
the latter had the money. Alonzo handed and acquitted him of the charge of violation of
appellant the marked money. Appellant took a P.D. No. 1866 for lack of sufficient evidence.
VHS box from his car and handed it to Alonzo. 2. The case was brought on automatic review
Appellant and Alonzo walked along the hospital before the Supreme Court, since appellant was
sentenced to death by the trial court.
 FACTS:
ISSUE: 1. After investigation of the prosecution, the
WON the ARREST of AGOJO is proper even above respondents became suspects in the
though the ARREST was made WITHOUT A commission of parricide and two murders; their
WARRANT. father, their step-mother and step sister.
2. Respondents Archie and Jan-Jan’s defense is
HELD: alibi. They claimed that they were away when
the crimes took place at the house.
YES. In this case, appellant points to the arrest 3. Based on Dr. Lebaquin’s forensic
computation, however, the victims probably died
not being in flagrantedelicto, the existence of
at about midnight, more or less. The two were
discrepancies in the serial numbers of the buy- still at home when the killings happened.
bustmoney and a prior attempt to frame him up 4. RTC issued an order, directing the City
as proofs of the frame-up. However, the fact that Prosecutor’s Office to submit additional
the arrest was not in flagrante delicto is of no evidence in the case but the latter office asked
consequence. The arrest was validly executed for more time to comply. Meanwhile, the DOJ
pursuant to Section 5, paragraph (b) of Rule 113 issued a resolution dismissing respondents
Archie and Jan-Jan’s petition for review.
of the Rules of Court, which states:
5. After a new presiding judge, Judge Globert
Justalero, took over the RTC, he issued an order
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A on March 30, 2007 granting the prosecution’s
peace officer or a private person may, without a request for additional time within which to
warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his comply with the court’s order of January 12,
presence, the person to be arrested has 2007.
committed, is actually committing, or is 6. On April 2, 2007 the prosecutor’s office filed
its compliance and submitted its amended
attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an
resolution in the case. The petitioners assailed
offense has in fact been committed and he has this amended resolution and pointed out that the
personal knowledge of facts indicating that the public prosecutor did not submit any additional
person to be arrested has committed it; and, (c) evidence.
When the person to be arrested is a prisoner 7. Judge Justalero reversed the order of the
who has escaped from penal establishment or previous presiding judge. He found probable
place where he is serving final judgment or cause against respondents Archie and Jan-Jan
this time and ordered the issuance of warrants
temporarily confined while his case is pending,
for their arrest.
or has escaped while being transferred from one 8. Without seeking reconsideration of Judge
confinement to another. The second instance of Justalero's order, Archie and Jan-Jan filed the
lawful warrantless arrest covered by paragraph present petition for certiorari with the CA.
(b) cited above necessitates two stringent 7. The CA granted accused’s petition for
requirements before a warrantless arrest can be certiorari, reversed all RTC’s decisions and
effected: (1) an offense has just been annulled the issued warrants of arrest. CA
dismissed the criminal cases against the
committed; and (2) the person making the arrest
respondents.
has personal knowledge of facts indicating that 8. The public prosecutor filed a motion for
the person to be arrested has committed it. A reconsideration but the same was denied.
review of the records shows that both Hence,this petition. 
requirements were met in this case.

Thus, SC dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ISSUE:

decision of the lower court. WON the CA committed error in ruling that
Judge Justalero gravely abused his discretion
People vs Tan when he made a finding that there is probable
G.R. No. 182310, December 09, 2009 cause to issue a warrant for the arrest of the
two.
HELD: 1. Ong filed a criminal complaint against Genio
for Robbery which was dismissed by the City
Yes, CA committed error in ruling that Judge Prosecutor of Makati City. However, pursuant to
Justalero gravely abused his discretion when he the Resolutions of the Department of Justice,
made a finding that there is probable cause to respondent was charged with the crime of
warrant the arrest of Archie and Jan-Jan. Robbery in an information that the accused did
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, divest
But what is probable cause? Probable cause
and carry away kitchen and canteen equipment
assumes the existence of facts that would lead a
as well as her personal things valued at Php
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe
700,000.00, belonging to ELVIRA O. ONG.
that a crime has been committed and that it was
2. Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the
likely committed by the person sought to be
Case for Lack of Probable Cause Pursuant to
arrested. It requires neither absolute certainty
Sec. 6(a), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court and, in
nor clear and convincing evidence of guilt. The
View of Compelling Grounds for the Dismissal of
test for issuing a warrant of arrest is less
the Case to Hold in Abeyance the Issuance of
stringent than that used for establishing the guilt
the Warrant of Arrest (Motion to Dismiss).
of the accused. As long as the evidence shows
Petitioner filed an Opposition dated December
a prima facie case against the accused, the trial
11, 2006 to respondent's Motion to Dismiss.
court has sufficient ground to issue a warrant for
3. RTC of Makati City dismissed the case
his arrest.
because the other elements of the crime of
Here, admittedly, the evidence against Robbery, specifically the elements of intent to
respondents Archie and Jan-Jan is merely gain, and either violence against or intimidation
circumstantial. The prosecution evidence shows of any person or force upon things, were not
that they had motive in that they had been at specifically alleged in the information filed
odds with their father and stepmother. They had against respondent.
