People vs. Bati (G.R. No.

87429, August 27, 1990)

Facts: By the word of their civilian informer, Patrolmen Jose Luciano, Angelito Caraan,
Nelson Dimatulac and Democrito Cuenca immediately proceeded to the vicinity an
alleged buy-and-sell of marijuana was taking place. They saw Marquez giving
something to Bati, who, thereafter, handed a wrapped object, which turned out to be
marijuana worth P190, to Marquez who then inserted the object inside the front of his
pants in front of his abdomen while Bati, on his part, placed the thing given to him
inside his pocket. Marquez was arrested on the spot. Both Bati and Marquez were
brought to the Police station where they admitted they were in the buying and selling
of the confiscated marijuana.

Issue: Appellant contends that the arrest was not valid as the requirements for a
warrantless arrest were not complied with.

Held: This contention is without merit.

Section 5 Rule 113 of the Rules in Criminal Procedure clearly provides:

Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant, when lawful. A peace officer or private person may,
without 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 in fact just been committed, and he has personal
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it x x x


It is the considered view of the Court that there was no need for Luciano and
Caraan to be armed with a warrant of arrest when they arrested Marquez and
the accused since they had personal knowledge of the actual commission of the
crime viz: They were eyewitnesses to the illegal exchange of marijuana and
P190.00 between Marquez and accused who were caught in flagrante
delicto. The facts and circumstances attendant precisely fall under Sec. 5, (a), Rule
113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. The subsequent arrest of Marquez and
accused were made under the principle of "hot pursuit". The recovery of the
marijuana from Marquez and the P190.00 from accused by the said police officers
were not violative of their constitutional rights since Marquez and the accused
voluntarily surrendered them to the police officers. But even for the sake of argument
that the recovery of the marijuana and peso bills were against the consent of Marquez
and accused, still, the search on their persons was incidental to their valid warrantless
arrest. For,the rule that searches and seizures must be supported by a valid
warrant is not an absolute rule. There are at least three exceptions: (1) search
incidental to an arrest, (2) search of a moving vehicle and (3) seizure of
evidence in plain view. In the case at bar, the searches made on Marquez and
accused were incidental to their valid arrest.

Having caught the appellant in flagrante as a result of the buy-bust operation, the
policemen were not only authorized but were also under obligation to apprehend the
drug pusher even without a warrant of arrest And since appellant's arrest was lawful,
it follows that the search made incidental to the arrest was also valid.


PEOPLE VS. SUCRO [195 SCRA 388; G.R. No. 93239; 18 Mar 1991]

Facts: Pat. Fulgencio went to Arlie Regalados house at C. Quimpo to monitor
activities of Edison SUCRO (accused). Sucro was reported to be selling marijuana at a
chapel 2 meters away from Regalados house. Sucro was monitored to have talked and
exchanged things three times. These activities are reported through radio to P/Lt.
Seraspi. A third buyer was transacting with appellant and was reported and later
identified as Ronnie Macabante. From that moment, P/Lt.Seraspi proceeded to the
area. While the police officers were at the Youth Hostel in Maagama St. Fulgencio told
Lt. Seraspi to intercept. Macabante was intercepted at Mabini and Maagama
crossing in front of Aklan Medical center. Macabante saw the police and threw a tea
bag of marijuana on the ground. Macabante admitted buying the marijuana from
Sucro in front of the chapel.

The police team intercepted and arrested SUCRO at the corner of C. Quimpo and
Veterans. Recovered were 19 sticks and 4 teabags of marijuana from a cart inside the
chapel and another teabag from Macabante.



Issues:
(1) Whether or Not arrest without warrant is lawful.

(2) Whether or Not evidence from such arrest is admissible.

Held: Search and seizures supported by a valid warrant of arrest is not an absolute
rule. Rule 126, Sec 12 of Rules of Criminal Procedureprovides that a person lawfully
arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything, which may be used as
proff of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant.(People v. Castiller)
The failure of thepolice officers to secure a warrant stems from the fact that their
knowledge required from the surveillance was insufficient to fulfillrequirements
for its issuance. However, warantless search and seizures are legal as long as
PROBABLE CAUSE existed. The police officers have personal knowledge of the actual
commission of the crime from the surveillance of the activities of the accused.
As police officers were the ones conducting the surveillance, it is presumed that they
are regularly inperformance of their duties.

People vs. Burgos (G.R. No. L-68955 September 4, 1986)
G.R. No. L-68955 September 4, 1986
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
RUBEN BURGOS y TITO, defendant-appellant.

Facts: Defendant is charged with illegal possession of firearm in furtherance of
subversion (tasks such as recruiting members to the NPA and collection of
contributions from its members) and found guilty by the RTC of Digos, Davao del Sur.
From the information filed by the police authorities upon the information given by
Masamlok, allegedly a man defendant tried to recruit into the NPA, the police
authorities arrest defendant and had his house searched. Subsequently, certain NPA-
related documents and a firearm, allegedly issued and used by one Alias Cmdr. Pol of
the NPA, are confiscated. Defendant denies being involved in any subversive activities
and claims that he has been tortured in order to accept ownership of subject firearm
and that his alleged extrajudicial statements have been made only under fear, threat
and intimidation on his person and his family. He avers that his arrest is unlawful as it
is done without valid warrant, that the trial court erred in holding the search warrant
in his house for the firearm lawful, and that the trial court erred in holding him guilty
beyond reasonable doubt for violation of PD 9 in relation to GOs 6and 7.

