2.

Whether or not should the Supreme Court review

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS the present case despite being filed out of time?
(Counsel for the state questions authority of the
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS | V Supreme Court to review the case)

1. People vs. Regalario HELD:

------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. No. The lower Court did not err in denying the
Read at your own risk. Read the full text---------------- notice of appeal. The notice of appeal was filed
- beyond the reglamentary period set by law Section 6
DOCTRINE: Appeal must be taken 15 days from of Rule 122 states that: “…appeal must be taken 15
promulgation or notice of judgment or order days from promulgation or notice of judgment or
appealed from. This period for perfecting an appeal order appealed from. This period for perfecting an
shall be interrupted from the time a motion for new appeal shall be interrupted from the time a motion
trial or reconsideration is filed until notice of order for new trial or reconsideration is filed until notice of
overruling the motion shall have been served upon order overruling the motion shall have been served
the accused or his attorney. upon the accused or his attorney...” The rule states
FACTS: At about 9:00pm of September 18, 1986, period shall only be “interrupted” thus appellants
Menardo Garcia, accompanied by two companions, only had 1 day with which to file notice of appeal
were on their way home from attending their with the trial court.
classes. Outside the gate of their school were herein
defendants of the case, namely, Alex Regalario, 2. Ordinarily, the appeal herein could have been
Carlos Pabillar, Rolando de Chavez, Jose Quiniquito, dismissed outright for being time-barred. The
Augurio Villagracia, Jr., and Alberto Desembrena, records, however, do not show that either the public
who all joined Menardo. or private prosecutor moved for the dismissal of said
Herein defendant, Carlos Pabillar, asked Menardo appeal or objected to the aforesaid order of the trial
where his “Balisong” was, to which Menardo replied court directing the elevation of the records of the
that such was in his possession anymore. Carlos case to this Court, obviously for appellate review. It
Pabilar then boxed Menardo and uttered “Tirahin na was only after appellants
yan!” Menardo ran. The defendants gave chase. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS
When they caught up to Menardo, herein defendant, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS | V
Alex Regalario, stabbed Menardo. The six boxed
Menardo until he can no longer get up. Menardo
eventually died and his earlier companions
witnessed the event.
Regalario and 5 others were all found guilty for the
murder of Menardo Garcia. Judgment of conviction
was promulgated on Jan 17 and a copy of which was
received by the appellants’ counsel the next day, Jan
18. Appellants filed a Motion for reconsideration on
Jan 31 but the court denied the same on Feb 22. On
March 14, appellants filed notice of appeal but the
trial court denied the appeal for having been filed
out of time.
Appellants argue that the computation of 15 days
within which to file notice of appeal should have
been counted from Feb 23 (day after the MR was
denied) and not from Jan 31 which was the day the
of the denial of the MR was given. Hence this
petition.
ISSUE/S:
1. Whether the lower court erred in denying notice
of appeal on the ground of being filed out of time?
 In Sept. 1999, Maderal was arrested. He executed a
had filed their brief that appellee, in its brief, raised sworn confession and identified the herein
the issue of the belated appeal and, inferentially, the petitioner Miranda and 4 others responsible for the
lack of appellate jurisdiction of this Court in this death of the victims. Respondent Tuliao then filed a
case. However, the principle of estoppel by laches to criminal complaint for murder against the
bar attacks on jurisdiction has been adopted and petitioners. Acting Presiding Judge Tumalian issued
repeatedly applied by this Court, notably in Tijam, et warrant of arrest against the petitioners and SPO2
al. vs. Sibonghanoy, et al., and in several cases which Maderal.
followed thereafter, including criminal cases. Petitioners filed an urgent motion to complete
preliminary investigation, to reinvestigate, and to
Thus, in People vs. Tamani, although the appeal of recall or quash the warrant of arrest. In the hearing
the accused was demonstrably filed out of time, to of the urgent motion, Judge Tumalian noted the
obviate a miscarriage of justice the Court absence of petitioners and issued a Joint order
nevertheless reviewed the case and rendered denying the said urgent motion on the ground that
judgment on the merits thereof, in view of the fact since the court did not acquire jurisdiction over their
that the filing of the appeal out of time was due to persons, the motion cannot be properly heard by the
the inadvertence of the defense counsel and the court. The petitioners appealed the resolution of the
further consideration that the briefs of the parties Public prosecutor to the DOJ.
had already been filed. Considering that the same The new Presiding Judge named Judge Anghad took
features also obtain in the present case, and in view over the case and issued a Joint Order reversing the
of the gravity of the offense and the penalty Joint Order of Judge Tumalian. He also ordered the
involved, the Court felt that it should also follow the cancellation of the warrant of arrest. Respondent
same judicial path and, in the oft-invoked broader Tulia filed a petition for certiorari, mandamus and
interests of substantial justice, grant to appellants in prohibition with a prayer for TRO seeking to enjoin
this case the benefit of judicial review. Judge Anghad from further proceeding of the case
2. Miranda vs. Tuliao and seeking to nullify the Joint Orders of the said
------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge. The CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS
Read at your own risk. Read the full text---------------- CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS | V
-
DOCTRINE: It has been held that an accused cannot
seek judicial relief is he does not submit his person to
the jurisdiction of the court. Jurisdiction over the
accused can be acquired either through compulsory
process, such as warrant of arrest or through his
voluntary appearance, such as when he surrender to
the police or to the court. It is only when the court
has already acquired jurisdiction over his person that
an accused may invoke the processes of the court.
FACTS: On Mar. 1996, 2 burnt cadavers were
discovered in Ramon, Isabela which were later
identified as the bodies of Vicente Bauzon and Elizer
Tuliao, son of the private respondent Virgilio Tulio
who is now under the witness protection program.
2 informations for murder were filed against the 5
police officer including SPO2 Maderal in RTC of
Santiago City. The venue was later transferred to
Manila. RTC Manila convicted all the accused and
sentenced them 2 counts of reclusion perpetua
except SPO2 Maderal who was yet to be arraigned at
that time, being at large. Upon automatic review,
the SC acquitted the four accused on the ground of
reasonable doubt.
SC issued a resolution granting the prayer. Tijam filed for the recovery of P1,909, exclusive of
Notwithstanding the said resolution, Judge Anghad interests, against herein respondents, Spouses
issued a Joint Order dismissing the information Sibonghanoy. As prayed for in the complaint, a writ
against the petition. Respondent Tuliao filed a of attachment was issued by the Court against
motion to cite Judge Anghad in contempt. The SC Spouses Sibonghanoy’s properties, but the same was
referred the said motion to the CA. The CA rendered dissolved upon the filing of a counterbond by
the assailed decision granting the petition and Spouses Sibonghanoy along with Manila Surety and
ordering the reinstatement of the criminal cases in Fidelity Co. Defendants then filed a counterclaim.
the RTC of Santiago City as well as the issuance of The court rendered a decision in favor of the
warrant of arrest. Petioners appealed. Hence, this Spouses Tijam. The Court then issued a writ of
petition. execution against Spouses Sibonghanoy which,
ISSUE/S: however, returned unsatisfied. Spouses Tijam then
1. Whether or not should the motion to quash the moved for the issuance of a writ of execution against
warrant of arrest be granted despite the absence of Manila Surety’s bond.
the petitioners during the hearing for the said Manila Surety opposed such motion on the ground
motion. that no prior demand has been made and so the
Court denied the prayer of Spouses Tijam.
HELD: Thereafter, demand was made, however, Manila
1. No. Generally one who seeks an affirmative relief Surety failed to comply. Another motion for the
is deemed to have submitted his person to the issuance of a writ of execution was made which was
jurisdiction of the Court. An exception would be in granted by the Court. Subsequenty, Manila Surety
the case of a pleading where the prayer is precisely moved to quash the writ. The Court denied the
for the avoidance of the jurisdiction of the court. – motion and so Manila Surety appealed to the Court
Motions to quash a warrant of arrest is one of the of Appeals.
said exception. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Spouses Tijam.
Manila Surety filed a motion asking for an extension
For the same is a consequence of the fact that it is of time within which to file a motion for
the very legality of the court process forcing the reconsideration. Two days later, instead of filing a
submission of the person of the accused that is the motion for CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS
very issue in a to quash a warrant of arrest. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS | V
---------------------------------See distinction between
custody of the law and jurisdiction over the person--
--
3. Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Read at your own risk. Read the full text----------------
-
DOCTRINE: A party may be estopped or barred from
raising a question in different ways and for different
reasons. Laches, in a general sense is failure or
neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length
of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence,
could or should have been done earlier -
Furthermore, it has also been held that after
voluntarily submitting a cause and encountering an
adverse decision on the merits, it is too late for the
loser to question the jurisdiction or power of the
court -"undesirable practice" of a party submitting
his case for decision and then accepting the
judgment, only if favorable, and attacking it for lack
of jurisdiction, when adverse.