opportunity in that they were still probably home 4. Despite the dismissal of the case, respondent
when the crime took place. Archie took two pairs filed a Partial Motion for Reconsideration,
of new gloves from his car late that evening. reiterating that the information should be
Cindy was apparently executed inside Archie’s dismissed in its entirety for lack of probable
room. The separate rooms of the two accused cause. Petitioner filed her opposition to this
had, quite curiously, been wiped clean even of motion.
their own fingerprints. A trial, unlike preliminary 5. RTC granted respondent’s Partial Motion for
investigations, could yield more evidence Reconsideration and dismissed the case for lack
favorable to either side after the interrogations of of probable cause pursuant to Section 6(a), Rule
the witnesses either on direct examination or on 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
cross-examination. What is important is that Procedure.
there is some rational basis for going ahead with 6. Petitioner filed her MR, claiming that the RTC
judicial inquiry into the case. This Court does not erred in relying on Section 6(a), Rule 112 of the
subscribe to the CA’s position that the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, since the
prosecution had nothing to go on with. said provision relates to the issuance of a
warrant of arrest, and it does not cover the
Thus, SC reversed the decision held by CA and determination of probable cause for the filing of
upheld the decision of RTC. the information against respondent, which is
executive in nature, a power primarily vested in
Ong vs Genio the Public Prosecutor.
G.R. No. 182336, December 23, 2009 7. RTC denied petitioner’s MR, holding that the
609 SCRA 188 provision authorizes the RTC to evaluate not
only the resolution of the prosecutor who
FACTS: conducted the preliminary investigation and
eventually filed the information in court, but also from the filing of the complaint or information,
the evidence upon which the resolution was the judge shall personally evaluate the
based. In the event that the evidence on record resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting
clearly fails to establish probable cause, the evidence. He may immediately dismiss the case
RTC may dismiss the case. if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish
probable cause. If he finds probable cause, he
8. Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Petition for shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment
Certiorari and Mandamus before the CA. order if the accused has already been arrested
Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the pursuant to a warrant issued by the judge who
petition, raising the issue of lack of personality of conducted the preliminary investigation or when
petitioner to appeal the dismissal of the criminal the complaint or information was filed pursuant
case, because the authority to do so lies to section 7 of this Rule. In case of doubt on the
exclusively with the State as represented by the existence of probable cause, the judge may
OSG. CA observed that the People of the order the prosecutor to present additional
Philippines were impleaded as petitioner without evidence within five (5) days from notice and the
showing, however, the OSG’s participation. issue must be resolved by the court within thirty
Thus, the CA ordered petitioner to furnish the (30) days from the filing of the complaint or
OSG with a copy of the Petition, and the latter to information.
comment thereon.
9. OSG filed its Comment, taking the stand of Pursuant to the aforementioned provision, the
respondent that only the Solicitor General can RTC judge, upon the filing of an Information, has
bring or defend actions on behalf of the People the following options: (1) dismiss the case if the
of the Philippines filed before the CA or the evidence on record clearly failed to establish
Supreme Court. The OSG submitted that, for probable cause; (2) if he or she finds probable
being fatally defective, the said Petition should cause, issue a warrant of arrest; and (3) in case
be dismissed insofar as the criminal aspect was of doubt as to the existence of probable cause,
concerned, without prejudice to the right of order the prosecutor to present additional
petitioner to pursue the civil aspect of the case. evidence within five days from notice, the issue
10. CA rendered its Resolution, dismissing the to be resolved by the court within thirty days
case without prejudice to the filing of a petition from the filing of the information.
on the civil aspect thereof on the basis of the
Thus, the petition is DENIED. The Resolution of
arguments raised by both respondent and the
the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
OSG. Petitioner filed an MR which the CA
denied.

ISSUE: People vs Jerry R. Pepino and Daisy M.

WON the RTC erred erred in relying on Section Balaan
6(a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal G.R. No. 183479, June 29, 2010
Procedure, since the said provision relates to 622 SCRA 293
the issuance of a warrant of arrest, and it does
not cover the determination of probable cause
for the filing of the Information against FACTS:
respondent. 1.On October 18, 1997, Anita Ching (the victim)
left her Goldline Tours office in Quezon City on
HELD: board her car driven by Alejandro Soriano,
together with her other employees Policarpio
No, Section 6(a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules Guinto (Guinto) and Eva Guinto. The victim and
on Criminal Procedure clearly provides that company had barely left the office when they
warrant of arrest may issue — (a) By the were blocked by a vehicle from which alighted
Regional Trial Court. — Within ten (10) days
four armed men who poked their firearms at reconsideration of the decision but RTC denied
them. it.
2. The armed men, two of whom ─ Pepino and 11. CA affirmed RTC’s decision.
Pelenio ─ were recognized by the victim and
Guinto, forcibly took the victim and boarded her
on their vehicle. Thirty (3) minutes later the
victim was transferred to another vehicle and
taken to a safehouse where she was to be ISSUE:
WON the warrantless arrest of Pepino for the
detained for 19 days. case of kidnapping is illegal.
