Rem1 Case Digests || CrimPro Jurisdiction || Castro, Boco

G.R. Nos. 111771-77 November 9, 1993 ANTONIO L. SANCHEZ, vs.The Honorab e HARRIET O. !E"ETRIO# $ACTS% On July 28, 199 , t!e Presidential "nti#Crime Commission re$uested t!e %iling o% a&&ro&riate c!arges against several &ersons, including t!e &etitioner, in connection 'it! t!e ra&e#slay o% (ary )ileen *armenta and t!e +illing o% "llan ,ome-. "cting on t!is re$uest, t!e Panel o% *tate Prosecutors o% t!e De&artment o% Justice conducted a &reliminary investigation. "%ter'ards, P.P Commander Re/ Piad issued an 0invitation0 to t!e &etitioner re$uesting !im to a&&ear %or investigation at Cam& 1icente 2im in Canlu3ang, 2aguna. 4t 'as served on *anc!e- in t!e morning o% "ugust 1 ,199 , and !e 'as immediately ta+en to t!e said cam&. "t a con%rontation t!at same day, *anc!e- 'as &ositively identi%ied 3y "urelio Centeno, and *PO 444 1ivencio (ala3anan, '!o 3ot! e/ecuted con%essions im&licating !im as a &rinci&al in t!e ra&e#slay o% *armenta and t!e +illing o% ,ome-. 5!e &etitioner 'as t!en &laced on 0arrest status0 and ta+en to t!e De&artment o% Justice in (anila. 5!e res&ondent &rosecutors immediately conducted an in$uest u&on !is arrival, 'it! "tty. *alvador Panelo as !is counsel. "%ter t!e !earing, a 'arrant o% arrest 'as served on *anc!e-. On "ugust 16, 199 , t!e res&ondent &rosecutors %iled 'it! t!e Regional 5rial Court o% Calam3a, 2aguna, seven in%ormations c!arging "ntonio 2. *anc!e-, 2uis Corcolon, Rogelio Corcolon, Pe&ito 7a'it, Bald'in Brion, Jr., ,eorge (edialdea and 8oilo "ma 'it! t!e ra&e and +illing o% (ary )ileen *armenta. On "ugust 26, 199 , Judge )usta$uio P. *to. Domingo o% t!at court issued a 'arrant %or t!e arrest o% all t!e accused, including t!e &etitioner, in connection 'it! t!e said crime. 5!e res&ondent *ecretary o% Justice su3se$uently e/&ressed !is a&&re!ension t!at t!e trial o% t!e said cases mig!t result in a miscarriage o% 9ustice 3ecause o% t!e tense and &artisan atmos&!ere in 2aguna in %avor o% t!e &etitioner and t!e relations!i& o% an em&loyee, in t!e trial court 'it! one o% t!e accused. 5!is Court t!ereu&on ordered t!e trans%er o% t!e venue o% t!e seven cases to Pasig, (etro (anila, '!ere t!ey 'ere ra%%led to res&ondent Judge :arriet Demetriou. On *e&tem3er 1;, 199 , t!e seven in%ormations 'ere amended to include t!e +illing o% "llan ,ome- as an aggravating circumstance. On t!at same date, t!e &etitioner %iled a motion to $uas! t!e in%ormations su3stantially on t!e grounds no' raised in t!is &etition. On *e&tem3er 1 , 199 , a%ter oral arguments, t!e res&ondent 9udge denied t!e motion. *anc!e- t!en %iled 'it! t!is Court t!e instant &etition %or certiorari and &ro!i3ition 'it! &rayer %or a tem&orary restraining order<'rit o% in9unction. ISS#ES% 1. 2. . ?. @. HEL!% The Preliminary Investigation 5!e records o% t!e !earings !eld on "ugust 9 and 1 , 199 , 3elie t!e &etitionerAs contention t!at !e 'as not accorded t!e rig!t to &resent counter#a%%idavits. During t!e &reliminary investigation on "ugust 9, 199 , t!e &etitionerAs counsel, "tty. (arciano Brion, mani%ested t!at !is client 'as 'aiving t!e &resentation o% a counter#a%%idavit. .onet!eless, t!e !ead o% t!e Panel o% Prosecutors, res&ondent Jovencito 8uBo, told "tty. Brion t!at !e could still %ile a counter#a%%idavit u& to "ugust 2C, 199 . .o suc! counter#a%%idavit 'as %iled. 5!e &etitioner 'as &resent at t!e !earing and !e never diso'ned "tty. Panelo as !is counsel. During t!e entire &roceedings, !e remained $uiet and let t!is counsel s&ea+ and argue on !is 3e!al%. 4t 'as only in !is tardy Re&ly t!at !e !as suddenly 3estirred !imsel% and 'ould no' $uestion !is re&resentation 3y t!is =!et!er *anc!e- 'as denied t!e rig!t to &resent evidence at t!e &reliminary investigation Only t!e Om3udsman !ad t!e com&etence to conduct t!e investigation =!et!er *anc!e->s 'arrantless arrest is illegal and t!e court !as t!ere%ore not ac$uired 9urisdiction over !im =!et!er t!e in%ormation c!arging *anc!e- 'it! seven !omicides arising %rom t!e deat! o% only t'o &ersons is incorrect =!et!er as a &u3lic o%%icer, *anc!e- can 3e tried %or t!e o%%ense only 3y t!e *andigan3ayan.