FACTS: On July 19, 1948, barely a month after the
effectivity of the Judiciary Act of 1948 – Spouses
reconsideration, Manila Surety filed a motion to participation throughout the case. The same
dismiss on the ground that the trial court had no principle was cited in the case of People vs.
jurisdiction to try and decide the case. Republic Act Regalario, holding that parties are estopped from
No. 296 otherwise known as the Judiciary Act of appealing a case after the reglemetary period
1948, had already become effective which placed provided by law. However, in the latter case, appeal
within the original exclusive jurisdiction of inferior was granted in view of the gravity of the offense
courts all civil actions where the value of the subject- and its penalty. The offense charged, having been
matter or the amount of the demand does not murder, and the penalty, having been reclusion
exceed P2,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. I.e. perpetua, the Supreme Court still afforded the
CFI had no jurisdiction over the case. appellants judicial review to avoid miscarriage of
The Court of Appeals resolved to set aside its justice. A similar ruling to that of People vs.
decision and certified the case to the Supreme Court. Regalario was held in the case of People vs.
Hence this case. Fukuzume as opposed to the denial of the court of
ISSUE/S: the appeal in the case of Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy. In
1. Whether or not should the case against Spouses People vs. Fukuzume, the Court granted the appeal
Sibonghanoy and Manila Surety be dismissed? of the appellant for want of jurisdiction (the proper
court, having been Paranaque RTC and not Makati
HELD: RTC). The court noted the distinction between the
1. No. The Court was of the opinion that Manila facts surrounding the case of Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy
Surety is now barred by laches – The action was as a civil case and the facts surrounding the case of
commend in the Court of First Instance on July 19, People vs. Fukuzume as a criminal case.
1948, that is, almost fifteen years before Manila As a general rule, question on jurisdiction may be
Surety filed its motion to dismiss raising the question raised at any stage of the proceeding or on appeal
of lack of jurisdiction for the first time. (people vs. Fukuzume) but exception to the rule is
when the appellant is barred by laches (Tijam vs.
A party may be estopped or barred from raising a Sibonghanoy). But even when barred by laches,
question in different ways and for different reasons. appeal may still be granted in view of the gravity of
Laches, in a general sense is failure or neglect, for an the offense and its penalty (People vs. Regalario).
unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS
that which, by exercising due diligence, could or CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS | V
should have been done earlier - Furthermore, it has
also been held that after voluntarily submitting a
cause and encountering an adverse decision on the
merits, it is too late for the loser to question the
jurisdiction or power of the court -"undesirable
practice" of a party submitting his case for decision
and then accepting the judgment, only if favorable,
and attacking it for lack of jurisdiction, when
adverse.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------Compare with Regalario-----------
It is the settled rule that jurisdiction over the subject
matter is conferred upon the courts exclusively by
law, and as the lack of it affects the very authority of
the court to take cognizance of the case, the
objection may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings.
It was however held in Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy that
the appellants were barred by laches, considering
that it took the appellants 15 years in raising the
issue of jurisdiction (based on the Judicial Act of
1948) from the filing of the case (January 17, 1948)
to the appeal (January 8, 1963) despite their active
---------------------------------------------------------------------- HELD:
-------------------------End of Compare with Regalario-- 1. Yes. Right to bail is only extended only to those
---------------------------------------------------------------------- persons who have been arrested, detained, or
-------------------------Compare with Fuzume-------------- otherwise deprived of their freedom. A person is
A similar ruling to that of People vs. Regalario was considered to be in the custody of the law:
held in the case of People vs. Fukuzume as opposed When he is arrested either by virtue of warrant of
to the denial of the court of the appeal in the case of arrest or by warrantless arrest
Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy. In People vs. Fukuzume, the
Court granted the appeal of the appellant for want
of jurisdiction (the proper court, having been
Paranaque RTC and not Makati RTC). The court
noted the distinction between the facts surrounding
the case of Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy as a civil case and
the facts surrounding the case of People vs.
Fukuzume as a criminal case.
As a general rule, question on jurisdiction may be
raised at any stage of the proceeding or on appeal
(people vs. Fukuzume) but exception to the rule is
when the appellant is barred by laches (Tijam vs.
Sibonghanoy). But even when barred by laches,
appeal may still be granted in view of the gravity of
the offense and its penalty (People vs. Regalario).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When he has voluntarily submitted himself to the
-------------------------End of Compare with Fuzume----
jurisdiction of the court by surrendering to the
4. Paderanga vs. CA
proper authorities
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Read at your own risk. Read the full text----------------
In the foregoing facts, petitioner can be considered
-
as being constructively and legally under custody.
DOCTRINE: Right to bail is accorded to persons
Through his lawyers, he expressly submitted to
constructively arrested even though they have not
physical and legal control over his person:
been physically arrested.
Firstly, by filing the application for bail with the
FACTS: Miguel P. Paderanga was included in an
trial court
amended information for the crime of multiple
murder as the mastermind. Paderanga, through his Secondly, by furnishing true information of his
counsel, filed a Motion for Admission of Bail before a actual whereabouts; and
Warrant of Arrest could be issued by the lower Thirdly, by unequivocally recognizing the
court. jurisdiction of the said court.
Paderanga was unable to appear for the hearing due CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS
to an ailment that needed medical attention. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS | V
His counsel manifested that they were submitting
custody over the person of their client to the local
chapter president of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and that, for purposes of said hearing, he
considered being in the custody of the law.
The Court of Appeals denied the petitioner’s motion
for reconsideration on his right to bail. The Court of
Appeals reasoned that Paderanga was granted bail
when was not in the custody of the law, thus not
eligible for the grant of the petition.
ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not should bail be granted by the
Court of Appeals?
For purposes of the hearing thereof he should be pursuant to Section 2 of R.A. 7975. They contend
deemed to have voluntarily submitted his person to that the said law limited the jurisdiction of the
the custody of the law and, necessarily, to the Sandiganbayan to cases where one or one of the
jurisdiction of the trial court “principal accused” are government officials with
An arrest is made either by: Salary Grade 27 or higher, or PNP officials with rank
Actual restraint of the arrestee; or of Chief Superintendent or higher. Thus, they did not
Merely by his submission to the custody of the qualify under said requisites. However, pending
person making the arrest. (house arrest) resolution of their motions, R.A. 8249 was approved
amending the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan by
5. Lacson vs. Executive Secretary deleting the word “principal” from the phrase
------------------------------------------------------------------- “principal accused” in Section 2 of R.A. 7975.
Read at your own risk. Read the full text---------------- Petitioner questions the constitutionality of Section
- 4 of R.A. 8249, including Section 7 which provides
DOCTRINE: R.A. 8249 is not a penal law. It is a that the said law shall apply to all cases pending in
substantive law on jurisdiction which is not penal in any court over which trial has not begun as of the
character. Not being a penal law, the retroactive approval hereof.
application of R.A. 8249 cannot be challenged as ISSUE/S:
unconstitutional. 1. Whether or not said statute may be considered
In People vs. Montejo, it was held that an offense is as an ex-post facto statute.
said to have been committed in relation to the office CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS
if it is intimately connected with the office of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS | V
offender and perpetrated while he was in the
performance of his official functions. Such intimate
relation must be alleged in the information which is
essential in determining the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.
FACTS: Eleven persons believed to be members of
the Kuratong Baleleng gang, an organized crime
syndicate involved in bank robberies, were slain by
elements of the Anti-Bank Robbery andIntelligence
Task Group (ABRITG). Among those included in the
ABRITG were petitioners and petitioner-intervenors.
Acting on a media expose of SPO2 Eduardo delos
Reyes, a member of the Criminal Investigation
Command, that what actually transpired was a
summary execution and not a shoot-out between
the Kuratong Baleleng gang members and the
ABRITG, Ombudsman Aniano Desiertoformed a
panel of investigators to investigate the said
incident. Said panel found the incident as a
legitimate police operation. However, a review
board modified the panel’s finding and
recommended the indictment for multiple murder
against twenty-six respondents including herein
petitioner, charged as principal, and herein
petitioner-intervenors, charged as accessories. After
a reinvestigation, the Ombudsman filed amended
informations before the Sandiganbayan, where
petitioner was charged only as an accessory.
The accused filed separate motions questioning the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, asserting that
under the amended informations, the cases fall
within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court