3. During the victim’s captivity, ten persons
alternately guarded her. Daisy, one of two HELD:
female cohorts of the group, warned her not to NO. As to the alleged illegality of Pepino’s
escape, otherwise, she would be hanged. The arrest, it is settled that any irregularity attending
group initially asked for a ₱30 million ransom but the arrest of an accused should be timely raised
the amount was eventually negotiated down to in a motion to quash the Information at any time
₱500,000.00 which was paid to the group. before arraignment, failing which he is deemed
4. On November 6, 1997, the victim was to have waived. Since Pepino did not raise such
released and dropped near a drugstore along alleged irregularity early on, he is now
Bonifacio Avenue in Quezon City. estopped. 
5. Pelenio escaped from detention. He was
eventually recaptured in Cebu City but was killed The elements of kidnapping for ransom under
in a shootout with the police on February 3, Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as
2000. Before his death, however, Pelenio sent a amended, are as follows: (a) intent on the part of
letter to the presiding judge of the trial court the accused to deprive the victim of his liberty;
asking for forgiveness for his escape and (b) actual deprivation of the victim of his liberty;
admitting his complicity with Pepino in the crime. and (c) motive of the accused, which is extorting
6. Sr./Insp. Vicente Arnado, who was called as a ransom for the release of the victim.
hostile witness for the defense, identified Pepino
as the leader of a notorious kidnap-for-ransom Thus, SC upheld the decision of CA and RTC.
group. The appeal of Daisy Balaan is DENIED in
7. Without presenting evidence, Pepino merely accordance with Section 6, Rule 120 of the
challenged his warrantless arrest for kidnapping Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
as illegal, insisting that he was arrested not for
said crime but as an incident of his arrest for
illegal possession of firearms. Rebellion vs People
8. As for Daisy who claimed to have been G.R. No. 175700, July 5, 2010
arrested on December 6, 1997 with her uncle 623 SCRA 343
Pelenio, she denied having met the victim at the
safehouse, alleging that it was only on
FACTS:
December 18, 1997 when she was presented at 1. On July 27, 2000, the Mayor’s Action
the Department of Justice that she met the Command (MAC) team of Mandaluyong
victim for the first time. witnessed petitioner handing a piece of plastic
9. RTC found Pepino and Daisy guilty beyond sachet to his companion Clarito Yanson.
reasonable doubt as principal and accomplice, Suspecting that that the substance was “shabu,”
respectively, of the crime charged. team members PO3 Garcia and PO3 Sotomayor
10. Daisy having failed to attend the alighted from their motorcycles and approached
promulgation of judgment, a warrant for her them. Clarito was not able to completely get hold
arrest was issued. It appears that she has of the plastic sachet because of their arrival.
remained at-large. Daisy moved for
2. Upon inquiry by PO3 Garcia on what ground before arraignment. Any objection
petitioner was holding, the latter presented three involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure by
strips of aluminum foil, which the former which the court acquired jurisdiction over the
person of the accused must be made before he
confiscated. There and then, petitioner and
enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is
Clarito were apprehended and brought to the deemed waived. In this case, petitioner was duly
CID for investigation. arraigned, entered a negative plea and actively
3. After laboratory examination, the white participated during the trial. Thus, he is deemed
crystalline substance placed inside the plastic to have waived any perceived defect in his
sachet was found positive for methamphetamine arrest and effectively submitted himself to the
hydrochloride or shabu, a regulated drug. jurisdiction of the court trying his case. Also, a
lawful arrest without a warrant may be made
4. Petitioner denied the charge against him. On
under any of the following circumstances: Sec.
appeal, petitioner insisted that his warrantless 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. – A
arrest was unlawful since he was not committing peace officer or a private person may, without a
any crime when he was arrested. warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his
5. On September 26, 2006, the CA affirmed the presence, the person to be arrested has
judgment of the RTC with modification. The committed, is actually committing, or is
appellate court sustained the validity of the attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an
offense has just been committed and he has
warrantless arrest of petitioner holding that the
probable cause to believe based on personal
latter was caught by the MAC team in flagrante knowledge of facts or circumstances that the
delicto or while he was in the act of giving to person to be arrested has committed it; and (c)
Clarito a plastic sachet of shabu. Petitioner When the person to be arrested is a prisoner
challenges the legality of his warrantless arrest who has escaped from a penal establishment or
by asserting that at the time he was place where he is serving final judgment or is
apprehended, he was not committing or temporarily confined while his case is pending,
or has escaped while being transferred from one
attempting to commit an offense. Petitioner
confinement to another. There is sufficient
argues that since his arrest was illegal, the evidence that the warrantless arrest of petitioner
eventual search on his person was also was effected under Section 5(a), or the arrest of
unlawful. Thus, the illicit items confiscated from a suspect in flagrante delicto as he was then
him are inadmissible in evidence for being committing a crime, violation of the Dangerous
violative of his constitutional right against Drugs Act, within the view of the arresting team.
He was caught by the police officers while he
unreasonable searches and seizure.
was in the act of handing to Clarito Yanson a
plastic sachet of “shabu.” Thus, his case comes
ISSUE: under the exception to the rule requiring a
WON this is a legitimate instance of a warrant before effecting an arrest.
warrantless arrest, i.e. under circumstances Consequently, the results of the attendant
sufficient to engender a reasonable belief that search and seizure were admissible in evidence
some crime was being or about to be committed to prove his guilt of the offense charged.
