You are on page 1of 9

People v.

Villareal
G.R. No. 201363
March 18, 2013
Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-Appellant: Nazareno Villareal y Lualhati

Facts:
In the morning of December 25, 2006, Police officer Renato de Leon was driving his
motorcycle. From a distance of 8 to 10 meters he saw the appellant Villareal, holding a plastic
sachet of shabu. When Villareal saw him, he immediately ran away. When de Leon caught
Villareal, he was brought to the police station where he was arrested and the alleged shabu was
turned over to be marked as evidence. The substance was tested and was proven to be a 0.03
gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. The appellant was charged with
the violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
During the trial de Leon claimed that the appellant had previous criminal charges for the same
offense and that he arrested the appellant because when he saw that the appellant was holding
a powdery white substance, it immediately gave him suspicion as to the matter thereof.

Issue: Whether or not there was a valid warrantless arrest based on the police officers personal
knowledge of the criminal record of the appellant.

Held:
No, there was no valid warrantless arrest. A lawful warrantless arrest exists when either
of the following circumstances are present: (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 he 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 service final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or
has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. Based on the distance
and the amount of the powdery substance it is insufficient to conclude, even with clear vision
that such substance constitutes as shabu. The act of the appellant of examining the substance
is not tantamount to arouse suspicion of a commission or possible commission of a crime even
if he has previous criminal history on the same offense.

Personal knowledge is not defined as knowledge of a persons criminal record, but
personal knowledge as to the actual commission of the crime. The act of running away from
authority also does not automatically imply guilt on the accused. There are various reasons to
run away from authority, and commission of a crime is just one of the possible reasons.

Because there is an absence of overt act there is no justification for the appellants warrantless
arrest. Hence, it cannot be presented as evidence in court as it is a fruit of the poisonous tree.

People v. Martinez
G.R. No. 191366
December 13, 2010
Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-Appellants: Arnold Martinez y Ngeles, Edgar Dizon y Ferrer, Rezin Martinez y
Carolino, and Rafael Gonzales y Cunanan

Facts:
The police received reports of a pot session in the house of one of the accused, Rafael
Gonzales. They went into the house and immediately arrested the group of accused. In the
house they found open plastic sachets that allegedly contain shabu residue as well as pieces of
aluminum foil. The appellants along with the items found at the house were brought to the
precinct. Because 27 of the 49 pieces of used aluminum foil seized in the house was proven to
contain shabu residue, a criminal charge was filed against them, where the court ruled in favor
of the people. The accused Rafael Gonzales appealed to the court.

Issue: Whether or not there was an illegal warrantless arrest.

Held:
Yes, there was an illegal warrantless arrest. Under Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of
Court, a warrantless arrest is applicable only in the following instances: (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 he 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 service final judgment or is temporarily confined while
his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

Though receiving reports from informants is a valid cause to find the alleged perpetrators, the
case presented is not a valid case of warrantless arrest because the activity was not something
the officers can consider as a personal knowledge as it was not an act that can be immediately
seen in public. The police officers in this case cannot rely on informants and suspicion to legally
enter the premises.

Hence, the officers must have first conducted a surveillance to find probable cause. If probable
cause exists they must secure a search warrant. It is only then that they may enter the premises
of Gonzales and proceed to the arrest and seizure of property.

The illegal arrest of the appellants as well as the illegal confiscation of property must not be held
against the appellants. While it is true that the rules of procedure are used as a means to
achieve justice, it must not be done so as to prejudice substantial rights. Thus, the accused are
acquitted from the crime charged.

People v. Molina
G.R. No. 133917
February 19, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-Appellants: Nasario Molina y Manama Bobong and Gregorio Mula y Malagura
Boboy

Facts:
In June 1996, Police Officer Marino Paguidopon was told by an informant of the
presence of an alleged marijuana pusher in Davao City. When he went with the informant to find
this alleged drug pusher, the informant pointed at accused Mula, a motorcycle driver, as the
pusher. On August 8, 1996, upon receiving another information, Paguidopon called for
assistance of PNP where other police officers gathered at his house where they waited for the
appellant Mula to pass by. When Mula and Molina passed by, the police officers boarded their
vehicle and found dried mariuana inside their bag. They were subsequently arrested. When a
case was charged against the appellants they contended that the marijuana seized from them
which was incident to their arrest should not be admissible as evidence because it violates their
right from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Issue: Whether or not the warrantless arrest, search and seizure fall within the recognized
exceptions to the warrant requirement.