2. Whether or not the multiple murder of the
alleged members of the Kuratong Baleleng was
committed in relation to the office of the accused
PNP officers?
3. Whether or not jurisdiction of the court is
determined by evidence and not allegation?
HELD:
1. No. There is nothing ex post facto in R.A. 8249. Ex
post facto law, generally, provides retroactive effect
of penal laws. R.A. 8249 is not apenal law. It is a
substantive law on jurisdiction which is not penal in
character. Penal laws are those acts of the
Legislature which prohibit certain acts and establish
penalties for their violations or those that define
crimes and provide for their punishment. R.A. 7975,
as regards the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction, its mode
of appeal and other procedural matters, has been
declared by the Court as not a penal law, but clearly
a procedural statute, one which prescribes rules of
procedure by which courts applying laws of all kinds
can properly administer justice. Not being a penal
law, the retroactive application of R.A. 8249 cannot
be challenged as unconstitutional.
2. No. In People vs. Montejo, it was held that an
offense is said to have been committed in relation to
the office if it is intimately connected with the office
of the offender and perpetrated while he was in the
performance of his official functions. Such intimate
relation must be alleged in the information which is
essential in determining the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court and not the
Sandiganbayan.
3. No. The jurisdiction of a court is defined by the
Constitution or statute. The elements of that
definition must appear in the complaint or
information so as to ascertain which court has
jurisdiction over a case. Hence the elementary rule
that the jurisdiction of a court is determined by the
allegations in the complaint or information, and not
by the evidence presented by the parties at the
trial.
------------------------------------------------------As regard
the violation of the equal protection clause------------
-
Petitioner and intervenors’ posture that Sections 4
and 7 of R.A. 8249 violate their right to equal
protection of the law is too shallow to deserve merit.
No concrete evidence and convincing argument
were presented to warrant such a declaration. Every
classification made by the law is presumed
reasonable and the party who challenges the law
must present proof of arbitrariness. The
classification is reasonable and not arbitrary when
the following concur: (1) it must rest on substantial
distinction; (2) it must be germane to the purpose of
the law; (3) must not be limited to existing
conditions only, and (4) must apply equally to all
members of the same class; all of which are present
in this case. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS | V

In this case a perusal of the information lacks a

specific allegation of facts that the shooting of the
victim by the said principal accused was intimately
related to the discharge of their official duties as
police officers. Likewise, the amended information
does not indicate that the said accused arrested and
investigated the victim and then killed the latter
while in their custody. The stringent requirement
that the charge set forth with such particularity as
will reasonably indicate the exact offense which the
accused is alleged to have committed in relation to
his office was not established.
Consequently, for failure to show in the amended
informations that the charge of murder was
intimately connected with the discharge of official
functions of the accused PNP officers, the offense
charged in the subject criminal cases is plain murder
and, therefore, within the exclusive original
Paragraph a of Section 4 provides that it shall apply
“to all cases involving” certain public officials and
under the transitory provision in Section 7, to “all
cases pending in any court.” Contrary to petitioner
and intervenors’ argument, the law is not
particularly directed only to the Kuratong Baleleng
cases. The transitory provision does not only cover
cases which are in the Sandiganbayan but also in
“any court.”
------------------------------------------------------End of as
regard the violation of the equal protection clause--
--
6. People vs. Sandiganbayan
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Read at your own risk. Read the full text----------------
- ------------------End of another issue-----------------------
DOCTRINE: The jurisdiction of a court to try a
criminal case is to be determined at the time of the
institution of the action, not at the time of the
commission of the offense. Those that are classified
as Grade 26 and below may still fall within the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan provided that they
hold the positions thus enumerated by RA No. 8249.
FACTS: Private respondent, Rolando Plaza, is a
member of the Sanguniang Panlungsod of Toledo
City, Cebu with a salary grade 25. He was charged in
the Sandiganbayan with violation of Section 89 of
Presidential Decree No. 1445, or the Auditing Code
of the Philippines for his failure to liquidate the cash
advances he received.
Private respondent then questioned the jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan over the offense charged.
Private respondent contends that he should not fall
under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as he
does not belong the salary grade 27 and that his
violation is not among those enumerated by law to
be cognizable by the Sandiganbayan even if the
offender is below salary grade 27.
ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has
jurisdiction over violations of the Auditing Code of
the Philippines committed by a public official below
salary grade 27?
enumerated are members if the Sangunuiang
Panlungsod. In connection therewith, Section 4 (b) of
the same law provides that other offenses or
felonies committed by public officials and employees
mentioned in subsection (a) in relation to their office
also fall under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------Another issue--------------------------------
The jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is to
be determined at the time of the institution of the
action, not at the time of the commission of the
offense. The case having been instituted on March
25, 2004 the provisions of Republic Act No. 8249
shall govern.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
7. People vs. Paliza
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Read at your own risk. Read the full text----------------
-
DOCTRINE: Paragraph (a) of Section 5 is commonly
known as an in flagrante delicto arrest. For a
warrantless arrest of an accused caught in flagrante
delicto to be valid, two requisites must concur: (1)
the person to be arrested must execute an overt act
indicating that he has just committed, is actually
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS | V

HELD:
1. Yes, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over
violations of the Auditing Code of the Philippines
committed by a public official below salary grade 27.

