GARIN, Diana M.

201680075
Criminal Procedure
Atty. Salvador S. Panelo

People v. Marcelo
733 SCRA 223
August 18, 2014

Facts:

An information was given to the P/Insp. Rabulan that appellant Marcelo would arrive at his rented unit in
Donsol, Sorsogon to deliver and sell an unspecified quantity of shabu. P/Insp. Rabulan thus ordered a
surveillance of the area where the transaction would take place and coordinated the matter with Arbitria,
the Barangay Chairperson. He subsequently formed a buy-bust team and requested one named Tarog to
participate in the operation.

Tarog was instructed to act as poseur-buyer and was given two 500-peso bills and five 100-peso bills as
marked money. At 6 p.m., appellant arrived at the Visitors Inn. Meanwhile, the buy-bust team also
arrived and waited in front of the inn until Tarog appeared at the second floor terrace. He threw the key to
the gate which is the pre-arranged signal for the buy-bust team to enter and proceed to his unit. PO2
Salvatierra caught the key and together with P/Insp. Rabulan used it to open the gate. They proceeded to
Tarogs rented unit and through the slightly opened door, they had a clear view of the living room. They
saw appellant sitting on a couch with her back turned to the door as she was giving shabu to Tarog who
was in turn handing to her the marked money. The police officers thus immediately entered the unit. PO2
Salvatierra took the shabu from Tarog and handed it to P/Insp. Rabulan, while the latter took the buy-bust
money.

Regional Trial Court rendered a Decision convicting appellant for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA
9165 otherwise known as Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of2002, as amended. While, Court of
Appeals affirmed the RTCs ruling.

Hence, this appeal.

Issue:

Whether or not the trial court gravely court in upholding the arrest which was not supported by a warrant

Held:

The appeal is unmeritorious.

Appellants argument that her warrantless arrest was not valid is untenable. The Court emphasized that
the prosecution proved that appellant was apprehended after she exchanged the shabu in her possession
for the marked money of the poseur buyer. Having been caught in flagrante delicto, the police officers
were not only authorized but were even duty-bound to arrest her even without a warrant.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial
Court, is AFFIRMED.
GARIN, Diana M.
201680075
Criminal Procedure
Atty. Salvador S. Panelo

AMBIL, JR., vs. Sandiganbayan

653 SCRA 576
July 06, 2011

Facts:

The present controversy arose from a letter of Atty. David B. Loste to the Office of the Ombudsman,
praying for an investigation into the alleged transfer of then Mayor Francisco Adalim, an accused for
murder, from the provincial jail of Eastern Samar to the residence of petitioner, then Governor Ruperto A.
Ambil, Jr. In a Report, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) recommended the filing of criminal
charges against petitioner Ambil, Jr. for violation of Section 3(e)[7] of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019,
otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as amended.

On arraignment, petitioners pleaded not guilty and posted bail.

At the pre-trial, petitioners admitted the allegations in the Information. They reason, however, that
Adalims transfer was justified considering the imminent threats upon his person and the dangers posed
by his detention at the provincial jail. According to petitioners, Adalims sister, Atty. Juliana A. Adalim-
White, had sent numerous prisoners to the same jail where Mayor Adalim was to be held.

Sandiganbayan, First Division, promulgated the assailed Decision finding petitioners guilty of the said
law. The court ruled that in moving Adalim to a private residence, petitioners have conspired to accord
him unwarranted benefits in the form of more comfortable quarters with access to television and other
privileges that other detainees do not enjoy. It stressed that under the Rules, no person under detention by
legal process shall be released or transferred except upon order of the court or when he is admitted to bail.

Hence, the present petition.

Issue:

Whether a provincial governor has authority to take personal custody of a detention prisoner

Held:

The Court answered in negative.

Sec. 1737 of the Administrative Code of 1917, under which prisoners may be turned over to the jail of the
neighboring province in case the provincial jail be insecure or insufficient to accommodate all provincial
prisoners has been superseded by Sec. 3, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which
provides, no release or transfer except on court order or bail.

In this case, no person under detention by legal process shall be released or transferred except upon order
of the court or when he is admitted to bail. Indubitably, the power to order the release or transfer of a
person under detention by legal process is vested in the court, not in the provincial government, much less
the governor.