Jurisprudence is settled that the arresting officer
or had just been committed.
in a legitimate warrantless arrest has the
authority to search on the belongings of the
HELD: offender and confiscate those that may be used
YES. The Court finds the petitioner guilty of the to prove the commission of the offense.
crime charged. Petitioner’s claim that his
warrantless arrest is illegal lacks merit. Nowhere Thus, SC affirmed the decision of CA and RTC.
in the records did the Court find any objection
interposed by petitioner to the irregularity of his
arrest prior to his arraignment. It has been
consistently ruled that an accused is estopped Pineda-Ng vs People
from assailing any irregularity of his arrest if he G.R. No. 189533, November 15, 2010
fails to raise this issue or to move for the 634 SCRA 736
quashal of the information against him on this
FACTS:
1. On December 19, 2007, information for
Qualified Theft was filed against: 1. Richard ISSUE:
Francisco, branch manager of private WON Judge Reyes erred on finding probable
complainant Philippine Business bank; 2. cause for the issuance of warrant of arrest
Mailada Marilag-Aquino; and 3. Petitioner against the petitioner.
Imelda Pineda-Ng.
2. The prosecution found that Aquino had drawn HELD:
and issued several checks in favor of petitioner.
Who in turn presented these checks for payment NO. Probable cause has been defined as the
before the bank by virtue of her Bill of Purchase
existence of such facts and circumstances as
Accommodation Facility through Francisco, who
in excess of his authority, approved the payment would lead a person of ordinary caution and
of these checks despite the fact that each check prudence to entertain an honest and strong
had a face value of more than P 100,000 and suspicion that the person charged is guilty of the
that the same were actually drawn from Closed crime subject of the investigation. Being based
Accounts and/or drawn against insufficient merely on opinion and reasonable belief, it does
funds. not import absolute certainty. Probable cause
3. Judge Maria Ami Faith Reyes of RTC 42 in
need not be based on clear and convincing
San Fernando, Pampanga found probable
cause for the issuance of warrant of arrest evidence of guilt, as the investigating officer acts
against Francisco, but dismissed the case upon reasonable belief. Probable cause implies
against Aquino and the Petitioner. probability of guilt and requires more than bare
4. However, on Motion for Reconsideration by suspicion, but less than evidence which would
the Prosecution, Judge Reyes reversed its justify a conviction.
earlier order and found probable cause against
the Petitioner and Aquino and ordered their Thus, the instant petition is DENIED.
arrest.
5. Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari before
the CA. In its Decision, the CA dismissed the
Imperial vs Joson
petition for lack of merit. The CA took note that,
G.R. Nos. 160067, 171622, November 17,
while it appeared that Judge Reyes, other than
2010
exhaustively quoting People v. CA, failed to fully
amplify her own findings, it could not be said that
she did not review the records of the case, and FACTS:
that she merely relied on the findings of the City 1. A collision happened along the portion of the
Prosecutor. National Highway in Concepcion, Sariaya,
6. The CA stressed that, at the outset, in her
Quezon.
Order dated January 11, 2008 issued in
petitioner’s favor, Judge Reyes categorically 2. The Isuzu ten-wheeler truck collided with a
indicated that she reviewed the records of the Fuso six-wheeler truck. After colliding with the
case. The CA ratiocinated that the judge already Fuso six-wheeler truck, the Isuzu ten-wheeler
had knowledge of the case and that she need truck further rammed into a Kia Besta Van.
not reiterate or mention in the assailed Order 3. There were multiple damages on the vehicles.
that she reviewed the case. After all, Judge
Much more tragic than that, the accident
Reyes had the power to set aside her previous
Order. 7. Moreover, the CA held that while it is resulted in one death, the owner of the KIA
true that there is no crime of "Conspiracy to Besta Van, and seven of its passengers, all
Commit Qualified Theft" as argued by petitioner, suffered serious physical injuries.
the Information charged all the accused with 4. A criminal complaint for Reckless Imprudence
consummated Qualified Theft; thus, Aquino and Resulting to Multiple Homicide, Multiple Serious
petitioner were charged as principals by direct Physical Injuries and Damage to Property was
participation. Subsequently, the CA denied
filed against petitioners Santos Francisco and
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in its
Resolution dated September 8, 2009. Noel Imperial on 16 May 2001.
8. Hence, this petition for Review on Certiorari.
5. During the course of the case, there have Republic Act No. 9165 for Possession of
been 9 postponements. Petitioner claims that his Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social
right to speedy trial has been violated. Gatherings or Meetings.
It appears that on September 2, 2006, at around
12:45 o'clock in the afternoon, a concerned
citizen entered the police precinct and reported
ISSUE:
that a pot session was going on in the house of
WON the postponements of the pre-trial
conferences were violative of the Petitioner’s accused Rafael Gonzales in Trinidad
right to speedy trial. Subdivision, Dagupan City.