Held:
No, there was not valid warrantless arrest and likewise no valid warrantless search and
seizure. Cases where warrant is unnecessary is indicated in Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of
Court. These cases are: (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 a 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.

It does not fall under any of the exceptions because there was no commission or act that is
considered as illegal when the appellants were arrested. For an in flagrante delicto arrest to
exist the following must exist: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating
that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to c0mmit a crime, and (2)
such overt act is done in the presence of within the view of the arresting officer. They did not
indicate that they were about to commit, were committing, or committed a crime at the time they
were arrested. While reliable information is enough to ground a suspicion, it is not strong
enough so as to indicate probable cause much less justify an in flagrante delicto arrest.

People v. Mengote
G.R. No. 87059
June 22, 1992
Plaintiff-Appelee: People of the Philippines
Accused-Appellant: Rogelio Mengote y Tejas

Facts:
On August 8, 1987, an informant called the Western Police District regarding suspicious
looking persons at the corner of Juan Luna and North Bay Boulevard, Tondo, Manila. Patrolmen
Rolando Mercado and Alberto Juan went to the area wearing plainclothes in order to observe
the area. They noticed two men suspiciously looking from side to side. One of them was holding
his abdomen. The policemen revealed to them that they were police officers which caused them
to run away. They were unsuccessful because by then they were already surrounded by police
officers stationed for this operation. The two men were later identified as Nicanor Morellos and
the accused Rogelio Mengote. Both men were searched and a stolen revolver with six live
bullets was found under Mengotes possession. Morellos was found to be in possession of a
fine knife. Mengote was charged and convicted for violating P.D. 1866. Mengote attested that
the revolver must not have been seized as an incident to a lawful arrest, because the arrest
itself is unlawful.

Issue: Whether or not the arrest of Mengote is unlawful so as to constitute the seizure of stolen
property inadmissible as evidence in court.

Held:
Yes, in no case was it established that the acts of the appellant constitute as an
exception to the rule that warrant of arrest must first be issued before a lawful arrest is
established. Rule 113 of Section 5 of the Rules of Court establishes the instances where
warrant is unnecessary, namely: (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 a 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.

Looking from side to side and holding your abdomen is not enough to constitute as an offense.
It is not even enough to assume probable cause. Warrantless arrest cannot simply be imposed
upon those who merely look suspicious, allowing so would prejudice a persons constitutional
rights. Knowledge of a crime in the police officers presence must precede the arrest. Hence,
the appellant is acquitted from the crime charged.

Harvey v. CID
G.R. No. 82544
June 28, 1988
Petitioners: In the Matter of The Petition for habeas Corpus of: Andrew Harvey, John Sherman
and Adriaan Van Del Eshout
Respondent: Honorable Commissioner Miriam Defensor Santiago, Commission on Immigration
and Deportation

Facts:
The petitioners are three of the twenty-two originally arrested aliens suspected for being
alien pedophiles. They were all arrested after close surveillance of their activity for three
months. Seventeen of them opted to self-deportation, while one was acquitted. Hence, only the
three of them were detained. When they were apprehended, photos and photo negatives of
boys and girls engaged in sexual acts were found in their possession. During the operation,
Harvey and Sherman were each found with two young boys in their respective rooms. On March
4, 1988, deportation proceedings were instituted and they were charged of violating Section 69
of the Revised Administrative Code for being undesirable aliens. On March 7, 1988, warrants of
arrest were issued by against the petitioners, specifically for violating Sections 37, 45, and 46 of
the Immigration Act and Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code. After denying their
petitions for bail, the petitioners availed for a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus where they
attested that their detention and arrest lacked validity.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioners were lawfully arrested.

