Case Matrix For Crimproc1

Criminal Procedure Case Matrix SY 2010-2011
CASE TITLE FACTS/ISSUES/(KEYWORDS) DECISIONS/DOCTRINES

ARREST, SEARCH AND SEIZURE (Section 5, Rule 113; Section 12, Rule 126)
1. Posadas vs. (Buri Bag; Unlicensed firearms; accused acting suspiciously; there is The arrest and the incidental seizure of the firearms were held as valid by the SC.
CA probable cause)
188 SCRA Ratio decidendi:
288 Members of the Integrated National Police (INP of the Davao In justifying the warrantless search of the buri bag then carried by the petitioner, the Solicitior
Metrodiscom were conducting surveillance along Mallanes St., Davao General argued when the two policemen approached Mr. Posadas, he was actually committing or
City. While in the vicinity of Rizal Memorial Colleges they spotted had just committed the offense of illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions in the presence
Posadas carrying a “buri” bag and they noticed him to be acting of the police officers and consequently the search and seizure of the contraband was incidental to
suspiciously. They approached the petitioner and identified themselves the lawful arrest in accordance with Section 12 Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. In the case at bar,
as members of the INP. However, the petitioner attempted to flee, but there is no question that the arrest made was reasonable considering that it was effected on the
his attempt was unsuccessful. The police officers then checked the “buri” basis of probable cause. The fact that Mr. Posadas acted suspiciously and attempted to flee with
bag of the petitioner and they found one caliber .38 Smith & Wesson the buri bag, the police officers have a probable cause to believe that he was concealing
revolver; 2 rounds of live ammunitions for a .38 caliber gun; and 2 live something illegal inside the bag and it was the right duty of the police officers to inspect the same.
ammunitions for a .22 caliber gun. The petitioner was later brought to It would be too much indeed to require the police officers to search the bag in the possession of
the police station for further investigation. During such investigation, Mr. the petitioner only after they shall have obtained a search warrant for the purpose. Such an
Posadas was asked to show the necessary license or authority to possess exercise may prove to be useless, futile and much too late.
firearms and ammunitions found in his possession but he failed to do so.
Because of his failure to produce the necessary license, he was charged Clearly, the search in the case at bar can be sustained under the exceptions provided in Section 12
and prosecuted for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition in the Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, and hence the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable
Regional Trial Court searches and seizures has not been violated.
Issue:
Whether or not the warrantless search is valid.
2. People vs. (Shipment of highly dutiable goods; Blue Dodge car; warrantless search The warrantless search made by the law-enforcement authorities was upheld.
CFI of Rizal of smuggled goods-valid; warrantless search of moving vehicle-valid)
101 SCRA 86 Ratio decidendi:
The Regional Anti-Smuggling Action Center (RASAC) was informed by an In this case the majority of the Court held that there was a probable cause to justify the absence of
undisclosed Informer that a shipment of highly dutiable goods would be a warrant. Under the law, the authority of persons duly commissioned to enforce tariff and
transported to Manila from Angeles City on a blue Dodge car. RASAC customs laws is quite exceptional when it pertains to the domain of searches and seizures of goods
Agents stationed themselves in the vicinity of the toll gate of the North suspected to have been introduced in the country in violation of the customs laws. The Court had
Diversion Road at Balintawak, Quezon City. At about 6:45 a.m. of the occasion to recognize this power granted to persons having police authority under Section 2203 of
same day, a light blue Dodge car, driven by Sgt. Jessie Hope who was the Code, in order to discharge their official duties more effectively.
accompanied by Monina Medina approached the exit gate and after
giving the toll receipt sped away towards Manila. The agents gave a As enunciated in the leading of Papa vs. Mago, in the exercise of the specific functions, the Tariff
chase and overtook the car and they successfully stopped it in the tollway Code does not mention the need of a search warrant unlike Section 2209 of the same Code which
to Manila. The agents saw 4 boxes on the back seat of the Dodge and explicitly provides that “dwelling house may be entered and searched only upon warrant issued by
Eppie D. Severino PSU School of Law Page 1


upon inquiry as to what those boxes were, Hope answered, “I don’t a judge or justice of peace, upon sworn written showing probable cause and particularly describing
know.” Further inspection of the car yielded 11 boxes which contained the place to be searched and person or thing to be seized. The Court in said case. Expressed the
assorted brands of wrist watches and bracelets, which supposedly considered view that “except in the case of the search of a dwelling house, persons exercising
untaxed. The boxes were opened in the presence of Hope and Medina, police authority under the customs law may effect search and seizure without a search warrant in
representatives of Bureau of Customs among others. Pictures were taken the enforcement of customs laws. The circumstances of the case at bar undoubtedly fall squarely
by the photographers of Dep’t. of Nat’l. Defense. The Bureau of Customs within the privileged area where search and seizure may lawfully be effected without the need of a
issued a warrant of seizure and detention against the articles including warrant.
the Dodge car. It was admitted, however, that when the apprehending
agents arrested respondents and brought them together with the seized The Order appealed from is set aside and the case is ordered remanded for further trial and
articles to the ASAC Office in Camp Aguinaldo, the former were not reception of evidence without excluding the articles subject of the seizure.
armed with a warrant of arrest and seizure. Hope testified that he had no
knowledge of the contents of the boxes and that those were untaxed. He
only consented to transport them in his car upon the request of his
girlfriend Medina. However, since there was not enough evidence to
controvert the testimonies of the respondents, the Collector on Customs,
in the seizure proceeding, declared that the seized articles including the
car are not subject of forfeiture. Meanwhile, in the trial court (CFI of
Rizal) the prosecution was adducing as evidence the photographs of the
11 boxes containing assorted watches and bracelets. But the defense
counsel objected to the presentation of the pictures and the subject
articles on the ground that they were seized without the benefit of
warrant, and therefore inadmissible in evidence. The trial court issued an
order declaring that the alleged smuggled articles and the pictures taken
were in admissible in evidence. The motion for reconsideration filed by
the prosecution was denied by the lower court, hence this petition.
Issue:
Whether the warrantless search and seizure conducted by the ASAC
agents is lawful or not.
3. People vs. (Chinese man Tan Why; homicide with robbery; accused holding a club The SC in this case held in the affirmative. The appealed judgment of the lower court was
Kagui in his hand; accused voluntarily and w/o protest produce the stolen affirmed.
Malasugui effects of the victim; search and seizure was valid)
63 Phil 211 Ratio decidendi:
In the morning of March 5 1935, Tan Why, a Chinese merchant was found The police officer who ordered the arrest of the accused has a direct knowledge of the
lying on the ground, with several wounds in the head. He died as a result aggression committed on the person of Tan Why. Circumstances showed that undoubtedly
of this wound shortly after he was brought to the hospital. When warranted his arrest without a previous judicial warrant. First, based on the testimony of


