People v. Araneta
In a buy-bust operation, the Court ruled that it was a
FACTS: Criminal informations were filed in the RTC against
respondents for Violation of Section 8 and Section 16 of RA No. 6425
(Dangerous Drugs Act pf 1972), as amended, and Section 15, Article
III in relation to Section 21, Article IV of RA No. 6425. The police
officers conducted a buy-bust operation from a confidential informant
regarding the alleged peddling of illegal drugs of live-in couple. The
RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and the CA
affirmed the decision. The accused stressed the inadmissibility of
evidence due to their illegal arrest, and the inconsistency in the
testimonies of prosecution witnesses. They also pointed out that the
apprehending officers failed to establish that the corpus delicti (sachets
of shabu or marijuana) were the very same ones sold by and seized
from them. Additionally, they claimed that the apprehending team,
who had initial custody over the confiscated drug items, failed to make
an inventory and to photograph the same in their presence.
ISSUE: WON the arrest of the accused and the seizure of the shabu
and marijuana were lawful
RULING: YES. The prosecution was able to establish all the necessary
elements required in the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous
drugs, namely: 1) the identity of the buyer and seller; 2) the identity of
the object of the sale and the consideration; and 3) the delivery of the
thing sold upon payment. The Court holds that the seized items were
admissible. A search warrant or warrant of arrest was not needed
because it was a buy-bust operation and the accused were caught in
flagrante delicto in possession of, and selling, dangerous drugs to the
poseur-buyer.
People vs. Sembrano y Castro
FACTS: The operatives of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs (SAID) of
the Police Station arrested appellant in broad daylight (3:30 o’clock in
the afternoon), in the course of a buy-bust operation and after a follow-
up search on him. The Assistant City Prosecutor filed two separate
Informations against him for (1) illegal sale and (2) illegal possession
of shabu, a dangerous drug. The RTC found accused guilty as charged.
The defense questioned the admissibility of the confiscated evidence
on the ground of illegality of their arrest. CA affirmed the decision.
ISSUE: WON the warrantless arrest against the appellant was unlawful
RULING: NO. On the legality of the warrantless arrest, the Court
reiterated that appellant was arrested during an entrapment operation
where he was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu. When an arrest
is made during an entrapment operation, it is not required that a warrant
be secured in line with the provisions of Rule 113, Section 5 (a) of the
Revised Rules of Court allowing warrantless arrests. Contrary to the
defense's claim, it is not impossible for a buy-bust operation to be
conducted in broad daylight, as in the case at bar. Frame-up, like
denial, is viewed by this Court with disfavor for it can easily be
concocted.
People vs. Elizabeth Marcelino
FACTS: The buy-bust team, headed for Bulacan at around half past
seven in the evening. The RTC found accused guilty of violating
sections 5 and 11 of RA No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002. Accused argued that that the police officers who
arrested her at her home were not the same ones that the prosecution
presented as members of the buy-bust operation. That the evidence
presented against her was inadmissible, since it was acquired during
her unlawful arrest. CA affirmed the decision.
ISSUE: WON the arrest was valid
RULING: YES.
circumstance where a warrantless arrest is justified. It is a valid form
of entrapment, as the idea to commit a crime comes not from the police
officers but from the accused himself. The accused is caught in the act
and must be apprehended on the spot. From the very nature of a buy-
bust operation, the absence of a warrant does not make the arrest
illegal. As it is, there was substantial compliance with the requirements
under RA 9165, and the prosecution adequately established that there
was an unbroken chain of custody over the shabu seized from the
accused.
Mallari vs. CA
FACTS: Police Station, received reliable information that appellant
who has a standing warrant of arrest in connection with Criminal Case
for homicide, was seen at Tarlac. Upon reaching the place, the
arresting officers surrounded the house of appellant, arrested him and
told him to remain stationary. Thereupon, the arresting officers
searched him and found a homemade gun (paltik) with one M-16 live
ammunition. After investigation, the petitioner was charged with the
crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition, and pleaded
not guilty on arraignment. The Regional Trial Court convicted
petitioner of the crime charged. CA affirmed in toto. Petitioner
questions the factual finding of the CA that at the time of his arrest,
there was a standing warrant against him and he posits that the absence
of the requisite warrant is fatal and renders the search and seizure
unlawful. Corrolarily, the handgun and ammunition seized from him
are inadmissible in evidence.
ISSUE: WON the accused is guilty of the crime of Illegal Possession
of Firearms and Ammunition
RULING: At this juncture, the Court would like to stress that this is
not a case of a warrantless arrest but merely an instance of an arrest
effected by the police authorities without having the warrant in their
possession at that precise moment. The above quoted rule clearly
allows a police officer to effect arrest without the warrant in his
possession at the time of the arrest. Thus, appellant’s arrest being
lawful, the search and seizure made incidental thereto is likewise
valid, albeit conducted without a warrant. In the case of
People v. Acol, where the unlicensed firearms were found when the
police team apprehended the accused for robbery and not for illegal
possession of firearms and ammunition, this Court held that the
unlicensed firearms may be seized without the necessity of obtaining
a search warrant. But in this case, the SC acquitted the accused for
insufficiency of evidence because the prosecution failed to discharge
its burden of proving that he did not have the requisite license for the
firearm and ammunition found in his possession. . This is where the
prosecution’s case fails and miserably so.
Pestilos vs. People
FACTS: Atty Generoso had an altercation with the petitioners in which
he called the Central Police District to report the incident. They arrived
at the scene of the crime less than one hour after the alleged altercation
and saw Atty. Generoso badly beaten. Atty. Generoso then pointed to
the petitioners as those who mauled him. This prompted the police
officers to "invite" the petitioners for investigation. At the inquest
proceeding, the City Prosecutor found that the petitioners stabbed Atty.
Generoso with a bladed weapon. In an Information, the petitioners
were indicted for attempted murder. The petitioners filed an Urgent
Motion for Regular Preliminary Investigation on the ground that they
had not been lawfully arrested. They alleged that no valid warrantless
arrest took place since the police officers had no personal knowledge
that they were the perpetrators of the crime. They also claimed that
they were just "invited" to the police station. Thus, the inquest
proceeding was improper, and a regular procedure for preliminary
investigation should have been performed. The RTC issued its order
denying the petitioners' Urgent Motion for Regular Preliminary
Investigation. The court likewise denied the petitioners' motion for
reconsideration. Petition for certiorari was also dismissed by CA.