Those that are classified as Grade 26 and below may

still fall within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
provided that they hold the positions thus
enumerated by RA No. 8249. Among those
committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and The RTC ruled that what transpired was a lawful
(2) such overt act is done in the presence or within arrest. On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of
the view of the arresting officer. the RTC. Hence, this appeal.
FACTS: On 29 March 2005, at around 6:00 in the ISSUE/S:
evening, an informant reported to SPO3 Melchor 1. Whether or not the warrantless arrest was valid?
dela Peña that a pot session was taking place at the 2. Whether or not non-compliance with Section 21
house of a certain "Obet" located at Barangay Cuyab, (1) of R.A. No. 9165 invalidated the arrest?
Laguna. SPO3 Dela Peña formed a team to conduct
police operations against the suspect. HELD:
When the team arrived, the members saw that 1. Yes. The Court held that the warrantless arrest is
Obet’s house was closed. Since the house was not valid. Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure
surrounded by a fence, they approached the house lists the situations when a person may be arrested
and peeped through a small opening in a window without a warrant. Paragraph (a) of Section 5 is
where the saw four persons in a circle having a pot commonly known as an in flagrante delicto arrest.
session. For a warrantless arrest of an accused caught in
The team found an unlocked door and caught the flagrante delicto to be valid, two requisites must
four persons engaged in a pot session by surprise. concur:
After they introduced themselves as police officers, (1) The person to be arrested must execute an overt
they arrested the four suspects and seized the drug act indicating that he has just committed, is actually
paraphernalia found at the scene. Among those committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and
arrested were herein appellants, namely Jeric Paliza (2) Such overt act is done in the presence or within
and Juan Delos Reyes, from each of whom a plastic the view of the arresting officer.
sachet containing white crystalline substance were CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS
confiscated after a body search was conducted on CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS | V
their persons. The team marked the plastic sachets
which were then transmitted to the crime laboratory
for where they tested positive for "shabu."
Consequently, appellants were charged with
violation of Section 13, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 in
two separate informations. When arraigned, both
appellants pleaded not guilty to the offense. A joint
trial of the cases ensued.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
---Baka lang itanong ni Ma’am---------------------------
In defense, appellants provided a different version of
the incident. According to them, on the questioned
date and time, they were just selling star apples. A
prospective buyer of the fruits called them over to
his house and requested them to go inside. When
they were about to leave the house, several persons
who introduced themselves as policemen arrived
and invited appellants to go with them to the
precinct where they were incarcerated and charged
with the violation of RA 9165.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
---Baka lang itanong ni Ma’am---------------------------
Appellants contend that their warrantless arrest was
illegal and, therefore, the items seized from them as
a result of that arrest were inadmissible in evidence
against them, and that the prosecution failed to
establish the chain of custody because the police
operatives failed to strictly comply with Section 21
(1) of R.A. No. 9165
A perusal of the evidence in its totality reveals that
the prosecution successfully established that the
petitioner was arrested in flagrante delicto. A
warrant of arrest cannot be obtained immediately
judging from the surrounding circumstances, as the
pot session/ crime may well be done before the
warrant be issued. The “time element” was
considered here by the Court.
2. No. RA 9165 and its subsequent Implementing
Rules and Regulations (IRR) do not require strict
compliance as to the chain of custody rule. What is
of utmost importance is the preservation of the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items, as these would be utilized in the
determination of the guilt or innocence of the
accused.
In the present case, the court held that substantial
compliance by the police with the required
procedure on the custody and control of the
confiscated items, thus showing that the integrity of
the seized evidence was not compromised. The court
recognized that the strict compliance with the
requirements of Section 21 may not always be
possible under field conditions; the police operates
under varied conditions, and cannot at all times
attend to all the niceties of the procedures in the
handling of confiscated evidence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------Section 13, Article II of RA 9165-----------
Section 13. Possession of Dangerous Drugs During
Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings. – Any person
found possessing any dangerous drug during a party,
or at a social gathering or meeting, or in the
proximate company of at least two (2) persons, shall
suffer the maximum penalties provided for in
Section 11 of this Act, regardless of the quantity and
purity of such dangerous drugs.
The elements for the illegal possession of
dangerous drugs under Section 13 of R.A. No. 9165:
(1) Possession by the accused of an item or object
identified to be a prohibited or dangerous drug;
(2) Such possession is not authorized by law;
(3) The free and conscious possession of the drug by
the accused, with the additional element that;
(4) The accused possessed the prohibited or
dangerous drug during a social gathering or meeting,
or in the company of at least two persons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------End of Section 13, Article II of RA 9165-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------Section 21(1), Article II of RA 9165-----------
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody
and control of the drugs shall, immediately after
seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and
photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items
were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the
media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any
elected public official who shall be required to sign
the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof;
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------End of Section 21(1), Article II of RA 9165--
8. Pestilos vs. Generoso
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Read at your own risk. Read the full text----------------
-
DOCTRINE: Even though the police officer has not
seen someone actually fleeing, he could still make a
warrantless arrest if, based on his personal
evaluation of the circumstances at the scene of the
crime, he could determine the existence of probable
cause that the person sought to be arrested has
committed the crime. However, the determination of
probable cause and the gathering of facts or
circumstances should be made immediately after the
commission of the crime in order to comply with the
element of immediacy.
FACTS: Sometime in February 2005, an altercation
ensued between the petitioners and Atty. Moreno
Generoso somewhere in Quezon City where the
petitioners and Atty. Generoso reside. CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE DIGESTS
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS | V
Atty. Generoso called the Police District to report the
incident. Police officers SPOJ Monslave and SPOJ
Dominador Javier were dispatched to go to the
scene. They arrive at the scene less than one hour
after the alleged altercation and they saw Atty.
Generoso badly beaten.
Atty. Generoso then pointed to the petitioners as
those who mauled him. Police officers then invited
the petitioners to go to the Police Station for
investigation. At the inquest proceeding, the City
Prosecutor found that the petitioners stabbed Atty.
Generoso with a bladed weapon and fortunately
survived the attack. An Information was filed,
charging the petitioners of the crime of attempted
murder.
March 2005, petitioners filed an Urgent Motion for
Regular Preliminary Investigation on the ground that
they had not been lawfully arrested. They claimed
that they were just “invited” to the police station.
The RTC denied the urgent motion. It likewise denied
their motion for reconsideration. They elevated the
case to the CA by petition for certiorari under Rule
65. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for
lack of merit. The arrest was valid pursuant to a valid
warrantless arrest so that an inquest proceeding was
called for as a consequence.
ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not the petitioners were validly
arrested without a warrant?
determined probable cause in effecting a
warrantless arrest against the petitioners.
In determining the reasonableness of the
warrantless arrests, it is incumbent upon the courts
to consider if the police officers have complied with
the requirements set under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, specifically,
the requirement of immediacy; the police officer's
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances; and
lastly, the propriety of the determination of
probable cause that the person sought to be
arrested committed the crime.
Even though the police officer has not seen someone
actually fleeing, he could still make a warrantless
arrest if, based on his personal evaluation of the
circumstances at the scene of the crime, he could
determine the existence of probable cause that the
person sought to be arrested has committed the
crime. However, the determination of probable
cause and the gathering of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
DIGESTS
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS | V

HELD:
1. YES, it is a valid warrantless arrest. Section 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 just been committed, and
he has probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances 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 is temporarily
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped
while being transferred from one confinement to
another.

Here, the applicable provision is Sec. 5(b) or

described as a “hot pursuit” arrest. The police
officers had personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances upon which they had properly
facts or circumstances should be made immediately In both instances, the officer’s personal knowledge
after the commission of the crime in order to comply of the fact of the commission of an offense is
with the element of immediacy. absolutely required. Under paragraph (a), the officer
Personal knowledge of a crime just committed under himself witnesses the crime while under paragraph
the terms of the above-cited provision, does not (b), he knows for a fact that a crime has just been
require actual presence at the scene while a crime committed.
was being committed; it is enough that evidence of FACTS: On December 25, 2006 at around 11:30 in
the recent commission of the crime is patent (as in the morning, as PO3 Renato de Leon (PO3 de Leon)
this case) and the police officer has probable cause was driving his motorcycle on his way home along
to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or 5th Avenue, he saw appellant from a distance of
circumstances, that the person to be arrested has about 8 to 10 meters, holding and scrutinizing in his
recently committed the crime. hand a plastic sachet of shabu. Thus, PO3 de Leon, a
OTHER DOCTRINES: member of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special
The term “invited” is construed to mean as an Operation Unit (SAID-SOU) in Caloocan City, alighted
authoritative command. Arrest is defined as the from his motorcycle and approached the appellant
taking of a person into custody in order that he may whom he recognized as someone he had previously
be bound to answer for the commission of an arrested for illegal drug possession. CRIMINAL
offense. An arrest is made by an actual restraint of PROCEDURE DIGESTS
the person to be arrested, or by his submission to CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS | V
the custody of the person making the arrest. The
application of actual force, manual touching of the
body, physical restraint or a formal declaration of
arrest is not required. It is enough that there be an
intention on the part of one of the parties to arrest
the other and the intent of the other to submit,
under the belief and impression that submission is
necessary.
FUNNY PART:
The arresting officers' personal observation of Atty.
Generoso's bruises when they arrived at the scene of
the crime is corroborated by the petitioners'
admissions that Atty: Generoso indeed suffered
blows from petitioner Macapanas and his brother
Joseph Macapanas, although they asserted that
they did it in self-defense against Atty. Generoso.
9. People vs. Villareal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Read at your own risk. Read the full text----------------
-
DOCTRINE: For the warrantless arrest under
paragraph (a) of Section 5 to operate, two elements
must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must
execute an overt act indicating that he has just
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting
to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in
the presence or within the view of the arresting
officer.
On the other hand, paragraph (b) of section 5
requires for its application that at the time of the
arrest, an offense had in fact just been committed
and the arresting officer had personal knowledge of
facts indicating that the appellant had committed it.
Upon seeing PO3 de Leon, appellant tried to escape
but was quickly apprehended. Despite appellant’s
attempts to resist arrest, PO3 de Leon was able to
board appellant onto his motorcycle and confiscate
the plastic sachet of shabu in his possession.
Thereafter, PO3 de Leon brought appellant to the
Police Station to fix his handcuffs, and then they
proceeded to the SAID-SOU office where PO3 de
Leon marked the seized plastic sachet with "RZL/NV
12-25-06," representing his and appellant’s initials
and the date of the arrest.
Subsequently, PO3 de Leon turned over the marked
evidence as well as the person of appellant to the
investigator, PO2 Randulfo Hipolito who, in turn,
executed an acknowledgment receipt and prepared
a letter request for the laboratory examination of
the seized substance. PO2 Hipolito personally
delivered the request and the confiscated item to
the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime
Laboratory, which were received by Police Senior
Inspector Albert Arturo, the forensic chemist.
Upon qualitative examination, the plastic sachet,
which contained 0.03 gram of white crystalline
substance, tested positive for methylamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. Consequently,
appellant was charged with violation of Section 11,
Article II of RA 9165 for illegal possession of
dangerous drugs. When arraigned, appellant entered
a plea of not guilty to the offense charged, and
denied the allegations of PO3 de Leon. The RTC
convicted appellant as charged upon a finding that
all the elements of the crime of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs have been established. The CA
sustained appellant’s conviction a clear case of in
flagrante delicto warrantless arrest. Hence this
appeal.
ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not there is a clear case of in
flagrante delicto warrantless arrest?
and the arresting officer had personal knowledge of
facts indicating that the appellant had committed it.
In both instances, the officer’s personal knowledge
of the fact of the commission of an offense is
absolutely required. Under paragraph (a), the officer
himself witnesses the crime while under paragraph
(b), he knows for a fact that a crime has just been
committed.
The factual circumstances of the case failed to show
that PO3 de Leon had personal knowledge that a
crime had been indisputably committed by the
appellant.
In fine, appellant’s acts of walking along the street
and holding something in his hands, even if they
appeared to be dubious, coupled with his previous
criminal charge for the same offense, are not by
themselves sufficient to incite suspicion of criminal
activity or to create probable cause enough to justify
a warrantless arrest under Section 5 above-quoted.
"Probable cause" has been understood to mean a
reasonable ground of suspicion supported by
circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to
warrant a cautious man's belief that the person
accused is guilty of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
DIGESTS
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS | V

