1. People vs.

Sucro [GR 93239, 18 March 1991]

Facts: On 21 March 1989, Pat. Roy Fulgencio, a member of the INP, Kalibo, Aklan, was
instructed by P/Lt. Vicente Seraspi, Jr. (Station Commander of the INP Kalibo, Aklan) to
monitor the activities of Edison Sucro, because of information gathered by Seraspi that
Sucro was selling marijuana. As planned, at about 5:00 P.M. on said date, Pat. Fulgencio
positioned himself under the house of a certain Arlie Regalado at C. Quimpo Street.
Adjacent to the house of Regalado, about 2 meters away, was a chapel. Thereafter, Pat.
Fulgencio saw Sucro enter the chapel, taking something which turned out later to be
marijuana from the compartment of a cart found inside the chapel, and then return to
the street where he handed the same to a buyer, Aldie Borromeo. After a while Sucro
went back to the chapel and again came out with marijuana which he gave to a group
of persons. It was at this instance that Pat. Fulgencio radioed P/Lt. Seraspi and reported
the activity going on P/Lt. Seraspi instructed Pat. Fulgencio to continue monitoring
developments. At about 6:30 P.M., Pat. Fulgencio again called up Seraspi to report that
a third buyer later identified as Ronnie Macabante, was transacting with Sucro. At that
point, the team of P/Lt Seraspi proceeded to the area and while the police officers were
at the Youth Hostel at Maagma St., Pat. Fulgencio told P/Lt. Seraspi to intercept
Macabante and Sucro. P/ Lt. Seraspi and his team caught up with Macabante at the
crossing of Mabini and Maagma Sts. in front of the Aklan Medical Center. Upon seeing
the police, Macabante threw something to the ground which turned out to be a tea bag
of marijuana. When confronted, Macabante readily admitted that he bought the same
from Sucro in front of the chapel. The police team was able to overtake and arrest Sucro
at the corner of C. Quimpo and Veterans Sts. The police recovered 19 sticks and 4
teabags of marijuana from the cart inside the chapel and another teabag from
Macabante. The teabags of marijuana were sent to the PC-INP Crime Laboratory
Service, at Camp Delgado, Iloilo City for analysis. The specimens were all found positive
of marijuana. Sucro was charged with violation of Section 4, Article II of the Dangerous
Drugs Act. Upon arraignment, Sucro, assisted by counsel, entered a plea of "not guilty"
to the offense charged. Trial ensued and a judgment of conviction was rendered, finding
Sucro guilty of the sale of prohibited drug and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of
life imprisonment, and pay a fine of P20,000, and costs. Sucro appealed.

Issue: Whether the arrest without warrant of the accused is lawful and consequently,
whether the evidence resulting from such arrest is admissible.

Held: Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides for the instances
where arrest without warrant is considered lawful. The rule states that "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;" An
offense is committed in the presence or within the view of an officer, within the meaning
of the rule authorizing an arrest without a warrant, when the officer sees the offense,
although at a distance, or hears the disturbances created thereby and proceeds at once
to the scene thereof. The failure of the police officers to secure a warrant stems from
the fact that their knowledge acquired from the surveillance was insufficient to fulfill the
requirements for the issuance of a search warrant. What is paramount is that probable
cause existed. Still, that searches and seizures must be supported by a valid warrant is
not an absolute rule. Among the exceptions granted by law is a search incidental to a
lawful arrest under Sec. 12, Rule 126 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, which provides
that a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything
which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant.
Herein, police officers have personal knowledge of the actual commission of the crime
when it had earlier conducted surveillance activities of the accused. Under the
circumstances (monitoring of transactions) there existed probable cause for the
arresting officers, to arrest Sucro who was in fact selling marijuana and to seize the
contraband. Thus, as there is nothing unlawful about the arrest considering its
compliance with the requirements of a warrantless arrest; ergo, the fruits obtained from
such lawful arrest are admissible in evidence.

