Posadas v CA, 341 SCRA 388

Facts:
While Pat. Ungab and Umpar were conducting a surveillance along Magallanes Street, Davao
City, they spotted petitioner carrying a "buri" bag and they noticed him to be acting
suspiciously.They approached the petitioner and identified themselves as members of the INP.
Petitioner attempted to flee but his attempt to get away was thwarted by the two notwithstanding
his resistance.
They then checked the "buri" bag of the petitioner where they found one (1) caliber .38 revolver,
two (2) rounds of live ammunition for a .38 caliber gun 2 a smoke (tear gas) grenade, 3 and two
(2) live ammunitions for a .22 caliber gun. 4 the petitioner was asked to show the necessary
license or authority to possess the firearms and ammunitions but failed to do so.

Issue:
Whether or not the warantless arrest and search was valid.

Ruling:
No. An arrest without a warrant may be effected by a peace officer or private person, among
others, when in his presence the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or
is attempting to commit an offense; or when an offense has in fact just been committed, and he
has personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the person arrested has committed it.
Contrary to the argument of the Solicitor General that when the two policemen approached the
petitioner, he was actually committing or had just committed the offense of illegal possession of
firearms and ammunitions in the presence of the police officers and consequently the search
and seizure of the contraband was incidental to the lawful arrest in accordance with Section 12,
Rule 126 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure; At the time the peace officers in this case
identified themselves and apprehended the petitioner as he attempted to flee they did not know
that he had committed, or was actually committing the offense of illegal possession of firearms
and ammunitions. They just suspected that he was hiding something in the buri bag. They did
not know what its contents were. The said circumstances did not justify an arrest without a
warrant.

People vs. Cubcubin, 360 SCRA 690

Facts:
Cavite City police station, received a telephone call that a person had been shot. A tricycle
driver told that Fidel Abrenica Cucubin Jr. and the victim were last seen together. The
policemen proceeded to Cucubin and asked permission to enter and look around the house. .
Accused-appellant was then taken to the police station, where he was photographed along with
the things seized from him.He claimed that the policemen did not have any search warrant nor a
warrant of arrest when they took him into custody.

Issue:
Whether or not ther warrantless arrest is valid

Ruling:
No. Under §5(b), two conditions must concur for a warrantless arrest to be valid: first, the
offender has just committed an offense and, second, the arresting peace officer or private
person has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed
it. This Court held that the arresting officers had no personal knowledge since their information
came entirely from an informant. It was pointed out that at the time of his arrest, the accused
was not in possession of the firearm nor engaged in subversive activities. His arrest without a
warrant could not be justified under §5(b).

People V. Kimura, 428 SCRA 51

Facts:
The head of Delta Group, Narcotics Command received information from a confidential
informant that a certain Koichi Kishi and Rey Plantilla were engaged in the selling of illegal
drugs.Thereafter, a buy-bust operation was launched. Kimura was arrested during the
operation. Kizaki was arrested two days after incident without warrrant.

Issue:
WoN the warrantless arrests of the respondents valid?

Ruling:
No. Rule 113, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a peace
officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person only under the following
circumstances:
(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.
Kizaki was arrested two days after the subject incident. At the time appellant Kizaki was
arrested, he was at a restaurant having dinner with a group of friends, thus, he was not
committing or attempting to commit a crime. Neither was he an escaped prisoner whose arrest
could be effected even without a warrant. It bears stressing that none of the arresting officers of
appellant Kizaki was present on the night of June 27 where appellant Kizaki allegedly sold and
transported marijuana and escaped, thus the arresting officers had no personal knowledge of
facts or circumstances that appellant Kizaki committed the crime. None of the exceptions
enumerated above was present to justify appellant Kizaki’s warrantless arrest.

People v. Penaflorida

Facts:
SPO3 Vicente received a tip from an asset that a bundle of marijuana was being transported by
appellant to Huyon-Huyon. The team of Vicente boarded the police mobile car and proceeded to
appellant’s residence and overtook appellant who was on a bicycle. The police officers flagged
appellant down and found marijuana wrapped in a cellophane and newspaper together with
other grocery items. The police officers confiscated these items and took photographs thereof.
Appellant was then brought to the headquarters where he was booked.

Issue:
Whether or not the warrantless arrest is valid?

Ruling:
No. The police was tipped off at around 1:00pm that appellant was transporting marijuana to
Huyon-huyon. Certainly, they had no time to secure an arrest warrant as appellant was already
in transit and already committing a crime. The arrest as effected after appellant as caught in
flagrante delicto. He was seen riding his bicycle and carrying with him the contraband, hence,
demonstrating that a crime was then already being committed. Under the circumstances, the
police had probable cause to believe that appellant was committing a crime. Thus, the
warrantless arrest is justified.

People v. Alunday, 564 SCRA 135

Facts: 
The Intelligence Section of the Police Provincial Office of the Mountain Province received a
report from a confidential informant that there was an existing marijuana plantation within the
vicinity of Mt. Churyon. After a series of validations, the existence of the subject plantation was
finally confirmed.