As the police officers entered the gate of the
HELD: house, they saw accused Orlando Doria coming
NO. Although the Revised Rules of Criminal out of the side door and immediately arrested
Procedure concededly mandates
him. Inside the house, they saw accused
commencement of the trial within 30 days from
receipt of the pre-trial order and the continuous Gonzales, Arnold Martinez, Edgar Dizon, and
conduct thereof for a period not exceeding 180 Rezin Martinez in a room. In front of them were
days, Section 3 a (1), Rule 119 provides that open plastic sachets (containing shabu residue),
delays resulting from extraordinary remedies pieces of rolled used aluminum foil and pieces of
against interlocutory orders shall be excluded in used aluminum foil.
computing the time within which trial must The accused were arrested and brought to the
commence. In determining the right of an
police precinct. The items found in the room
accused to speedy trial, moreover, courts are
"required to do more than a mathematical were seized and turned over to the Pangasinan
computation of the number of postponements of Provincial Police Crime Laboratory Officer who
the scheduled hearings of the case" and to give conducted a laboratory examination on the
particular regard to the facts and circumstances seized items. All 115 plastic sachets, 11 pieces
peculiar to each case. Viewed in the context of of rolled used aluminum foil, and 27 of the 49
the above discussed procedural antecedents as pieces of used aluminum foil tested positive for
well as the further reassignment of the case to
methamphetamine hydrochloride. The accused
Prosecutor Baligod as a consequence of
Prosecutor Sia’s subsequent transfer to another were subjected to a drug test and, except for
government office, we find that the CA correctly Doria, they were found to be positive for
brushed aside petitioner Francisco's claim that methamphetamine hydrochloride.
the postponements of the pre-trial conferences The case against Doria was dismissed on a
in the case before the Sariaya MTC were demurrer to evidence. The trial court however
violative of his right to a speedy trial. found Arnold Martinez, Edgar Dizon, Rezin
Martinez, and Rafael Gonzales guilty of violation
Note: The topic is not related to Arrest Warrant. of Section 13 in relation to Section 11 of RA
The SCRA number in the case list is wrong. 9165. The accused were held to have been in
constructive possession of the subject items. A
conspiracy was also found present as there was
PEOPLE VS MARTINEZ a common purpose to possess the dangerous
637 SCRA 791 | 2010 drug.

FACTS: ISSUE:
The accused, Arnold Martinez , Edgar Dizon, WON the evidence against the accused are
Rezin Martinez, Roland Doria, and Rafael admissible
Gonzales, were charged with sniffing and
possessing dangerous drugs (shabu residues) HELD:
contained in empty plastic sachets and rolled No. Evidence against the accused is
aluminum foil, during a party, in violation of inadmissible because the tipped information is
Section 13, in relation to Section 11, Article II of not sufficient probable cause to effect a lawful
arrest allowing for a warrantless search. This deemed tainted for being the proverbial fruit of a
case would appear to fall under either a poisonous tree and should be excluded.
warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest
or a plain view search, both of which require a RODEL LUZ y ONG VS PEOPLE
lawful arrest in order to be considered valid GR 197788 | 2012/02/29
exceptions to the constitutional guarantee.
Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest FACTS:
(see Rule 113 below) PO2 Emmanuel L. Alteza saw flagged down Luz
 Paragraphs (a) and (b) both require for violating a municipal ordinance which
probable cause to be present requires all motorcycle drivers to wear helmet
in order for a warrantless arrest to be motor vehicle. He invited Luz to come inside
valid. their sub-station since the place where he
o Paragraph (a) the arresting flagged down Luz is almost in front of the said
officers had no personal sub-station. While he and SPO1 Rayford
knowledge that at the time of Brillante were issuing a citation ticket, he noticed
the arrest, accused had just that Luz was uneasy and kept on getting
committed, were committing, or something from his jacket. He told Luz to take
were about to commit a crime, out the contents of the pocket of his jacket as
as they had no probable cause the latter may have a weapon inside it. Luz
to enter the house obliged and slowly put out the contents of the
of accused Rafael Gonzales in pocket of his jacket containing a nickel-like tin or
order to arrest them. metal container after Luz was asked to open the
o Paragraph (b), the arresting container, Alteza noticed a cartoon cover and
officers had no personal something beneath it and upon his instruction,
knowledge of facts and Luz spilled out the contents of the container
circumstances that would lead which turned out to be suspected shabu.
them to believe that the accused
had just committed an RTC convicted Luz of illegal possession of
offense. dangerous drugs. It found the prosecution
 Tipped information is sufficient probable evidence sufficient to show that he had been
cause to effect a lawfully arrested for a traffic violation and then
warrantless search only in cases subjected to a valid search, which led to the
involving either a buy-bust discovery on his person of two plastic sachets
operation or drugs in transit. later found to contain shabu. The CA affirmed
o The tip originated from a the RTC’s Decision.
concerned citizen who himself
had no personal knowledge of Luz filed under Rule 45 the instant Petition for
the information that was Review on Certiorari and claims that there was
reported to the police. no lawful search and seizure, because there
Plain view was no lawful arrest. He claims that the finding
 The evidence was not inadvertently that there was a lawful arrest was erroneous,
since he was not even issued a citation ticket or
discovered as the police officers
charged with violation of the city ordinance.
intentionally entered the house with no
Even assuming there was a valid arrest, he
prior surveillance or investigation before
claims that he had never consented to the
they discovered the accused with the
search conducted upon him.
subject items.