la'yer as unaut!ori-ed and ino%%icious. *ection , Paragra&! DdE, Rule 112 o% t!e Rules o% Court, &rovides t!at i% t!e res&ondent cannot 3e su3&oenaed or, i% su3&oenaed, does not su3mit counter#a%%idavits, t!e investigating o%%icer s!all 3ase !is resolution on t!e evidence &resented 3y t!e com&lainant. "t any rate, it is settled t!at t!e a3sence o% a &reliminary investigation does not im&air t!e validity o% t!e in%ormation or ot!er'ise render t!e same de%ective and neit!er does it a%%ect t!e 9urisdiction o% t!e court over t!e case or constitute a ground %or $uas!ing t!e in%ormation. 4% no &reliminary investigation !as 3een !eld, or i% it is %la'ed, t!e trial court may, on motion o% t!e accused, order an investigation or reinvestigation and !old t!e &roceedings in t!e criminal case in a3eyance. 4n t!e case at 3ar, !o'ever, t!e res&ondent 9udge sa' no reason or need %or suc! a ste&. Finding no ar3itrariness in !er %actual conclusions, 'e s!all de%er to !er 9udgment. Jurisdiction of the Ombudsman 4nvo+ing t!e case o% Deloso v. Domingo, & t!e &etitioner su3mits t!at t!e &roceedings conducted 3y t!e De&artment o% Justice are null and void 3ecause it !ad no 9urisdiction over t!e case. :is claim is t!at it is t!e O%%ice o% t!e Om3udsman t!at is vested 'it! t!e &o'er to conduct t!e investigation o% all cases involving &u3lic o%%icers li+e !im, as t!e munici&al mayor o% Calauan, 2aguna. 5!e Om3udsman is indeed em&o'ered under *ection 1@, &aragra&! D1E o% R.". 6CC; to investigate and &rosecute, any illegal act or omission o% any &u3lic o%%icial. :o'ever, as 'e !eld only t'o years ago in t!e case o% Aguinaldo v. Domagas , 9 t!is aut!ority 0's no( an e)* +s've a+(hor'(, b+( ra(her a share- or *on*+rren( a+(hor'(, 'n. res.e*( o/ (he o//ense *har0e-.1 Petitioners %inally assert t!at t!e in%ormation and amended in%ormation %iled in t!is case needed t!e a&&roval o% t!e Om3udsman. 4t is not dis&uted t!at t!e in%ormation and amended in%ormation !ere did not !ave t!e a&&roval o% t!e Om3udsman. :o'ever, 'e do not 3elieve t!at suc! a&&roval 'as necessary at all. 4n Deloso v. Domingo, 191 *CR". @?@ D199;E, t!e Court !eld t!at t!e Om3udsman !as aut!ority to investigate c!arges o% illegal or omissions on t!e &art o% any &u3lic o%%icial, i.e., any crime im&uted to a &u3lic o%%icial. 4t must, !o'ever, 3e &ointed out t!at t!e aut!ority o% t!e Om3udsman to investigate 0any GillegalH act or omission o% any &u3lic o%%icial0 D191 *CR" at @@;E is not an exclusive aut!ority 3ut rat!er a s!ared or concurrent aut!ority in res&ect o% t!e o%%ense !ere c!arged, i.e., t!e crime o% sedition. 5!us, t!e non#involvement o% t!e o%%ice o% t!e Om3udsman in t!e &resent case does not !ave any adverse legal conse$uence u&on t!e aut!ority t!e &anel o% &rosecutors to %ile and &rosecute t!e in%ormation or amended in%ormation. The Arrest =as &etitioner *anc!e- arrested on "ugust 1 , 199 I 0"rrest0 is de%ined under *ection 1, Rule 11 o% t!e Rules o% Court as t!e ta+ing o% a &erson into custody in order t!at !e may 3e 3ound to ans'er %or t!e commission o% an o%%ense. Jnder *ection 2 o% t!e same Rule, an arrest is e%%ected 3y an actual restraint o% t!e &erson to 3e arrested or 3y !is voluntary su3mission to t!e custody o% t!e &erson ma+ing t!e arrest. "&&lication o% actual %orce, manual touc!ing o% t!e 3ody, &!ysical restraint or a %ormal declaration o% arrest is not, re$uired. 4t is enoug! t!at t!ere 3e an intent on t!e &art o% one o% t!e &arties to arrest t!e ot!er and an intent on t!e &art o% t!e ot!er to su3mit, under t!e 3elie% and im&ression t!at su3mission is necessary.
12

5!e &etitioner 'as ta+en to Cam& 1icente 2im, Canlu3ang, 2aguna, 3y virtue o% a letter#invitation issued 3y P.P Commander Re/ Piad re$uesting !im to a&&ear at t!e said cam& %or investigation. 4n t!e case at 3ar, t!e invitation came %rom a !ig!#ran+ing military o%%icial and t!e investigation o% *anc!e'as to 3e made at a military cam&. "lt!oug! in t!e guise o% a re$uest, it 'as o3viously a command or an order o% arrest t!at t!e &etitioner could !ardly !e e/&ected to de%y. 4n %act, a&&arently co'ed 3y t!e 0invitation,0 !e 'ent 'it!out &rotest Dand in in%ormal clot!es and sli&&ers onlyE 'it! t!e o%%icers '!o !ad come to %etc! !im. 4t may not 3e amiss to o3serve t!at under R.". .o. C? 8, t!e re$uisites o% a 0custodial investigation0 are a&&lica3le even to a &erson not %ormally arrested 3ut merely 0invited0 %or $uestioning. =e agree 'it! t!e &etitioner t!at !is arrest did not come under *ection @, Rule 11 o% t!e Rules o% Court. 4t is not denied t!at t!e arresting o%%icers 'ere not &resent '!en t!e &etitioner allegedly &artici&ated in t!e +illing o% "llan ,ome- and t!e ra&e#slay o% (ary )ileen *armenta. .eit!er did t!ey !ave any &ersonal +no'ledge t!at t!e &etitioner 'as res&onsi3le t!ere%or 3ecause t!e 3asis o% t!e arrest 'as t!e s'orn statements o% Centeno and (ala3anan. "s t!e ra&e and +illing o% *armenta allegedly too+ &lace on June 28#June 29, 199 , or %orty#si/ days 3e%ore t!e date o% t!e arrest, it cannot 3e said t!at t!e o%%ense !ad 0in

