ALLADO V.

DIOKNO
G.R. No. 113630 May 5, 1994
Warrant of Arrest, Probable Cause, Personally
examined.
Facts:
Petitioner Allado and Mendoza (Petitioners) accused
in kidnapping and the killing of a German national.
Upon the sworn statements of a ecurit! guard and a
discharged Philippine consta"ular! a earch #arrant
was issued "! $udge %o"erto &arrios of %'( Manila.
'hen and there) the operati*es of Presidential Anti+
(rime commission (PA(() raided the dwellings of
alleged suspects in the crime and a"le to confiscate
se*eral firearms and ammunitions including a
sunglasses owned "! the German ,ational.
PA(( later referred the case to the -.$.
$udge %o"ert -iokno (%espondent) found pro"a"le
cause after preliminar! in*estigation and) hence)
issued an arrest warrant without "ail.
'he petitioners contended that $udge -iokno acted
with gra*e a"use of discretion and in e/cess of his
0urisdiction as there is lack of pro"a"le cause for him
to issue the warrants.
Further contended that the 0udge did not personall!
determine the admissi"ilit! and sufficienc! of the
e*idence where the in*estigation was "ased from.
1ssue:
#2, the 0udge erred in finding pro"a"le cause
issuing the search warrant.
%uling: (As per (3s -ecision)
4es. Pro"a"le cause in this case is wanting.
'here3s a serious dou"t on the death of the German
national since the (orpus -elicti was not esta"lished
nor his remains ha*e "een reco*ered. For a pro"a"le
cause to e/ist the facts and circumstances must "e
such as would warrant a "elief "! a reasona"l!
discreet and prudent man that the accused is guilt! of
the crime which has 0ust "een committed.
Moreo*er) the %espondent 0udge merel! relied on the
certification of the prosecutors that pro"a"le cause
e/isted. (learl!) pro"a"le cause ma! not "e
esta"lished simpl! "! showing that a trial 0udge
su"0ecti*el! "elie*es that he has good grounds for his
action. Good faith is not enough.
PEOPLE V. ALBIOR
G.R. No. 75034 Jun 30, 19!!
Issues which were never raised in the
proceedings before the trial court cannot be
considered and passed upon on appeal. (Citation
from errera !oo", herein errera#
Facts:
Accused Fransicso Al"ior conspiringl!) ro" the house
of Garces. Upon unlawful) forcefull! entering
through window) another accused Peter -oe raped
and killed certain -ana Garces and carried awa!
personal "elongings.
%'( rendered the accused Al"ior guilt! of the crime
of ro""er! with homicide with rape.
'he accused contends that he was not present at the
time the crime happened) and he did not in fact
understand tagalog) since he is a (e"uano)
withstanding the written e/tra+0udicial confession
was signed "! him for he was told that if he did sign
he would "e released. 5e also assailed the legalit! of
his arrest and the seizure of the stolen goods "! the
(1 agents.
5owe*er) these issues were ne*er raised in the
proceedings "efore the trial court.
1ssue
#2, the issues raised "! Fransico Al"ior can "e
considered on appeal.
%uling:
,o) the! cannot "e considered and passed upon on
appeal. ('he ( did not e/pound their ruling
regarding this issue) hence) this is onl! for the
purpose of our (riminal Procedure su"0ect. .ther
unnecessar! issues are intentionall! omitted.)
Awesome Group 2014 Criminal Procedure
PEOPLE V. MOLINA
G.R. No. 133917 "#$ua$y 19, %001
$eliable information alone, absent any overt act
indicative of a felonious enterprise in the
presence of and within the view of the arresting
o%cers, are not su%cient to constitute probable
cause that would &ustify an in 'agrante delicto
arrest (errera#
Facts:
A Mem"er of the Philippine ,ational Police (P,P)
P.6 Marino Paguidopon recei*es an information
regarding the presence of an alleged mari0uana
pusher. (in da*ao)
'he informant pointed out Molina and Mula as the
alleged pushers.
'hereafter) P.6 Paguidopon dispatched his mem"er
on the said area where the! would wait for the
alleged pusher to pass "!.
.n the same occasion) a trisikad passing "! carr!ing
Molina has "een pointed out "! P.6 Paguidopon)
then the P,P team "oarded the trisikad and accosted
Molina and Mula.
A "lack "ag possessed "! them were ordered "! the
Police officers to open its contents) at first the! (the
petitioners) ask if the! can settle the matters) "ut the
police officers denied the re7uest and insisted it to "e
open and re*eals dried mari0uana lea*es.
'he! were found guilt! of *iolation of the -angerous
-rugs Act. 'he! (ontended that such e*idence is
inadmissi"le for ha*ing "een o"tained in *iolation of
their constitutional right against unlawful searches
and seizures.
1ssue:
#2, Mula and Molina manifested outward indication
that would 0ustif! their arrest) and the seizure of the
prohi"ited drugs.
%uling:
,o) Mula and Molina in carr!ing a "ag on a trisikad
could not "e said to "e committing) attempting to
commit or ha*e committed a crime.
Moreo*er such attempt to settle the matters "! the
petitioners is an e7ui*ocal statement which standing
alone will not constitute pro"a"le cause to effect and
in flagrante delicto arrest. 5ence the search
conducted on their person was likewise illegal.
PEOPLE V. &E'(IO
Awesome Group 2014 Criminal Procedure