Evidence procured on the occasion of an
ISSUE:
unreasonable search and seizure is
WON the search done upon Luz is valid
HELD:
No. Consent to a search is not to be lightly
inferred, but shown by clear and convincing
evidence. It must be voluntary in order to
validate an otherwise illegal search; that is, the
consent must be unequivocal, specific,
intelligently given and uncontaminated by any Warrantless Search
duress or coercion.
PEOPLE VS QUEBRAL
Whether consent to the search was in fact GR 185379 | 270Nov 2009
voluntary is a question of fact to be determined
from the totality of all the circumstances.
Relevant to this determination are the following FACTS:
characteristics of the person giving consent and The Chief of the Drug Enforcement Unit called
the environment in which consent is given: PO3 Cecilio Galvez and other police officers to a
briefing regarding a police informer's report that
(a) the age of the defendant;
two men and a woman on board an owner type
(b) whether the defendant was in a public or a
secluded location; jeep with a specific plate number would deliver
(c) whether the defendant objected to the search shabu, a prohibited drug, on the following day at
or passively looked on; a Petron Gasoline Station in Balagtas to Michael
(d) the education and intelligence of the Salvador, a drug pusher in the police watch list.
defendant; After a short briefing on the morning of
(e) the presence of coercive police procedures;
September 8, 2002, PO3 Galvez and six other
(f) the defendant’s belief that no incriminating
evidence would be found; police officers trailed the jeep mentioned as it
(g) the nature of the police questioning; proceeded to the town proper of Balagtas and
(h) the environment in which the questioning entered a Petron gas station along the McArthur
took place; and Highway.
(i) the possibly vulnerable subjective state of the After a few minutes, a Tamaraw FX arrived from
person consenting. It is the State that has the which accused - appellant Michael Salvador
burden of proving, by clear and positive
alighted. He walked towards the jeep and talked
testimony, that the necessary consent was
obtained, and was freely and voluntarily given. to accused Zenaida Quebral, who then handed
In this case, while the prosecution claims that a white envelope to him. On seeing this, PO3
Luz acceded to the instruction of PO3 Alteza, Galvez, who was watching from about 15 meters
this alleged accession does not suffice to prove in a tinted car, signaled his back-up team to
valid and intelligent consent. In fact, the RTC move. The police officers alighted from their
found that Luz was merely “told” to take out the vehicles and surrounded the jeep. Galvez took
contents of his pocket. Also, all that was alleged
the envelope from Michael, opened it, and saw
was that Luz was alone at the police station at
three in the morning, accompanied by several five plastic sachets containing white crystalline
police officers. These circumstances weigh substance which he believed was shabu.
heavily against a finding of valid consent to a Accused Zenaida Quebral, Eusebio Quebral,
warrantless search. Fernando Lopez, and Michael Salvador were
Neither does the search qualify under the “stop arrested for violation of Section 13 in relation to
and frisk” rule. While the rule normally applies Section 11 of RA 9165.
when a police officer observes suspicious or
ppellants denied having committed the crime,
unusual conduct, which may lead him to believe
that a criminal act may be afoot, the stop and claiming only that PO3 Galvez and his fellow
frisk is merely a limited protective search of police officers merely framed them up.
outer clothing for weapons.
ISSUE:
WON police officers illegally arrested the The suspects raised the defense of alibi, lack of
accused and their subsequent search of their fingerprint and ballistic evidence. They also
persons incident to such arrest was also illegal alleged torture in the hands of the police officer,
and that they were arrested without warrant
HELD: contrary to Section 2, Art. III of the Constitution.
No. What happened was more of a search On cross-examination, the witness admitted they
preceding an arrest. The police officers had had no warrant of arrest when they went to
information that two men and a woman on board Fairview to locate the suspects, as it was a "hot
an owner type jeep would arrive in Balagtas and person" case ordered by their superior and
hand over a consignment of shabu at a gas requiring the immediate arrest of suspects
station in town to a known drug dealer whose identified by witnesses.
name was on the police watch list. When these The trial court convicted the appellants. The
things unfolded before their eyes as they case was automatically elevated to the Supreme
watched from a distance, the police came down Court because of the nature of the penalty. The
on those persons and searched them, resulting Supreme Court transferred to case to the Court
in the discovery and seizure of a quantity of of Appeals for review. The Court of Appeals
shabu in their possession. In such a case, the affirmed the findings of the trial court. However,
search is a valid search justifying the arrest that the lawyer of the defense imputed several errors
came after it. on the decision of the Court of Appeals, hence
It would have been impractical for the police to the petition for review.
apply with the appropriate court for a search
warrant since their suspicion found factual ISSUE:
support only at the moment accused Eusebio WON the warrantless arrest done was valid
Quebral, Fernando Lopez, and Zenaida Quebral
rendezvoused with Michael Salvador at the RULING:
Petron gas station for the handover of the drugs. Yes. Because of the credible eyewitness
An immediate search was warranted since they testimony of Alejo, who vividly recounted before
would have gone away by the time the police the trial court their respective positions and
could apply for a search warrant. The drugs participation in the fatal shooting of Abadilla,
could be easily transported and concealed with having been able to witness closely how they
impunity. committed the crime. Despite a lengthy and
exhaustive cross-examination by the defense
PEOPLE VS AVA counsel, eyewitness Alejo stuck to the essentials
XXXXXXXXXX of his story, including the identification of the
persons who killed Col. Abadilla. He was only
LUMANOG VS PEOPLE ten (10) meters away from the locus crimini.
