RULE 113
B. WARRANTLESS ARRESTS (sec. 5)
SARAUM v. PEOPLE
781 SCRA
Promulgated: 25 Jan. 2016
FACTS:
On August 17, 2006, PO3 Larrobis received a call
regarding the illegal drug activities in Sitio Camansi,
Barangay Lorega, Cebu City. Thereafter, a buy-
bust team was formed composed of PO3 Larrobis
(perimeter security), PO1 Jumalon (Back-up
Operative), PO2 Sta. Ana (Poseur-buyer), PO1
Cabahug and PO1 Aniñon (both are perimeter
securities) against a certain "Pata. PO1 Aniñon
coordinated with the PDEA regarding the operation
and After preparing all the necessary documents,
such as the pre-operation report and submitting the
same to the PDEA, the team proceeded to the
subject area.
During the operation, "Pata" eluded arrest as he
tried to run towards his shanty. Inside the house,
which was divided with a curtain as partition, the
buy-bust team also saw Saraum and Peter
Esperanza, who were holding drug paraphernaliaw
in preparation to have a "shabu" pot session. They
recovered from Saraum’s possession a lighter,
rolled tissue paper, and aluminum tin foil (tooter).
PO3 Larrobis confiscated the items, placed them in
the plastic pack of misua wrapper, and made initial
markings ("A" for Saraum and "P" for Esperanza).
At the police station, PO3 Larrobis marked as "AIS-
08-17-2006" the paraphernalia recovered from
Saraum.
By way of defense, Saraum denied the commission
of the alleged offense. He testified that on the date
and time in question, he was passing by Lorega
Cemetery on his way to the house of his parents-in-
law when he was held by men with firearms. They
were already with "Antik" and "Pata," both of whom
were his neighbors. Believing that he had not
committed anything illegal, he resisted the arrest.
He learned of the criminal charge only when he
was brought to the court.
RTC: Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of charged.
Court of Appeals: affirmed the judgment of
conviction against petitioner Saraum rendered by
(RTC), Branch 57, Cebu City,
ISSUE: Whether the arrest of Saraum deemed to
be a valid warrantless arrest.
HELD AND RATIO: The SC in affirming the
appealed decision ruled that Saraum was arrested
during the commission of a crime, which instance
does not require a warrant in accordance with
Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on
Criminal Procedure.l In arrest in flagrante delicto,
the accused is apprehended at the very moment he
is committing or attempting to commit or has just
committed an offense in the presence of the
arresting officer. 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. PO3 Larrobis
described in detail how they were able to
apprehend him, who was then holding a disposable
lighter in his right hand and a tin foil and a rolled
tissue paper in his left hand, while they were in the
course of arresting somebody.
The valid warrantless arrest gave the officers the
right to search the shanty for objects relating to the
crime and seize the drug paraphernalia they found.
In the course of their lawful intrusion, they
inadvertently saw the various drug paraphernalia.
As these items were plainly visible, the police
officers were justified in seizing them. Considering
that Saraum’s arrest was legal, the search and
seizure that resulted from it were likewise lawful.
The various drug paraphernalia that the police
officers found and seized in the shanty are
admissible in evidence for having proceeded from a
valid search and seizure.
Even if it be considered that the arrest is invalid,
Saraum is deemed to have waived any objection
thereto when he did not raise the issue before
entering his plea. "The established rule is that an
accused may be estopped from assailing the
legality of his arrest if he failed to move for the
quashing of the Information against him before his
arraignment. Any objection involving the arrest or
the procedure in the court's acquisition of
jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be
made before he enters his plea; otherwise the
objection is deemed waived." In this case, counsel
for Saraum manifested its objection to the
admission of the seized drug paraphernalia,
invoking illegal arrest and search, only during the
formal offer of evidence by the prosecution.
RULE 113
B. WARRANTLESS ARRESTS (sec. 5)
PEOPLE v. VASQUEZ
714 SCRA
Promulgated: 15 Jan. 2014
FACTS:
In the morning of April 1, 1998, a confidential
informant went to the office of P/Insp. Fajardo and
reported that a certain Donald Vasquez alias Don
was engaged in illegal drug and claiming further
that he was an employee of the NBI. According to
the informant, alias Don promised him a good
commission if he would present a potential buyer of
drugs.
P/Insp. Fajardo relayed the information to P/Supt.
Pepito Domantay, who then instructed him to form
a team and conduct a possible buy-bust against
alias Don. She formed a team on the same day,
which consisted of herself as a team leader, PO2
Trambulo, PO1 Agravante, PO1 Pedrosa, PO1
Sisteno, and PO1 De la Rosa. With the help of the
informant, she was able to set up a meeting with
alias Don at around 9:00 p.m. at Cindy’s
Restaurant in Welcome Rotonda.
For security reasons, she brought the team along.
At about 9:00 p.m., P/Insp. Fajardo and her team
went to the meeting place with the informant. The
members of her team positioned themselves
strategically inside the restaurant. The informant
introduced P/Insp. Fajardo to alias Don as the
buyer of shabu and Fajardo asked the latted he
was indeed an employee of the NBI to which he
replied in the affirmative. They agreed that she
would buy 250 grams of shabu for ₱250,000.00
and that they will meet the following day at Cindy’s
Restaurant around 10:00 to 11:00 p.m.
In the evening of April 2, 1998, P/Insp. Fajardo and
her team went back to Cindy’s Restaurant. Alias
Don was already waiting for her when she arrived.
He asked for the money and she showed the
money which includes five genuine ₱500.00 bills,
which were inserted on top of five bundles of play
money to make it appear that she had ₱250,000.00
with her.
Afterwhich, he suggested that they go to a more
secure place. They agreed for the sale to take
place at around 1:30 to 2:00 a.m. on April 3, 1998
in front of Don’s apartment at 765 Valdez St.,
Sampaloc, Manila.
The team proceeded to the Western Police District
(WPD) Station along U.N. Avenue for coordination.
Afterwards, they proceeded to the area and agreed
that that the pre-arranged signal was for P/Insp.
Fajardo to scratch her hair, which would signify that
the deal had been consummated and the rest of the
team would rush up to the scene.
When the team arrived at the target area around
1:15 a.m. on April 3, 1998, the two vehicles they
used were parked along the corner of the street.
P/Insp. Fajardo and the informant walked towards
the apartment of Don and stood in front of the
apartment gate. Around 1:45 a.m., Don came out of
the apartment with a male companion. He
demanded to see the money, but P/Insp. Fajardo
told him that she wanted to see the drugs first; as
such, Don gave her a brown envelope. Upon
checking its contents, she found therein a plastic
sachet containing white crystalline substance and
assumed that the same was indeed shabu. She
then gave the buy-bust money to Don and
scratched her hair to signal the rest of the team to
rush to the scene. P/Insp. Fajardo identified herself
as a narcotics agent. The two suspects tried to flee
but PO2 Trambulo was able to stop them from
doing so. P/Insp. Fajardo took custody of the
shabu. When she asked Don if the latter had
authority to possess or sell shabu, he replied in the
negative. P/Insp. Fajardo put her initials "JSF" on
the genuine ₱500.00 bills. After the arrest of the
two suspects, the buy-bust team brought them to
the police station. The suspects’ rights were read to
them and they were subsequently booked.
In his defense, Vasquez contended that neither
was there a warrant of arrest nor search warrant
which thus makes his arrest illegal and further
avers that the evidence obtained as a result thereof
was inadmissible in court.
RTC: Convicted the appellant of the crimes
charged. The trial court held that the appellant did
not present any evidence that would show that the
police officers in this case were impelled by an evil
motive to charge him of very serious crimes and
falsely testify against him.
Court of Appeals: affirmed with modification (as
to the penalty for viol. Of sec 16) the Joint Decision
of RTC Manila, Branch 41, which convicted the
appellant Donald Vasquez y Sandigan of the
crimes charged (Sections 15 and 16 Article III of
Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, otherwise
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972).
ISSUE: whether the arrest of accused-apellant is
illegal.