Almada, the government’s witness, found Tan Why that morning, the Almada, he saw the accused holding a club with blood stains was found near the place where Tan
latter was still alive and was able to answer laconically “Kagui” when Why was wound. Second, before the victim died, he was able to say that the accused was the
asked who attacked him. Almada also testified that on the morning in one who attacked him. Third, when he was searched by the police officers, he did not show any
question, he saw the appellant with a club in his hand, passed by the opposition and he voluntarily placed the seized items on top of the table of Lieutenant Jacaria.
house where he and the deceased lived. The club was found near the And lastly, in the absence of an explanation of how he came into possession of stolen effects
place where Tan Why was wounded. belonging to Mr. Why who was wounded and treacherously killed, must necessarily be considered
the author of the aggression and death of said person and of the robbery committed on him.
Kagui was immediately apprehended by the Constabulary. He was These circumstances showed that the police officers had direct knowledge of the crime
brought to the police station and when asked to produce two bracelets in committed and warranted the accused’s arrest without obtaining a warrant of arrest. Under the
his possession, he voluntarily and without protest put said items on top law, member of the Insular Police or Constabulary may make arrests without judicial warrant,
of the lieutenant’s table. He was later searched, without opposition or not only when a crime is committed or about to be committed in their presence but also when
protest on his part, and it was discovered that he had also the there is a reason to believe or sufficient ground to suspect that one has been committed and
pocketbook owned by Tan Why; the latter’s identification card; and that it was committed by the person hey arrested. An arrest made under said circumstances is
memorandum of amounts with some Chinese characters. Also, there not unlawful but perfectly justified; and the agent of authority who makes the arrest does not
were some change found in one of the pockets of his pants. violate the provisions of Section 269 of the RPC nor infringe the constitutional precept relative to
Consequently, Kagui was charged and convicted with the crime of the inviolability of one’s right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Relative thereto, when
robbery with homicide. He was sentenced with a penalty of reclusion the search of the person detained or arrested and the seizure of the effects found in his possession
perpetua. However, he appealed the decision of the lower court on the are incidental to an arrest made in conformity with the law, they cannot be considered
ground that the articles seized from him should not be admitted as unreasonable, much less unlawful.
evidence because they were seized without a corresponding judicial
warrant.
Issue:
Whether the arrest, search and seizure without the corresponding
warrant was constitutional.
4. People vs. (“Buy-bust operation; marijuana in a cellophane bag; “plain-view” SC held that the marijuana seized by the NARCOM officers were inadmissible, because the search
Musa doctrine; search and seizure of marijuana was illegal) and seizure made by said officers does not fall within the ambit of “plain-view” doctrine. However,
217 SCRA the exclusion of this particular evidence does not, however, diminish, in any way, the damaging
597 An information was received from a civilian informer that Mari Musa was effect of the other pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution to prove that the appellant
engaged in selling marijuana in Suterville, Zamboanga City. Based on such sold marijuana, in violation of Article II, Section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. Thus, the
information on 13 December 1989, Belagra, leader of NARCOM team, appeal is dismissed and the judgment of the Regional Trial Court affirmed.
instructed Sgt. Ani to conduct surveillance and to test-buy on Musa. The
civilian informer guided Ani to Musa’s house and gave the description of Ratio decidendi:
Musa. Ani was able to buy one newspaper-wrapped dried marijuana for There is no doubt that the warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest authorizes the arresting
P10.00. The following day, a buy-bust was planned. Ani was to raise his officer to make a search upon the person of the person arrested. It is well-settled that "an officer
right hand if he successfully buys marijuana from Musa. As Ani proceeded making an arrest may take from the person arrested any money or property found upon his person


to the house, the NARCOM team positioned themselves about 90 to 100 which was used in the commission of the crime or was the fruit of the crime or which might
meters away. From his position, Belarga could see what was going on. furnish the prisoner with the means of committing violence or of escaping, or which may be used
Musa came out of the house and asked Ani what he wanted. Ani said he as evidence in the trial of the cause . . . " Hence, in a buy-bust operation conducted to entrap a
wanted more marijuana and gave Musa the P20.00 marked money. Musa drug-pusher, the law enforcement agents may seize the marked money found on the person of the
went into the house and came back, giving Ani two newspaper wrappers pusher immediately after the arrest even without arrest and search warrants.
containing dried marijuana . Ani opened and inspected it. He raised his
right hand as a signal to the other NARCOM agents, and the latter moved In the case at bar, the NARCOM agents searched the person of the appellant after arresting him in
in and arrested Musa inside the house. Belarga frisked Musa in the living his house but found nothing. They then searched the entire house and, in the kitchen, found and
room but did not find the marked money (he gave it to his wife who seized a plastic bag hanging in a corner.
slipped away). T/Sgt. Belarga and Sgt. Lego went to the kitchen and found
a ‘cellophane colored white and stripe hanging at the corner of the The warrantless search and seizure, as an incident to a suspect's lawful arrest, may extend beyond
kitchen.’ They asked Musa about its contents but failed to get a response. the person of the one arrested to include the premises or surroundings under his immediate
So they opened it and found dried marijuana leaves inside. Musa was control. Objects in the "plain view" of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have
then placed under arrest. He charged and convicted by the Regional Trial that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence.
Court (RTC) of Zamboanga City, Branch XII, finding him guilty of selling
marijuana in violation Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. Hence, this appeal. It has also been suggested that even if an object is observed in "plain view," the "plain view"
doctrine will not justify the seizure of the object where the incriminating nature of the object is
Issue: not apparent from the "plain view" of the object. Stated differently, it must be immediately
Whether the seizure of the plastic bag and the marijuana inside it is apparent to the police that the items that they observe may be evidence of a crime, contraband,
unreasonable, hence, inadmissible as evidence. or otherwise subject to seizure.
In the instant case, the appellant was arrested and his person searched in the living room. Failing
to retrieve the marked money which they hoped to find, the NARCOM agents searched the whole
house and found the plastic bag in the kitchen. The plastic bag was, therefore, not within their
"plain view" when they arrested the appellant as to justify its seizure. The NARCOM agents had to
move from one portion of the house to another before they sighted the plastic bag. The NARCOM
agents in this case went from room to room with the obvious intention of fishing for more
evidence.
Therefore, it was held that under the circumstances of the case, the "plain view" doctrine does not
apply and the marijuana contained in the plastic bag was seized illegally and cannot be presented
in evidence pursuant to Article III, Section 3(2) of the Constitution.
5. Papa vs. (Shipment of personal effects; duty of deputized agent by BOC; search It was held that the seizure by the members of the Manila Police Department of the goods in
Mago and seizure for purposes of the enforcement of customs and tariff laws- question was in accordance with law and by that seizure the Bureau of Customs had acquired


