REBELLION AS CONTINUING OFFENSES Umil vs.

Ramos
Facts: This is a consolidated petition for habeas corpus where the petitioners alleged that their detention is illegal and unlawful as their arrests were made without warrant and that no preliminary investigation was first conducted, making the informations filed against them are null and void. The respondents contends otherwise. In this consolidated case, all of the petitioners are charged under the Anti Subversion Law, with an exception to the case of Enrile vs. Lim (Inciting to sedition) and Nazareno vs. Station Commander. The rest are charged guilty of rebellion, a crime against the State, and is a continuing crimes in nature. They were found of the possession of unlicensed firearms and ammunitions as well as subversive documents. Issue: Was warrantless arrest in the case at bar illegal, as the arrest was not made pursuant to the constitutional and statutory guidelines for the issuance of warrantless arrest? Held: Warrantless arrest conducted in the case at bar is lawful. Pursuant to 5 Rule 113 of RRC, arrest of a person without a warrant of arrest or previous complaint is recognized by law. The instances where a valid warrantless arrest may be effected are the following. Sec5. Arrest without Warrant: When lawful A peace officer or a private person may, without warrant, arrest a person: (a) When in his presence, the person to be arrested has committees, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is

serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement or another. Thus, pursuant to the RRC, warrantless arrest is justified when a person arrested is caught in flagranti delicto or in the act of committing an offense; or when an offense has just been committed and the person making the arrest has personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the person arrested has committed it. The rational behind the concept of warrantless arrest is laid down in the PPI vs. Malasugui, that to sustain that arresting a person without warrant illegal would leave the society, into a large extent, at the mercy of the shrewdest, the most expert and the most depraved of criminals, facilitating their escape in many instances. In the case at bar, the petitioners had freshly committed or were actually committing an offense. In the case of the petitioners who were charged of rebellion and inciting to sedition, the court held that they are lawfully detained and the informations filed against them are valid. This is since the crime in which they are arrested are continuous crime which is against the State, thus, the continued possession of subversive materials and unlicensed firearms and ammunitions, even without preliminary investigation and without warrant, as long as the authorities have confiscated such prohibited materials under their possession and that in the case of Enrile vs. Lim, they had actually done what is prohibited by law as long as they are positively identified by a witness having a personal knowledge of the committed crime, their arrest are lawful. This is justified since under the doctrine of Garcia-Padilla vs. Enrile, persons arrested of rebellion does not need to follow strict procedures, since their crimes committed are violence against the State, which concerns the very survival of the society and government. In the case of Nazareno vs. station Commander, the warrantless arrest is justified since there was a prior information filed against the petitioner for the same offense, and that he was positively identified by a witness who has a personal knowledge about the crime he committed. He was arrested while he was at large.

COMMITTED IN THE PRESENCE OF POLICE

Note: A valid warrantless arrest and valid warrantless search and seizure, circumstances differentiated. Valid Warrantless arrest: Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, which reads, in part:

PEOPLE VS. SUCRO

Facts: Pat. Fulgencio went to Arlie Regalados house at C. Quimpo to monitor activities of Edison SUCRO (accused). Sucro was reported to be selling marijuana at a chapel 2 meters away from Regalados house. Sucro was monitored to have talked and exchanged things three times. These activities are reported through radio to P/Lt. Seraspi. A third buyer was transacting with appellant and was reported and later identified as Ronnie Macabante. From that moment, P/Lt.Seraspi proceeded to the area. While the police officers were at the Youth Hostel in Maagama St. Fulgencio told Lt. Seraspi to intercept. Macabante was intercepted at Mabini and Maagama crossing in front of Aklan Medical center. Macabante saw the police and threw a tea bag of marijuana on the ground. Macabante admitted buying the marijuana from Sucro in front of the chapel.

Sec. 5. Arrest, without warrant; when lawful A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped . . . A warrantless arrest under the circumstances contemplated under Section 5(a) has been denominated as one "in flagrante delicto," while that under Section 5(b) has been described as a "hot pursuit" arrest. Turning to valid warrantless searches, They are limited to the following: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Customs searches; Search of moving vehicles; Seizure of evidence in plain view; Consent searches; A search incidental to a lawful arrest; and (6) A "stop and frisk."

The police team intercepted and arrested SUCRO at the corner of C. Quimpo and Veterans. Recovered were 19 sticks and 4 teabags of marijuana from a cart inside the chapel and another teabag from Macabante. Issue: Whether or Not arrest without warrant is lawful. Whether or Not evidence from such arrest is admissible. Held: Search and seizures supported by a valid warrant of arrest is not an absolute rule. Rule 126, Sec 12 of Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything, which may be used as proff of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant.(People v. Castiller) The failure of the police officers to secure a warrant stems from the fact that their knowledge required from the surveillance was insufficient to fulfill requirements for its issuance.

X----------------------------------------X

However, warantless search and seizures are legal as long as PROBABLE CAUSE existed. The police officers have personal knowledge of the actual commission of the crime from the surveillance of the activities of the accused. As police officers were the ones conducting the surveillance, it is presumed that they are regularly in performance of their duties. X----------------------------------------X

The accused assails the validity of his arrest and his subsequent convictions for two crimes. Issue: Was the warrantless arrest valid? Held: Yes. It is valid. Rules of Court and Jurisprudence recognize exceptional cases where an arrest may be effected without warrant, to wit;

People vs. Luisito Go

Facts: After an information was relayed to the intelligence and Follow Up Unit of Calamba Police that shabu or methamphetamine hydrochloride is supplied in Crossing, Calamba Laguna, agents went in the place for follow up. A police agent, Panuringan, then reported that he saw the accused, Luisito Go, enter a disco House with two women with a gun tucked in the accused waist. Three policemen entered the disco House for the Operation Bakal to search for illegally possessed firearms. Thus, when the accused was ordered to stand-up, police agents saw a revolver tucked in his waist, they asked for its licensed but the accused never showed it, instead, he gave his drivers license bearing other name. The police agents confiscated the gun with 10 live ammunitions. The agents also confiscated glass toothers and tin foils in the accused-appellants car together with an alleged shabu wrapped in cellophane. The accused was arrested without search and arrest warrants. Thus, two information were filed against the accused, one in violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act (RA 6452) and violation to PD 1866 or the Illegal Possession of firearms and ammunitions.