The Police Director ordered a contingent of policemen to the subject plantation and upon
arriving at the area saw Ricardo Alunday (D) cutting and gathering marijuana leaves. The police
took Alunday (D) to the hut where they saw a woman, an M16 riffle and some dried marijuana
leaves.

Issue:
Is the warrantless arrest valid?

Ruling: 
Yes. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person when, in his
presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit, an offense. Section 5(a) of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court refers to arrest in flagrante
delicto.

People vs Quebral, 606 SCRA 247

Facts:
A police informer’s report reveals that two men and a woman will be on board in an owner type
jeep with a specific plate number to deliver shabu on following day to Michael Salvador, a drug
pusher in the police watch list. On the day of delivery, they were arrested by PO3 Galvez and
his back-up team. Appellants denied having committed the crime, claiming only that PO3
Galvez and his fellow police officers merely framed them up.

Issue :
Whether or not warrantless arrest is valid

Ruling:
Yes. 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
searche d 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.

Judge Abelita III v Doria, 596 SCRA 220

Facts:

Judge Abelita III filed a complaint for Damages against P/Supt. Doria and SPO3 Ramirez.
Petitioner alleged that while he and his family are on their way home, these two officers
requested them to proceed to the Provincial PNP Headquarters at Camp Boni Serrano,
Masbate, Masbate. He was forcibly taken and was searched without warrant. A shotgun was
found in his possession and he was arrested. Petitioner was charged with illegal possession of
firearms and frustrated murder. The trial court found that petitioner was at the scene of the
shooting incident in Barangay Nursery. The trial court ruled that the police officers who
conducted the search were of the belief, based on reasonable grounds, that petitioner was
involved in the incident and that the firearm used in the commission of the offense was in his
possession. The trial court ruled that petitioner’s warrantless arrest and the warrantless seizure
of the firearms were valid and legal, thus, rejecting petitioner’s claim for frame up.

Issue:

Whether the warrantless arrest is valid

Ruling:

No. For the warrantless arrest under this Rule to be valid, two requisites must concur: (1) the
offender has just committed an offense; and (2) the arresting peace officer or private person has
personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.

Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure does not require the arresting
officers to personally witness the commission of the offense with their own eyes. In this case,
P/Supt. Doria received a report about the alleged shooting incident. SPO3 Ramirez investigated
the report and learned from witnesses that petitioner was involved in the incident. They were
able to track down petitioner, but when invited to the police headquarters to shed light on the
incident, petitioner initially agreed then sped up his vehicle, prompting the police authorities to
give chase. Petitioner’s act of trying to get away, coupled with the incident report which they
investigated, is enough to raise a reasonable suspicion on the part of the police authorities as to
the existence of probable cause.

People vNg Yik Bun, et al, GR No. 180452, January 10, 2011

Facts:
Capt. Danilo Ibon received information from an operative that there was an ongoing shipment of
contraband in Barangay Bignay II, Sariaya, Quezon Province. Upon instructions from his
superior, Capt. Ibon formed a team in coordination with a PNP detachmentthen proceeded
thereon.The members of the team were able to observe the goings-on at the resort from a
distance of around 50 meters. They spotted six Chinese-looking men loading bags containing a
white substance into a white van.Accused-appellants claim that no valid in flagrante delicto
arrest was made prior to the seizure and that the police officers placed accused-appellants
under arrest even when there was no evidence that an offense was being committed.

Issue:
Whether there was a valid warrantless search.
Ruling:
Yes.On the issue of warrantless arrest, it is apropos to mention what the Bill of Rights under
Sec.2 A settled exception to the right guaranteed in the aforequoted provision is that of an arrest
made during the commission of a crime, which does not require a warrant. Such warrantless
arrest is considered reasonable and valid under Rule 113, Sec. 5(a) of the Revised Rules on
Criminal Procedure, 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. The foregoing proviso refers to arrest in flagrante delicto.8 In the instant case, contrary
to accused-appellants’ contention, there was indeed a valid warrantless arrest in flagrante
delicto

Peoplevs. Uyboco,

Facts:
Nimfa and her wards, siblings Jeson Kevin and Jeson Kirby Dichaves were abducted and
brought to a house in Merville Subdivision, Parañaque. After, numerous times of negotiation, the
parties finally agreed to a ransom of P1.5 Million. Appellant asked Jepson to bring the ransom
alone. The appellant drove away but the police blocked it and immediately approached the
vehicle.23 They introduced themselves as police officers and accosted the suspect, who turned
out to be appellant. Appellant suddenly pulled a .38 caliber revolver and a scuffle took place.
They managed to subdue appellant and handcuffed him. Appellant was requested to open the
compartment and a gray bag was found inside. P/Supt. Cruz saw money, jewelry and a gun
inside the bag.

Issue:
Whether or not there was a valid arrest.

Ruling:
The arrest was validly executed pursuant to Section 5, paragraph (b) of Rule 113 of the Rules of
Court, which provides: “A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
person: (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. A search incident to a lawful
arrest is also valid under Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court which states: “A person
lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been
used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.”