Held:

The search of Gerentes person and the seizure of the marijuana leaves in his
possession were valid becausethey were incident to a lawful warrantless arrest.
Paragraphs (a) and (b), Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rulesof Court provide that A
peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in
hispresence, 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 theperson to be arrested has
committed it; The policemen arrested Gerente only some 3 hours after Gerente and
hiscompanions 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 tobludgeon him to death. The
eye-witness, Edna Edwina Reyes, reported the happening to the policemen
andpinpointed her neighbor, Gerente, as one of the killers. Under those circumstances,
since the policemen hadpersonal 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 awarrant, he
would have fled the law as his two companions did. The search conducted on Gerentes
person waslikewise lawful because it was made as an incident to a valid arrest. This is in
accordance with Section 12, Rule 126of the Revised Rules of Court which provides that
A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerousweapons or anything which
may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant.
Thefrisk and search of Gerentes person upon his arrest was a permissible
precautionary measure of arresting officersto protect themselves, for the person who is
about to be arrested may be armed and might attack them unless he isfirst
disarmed.PEOPLE VS. MAQUEDA [242 SCRA 565; G.R. NO.112983; 22 MAR 1994]
Facts:
British Horace William Barker (consultant of WB) was slain inside his house in Tuba,
Benguet while hisFilipino wife, Teresita Mendoza was badly battered with lead pipes on
the occasion of a robbery. Two householdhelpers, Norie and Julieta, identified Rene
Salvamante (a former houseboy of the victims) and Maqueda @ PUTOLas the
robbers. Only Richard Malig was arrested On 22 January 1992, prior to the arraignment
of Richard Malig, theprosecution filed a motion to amend the information
2
to implead as co-accused Hector Maquedaalias
Putol
because the evaluation Of the evidence subsequently submitted established his
complicity in the crime,and at the hearing of the motion the following day, the
Prosecutor further asked that accused Richard Malig bedropped from the information
because further evaluation of the evidence disclosed no sufficient evidence againsthim.
Mike Tabayan and his friend also saw the two accused a kilometer away from the house
of the victims thatsame morning, when the two accused asked them for
directions.Maqueda was then arrested in Guinyangan, Quezon. He was taken to
Calauag, Quezon where he signed aSinumpaang Salaysay wherein he narrated his

participation in the crime. According to SPO3 Molleno, he informedMaqueda of his

constitutional rights before he signed such document. Afterwards he was brought to the
BenguetProvincial Jail. While he was under detention, Maqueda filed a Motion to Grant
Bail. He stated therein that "he iswilling and volunteering to be a State witness in the
above entitled case, it appearing that he is the least guiltyamong the accused in
this case."Maqueda also admitted his involvement in the commission of the robbery
to Prosecutor Zarate and to Salvosa. Butdenied and put up an alibi during trial.
TC Maqueda guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery withhomicide and
serious physical Injuries and sentenced him to Suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua and toindemnifiy the heirs of the victims.
Since we have discarded the positive identification theory of
the prosecutionpinpointing accused Maqueda as the culprit, can we still secure a
conviction based on the confession and the proof of corpus delicti as well as on
circumstantial evidence?In order to establish the guilt of the accused through
circumstantia1 evidence, the following requisites must bepresent: 1) there must be
more than One circumstance; 2) the facts from which the inferences are derived
areproved; and 3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonabledoubt (
People vs. Pajarit
, G.R. No. 82770, October 19, 1992, 214 SCRA 678). There must be an unbroken chain
of circamstances which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the
defendant to the exclusion of allOthers, as the author of the crime (
People vs. Abuyen
, G.R. No. 77285, September 4, 1992, 213 SCRA 569). The combination of all
these circumstances plus extrajudicial confession produce the needed proof
beyondreasonable doubt that indeed accused Maqueda is guilty of the crime.
11
The extrajudicial confession referred to is the
Sinumpaang Salaysay
(Exhibit: "LL") of Maqueda taken by SP02Molleno immediately after Maqueda was
arrested.
Issue:
Whether or Not the trial court was correct in holding that the Sinumpaan Salaysay is
admissible as evidence.
Held:
No. The Sinumpaang Salaysay is inadmissible because it was in clear violation of the
constitutional rights of
the accused. First, he was not informed of his right to remain silent and his right to
counsel. Second, he cannot becompelled to be a witness against himself. At the time of
the confession, the accused was already facing charges incourt. He no longer had the
right to remain silent and to counsel but he had the right to refuse to be a witness
andnot to have any prejudice whatsoever result to him by such refusal. And yet, despite
his knowing fully well that acase had already been filed in court, he still confessed when
he did not have to do so. The contention of the trial court that the accused is
not entitled to such rights anymore because the informationhas been filed and

awarrant of arrest has been issued already, is untenable. The exercise of the rights to
remainsilent and to counsel and to be informed thereof under Section 12(1) of the Bill of
Rights are not confined to thatperiod prior to the filing of a criminal complaint or
information but are available at that stage when a person is"under investigation for the
commission of an offense."Pursuant to Section 12(3) of the Bill of Rights therefore, such
extra-judicial admission is inadmissible as evidence.As to the admissions made
by Maqueda to Prosecutor Zarate and Ray Dean Salvosa, the trial court admitted
theirtestimony thereon only to prove the tenor of their conversation but not to prove the
truth of theadmission becausesuch testimony was objected to as
hearsay. Maqueda voluntarily and freely made them to Prosecutor Zarate not inthe
course of an investigation, but in connection with Maqueda's plea to be utilized as a
state witness; and as to theother admission(Salvosa), it was given to a private person
therefore admissible.Note: a distinction between a confession and admission has been
made by the SC:Admission of a party. The act, declaration or omission of party as to
a relevant fact may be given in evidenceagainst him.Confession. The declaration of
an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offensenecessarily
included therein, may be given in evidence against him. PETITION DISMISSED.