22 SCRA 857 lawful even if without a warrant) jurisdiction over the goods for the purpose of the enforcement of the customs and tariff laws, to
the exclusion of the Court of First Instance of Manila, therefore the order issued by the respondent
A reliable information was received by the Manila Police Department judge releasing the seized goods was null and void.
(MPD) that certain shipment of personal effects, allegedly misdeclared
and undervalued, would be released from the custom zone of the port of Ratio decidendi:
Manila and loaded on two trucks. Upon orders of Ricardo Papa, Chief of The Chief of the Manila Police Department, Ricardo G. Papa, having been deputized in writing by
the MPD and duly deputized agent of Bureau of Customs (BOC), ordered the Commissioner of Customs, could, for the purposes of the enforcement of the customs and
Martin Alagao to conduct surveillance at gate 1 of the customs zone. The tariff laws, effect searches, seizures, and arrests, and it was his duty to make seizure, among
trucks were intercepted by the agents when they left the customs zone. others, of any cargo, articles or other movable property when the same may be subject to
The contents thereof, consisting of nine bales of goods, including the forfeiture or liable for any fine imposed under customs and tariff laws. He could lawfully open and
trucks were seized on instructions of Papa. Upon investigation, a person examine any box, trunk, envelope or other container wherever found when he had reasonable
claimed ownership of the goods and showed to the policemen a cause to suspect the presence therein of dutiable articles introduced into the Philippines contrary
"Statement and Receipts of Duties” issued by the Bureau of Customs in to law; and likewise to stop, search and examine any vehicle, beast or person reasonably suspected
the name of a certain Bienvenido Naguit. Claiming to have been of holding or conveying such article as aforesaid. It cannot be doubted, therefore, that Papa, Chief
prejudiced by the seizure and detention of the two trucks and their cargo, of Police of Manila, could lawfully effect the search and seizure of the goods in question. The
Remedios Mago and Valentin B. Lanopa filed with the Court of First policemen had authority to effect the seizure without any search warrant issued by a competent
Instance of Manila a petition "for mandamus with restraining order or court. The Tariff and Customs Code does not require said warrant herein. The Code authorizes
preliminary injunction, among others, that Remedios Mago was the persons having police authority under Section 2203 of the Tariff and Customs Code to enter, pass
owner of the goods seized, having purchased them from the Sta. Monica through or search any land, enclosure, warehouse, store or building, not being a dwelling house;
Grocery in San Fernando, Pampanga; that she hired the trucks owned by and also to inspect, search and examine any vessel or aircraft and any trunk, package, box or
Valentin Lanopa to transport, the goods from said place to her residence; envelope or any person on board, or stop and search and examine any vehicle, beast or person
that the goods were seized by members of the Manila Police Department suspected of holding or conveying any dutiable or prohibited article introduced into the Philippines
without search warrant issued by a competent court; and that unless contrary to law, without mentioning the need of a search warrant in said cases. But in the search
restrained their constitutional rights would be violated and they would of a dwelling house, the Code provides that said “dwelling house may be entered and searched
truly suffer irreparable injury. Mago filed an ex parte motion to release only upon warrant issued by a judge or justice of the peace.” Except in the case of the search of a
the goods, alleging that since the inventory of the goods seized did not dwelling house, persons exercising police authority under the customs law may effect search and
show any article of prohibited importation, the same should be released seizure without a search warrant in the enforcement of customs laws. The guaranty of freedom
as per agreement of the parties upon her posting of the appropriate bond from unreasonable searches and seizures is construed as recognizing a necessary difference
that may be determined by the court. The respondent judge issued an between a search of a dwelling house or other structure in respect of which a search warrant may
order releasing the goods to Mago upon her filing of a bond. Papa, on his readily be obtained and a search of a ship, motorboat, wagon, or automobile for contraband
own behalf, filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of the court goods, where it is not practicable to secure a warrant, because the vehicle can be quickly moved
releasing the goods under bond, upon the ground that the Manila Police out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. Hence, the SC declared that
Department had been directed by the Collector of Customs of the Port of the seizure by the members of the MPD of the goods in question was in accordance with law and
Manila to hold the goods pending termination of the seizure proceedings. by that seizure the Bureau of Customs had acquired jurisdiction over the goods for the purposes of
Without waiting for the court’s action on the motion for reconsideration, the enforcement of the customs and tariff laws, to the exclusion of the Court of First Instance of
and alleging that they had no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the Manila.
ordinary course of law, Papa, et. al. filed the action for prohibition and The guaranty of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures is construed as recognizing a


certiorari with preliminary injunction before the Supreme Court. necessary difference between a search of a dwelling house or other structure in respect of which a
search warrant may readily be obtained and a search of a ship, motorboat, wagon, or automobile
Issue: for contraband goods, where it is not practicable to secure a warrant, because the vehicle can be
Whether or not the goods and the two trucks were legally seized by the quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. Having
customs agent despite the absence of search and seizure warrant. declared that the seizure by the members of the Manila Police Department of the goods in
question was in accordance with law and by that seizure the Bureau of Customs had acquired
Whether or not the respondent Judge had acted with jurisdiction in jurisdiction over the goods for the purposes of the enforcement of the customs and tariff laws, to
issuing the order releasing the goods in question. the exclusion of the Court of First Instance of Manila.
6. People vs. (Rule 113, Section 5 of RRC; Sufficiency of knowledge of probable cause; The SC was not persuaded with the arguments of the accused-appellant. It discerns no reversible
Montilla 28 kilos of marijuana) error in the factual findings of the trial court. Hence, except for the imposition of death penalty,
285 SCRA which the SC imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, the judgment of the trial court was
703 Ruben Montilla y Gatdula, alias "Joy," was apprehended at around 4:00 affirmed.
A.M. of June 20, 1994 near a waiting shed located at Barangay Salitran, Ratio decidendi:
Dasmariñas, Cavite, by members of the Cavite PNP. According to the 1. Whether or not the trial court erred in finding that he legally caught in flagrante in
two officers, the Montilla was caught transporting 28 marijuana bricks transporting the prohibited drugs.
contained in a traveling bag and a carton box, which marijuana bricks
had a total weight of 28 kilos. The police officers likewise testified that There were sufficient facts antecedent to the search and seizure that, at the point prior
they were aided by an informer in the arrest of the accused. They had to the search, were already constitutive of probable cause, and which by themselves
been informed the day before, June 19, 1994 at about 2:00 P.M., that a could properly create in the minds of the officers a well-grounded and reasonable belief
drug courier, whom said informer could recognize, would be arriving that appellant was in the act of violating the law. The search yielded affirmance both of
somewhere in Barangay Salitran, Dasmariñas from Baguio City with an that probable cause and the actuality that appellant was then actually committing a
undetermined amount of marijuana. It was the same informer who crime by illegally transporting prohibited drugs. With these attendant facts, it is
pinpointed to the arresting officers the appellant when the latter alighted ineluctable that appellant was caught in flagrante delicto, hence his arrest and the
from a passenger jeepney on the aforestated day, hour, and place carrying search of his belongings without the requisite warrant were both justified.
a seemingly innocent looking pair of luggage for personal effects. The
accused was then approached by the policemen and introduced 2. Whether or not the prohibited drugs (marijuana) were confiscated in the course of an
themselves. They requested him to open and show the contents of the unlawful arrest, and therefore invalid as evidence.
bags which he voluntarily and readily did. Upon cursory inspection, the
bag yielded the prohibited drugs, and so without bothering to search Section 2, Article III of the Constitution lays down the general rule that a search and
further, the accused and his luggage were brought to the police seizure must be carried out through or on the strength of a judicial warrant, absent which
headquarters for questioning. However, the Montilla disavowed such search and seizure becomes "unreasonable" within the meaning of said
ownership of the prohibited drugs. He claimed that he only came to constitutional provision. Evidence secured on the occasion of such an unreasonable
Cavite to look for his cousin and to find some job. But not convinced search and seizure is tainted and should be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a
with his alibi, an information was filed against him charging him with poisonous tree. In the language of the fundamental law, it shall be inadmissible in
violation of Dangerous Drugs Act before the RTC. Trial was held and evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. This exclusionary rule is not, however, an
thereafter the lower court found him guilty as charged and imposed the absolute and rigid proscription. Thus, (1) customs searches; (2) searches of moving