Standing on an elevated guardhouse, he had a
FACTS: close and unobstructed view of the whole
Appellants Lenido Lumanog and Agusto Santos incident. He was in a vantage position to clearly
were the accused perpetrators of the ambush- recognize Col. Abadilla's assailants, more so
slay of former Chief of Metropolitan Command because the crime happened in clear and broad
Intelligence and Security Group of Philippine daylight. The credible testimony of a lone
Constabulary (now PNP), Col. Rolando N. witness(es) assumes more weight when there is
Abadilla. no showing that he was actuated by improper
The principal witness for the prosecution was motive to testify falsely against the accused, as
Freddie Alejo, a security guard employed where in the case of Freddie Alejo. 
the ambush happened. He testified on what he
saw and positively identified the accused. PEOPLE VS ARANETA
6340SCRA 475 | 20 Oct 2010
 execution of their criminal plan. Thus, in this
FACTS: jurisdiction, the operation is legal and an
The police officers received information of effective method of apprehending drug peddlers,
alleged peddling of illegal drugs from a provided due regard to constitutional and legal
confidential informant. The peddlers were safeguards is undertaken.
Rolando Araneta and Marilou Santos.
SPO4 Lara formed a team with SPO2 Zigapan Exceptions to Strict Enforcement
as team leader and PO2 Damasco as poseur-
buyer. PEOPLE VS SEMBRANO
The team arrived at the target place where they 628 SCRA 328
saw the respondents standing outside their
house. The informant talked to the respondents FACTS:
and introduced PO2 Damasco as buyer. On 26 July 2004, an informant of the police
Rolando went inside the house to ge the drugs arrived at the SAID of the Novaliches Police
to be sold. PO2 Damasco handed over the Station and relayed information regarding illicit
marked bill to Marilou. When Rolando went drugs trade operations conducted by a certain
outside their house, he gave a plastic sachet Michael Sembrano alias Takol in the area of
containing the crystalline substance. Upon Gulod in Novaliches, Quezon City.
receipt, PO2 Damasco examined it. He then Superintendent (Supt.) Ramon Perez, head of
made a signal and the respondents were SAID, formed a buy-bust team composed of
promptly apprehended. Aside from the marked PO1 JomarManaol, SPO1 Cesar Futol, PO1
money and the plastic sachet containing shabu Kingly James Bagay, PO1 Neil John Dumlao,
sold to PO2 Damasco, Rolando was also found and PO1 Fernando Salonga.
to have 8 sachets of shabu and one sachet of PO1 Manaol was designated poseur-buyer. He
marijuana. was handed two (2) One Hundred Peso bills
On trial, respondents posed the defense of which he marked with his initials JAM on the
frame-up, planting evidence forcible entry and lower right side thereof, right below the image of
extortion. the Philippine Flag. PO1 Manaol, together with
RTC found accused guilty and CA affirmed. the confidential informant, then proceeded to the
Now, they contend that the evidence should not target site. The other members of the team,
be admissible for there is not valid warrant of including witness PO1 Bagay, acted as back-up
arrest and search warrant. and positioned themselves about twenty-five
meters away from where PO1 Manaol and the
ISSUE: confidential informant were.
WON a valid search warrant and warrant of They waited until appellant arrived at around
arrest was needed 5:00 oclock in the afternoon. Upon appellants
arrival, the confidential informant introduced
RULING: PO1 Manaol to him as an interested buyer of
No. A search warrant or warrant of arrest was shabu. PO1 Manaol handed the two marked
not needed because it was a buy bust operation One Hundred Peso bills to appellant, who, in
and the accused were caught in flagrante delicto turn, handed one (1) plastic sachet containing
in possession of, and selling dangerous drugs to white crystalline substance to him. The
the poseur-buyer. It was legal for the buy-bust transaction having been consummated, PO1
team to arrest and search them on the spot Manaol executed their pre-arranged signal and
because a buy-bust operation is a justifyable scratched his head. When the other members of
way of apprehending drug pushers. A buy-bust the team saw PO1 Manaol execute the pre-
operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways arranged signal, they immediately proceeded to
and means are resorted to for the purpose of their location and arrested appellant.
trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the
PO1 Bagay was able to retrieve the buy-bust crystalline substance to the police station and
money from appellants right hand. A follow-up turned over to the investigator. At the police
frisk on appellant resulted in the confiscation of station, an Inventory of Seized Drugs/Item was
two other plastic sachets of white crystalline prepared by SPO1 Cesar Futol and signed by
substance suspected to be shabu, from the right PO1 Manaol and PO1 Bagay. The investigator
hand pocket of his shorts. Immediately after on duty, to whom the seized evidence were
retrieving the evidence, PO1 Bagay marked the encrusted by PO1 Bagay, through PO1 Salonga,
confiscated sachets with his initials KJB. PO1 Manaol and PO1 Bagay, turned over the
After his arrest, the police officers took appellant evidence to the PNP-Crime Laboratory for
to the police station where he was turned over to forensic examination on the same day he
the desk officer and to the on-duty investigator. received the items. In a Chemistry Report
PO1 Bagay, who had custody of the confiscated released by P/S Insp. Leonard T. Arban, the
evidence, turned over the seized three (3) white crystalline substance taken from the three
plastic sachets of white crystalline substance to sachets proved positive for shabu.