(a) In the presence of a peace officer, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed and the arresting officer has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. (c) When the accused is a fugitive from law while serving his sentence from a final conviction.

In the case at bar, it is clear that the policemen saw a gun tucked in his waist when he was arrested. The gun is plainly visible and no corresponding license was found. Thus, it is a valid search under the RRC (Plain view doctrine) no arrest warrant is necessary. The case also falls under the recognize instances provided under the RRC (Search incidental to lawful arrest), thus, the police has the authority to search the accused for dangerous drugs or weapons that is used as proof to the commission of the offense. The incidental discovery and confiscation of the drug paraphernalia to his car is lawful. Note: Bail; Criminal Procedure: Admission for bail does not preclude the accused to raise question on the validity of his

arrest, as long as he raised the same before he enters plea, otherwise, it will bar him from questioning the same as he place himself already under the jurisdiction of the court. Absence of Preliminary investigation is not a ground to quash the information. X----------------------------------------X

PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE OFFENSES

People vs. Gerente
Facts: At about 7:00 a.m. of 30 April 1990, Gabriel Gerente, together with Fredo Echigoren and Totoy Echigoren, allegedly started drinking liquor and smoking marijuana in Gerentes house which is about 6 meters away from the house of Edna Edwina Reyes who was in her house on that day. She overheard the three men talking about their intention to kill Clarito Blace. She testified that she heard Fredo Echigoren saying, Gabriel, papatayin natin si Clarito Blace. Fredo and Totoy Echigoren and Gerente carried out their plan to kill Clarito Blace at about 2:00 p.m. of the same day. Reyes allegedly witnessed the killing. Fredo Echigoren struck the first blow against Clarito Blace, followed by Totoy Echigoren and Gabriel Gerente who hit him twice with a piece of wood in the head and when he fell, Totoy Echigoren dropped a hollow block on the victims head. Thereafter, the three men dragged Blace to a place behind the house of Gerente. At about 4:00 p.m. of the same day, Patrolman Jaime Urrutia of the Valenzuela Police Station received a report from the Palo Police Detachment about a mauling incident. He went to the Valenzuela District Hospital where the victim was brought. He was informed by the hospital officials that the victim died on arrival. The cause of death was massive fracture of the skull caused by a hard and heavy object. Right away, Patrolman Urrutia, together with Police Corporal Romeo Lima and Patrolman Alex Umali, proceeded to Paseo de Blas where the mauling incident took place. There they found a piece of wood with blood stains, a hollow block and two roaches of marijuana. They were informed by Reyes that she saw the killing and she pointed to Gabriel Gerente as one of the

three men who killed Clarito. The policemen proceeded to the house of Gerente, who was then sleeping. They told him to come out of the house and they introduced themselves as policemen. Patrolman Urrutia frisked Gerente and found a coin purse in his pocket which contained dried leaves wrapped in cigarette foil. The dried leaves were sent to the National Bureau of Investigation for examination. The Forensic Chemist found them to be marijuana. Only Gerente was apprehended by the police. The other suspects, Fredo and Totoy Echigoren, are still at large. On 2 May 1990, two separate informations were filed by Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Benjamin Caraig against him for Violation of Section 8, Art. II, of RA 6425, and for Murder. When arraigned on 16 May 1990, Gerente pleaded not guilty to both charges. A joint trial of the two cases was held. On 24 September 1990, the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, Branch 172, found Gerente guilty of Violation of Section 8 of Republic Act 6425 and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a term of 12 years and 1 day, as minimum, to 20 years, as maximum; and also found him guilty of Murder for which crime he was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. . Gerente appealed. Issue: Whether the police officers have the personal knowledge of the killing of Blace to allow them to arrest, and the subsequent searchly Gerentes person, without the necessary warrant. Held: The search of Gerentes person and the seizure of the marijuana leaves in his possession were valid because they were incident to a lawful warrantless arrest. Paragraphs (a) and (b), Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Court provide that A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; The policemen arrested Gerente only some 3 hours

after Gerente and his companions had killed Blace. They saw Blace dead in the hospital and when they inspected the scene of the crime, they found the instruments of death: a piece of wood and a concrete hollow block which the killers had used to bludgeon him to death. The eye-witness, Edna Edwina Reyes, reported the happening to the policemen and pinpointed her neighbor, Gerente, as one of the killers. Under those circumstances, since the policemen had personal knowledge of the violent death of Blace and of facts indicating that Gerente and two others had killed him, they could lawfully arrest Gerente without a warrant. If they had postponed his arrest until they could obtain a warrant, he would have fled the law as his two companions did. The search conducted on Gerentes person was likewise lawful because it was made as an incident to a valid arrest. This is in accordance with Section 12, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court which provides that A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant. The frisk and search of Gerentes person upon his arrest was a permissible precautionary measure of arresting officers to protect themselves, for the person who is about to be arrested may be armed and might attack them unless he is first disarmed. X----------------------------------------X