extreme penalty of death. Thus, this appeal.
vehicles, (3) seizure of evidence in plain view; (4) consented searches; (5) searches
Issues: incidental to a lawful arrest; and (6) "stop and frisk" measures have been invariably
1. Whether or not the trial court erred in finding that he legally recognized as the traditional exceptions.
caught in flagrante in transporting the prohibited drugs.
2. Whether or not the prohibited drugs (marijuana) were In appellant's case, it should be noted that the information relayed by the civilian
confiscated in the course of an unlawful arrest, and therefore informant to the law enforcers was that there would be delivery of marijuana at Barangay
invalid as evidence. Salitran by a courier coming from Baguio City in the "early morning" of June 20, 1994.
Even assuming that the policemen were not pressed for time, this would be beside the
point for, under these circumstances, the information relayed was too sketchy and not
detailed enough for the obtention of the corresponding arrest or search warrant. While
there is an indication that the informant knew the courier, the records do not reveal that
he knew him by name.
While it is not required that the authorities should know the exact name of the subject of
the warrant applied for, there is the additional problem that the informant did not know
to whom the drugs would be delivered and at which particular part of the barangay there
would be such delivery. Neither did this asset know the precise time of the suspect's
arrival, or his means of transportation, the container or contrivance wherein the drugs
were concealed and whether the same were arriving together with, or were being
brought by someone separately from, the courier.
On such bare information, the police authorities could not have properly applied for a
warrant, assuming that they could readily have access to a judge or a court that was still
open by the time they could make preparations for applying therefor, and on which there
is no evidence presented by the defense. In determining the opportunity for obtaining
warrants, not only the intervening time is controlling but all the coincident and ambient
circumstances should be considered, especially in rural areas.
The search on his belongings and the consequent confiscation of the illegal drugs as a
result thereof was justified as a search incidental to a lawful arrest under Section 5(a),
Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. Under that provision, 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.
7. Burgos vs. (Illegal search of newspaper offices; Metropolitan Mail; We Forum) The Supreme Court declared the search warrants issued on 7 December 1982 null and void, and


Chief of granted the writ of mandatory injunction for the return of the seized articles, such articles seized
Staf Assailed in this petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with ordered released to the petitioners.
133 SCRA preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction is the validity of two
815 search warrants issued on December 7, 1982 by Judge Ernani Cruz-Pano Section 3 provides that no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable
of the then CFI of Rizal, under which the premises of the "Metropolitan cause to be determined by the judge, or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by
Mail" and "We Forum" newspapers, respectively, were searched, and law, after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
office and printing machines, equipment, paraphernalia, motor vehicles produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be
and other articles used in the printing, publication and distribution of the seized. In the present case, a statement in the effect that the petitioner "is in possession or has in
said newspapers, as well as numerous papers, documents, books and his control printing equipment and other paraphernalia, news publications and other documents
other written literature alleged to be in the possession and control of which were used and are all continuously being used as a means of committing the offense of
petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. publisher-editor of the "We Forum" newspaper, subversion punishable under PD 885, as amended" is a mere conclusion of law and does not
were seized. satisfy the requirements of probable cause. Bereft of such particulars as would justify a finding of
the existence of probable cause, said allegation cannot serve as basis for the issuance of a search
Petitioners further pray that a writ of preliminary mandatory and warrant. Probable cause for a search is defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead
prohibitory injunction be issued for the return of the seized articles, and a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that
that respondents be enjoined from using the articles thus seized as the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. When
evidence against petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. and the other accused in the search warrant applied for is directed against a newspaper publisher or editor in connection
Criminal Case No. Q- 022782 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, with the publication of subversive materials, the application and/or its supporting affidavits must
entitled People v. Jose Burgos, Jr. et al. contain a specification, stating with particularity the alleged subversive material he has published
or is intending to publish. Mere generalization will not suffice. Another factor that makes the
Issue: search warrants constitutionally objectionable is that they are in the nature of general warrants. In
Whether mere allegations of possession and printing of subversive Stanford v. State of Texas, the US SC declared this type of warrant void.
materials may be the basis of the issuance of search warrant.
8. People vs. (Package to be sent to Zurich; odor; package contains dried marijuana The Court ruled in a negative. In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties
Andre Marti leaves; warrantless search and seizure by private person; proscription guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked against the State.
193 SCRA 57 against unlawful searches and seizures applies only to gov’t and its
agencies) The judgment of conviction finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged
is AFFIRMED.
On 14 August 1987, Andre Marti and his common-law wife, went to the
booth of the Manila Packing and Export forwarders in Ermita, Manila, Ratio decidendi:
carrying with them 4 gift-wrapped packages be sent to Mr. Mart’s friend The contraband in the case at bar having come into possession of the Government without the
in Zurich. The forwarder company is owned by a couple, Job and Anita latter transgressing appellant's rights against unreasonable search and seizure, the Court sees no
Reyes. The latter attended to Mr. Marti. The package was not inspected cogent reason why the same should not be admitted against him in the prosecution of the offense
by Anita upon refusal of Mr. Marti, who assured her that it simply charged. The mere presence of the NBI agents did not convert the reasonable search effected by
contained some books and cigars as a gift to his friend. Accordingly, the 4 Reyes into a warrantless search and seizure proscribed by the Constitution. Merely to observe and
gift-wrapped packages were placed in a box and was zealed. look at that which is in plain sight is not a search. Having observed that which is open, where no