Held:
Yes, because the arrest of the petitioners were based on probable cause. Rule 113,
Section 5 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure also provides justification for their
warrantless arrest because such can be made under two circumstances: (1) when such person
has committed, actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense in his presence; and (2)
when an offense has, in fact, been committed and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that
the person to be arrested has committed it.

Probable cause exists because before they were arrested, careful surveillance was made for three
months. This probable cause, served as a justification for their arrest; where upon arrest, they were
even found in their respective rooms with young boys. Such is sufficient reasonable ground in
committing an offense. The search and seizure of their items were proven to be merely incidental to
their arrest and must therefore be deemed lawful.

Should these acts not constitute lawful arrest, the subsequent issuance of a warrant of arrest already
creates legality of restraint upon their persons. The confinement has thus become legal. Hence, the
petition is dismissed and the Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied.

People v. Tangliben
G.R. No. L-63630
April 6, 1990
Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines
Defendant-Appellant: Medel Tangliben y Bernardino

Facts:
On March 2, 1982, a surveillance mission was conducted by Patrolmen Quevedo and
Punzalan with Barangay Tanod Sacdalan at the Victory Liner Terminal in Pampanga based on a
tip given by an informant. They saw the appellant carrying a red bag and acting suspiciously.
They asked him to open the travelling bag but he refused. When the opened the same they
found marijuana leaves, the appellant claims that he was supposed to deliver them to Olongapo
City. Upon arrest, the alleged marijuana leaves were tested. They were indeed found to be
marijuana. He was charged and found guilty of illegal possession of illegal drugs.

Issue: Whether or not there was a valid warrantless arrest.

Held:
Yes, there was a valid warrantless arrest because during his arrest he was in flagrante
delicto. He was in the act of possessing marijuana. This case, therefore, falls under Section 5
(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure which states that a warrantless arrest may be
valid when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or
is attempting to commit an offense.

Furthermore, the search was not made purely on the basis of him looking suspicious; it was also
because of the tip given by an informant that built their surveillance mission out of urgency of
handling on the spot information. Hence, there was no time for them to request for a warrant of
arrest. Hence, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

People v. Malmstedt
G.R. No. 91107
June 19, 1991
Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines
Defendant-Appellant: Mikael Malmstedt

Facts:
On May 11, 1989, the appellant, Malmstedt, a Swedish National, rode a bus stop in
order to catch a trip to Baguio City. On the same day, the Commanding Officer of the First
Regional Command, Captain Alen Vasco ordered to set up a checkpoint at Kilometer 14, Acop,
Tublay, Mountain Province. This was established to prevent the alleged delivery of marijuana in
the area and also to catch a Caucasian coming from Sagada, who based on information
received by Vasco that morning that an alleged Caucasian was the one carrying the drugs.

When the bus arrived at the checkpoint, the NARCOM officers inspected the same and
made notice of the appellant. An officer asked the appellant to furnish them his identification
papers, but the appellant failed to do so. Because the appellant had a buldge near his waist, the
officer also asked that he show what the bulge could be. When they saw that such was a pouch,
the officer the noticed that he had 4 suspicious looking objects wrapped in brown packaging
tape. When they were unwrapped, they all contain hashish or marijuana. The appellant was
asked to alight the bus, as he was doing this he grabbed two travelling bags. Each contained
teddy bears. When they brought the accused to their headquarters they found that even the
teddy bears were filled with hashish. Samples from his items were taken to verify if such was
marijuana and this was proven to be true. Because of this a case was filed against the
appellant, the appellant attested that the search was an illegal search and that the illegal items
were merely planted by the officers to arrest him. The court found him guilty beyond reasonable
doubt.

Issue: Whether or not the warrantless search and seizure is made pursuant to a lawful
warrantless arrest.

Held:
Yes, the arrest constitutes a lawful warrantless arrest. Pursuant to Rule 113, Section 5,
arrests are deemed lawful when: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense
has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the
person to be arrested has committed it; and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner
who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.

