E. Section 2. Arrest Warrants
Dela Cruz denied
People vs Dela Cruz
G.R. No. 182348, November 20, 2008
571 SCRA 469
FACTS:
ACCORDING TO THE PROSECUTION:
1.On October 20, 2002, an informant tipped off
the Drug Enforcement Unit of the Marikina
Police Station that wanted drug pusher Wifredo
Loilo alias "Boy Bicol" was at his nipa hut
hideout in San Mateo, Rizal.
2. A team was organized to arrest Boy Bicol.
3. On the site, they saw Boy Bicol by a table
talking with Dela Cruz. The team shouted, "Boy
Bicol sumuko ka na may warrant of arrest ka.
(Surrender yourself Boy Bicol you have a
warrant of arrest.)
4. Upon hearing, Boy Bicol engaged them in a
shootout and was fatally shot.
5. On the other hand, Dela Cruz was seen
holding a shotgun through a window. He
dropped his shotgun when a police officer
pointed his firearm at him.
6. The team entered the nipa hut and
apprehended Dela Cruz. They saw a plastic bag
of suspected shabu, a digital weighing scale,
drug paraphernalia, ammunition, and magazines
lying on the table. PO1 Calanoga, Jr. put the
markings "CVDC," the initials of accused-
appellant, on the bag containing the seized drug.
7. Accused-appellant, Dela Cruz, was
subsequently arrested.
8. The substance seized from the hideout was
sent to the Philippine National Police crime
laboratory for examination and tested positive
for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
ACCORDING TO THE DEFENSE:
1. Accused-Appellant, Dela Cruz was at Boy
Bicol's house having been asked to do a welding
job for Boy Bicol's motorcycle
2. While Dela Cruz was there, persons who
identified themselves as police officers
approached the place, prompting accused-
appellant to scamper away.
3. He laid face down when gunshots rang. The
buy-bust team then helped him get up. He saw
the police officers searching the premises and
finding shabu and firearms, which were on top of
a table or drawer.
4. When Dela Cruz was asked for the reason of
his apprehension, he answered because he was
only Boy Bicol’s companion.
under oath that the gun and drugs seized were
found in his possession and testified that he was
only invited by Boy Bicol to get the motorcycle
from his house.
ADDITIONAL FACTS:
1. The RTC acquitted accused-appellant of
illegal possession of firearm and ammunition but
convicted him of possession of dangerous
drugs.
2. The CA sustained accused-appellant's
conviction.
ISSUE:
WON the court a quo gravely erred in convicting
the accused-appellant of the offense charged
despite the patent illegality of his arrest,
HELD:
Yes, since accused-appellant was not in
possession (whether in its actual or constructive
sense) of the illegal drugs in Boy Bicol's nipa
hut, his subsequent arrest was also invalid. Rule
113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure on
warrantless arrest provides:
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when
lawful.--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 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 is temporarily
confined while his case is pending, or
has escaped while being transferred
from one confinement to another.
The warrantless arrest of accused-appellant was
effected under Sec. 5(a), arrest of a suspect in
flagrante delicto. For this type of warrantless
arrest to be valid, two requisites must concur: (1)
the person to be arrested must execute an overt
act indicating that he has just committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit a
crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the
presence or within the view of the arresting
officer
Thus, SC reversed the decision held by CA and
RTC. Accused-appellant Carlos Dela Cruz
is ACQUITTED  revealed
People vs Agojo
G.R. No. 181318  , April 16, 2009
585 SCRA 652
FACTS:
ACCORDING TO THE PROSECUTION:
1. On August 23, 1999, Rodolfo Alonzo, a
civilian informant, reported the drug trading
activities of appellant, Agojo to Police Chief
Inspector Ablang. Alonzo narrated that appellant
agreed to sell him 200 grams of shabu  for
₱70,000.00 on a 50% cash and 50% credit
basis. The sale was to take place in front of the
Mercado Hospital in Tanauan, Batangas.
2. On August 27, 1999 at 11:30 p.m. Chief
Inspector formed a team to conduct the buy-bust
operation.
3. On August 27, 1999, the team proceeded to
Mercado Hospital. Ablang then entrusted Alonzo
with ₱71,000.00 each marked "JUA." Alonzo
was instructed to remove his hat to signal the
team that the sale had been consummated.
4. Appellant, Agojo approached Alonzo to ask if
the latter had the money. Alonzo handed
appellant the marked money. Appellant took a
VHS box from his car and handed it to Alonzo.
Appellant and Alonzo walked along the hospital
gate near the emergency room. Appellant then
entered the hospital.
5. Alonzo examined the VHS box then took off
his cap to signal the buy-bust team. The buy-
bust team immediately proceeded to the scene.
Alonzo told the team that appellant had entered
the hospital. Alonzo handed the VHS box to
Ablang.
6. Upon examination, the box was found to
contain four (4) plastic bags of a crystalline
substance that the team suspected was shabu.
7. Ablang instructed Salazar, Police, to
inform the appellant that his car had been
bumped. Appellant then exited from the
hospital via the emergency room door
8. Salazar introduced himself as a policeman
and attempted to arrest Agojo. Agojo resisted,
but the other team members handcuffed him.
The team recovered ₱10,000.00 of the buy-bust
money. Ablang opened appellant’s car and
recovered a .45 caliber pistol containing seven
(7) bullets and a Panasonic cellular phone from
the passenger seat. 
9. The seized items were requested for a
laboratory examination. The examination
that the sachets contained
methamphetamine hydrochloride with a total
weight of 206.32 grams.
ACCORDING TO THE DEFENSE:
1. On August 27, 1999, appellant arrived at
Mercado Hospital. He stayed in the room of a
certain Imelda Papasin. At this time, his wife,
Precilla was also confined in the hospital. She
had asked him to bring money to settle her bills,
so she could be discharged the next day
2. The security guard informed Agojo that his car
had been sideswiped. Thus, Agojo went down.
The police later arrested him when he reached
the ground floor. The police later opened his car.