trespass has been committed in aid thereof, is not search. Where the contraband articles are
Before delivery of accused box to the Bureau of Customs and/ or Bureau identified without a trespass on the part of the arresting officer, there is not the search that is
of Posts, Mr. Job Reyes, following standard operating procedure, opened prohibited by the constitution.
the boxes for final inspection. When he opened the box, a peculiar order
emitted therefrom. His curiosity aroused, he squeezed one of the The Bill of Rights embodied in the Constitution is not meant to be invoked against acts of private
bundles allegedly containing gloves and felt dried leaves inside. Opening individuals finds support in the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission. True, the liberties
one of the bundles, he pulled out a cellophane wrapper protruding from guaranteed by the fundamental law of the land must always be subject to protection. But
the opening of one of the gloves. He made an opening on one of the protection against whom? Protection against the state. The Bill of Rights governs the relationship
cellophane wrappers and took several grams of the contents thereof. Mr. between the individual and the state. Its concern is not the relation between individuals, between
Reyes reported the incident to the NBI and requested a laboratory a private individual and other individuals. What the Bill of Rights does is to declare some forbidden
examination of the samples he extracted from the cellophane wrapper. It zones in the private sphere inaccessible to any power holder.
turned out that the dried leaves were marijuana flowering tops as
certified by the forensic chemist of the Narcotics Section of the NBI. The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures therefore applies as a
Thereafter, an information was filed against appellant for violation of the restraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the
Dangerous Drug Act. Mr. Marti contends that the evidence subject of the law. Thus, it could only be invoked against the State to whom the restraint against arbitrary and
imputed offense had been obtained in violation of his constitutional unreasonable exercise of power is imposed. If the search is made upon the request of law
rights against unreasonable searches and seizures and privacy of enforcers, a warrant must generally be first secured if it is to pass the test of constitutionality.
communication and therefore argues that the same should be held However, if the search is made at the behest or initiative of the proprietor of a private
inadmissible in evidence. The case at bar assumes a peculiar character establishment for its own and private purposes, as in the case at bar, and without the intervention
since the evidence sought to be excluded was primarily discovered and of police authorities, the right against unreasonable search and seizure cannot be invoked for only
obtained by a private person, acting in a private capacity and without the act of private individual, not the law enforcers, is involved. In sum, the protection against
the intervention and participation of state authorities. unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be extended to acts committed by private individuals
so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the government.
Issue:
Can the accused validly claim that his constitutional right against
unreasonable searches and seizure has been violated? Stated otherwise,
may an act of a private individual, allegedly in violation of appellant's
constitutional rights, be invoked against the State?
9. People vs. (Hashish; Swedish national; principle of knowledge and probable cause The appealed judgment of conviction by the trial court is affirmed.
Malmstedt to justify warrantless arrest)
198 SCRA The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers
401 In the evening of 7 May 1989, Malmstedt, a Swedish national, left for and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, where the search is made
Baguio City. Upon his arrival thereat in the morning of the following day, pursuant to a lawful arrest, there is no need to obtain a search warrant. A lawful arrest without a
he took a bus to Sagada and stayed in that place for two (2) days. warrant may be made by a peace officer or a private person under the following circumstances.
Section 5 provides that “a peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person
At about 8: 00 o'clock in the morning of that same day (11 May 1989), (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is


Captain Alen Vasco, the Commanding Officer of NARCOM, ordered his attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has
men to set up a temporary checkpoint at Kilometer 14, Acop, Tublay, personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and (c)
Mountain Province, for the purpose of checking all vehicles coming from When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or
the Cordillera Region. The order to establish a checkpoint in the said area place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has
was prompted by persistent reports that vehicles coming from Sagada escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. In cases falling under
were transporting marijuana and other prohibited drugs. Moreover, there paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered
was an information received by Capt. Vasco, that a Caucasian coming to the nearest police station or jail, and he shall be proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112,
from Sagada had in his possession prohibited drugs. At the set up Section 7.” In the instant case, Malmstedt was caught in flagrante delicto, when he was
checkpoint at the designated area, NARCOM officers inspected all transporting prohibited drugs. Thus, the search made upon his personal effects falls squarely
vehicles coming from the Cordillera Region. In the bus where Malmstedt under paragraph (1) of the foregoing provisions of law, which allow a warrantless search incident
was boarded, NARCOM officers started their inspection from the front to a lawful arrest. While it is true that the NARCOM officers were not armed with a search warrant
going towards the rear of the bus. Accused who was the sole foreigner when the search was made over the personal effects of accused, however, under the
riding the bus was seated at the rear thereof. circumstances of the case, there was sufficient probable cause for said officers to believe that
accused was then and there committing a crime.
During the inspection, CIC Galutan noticed a bulge on accused's waist.
Suspecting the bulge on accused's waist to be a gun, the officer asked for
accused's passport and other identification papers. When accused failed
to comply, the officer required him to bring out whatever it was that was
bulging on his waist. The bulging object turned out to be a pouch bag and
when accused opened the same bag, as ordered, the officer noticed four
(4) suspicious-looking objects wrapped in brown packing tape, prompting
the officer to open one of the wrapped objects. The wrapped objects
turned out to contain hashish, a derivative of marijuana.
Thereafter, accused was invited outside the bus for questioning. But
before he alighted from the bus, accused stopped to get two (2) travelling
bags from the luggage carrier. Upon stepping out of the bus, the officers
got the bags and opened them. A teddy bear was found in each bag.
Feeling the teddy bears, the officer noticed that there were bulges inside
the same which did not feel like foam stuffing. It was only after the
officers had opened the bags that accused finally presented his passport.
Accused was then brought to the headquarters of the NARCOM at Camp

Dangwa, La Trinidad, Benguet for further investigation. At the
investigation room, the officers opened the teddy bears and they were
found to also contain hashish. Representative samples were taken from
the hashish found among the personal effects of accused and the same


were brought to the PC Crime Laboratory for chemical analysis. In the
chemistry report, it was established that the objects examined were
hashish. a prohibited drug which is a derivative of marijuana. Thus, an
information was filed against accused for violation of the Dangerous
Drugs Act.
As a defense, the accused raised the issue of illegal search of his personal
effects. He also claimed that the hashish was planted by the NARCOM
officers in his pouch bag and that the two (2) travelling bags were not
owned by him, but were merely entrusted to him by an Australian couple
whom he met in Sagada. The trial court did not find his defense tenable,
and thus found Malmstedt to be the guilty beyond reasonable doubt for
violation of the Dangerous Drug Act.
Seeking the reversal of the decision of the trial court finding him guilty of
the crime charged, accused argues that the search of his personal effects
was illegal because it was made without a search warrant and, therefore,
the prohibited drugs which were discovered during the illegal search are
not admissible as evidence against him.
Issue:
Whether or Not the contention of the accused is valid, and therefore the
RTC ruling be reversed.
10. People vs. (M/V Wilcon 9; 3 kilos of marijuana; police have enough time to obtain The SC reversed the decision of the lower and acquitted the accused.
Amminudin a warrant; accused illegally arrested; search and seizure unlawful;
A63 SCRA marijuana inadmissible; accused acquitted) No. The arrest and the search and seizure made by the police officers were illegal. The accused-
402 appellant was not caught in flagrante nor was a crime about to be committed or had just been
Idel Amminudin, accused-appellant, was arrested in 25 June 1984, shortly committed to justify the warrantless arrest allowed under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. Even
after disembarking from the M/V Wilcon 9 at about 8:30 in the evening, expediency could not be invoked to dispensed with the obtention of the warrant.
in Iloilo City. Based on the testimony of the police, they received a
reliable tip two days before a drug operation allegedly headed by the The present case presented no such urgency. It is clear that the police officers had at least two
accused. He was already identified by name and the police knew exactly days within which they could have obtained a warrant to arrest and search Amminudin who was
the date of his arrival. When Amminudin descended from the gangplank coming to Iloilo on board the M/V Wilcon 9. His name was known and the date of his a
after the informer pointed to him, the PC officers where in fact waiting for Rival was certain. And from the information they had received they could have persuaded a judge
him simply accosted him, inspected is bag and found inside it three kilos that there was probable cause to justify the issuance of a warrant. Yet they did nothing. No effort
of what later analyzed as marijuana leaves by an NBI forensic examiner. was made to comply with the law. Furthermore, the accused-appellant was not, at the moment of
On the basis of this finding, a corresponding charge was filed against his arrest, committing a crime nor was it shown that he was about to do so or that he had just