Rem1 Case Digests || CrimPro Jurisdiction || Castro, Boco

%act 9ust 3een committed0 '!en t!e &etitioner 'as arrested. 5!e original 'arrantless arrest o% t!e &etitioner 'as dou3tless illegal. .evert!eless, t!e Regional 5rial Court la'%ully ac$uired 9urisdiction over t!e &erson o% t!e &etitioner 3y virtue o% t!e 'arrant o% arrest it issued on "ugust 26, 199 against !im and t!e ot!er accused in connection 'it! t!e ra&e#slay cases. 4t 'as 3elated, to 3e sure, 3ut it 'as nonet!eless legal. )ven on t!e assum&tion t!at no 'arrant 'as issued at all, 'e %ind t!at t!e trial court still la'%ully ac$uired 9urisdiction over t!e &erson o% t!e &etitioner. 5!e rule is t!at i% t!e accused o39ects to t!e 9urisdiction o% t!e court over !is &erson, !e may move to $uas! t!e in%ormation, 3ut only on t!at ground. 4%, as in t!is case, t!e accused raises ot!er grounds in t!e motion to $uas!, !e is deemed to !ave 'aived t!at o39ection and to !ave su3mitted !is &erson to t!e 9urisdiction o% t!at court. 5!e Court notes t!at on "ugust 1 , 199 , a%ter t!e &etitioner 'as unla'%ully arrested, Judge 2an-anas issued a 'arrant o% arrest against "ntonio 2. *anc!e- in connection 'it! Criminal Cases .os. 9 #12?6 ? to 9 #12?6 C %or violation o% R." .o. 6C1 . 13 Pending t!e issuance o% t!e 'arrant o% arrest %or t!e ra&e# slay cases, t!is %irst 'arrant served as t!e initial 9usti%ication %or !is detention. 5!e Court also adverts to its uni%orm ruling t!at t!e %iling o% c!arges, and t!e issuance o% t!e corres&onding 'arrant o% arrest, against a &erson invalidly detained 'ill cure t!e de%ect o% t!at detention or at least deny !im t!e rig!t to 3e released 3ecause o% suc! de%ect. 4 "&&lica3le 3y analogy to t!e case at 3ar is Rule 1;2 *ection ? o% t!e Rules o% Court. 4n one case, t!e Court saidK 5!e, case !as, indeed, 3ecome moot and academic inasmuc! as t!e ne' 'arrant o% arrest com&lies 'it! t!e re$uirements o% t!e Constitution and t!e Rules o% Court regarding t!e &articular descri&tion o% t!e &erson to 3e arrested. =!ile t!e %irst 'arrant 'as un$uestiona3ly void, 3eing a general 'arrant, release o% t!e &etitioner %or t!at reason 'ill 3e a %utile act as it 'ill 3e %ollo'ed 3y !er immediate re#arrest &ursuant to t!e ne' and valid 'arrant, returning !er to t!e same &rison s!e 'ill 9ust !ave le%t. 5!is Court 'ill not &artici&ate in suc! a meaningless c!arade. The Informations 5!e &etitioner su3mits t!at t!e seven in%ormations c!arging seven se&arate !omicides are a3surd 3ecause t!e t'o victims in t!ese cases could not !ave died seven times. 5!is argument 'as correctly re%uted 3y t!e *olicitor ,eneral in t!is 'iseK 5!us, '!ere t!ere are t'o or more o%%enders '!o commit ra&e, t!e !omicide committed on t!e occasion or 3y reason o% eac! ra&e, must 3e deemed as a constituent o% t!e s&ecial com&le/ crime o% ra&e 'it! !omicide. 5!ere%ore, t!ere 'ill 3e as many crimes o% ra&e 'it! !omicide as t!ere are ra&es committed. 4n e%%ect, t!e &resence o% !omicide $uali%ies t!e crime o% ra&e, t!ere3y raising its &enalty to t!e !ig!est degree. 5!us, !omicide committed on t!e occasion or 3y reason o% ra&e, loses its c!aracter as an inde&endent o%%ense, 3ut assumes a ne' c!aracter, and %unctions li+e a $uali%ying circumstance. :o'ever,3y %iction o% la', it merged 'it! ra&e to constitute an constituent element o% a s&ecial com&le/ crime o% ra&e 'it! !omicide 'it! a s&eci%ic &enalty '!ic! is in t!e !ig!est degree, i.e. deat! Dreduced to reclusion perpetua 'it! t!e sus&ension o% t!e a&&lication o% t!e deat! &enalty 3y t!e ConstitutionE. 4t is clearly &rovided in Rule 11; o% t!e Rules o% Court t!atK *ec. 1 . Duplicity of offense. " com&laint or in%ormation must c!arge 3ut one o%%ense, e/ce&t only in t!ose cases in '!ic! e/isting la's &rescri3e a sim&le &unis!ment %or various o%%enses. 5!e &etitioner and !is si/ co#accused are not c!arged 'it! only one ra&e committed 3y !im in cons&iracy 'it! t!e ot!er si/. )ac! one o% t!e seven accused is c!arged 'it! !aving !imsel% ra&ed *armenta instead o% sim&ly !el&ing *anc!e- in committing only one ra&e. 4n ot!er 'ords, t!e allegation o% t!e &rosecution is t!at t!e girl 'as ra&ed seven times, 'it! eac! o% t!e seven accused ta+ing turns in a3using !er 'it! t!e assistance o% t!e ot!er si/. "%ter'ards, t!eir lust satis%ied, all seven o% t!em decided to +ill and t!us silence *armenta. )very one o% t!e seven accused is 3eing c!arged se&arately %or actually ra&ing *armenta and later +illing !er instead o% merely assisting t!e &etitioner in ra&ing and t!en slaying !er. 5!e se&arate in%ormations %iled against eac! o% t!em allege t!at eac! o% t!e seven successive ra&es is com&le/ed 3y t!e su3se$uent slaying o% *armenta and aggravated 3y t!e +illing o% "llan ,ome- 3y !er seven attac+ers. 5!e se&arate ra&es 'ere committed in succession 3y t!e seven accused, culminating in t!e slaying o% *armenta. Jurisdiction of the andiganbayan 5!e &etitioner argued earlier t!at since most o% t!e accused 'ere incum3ent &u3lic o%%icials or em&loyees at t!e time o% t!e alleged commission o% t!e crimes, t!e cases against t!em s!ould come under t!e 9urisdiction o% t!e *andigan3ayan and not o% t!e regular courts. 5!is contention 'as 'it!dra'n in !is Re&ly

3ut 'e s!all discuss it 9ust t!e same %or t!e guidance o% all t!ose concerned. *ection ?, &aragra&! DaE o% P.D. .o, 16;6, as amended 3y P.D. .o.1861 states t!e t!e *andigan3ayan s!all e/ercise e/clusive original 9urisdiction in all cases involving violations o% t!e "nti#,ra%t and Corru&tion Practices "ct and ot!er o%%enses or %elonies committed 3y &u3lic o%%icers and em&loyees in relation to their office, including t!ose em&loyed in government#o'ned or controlled cor&orations / / / 5!e crime o% ra&e 'it! !omicide 'it! '!ic! t!e &etitioner stands c!arged o3viously does not %all under &aragra&! D1E, '!ic! deals 'it! gra%t and corru&tion cases. .eit!er is it covered 3y &aragra&! D2E 3ecause it is not an o%%ense committed in relation to t!e o%%ice o% t!e &etitioner. 4n !ontilla v, "ilario, 25 t!is Court descri3ed t!e 0o%%ense committed in relation to t!e o%%ice0 as %ollo'sK G5H!e relation 3et'een t!e crime and t!e o%%ice contem&lated 3y t!e Constitution is, in our o&inion, direct and not accidental. 5o %all into t!e intent o% t!e Constitution, t!e relation !as to 3e suc! t!at, in t!e legal sense, t!e o%%ense cannot e/ist 'it!out t!e o%%ice. 4n ot!er 'ords, t!e o%%ice must 3e a constituent element o% t!e crime as de%ined in t!e statute, suc! as, %or instance, t!e crimes de%ined and &unis!ed in C!a&ter 5'o to *i/, 5itle *even, o% t!e Revised Penal Code. Pu3lic o%%ice is not o% t!e essence o% murder. 5!e ta+ing o% !uman li%e is eit!er murder or !omicide '!et!er done 3y a &rivate citi-en or &u3lic servant, and t!e &enalty is t!e same e/ce&t '!en t!e &er&etrator. Being a &u3lic %unctionary too+ advantage o% !is o%%ice, as alleged in t!is case, in '!ic! event t!e &enalty is increased. But t!e use or a3use o% o%%ice does not ad!ere to t!e crime as an elementL and even as an aggravating circumstance, its materiality arises not %rom t!e allegations 3ut on t!e &roo%, not %rom t!e %act t!at t!e criminals are &u3lic o%%icials 3ut %rom t!e manner o% t!e commission o% t!e crime. 5!ere is no direct relation 3et'een t!e commission o% t!e crime o% ra&e 'it! !omicide and t!e &etitionerAs o%%ice as munici&al mayor 3ecause &u3lic o%%ice is not an essential element o% t!e crime c!arged. 5!e o%%ense can stand inde&endently o% t!e o%%ice. (oreover, it is not even alleged in t!e in%ormation t!at t!e commission o% t!e crime c!arged 'as intimately connected 'it! t!e &er%ormance o% t!e &etitionerAs o%%icial %unctions. #onclusion "s a3ove demonstrated, all o% t!e grounds invo+ed 3y t!e &etitioner are not su&&orted 3y t!e %acts and t!e a&&lica3le la' and 9uris&rudence. 5!ey must, t!ere%ore, all 3e re9ected. 4n conse$uence, t!e res&ondent 9udge, '!o !as started t!e trial o% t!e criminal cases against t!e &etitioner and !is co#accused, may &roceed t!ere'it! 'it!out %urt!er !indrance. 4t remains to stress t!at t!e decision 'e ma+e today is not a decision on t!e merits o% t!e criminal cases 3eing tried 3elo'. 5!ese 'ill !ave to 3e decided 3y t!e res&ondent 9udge in accordance 'it! t!e evidence t!at is still 3eing received. "t t!is time, t!ere is yet no 3asis %or 9udgment, only unin%ormed con9ecture. 5!e Court 'ill caution against suc! irrelevant &u3lic s&eculations as t!ey can 3e 3ased only on im&er%ect +no'ledge i% not o%%icious ignorance. =:)R)FOR), t!is &etition is D4*(4**)D.