3. He was made to board a police vehicle. While
aboard, the police confiscated ₱6,000.00 in
cash, a wrist watch and a necklace from him. He
was brought to the police headquarters in
Kumintang Ilaya, Batangas City. 
ADDITIONAL FACTS:
1. The RTC held that appellant was guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the charge against
him for violation of Section 15 of R.A. No. 6425
and acquitted him of the charge of violation of
P.D. No. 1866 for lack of sufficient evidence.
2. The case was brought on automatic review
before the Supreme Court, since appellant was
sentenced to death by the trial court.

ISSUE:
WON the ARREST of AGOJO is proper even
though the ARREST was made WITHOUT A
WARRANT.
HELD:
YES. In this case, appellant points to the arrest
not being in flagrantedelicto, the existence of
discrepancies in the serial numbers of the buy-
bustmoney and a prior attempt to frame him up
as proofs of the frame-up. However, the fact that
the arrest was not in flagrante delicto is of no
consequence. The arrest was validly executed
pursuant to Section 5, paragraph (b) of Rule 113
of the Rules of Court, which states:
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — 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 been committed and he has
personal knowledge of facts indicating that the
person to be arrested has committed it; and, (c)
When the person to be arrested is a prisoner
who has escaped from 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. The second instance of
lawful warrantless arrest covered by paragraph
(b) cited above necessitates two stringent
requirements before a warrantless arrest can be
effected: (1) an offense has just been
committed; and (2) the person making the arrest
has personal knowledge of facts indicating that
the person to be arrested has committed it. A
review of the records shows that both
requirements were met in this case.
Thus, SC dismissed the appeal and affirmed the
decision of the lower court.
People vs Tan
G.R. No. 182310, December 09, 2009
FACTS:
1. After investigation of the prosecution, the
above respondents became suspects in the
commission of parricide and two murders; their
father, their step-mother and step sister.
2. Respondents Archie and Jan-Jan’s defense is
alibi. They claimed that they were away when
the crimes took place at the house.
3. Based on Dr. Lebaquin’s forensic
computation, however, the victims probably died
at about midnight, more or less. The two were
still at home when the killings happened.
4. RTC issued an order, directing the City
Prosecutor’s Office to submit additional
evidence in the case but the latter office asked
for more time to comply. Meanwhile, the DOJ
issued a resolution dismissing respondents
Archie and Jan-Jan’s petition for review.
5. After a new presiding judge, Judge Globert
Justalero, took over the RTC, he issued an order
on March 30, 2007 granting the prosecution’s
request for additional time within which to
comply with the court’s order of January 12,
2007.
6. On April 2, 2007 the prosecutor’s office filed
its compliance and submitted its amended
resolution in the case. The petitioners assailed
this amended resolution and pointed out that the
public prosecutor did not submit any additional
evidence.
7. Judge Justalero reversed the order of the
previous presiding judge. He found probable
cause against respondents Archie and Jan-Jan
this time and ordered the issuance of warrants
for their arrest.
8. Without seeking reconsideration of Judge
Justalero's order, Archie and Jan-Jan filed the
present petition for certiorari with the CA.
7. The CA granted accused’s petition for
certiorari, reversed all RTC’s decisions and
annulled the issued warrants of arrest. CA
dismissed the criminal cases against the
respondents.
8. The public prosecutor filed a motion for
reconsideration but the same was denied.
Hence,this petition. 
ISSUE:
WON the CA committed error in ruling that
Judge Justalero gravely abused his discretion
when he made a finding that there is probable
cause to issue a warrant for the arrest of the
two.
HELD:
Yes, CA committed error in ruling that Judge
Justalero gravely abused his discretion when he
made a finding that there is probable cause to
warrant the arrest of Archie and Jan-Jan.
But what is probable cause? Probable cause
assumes the existence of facts that would lead a
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe
that a crime has been committed and that it was
likely committed by the person sought to be
arrested. It requires neither absolute certainty
nor clear and convincing evidence of guilt. The
test for issuing a warrant of arrest is less
stringent than that used for establishing the guilt
of the accused. As long as the evidence shows
a prima facie case against the accused, the trial
court has sufficient ground to issue a warrant for
his arrest.
Here, admittedly, the evidence against
respondents Archie and Jan-Jan is merely
circumstantial. The prosecution evidence shows
that they had motive in that they had been at
odds with their father and stepmother. They had
opportunity in that they were still probably home
when the crime took place. Archie took two pairs
of new gloves from his car late that evening.
Cindy was apparently executed inside Archie’s
room. The separate rooms of the two accused
had, quite curiously, been wiped clean even of
their own fingerprints. A trial, unlike preliminary
investigations, could yield more evidence
favorable to either side after the interrogations of
the witnesses either on direct examination or on
cross-examination. What is important is that
there is some rational basis for going ahead with
judicial inquiry into the case. This Court does not
subscribe to the CA’s position that the
prosecution had nothing to go on with.
Thus, SC reversed the decision held by CA and
upheld the decision of RTC.
Ong vs Genio
G.R. No. 182336, December 23, 2009
609 SCRA 188
FACTS:
1. Ong filed a criminal complaint against Genio
for Robbery which was dismissed by the City
Prosecutor of Makati City. However, pursuant to
the Resolutions of the Department of Justice,
respondent was charged with the crime of
Robbery in an information that the accused did
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, divest
and carry away kitchen and canteen equipment
as well as her personal things valued at Php
700,000.00, belonging to ELVIRA O. ONG.
2. Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Case for Lack of Probable Cause Pursuant to
Sec. 6(a), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court and, in
View of Compelling Grounds for the Dismissal of
the Case to Hold in Abeyance the Issuance of
the Warrant of Arrest (Motion to Dismiss).
Petitioner filed an Opposition dated December
11, 2006 to respondent's Motion to Dismiss.
3. RTC of Makati City dismissed the case
because the other elements of the crime of
Robbery, specifically the elements of intent to
gain, and either violence against or intimidation
of any person or force upon things, were not
specifically alleged in the information filed
against respondent.