HELD:
1. NO. For the warrantless arrest under paragraph
(a) of Section 5 of Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure to operate, two elements must
concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute
an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit a
crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence
or within the view of the arresting officer.

On the other hand, paragraph (b) of Section 5

requires for its application that at the time of the
arrest, an offense had in fact just been committed
offense with which he is charged. Specifically with residue), pieces of rolled used aluminum foil and
respect to arrests, it is such facts and circumstances pieces of used aluminum foil.
which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent The accused were arrested and brought to the police
man to believe that an offense has been committed precinct. The items found in the room were seized
by the person sought to be arrested, which clearly and turned over to the Pangasinan Provincial Police
do not obtain in appellant’s case. Crime Laboratory Officer, P/Insp. Maranion. The
Consequently, there being no lawful warrantless latter conducted a laboratory examination on the
arrest, the shabu purportedly seized from appellant seized items and all 115 plastic sachets, 11 pieces of
is rendered inadmissible in evidence for being the rolled used aluminum foil, and 27 of the 49 pieces of
proverbial fruit of the poisonous tree and as the used aluminum foil tested positive for
confiscated shabu is the very corpus delicti of the methamphetamine hydrochloride. The accused were
crime charged, appellant must be acquitted and subjected to a drug test and, except for Doria, they
exonerated from all criminal liability. were found to be positive for methamphetamine
OTHER DOCTRINES: hydrochloride.
The right of a person to be secure against any **Version of the Defense:
unreasonable seizure of his body and any Through its witnesses, accused A. Martinez, Dizon,
deprivation of his liberty is a most basic and and R. Martinez, claimed that in the morning of
fundamental one. The statute or rule which allows September 2, 2006, the three of them were along
exceptions to the requirement of warrants of arrest Arellano Street in Trinidad Subdivision, Dagupan
is strictly construed. Any exception must clearly fall City, to meet with a certain Apper who bumped the
within the situations when securing a warrant would passenger jeep of R. Martinez and who was to give
be absurd or is manifestly unnecessary as provided the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS
by the Rule. We cannot liberally construe the rule on CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS | V
arrests without warrant or extend its application
beyond the cases specifically provided by law. To do
so would infringe upon personal liberty and set back
a basic right so often violated and so deserving of full
protection.
10. People v. Martinez
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Read at your own risk. Read the full text----------------
-
DOCTRINE: Evidence procured on the occasion of an
unreasonable search and seizure is deemed tainted
for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree and
should be excluded.
FACTS: September 2, 2006, at around 12:45 in the
afternoon, PO1 Bernard Azardon was on duty at the
Police Community Precinct II along Arellano Street,
Dagupan City, when a concerned citizen which PO1
Azardon does not personally know entered the
precinct and reported that a pot session was going
on in the house of accused Rafael Gonzales in
Trinidad Subdivision, Dagupan City. Upon receipt of
the report, PO1 Azardon, PO1 Alejandro Dela Cruz,
and members of the Special Weapons and Tactics
(SWAT) team went to the house of Gonzales.
As the police officers entered the gate of the house,
they saw accused Orlando Doria coming out of the
side door and immediately arrested him. Inside the
house, they saw accused Gonzales, Arnold Martinez,
Edgar Dizon, and Rezin Martinez in a room. In front
of them were open plastic sachets (containing shabu
materials for the painting of said jeep. As they were
going around the subdivision looking for Apper, they
saw Gonzales in front of his house and asked him if
he noticed a person pass by. While they were
talking, Doria arrived. It was then that five to seven
policemen emerged and apprehended them. They
were handcuffed and brought to the police station in
Perez, Dagupan City, where they were incarcerated
and charged with sniffing shabu.
RTC held the accused guilty of the crime Possession
of Dangerous Drugs during parties, social gatherings
or meetings. The CA affirmed the RTC. Hence this
appeal.
ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not the evidence against the accused
are inadmissible?
2. Whether or not the chain of custody has not
been established?
to paragraph (b), the arresting officers had no
personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that
would lead them to believe that the accused had just
committed an offense.
Neither can it be said that the subject items were
seized in plain view. The elements of plain view are:
(d) A prior valid intrusion based on the valid
warrantless arrest in which the police are legally
present in the pursuit of their official duties;
(e) The evidence was inadvertently discovered by
the police who have the right to be where they are;
(f) The evidence must be immediately apparent; and,
(g) "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence
without further search.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS | V

HELD:
1. Yes. The evidence against the accused are
inadmissible. This case would appear to fall under
either a warrantless search incidental to a lawful
arrest or a plain view search, both of which require a
lawful arrest in order to be considered valid
exceptions to the constitutional guarantee. Rule 113
of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides
for the circumstances under which a warrantless
arrest is lawful. Thus:

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 just been committed and
he has probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances 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 is temporarily
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped
while being transferred from one confinement to
another.

As to paragraph (a) of Section 5 of Rule 113, the

arresting officers had no personal knowledge that at
the time of the arrest, accused had just committed,
were committing, or were about to commit a crime,
as they had no probable cause to enter the house of
accused Rafael Gonzales in order to arrest them. As
The evidence was not inadvertently discovered as
the police officers intentionally entered the house
with no prior surveillance or investigation before
they discovered the accused with the subject items.
The apprehending officers should have first
conducted a surveillance considering that the
identity and address of one of the accused were
already ascertained. After conducting the
surveillance and determining the existence of
probable cause, then a search warrant should have
been secured prior to effecting arrest and seizure.
The arrest being illegal, the ensuing search as a
result thereof is likewise illegal. Evidence procured
on the occasion of an unreasonable search and
seizure is deemed tainted for being the proverbial
fruit of a poisonous tree and should be excluded.
The subject items seized during the illegal arrest are
thus inadmissible. The drug, being the very corpus
delicti of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous
drugs, its inadmissibility thus precludes conviction,
and calls for the acquittal of the accused.
2. The apprehending team failed to comply with
Section 21 of R.A No. 9165. After the seizure and
confiscation of the subject items, no physical
inventory was conducted in the presence of the
accused, or their representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the DOJ, and
any elected public official. Thus, no inventory was
prepared, signed, and provided to the accused in the
manner required by law.
immediate release from detention, unless they are
confined for any other lawful cause.
11. People vs. Molina
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Read at your own risk. Read the full text----------------
-
DOCTRINE: To constitute a valid in flagrante delicto
arrest, two requisites must concur: (1) the person to
be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that
he has just committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act
is done in the presence or within the view of the
arresting officer.
FACTS: Sometime in June 1996, SPO1 Paguidopon
received an information regarding the presence of
an alleged marijuana pusher in Davao City. His
informer pointed to the motorcycle driver, accused-
appellant Mula, as the pusher. As to accused-
appellant Molina, SPO1 Paguidopon had no occasion
to see him before the arrest. Moreover, the names
and addresses of the accused-appellants came to the
knowledge of SPO1 Paguidopon only after they were
arrested. In the morning of August 8, 1996, SPO1
Paguidopon CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS | V

Accordingly, non-compliance with the prescribed

procedural requirements will not necessarily render
the seizure and custody of the items void and
invalid, provided that:
(i) There is a justifiable ground for such non-
compliance, and
(ii) The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved.