People vs. Sinoc

Facts: On 20 September 1991, at about 6:00 a.m., Isidoro Viacrusis, manager of Taganito Mining Corporation, was motoring from the company compound (at Taganito, Claver, Surigao del Norte) to Surigao City. He was riding on a company vehicle, a Mitsubishi Pajero (DFX-397), driven by Tarcisio Guijapon. As Viacrusis and Guijapon were approaching the public cemetery of Claver, they were stopped by several armed men. The latter, identifying themselves as members of the New Peoples Army (NPA), boarded the Pajero and ordered Guijapon to proceed. When they reached Barobo, Surigao del Norte, the armed men ordered Viacrusis and Guijapon to alight, led them, their hands bound behind their back to a coconut grove some 6 meters from the road,

and after making them lie face down on the ground, shot them several times. Viacrusis miraculously survived. The driver, Guijapon, was not as lucky; he died on the spot. At about 7 a.m. the following day, a secret informant (known as a civilian asset) named Boyet reported to the police Station at Monkayo, Davao del Norte that the stolen (carnapped) Pajero was parked behind the apartment of a certain Paulino Overa at the Bliss Housing Project at Poblacion, Monkayo. On instructions of the Station Commander, a police team went to the place. They saw the Pajero and, their initial inquiries having yielded the information that the man who had brought it there would return that morning, posted themselves in such a manner as to keep it in view. Some 3 hours later, at about 10:30 a.m., they saw a man approach the Pajero who, on seeing them, tried to run away. They stopped him. They found out that the man, identified as Danilo Sinoc of Surigao del Norte, had the key of the Pajero, and was acting under instructions of certain companions who were waiting for him at the Star Lodge at Tagum, Davao del Norte. Riding on the recovered Pajero, the police officers brought Sinoc to the Star Lodge only to discover that his companions were no longer there. They later turned over Sinoc to the 459th Mobile Force, together with the Pajero. Sinoc, Vicente Salon @ Dodong, Benjamin Espinosa @ Benji, Jaime Jornales @ James, Victorino Delegencia @ Jun-Gren, and one Roger Doe @ Ram (at large) were charged on 23 January 1992. Only Sinoc and Vicente Salon were arraigned, on 14 July 1992, the other accused being then at large. Assisted by their respective counsel, both Sinoc and Salon entered pleas of not guilty and were thereafter jointly tried. On 7 October 1993, the Regional Trial Court of Surigao City, Branch 30, found Sinoc guilty beyond reasonable doubt in two cases jointly tried: one, of the special complex crime of kidnapping with murder (under Article 267 in relation to Articles 248 2 and 48 3 of the Revised Penal Code) in Criminal Case 3564; and the other, of the complex crime of kidnapping with frustrated murder (under Articles 267, 248, 6 4 and 48 of the same Code) in Criminal Case 3565. In each case, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed on him. Salon, on the other hand was acquitted inasmuch as conspiracy was not proven. Sinoc appealed.

Issue: Whether the police officer had personal knowledge of the crime Sinoc committed to allow them to arrest the latter without a warrant of arrest. Held:

him; their omission to do so would have been inexcusable. X----------------------------------------X

People vs. Baula

Facts:

The law provides that an arrest without warrant may be licitly effected by a peace officer, inter alia. When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. There is no question that the police officers in this case were aware that an offense had just been committed; i.e., that some 12 hours earlier, a Pajero belonging to a private company had been stolen (carnapped) and its driver and passenger shot, the former having died and the latter being on the verge of death. Nor is there any doubt that an informer (asset) had reported that the stolen Pajero was at the Bliss Housing Project at Monkayo. It was precisely to recover the Pajero that a team composed of SPO1 Michael Aringo and joint elements of 459 PNP MFC and Moncayo Police Station led by Insptr Eden T. Ugale, went to that place and, on taking custody of the Pajero, forthwith dispatched a radio message to Higher Headquarters advising of that fact. There is no question either that when SPO1 Aringo and his companions reached the place where the Pajero was parked, they were told by Paulino Overa, owner of the apartment behind which the vehicle was parked, that the man who had brought the Pajero would be back by 12:00 noon; that the person thus described did in fact show up at about 10:00 A.M., and was immediately identified by Overa as the one who rode on that car Pajero; just as there is no question that when the police officers accosted him, Sinoc had the key to the stolen Pajero and was in the act of moving toward it admittedly to take possession of it (after having arrived by bus from Tagum together with another suspect, Ram). Sinocs link to the stolen vehicle (and hence to the kidnapping and killing accompanying its asportation) was thus palpable. The foregoing circumstances left the police officers no alternative save to arrest Sinoc and take possession of the Pajero. His arrest without warrant was justified; indeed, it was in the premises the officers clear duty to apprehend

After the gruesome killing of Patronicia Caburao in the municipality of Sual, Pangasinan, the investigating police went to the residence of the accused-appellant, Baula et al. In the process of questioning the appellants, the police saw bloodstained bolo, short pants, polo shirts and was subsequently confiscated without search warrant and directed to the NBI for forensic exams. The exam resulted that the bloods found in the confiscated articles bears the same blood type O as that of the victim. Thus, the accused were arrested, charged and was convicted in the crime of murder by the RTC Lingayen and sentenced to suffer RP. Hence this appeal for review on the decision of the lower court in the ground that the articles sought (bloodstained bolo, shirt and short pants) cannot be admitted as evidence against the accused since it was seized without a valid search and seizure warrant.

Issue: Whether the articles are validly seized even without a valid search warrant and therefore admitted as evidence in the case at bar. Whether the articles when with consent given to the officers can be admitted as an evidence?

Held:

The articles are unlawfully searched and seized.

A search incidental to a valid arrest is one of the statutory exceptions to the constitutional mandate that no search and seizure shall be effected without a valid warrant. In this instance, the arrest should be lawful before search and seizure by the arresting officer would be conducted. A warrantless arrest may be effected by the arresting officer when in his presence the person arrested is have committed, committing or attempting to commit the crime. It cannot be reversed; otherwise, it would unlawful and unconstitutional and the seized article would be inadmissible evidence. In the case at bar, Accused-appellants were not being arrested at the time that the subject articles were allegedly taken from them but were just being questioned by the police officers conducting the investigation about the death of Patrocinia Caburao. The investigating officers had no personal knowledge of facts indicating that the accused had committed the crime. Being in no position to effect a warrantless arrest, the police officers were thus likewise barred from effecting a warrantless search and seizure. An illegal search cannot be undertaken and then an arrest effected on the strength of the evidence yielded by that search. The Court finds it less than credible the stance of the prosecution that the polo shirt and short pants have been voluntarily given. An alleged consent to a warrantless search and seizure cannot be based merely on the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty. This presumption, by itself, cannot prevail against the constitutionally protected rights of an individual, and zeal in the pursuit of criminals cannot ennoble the use of arbitrary methods that the Constitution itself abhors. Thus, the bloodstained polo, bolo and shorts are inadmissible as evidence. X----------------------------------------X