Amminudin for violation of the Dangerous Drug Act. In his defense, the done so. What he was doing was descending the gangplank of the vessel and there was no
accused-appellant disclaimed the marijuana, averring that all he had in outward indication that called for his arrest.
his bag was his pieces of clothing. He alleged that he was arbitrarily
arrested and immediately handcuffed. His bag was confiscated without a Insofar as the marijuana allegedly seized from the accused-appellant, it cannot be admitted as
search warrant. He insisted he did not even know marijuana looked like evidence and should never have been considered by the trial court for the simple fact the it was
and that his business was selling watches and sometimes cigarettes. seized illegally. It is the fruit of a poisonous tree. The search was not an incident of lawful arrest
However, the RTC rejected his allegations. Saying the he only has two because there was no warrant of arrest and the warrantless arrest did not come under the
watches during his arrest and that he did not sufficiently proved the exceptions allowed by the Rules of Court. Hence, the warrantless search was also illegal and the
injuries allegedly sustained. Hence, this appeal. evidence obtained thereby was inadmissible.
Issue:
Whether or not the arrest made by the police and the search and seizure
of the accused’s bag was valid.
11. In Re: Umil, (NPA Sparrow unit member in hospital; 2 CAPCOM soldiers were shot; SC held that it is clear that the arrest, without warrant, of Dural was made in compliance with the
Umil vs. Javelon in fact is Dural; Petition for Habeas Corpus) requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 5, Rule 113.
Ramos
187 SCRA This consolidated case of 8 petitions for habeas corpus assails the validity Ratio decidendi:
311 of the arrests and searches made by the military on the petitioners. On 1 Dural was arrested for being a member of the New Peoples Army (NPA), an outlawed subversive
February 1988, the Regional Intelligence Operations Unit of the Capital organization. Subversion being a continuing offense, the arrest of Rolando Dural without warrant is
Command (RIOU-CAPCOM) received confidential information about a justified as it can be said that he was committing an offense when arrested. The crimes of
member of the NPA Sparrow Unit being treated for a gunshot wound at rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and crimes or offenses
the St. Agnes Hospital in Roosevelt Avenue, Quezon City. Upon committed in furtherance thereof or in connection therewith constitute direct assaults against the
verification, it was found that the wounded person, who was listed in the State and are in the nature of continuing crimes. The arrest of persons involved in the rebellion
hospital records as Ronnie Javelon, is actually Rolando Dural, a member whether as its fighting armed elements, or for committing non-violent acts but in furtherance of
of the NPA Sparrow Unit, responsible for the killing of 2 CAPCOM soldiers the rebellion, is more an act of capturing them in the course of an armed conflict, to quell the
the day before, or on 31 January 1988, Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. In rebellion, than for the purpose of immediately prosecuting them in court for a statutory offense.
view of this verification, Dural was transferred to the Regional Medical The arrest, therefore, need not follow the usual procedure in the prosecution of offenses which
Services of the CAPCOM, for security reasons. While confined thereat, or requires the determination by a judge of the existence of probable cause before the issuance of a
on 4 February 1988, Dural was positively identified by eyewitnesses as judicial warrant of arrest and the granting of bail if the offense is bailable. Obviously, the absence
the gunman who went on top of the hood of the CAPCOM mobile patrol of a judicial warrant is no legal impediment to arresting or capturing persons committing overt acts
car, and fired at the 2 CAPCOM soldiers seated inside the car. As a of violence against government forces, or any other milder acts but equally in pursuance of the
consequence of this positive identification, Dural was referred to the rebellious movement. The arrest or capture is thus impelled by the exigencies of the situation that
Caloocan City Fiscal who conducted an inquest and thereafter filed with involves the very survival of society and its government and duly constituted authorities.
the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City an information charging Rolando
Dural alias Ronnie Javelon with the crime of “Double Murder with Assault
Upon Agents of Persons in Authority.” On 15 February 1988, the


information was amended to include, as defendant, Bernardo Itucal, Jr.
who, at the filing of the original information, was still unidentified.
Meanwhile, on 6 February 1988, a petition for habeas corpus was filed
with the Supreme Court on behalf of Roberto Umil, Rolando Dural, and
Renato Villanueva. The Court issued the writ of habeas corpus on 9
February 1988 and Fidel V. Ramos, Maj. Gen. Renato de Villa, Brig. Gen.
Ramon Montano, and Brig. Gen. Alexander Aguirre filed a Return of the
Writ on 12 February 1988. Thereafter, the parties were heard on 15
February 1988. On 26 February 1988, however, Umil and Villanueva
posted bail before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City where charges for
violation of the Anti-Subversion Act had been filed against them, and they
were accordingly released.
Issue:
Whether or not Dural can be validly arrested without any warrant of
arrest for the crime of rebellion.
12. People vs. (Inserted fingers in plastic bag, smelled marijuana; 1.1 kilos of dried The judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED.
Anita marijuana leaves; no need for warrant of arrest; accused caught in
Claudio flagrante delicto.) Ratio decidendi:
160 SCRA Appellant Claudio was caught transporting prohibited drugs. Pat. Daniel Obiña did not need a
648 Pat. Obina, a member of the Narcotics Unit, was on board the Victory warrant to arrest Claudio as the latter was caught in flagrante delicto. The warrantless search being
Liner, seated on the second seat at the back. While he was thus seated, an incident to a lawful arrest is in itself lawful. Therefore, there was no infirmity in the seizure of
suspect Anita Claudio boarded the same bus and took the seat in front of the 1.1 kilos of marijuana.
him after putting a bag which she was carrying at the back of the seat of
Obiña. The bag placed by suspect behind his seat was a wooven buri bag The applicable provisions on this issue are found in the Rules on Criminal Procedure.
made of plastic containing some vegetables. The act of the accused Rule 113, Sec. 5(a) of the said Rules provides:
putting her bag behind Pat. Obiña's seat aroused his suspicion and he felt .. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
nervous. With the feeling that there was some unusual, he had the urge (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
to search the woven plastic bag. But it was only at San Fernando, attempting to commit an offense.
Pampanga when he was able to go to the bag. He inserted one of his xxx xxx xxx
fingers in a plastic bag located at the bottom of the woven bag and smelt Meanwhile, its Rule 126, Sec. 12 provides:
marijuana. The plastic woven bag appearing to contain camote tops on Section 12. Search incident to lawful arrest.— A person lawfully arrested may be searched for
the top has a big bundle of plastic of marijuana at the bottom. He could dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense,
recognize the smell of marijuana because he was assigned at that time at without a search warrant. (12a)
the ANTI-NARCOTICS Unit. He did not, however, do anything after he
discovered that there was marijuana inside the plastic bag of the accused