2. People vs. Gerente [GR 95847-48, 10 March 1993]

Facts: At about 7:00 a.m. of 30 April 1990, Gabriel Gerente, together with Fredo
Echigoren and Totoy Echigoren, allegedly started drinking liquor and smoking marijuana
in Gerente's house which is about 6 meters away from the house of Edna Edwina Reyes
who was in her house on that day. She overheard the three men talking about their
intention to kill Clarito Blace. She testified that she heard Fredo Echigoren saying,
"Gabriel, papatayin natin si Clarito Blace." Fredo and Totoy Echigoren and Gerente
carried out their plan to kill Clarito Blace at about 2:00 p.m. of the same day. Reyes
allegedly witnessed the killing. Fredo Echigoren struck the first blow against Clarito
Blace, followed by Totoy Echigoren and Gabriel Gerente who hit him twice with a piece
of wood in the head and when he fell, Totoy Echigoren dropped a hollow block on the
victim's head. Thereafter, the three men dragged Blace to a place behind the house of
Gerente. At about 4:00 p.m. of the same day, Patrolman Jaime Urrutia of the Valenzuela
Police Station received a report from the Palo Police Detachment about a mauling
incident. He went to the Valenzuela District Hospital where the victim was brought. He
was informed by the hospital officials that the victim died on arrival. The cause of death
was massive fracture of the skull caused by a hard and heavy object. Right away,
Patrolman Urrutia, together with Police Corporal Romeo Lima and Patrolman Alex Umali,
proceeded to Paseo de Blas where the mauling incident took place. There they found a
piece of wood with blood stains, a hollow block and two roaches of marijuana. They
were informed by Reyes that she saw the killing and she pointed to Gabriel Gerente as
one of the three men who killed Clarito. The policemen proceeded to the house of
Gerente, who was then sleeping. They told him to come out of the house and they
introduced themselves as policemen. Patrolman Urrutia frisked Gerente and found a coin
purse in his pocket which contained dried leaves wrapped in cigarette foil. The dried
leaves were sent to the National Bureau of Investigation for examination. The Forensic
Chemist found them to be marijuana. Only Gerente was apprehended by the police. The
other suspects, Fredo and Totoy Echigoren, are still at large. On 2 May 1990, two
separate informations were filed by Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Benjamin Caraig
against him for Violation of Section 8, Art. II, of RA 6425, and for Murder. When
arraigned on 16 May 1990, Gerente pleaded not guilty to both charges. A joint trial of
the two cases was held. On 24 September 1990, the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela,
Metro Manila, Branch 172, found Gerente guilty of Violation of Section 8 of Republic Act
6425 and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a term of 12 years
and 1 day, as minimum, to 20 years, as maximum; and also found him guilty of Murder
for which crime he was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. . Gerente
appealed.

Issue: Whether the police officers have the personal knowledge of the killing of Blace to
allow them to arrest, and the subsequent searchly Gerente’s person, without the
necessary warrant.

Held: The search of Gerente's person and the seizure of the marijuana leaves in his
possession were valid because they were incident to a lawful warrantless arrest.
Paragraphs (a) and (b), Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Court provide that
"A peace officer or a private person may, without a 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;" The policemen arrested Gerente only some 3 hours after Gerente and his
companions had killed Blace. They saw Blace dead in the hospital and when they
inspected the scene of the crime, they found the instruments of death: a piece of wood
and a concrete hollow block which the killers had used to bludgeon him to death. The
eye-witness, Edna Edwina Reyes, reported the happening to the policemen and
pinpointed her neighbor, Gerente, as one of the killers. Under those circumstances,
since the policemen had personal knowledge of the violent death of Blace and of facts
indicating that Gerente and two others had killed him, they could lawfully arrest Gerente
without a warrant. If they had postponed his arrest until they could obtain a warrant, he
would have fled the law as his two companions did. The search conducted on Gerente's
person was likewise lawful because it was made as an incident to a valid arrest. This is
in accordance with Section 12, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court which provides
that "A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything
which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant."
The frisk and search of Gerente's person upon his arrest was a permissible
precautionary measure of arresting officers to protect themselves, for the person who is
about to be arrested may be armed and might attack them unless he is first disarmed.