People vs. Cubcubin

Facts: At about 3:30 a.m. of 26 August 1997, Sgt. Rogel, desk officer of the Cavite City police station, received a telephone call that a person had been shot near the cemetery along Julian Felipe Boulevard in San Antonio, Cavite City. For this reason, a police team, composed of SPO1 Malinao, Jr., PO3 Rosal, PO3 Estoy, Jr., PO3 Manicio, and SPO3 Manalo, responded to the call and found Henry P. Piamonte slumped dead on his tricycle which was then parked on the road. Police photographer Fred Agana took pictures of the crime scene showing the victim slumped on the handle of the tricycle. PO3 Rosal testified that a tricycle driver, who refused to divulge his name, told him that Fidel Abrenica Cubcubin Jr. and the victim were last seen together coming out of the Sting Cafe, located in San Antonio near the gate of Sangley Point, Cavite City, about a kilometer and a half away from the crime scene. Forthwith, PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao, Jr. went to the cafe and talked to Danet Garcellano, a food server/waitress in Sting Cafe. Garcellano described Cubcubin as a lean, dark-complexioned, and mustachioed man who had on a white t-shirt and brown short pants. Armando Plata, another tricycle driver, told PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao, Jr. that Garcellanos description fitted a person known as alias Jun Dulce. Armando Plata, who knew where Cubcubin lived, led PO3 Rosal, SPO1 Malinao, Jr., and Prosecutor Lu to Cubucubins house in Garcia Extension, Cavite City. The policemen knocked on the door for about 3 minutes before it was opened by a man who answered the description given by Danet Garcellano and who turned out to be Cubcubin. The police operatives identified themselves and informed him that he was being sought in connection with the shooting near the cemetery. Cubcubin denied involvement in the incident. PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao, Jr. then asked permission to enter and look around the house. SPO1 Malinao, Jr. said that upon entering the house, he noticed a white t-shirt, bearing the brand name Hanes and the name Dhenvher written in the inner portion of the shirts hemline, placed over a divider near the kitchen. Upon close examination, he said that he found it to be bloodied. When he picked up the t-shirt, two spent .38 caliber shells fell from it. PO3 Rosal stayed with Cubcubin while he conducted a

search. They then took the t-shirt and the two bullet shells. SPO1 Malinao, Jr. then asked Cubcubin to go with them to Sting Cafe for purposes of identification. There, Cubcubin was positively identified by Danet Garcellano as the victims companion. The police investigators asked Cubcubin where the fatal gun was. SPO1 Malinao, Jr. said Cubcubin refused to tell him where he hid the gun so he sought the latters permission to go back to his house to conduct a further search. Thereupon, SPO1 Malinao, Jr., accompanied by Prosecutor Lu, PO3 Estoy, Jr., PO3 Manicio, SPO3 Manalo, and PO3 Rosal, proceeded thereto. Inside the house, they saw Cubcubins 11-year old son Jhumar. PO3 Estoy, Jr. found on top of a plastic water container (drum) outside the bathroom a homemade Smith and Wesson caliber .38 revolver (six shooter), without a serial number. He found the gun loaded with five live bullets. PO3 Estoy, Jr. said that he inscribed his initials RDE (for Raymundo D. Estoy) on the cylinder of the gun with the use of a sharp object. While PO3 Estoy, Jr. was conducting the search, SPO1 Malinao, Jr. and PO3 Rosal stayed with Cubcubin in the sala. The .38 caliber gun, the white Hanes tshirt, and the two spent .38 caliber shells were all photographed. Cubcubin was then taken to the police station, where he was photographed along with the things seized from him. Cubcubin was charged for the crime of murder. On 5 October 1998, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 88, Cavite City, found Cubcubin guilty of murder and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death. Hence, the automatic review. Issue: Whether there was probable cause for PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao, Jr., the arresting officers, to believe that Cubcubin committed the crime, to allow them to conduct the latters warrantless arrest. Held: Rule 113, 5 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, provides that A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that

the person to be arrested has committed it; (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. Under 5(b), two conditions must concur for a warrantless arrest to be valid: first, the offender has just committed an offense and, second, the arresting peace officer or private person has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. It has been held that personal knowledge of facts in arrests without a warrant must be based upon probable cause, which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion. Herein, the arrest of Cubcubin was effected shortly after the victim was killed. There was no probable cause, however, for PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao, Jr., the arresting officers, to believe that Cubcubin committed the crime. The two did not have personal knowledge of facts indicating that Cubcubin had committed the crime. Their knowledge of the circumstances from which they allegedly inferred that Cubcubin was probably guilty was based entirely on what they had been told by others, to wit: by someone who called the PNP station in San Antonio, Cavite City at about 3:30 a.m. of 26 August 1997 and reported that a man had been killed along Julian Felipe Boulevard of the said city; by an alleged witness who saw Cubcubin and the victim coming out of the Sting Cafe; by Danet Garcellano, waitress at the Sting Cafe, who said that the man last seen with the victim was lean, mustachioed, darkcomplexioned and was wearing a white t-shirt and a pair of brown short pants; by a tricycle driver named Armando Plata who told them that the physical description given by Garcellano fitted Cubcubin, alias Jun Dulce and who said he knew where Cubcubin lived and accompanied them to Cubcubins house. Thus, PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao, Jr. merely relied on information given to them by others. Be that as it may, Cubcubin cannot now question the validity of his arrest without a warrant. The records show that he pleaded not guilty to the charge when arraigned on 11 November 1997. Cubcubin did not object to the arraignment, and thus has waived the right to object to the legality of his arrest. On the other hand, the search of Cubcubins house was illegal and, consequently, the things obtained as a result of the illegal search, i.e., the white Hanes t-shirt, two spent shells, and the .38 caliber gun, are inadmissible

in evidence against him. It cannot be said that the .38 caliber gun was discovered through inadvertence. After bringing Cubcubin to the Sting Cafe where he was positively identified by a waitress named Danet Garcellano as the victims companion, the arresting officers allegedly asked Cubcubin where he hid the gun used in killing the victim. According to SPO1 Malinao, Jr., when Cubcubin refused to answer, he sought Cubcubins permission to go back to his house and there found the .38 caliber revolver on top of a plastic water container outside the bathroom. Thus, the gun was purposely sought by the police officers and they did not merely stumble upon it. Nor were the police officers justified in seizing the white Hanes t-shirt placed on top of the divider in plain view as such is not contraband nor is it incriminating in nature which would lead SPO1 Malinao, Jr. to conclude that it would constitute evidence of a crime. Contrary to what SPO1 Malinao, Jr. said, the t-shirt was not bloodied which could have directed his attention to take a closer look at it. From the photograph of the tshirt, it is not visible that there were bloodstains. The actual t-shirt merely had some small specks of blood at its lower portion. Furthermore, there is no evidence to link Cubcubin directly to the crime. X----------------------------------------X