In this case, however, no justifiable ground is found

availing, and it is apparent that there was a failure to
properly preserve the integrity and evidentiary value
of the seized items to ensure the identity of the
corpus delicti from the time of seizure to the time of
presentation in court. A review of the testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses and the documentary
records of the case reveals irreparably broken links
in the chain of custody.
WHEREFORE, the August 7, 2009 Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. HC-NO. 03269 is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE and another judgment
entered ACQUITTING the accused and ordering their
received an information that the alleged pusher will Search and seizure may be made without a warrant
be passing at NHA, Maa, Davao City. He called for and the evidence obtained there from may be
assistance at the PNP proceed to the house of SPO1 admissible in the following instances:
Marino Paguidopon where they would wait for the (1) Search incident to a lawful arrest;
alleged pusher to pass by. (2) Search of a moving motor vehicle;
At around 9:30 in the morning of August 8, 1996, a (3) Search in violation of customs laws;
“trisikad” carrying the accused-appellants passed by. (4) Seizure of evidence in plain view;
At that instance, SPO1 Paguidopon pointed to the (5) When the accused himself waives his right
accused-appellants as the pushers. The police against unreasonable searches and seizures; and
officers then ordered the “trisikad” to stop. SPO1 (6) Stop and frisk situations.
Pamplona introduced himself as a police officer and
asked accused-appellant Molina to open the bag. As a rule, an arrest is considered legitimate if
Molina replied, “Boss, if possible we will settle this.” effected with a valid warrant of arrest. The Rules of
SPO1 Pamplona insisted on opening the bag, which Court, however, recognizes permissible warrantless
revealed dried marijuana leaves inside. Thereafter, arrests. “Thus, a peace officer or a private person
accused-appellants Mula and Molina were may, without warrant, arrest a person: CRIMINAL
handcuffed by the police officers. PROCEDURE DIGESTS
On December 6, 1996, accused-appellants, through CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS | V
counsel, jointly filed a Demurrer to Evidence,
contending that the marijuana allegedly seized from
them is inadmissible as evidence for having been
obtained in violation of their constitutional right
against unreasonable searches and seizures. The
demurrer was denied by the trial court. A motion for
reconsideration was filed by accused-appellants, but
this was likewise denied.
On April 25, 1997, the trial court sentenced the
accused-appellants to death. This case is an
automatic review by virtue of Article 47 of the
Revised Penal Code, and of Sec. 10 of Rule 122 of the
Rules of Court.
ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not the marijuana is inadmissible in
evidence for having been seized in violation of
appellants’ constitutional rights against
unreasonable searches and seizures

HELD:
1. Yes. The fundamental law of the land mandates
that searches and seizures be carried out in a
reasonable fashion. Section 2, Article III of the
Constitution provides:

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, and no search warrant or
warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable
cause to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and
the persons or things to be seized.
 the opportunity to be heard or (2) upon demurrer to
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested evidence filed by the accused with or without leave
has committed, is actually committing, or is of court.
attempting to commit an offense (arrest in flagrante i.e. It is a motion to dismiss the case filed by the
delicto);..” defense after the prosecution rests on the ground of
insufficiency of the evidence of the prosecution.
To constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, two 12. PEOPLE V. MENGOTE (G.R. No. 87059. June 22,
requisites must concur: (1) the person to be 1992)
arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he -------------------------------------------------------------------
has just committed, is actually committing, or is Read at your own risk. Read the full text----------------
attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act -
is done in the presence or within the view of the DOCTRINE: The officer arresting a person who has
arresting officer. just committed, is committing, or is about to commit
In the case at bar, accused-appellants manifested an offense must have personal knowledge of the
no outward indication that would justify their fact. The offense must also be committed in his
arrest. In holding a bag on board a trisikad, accused- presence or within his view.
appellants could not be said to be committing, FACTS: On August 1987, the Western Police District
attempting to commit or have committed a crime. received a telephone call from an informer that
The response of Molina that “Boss, if possible we will there were three suspicious looking persons at a
settle this” is an equivocal statement which standing corner in Tondo. Undercover officers were
alone will not constitute probable cause to effect an dispatched and they saw two men. The officers
inflagrante delicto arrest. Note that were it not for approached these persons (Mengote and Morellos).
SPO1 Marino Paguidopon (who did not participate in They tried to run away, but they were unable to
the arrest but merely pointed accused-appellants to escape because they were surrounded by other
the arresting officers), accused-appellants could not lawmen. A .38 caliber revolver CRIMINAL
be the subject of any suspicion, reasonable or PROCEDURE DIGESTS
otherwise. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS | V
SPO1 Paguidopon only learned Mula’s name and
address after the arrest. It is doubtful if SPO1
Paguidopon indeed recognized accused-appellant
Mula. It is worthy to note that, before the arrest, he
was able to see Mula in person only once,
pinpointed to him by his informer while they were
on the side of the road. These circumstances could
not have afforded SPO1 Paguidopon a closer look at
accused-appellant Mula, considering that the latter
was then driving a motorcycle when SPO1
Paguidopon caught a glimpse of him. With respect to
accused-appellant Molina, SPO1 Paguidopon
admitted that he had never seen him before the
arrest.
The Court holds that the arrest of accused-appellants
does not fall under the exceptions allowed by the
rules. Hence, the search conducted on their person
was likewise illegal. Consequently, the marijuana
seized by the peace officers could not be admitted as
evidence. WHEREFORE accused are ACQUITTED.
Other Doctrines:
Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure. Sec. 23. Demurrer to evidence. – After
the prosecution rests its case, the court may dismiss
the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence
(1) on its own initiative after giving the prosecution
with six live bullets was found in possession of
Mengote, while a fan knife was found from Morellos.
Both Mengote and Morellos was brought to the
police station for investigation.
Rigoberto Danganan was one of the witnesses who
testified that the weapon was one of the things
stolen from him during a robbery in his house on
June 1987. Danganan pointed Mengote as one of the
robbers, while Mengote claimed that the weapon
was planted on him at the time of his arrest. He was
convicted for violation of PD 1866 or Illegal/Unlawful
Possession of Firearms Law (as amended by RA
9516). Hence this appeal.
ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not Mengote’s warrantless arrest
was valid?
HELD:
1. No, Mengote’s warrantless arrest was invalid.
Under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court,
there are three legal reasons for a warrantless
arrest: (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 just been committed, and he has
probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances 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 is temporarily confined
while his case is pending, or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another.
what crime the offenders committed until Danganan
appeared in the police headquarters. It was also only
later when they discovered that Mengote did not
own the weapon nor he was licensed to possess it.
The Court reversed the decision and Mengote was
acquitted.
OTHER DOCTRINE:
Constitutional Law; Bill of Rights; Rights against
Illegal Search and Seizure
It is submitted in the Appellant's Brief that the
revolver should not have been admitted in evidence
because of its illegal seizure, no warrant therefor
having been previously obtained. Neither could it
have been seized as an incident of a lawful arrest
because the arrest of Mengote was itself unlawful,
having been also effected without a warrant. The
defense also contends that the testimony regarding
the alleged robbery in Danganan's house was
irrelevant and should also have been disregarded by
the trial court. There is no question that evidence
obtained as a result of an illegal search or seizure is
inadmissible in any proceeding for any purpose. That
is the absolute prohibition of Article III, Section 3(2),
of the Constitution. This is the celebrated
exclusionary rule based on the justification given by
Judge Learned Hand that "only CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE DIGESTS
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS | V