the investigator. PO1 Manaol and PO1 Bagay A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment
executed a Joint Affidavit of Arrest and signed which in recent years has been accepted as a
the Inventory of Seized Drugs/Item prepared by valid and effective mode of apprehending drug
SPO1 Cesar Futol. pushers. If carried out with due regard for
Qualitative examination conducted on the constitutional and legal safeguards, a buy-bust
above-stated specimens gave POSITIVE result operation, such as the one involving appellant,
to the tests for Methylamphetamine deserves judicial sanction. Consequently, the
Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. warrantless arrest and warrantless search and
seizure conducted on the person of appellant
ISSUE: were allowed under the circumstances. The
WON the arrest was valid search, incident to his lawful arrest, needed no
warrant to sustain its validity. Thus, there is no
RULING: doubt that the sachets of shabu recovered
Yes. The collective testimonies of the during the legitimate buy-bust operation, are
prosecution witnesses, as well as the admissible and were properly admitted in
documentary evidence offered in court, provide evidence against him.
a detailed picture of the sequence of events
leading to the consummation of the transaction, PEOPLE VS RACHO
the very moment PO1 Manaol received the drug 626 SCRA 633, August 3, 2010
from accused-appellant, the seller. The
foregoing is the very corpus delicti of the Facts:
offense. On May 19, 2003, a confidential agent of the
Appellant was caught in flagrante delicto police transacted through cellular phone with
appellant for the purchase of shabu. The agent
delivering 0.12 gram of methamphetamine
reported the transaction to the police authorities
hydrochloride or shabu to PO2 Manaol, the who immediately formed a team to apprehend
poseur-buyer, for a consideration of P200.00. the appellant. The team members posted
Upon frisking after his arrest, another 0.27 gram themselves along the national highway in Baler,
of methamphetamine hydrochloride were Aurora, and at around 3:00 p.m. of the same
recovered from him. It is clear from the evidence day, a Genesis bus arrived in Baler. When
on record that the sachet of shabu sold by appellant alighted from the bus, the confidential
agent pointed to him as the person he
appellant was marked by PO2 Manaolwith his transacted with, and when the latter was about
initials, while the other two sachets were marked to board a tricycle, the team approached him
by PO1 Bagay with his initials. PO1 Bagay, who and invited him to the police station as he was
had custody of the seized evidence, brought suspected of carrying shabu. When he pulled
confiscated three plastic sachets of white out his hands from his pants’ pocket, a white
envelope slipped therefrom which, when urgency that would allow them to do away with
opened, yielded a small sachet containing the the requisite warrant. As testified to by Police
suspected drug. The team then brought Officer 1 Aurelio Iniwan, a member of the
appellant to the police station for investigation arresting team, their office received the "tipped
and the confiscated specimen was marked in information" on May 19, 2003. They likewise
the presence of appellant. The field test and learned from the informant not only the
laboratory examinations on the contents of the appellant’s physical description but also his
confiscated sachet yielded positive results for name. Although it was not certain that appellant
methamphetamine hydrochloride. Appellant was would arrive on the same day (May 19), there
charged in two separate informations, one for was an assurance that he would be there the
violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165, for following day (May 20). Clearly, the police had
transporting or delivering; and the second, of ample opportunity to apply for a warrant.
Section 11 of the same law for possessing,
dangerous drugs. During the arraignment,
appellant pleaded "Not Guilty" to both charges.
On July 8, 2004, the RTC rendered a Joint
Judgment convicting appellant of Violation of
Section 5, Article II, R.A. 9165 but acquitted him
of the charge of Violation of Section 11, Article
II, R.A. 9165. On appeal, the CA affirmed the
RTC decision. The appellant brought the case to
SC assailing for the first time he legality of his
arrest and the validity of the subsequent
warrantless search.

Issue:
WON the appellant has a ground to assail the
validity of his arrest

Held:
Yes. The long standing rule in this jurisdiction is
that "reliable information" alone is not sufficient
to justify a warrantless arrest. The rule requires,
in addition, that the accused perform some overt
act that would indicate that he has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit
an offense. We find no cogent reason to depart
from this well-established doctrine.
Appellant herein was not committing a crime in
the presence of the police officers. Neither did
the arresting officers have personal knowledge
of facts indicating that the person to be arrested
had committed, was committing, or about to
commit an offense. At the time of the arrest,
appellant had just alighted from the Gemini bus
and was waiting for a tricycle.
Appellant was not acting in any suspicious
manner that would engender a reasonable
ground for the police officers to suspect and
conclude that he was committing or intending to
commit a crime. Were it not for the information
given by the informant, appellant would not have
been apprehended and no search would have
been made, and consequently, the sachet of
shabu would not have been confiscated. Neither
was the arresting officers impelled by any