TIME OF ARREST
People vs. Rodrigueza Facts:
[Prosecution] At around 5:00 p.m. of 1 July 1987, CIC Ciriaco Taduran was in their headquarters at the Office of the Narcotics Regional Unit at Camp Bagong Ibalon, Legaspi City, together with S/Sgt. Elpidio Molinawe, CIC Leonardo B. Galutan and their commanding officer, Major Crisostomo M. Zeidem, when a confidential informer arrived and told them that there was an ongoing illegal traffic of prohibited drugs in Tagas, Daraga, Albay. Major Zeidem formed a team to conduct a buybust operation, which team was given P200.00 in different denominations to buy marijuana. These bills were treated with ultraviolet powder at the Philippine Constabulary Crime Laboratory (PCCL). Sgt. Molinawe gave the money to

Taduran who acted as the poseur buyer. He was told to look for a certain Don, the alleged seller of prohibited drugs. Taduran went to Tagas alone and, while along the road, he met Samuel Segovia. He asked Segovia where he could find Don and where he could buy marijuana. Segovia left for a while and when he returned, he was accompanied by a man who was later on introduced to him as Don Rodrigueza. After agreeing on the price of P200.00 for 100 grams of marijuana, Don halted a passing tricycle driven by Antonio Lonceras. He boarded it and left Taduran and Segovia. When he came back, Don gave Taduran a certain object wrapped in a plastic which was later identified as marijuana, and received payment therefor. Thereafter, Taduran returned to the headquarters and made a report regarding his said purchase of marijuana. Based on that information, Major Zeidem ordered a team to conduct an operation to apprehend the suspects. In the evening of the same date, CIC Galutan and S/Sgt. Molinawe proceeded to Regidor Street, Daraga, Albay and arrested Rodrigueza, Antonio Lonceras and Samuel Segovia. The constables were not, however, armed with a warrant of arrest when they apprehended the three accused. The arrests were brought to the headquarters for investigation. Thereafter, agents of the Narcotics Command (NARCOM) conducted a raid in the house of Jovencio Rodrigueza, Dons father. Taduran did not go with them. During the raid, they were able to confiscate dried marijuana leaves and a plastic syringe, among others. The search, however, was not authorized by any search warrant. The next day, Jovencio Rodrigueza was released from detention but Don Rodrigueza was detained. [Defense] Don Rodrigueza, on the other hand, claimed that on said date he was in the house of his aunt in San Roque, Legaspi City. He stayed there overnight and did not leave the place until the next day when his brother arrived and told him that their father was taken by some military men the preceding night. Rodrigueza went to Camp Bagong Ibalon and arrived there at around 8:00 a.m. of 2 July 1987. When he arrived, he was asked if he knew anything about the marijuana incident, to which question he answered in the negative. Like Segovia, he was made to hold a P10.00 bill and was brought to the crime laboratory for examination. From that time on, he was not allowed to go home and was detained inside the camp. He was also tortured

in order to make him admit his complicity in the alleged sale of marijuana. On 10 July 1987, Don Rodrigueza, Samuel Segovia and Antonio Lonceras, for possession of 100 grams of marijuana leaves and for selling, in a buy-bust operation, said 100 grams of dried marijuana leaves for a consideration of P200.00. During the arraignment, all the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge against them. The Regional Trial Court of Legaspi City, Branch 10, found Don Rodrigueza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 4, Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (Republic Act 6425, as amended) and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P20,000.00 and costs. The court, however, acquitted Segovia and Lonceres. Rodrigueza appealed. Issue: Whether the time of Don Rodriguezas arrest is material in determining his culpability in the crime charged. Held: As provided in the present Constitution, a search, to be valid, must generally be authorized by a search warrant duly issued by the proper government authority. True, in some instances, the Court has allowed government authorities to conduct searches and seizures even without a search warrant. Thus, when the owner of the premises waives his right against such incursion; when the search is incidental to a lawful arrest; when it is made on vessels and aircraft for violation of customs laws; when it is made on automobiles for the purpose of preventing violations of smuggling or immigration laws; when it involves prohibited articles in plain view; or in cases of inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of fire, sanitary and building regulations, a search may be validly made even without a search warrant. Herein, however, the raid conducted by the NARCOM agents in the house of Jovencio Rodrigueza was not authorized by any search warrant. It does not appear, either, that the situation falls under any of the aforementioned cases. Hence, Rodriguezas right against unreasonable search and seizure was clearly violated. The NARCOM agents could not have justified their act by invoking the urgency and necessity of the situation because the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses reveal that the place had already been put under surveillance for quite

some time. Had it been their intention to conduct the raid, then they should, because they easily could, have first secured a search warrant during that time. Further, the inconsistencies made by prosecution witnesses give more credibility to the testimony of Don Rodrigueza. While it is true that Rodriguezas defense amounts to an alibi, and as such is the weakest defense in a criminal prosecution, there are, nonetheless, some evidentiary aspects pointing to the truth in his testimony. Firstly, the Joint Affidavit of Arrest corroborates his testimony that he was not among those who were arrested on the night of 1 July 1987. His co-accused Segovia also testified that Rodrigueza was not with them when they were apprehended by the NARCOM agents. Hence, Rodrigueza is acquitted of the crime charged, due to the failure of the prosecution to establish its cause. X----------------------------------------X