In the case of Mengote, none of the reasons under

Section 5 are applicable. Par. (c) of Section 5 cannot
be applied because Mengote is not an escapee. Par.
(a) requires that the offender (1) has committed,
actually committing, or attempting to commit an
offense, and (2) does these acts in the presence of
the arresting officer. It cannot be applied to
Mengote because he was just “looking from side to
side” and “holding his abdomen.” Mengote did not
commit any offense as stated in the case at bar. Par.
(b) cannot also be applied because the prosecution
has not shown that at the time of Mengote’s arrest
an offense had in fact just been committed and that
the arresting officers had personal knowledge of
facts indication that Mengote had committed it. The
information the authorities had was only hearsay.
Mere holding of one’s abdomen and shifty look on
suspicion cannot be a ground to arrest or restrain
someone’s liberty. The officers were not aware of
in case the prosecution which itself controls the a warrant, arrest a person when, in his presence, the
seizing officials, knows that it cannot profit by their person to be arrested has committed, is actually
wrong will the wrong be repressed." committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.
13. PEOPLE vs. TANGLIBEN; G.R. No. L-63630 | April Accused was caught in flagrante, since he was
6, 1990 carrying marijuana at the time of his arrest. This case
------------------------------------------------------------------- therefore falls squarely within the exception. The
Read at your own risk. Read the full text---------------- warrantless search was incident to a lawful arrest
- and is consequently valid.
DOCTRINE: A peace officer or a private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person when, in his The case at bar presented urgency. Although the trial
presence, the person to be arrested has committed, court's decision did not mention it, the transcript of
is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an stenographic notes reveals that there was an
offense. informer who pointed to the accused-appellant as
FACTS: In the late evening of March 2, 1982, carrying marijuana. Faced with such on-the-spot
Patrolmen Silverio Quevedo and Romeo L. Punzalan information, the police officers had to act quickly.
of the San Fernando Police Station were conducting There was not enough time to secure a search
surveillance mission at the Victory Liner Terminal. It warrant. To require search warrants during on-the-
was around 9:30 in the evening that said Patrolmen spot apprehensions of drug pushers, illegal
noticed Medel Tangliben carrying a traveling bag possessors of firearms, jueteng collectors, smugglers
who was acting suspiciously and they confronted of contraband goods, robbers, etc. would make it
him. Tangliben refused only to accede later on when extremely difficult, if not impossible to contain the
the patrolmen identified themselves. The patrolmen crimes with which these persons are associated.
found inside the bag were marijuana leaves wrapped 14. People vs. Malmstedt CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
in a plastic wrapper and weighing one kilo, more or DIGESTS
less. Tangliben explained that he was waiting for a CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS | V
ride to Olongapo City to deliver the marijuana
leaves. Tangliben was taken to the police
headquarters at San Fernando, Pampanga, for
further investigation.
Appellant, through counsel, contended that the
marijuana allegedly seized from the accused was a
product of an unlawful search without a warrant and
is therefore inadmissible in evidence. The RTC found
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act 6425
(Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 as amended) and
sentencing him to life imprisonment. Hence this
appeal.
ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not the package of marijuana
allegedly seized from appellant was a product of an
unlawful search without a warrant?

HELD:
1. NO. One of the exceptions to the general rule
requiring a search warrant is a search incident to a
lawful arrest. Section 12 of Rule 126 of the 1985
Rules on Criminal Procedure 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. Meanwhile, Rule 113, Sec. 5(a) provides
that a peace officer or a private person may, without
------------------------------------------------------------------- take charge of the bags, and that they would meet
Read at your own risk. Read the full text---------------- each other at the Dangwa Station.
- The Trial Court found the accused guilty beyond
DOCTRINE: Probable cause has been defined as such reasonable doubt. The trial court denied his defense
facts and circumstances which could lead a of planted evidence for failure to raise at the earliest
reasonable, discreet and prudent man to believe that opportunity.
an offense has been committed, and that the object ISSUE/S:
sought in connection with the offense are in the 1. Whether or not there was a valid arrest
placed sought to be searched. considering there was no search warrant issued to
FACTS: Captain Alen Vasco, the commanding officer the defendant?
of the first regional command (NARCOM) stationed
at camp Dangwa, ordered his men to set up a HELD:
temporary checkpoint for the purpose of checking all 1. Yes. There was a valid arrest. The Supreme Court
vehicles coming from the Cordillera Region. The held that under Section 5 Rule 113 of the Rules of
order to establish a checkpoint was prompted by Court provides: Arrest without warrant; when lawful
persistent reports that vehicles coming from Sagada – a peace officer or a private person may, without a
were transporting marijuana and other prohibited warrant, arrest a person:
drugs. And information also was received about a a) When, in the presence, the person to be arrested
Caucasian coming from Sagada had in his possession has committed, is actually committing, or is
prohibited drugs. attempting to commit an offense;
In the afternoon the bus where accused was riding b) When an offense has in fact just been committed,
stopped. Sgt. Fider and CIC Galutan boarded the bus and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating
and announced that they were members of the that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
NARCOM and that they would conduct an CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS
inspection. During the inspection CIC Galutan CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS | V
noticed a bulge on accused waist. Suspecting the
bulge on accused waist to be a gun, the officer asked
for accused’s passport and other identification
papers. When accused failed to comply, the officer
required him to bring out whatever it was that was
bulging o his waist. And it turned out to be a
pouched bag and when accused opened the same
bag the officer noticed four suspicious looking
objects wrapped in brown packing tape. It contained
hashish, a derivative of marijuana.
Thereafter, the accused was invited outside the bus
for questioning. But before he alighted from the bus
accused stopped to get two travelling bags. The
officer inspects the bag. It was only after the officers
had opened the bags that the accused finally
presented his passport. The two bags contained a
stuffed toy each; upon inspection the stuff toy
contained also hashish.
The accused raised the issue of illegal search of his
personal effects. He also claimed that the hashish
was planted by the NARCOM officers in his pouch
bag and that the two (2) travelling bags were not
owned by him, but were merely entrusted to him by
an Australian couple whom he met in Sagada. He
further claimed that the Australian couple intended
to take the same bus with him but because there
were no more seats available in said bus, they
decided to take the next ride and asked accused to
 ineffectiveness in law enforcement, to the detriment
c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who of society.
has escaped from a penal establishment or place 15. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CHUA HO SAN
where he is serving final judgment or temporary @ TSAY HO SAN
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped -------------------------------------------------------------------
while being transferred from one confinement to Read at your own risk. Read the full text----------------
another. -
DOCTRINE: A lawful arrest must precede a valid
Accused was searched and arrested while search; the process cannot be reversed. While a
transporting prohibited drugs. A crime was actually contemporaneous search of a person arrested may
being committed by the accused and he was caught be effected to deliver dangerous weapons or proofs
in flagrante delicto, thus the search made upon his or implements used in the commission of the crime
personal effects falls squarely under paragraph 1 of and which search may extend to the area within his
the foregoing provision of law, which allows a immediate control where he might gain possession of
warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest. a weapon or evidence he can destroy, a valid arrest
While it is true that the NARCOM officers were not must precede the search. The process cannot be
armed with a search warrant when the search was reversed.
made over the personal effects of accused, however, FACTS: In response to reports of rampant smuggling
under the circumstances of the case, there was of firearms and other contraband, Chief of Police Jim
sufficient probable cause for said officers to believe Lagasca Cid of Bacnotan Police Station, La Union
that accused was then and there committing a began patrolling the Bacnotan coastline with his
crime. officers.
Probable cause has been defined as such facts and While monitoring the coastal area of Barangay
circumstances which could lead a reasonable, Bulala, he intercepted a radio call at around 12:45
discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense p.m. from Barangay Captain Juan Almoite of
has been committed, and that the object sought in Barangay Tammocalao requesting for police
connection with the offense are in the placed sought assistance regarding an unfamiliar speedboat the
to be searched. latter had spotted. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS
The receipt of information by NARCOM that a CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS | V
Caucasian coming from Sagada had prohibited drugs
in his possession, plus the suspicious failure of the
accused to produce his passport, taken together as a
whole, led the NARCOM officers to reasonably
believe that the accused was trying to hide
something illegal from the authorities. From these
circumstances arose a probable cause which
justified the warrantless search that was made on
the personal effects of the accused.
The acts of the NARCOM officers in requiring the
accused to open his pouch bag and in opening one of
the wrapped objects found inside said bag (which
was discovered to contain hashish) as well as the
two (2) travelling bags containing two (2) teddy
bears with hashish stuffed inside them, were
prompted by accused's own attempt to hide his
identity by refusing to present his passport, and by
the information received by the NARCOM that a
Caucasian coming from Sagada had prohibited drugs
in his possession. To deprive the NARCOM agents of
the ability and facility to act accordingly, including,
to search even without warrant, in the light of such
circumstances, would be to sanction impotence and
According to Almoite, the vessel looked different
from the boats ordinarily used by fisherfolk of the
area and was poised to dock at Tammocalao shores.
Cid and six of his men led by SPO1 Reynoso Badua,
proceeded immediately to Tammocalao beach and
there conferred with Almoite. Cid then observed
that the speedboat ferried a lone male passenger,
who was later identified as Chua Ho San. When the
speed boat landed, the male passenger alighted,
carrying a multicolored strawbag, and walked
towards the road. Upon seeing the police officers,
the man changed direction.
Badua held Chua’s right arm to prevent him from
fleeing. They then introduced themselves as police
officers; however, Chua did not understand what
they’re saying. And by resorting of “sign language”,
Cid motioned with his hands for the man to open his
bag. The man acceded to the request. The said bag
was found to contain several transparent plastics
containing yellowish crystalline substances, which
was later identified to be methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu. Chua was then brought to
Bacnotan Police Station, where he was provided with
an interpreter to inform him of his constitutional
rights.
ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not the warrantless arrest, search
and seizure conducted by the Police Officers
constitute a valid exemption from the warrant
requirement?
accused is guilty of the offense with which he is
charged.
In the case at bar, there are no facts on record
reasonably suggestive or demonstrative of Chua's
participation in ongoing criminal enterprise that
could have spurred police officers from conducting
the obtrusive search. Chua was not identified as a
drug courier by a police informer or agent. The fact
that the vessel that ferried him to shore bore no
resemblance to the fishing boats of the area did not
automatically mark him as in the process of
perpetrating an offense. With these, the Court held
that there was no probable cause to justify a search
incidental to a lawful arrest.
A lawful arrest must precede a valid search; the
process cannot be reversed. While a
contemporaneous search of a person arrested may
be effected to deliver dangerous weapons or proofs
or implements used in the commission of the crime
and which search may extend to the area within his
immediate control where he might gain possession
of a weapon or evidence he can destroy, a valid
arrest must precede the search. The process cannot
be reversed. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS | V