Rem1 Case Digests || CrimPro Jurisdiction || Castro, Boco

G.R. No. 135573

A.r' 25, 2669

ISS#E% =!et!er t!e R5C !as 9urisdiction over li3el cases to t!e e/clusion o% all ot!er courts. HEL! Qes. 5!e %oremost concern, '!ic! t!e &arties, and even t!e trial court, %ailed to identi%y, is '!et!er, under our current la's, 9urisdiction over li3el cases, or 'ritten de%amations to 3e more s&eci%ic, is s!ared 3y t!e R5C 'it! t!e *andigan3ayan. "rticle 6; o% t!e Revised Penal Code DRPCE, as amended 3y Re&u3lic "ct .o. ? 6 , is e/&licit on '!ic! court !as 9urisdiction to try cases o% 'ritten de%amations, t!usK 5!e criminal and civil action %or damages in cases o% 'ritten de%amations as &rovided %or in t!is c!a&ter, s!all 3e %iled simultaneously or se&arately 'it! t!e court o% %irst instance Gno', t!e Regional 5rial CourtH o% t!e &rovince or city '!ere t!e li3elous article is &rinted and %irst &u3lis!ed or '!ere any o% t!e o%%ended &arties actually resides at t!e time o% t!e commission o% t!e o%%ense ///. 4n Jalandoni v. )ndaya, ac+no'ledged t!e unmista+a3le im&ort o% t!e said &rovisionK 5!ere is no need to ma+e mention again t!at it is a court o% %irst instance Gno', t!e Regional 5rial CourtH t!at is s&eci%ically designated to try a li3el case. 4ts language is categoricalL its meaning is %ree %rom dou3t. 5!is is one o% t!ose statutory &rovisions t!at leave no room %or inter&retation. "ll t!at is re$uired is a&&lication. =!at t!e la' ordains must t!en 3e %ollo'ed. @ "not!er case involving t!e same $uestion 'as cited as resolving t!e matterK 0"nent t!e $uestion o% 9urisdiction, 'e RR %ind no reversi3le error committed 3y &u3lic res&ondent Court o% "&&eals in denying &etitioner>s motion to dismiss %or lac+ o% 9urisdiction. 5!e contention RR t!at R.". C691 divested t!e Regional 5rial Courts o% 9urisdiction to try li3el cases cannot 3e sustained. =!ile li3el is &unis!a3le 3y im&risonment o% si/ mont!s and one day to %our years and t'o mont!s D"rt. 6;, Revised Penal CodeE '!ic! im&osa3le &enalty is lodged 'it!in t!e (unici&al 5rial Court>s 9urisdiction under R.". .o. C691 D*ec. 2 G2HE, said la' !o'ever, e/cludes t!ere%rom RR cases %alling 'it!in t!e e/clusive original 9urisdiction o% t!e Regional 5rial Courts 4t !as 3een laid do'n t!e rule t!at Regional 5rial courts !ave t!e e/clusive 9urisdiction over li3el cases, !ence, t!e e/&anded 9urisdiction con%erred 3y R.". C691 to in%erior courts cannot 3e a&&lied to li3el cases. "lt!oug! R" C691 'as enacted to decongest t!e clogged doc+ets o% t!e Regional 5rail Courts 3y e/&anding t!e 9urisdiction o% %irst level courts, said la' is o% a general c!aracter. )ven i% it is a later enactment, it does not alter t!e &rovision o% "rticle 6; o% t!e RPC, a la' o% a s&ecial nature. 02a's vesting 9urisdiction e/clusively 'it! a &articular court, are s&ecial in c!aracter, and s!ould &revail over t!e Judiciary "ct de%ining t!e 9urisdiction o% ot!er courts Dsuc! as t!e Court o% First 4nstanceE '!ic! is a general la'.0 " later enactment li+e R" C691 does not automatically override an e/isting la', 3ecause it is a 'ell#settled &rinci&le o% construction t!at, in case o% con%lict 3et'een a general la' and a s&ecial la', t!e latter must &revail regardless o% t!e dates o% t!eir enactment. Jurisdiction con%erred 3y a s&ecial la' on t!e R5C must t!ere%ore &revail over t!at granted 3y a general la' on t!e (5C. *ince 9urisdiction over 'ritten de%amations e/clusively rests in t!e R5C 'it!out $uali%ication, it is unnecessary and %utile %or t!e &arties to argue on '!et!er t!e crime is committed in relation to o%%ice. 5!us, t!e conclusion reac!ed 3y t!e trial court t!at t!e res&ondent committed t!e alleged li3elous acts in relation to !is o%%ice as %ormer CO()2)C c!air, and de&rives it o% 9urisdiction to try t!e case, is, %ollo'ing t!e a3ove dis$uisition, gross error. 5!e t'o cases are R)(".D)D and R)4.*5"5)D to t!e R5C o% MC %or %urt!er &roceedings.