until they reached Olongapo City and the accused alighted from the bus
in front of the Caltex Gasoline Station in Sta. Rita. Right after the accused
alighted from the bus, policeman Obina intercepted her and showed her
his Id Identifying himself as a policeman and told her he will search her
bag because of the suspicion that she was carrying marijuana inside said
bag. In reply, accused told him, "Please go with me, let us settle this at
home." However, the witness did not heed her plea and instead
handcuffed her right hand and with her, boarded a tricycle right away and
brought the suspect to the police headquarters with her bag appearing to
contain vegetables. At the police headquarters Investigation Section, the
bag was searched and inside it was found a big bundle of plastic
containing marijuana weighing about one kilo. She was accordingly
charged of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act. However, she contended
that the warrantless arrest, search and seizure made by Pat. Obina is
unlawful. The lower court did not find that the arrest was illegal, thus she
was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt as charged. Hence, this
appeal.
Issue:
Whether or not the warrantless search, seizure and apprehension is
unlawful.
13. People vs. (NPA; possession of illegal firearm and subversive documents; Plowing The conclusions reached by the trial court are erroneous. The judgment of conviction rendered by
Ruben field when arrested; unlawful arrest; unlawful seizure of firearm and the trial court is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The accused-appellant is ACQUITTED,
Burgos subversive documents) Meaning of personal knowledge; Strict
144 SCRA 1 interpretation Ratio decidendi:
Under Section 6(a) of Rule 113, the officer arresting a person who has just committed, is
Ceasar Masamlok surrendered to the PC on 12 May 1982 stating that he committing, or is about to commit an ofense must have personal knowledge of that fact. The
was forcibly recruited by Ruben Burgos, a member of the NPA, ofense must also be committed in his presence or within his view. There is no such personal
threatening him with the use of firearm against his life if he refused. A knowledge in this case. Whatever knowledge was possessed by the arresting officers, it came in
joint team of members of the PC-INP was dispatched the following day to its entirety from the information furnished by Cesar Masamlok. The location of the firearm was
arrest Ruben Burgos and they were able to locate and arrest him while given by the appellant's wife.
he was plowing his field. Interrogation was made in the house of the
accused. He first denied possession of the firearm but later, upon At the time of the appellant's arrest, he was not in actual possession of any firearm or
further questioning, the team with the wife of the accused, went below subversive document. Neither was he committing any act which could be described as
their house and pointed to the place where the gun was hidden. After subversive. He was, in fact, plowing his field at the time of the arrest.
recovery of the firearm, the accused likewise pointed to the subversive In arrests without a warrant under Section 6(b), however, it is not enough that there is


documents which the PC found kept in a stock pile of cogon grass, at a reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a crime. A crime
distance of three meters apart from the Burgos’s house. When Ruben must in fact or actually have been committed first. That a crime has actually been committed is
Burgos was confronted with the possession of the firearm, he readily an essential precondition. It is not enough to suspect that a crime may have been committed. The
admitted that the same was issued to him by the team leader of the fact of the commission of the offense must be undisputed. The test of reasonable ground applies
sparrow unit. He was then arrested and was convicted by the lower only to the identity of the perpetrator.
court with a crime of illegal possession of firearm in furtherance of
subversion. The trial court justified the arrest of the accused-appelant In this case, the accused was arrested on the sole basis of Masamlok's verbal report. Masamlok led
without any warrant as falling under one of the instances when arrests the authorities to suspect that the accused had committed a crime. They were still fishing for
may be validly made without a warrant. Rule 113, Section 6 of the Rules evidence of a crime not yet ascertained. The subsequent recovery of the subject firearm on the
of Court. Hence, this appeal. basis of information from the lips of a frightened wife cannot make the arrest lawful, If an arrest
without warrant is unlawful at the moment it is made, generally nothing that happened or is
Issue: discovered afterwards can make it lawful. The fruit of a poisoned tree is necessarily also tainted.
Was the arrest of Ruben Burgos lawful? Were the search of his house and
the subsequent confiscation of a firearm and documents allegedly found More important, the Court finds no compelling reason for the haste with which the arresting
therein conducted in a lawful and valid manner? officers sought to arrest the accused. We fail to see why they failed to first go through the process
of obtaining a warrant of arrest, if indeed they had reasonable ground to believe that the accused
had truly committed a crime. There is no showing that there was a real apprehension that the
accused was on the verge of flight or escape. Likewise, there is no showing that the whereabouts
of the accused were unknown,
Considering that the questioned firearm and the alleged subversive documents were obtained in
violation of the accused's constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, it
follows that they are inadmissible as evidence.
14. People vs. (Buy-bust operation; marijuana leaves; warrantless arrest; warrantless The SC upheld the warrantless arrest, search and seizure made on Merabueno, Trinidad, and
Merabueno search and seizure) Basilio. However, as far as Cruz is concerned the warrantless arrest, search and seizure made was
239 SCRA unlawful but he did not timely question the validity of his arrest. Hence, the judgment of the
197 On July 18, 1987, the Unit of the Eastern Police District, received an lower court was affirmed, with modification as the penalty imposed.
information by telephone regarding the rampant peddling of marijuana
Barangay Parang, Marikina. Thus, a team was organized to conduct a Ratio decidendi:
surveillance of the place. The surveillance yielded positive results as the Appellant's contention that a blatant violation of their constitutional rights was committed when
police team was able to pinpoint Merabueno, Trinidad and Basilio, herein they were arrested and searched without a warrant, is bereft of merit. Suffice it to say the law
accused-appellants, as the suspected pushers. Pat. Romeo Cavizo was allows warrantless searches in certain cases as provided in Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules on
designated to act as the poseur-buyer. He was given a marked P20 bill to Criminal Procedure. They are as follows:
be used in purchasing marijuana from the suspects. The other members
of the team, who were deployed in inconspicuous places, employed pre-
arranged hand signals as their means of communication. Arrest without warrant, when lawful. — A peace officer or private person may, without warrant,


arrest a person:
Shortly thereafter, Pat. Cavizo spotted Merabueno, and approached the (a) When in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
latter and inquired if he could "iskor ng damo" worth P20.00. When attempting to commit an offense;
Merabueno asked for the money, Pat. Cavizo handed him the marked (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts
twenty-peso bill. After telling him to wait, Merabueno went to an alley, indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.
unknowing other members of the team were following him. Merabueno
headed towards Trinidad to whom he gave the marked twenty-peso bill. Appellants Merabueno, Trinidad and Basilio were caught in flagrante delicto, in the act of
Trinidad handed him a packet, the size of a tea bag. After Merabueno left, committing drug trafficking. As a consequence of the arrest, the three were searched and were
members of the Narcotics team accosted Trinidad. found to be in possession of marijuana. Since the arrests were lawfully made, it follows that the
searches made incidental thereto were also valid.
The policemen, together with Trinidad, followed Merabueno to town.
They saw Merabueno talking with Basilio. They surrounded the two and The procedure followed by the police with respect to the seizure of the marijuana from Cruz after
ordered the three suspects to empty their pockets. Two tea bags of a warrantless search is another matter. The warrantless arrest and search of Cruz, whose identity
marijuana were recovered from Merabueno; one tea bag of marijuana was only made known during the investigation of persons earlier lawfully arrested are not valid.
from Basilio and the marked twenty-peso bill from Trinidad. The trio were The arrest was not made in the course of a “hot-pursuit” because he was not in Marikina during
brought to the Marikina Police Headquarters, where Basilio revealed the the buy-bust operation. There was no reasonable basis to place Cruz under arrest without warrant
name of Ernesto "Erning" Cruz, a resident of Antipolo, Rizal, as his source and then search him without a warrant. In such a case, the police should have secured an arrest
of marijuana. That same morning, the team, together with Merabueno warrant. However, Cruz did not timely question the legality of his arrest, the search on his person
and Basilio, went to Antipolo but they were not able to apprehend Cruz. and the seizure of the marijuana. As a matter of fact, he made an extrajudicial confession with the
However, at about 7:00 P.M. of the same day, the team went back to assistance of counsel. There is no legal basis to set aside said confession.
Antipolo with Basilio. On their way, they met Cruz, who was carrying a
dark-blue bag. After placing Cruz under arrest, the policemen searched
the bag of Cruz and found more than a kilo of dried marijuana leaves.
Cruz was questioned several times as to the identity of the source of the
marijuana and he kept uttering the name of a certain "Carding." The
policemen were unable to ascertain the whereabouts of said Carding.
Based on the evidence gathered, an information was filed with the RTC
and eventually rendered a judgment convicting them of violating the
Dangerous Drugs Act. They were sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua. Hence, this appeal.
Issue:
Whether or not the arrest, search and seizure made on Merabueno,
Trinidad, Basilio, and Cruz was valid.
15. People vs. (Involves a continuing buy-bust operation where after the sale, the In holding in the affirmative, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellant.