Go vs. Court of Appeals

Facts:
On 2 July 1991, Eldon Maguan was driving his car along Wilson St., San Juan, Metro Manila, heading towards P. Guevarra St. Rolito Go y Tambunting entered Wilson St., where it is a one-way street and started traveling in the opposite or wrong direction. At the corner of Wilson and J. Abad Santos Sts., Gos and Maguans cars nearly bumped each other. Go alighted from his car, walked over and shot Maguan inside his car. Go then boarded his car and left the scene. A security guard at a nearby restaurant was able to take down Gos car plate number. The police arrived shortly thereafter at the scene of the shooting and there retrieved an empty shell and one round of live ammunition for a 9mm caliber pistol. Verification at the Land Transportation Office showed that the car was registered to one Elsa Ang Go. The following day, the police returned to the scene of the shooting to find out where the suspect had come from; they were informed that Go had dined at Cravings Bake Shop shortly before the shooting. The police obtained a facsimile or impression of the credit card used by Go from the cashier of the bake shop. The security guard of the bake shop was shown a picture of Go and he positively identified him as the same person who had shot Maguan. Having established that the

assailant was probably Go, the police launched a manhunt for Go. On 8 July 1991, Go presented himself before the San Juan Police Station to verify news reports that he was being hunted by the police; he was accompanied by two (2) lawyers. The police forthwith detained him. An eyewitness to the shooting, who was at the police station at that time, positively identified Go as the gunman. That same day, the police promptly filed a complaint for frustrated homicide against Go with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal. First Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Dennis Villa Ignacio (Prosecutor) informed Go, in the Presence of his lawyers. that he could avail himself of his right to preliminary investigation but that he must first sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. Go refused to execute any such waiver. On 9 July 1991, while the complaint was still with the Prosecutor, and before an information could be filed in court, the victim, Eldon Maguan, died of his gunshot wound(s). Accordingly, on 11 July 1991, the Prosecutor, instead of filing an information for frustrated homicide, filed an information for murder before the Regional Trial Court. No bail was recommended. At the bottom of the information, the Prosecutor certified that no preliminary investigation had been conducted because the accused did not execute and sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. In the afternoon of 11 July 1991, Gos counsel filed with the prosecutor an omnibus motion for immediate release and proper preliminary investigation, alleging that the warrantless arrest of Go was unlawful and that no preliminary investigation had been conducted before the information was filed. On 12 July 1991, Go filed an urgent ex-parte motion for special raffle in order to expedite action on the Prosecutors bail recommendation. The case was raffled to the sala of Judge Benjamin V. Pelayo (Branch 168, RTC of Pasig City), who, on the same date, approved the cash bond posted by Go and ordered his release. Go was in fact released that same day. On 16 July 1991, the Prosecutor filed with the Regional Trial Court a motion for leave to conduct preliminary investigation and prayed that in the meantime all proceedings in the court be suspended. On the said date, the trial court issued an Order 9 granting leave to conduct preliminary investigation and cancelling the arraignment set for 15 August 1991 until after the prosecution shall have concluded its preliminary investigation. On 17 July 1991, however, the

Judge motu proprio issued an Order, (1) recalling the 12 July 1991 Order which granted bail: petitioner was given 48 hours from receipt of the Order to surrender himself: (2) recalling and cancelling the 16 July 1991 Order which granted leave to the Prosecutor to conduct preliminary investigation: (3) treating Gos omnibus motion for immediate release and preliminary investigation dated 11 July 1991 as a petition for bail and set for hearing on 23 July 1991. On 19 July 1991, Go filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus before the Supreme Court assailing the 17 July 1991 Order. Go also moved for suspension of all proceedings in the case pending resolution by the Supreme Court of his petition: this motion was, however, denied by Judge Pelayo. On 23 July 1991, Go surrendered to the police. By a Resolution dated 24 July 1991, the Supreme Court remanded the petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus to the Court of Appeals. On 16 August 1991, Judge Pelayo issued an order in open court setting Gos arraignment on 23 August 1991. On 19 August 1991, Go filed with the Court of Appeals a motion to restrain his arraignment. On 23 August 1991, Judge Pelayo issued a Commitment Order directing the Provincial Warden of Rizal to admit Go into his custody at the Rizal Provincial Jail. On the same date, Go was arraigned. In view, however, of his refusal to enter a plea, the trial court entered for him a plea of not guilty. The trial court then set the criminal case for continuous hearings on 19, 24 and 26 September; on 2, 3, 11 and 17 October; and on 7, 8, 14, 15, 21 and 22 November 1991. On 27 August 1991. Go filed a petition for habeas corpus in the Court of Appeals. On 30 August 1991, the Court of Appeals issued the writ of habeas corpus. The petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, on the one hand, and the petition for habeas corpus, upon the other, were subsequently consolidated in the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, on 2 September 1991, issued a resolution denying Gos motion to restrain his arraignment on the ground that motion had become moot and academic. On 19 September 1991, trial of the criminal case commenced. On 23 September 1991, the Court of Appeals rendered a consolidated decision dismissing the 2 petitions on the grounds that Gos warrantless arrest was valid and Gos act of posting bail constituted waiver of any irregularity attending his arrest, among others. On 3 October 1991, the prosecution presented three (3) more witnesses

at the trial. Gos Counsel also filed a Withdrawal of Appearance with the trial court, with Gos conformity. On 4 October 1991, Go filed the present petition for Review on Certiorari. On 14 October 1991, the Court issued a Resolution directing Judge Pelayo to held in abeyance the hearing of the criminal case below until further orders from the Supreme Court. Issue: Whether Go was arrested legally without warrant for the killing of Maguan, and is thus not entitled to be released pending the conduct of a preliminary investigation. Held: Gos warrantless arrest or detention does not fall within the terms of Section 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure which provides that A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be created has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail, and he shall be proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112, Section 7. Gos arrest took place 6 days after the shooting of Maguan. The arresting officers obviously were not present, within the meaning of Section 5(a), at the time Go had allegedly shot Maguan. Neither could the arrest effected 6 days after the shooting be reasonably regarded as effected when [the shooting had] in fact just been committed within the meaning of Section 5 (b). Moreover, none of the arresting officers had any personal knowledge of facts indicating that Go was the gunman who had shot Maguan. The information upon which the police acted had been derived from statements made by alleged eyewitnesses to the shooting one stated that Go was the