4. Despite the dismissal of the case, respondent
filed a Partial Motion for Reconsideration,
reiterating that the information should be
dismissed in its entirety for lack of probable
cause. Petitioner filed her opposition to this
motion.
5. RTC granted respondent’s Partial Motion for
Reconsideration and dismissed the case for lack
of probable cause pursuant to Section 6(a), Rule
112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure.
6. Petitioner filed her MR, claiming that the RTC
erred in relying on Section 6(a), Rule 112 of the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, since the
said provision relates to the issuance of a
warrant of arrest, and it does not cover the
determination of probable cause for the filing of
the information against respondent, which is
executive in nature, a power primarily vested in
the Public Prosecutor.
7. RTC denied petitioner’s MR, holding that the
provision authorizes the RTC to evaluate not
only the resolution of the prosecutor who
conducted the preliminary investigation and
eventually filed the information in court, but also
the evidence upon which the resolution was
based. In the event that the evidence on record
clearly fails to establish probable cause, the
RTC may dismiss the case.
8. Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Petition for
Certiorari and Mandamus before the CA.
Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the
petition, raising the issue of lack of personality of
petitioner to appeal the dismissal of the criminal
case, because the authority to do so lies
exclusively with the State as represented by the
OSG. CA observed that the People of the
Philippines were impleaded as petitioner without
showing, however, the OSG’s participation.
Thus, the CA ordered petitioner to furnish the
OSG with a copy of the Petition, and the latter to
comment thereon.
9. OSG filed its Comment, taking the stand of
respondent that only the Solicitor General can
bring or defend actions on behalf of the People
of the Philippines filed before the CA or the
Supreme Court. The OSG submitted that, for
being fatally defective, the said Petition should
be dismissed insofar as the criminal aspect was
concerned, without prejudice to the right of
petitioner to pursue the civil aspect of the case.
10. CA rendered its Resolution, dismissing the
case without prejudice to the filing of a petition
on the civil aspect thereof on the basis of the
arguments raised by both respondent and the
OSG. Petitioner filed an MR which the CA
denied.
ISSUE:
WON the RTC erred erred in relying on Section
6(a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure, since the said provision relates to
the issuance of a warrant of arrest, and it does
not cover the determination of probable cause
for the filing of the Information against
respondent.
HELD:
No, Section 6(a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules
on Criminal Procedure clearly provides that
warrant of arrest may issue — (a) By the
Regional Trial Court. — Within ten (10) days
from the filing of the complaint or information,
the judge shall personally evaluate the
resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting
evidence. He may immediately dismiss the case
if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish
probable cause. If he finds probable cause, he
shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment
order if the accused has already been arrested
pursuant to a warrant issued by the judge who
conducted the preliminary investigation or when
the complaint or information was filed pursuant
to section 7 of this Rule. In case of doubt on the
existence of probable cause, the judge may
order the prosecutor to present additional
evidence within five (5) days from notice and the
issue must be resolved by the court within thirty
(30) days from the filing of the complaint or
information.
Pursuant to the aforementioned provision, the
RTC judge, upon the filing of an Information, has
the following options: (1) dismiss the case if the
evidence on record clearly failed to establish
probable cause; (2) if he or she finds probable
cause, issue a warrant of arrest; and (3) in case
of doubt as to the existence of probable cause,
order the prosecutor to present additional
evidence within five days from notice, the issue
to be resolved by the court within thirty days
from the filing of the information.
Thus, the petition is DENIED. The Resolution of
the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
People vs Jerry R. Pepino and Daisy M.
Balaan
G.R. No. 183479, June 29, 2010
622 SCRA 293
FACTS:
1.On October 18, 1997, Anita Ching (the victim)
left her Goldline Tours office in Quezon City on
board her car driven by Alejandro Soriano,
together with her other employees Policarpio
Guinto (Guinto) and Eva Guinto. The victim and
company had barely left the office when they
were blocked by a vehicle from which alighted
four armed men who poked their firearms at
them.
2. The armed men, two of whom ─ Pepino and
Pelenio ─ were recognized by the victim and
Guinto, forcibly took the victim and boarded her
on their vehicle. Thirty (3) minutes later the
victim was transferred to another vehicle and
taken to a safehouse where she was to be
detained for 19 days.
3. During the victim’s captivity, ten persons
alternately guarded her. Daisy, one of two
female cohorts of the group, warned her not to
escape, otherwise, she would be hanged. The
group initially asked for a ₱30 million ransom but
the amount was eventually negotiated down to
₱500,000.00 which was paid to the group.
4. On November 6, 1997, the victim was
released and dropped near a drugstore along
Bonifacio Avenue in Quezon City.
5. Pelenio escaped from detention. He was
eventually recaptured in Cebu City but was killed
in a shootout with the police on February 3,
2000. Before his death, however, Pelenio sent a
letter to the presiding judge of the trial court
asking for forgiveness for his escape and
admitting his complicity with Pepino in the crime.
6. Sr./Insp. Vicente Arnado, who was called as a
hostile witness for the defense, identified Pepino
as the leader of a notorious kidnap-for-ransom
group.
7. Without presenting evidence, Pepino merely
challenged his warrantless arrest for kidnapping
as illegal, insisting that he was arrested not for
said crime but as an incident of his arrest for
illegal possession of firearms.
8. As for Daisy who claimed to have been
arrested on December 6, 1997 with her uncle
Pelenio, she denied having met the victim at the
safehouse, alleging that it was only on
December 18, 1997 when she was presented at
the Department of Justice that she met the
victim for the first time.
9. RTC found Pepino and Daisy guilty beyond
reasonable doubt as principal and accomplice,
respectively, of the crime charged.
10. Daisy having failed to attend the
promulgation of judgment, a warrant for her
arrest was issued. It appears that she has
remained at-large. Daisy moved for
reconsideration of the decision but RTC denied
it.