3. People vs. Calimlim [GR 123980, 30 August 2001]

Facts: Lanie S. Limin was 14 years old and had been living with the family of Kagawad
Manny Ferrer and Cresencia Ferrer for the past 3 years. On the night of 2 April 1995,
she was left alone in one of the two houses of the Ferrers since her usual companions,
the sons of Manny and Cresencia, were out for the night (disco). The Ferrers were in the
other house about 15 meters away. At around 11:30 P.M., she was awakened when she
heard somebody, later identified as Manuel Calimlim y Muyano, enter her room. Calimlim
immediately poked a knife at the left side of her neck and said "Accompany me because
I killed my wife." She was then dragged to the pig pen, about 8-9 meters away from the
place where she slept. Afterwards, she was again forcibly taken back to her room, then
to her cousin's room and to the kitchen. In each of these places, Calimlim forcibly had
sexual intercourse with her while he poked a knife against her neck. According to Limin,
she first recognized Calimlim while they were in the kitchen when she was able to
remove the cloth covering his face. She stated that she knew Calimlim because she had
seen him always following her whenever she went to school. Limin claimed that she did
not struggle nor shout nor resist because she was afraid that appellant might kill her.
After the fourth intercourse, Calimlim threatened that he would kill her if she reported
the incidents. Despite the threat, she told her cousin, Manicris Ferrer, who then reported
the matter to Dr. Nancy Quinto who lived nearby. The rapes were reported to the
station of SPO1 Mario Suratos by Kagawad Ferrer. Dr. Ricardo Ferrer conducted the
physical examination on Lanie, and found that there was minimal vaginal bleeding and
there were lacerations in the hymen, the positions of which were at 9:00 o'clock, 6:00
o'clock and 3:00 o'clock, all fresh, indicating that there were insertions within the past
24 hours. There was also a whitish vaginal discharge which was found positive for
spermatozoa. Manuel Calimlim denied the accusations. Calimlim was charged in 4
informations for rape in Criminal Cases U-8525, 8638 to 8640. On 17 November 1995,
the Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, Branch 46, Urdaneta, Pangasinan found
Calimlim guilty of 4 counts of rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death, to
pay the offended party the amount of P50,000.00 as damages, and to pay the costs, in
each of the cases. Hence, the automatic review.
Issue: Whether Calimlim may raise the illegality of the warrantless arrest conducted
against him, especially as the arrest was made a day after the crime was committed.

Held: Calimlim avers that his arrest violated Section 5 of Rule 113, 40 since his arrest
was made one day after the crime was committed, but without any judicial warrant,
although the police had ample time to get one. This he claims is also in violation of
Article III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution. But here it will be noted that Calimlim entered a
plea of not guilty to each of the informations charging him of rape. Thus, he had
effectively waived his right to question any irregularity which might have accompanied
his arrest and the unlawful restraint of his liberty. This is clear from a reading of Section
9 of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides that "the
failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the
complaint or information, either because he did not file a motion to quash or failed to
allege the same in said motion, shall be deemed a waiver of any objections except those
based on the grounds provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g) and (i) of section 3 of this
Rule." Given the circumstances of his case, the exceptions do not apply here and the
Court is constrained to rule that Calimlim is estopped from raising the issue of the
legality of his arrest. Moreover, the illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause for
setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free
from error. The defense's claim of warrantless arrest which is illegal cannot render void
all other proceedings including those leading to the conviction of Calimlim, nor can the
state be deprived of its right to convict the guilty when all the facts on record point to
his culpability.

4. People vs. Conde [GR 113269, 10 April 2001]

Facts: On 25 May 1992 at about 8:00 A.M., Apollo Romero was home sitting by the
window and drinking coffee when he saw 4 men in Santolan Street block the path of 2
Indian nationals (bombay) on a motorcycle. Oscar Conde y Lutoc poked a gun at the
two Indians while his three companions (Alejandro Perez Jr. y Carsillar, Allan Atis y Abet,
and another unidentified man) approached and stabbed the Indians. Atis took the goods
which were being sold by the two Indians on installment. After the stabbing, the four
men fled from the crime scene towards Mabolo Street. PO3 Rodencio Sevillano of the
Intelligence and Investigation Division (IID) of the PNP, Kalookan City investigated the
incident. On 30 May 1992, the police arrested Conde, Perez and Atis. Police recovered
the weapons used in the robbery, when Felicidad Macabare, Conde's wife, went to the
police station to talk to Conde. These weapons were discovered inside her bag after a
routine inspection. Sevillano admitted, however, that they did not have a warrant of
arrest when they apprehended the accused. Nor did they have a search warrant when
they inspected Felicidad's bag and when they searched the house of a certain Jimmy
where they found the stolen items. Conde, Perez and Atis were charged with the crime
of robbery with homicide. The accused entered pleas of not guilty. On 15 December
1993 the Regional Trial Court, Branch 129, Kalookan City found Conde, Atis and Perez
guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide and sentenced each of
them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties under the
law, and to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of each of the victims, Sukhdev
Singh and Biant Singh, in the amount of P50,000.00. Conde, et. al. appealed. However,
the counsel de parte for Perez, Atty. Jose M. Marquez, failed to file brief for Perez,
prompting this Court to dismiss his appeal. The decision of the trial court became final
and executory with respect to Perez. Hence the present appeal concerns only Atis and
Conde, who filed their separate briefs.
 Issue: Whether the illegal warrantless arrest, which was waived, is sufficient cause for
setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after trial free of
error.