NARCOM received information regarding the transportation of prohibited drugs the same day
that the items were about to be transported. There was not enough time on the part of
NARCOM to obtain a search warrant. When the accused was search he was in the act of
transporting illegal drugs, such is an offense actually being committed. The search emanates
from the information provided by the informant coupled with the failure of the appellant to
present his passport when asked to do so. He was caught in flagrante delicto, thus when he
was search such was incident to a lawful warrantless arrest. The items therefore, may be
admissible in court.


People v. Chua
G.R. No. 128222
June 17, 1999
Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-Appellant: Chua Ho San or Tsay Ho San

Facts:
Because of the rampant smuggling of firearms and contraband, the Chief of Police of
Banoctan Police Station of La Union, Jim Lagasca Sid started patrolling the coastline of
Bacnotan along with the other officers. Barangay Captain Juan Almoite then called them to
inform them of a suspicious speedboat approaching the area. When the man alighted, he was
seen holding a strawbag. When the officers approached him, he immediately tried to run away
but it was ineffective as one of the officers was able to grab his arm. They learned that the man
does not understand English, and Filipino and was probably of Taiwanese descent. They tried
to communicate with him, using sign language to permit them to open the bag. When they
searched his bag, they found packets containing yellowish crystalline substances. He was
brought to the police station where he was identified as Chua Ho San. The substance he carried
were tested and were found be shabu. The appellant was charged with transportation of
prohibited drugs, violating Section 15, Article III of R.A. 6425. Chua argued that the items found
in his possession were fruits of the poisonous tree because it was an illegal arrest.

Issue: Whether or not the warrantless arrest, search and seizure conducted under the facts of
the case at bar constitute a valid exemption from the warrant requirement.

Held:
No, because there is no probable cause. Before a person may be apprehended there
should have been compelling reasons to subject him to arrest. Merely walking while carrying a
straw bag is not an overt manifestation of a criminal act; nor was it substantial to support the
existence of probable cause. Reliable information cannot also raise the issue of probable cause
as it alone, does not manifest an actual commission of an illegal act. Chua Ho San is therefore,
acquitted of the crime charged.

People v. Salcedo
G.R. No. 100920
June 17, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-Appellants: Noli Salcedo Ka Tony, Gemo Ibanez Ka Titing, Bolodoy Calderon,
Juanito Sual Jr., Edison Banculo, Nonoy Esquilona, Gil Rapsing, Jose Fernandez, Reynaldo
Cortez, Noe Albao, Ely Rapsing, Paco Manlapaz, Danilo Laurio and Norie Huelva, accused Noli
Salcedo, Edison Banculo, Juan Sual Jr. and Danilo Laurio

Facts:
On June 20, 1988, the appellants went to the house of Edwin Cortes and the victim,
Honorio Aparejado. They made the two lie on the ground where they were hogtied and were
brought near a creek. Aparejado was shot by appellant Salcedo twice, and was then hacked by
the same. All the appellants then hacked the victim and took out his liver and knee cap. When
the appellants left, Cortes ran away and told the incident to the authorities by identifying
Salcedo and Calderon as two of the principals to the commission of the crime. The police was
able to arrest six of the accused, namely: Manalpaz, Cortes, Esquillona Jr., Laurio, Banculo and
Sual. All were arrested without a warrant of arrest and were merely arrested by reason of them
being suspects to the crime. However, all of the appellants contended that they were not the
perpetrators of the crime. Banculo, Sual Jr. and Laurio claim that they were maltreated and
forced to sign statements prepared by the police investigator without assistance of counsel. This
was admitted by the police investigator himself during the trial.

Issue: Whether or not the appellants were denied due process.

Held:
Yes, they were denied due process. Under Section 12, par. 3, Art. III of the 1987
Constitution, confessions obtained without being told of his right to remain silent and his right to
counsel is inadmissible as evidence. Hence, whether this admission is judicial or extra-judicial it
will have no bearing in this court as the constitutional rights of a person should be gravely
observed at every stage of criminal investigation, prosecution and judgment. Hence, the
confessions of Banculo, Sual Jr, and Laurio are clearly inadmissible, and therefore inadequate
to prove their participation in the commission of the crime.