7EO7LE O$ THE 7HILI77INES an- 7HOTO8INA "AR8ETING COR7ORATION, Petitioners, vs. AL$RE!O L. 9ENI7A:O, Res&ondent. / # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #/ G.R. No. 133373 A.r' 25, 2669 7HOTO8INA "AR8ETING COR7ORATION, Petitioner, vs.AL$RE!O L. 9ENI7A:O, Res&ondent. 5!is is a decision %or t'o consolidated cases %iled 3e%ore t!e Court, on &ure $uestions o% la', on t!e Petition %or Revie' on Certiorari under Rule 122 in relation to Rule ?@ o% t!e Rules o% Court. $ACTS% ,.R. .o. 1@??C On January 1, 2;;2, res&ondent "l%redo 2. Beni&ayo, t!en C!airman o% t!e CO()2)C, delivered a s&eec! in a %orum !eld at t!e JP#Diliman Cam&us, Mue-on City. 5!e s&eec! 'as su3se$uently &u3lis!ed in t!e Fe3ruary ? and @, 2;;2 issues o% t!e (anila Bulletin. Petitioner cor&oration, 3elieving t!at it 'as t!e one alluded to 3y t!e res&ondent '!en !e stated in !is s&eec! t!at N)ven 'orse, t!e Commission came rig!t u& to t!e 3rin+ o% signing a 6.@ 3illion contract %or a registration solution t!at could !ave 3een 3oug!t %or @; million &esos, and an 4D solution t!at isn>t even a re$uirement %or voting. But reason intervened and no contract 'as signed. .o', t!ey are at it again, trying to !ood'in+ us into contract t!at is so grossly disadvantageous to t!e government t!at it o%%ends common sense to say t!at it 'ould 3e 'ort! t!e 6.@ 3illion#&eso &rice tag.O %iled, t!roug! its aut!ori-ed re&resentative, an "%%idavit#Com&laint 8 %or li3el. "rguing t!at !e 'as an im&eac!a3le o%%icer, res&ondent $uestioned t!e 9urisdiction o% t!e O%%ice o% t!e City Prosecutor o% Mue-on City DOCP#MCE. Des&ite t!is, an 4n%ormatinon on t!e case 'as %iled. :e later on moved %or t!e dismissal o% t!e case on t!e assertion t!at t!e trial court !ad no 9urisdiction over !is &erson %or !e 'as an im&eac!a3le o%%icer and t!us, could not 3e criminally &rosecuted 3e%ore any court during !is incum3encyL and t!at, assuming !e can 3e criminally &rosecuted, it 'as t!e O%%ice o% t!e Om3udsman t!at s!ould investigate !im and t!e case s!ould 3e %iled 'it! t!e *andigan3ayan. 5!e trial court issued t!e c!allenged Order dismissing t!e case and considering as moot and academic &etitioner>s motion to in!i3it t!e 9udge %rom &residing. =!ile t!e R5C %ound t!at res&ondent 'as no longer an im&eac!a3le o%%icer 3ecause !is a&&ointment 'as not con%irmed 3y Congress, it ruled t!at t!e case !ad to 3e dismissed %or lac+ o% 9urisdiction considering t!at t!e alleged li3el 'as committed 3y res&ondent in relation to !is o%%iceP!e delivered t!e s&eec! in !is o%%icial ca&acity as CO()2)C C!air. "ccordingly, it 'as t!e *andigan3ayan t!at !ad 9urisdiction over t!e case to t!e e/clusion o% all ot!er courts. ,.R. .o. 1@@@C On (arc! 1 , 2;;2, res&ondent, as CO()2)C C!air, and CO()2)C Commissioner 2u-viminda 5angcangco 'ere guests o% t!e tal+ s!o' 0Point Blan+,0 !osted 3y Ces Drilon and televised nation'ide on t!e ".C#2 c!annel. 5!e television s!o'>s e&isode t!at day 'as entitled 0CO()2)C =ars.0 1C 4n t!at e&isode, t!e %ollo'ing conversation trans&iredK Drilon$ Are you saying, #hairman, that #O!%&%# funds are being used for a 'P(' campaign against you) Is that *hat you are saying) +enipayo$ ,o, I thin- .it/s0 not #O!%&%# funds, .it/s0 Photo-ina funds. 1ou -no*, admittedly, according to .c0harg2 d/.a0ffaires of the 3. . %mbassy.,0 in a letter sent to me in July of 4556, it is *hat/s been .so0 happening to the Photo-ina deal, they have already spent in excess of 4.7 .m0illion 3. . .d0ollars. At that time.,0 that/s about 645 .m0illion pesos and I said, *hat for.)0 .T0hey *ouldn/t tell me, you see. ,o* you as-ed me, .*ho is0 funding this) I thin- it/s pretty obvious. Petitioner considered res&ondent>s statement as de%amatory and %iled a Com&laint#"%%idavit %or li3el. Res&ondent similarly $uestioned t!e 9urisdiction o% t!e OCP#MC. :o'ever, an 4n%ormation 'as still %iled. Res&ondent also moved %or t!e dismissal o% t!e in%ormation raising similar arguments t!at t!e court !ad no 9urisdiction over !is &erson, !e 3eing an im&eac!a3le o%%icerL and t!at, even i% criminal &rosecution 'ere &ossi3le, 9urisdiction rested 'it! t!e *andigan3ayan. 5!e trial court li+e'ise dismissed t!e case.