11. CA affirmed RTC’s decision.
ISSUE:
WON the warrantless arrest of Pepino for the
case of kidnapping is illegal.
HELD:
NO. As to the alleged illegality of Pepino’s
arrest, it is settled that any irregularity attending
the arrest of an accused should be timely raised
in a motion to quash the Information at any time
before arraignment, failing which he is deemed
to have waived. Since Pepino did not raise such
alleged irregularity early on, he is now
estopped. 
The elements of kidnapping for ransom under
Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as
amended, are as follows: (a) intent on the part of
the accused to deprive the victim of his liberty;
(b) actual deprivation of the victim of his liberty;
and (c) motive of the accused, which is extorting
ransom for the release of the victim.
Thus, SC upheld the decision of CA and RTC.
The appeal of Daisy Balaan is DENIED in
accordance with Section 6, Rule 120 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Rebellion vs People
G.R. No. 175700, July 5, 2010
623 SCRA 343
FACTS:
1. On July 27, 2000, the Mayor’s Action
Command (MAC) team of Mandaluyong
witnessed petitioner handing a piece of plastic
sachet to his companion Clarito Yanson.
Suspecting that that the substance was “shabu,”
team members PO3 Garcia and PO3 Sotomayor
alighted from their motorcycles and approached
them. Clarito was not able to completely get hold
of the plastic sachet because of their arrival.
2. Upon inquiry by PO3 Garcia on what
petitioner was holding, the latter presented three
strips of aluminum foil, which the former
confiscated. There and then, petitioner and
Clarito were apprehended and brought to the
CID for investigation.
3. After laboratory examination, the white
crystalline substance placed inside the plastic
sachet was found positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu, a regulated drug.
4. Petitioner denied the charge against him. On
appeal, petitioner insisted that his warrantless
arrest was unlawful since he was not committing
any crime when he was arrested.
5. On September 26, 2006, the CA affirmed the
judgment of the RTC with modification. The
appellate court sustained the validity of the
warrantless arrest of petitioner holding that the
latter was caught by the MAC team in flagrante
delicto or while he was in the act of giving to
Clarito a plastic sachet of shabu. Petitioner
challenges the legality of his warrantless arrest
by asserting that at the time he was
apprehended, he was not committing or
attempting to commit an offense. Petitioner
argues that since his arrest was illegal, the
eventual search on his person was also
unlawful. Thus, the illicit items confiscated from
him are inadmissible in evidence for being
violative of his constitutional right against
unreasonable searches and seizure.
ISSUE:
WON this is a legitimate instance of a
warrantless arrest, i.e. under circumstances
sufficient to engender a reasonable belief that
some crime was being or about to be committed
or had just been committed.
HELD:
YES. The Court finds the petitioner guilty of the
crime charged. Petitioner’s claim that his
warrantless arrest is illegal lacks merit. Nowhere
in the records did the Court find any objection
interposed by petitioner to the irregularity of his
arrest prior to his arraignment. It has been
consistently ruled that an accused is estopped
from assailing any irregularity of his arrest if he
fails to raise this issue or to move for the
quashal of the information against him on this
ground before arraignment. Any objection
involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure by
which the court acquired jurisdiction over the
person of the accused must be made before he
enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is
deemed waived. In this case, petitioner was duly
arraigned, entered a negative plea and actively
participated during the trial. Thus, he is deemed
to have waived any perceived defect in his
arrest and effectively submitted himself to the
jurisdiction of the court trying his case. Also, a
lawful arrest without a warrant may be made
under any of the following circumstances: Sec.
5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. – 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 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 is
temporarily confined while his case is pending,
or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another. There is sufficient
evidence that the warrantless arrest of petitioner
was effected under Section 5(a), or the arrest of
a suspect in flagrante delicto as he was then
committing a crime, violation of the Dangerous
Drugs Act, within the view of the arresting team.
He was caught by the police officers while he
was in the act of handing to Clarito Yanson a
plastic sachet of “shabu.” Thus, his case comes
under the exception to the rule requiring a
warrant before effecting an arrest.
Consequently, the results of the attendant
search and seizure were admissible in evidence
to prove his guilt of the offense charged.
Jurisprudence is settled that the arresting officer
in a legitimate warrantless arrest has the
authority to search on the belongings of the
offender and confiscate those that may be used
to prove the commission of the offense.
Thus, SC affirmed the decision of CA and RTC.
Pineda-Ng vs People
G.R. No. 189533, November 15, 2010
634 SCRA 736
FACTS:
1. On December 19, 2007, information for
Qualified Theft was filed against: 1. Richard
Francisco, branch manager of private
complainant Philippine Business bank; 2.
Mailada Marilag-Aquino; and 3. Petitioner
Imelda Pineda-Ng.
2. The prosecution found that Aquino had drawn
and issued several checks in favor of petitioner.
Who in turn presented these checks for payment
before the bank by virtue of her Bill of Purchase
Accommodation Facility through Francisco, who
in excess of his authority, approved the payment
of these checks despite the fact that each check
had a face value of more than P 100,000 and
that the same were actually drawn from Closed
Accounts and/or drawn against insufficient
funds.
3. Judge Maria Ami Faith Reyes of RTC 42 in
San Fernando, Pampanga found probable
cause for the issuance of warrant of arrest
against Francisco, but dismissed the case
against Aquino and the Petitioner.
4. However, on Motion for Reconsideration by
the Prosecution, Judge Reyes reversed its
earlier order and found probable cause against
the Petitioner and Aquino and ordered their
arrest.
5. Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari before
the CA. In its Decision, the CA dismissed the
petition for lack of merit. The CA took note that,
while it appeared that Judge Reyes, other than
exhaustively quoting People v. CA, failed to fully
amplify her own findings, it could not be said that
she did not review the records of the case, and
that she merely relied on the findings of the City
Prosecutor.