Held: The arrests of Conde, et. al. came after the lapse of 5 days from the time they
were seen committing the crime. At the time they were arrested, the police were not
armed with any warrants for their arrests. Section 5 of Rule 113, of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure 27 enumerates the instances when an arrest can be made without
warrant, 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 in
fact 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 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. None of the above circumstances is present herein. Conde, et. al. were merely
walking along Tandang Sora Avenue and were not committing any crime. Neither can it
be said that the crime had just been committed as 5 days had already passed from the
time of the robbery with homicide. It cannot also be said that the arresting officers had
probable cause based on personal knowledge, as PO3 Sevillano admitted that they
learned about the suspects from Apollo Romero and certain unnamed informants.
Further, the lapse of 5 days gave the police more than enough time to conduct
surveillance of the appellants and apply for a warrant of arrest. Clearly, the rights of
Conde, et. al., provided in Sec. 2, Art. III of the Constitution 28 were violated.
Unfortunately, they did not assert their constitutional rights prior to their arraignment.
This is fatal to their case. An accused is estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest
if he failed to move for the quashing of the Information against him before his
arraignment. When they entered their pleas on arraignment without invoking their rights
to question any irregularity, which might have accompanied their arrests, they
voluntarily submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the court and the judicial process.
Any objection, defect, or irregularity attending their arrests should had been made
before they entered their pleas. It is much too late for them to raise the question of
their warrantless arrests. Their pleas to the information upon arraignment constitute
clear waivers of their rights against unlawful restraint of liberty. Furthermore, the illegal
arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered
upon a sufficient complaint after trial free from error. The warrantless arrest, even if
illegal, cannot render void all other proceedings including those leading to the conviction
of the appellants and his co-accused, nor can the state be deprived of its right to convict
the guilty when all the facts on record point to their culpability.

5. People vs. Aminnudin [GR L-74860, 6 July 1988]

Facts: Idel Aminnudin y Ahni was arrested on 25 June 1984, shortly after disembarking
from the M/V Wilcon 9 at about 8:30 p.m., in Iloilo City. The PC officers who were in
fact waiting for him 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. When they were verified as marijuana leaves, 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 Aminnudin, who was eventually
convicted, and sentenced to life imprisonment plus a fine of P20,000.00.

Issue: Whether there was ample opportunity to obtain a warrant of arrest against
Aminnudin, for alleged possession and transport of illegal drugs.

Held: It is not disputed, and in fact it is admitted by the PC officers who testified for the
prosecution, that they had no warrant when they arrested Aminnudin and seized the
bag he was carrying. Their only justification was the tip they had earlier received from a
reliable and regular informer who reported to them that Aminnudin was arriving in Iloilo
by boat with marijuana. Their testimony varies as to the time they received the tip, one
saying it was two days before the arrest (this was the declaration of the chief of the
arresting team, Lt. Cipriano Querol, Jr.), another two weeks and a third "weeks before
June 25." There was no warrant of arrest or search warrant issued by a judge after
personal determination by him of the existence of probable cause. Contrary to the
averments of the government, Aminnudin was not caught in flagrante nor was a crime
about to be committed or had just been committed to justify the warrantless arrest
allowed under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. Even expediency could not be invoked to
dispense with the obtention of the warrant. The present case presented no urgency.
From the conflicting declarations of the PC witnesses, it is clear that they had at least
two days within which they could have obtained a warrant to arrest and search
Aminnudin who was coming Iloilo on the M/V Wilcon 9. His name was known. The
vehicle was identified. The date of its arrival was certain. And from the information they
had received, they could have persuaded a judge that there was probable cause,
indeed, to justify the issuance of a warrant. Yet they did nothing. No effort was made to
comply with the law. The Bill of Rights was ignored altogether because the PC lieutenant
who was the head of the arresting team, had determined on his own authority that
"search warrant was not necessary."