Rem1 Case Digests || CrimPro Jurisdiction || Castro, Boco

G.R. No. 1;9665

Se.(ember 13, 2616

7EO7LE O$ THE 7HILI77INES, Petitioner, vs.SAN!IGAN9A:AN <THIR! !I=ISION> an- ROLAN!O 7LAZA, Res&ondents. $ACTS% Res&ondent Rolando Pla-a, a mem3er o% t!e angguniang Panlungsod o% 5oledo City, Ce3u, at t!e time relevant to t!is case, 'it! salary grade 2@, !ad 3een c!arged in t!e *andigan3ayan 'it! violation o% 5!e "uditing Code o% t!e P!ili&&ines %or !is %ailure to li$uidate t!e cas! advances !e received on Decem3er 19, 199@, in relation to !is o%%ice, %rom t!e City ,overnment o% 5oledo in t!e amount o% 5!irty#5!ree 5!ousand Pesos DP ,;;;.;;E . 5!erea%ter, res&ondent Pla-a %iled a (otion to Dismiss dated "&ril C, 2;;@ 'it! t!e *andigan3ayan. )ventually, t!e *andigan3ayan &romulgated its Resolution on July 2;, 2;;@ dismissing t!e case %or lac+ o% 9urisdiction, 'it!out &re9udice to its %iling 3e%ore t!e &ro&er court. Petitioner contends t!at t!e *andigan3ayan !as criminal 9urisdiction over cases involving &u3lic o%%icials and em&loyees enumerated under *ection ? DaE D1E o% P.D. 16;6, Das amended 3y Re&u3lic "ct GR.".H .os. C9C@ and 82?9E, '!et!er or not occu&ying a &osition classi%ied under salary grade 2C and a3ove, '!o are c!arged not only %or violation o% R.". ;19, R.". 1 C9 or any o% t!e %elonies included in C!a&ter 44, *ection 2, 5itle 144, Boo+ 44 o% t!e Revised Penal Code, 3ut also %or crimes committed in relation to o%%ice. Furt!ermore, &etitioner $uestioned t!e *andigan3ayan>s a&&reciation o% t!is CourtAs decision in Inding v. andiganbayan, claiming t!at t!e Inding case did not categorically nor im&licitly constrict or con%ine t!e a&&lication o% t!e enumeration &rovided %or under *ection ? DaE D1E o% P.D. 16;6, as amended, e/clusively to cases '!ere t!e o%%ense c!arged is eit!er a violation o% R.". ;19, R.". 1 C9 or C!a&ter 44, *ection 2, 5itle 144 o% t!e Revised Penal Code. ISS#E% =!et!er t!e *andigan3ayan !as 9urisdiction over a mem3er o% t!e angguniang Panlungsod '!ose salary grade is 3elo' 2C and c!arged 'it! violation o% 5!e "uditing Code o% t!e P!ili&&ines. HEL!% Qes. 4n ruling t!at t!e *andigan3ayan !as 9urisdiction over a mem3er o% t!e angguniang Panlungsod '!ose salary grade is 3elo' 2C and c!arged 'it! violation o% 5!e "uditing Code o% t!e P!ili&&ines, t!is Court cited t!e case o% erana v. andiganbayan, et al . as a 3ac+ground on t!e con%erment o% 9urisdiction o% t!e *andigan3ayan, t!usK The ?+r's-'*('on o/ a *o+r( (o (r, a *r'm'na *ase 's (o be -e(erm'ne- a( (he ('me o/ (he 'ns('(+('on o/ (he a*('on, no( a( (he ('me o/ (he *omm'ss'on o/ (he o//ense .1 The e)*e.('on *on(a'ne- 'n R. A. 7973, as @e as R. A. &259, @here '( e).ress , .rov'-es (ha( (o -e(erm'ne (he ?+r's-'*('on o/ (he San-'0anba,an 'n *ases 'nvo v'n0 v'o a('ons o/ R. A. No. 3619, as amen-e-, R. A. No. 1379, anCha.(er II, Se*('on 2, T'( e =II o/ (he Rev'se- 7ena Co-e 's no( a.. '*ab e 'n (he .resen( *ase as (he o//ense 'nvo ve- here'n 's a v'o a('on o/ The A+-'('n0 Co-e o/ (he 7h' '..'nes. 5!e last clause o% t!e o&ening sentence o% &aragra&! DaE o% t!e said t'o &rovisions statesK *ec. ?. Jurisdiction. # 5!e *andigan3ayan s!all e/ercise e/clusive original 9urisdiction in all cases involvingK ". 1iolations o% Re&u3lic "ct .o. ;19, as amended, ot!er +no'n as t!e "nti#,ra%t and Corru&t Practices "ct, Re&u3lic "ct .o. 1 C9, and C!a&ter 44, *ection 2, 5itle 144, Boo+ 44 o% t!e Revised Penal Code, '!ere one or more o% t!e accused are o%%icials occu&ying t!e %ollo'ing &ositions in t!e government, '!et!er in a &ermanent, acting or interim ca&acity, a( (he ('me o/ (he *omm'ss'on o/ (he o//enseK / / /.1? 5!e &resent case de%initely %alls under *ection ? D3E '!ere ot!er o%%enses and %elonies committed 3y &u3lic o%%icials or em&loyees in relation to t!eir o%%ice are involved '!ere t!e said &rovision, contains no e/ce&tion. 5!ere%ore, '!at a&&lies in t!e &resent case is t!e general rule t!at 9urisdiction o% a court to try a criminal case is to 3e determined at t!e time o% t!e institution o% t!e action, not at t!e time o% t!e commission o% t!e o%%ense. *ection ? o% P.D. 16;6, as amended 3y *ection 2 o% R.". C9C@ '!ic! too+ e%%ect on (ay 16, 199@, '!ic! 'as again amended on Fe3ruary @, 199C 3y R.". 82?9, is t!e la' t!at s!ould 3e a&&lied in t!e &resent case, t!e o%%ense !aving 3een allegedly committed on or a3out Decem3er 19, 199@ and t!e 4n%ormation !aving 3een %iled on (arc! 2@, 2;;?. 4t is clear as to t!e com&osition o% t!e original 9urisdiction o% t!e *andigan3ayan. Jnder *ection ? DaE, t!e

%ollo'ing o%%enses are s&eci%ically enumeratedK violations o% R.". .o. ;19, as amended, R.". .o. 1 C9, and C!a&ter 44, *ection 2, 5itle 144 o% t!e Revised Penal Code. 4n order %or t!e *andigan3ayan to ac$uire 9urisdiction over t!e said o%%enses, t!e latter must 3e committed 3y, among ot!ers, o%%icials o% t!e e/ecutive 3ranc! occu&ying &ositions o% regional director and !ig!er, ot!er'ise classi%ied as ,rade 2C and !ig!er, o% t!e Com&ensation and Position Classi%ication "ct o% 1989. :o'ever, t!e la' is not devoid o% e/ce&tions. Those (ha( are * ass'/'e- as Gra-e 2; an- be o@ ma, s(' /a @'(h'n (he ?+r's-'*('on o/ (he San-'0anba,an .rov'-e- (ha( (he, ho - (he .os'('ons (h+s en+mera(e- b, (he same a@. Particularly and e/clusively enumerated are &rovincial governors, vice#govenors, mem3ers o% t!e sangguniang &anlala'igan, and &rovincial treasurers, assessors, engineers, and ot!er &rovincial de&artment !eadsL city mayors, vice#mayors, mem3ers o% t!e sangguniang &anlungsod, city treasurers, assessors, engineers, and ot!er city de&artment !eadsL o%%icials o% t!e di&lomatic service occu&ying t!e &osition as consul and !ig!erL P!ili&&ine army and air %orce colonels, naval ca&tains, and all o%%icers o% !ig!er ran+L P.P c!ie% su&erintendent and P.P o%%icers o% !ig!er ran+L City and &rovincial &rosecutors and t!eir assistants, and o%%icials and &rosecutors in t!e O%%ice o% t!e Om3udsman and s&ecial &rosecutorL and &residents, directors or trustees, or managers o% government#o'ned or controlled cor&orations, state universities or educational institutions or %oundations. In *onne*('on (here@'(h, Se*('on 5 <b> o/ (he same a@ .rov'-es (ha( o(her o//enses or /e on'es *omm'((e- b, .+b '* o//'*'a s an- em. o,ees men('one- 'n s+bse*('on <a> 'n re a('on (o (he'r o//'*e a so /a +n-er (he ?+r's-'*('on o/ (he San-'0anba,an. Clearly, as decided in t!e earlier case and 3y sim&le a&&lication o% t!e &ertinent &rovisions o% t!e la', res&ondent Pla-a, a mem3er o% t!e angguniang Panlungsod during t!e alleged commission o% an o%%ense in relation to !is o%%ice, necessarily %alls 'it!in t!e original 9urisdiction o% t!e *andigan3ayan. Inapplicability of Inding #ase 5!e Inding case did not categorically nor im&licitly constrict or con%ine t!e a&&lication o% t!e enumeration &rovided %or under *ection ? DaE D1E o% P.D. 16;6, as amended, e/clusively to cases '!ere t!e o%%ense c!arged is eit!er a violation o% R.". ;19, R.". 1 C9 or C!a&ter 44, *ection 2, 5itle 144 o% t!e Revised Penal Code. 5!is Court concentrated its dis$uisition on t!e &rovisions contained in *ection ? DaE D1E o% P.D. .o. 16;6, as amended, '!ere t!e o%%enses involved are s&eci%ically enumerated and not on *ection ? D3E '!ere o%%enses or %elonies involved are t!ose t!at are in relation to t!e &u3lic o%%icialsA o%%ice. " sim&le analysis a%ter a &lain reading o% t!e a3ove &rovision s!o's t!at (hose .+b '* o//'*'a s en+mera(e- 'n Se*. 5 <a> o/ 7.!. No. 1;6;, as amen-e-, ma, no( on , be *har0e- 'n (he San-'0anba,an @'(h v'o a('ons o/ R.A. No. 3619, R.A. No. 1379 or Cha.(er II, Se*('on 2, T'( e =II o/ (he Rev'se- 7ena Co-e, b+( a so @'(h o(her o//enses or /e on'es 'n re a('on (o (he'r o//'*e. 5!e said ot!er o%%enses and %elonies are 3road in sco&e 3ut are limited only to t!ose t!at are committed in relation to t!e &u3lic o%%icial or em&loyeeAs o%%ice. 5!is Court !ad ruled t!at as on0 as (he o//ense *har0e- 'n (he 'n/orma('on 's 'n('ma(e , *onne*(e- @'(h (he o//'*e an- 's a e0e- (o have been .er.e(ra(e- @h' e (he a**+se- @as 'n (he .er/orman*e, (ho+0h 'm.ro.er or 'rre0+ ar, o/ h's o//'*'a /+n*('ons, (here be'n0 no .ersona mo('ve (o *omm'( (he *r'me an- ha- (he a**+se- no( have *omm'((e- '( ha- he no( he - (he a/oresa'- o//'*e, (he a**+se- 's he - (o have been 'n-'*(e- /or 1an o//ense *omm'((e'n re a('on1 (o h's o//'*e .18 (oreover, it is 3eyond clarity t!at t!e same &rovisions o% *ection ? D3E does not mention any $uali%ication as to t!e &u3lic o%%icials involved. 4t sim&ly stated, public officials and employees mentioned in subsection 8a9 of the same section. 5!ere%ore, it re%ers to t!ose &u3lic o%%icials 'it! *alary ,rade 2C and a3ove, e/ce&t t!ose s&eci%ically enumerated. Petition is granted. 5!e case is remanded to t!e *andigan3ayan %or %urt!er &roceedings.