6. The CA stressed that, at the outset, in her
Order dated January 11, 2008 issued in
petitioner’s favor, Judge Reyes categorically
indicated that she reviewed the records of the
case. The CA ratiocinated that the judge already
had knowledge of the case and that she need
not reiterate or mention in the assailed Order
that she reviewed the case. After all, Judge
Reyes had the power to set aside her previous
Order. 7. Moreover, the CA held that while it is
true that there is no crime of "Conspiracy to
Commit Qualified Theft" as argued by petitioner,
the Information charged all the accused with
consummated Qualified Theft; thus, Aquino and
petitioner were charged as principals by direct
participation. Subsequently, the CA denied
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in its
Resolution dated September 8, 2009.
8. Hence, this petition for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUE:
WON Judge Reyes erred on finding probable
cause for the issuance of warrant of arrest
against the petitioner.
HELD:
NO. Probable cause has been defined as the
existence of such facts and circumstances as
would lead a person of ordinary caution and
prudence to entertain an honest and strong
suspicion that the person charged is guilty of the
crime subject of the investigation. Being based
merely on opinion and reasonable belief, it does
not import absolute certainty. Probable cause
need not be based on clear and convincing
evidence of guilt, as the investigating officer acts
upon reasonable belief. Probable cause implies
probability of guilt and requires more than bare
suspicion, but less than evidence which would
justify a conviction.
Thus, the instant petition is DENIED.
Imperial vs Joson
G.R. Nos. 160067, 171622, November 17,
2010
FACTS:
1. A collision happened along the portion of the
National Highway in Concepcion, Sariaya,
Quezon.
2. The Isuzu ten-wheeler truck collided with a
Fuso six-wheeler truck. After colliding with the
Fuso six-wheeler truck, the Isuzu ten-wheeler
truck further rammed into a Kia Besta Van.
3. There were multiple damages on the vehicles.
Much more tragic than that, the accident
resulted in one death, the owner of the KIA
Besta Van, and seven of its passengers, all
suffered serious physical injuries.
4. A criminal complaint for Reckless Imprudence
Resulting to Multiple Homicide, Multiple Serious
Physical Injuries and Damage to Property was
filed against petitioners Santos Francisco and
Noel Imperial on 16 May 2001.
5. During the course of the case, there have
been 9 postponements. Petitioner claims that his
right to speedy trial has been violated.
ISSUE:
WON the postponements of the pre-trial
conferences were violative of the Petitioner’s
right to speedy trial.
HELD:
NO. Although the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure concededly mandates
commencement of the trial within 30 days from
receipt of the pre-trial order and the continuous
conduct thereof for a period not exceeding 180
days, Section 3 a (1), Rule 119 provides that
delays resulting from extraordinary remedies
against interlocutory orders shall be excluded in
computing the time within which trial must
commence. In determining the right of an
accused to speedy trial, moreover, courts are
"required to do more than a mathematical
computation of the number of postponements of
the scheduled hearings of the case" and to give
particular regard to the facts and circumstances
peculiar to each case. Viewed in the context of
the above discussed procedural antecedents as
well as the further reassignment of the case to
Prosecutor Baligod as a consequence of
Prosecutor Sia’s subsequent transfer to another
government office, we find that the CA correctly
brushed aside petitioner Francisco's claim that
the postponements of the pre-trial conferences
in the case before the Sariaya MTC were
violative of his right to a speedy trial.
Note: The topic is not related to Arrest Warrant.
The SCRA number in the case list is wrong.
PEOPLE VS MARTINEZ
637 SCRA 791 | 2010
FACTS:
The accused, Arnold Martinez , Edgar Dizon,
Rezin Martinez, Roland Doria, and Rafael
Gonzales, were charged with sniffing and
possessing dangerous drugs (shabu residues)
contained in empty plastic sachets and rolled
aluminum foil, during a party, in violation of
Section 13, in relation to Section 11, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165 for Possession of
Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social
Gatherings or Meetings.
It appears that on September 2, 2006, at around
12:45 o'clock in the afternoon, a concerned
citizen entered the police precinct and reported
that a pot session was going on in the house of
accused Rafael Gonzales in Trinidad
Subdivision, Dagupan City.
As the police officers entered the gate of the
house, they saw accused Orlando Doria coming
out of the side door and immediately arrested
him. Inside the house, they saw accused
Gonzales, Arnold Martinez, Edgar Dizon, and
Rezin Martinez in a room. In front of them were
open plastic sachets (containing shabu residue),
pieces of rolled used aluminum foil and pieces of
used aluminum foil.
The accused were arrested and brought to the
police precinct. The items found in the room
were seized and turned over to the Pangasinan
Provincial Police Crime Laboratory Officer who
conducted a laboratory examination on the
seized items. All 115 plastic sachets, 11 pieces
of rolled used aluminum foil, and 27 of the 49
pieces of used aluminum foil tested positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride. The accused
were subjected to a drug test and, except for
Doria, they were found to be positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The case against Doria was dismissed on a
demurrer to evidence. The trial court however
found Arnold Martinez, Edgar Dizon, Rezin
Martinez, and Rafael Gonzales guilty of violation
of Section 13 in relation to Section 11 of RA
9165. The accused were held to have been in
constructive possession of the subject items. A
conspiracy was also found present as there was
a common purpose to possess the dangerous
drug.
ISSUE:
WON the evidence against the accused are
admissible
HELD:
No. Evidence against the accused is
inadmissible because the tipped information is
not sufficient probable cause to effect a lawful
arrest allowing for a warrantless search. This deemed tainted for being the proverbial fruit of a
case would appear to fall under either a poisonous tree and should be excluded.
warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest
or a plain view search, both of which require a RODEL LUZ y ONG VS PEOPLE
lawful arrest in order to be considered valid GR 197788 | 2012/02/29
exceptions to the constitutional guarantee.
Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest FACTS:
(see Rule 113 below) PO2 Emmanuel L. Alteza saw flagged down Luz
 Paragraphs (a) and (b) both require for violating a municipal ordinance which
probable cause to be present requires all motorcycle drivers to wear helmet
in order for a warrantless arrest to be motor vehicle. He invited Luz to come inside
valid. their sub-station since the place where he
o Paragraph (a) the arresting flagged down Luz is almost in front of the said
officers had no personal sub-station. While he and SPO1 Rayford
knowledge that at the time of Brillante were issuing a citation ticket, he noticed
the arrest, accused had just that Luz was uneasy and kept on getting
committed, were committing, or something from his jacket. He told Luz to take
were about to commit a crime, out the contents of the pocket of his jacket as
as they had no probable cause the latter may have a weapon inside it. Luz
to enter the house obliged and slowly put out the contents of the
of accused Rafael Gonzales in pocket of his jacket containing a nickel-like tin or
order to arrest them. metal container after Luz was asked to open the
o Paragraph (b), the arresting container, Alteza noticed a cartoon cover and
officers had no personal something beneath it and upon his instruction,
knowledge of facts and Luz spilled out the contents of the container
circumstances that would lead which turned out to be suspected shabu.
them to believe that the accused
had just committed an RTC convicted Luz of illegal possession of
offense. dangerous drugs. It found the prosecution
 Tipped information is sufficient probable evidence sufficient to show that he had been
cause to effect a lawfully arrested for a traffic violation and then
warrantless search only in cases subjected to a valid search, which led to the
involving either a buy-bust discovery on his person of two plastic sachets
operation or drugs in transit. later found to contain shabu. The CA affirmed
o The tip originated from a the RTC’s Decision.
concerned citizen who himself
had no personal knowledge of Luz filed under Rule 45 the instant Petition for
the information that was Review on Certiorari and claims that there was
reported to the police. no lawful search and seizure, because there
Plain view was no lawful arrest. He claims that the finding
 The evidence was not inadvertently that there was a lawful arrest was erroneous,
since he was not even issued a citation ticket or
discovered as the police officers
charged with violation of the city ordinance.
intentionally entered the house with no
Even assuming there was a valid arrest, he
prior surveillance or investigation before
claims that he had never consented to the
they discovered the accused with the
search conducted upon him.
subject items.
Evidence procured on the occasion of an
ISSUE:
unreasonable search and seizure is
WON the search done upon Luz is valid
HELD:
No. Consent to a search is not to be lightly
inferred, but shown by clear and convincing
evidence. It must be voluntary in order to
validate an otherwise illegal search; that is, the
consent must be unequivocal, specific,
intelligently given and uncontaminated by any
duress or coercion.
Whether consent to the search was in fact
voluntary is a question of fact to be determined
from the totality of all the circumstances.
Relevant to this determination are the following
characteristics of the person giving consent and
the environment in which consent is given:
(a) the age of the defendant;
(b) whether the defendant was in a public or a
secluded location;
(c) whether the defendant objected to the search
or passively looked on;
(d) the education and intelligence of the
defendant;
(e) the presence of coercive police procedures;
(f) the defendant’s belief that no incriminating
evidence would be found;
(g) the nature of the police questioning;
(h) the environment in which the questioning
took place; and
(i) the possibly vulnerable subjective state of the
person consenting. It is the State that has the
burden of proving, by clear and positive
testimony, that the necessary consent was
obtained, and was freely and voluntarily given.
In this case, while the prosecution claims that
Luz acceded to the instruction of PO3 Alteza,
this alleged accession does not suffice to prove
valid and intelligent consent. In fact, the RTC
found that Luz was merely “told” to take out the
contents of his pocket. Also, all that was alleged
was that Luz was alone at the police station at
three in the morning, accompanied by several
police officers. These circumstances weigh
heavily against a finding of valid consent to a
warrantless search.
Neither does the search qualify under the “stop
and frisk” rule. While the rule normally applies
when a police officer observes suspicious or
unusual conduct, which may lead him to believe
that a criminal act may be afoot, the stop and
frisk is merely a limited protective search of
outer clothing for weapons.
Warrantless Search
PEOPLE VS QUEBRAL
GR 185379 | 270Nov 2009
FACTS:
The Chief of the Drug Enforcement Unit called
PO3 Cecilio Galvez and other police officers to a
briefing regarding a police informer's report that
two men and a woman on board an owner type
jeep with a specific plate number would deliver
shabu, a prohibited drug, on the following day at
a Petron Gasoline Station in Balagtas to Michael
Salvador, a drug pusher in the police watch list.
After a short briefing on the morning of
September 8, 2002, PO3 Galvez and six other
police officers trailed the jeep mentioned as it
proceeded to the town proper of Balagtas and
entered a Petron gas station along the McArthur
Highway.
After a few minutes, a Tamaraw FX arrived from
which accused - appellant Michael Salvador
alighted. He walked towards the jeep and talked
to accused Zenaida Quebral, who then handed
a white envelope to him. On seeing this, PO3
Galvez, who was watching from about 15 meters
in a tinted car, signaled his back-up team to
move. The police officers alighted from their
vehicles and surrounded the jeep. Galvez took
the envelope from Michael, opened it, and saw
five plastic sachets containing white crystalline
substance which he believed was shabu.
Accused Zenaida Quebral, Eusebio Quebral,
Fernando Lopez, and Michael Salvador were
arrested for violation of Section 13 in relation to
Section 11 of RA 9165.
ppellants denied having committed the crime,
claiming only that PO3 Galvez and his fellow
police officers merely framed them up.
ISSUE:
WON police officers illegally arrested the
accused and their subsequent search of their
persons incident to such arrest was also illegal
HELD:
No. What happened was more of a search
preceding an arrest. The police officers had
information that two men and a woman on board
an owner type jeep would arrive in Balagtas and
hand over a consignment of shabu at a gas
station in town to a known drug dealer whose
name was on the police watch list. When these
things unfolded before their eyes as they
watched from a distance, the police came down
on those persons and searched them, resulting
in the discovery and seizure of a quantity of
shabu in their possession. In such a case, the
search is a valid search justifying the arrest that
came after it.