gunman another was able to take down the alleged gunmans cars plate number which turned out to be registered in Gos wifes name. That information did not, however, constitute personal knowledge. It is thus clear to the Court that there was no lawful warrantless arrest of Go within the meaning of Section 5 of Rule 113. It is clear too that Section 7 of Rule 112 is also not applicable. Indeed, Go was not arrested at all. When he walked into the San Juan Police Station, accompanied by two (2) lawyers, he in fact placed himself at the disposal of the police authorities. He did not state that he was surrendering himself, in all probability to avoid the implication he was admitting that he had slain Eldon Maguan or that he was otherwise guilty of a crime. When the police filed a complaint for frustrated homicide with the Prosecutor, the latter should have immediately scheduled a preliminary investigation to determine whether there was probable cause for charging Go in court for the killing of Eldon Maguan. Instead, as noted earlier, the Prosecutor proceeded under the erroneous supposition that Section 7 of Rule 112 was applicable and required Go to waive the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code as a condition for carrying out a preliminary investigation. This was substantive error, for Go was entitled to a preliminary investigation and that right should have been accorded him without any conditions. Moreover, since Go had not been arrested; with or without a warrant, he was also entitled to be released forthwith subject only to his appearing at the preliminary investigation. X----------------------------------------X

People vs. Calimlim

Facts:
Lanie S. Limin was 14 years old and had been living with the family of Kagawad Manny Ferrer and Cresencia Ferrer for the past 3 years. On the night of 2 April 1995, she was left alone in one of the two houses of the Ferrers since her usual companions, the sons of Manny and Cresencia, were out for the night (disco). The Ferrers were in the other house about 15 meters away. At around 11:30 P.M., she was awakened when she heard somebody, later identified as Manuel Calimlim y Muyano, enter her room. Calimlim immediately poked a knife at

the left side of her neck and said Accompany me because I killed my wife. She was then dragged to the pig pen, about 8-9 meters away from the place where she slept. Afterwards, she was again forcibly taken back to her room, then to her cousins room and to the kitchen. In each of these places, Calimlim forcibly had sexual intercourse with her while he poked a knife against her neck. According to Limin, she first recognized Calimlim while they were in the kitchen when she was able to remove the cloth covering his face. She stated that she knew Calimlim because she had seen him always following her whenever she went to school. Limin claimed that she did not struggle nor shout nor resist because she was afraid that appellant might kill her. After the fourth intercourse, Calimlim threatened that he would kill her if she reported the incidents. Despite the threat, she told her cousin, Manicris Ferrer, who then reported the matter to Dr. Nancy Quinto who lived nearby. The rapes were reported to the station of SPO1 Mario Suratos by Kagawad Ferrer. Dr. Ricardo Ferrer conducted the physical examination on Lanie, and found that there was minimal vaginal bleeding and there were lacerations in the hymen, the positions of which were at 9:00 oclock, 6:00 oclock and 3:00 oclock, all fresh, indicating that there were insertions within the past 24 hours. There was also a whitish vaginal discharge which was found positive for spermatozoa. Manuel Calimlim denied the accusations. Calimlim was charged in 4 informations for rape in Criminal Cases U-8525, 8638 to 8640. On 17 November 1995, the Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, Branch 46, Urdaneta, Pangasinan found Calimlim guilty of 4 counts of rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death, to pay the offended party the amount of P50,000.00 as damages, and to pay the costs, in each of the cases. Hence, the automatic review. Issue: Whether Calimlim may raise the illegality of the warrantless arrest conducted against him, especially as the arrest was made a day after the crime was committed. Held: Calimlim avers that his arrest violated Section 5 of Rule 113, 40 since his arrest was made one day after the crime was committed, but without any judicial warrant, although the

police had ample time to get one. This he claims is also in violation of Article III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution. But here it will be noted that Calimlim entered a plea of not guilty to each of the informations charging him of rape. Thus, he had effectively waived his right to question any irregularity which might have accompanied his arrest and the unlawful restraint of his liberty. This is clear from a reading of Section 9 of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides that the failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or information, either because he did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the same in said motion, shall be deemed a waiver of any objections except those based on the grounds provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g) and (i) of section 3 of this Rule. Given the circumstances of his case, the exceptions do not apply here and the Court is constrained to rule that Calimlim is estopped from raising the issue of the legality of his arrest. Moreover, the illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from error. The defenses claim of warrantless arrest which is illegal cannot render void all other proceedings including those leading to the conviction of Calimlim, nor can the state be deprived of its right to convict the guilty when all the facts on record point to his culpability. X----------------------------------------X

MARKED MONEY People vs. Enrile

Facts:
At about 6:30 p.m. of 25 October 1985, a buy-bust team composed of Pat. Jaime Flores and Pat. Wilson Rances of the Quezon City Police Anti-Narcotics Unit was dispatched to entrap Rogelio Abugatal at Roosevelt Avenue in San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City. The plan was made on the strength of a tip given by Renato Polines, a police informer, who was himself to pose as the buyer. On that occasion the policemen saw Polines hand over to Abugatal the marked money representing payment for the mock transaction. Abugatal left with the money and returned 10 minutes later