Issue: If defendants arrest, the search of his home, and the subsequent confiscation of
a firearm and several NPA-related documents are lawful.

Held: Records disclose that when the police went to defendants house to arrest him
upon the information given by Masamlok, they had neither search nor arrest warrant
with themin wanton violation of ArtIV, Sec 3 (now Art III, sec 2). As the Court held
in Villanueva vs Querubin, the state, however powerful, doesnt have access to a
mans home, his haven of refuge where his individuality can assert itself in his
choice of welcome and in the kind of objects he wants around him. In the
traditional formulation, a mans house, however humble, is his castle, and thus is
outlawed any unwarranted intrusion by the government.

The trial court justified the warrantless arrest under Rule 113 Sec 6 of the RoC:

a) When the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is about to
commit an offense in his presence;
b) When an offense has in fact been committed, and he has reasonable ground to
believe that the person to be arrested has committed it;
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

and the confiscation of the firearm under Rule 126, Sec 12:

A person charged with an offense may be searched for dangerous weapons or
anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense.

However, the trial court has erred in its conclusion that said warrantless arrest is
under the ambit of aforementioned RoC. At the time of defendants arrest, he wasnt in
actual possession of any firearm or subversive document, and was not committing
any subversive acthe was plowing his field. It is not enough that there is
reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a
crime in a warrantless arrest. An essential precondition is that a crime must
have beenin fact or actually have been committed first; it isnt enough to
suspect a crime may have been committed. The test of reasonable ground applies
only to the identity of the perpetrator. The Court also finds no compelling reason for
the haste with which the arresting officers sought to arrest the accused. We fail to see
why they failed to first go through the process of obtaining a warrant of arrest, if
indeed they had reasonable ground to believe that the accused had truly committed a
crime. There is no showing that there was a real apprehension that the accused was
on the verge of flight or escape. Likewise, there is no showing that the whereabouts of
the accused were unknown.

In proving the ownership of the questioned firearm and alleged subversive
documents, assuming they were really illegal, the defendant was never informed of
his constitutional rights at the time of his arrest; thus the admissions obtained are in
violation of the constitutional right against self-incrimination under Sec 20 Art IV
(now Sec 12, Art III) and thus inadmissible as evidence.

Furthermore, the defendant was not accorded his constitutional right to be assisted
by counsel during the custodial interrogation. His extra-judicial confession, the
firearm, and the alleged subversive documents are all inadmissible as evidence. In
light of the aforementioned, defendant is acquitted on grounds of reasonable doubt of
the crime with which he has been charged. Subject firearm and alleged subversive
documents have been disposed of in accordance with law.

The Court also maintains that violations of human rights do not help in overcoming a
rebellion. Reiterating Morales vs Enrile, while the government should continue to
repel the communists, the subversives, the rebels, and the lawless with the
means at its command, it should always be remembered that whatever action is
taken must always be within the framework of our Constitution and our laws.

PEOPLE VS. AMMINUDIN [163 SCRA 402; G.R. L-74869; 6 Jul 1988]
Friday, February 06, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes
Labels: Case Digests, Political Law

Facts: Idel Aminnudin, accused-appellant was arrested on June 25, 1984, shortly after
disembarking from the M/V Wilcon 9 at about 8:30 in the evening, in Iloilo City. The
PC officers who were in fact waiting for him because of a tip from one their informers
simply accosted him, inspected his bag and finding what looked liked marijuana
leaves took him to their headquarters for investigation. The two bundles of suspect
articles were confiscated from him and later taken to the NBI laboratory for
examination. It was found to contain three kilos of what were later analyzed as
marijuana leaves by an NBI forensic examiner. An information for violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Act was filed against him. Later, the information was amended to
include Farida Ali y Hassen, who had also been arrested with him that same evening
and likewise investigated. Both were arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Subsequently,
the fiscal filed a motion to dismiss the charge against Ali on the basis of a sworn
statement of the arresting officers absolving her after a 'thorough investigation." The
motion was granted, and trial proceeded only against the accused-appellant, who was
eventually convicted . In his defense, Aminnudin disclaimed the marijuana, averring
that all he had in his bag was his clothing consisting of a jacket, two shirts and two
pairs of pants. He alleged that he was arbitrarily arrested and immediately
handcuffed. His bag was confiscated without a search warrant. At the PC
headquarters, he was manhandled to force him to admit he was carrying the
marijuana, the investigator hitting him with a piece of wood in the chest and arms
even as he parried the blows while he was still handcuffed. He insisted he did not
even know what marijuana looked like and that his business was selling watches and
sometimes cigarettes. However the RTC rejected his allegations. Saying that he only
has two watches during that time and that he did not sufficiently proved the injuries
allegedly sustained.

Issue: Whether or not search of defendants bag is legal.

Held: The search was illegal. Defendant was not caught in flagrante delicto, which
could allow warrantless arrest or search. At the moment of his arrest, he was not
committing a crime. Nor was he about to do so or had just done so. To all
appearances, he was like any of the other passengers innocently disembarking from
the vessel. The said marijuana therefore could not be appreciated as evidence against
the defendant, and furthermore he is acquitted of the crime as charged.