HELD:
1. The Court held in the negative. The Court explains
that the Constitution bars State intrusions to a
person's body, personal effects or residence except if
conducted by virtue of a valid of a valid search
warrant issued in accordance with the Rules.
However, warrantless searches may be permitted
in the following cases, to wit:
1. Search of moving vehicles;
2. Seizure in plain view;
3. Customs searches;
4. Waiver or consent searches;
5. Stop and frisk situations; and
6. Search incidental to a lawful arrest.

It is required in cases of in flagrante delicto that the

arresting officer must have personal knowledge of
such facts or circumstances convincingly indicative
or constitutive of probable cause. Probable cause
means a reasonable ground of suspicion supported
by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to
warrant a cautious man's belief that the person
The Court likewise did not appreciate the contention 22, 1988. The investigation was in the form of
of the Prosecution that there was a waiver or questions and answers in the vernacular which were
consented search. If Chua could not understand reduced into writing. During cross-examination, he
what was orally articulated to him, how could he admitted that the three were not assisted by counsel
understand the police's "sign language?" More when they signed their respective waivers--neither
importantly, it cannot logically be inferred from his during the investigation nor at the time they affixed
alleged cognizance of the "sign language" that he their signatures to their respective statements.
deliberately, intelligently, and consciously waived his Pfc. Wencell Esquilona, member of the INP (now
right against such an intrusive search. PNP) Baleno Police Station, was presented as a
Finally, being a forbidden fruit, the subject regulated rebuttal witness for the prosecution. He stated that
substance was held to be inadmissible in evidence. he had effected the arrest of six of the accused,
Hence, the accused was acquitted as the evidence namely: Manlapaz, Cortes, Esquilona, Jr., Laurio,
was not sufficient to establish guilt beyond Banculo and Sual. As to the latter three, Esquilona
reasonable doubt. admitted that he was not armed with a warrant for
16. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ANICETO their arrest but that he had only received a wire
PEDROSO and AGUSTIN SALCEDO from the headquarters that the three were suspects
------------------------------------------------------------------- in the murder of Aparejado. At the time of the
Read at your own risk. Read the full text---------------- arrest, he likewise recovered one lantaka, an
- armalite revolver and fatigue uniforms at the house
DOCTRINE: A law enacted defining the rights of where the three were arrested. He stated further
persons arrested, detained or under custodial that he did not maltreat any of them and was not
investigation as well as the duties of the arresting, present during their investigation conducted by Sgt.
detaining and investigating officers; and penalizing Jose Bajar.
violations thereof. In spite of these clear ISSUE/S:
constitutional, jurisprudential and statutory 1. Whether or not the confessions and warrantless
guidelines, one still finds persistent infractions by arrest conducted in the case at bar constitute to be
public investigators and police authorities that have valid.
resulted in acquittals which oftentimes are not CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS
understood or appreciated by the public at large. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DIGESTS | V
FACTS: In an Information dated October 28, 1988,
First Assistant Provincial Fiscal Andres B. Barsaga, Jr.
charged Accused-appellants Noli Salcedo, Edison
Banculo, Juanito Sual, Jr. and Danilo Laurio, together
with Nonoy (Teodulo, Jr.) Esquilona, Reynaldo
Cortes, Paco (Romarico) Manlapaz, Gemo Ibaez,
Bolodoy Calderon, Gil Rapsing, Jose Fernandez, Noe
Albao, Ely Rapsing and Norie Huelva, with the crime
of murder
That on or about June 20, 1988, in the evening
thereof, at Barangay Gabi, Municipality of Baleno,
Province of Masbate the said accused, conspiring
together attack, assault and shot with a gun(,) hack
with a bolo Honorio Aparejado y Fideles, hitting the
latter on the different parts of the body, that caused
his death. On May 6, 1991, the trial judge rendered
judgment convicting Salcedo as principal; and
Banculo, Sual, Jr. and Laurio as accomplices in the
crime of murder. Esquilona, Jr., Cortes and Manlapaz
were acquitted.
Evidence of prosecution presented P/Sgt. Jose Bajar
of the Aroroy Police Station testified that he had
conducted the investigation of Accused Danilo
Laurio, Juan Sual, Jr. and Edison Banculo on August
HELD:
1. No. Even assuming that in the instant case the
extrajudicial confession made by appellant spoke the
truth and was not extracted through violence or
intimidation, still the failure of the police
investigators to inform appellant of his right to
remain silent, coupled with the denial of his right to
a competent and independent counsel or the
absence of effective legal assistance when he waived
his constitutional rights, rendered the confession
inadmissible under Sec. 12, par. 3, Art. III, of the
1987 Constitution.

The Court understands the difficulties faced by law

enforcement agencies in apprehending violators of
the law. It sympathizes with the public clamor for
the bringing of criminals before the altar of justice.
However, quick solution of crimes and the
consequent apprehension of malefactors are not the
end-all and be-all of law enforcement. Enforcers of
the law must follow the procedure mandated by the
Constitution and the law. Otherwise, their efforts
would be meaningless. And their expenses in trying
to solve crimes would constitute needless
expenditures of taxpayers’ money. This Court values
liberty and will always insist on the observance of
basic constitutional rights as a condition sine qua
non against the awesome investigative and
prosecutory powers of government.