ISSUE: WON the petitioners were validly arrested without a warrant

RULING: YES. The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and our

jurisprudence on the matter, we hold that the following must be present
for a valid warrantless arrest: 1) the crime should have been just
committed; and 2) the arresting officer's exercise of discretion is
limited by the standard of probable cause to be determined from the
facts and circumstances within his personal knowledge. The
requirement of the existence of probable cause objectifies the
reasonableness of the warrantless arrest for purposes of compliance
with the Constitutional mandate against unreasonable arrests. The
court deemed it reasonable to conclude that the police officers had
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances justifying the petitioners'
warrantless arrests. These circumstances were well within the police
officers' observation, perception and evaluation at the time of the
arrest. These circumstances qualify as the police officers' personal
observation, which are within their personal knowledge, prompting
them to make the warrantless arrests. To reiterate, personal knowledge
of a crime just committed under the terms of the above-cited provision,
does not require actual presence at the scene while a crime was being
committed; it is enough that evidence of the recent commission of the
crime is patent (as in this case) and the police officer has probable
cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances, that the person to be arrested has recently committed
the crime. Considering the circumstances of the stabbing, particularly
the locality where it took place, its occasion, the personal
circumstances of the parties, and the immediate on-the-spot
investigation that took place, the immediate and warrantless arrests of
the perpetrators were proper. Consequently, the inquest proceeding
that the City Prosecutor conducted was appropriate under the
circumstances