HELD and RATIO: In affirming the decision of the

appellate court, the SC ruled that the appellant can
no longer assail the validity of his arrest. In People
v. Tampis, the court pronounced that "[a]ny
objection, defect or irregularity attending an arrest
must be made before the accused enters his plea
on arraignment. Having failed to move for the
quashing of the information against them before
their arraignment, appellants are now estopped
from questioning the legality of their arrest. Any
irregularity was cured upon their voluntary
submission to the trial court’s jurisdiction."

Further, appellant was caught in flagrante delicto

of selling illegal drugs to an undercover police
officer in a buy-bust operation. His arrest, thus, falls
within the ambit of Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure when an
arrest made without warrant is deemed lawful.
Having established the validity of the warrantless
arrest in this case, the Court holds that the
warrantless seizure of the illegal drugs from the
appellant is likewise valid. As held in People v.
Cabugatan “This interdiction against warrantless
searches and seizures, however, is not absolute
and such warrantless searches and seizures have
long been deemed permissible by jurisprudence in
instances of (1) search of moving vehicles, (2)
seizure in plain view, (3) customs searches, (4)
waiver or consented searches, (5) stop and frisk
situations (Terry search), and search incidental to a
lawful arrest. The last includes a valid warrantless
arrest, for, while as a rule, an arrest is considered
legitimate [if] effected with a valid warrant of arrest,
the Rules of Court recognize permissible
warrantless arrest, to wit: (1) arrest in flagrante
delicto, (2) arrest effected in hot pursuit, and (3)
arrest of escaped prisoners.”

Thus, the appellant cannot seek exculpation by

invoking belatedly the invalidity of his arrest and the
subsequent search upon his person.