Rem1 Case Digests || CrimPro Jurisdiction || Castro, Boco

G.R. No. 1&;329 $ACTS%

A+0+s( 3, 2616

7EO7LE O$ THE 7HILI77INES, "&&ellee, vs.AAC8 RACHO , RAB#ERO, "&&ellant. On (ay 19, 2;; , a con%idential agent o% t!e &olice transacted t!roug! cellular &!one 'it! a&&ellant %or t!e &urc!ase o% s!a3u. 5!e agent re&orted t!e transaction to t!e &olice aut!orities '!o immediately %ormed a team to a&&re!end t!e a&&ellant. On (ay 2;, 2;; , at 11K;; a.m., a&&ellant called u& t!e agent 'it! t!e in%ormation t!at !e 'as on 3oard a ,enesis 3us and 'ould arrive in Baler, "urora anytime o% t!e day 'earing a red and '!ite stri&ed 5#s!irt. 5!e team mem3ers &osted t!emselves along t!e national !ig!'ay in Baler, "urora, and at around K;; &.m. o% t!e same day, a ,enesis 3us arrived in Baler. =!en a&&ellant alig!ted %rom t!e 3us, t!e con%idential agent &ointed to !im as t!e &erson !e transacted 'it!, and '!en t!e latter 'as a3out to 3oard a tricycle, t!e team a&&roac!ed !im and invited !im to t!e &olice station as !e 'as sus&ected o% carrying s!a3u. =!en !e &ulled out !is !ands %rom !is &ants> &oc+et, a '!ite envelo&e sli&&ed t!ere%rom '!ic!, '!en o&ened, yielded a small sac!et containing t!e sus&ected drug.2 5!e team t!en 3roug!t a&&ellant to t!e &olice station %or investigation and t!e con%iscated s&ecimen 'as mar+ed in t!e &resence o% a&&ellant. 5!e %ield test and la3oratory e/aminations on t!e contents o% t!e con%iscated sac!et yielded &ositive results %or met!am&!etamine !ydroc!loride. "&&ellant 'as c!arged in t'o se&arate 4n%ormations, one %or violation o% *ection @ o% R.". 916@, %or trans&orting or deliveringL and t!e second, o% *ection 11 o% t!e same la' %or &ossessing, dangerous drugs. On July 8, 2;;?, t!e R5C rendered a Joint Judgment convicting a&&ellant o% 1iolation o% *ection @, "rticle 44, R.". 916@ and sentencing !im to su%%er t!e &enalty o% li%e im&risonment and to &ay a %ine o% P@;;,;;;.;;L 3ut ac$uitted !im o% t!e c!arge o% 1iolation o% *ection 11, "rticle 44, R.". 916@. On a&&eal, t!e C" a%%irmed t!e R5C decision. :ence t!is &etition. 4n !is 3rie%, a&&ellant attac+s t!e credi3ility o% t!e 'itnesses %or t!e &rosecution. :e li+e'ise avers t!at t!e &rosecution %ailed to esta3lis! t!e identity o% t!e con%iscated drug 3ecause o% t!e team>s %ailure to mar+ t!e s&ecimen immediately a%ter sei-ure. 4n !is su&&lemental 3rie%, a&&ellant assails, %or t!e %irst time, t!e legality o% !is arrest and t!e validity o% t!e su3se$uent 'arrantless searc!. :e $uestions t!e admissi3ility o% t!e con%iscated sac!et on t!e ground t!at it 'as t!e %ruit o% t!e &oisonous tree. ISS#E% =!et!er t!ere 'as su%%icient &ro3a3le cause to e%%ect a valid 'arrantless arrest and searc! and sei-ure. HEL!% .one. "%ter a t!oroug! revie' o% t!e records o% t!e case and %or reasons t!at 'ill 3e discussed 3elo', 'e %ind t!at a&&ellant can no longer $uestion t!e validity o% !is arrest, 3ut t!e sac!et o% s!a3u sei-ed %rom !im during t!e 'arrantless searc! is inadmissi3le in evidence against !im. 5!e records s!o' t!at a&&ellant never o39ected to t!e irregularity o% !is arrest 3e%ore !is arraignment. 4n %act, t!is is t!e %irst time t!at !e raises t!e issue. Considering t!is la&se, cou&led 'it! !is active &artici&ation in t!e trial o% t!e case, 'e must a3ide 'it! 9uris&rudence '!ic! dictates t!at a&&ellant, !aving voluntarily su3mitted to t!e 9urisdiction o% t!e trial court, is deemed to !ave 'aived !is rig!t to $uestion t!e validity o% !is arrest, t!us curing '!atever de%ect may !ave attended !is arrest. 5!e legality o% t!e arrest a%%ects only t!e 9urisdiction o% t!e court over !is &erson. "&&ellant>s 'arrantless arrest t!ere%ore cannot, in itsel%, 3e t!e 3asis o% !is ac$uittal. "s to t!e admissi3ility o% t!e sei-ed drug in evidence, it is necessary %or us to ascertain '!et!er or not t!e searc! '!ic! yielded t!e alleged contra3and 'as la'%ul. =!at constitutes a reasona3le or unreasona3le 'arrantless searc! or sei-ure is &urely a 9udicial $uestion, determina3le %rom t!e uni$ueness o% t!e circumstances involved, including t!e &ur&ose o% t!e searc! or sei-ure, t!e &resence or a3sence o% &ro3a3le cause, t!e manner in '!ic! t!e searc! and sei-ure 'as made, t!e &lace or t!ing searc!ed, and t!e c!aracter o% t!e articles &rocured. 5!e R5C concluded t!at a&&ellant 'as caug!t in %lagrante delicto, declaring t!at !e 'as caug!t in t!e act o% actually committing a crime or attem&ting to commit a crime in t!e &resence o% t!e a&&re!ending o%%icers as !e arrived in Baler, "urora 3ringing 'it! !im a sac!et o% s!a3u. Conse$uently, t!e 'arrantless searc! 'as considered valid as it 'as deemed an incident to t!e la'%ul arrest. Recent 9uris&rudence !olds t!at in searc!es incident to a la'%ul arrest, t!e arrest must &recede t!e searc!L