with a wrapped object which he gave Polines. The two policemen then approached Abugatal and placed him under arrest, at the same time confiscating the wrapped object. Subsequent laboratory examination revealed this to be marijuana with flowering tops weighing 22 grams. Upon prodding, Abugatal led the policemen to a house at 20 De Vera Street, also in San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City, where he called out for Antonio Enrile. Enrile came out and met them at the gate. Abugatal pointed to Enrile as the source of the marijuana, whereupon the policemen immediately arrested and frisked him. They found in the right front pocket of his trousers the marked money earlier delivered to Abugatal. At the police headquarters, Abugatal signed a sworn confession. Enrile refused to make any statement pending consultation with a lawyer. Antonio Enrile y Villaroman and Rogelio Abugatal y Marquez were charged for violation of the Dangerous Drug Act by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. The RTC, after trial and on 14 February 1986, found Enrile and Abugatal guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced them to life imprisonment and a fine of P30,000.00. Both appealed. Abugatal, however, was killed in an attempted jailbreak and thus the appeal is dismissed as to him. Issue: Whether the mark money found in Enriles possession, pursuant to a warrantless arrest, search and seizure, provide for his criminal culpability. Held: It was Abugatal who was allegedly caught red-handed by the policemen as he sold the marijuana to Polines. Enrile was not even at the scene of the entrapment at that time. Abugatal said he did lead the policemen to Enriles house where he pointed to Enrile as the source of the marijuana. Even assuming this to be true, that circumstance alone did not justify Enriles warrantless arrest and search. Under Rule 113, Section 5, of the Rules of Court, a peace officer or a private person may make a warrantless arrest only under any of the following circumstances: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an

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

LACK OF URGENCY People vs. Pasudag

Facts: On 26 September 1995, at around 1:30 p.m., SPO2 Pepito Calip of the PNP Sison, Pangasinan, went to Brgy. Artacho to conduct anti-jueteng operations. He urinated at a bushy bamboo fence behind the public school. About 5 meters away, he saw a garden of about 70 square meters. There were marijuana plants in between corn plants and camote tops. He inquired from a storekeeper nearby as to who owned the house with the garden. The storeowner told him that Alberto Pasudag y Bokang owned it. SPO2 Calip went to the Police

Station and reported to Chief of Police Romeo C. Astrero. The latter dispatched a team (composed of SPO2 Calip, SPO3 Fajarito, SPO3 Alcantara and PO3 Rasca) to conduct an investigation. At around 2:30 p.m., the team arrived at Brgy. Artacho and went straight to the house of Pasudag. SPO3 Fajarito looked for Pasudag and asked him to bring the team to his backyard garden which was about 5 meters away. Upon seeing the marijuana plants, the policemen called for a photographer, who took pictures of Pasudag standing beside one of the marijuana plants. They uprooted 7 marijuana plants. The team brought Pasudag and the marijuana plants to the police station. On 17 December 1996, 4th Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Pangasinan Emiliano M. Matro filed with the Regional Trial Court, Pangasinan, Urdaneta an Information charging Pasudag with violation of RA 6425, Sec. 9. On 10 February 1997, the trial court arraigned the accused. He pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued. The Regional Trial Court, Pangasinan, Branch 46, Urdaneta found Pasudag guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal cultivation of marijuana and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P500,000.00, without subsidiary penalty and other accessories of the law. Pasudag appealed. Issue: Whether time was of the essence to uproot and confiscate the marijuana plants. Held: As a general rule, the procurement of a search warrant is required before a law enforcer may validly search or seize the person, house, papers or effects of any individual. The Constitution provides that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable. Any evidence obtained in violation of this provision is inadmissible. Herein, the police authorities had ample opportunity to secure from the court a search warrant. SPO2 Pepito Calip inquired as to who owned the house. He was acquainted with marijuana plants and immediately recognized that some plants in the backyard of the house were marijuana plants. Time was not of the essence to uproot and confiscate the plants. They were three months old and there was no sufficient reason to

believe that they would be uprooted on that same day. With the illegal seizure of the marijuana plants, the seized plants are inadmissible in evidence against Pasudag.

People vs. Aminnudin

Facts: Idel Aminnudin y Ahni was arrested on 25 June 1984, shortly after disembarking from the M/V Wilcon 9 at about 8:30 p.m., in Iloilo City. The PC officers who were in fact waiting for him simply accosted him, inspected his bag and finding what looked liked marijuana leaves took him to their headquarters for investigation. The two bundles of suspect articles were confiscated from him and later taken to the NBI laboratory for examination. When they were verified as marijuana leaves, an information for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act was filed against him. Later, the information was amended to include Farida Ali y Hassen, who had also been arrested with him that same evening and likewise investigated. Both were arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Subsequently, the fiscal filed a motion to dismiss the charge against Ali on the basis of a sworn statement of the arresting officers absolving her after a thorough investigation. The motion was granted, and trial proceeded only against Aminnudin, who was eventually convicted, and sentenced to life imprisonment plus a fine of P20,000.00. Issue: Whether there was ample opportunity to obtain a warrant of arrest against Aminnudin, for alleged possession and transport of illegal drugs. Held: It is not disputed, and in fact it is admitted by the PC officers who testified for the prosecution, that they had no warrant when they arrested Aminnudin and seized the bag he was carrying. Their only justification was the tip they had earlier received from a reliable and regular informer who reported to them that Aminnudin was arriving in Iloilo by boat with marijuana. Their testimony varies as to the time they received the tip, one saying it was two days before the arrest (this was the declaration of the

chief of the arresting team, Lt. Cipriano Querol, Jr.), another two weeks and a third weeks before June 25. There was no warrant of arrest or search warrant issued by a judge after personal determination by him of the existence of probable cause. Contrary to the averments of the government, Aminnudin was not caught in flagrante nor was a crime about to be committed or had just been committed to justify the warrantless arrest allowed under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. Even expediency could not be invoked to dispense with the obtention of the warrant. The present case presented no urgency. From the conflicting declarations of the PC witnesses, it is clear that they had at least two days within which they could have obtained a warrant to arrest and search Aminnudin who was coming Iloilo on the M/V Wilcon 9. His name was known. The vehicle was identified. The date of its arrival was certain. And from the information they had received, they could have persuaded a judge that there was probable cause, indeed, to justify the issuance of a warrant. Yet they did nothing. No effort was made to comply with the law. The Bill of Rights was ignored altogether because the PC lieutenant who was the head of the arresting team, had determined on his own authority that search warrant was not necessary. X----------------------------------------X