It would have been impractical for the police to
apply with the appropriate court for a search
warrant since their suspicion found factual
support only at the moment accused Eusebio
Quebral, Fernando Lopez, and Zenaida Quebral
rendezvoused with Michael Salvador at the
Petron gas station for the handover of the drugs.
An immediate search was warranted since they
would have gone away by the time the police
could apply for a search warrant. The drugs
could be easily transported and concealed with
impunity.
PEOPLE VS AVA
XXXXXXXXXX
LUMANOG VS PEOPLE
FACTS:
Appellants Lenido Lumanog and Agusto Santos
were the accused perpetrators of the ambush-
slay of former Chief of Metropolitan Command
Intelligence and Security Group of Philippine
Constabulary (now PNP), Col. Rolando N.
Abadilla.
The principal witness for the prosecution was
Freddie Alejo, a security guard employed where
the ambush happened. He testified on what he
saw and positively identified the accused.
The suspects raised the defense of alibi, lack of
fingerprint and ballistic evidence. They also
alleged torture in the hands of the police officer,
and that they were arrested without warrant
contrary to Section 2, Art. III of the Constitution.
On cross-examination, the witness admitted they
had no warrant of arrest when they went to
Fairview to locate the suspects, as it was a "hot
person" case ordered by their superior and
requiring the immediate arrest of suspects
identified by witnesses.
The trial court convicted the appellants. The
case was automatically elevated to the Supreme
Court because of the nature of the penalty. The
Supreme Court transferred to case to the Court
of Appeals for review. The Court of Appeals
affirmed the findings of the trial court. However,
the lawyer of the defense imputed several errors
on the decision of the Court of Appeals, hence
the petition for review.
ISSUE:
WON the warrantless arrest done was valid
RULING:
Yes. Because of the credible eyewitness
testimony of Alejo, who vividly recounted before
the trial court their respective positions and
participation in the fatal shooting of Abadilla,
having been able to witness closely how they
committed the crime. Despite a lengthy and
exhaustive cross-examination by the defense
counsel, eyewitness Alejo stuck to the essentials
of his story, including the identification of the
persons who killed Col. Abadilla. He was only
ten (10) meters away from the locus crimini.
Standing on an elevated guardhouse, he had a
close and unobstructed view of the whole
incident. He was in a vantage position to clearly
recognize Col. Abadilla's assailants, more so
because the crime happened in clear and broad
daylight. The credible testimony of a lone
witness(es) assumes more weight when there is
no showing that he was actuated by improper
motive to testify falsely against the accused, as
in the case of Freddie Alejo. 
PEOPLE VS ARANETA
6340SCRA 475 | 20 Oct 2010

FACTS:
The police officers received information of
alleged peddling of illegal drugs from a
confidential informant. The peddlers were
Rolando Araneta and Marilou Santos.
SPO4 Lara formed a team with SPO2 Zigapan
as team leader and PO2 Damasco as poseur-
buyer.
The team arrived at the target place where they
saw the respondents standing outside their
house. The informant talked to the respondents
and introduced PO2 Damasco as buyer.
Rolando went inside the house to ge the drugs
to be sold. PO2 Damasco handed over the
marked bill to Marilou. When Rolando went
outside their house, he gave a plastic sachet
containing the crystalline substance. Upon
receipt, PO2 Damasco examined it. He then
made a signal and the respondents were
promptly apprehended. Aside from the marked
money and the plastic sachet containing shabu
sold to PO2 Damasco, Rolando was also found
to have 8 sachets of shabu and one sachet of
marijuana.
On trial, respondents posed the defense of
frame-up, planting evidence forcible entry and
extortion.
RTC found accused guilty and CA affirmed.
Now, they contend that the evidence should not
be admissible for there is not valid warrant of
arrest and search warrant.
ISSUE:
WON a valid search warrant and warrant of
arrest was needed
RULING:
No. A search warrant or warrant of arrest was
not needed because it was a buy bust operation
and the accused were caught in flagrante delicto
in possession of, and selling dangerous drugs to
the poseur-buyer. It was legal for the buy-bust
team to arrest and search them on the spot
because a buy-bust operation is a justifyable
way of apprehending drug pushers. A buy-bust
operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways
and means are resorted to for the purpose of
trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the
execution of their criminal plan. Thus, in this
jurisdiction, the operation is legal and an
effective method of apprehending drug peddlers,
provided due regard to constitutional and legal
safeguards is undertaken.
Exceptions to Strict Enforcement
PEOPLE VS SEMBRANO
628 SCRA 328
FACTS:
On 26 July 2004, an informant of the police
arrived at the SAID of the Novaliches Police
Station and relayed information regarding illicit
drugs trade operations conducted by a certain
Michael Sembrano alias Takol in the area of
Gulod in Novaliches, Quezon City.
Superintendent (Supt.) Ramon Perez, head of
SAID, formed a buy-bust team composed of
PO1 JomarManaol, SPO1 Cesar Futol, PO1
Kingly James Bagay, PO1 Neil John Dumlao,
and PO1 Fernando Salonga.
PO1 Manaol was designated poseur-buyer. He
was handed two (2) One Hundred Peso bills
which he marked with his initials JAM on the
lower right side thereof, right below the image of
the Philippine Flag. PO1 Manaol, together with
the confidential informant, then proceeded to the
target site. The other members of the team,
including witness PO1 Bagay, acted as back-up
and positioned themselves about twenty-five
meters away from where PO1 Manaol and the
confidential informant were.
They waited until appellant arrived at around
5:00 oclock in the afternoon. Upon appellants
arrival, the confidential informant introduced
PO1 Manaol to him as an interested buyer of
shabu. PO1 Manaol handed the two marked
One Hundred Peso bills to appellant, who, in
turn, handed one (1) plastic sachet containing
white crystalline substance to him. The
transaction having been consummated, PO1
Manaol executed their pre-arranged signal and
scratched his head. When the other members of
the team saw PO1 Manaol execute the pre-
arranged signal, they immediately proceeded to
their location and arrested appellant.