generally, t!e &rocess cannot 3e reversed. .evert!eless, a searc! su3stantially contem&oraneous 'it! an arrest can &recede t!e arrest i% t!e &olice !ave &ro3a3le cause to ma+e t!e arrest at t!e outset o% t!e searc!. 5!us, given t!e %actual milieu o% t!e case, 'e !ave to determine '!et!er t!e &olice o%%icers !ad &ro3a3le cause to arrest a&&ellant. "lt!oug! &ro3a3le cause eludes e/act and concrete de%inition, it ordinarily signi%ies a reasona3le ground o% sus&icion su&&orted 3y circumstances su%%iciently strong in t!emselves to 'arrant a cautious man to 3elieve t!at t!e &erson accused is guilty o% t!e o%%ense 'it! '!ic! !e is c!arged. :ere, '!at &rom&ted t!e &olice to a&&re!end a&&ellant, even 'it!out a 'arrant, 'as t!e ti& given 3y t!e in%ormant t!at a&&ellant 'ould arrive in Baler, "urora carrying s!a3u. 5!e long#standing rule in t!is 9urisdiction is t!at 0relia3le in%ormation0 alone is not su%%icient to 9usti%y a 'arrantless arrest. 5!e rule re$uires, in addition, t!at t!e accused &er%orm some overt act t!at 'ould indicate t!at !e !as committed, is actually committing, or is attem&ting to commit an o%%ense. =e %ind no cogent reason to de&art %rom t!is 'ell#esta3lis!ed doctrine. 5!e instant case is similar to Peo&le v. "ruta, Peo&le v. 5udtud and Peo&le v. .uevas, '!erein 'e re%used to validate t!e 'arrantless searc! &recisely 3ecause t!ere 'as no ade$uate &ro3a3le cause. =e re$uired t!e s!o'ing o% some overt act indicative o% t!e criminal design. "s in t!e a3ove cases, a&&ellant !erein 'as not committing a crime in t!e &resence o% t!e &olice o%%icers. .eit!er did t!e arresting o%%icers !ave &ersonal +no'ledge o% %acts indicating t!at t!e &erson to 3e arrested !ad committed, 'as committing, or a3out to commit an o%%ense. "t t!e time o% t!e arrest, a&&ellant !ad 9ust alig!ted %rom t!e ,emini 3us and 'as 'aiting %or a tricycle. "&&ellant 'as not acting in any sus&icious manner t!at 'ould engender a reasona3le ground %or t!e &olice o%%icers to sus&ect and conclude t!at !e 'as committing or intending to commit a crime. =ere it not %or t!e in%ormation given 3y t!e in%ormant, a&&ellant 'ould not !ave 3een a&&re!ended and no searc! 'ould !ave 3een made, and conse$uently, t!e sac!et o% s!a3u 'ould not !ave 3een con%iscated. =e are not una'are o% anot!er set o% 9uris&rudence t!at deems 0relia3le in%ormation0 su%%icient to 9usti%y a searc! incident to a la'%ul 'arrantless arrest. But as a&tly o3served 3y t!e Court, t!ey 'ere covered 3y t!e ot!er e/ce&tions to t!e rule against 'arrantless searc!es. 8 .eit!er 'ere t!e arresting o%%icers im&elled 3y any urgency t!at 'ould allo' t!em to do a'ay 'it! t!e re$uisite 'arrant. "s testi%ied to 3y PO1 "urelio 4ni'an, a mem3er o% t!e arresting team, t!eir o%%ice received t!e 0ti&&ed in%ormation0 on (ay 19, 2;; . 5!ey li+e'ise learned %rom t!e in%ormant not only t!e a&&ellant>s &!ysical descri&tion 3ut also !is name. "lt!oug! it 'as not certain t!at a&&ellant 'ould arrive on t!e same day D(ay 19E, t!ere 'as an assurance t!at !e 'ould 3e t!ere t!e %ollo'ing day D(ay 2;E. Clearly, t!e &olice !ad am&le o&&ortunity to a&&ly %or a 'arrant. O3viously, t!is is an instance o% sei-ure o% t!e 0%ruit o% t!e &oisonous tree,0 !ence, t!e con%iscated item is inadmissi3le in evidence consonant 'it! "rticle 444, *ection D2E o% t!e 198C Constitution, 0any evidence o3tained in violation o% t!is or t!e &receding section s!all 3e inadmissi3le %or any &ur&ose in any &roceeding.0 =it!out t!e con%iscated s!a3u, a&&ellant>s conviction cannot 3e sustained 3ased on t!e remaining evidence. 5!us, an ac$uittal is 'arranted, des&ite t!e 'aiver o% a&&ellant o% !is rig!t to $uestion t!e illegality o% !is arrest 3y entering a &lea and !is active &artici&ation in t!e trial o% t!e case. "s earlier mentioned, t!e legality o% an arrest a%%ects only t!e 9urisdiction o% t!e court over t!e &erson o% t!e accused. " 'aiver o% an illegal, 'arrantless arrest does not carry 'it! it a 'aiver o% t!e inadmissi3ility o% evidence sei-ed during an illegal 'arrantless arrest.