PO1 Bagay was able to retrieve the buy-bust
money from appellants right hand. A follow-up
frisk on appellant resulted in the confiscation of
two other plastic sachets of white crystalline
substance suspected to be shabu, from the right
hand pocket of his shorts. Immediately after
retrieving the evidence, PO1 Bagay marked the
confiscated sachets with his initials KJB.
After his arrest, the police officers took appellant
to the police station where he was turned over to
the desk officer and to the on-duty investigator.
PO1 Bagay, who had custody of the confiscated
evidence, turned over the seized three (3)
plastic sachets of white crystalline substance to
the investigator. PO1 Manaol and PO1 Bagay
executed a Joint Affidavit of Arrest and signed
the Inventory of Seized Drugs/Item prepared by
SPO1 Cesar Futol.
Qualitative examination conducted on the
above-stated specimens gave POSITIVE result
to the tests for Methylamphetamine
Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
ISSUE:
WON the arrest was valid
RULING:
Yes. The collective testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses, as well as the
documentary evidence offered in court, provide
a detailed picture of the sequence of events
leading to the consummation of the transaction,
the very moment PO1 Manaol received the drug
from accused-appellant, the seller. The
foregoing is the very corpus delicti of the
offense.
Appellant was caught in flagrante delicto
delivering 0.12 gram of methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu to PO2 Manaol, the
poseur-buyer, for a consideration of P200.00.
Upon frisking after his arrest, another 0.27 gram
of methamphetamine hydrochloride were
recovered from him. It is clear from the evidence
on record that the sachet of shabu sold by
appellant was marked by PO2 Manaolwith his
initials, while the other two sachets were marked
by PO1 Bagay with his initials. PO1 Bagay, who
had custody of the seized evidence, brought
confiscated three plastic sachets of white
crystalline substance to the police station and
turned over to the investigator. At the police
station, an Inventory of Seized Drugs/Item was
prepared by SPO1 Cesar Futol and signed by
PO1 Manaol and PO1 Bagay. The investigator
on duty, to whom the seized evidence were
encrusted by PO1 Bagay, through PO1 Salonga,
PO1 Manaol and PO1 Bagay, turned over the
evidence to the PNP-Crime Laboratory for
forensic examination on the same day he
received the items. In a Chemistry Report
released by P/S Insp. Leonard T. Arban, the
white crystalline substance taken from the three
sachets proved positive for shabu.
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment
which in recent years has been accepted as a
valid and effective mode of apprehending drug
pushers. If carried out with due regard for
constitutional and legal safeguards, a buy-bust
operation, such as the one involving appellant,
deserves judicial sanction. Consequently, the
warrantless arrest and warrantless search and
seizure conducted on the person of appellant
were allowed under the circumstances. The
search, incident to his lawful arrest, needed no
warrant to sustain its validity. Thus, there is no
doubt that the sachets of shabu recovered
during the legitimate buy-bust operation, are
admissible and were properly admitted in
evidence against him.
PEOPLE VS RACHO
626 SCRA 633, August 3, 2010
Facts:
On May 19, 2003, a confidential agent of the
police transacted through cellular phone with
appellant for the purchase of shabu. The agent
reported the transaction to the police authorities
who immediately formed a team to apprehend
the appellant. The team members posted
themselves along the national highway in Baler,
Aurora, and at around 3:00 p.m. of the same
day, a Genesis bus arrived in Baler. When
appellant alighted from the bus, the confidential
agent pointed to him as the person he
transacted with, and when the latter was about
to board a tricycle, the team approached him
and invited him to the police station as he was
suspected of carrying shabu. When he pulled
out his hands from his pants’ pocket, a white
envelope slipped therefrom which, when urgency that would allow them to do away with
opened, yielded a small sachet containing the the requisite warrant. As testified to by Police
suspected drug. The team then brought Officer 1 Aurelio Iniwan, a member of the
appellant to the police station for investigation arresting team, their office received the "tipped
and the confiscated specimen was marked in information" on May 19, 2003. They likewise
the presence of appellant. The field test and learned from the informant not only the
laboratory examinations on the contents of the appellant’s physical description but also his
confiscated sachet yielded positive results for name. Although it was not certain that appellant
methamphetamine hydrochloride. Appellant was would arrive on the same day (May 19), there
charged in two separate informations, one for was an assurance that he would be there the
violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165, for following day (May 20). Clearly, the police had
transporting or delivering; and the second, of ample opportunity to apply for a warrant.
Section 11 of the same law for possessing,
dangerous drugs. During the arraignment,
appellant pleaded "Not Guilty" to both charges.
On July 8, 2004, the RTC rendered a Joint
Judgment convicting appellant of Violation of
Section 5, Article II, R.A. 9165 but acquitted him
of the charge of Violation of Section 11, Article
II, R.A. 9165. On appeal, the CA affirmed the
RTC decision. The appellant brought the case to
SC assailing for the first time he legality of his
arrest and the validity of the subsequent
warrantless search.

Issue:
WON the appellant has a ground to assail the
validity of his arrest

Held:
Yes. The long standing rule in this jurisdiction is
that "reliable information" alone is not sufficient
to justify a warrantless arrest. The rule requires,
in addition, that the accused perform some overt
act that would indicate that he has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit
an offense. We find no cogent reason to depart
from this well-established doctrine.
Appellant herein was not committing a crime in
the presence of the police officers. Neither did
the arresting officers have personal knowledge
of facts indicating that the person to be arrested
had committed, was committing, or about to
commit an offense. At the time of the arrest,
appellant had just alighted from the Gemini bus
and was waiting for a tricycle.
Appellant was not acting in any suspicious
manner that would engender a reasonable
ground for the police officers to suspect and
conclude that he was committing or intending to
commit a crime. Were it not for the information
given by the informant, appellant would not have
been apprehended and no search would have
been made, and consequently, the sachet of
shabu would not have been confiscated. Neither
was the arresting officers impelled by any