Cuachon shabu was handed to a policeman a block away who after determining
238 SCRA it was shabu which only took a few minutes immediately proceeded to Ratio decidendi:
540 the house of the appellant and arrested him) The Court justified the warrantless arrest under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court on
warrantless arrest and the obligation of the police to apprehend even without a warrant. Pat.
This case involves the accused-appellant’s (Romeo Cuachon) pleading for Uggandan witnessed the illegal act of selling shabu on the occasion of the buy-bust operation in
the reversal of his conviction by the RTC of Makati finding him guilty of front of the room of the accused. He did not make the arrest right then and there because there
violating RA 6425 or the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. were only himself and the informant as against the different male and female voices he heard from
both rooms of Cuachon’s house.
The antecedents: On 20 November 1988, a confidential informant
reported to the police that was rampant selling of shabu in the Considering that the operation took place inside the house of the appellant, understandably Pat.
residence of Romeo Cuachon. Forthwith, a team of police officers was Uggadan and his informant had to get of the house and inform their backup that the sale had been
formed to conduct a buy-bust operation against the accused. As consummated. Furthermore, weighty consideration is the fact that, as previously stated, Uggadan
planned, Pat. Uggadan and the informant proceeded to the residence of immediately gave the shabu to Reyes who was only a block away and after the latter had
their quarry while Pat. Reyes and other members of the team posted determined that it was shabu, which only took a few minutes, they all immediately proceeded to
themselves in strategic places. After a few minutes, Uggadan together the house of Cuachon and arrested him. It was a continuing buy-bust operation which, as the
with the informant, reported to Reyes that he had succeeded in buying phrase connotes, commenced with buying shabu and culminates in Cuachon’s arrest. Since his
shabbu from the accused at the same time presenting the merchandise to arrest was lawful, it follows that the incidental search was also valid.
the latter. After determining it was shabu, Reyes and his men
immediately proceeded to the residence of Cuachon and found in one
of the rooms several men seated around a table, engaged in pot session
and several paraphernalia. Uggadan pointed Cuachon to Reyes as the
person who earlier sold shabu to him. Thereupon, Reyes frisked
Cuachon and found in his person the two P100 bill that he gave
Uggadan as a buy-bust money. He also found a quantity of shabu
contained in the plastic bag. In his appeal he contended that the
warrantless arrest, search and seizure should be declared null and void.
Issue:
Is the warrantless arrest, search and seizure justified?
16. People vs. (One kilo of marijuana; accused carrying red travelling bag; acting The answer of the Court is in the affirmative. The contention of the accused is devoid of merit.
Medel suspiciously; arrest was based on suspicion; where there is urgency; The judgment of conviction by the trial court is AFFIRMED but MODIFIED as to the penalty
Tangliben compared to Amminudin Case) imposed in the light that what was proven beyond reasonable doubt is not his intent to transport
184 SCRA the marijuana leaves but his actual possession of the same.
220 In the late evening of 2 March 1982, Pat. Quevedo and Punzalan of the
San Fernando Police Station, together with a barangay tanod, were Ratio decidendi:
conducting surveillance mission at the Victory Liner Terminal compound One of the exceptions to the general rule requiring a search warrant is a search incident to a lawful


located at Barangay San Nicolas, San Fernando, Pampanga. The arrest. Thus, Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that “A person
surveillance mission was aimed not only against persons who may lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as
commit misdemeanors at said place but also on persons who may be proof of the commission of an ofense, without a search warrant.” Meanwhile, Rule 113, Sec. 5(a)
engaging in the traffic of dangerous drugs based on information supplied provides that “A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a)
by informers. Around 9:30 p.m., said patrolmen noticed a person carrying When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
a red traveling bag who was acting suspiciously and they confronted him. attempting to commit an ofense.” Tangliben was caught in flagrante, since he was carrying
The person was requested by the police officers to open the red traveling marijuana at the time of his arrest. This case therefore falls squarely within the exception. The
bag but the person refused, only to accede later on when the patrolmen warrantless search was incident to a lawful arrest and is consequently valid. The Court is not
identified themselves. Found inside the bag were marijuana leaves unmindful of its decision in People v. Aminnudin (163 SCRA 402 [1988]). In that case the PC
wrapped in a plastic wrapper and weighing one kilo, more or less. The officers had earlier received a tip from an informer that accused-appellant was on board a vessel
person was asked of his name and the reason why he was at said place bound for Iloilo City and was carrying marijuana. Acting on this tip, they waited for him one
and he gave his name as Medel Tangliben and explained that he was evening, approached him as he descended from the gangplank, detained him and inspected the
waiting for a ride to Olongapo City to deliver the marijuana leaves. The bag he was carrying. Said bag contained marijuana leaves. The Court held that the marijuana could
accused was taken to the police headquarters for further investigation; not be admitted in evidence since it was seized illegally, as there was lack of urgency, and thus a
and later Quevedo submitted to his Station Commander his Investigator’s search warrant can still be procured. However, in the case at bar, there presented urgency.
Report. The RTC found Tangliben guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Although the trial court’s decision did not mention it, the transcript of stenographic notes reveals
violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of that there was an informer who pointed to Tangliben as carrying marijuana. Faced with such on-
1972 as amended) and sentenced him to life imprisonment, to pay a fine the-spot information, the police officers had to act quickly. There was not enough time to secure a
of P20,000 and to pay the costs. Tangliben appealed. In his appeal, it is search warrant. The Court cannot therefore apply the ruling in Aminnudin in the present case. To
contended that the marijuana allegedly seized from him was a product of require search warrants during on-the-spot apprehensions of drug pushers, illegal possessors of
an unlawful search without a warrant and is therefore inadmissible in firearms, jueteng collectors, smugglers of contraband goods, robbers, etc. would make it extremely
evidence. difficult, if not impossible to contain the crimes with which these persons are associated.
Issue:
Whether the warrantless search was incident to a lawful arrest valid.
17. Rolito Go vs. (Shot Eldon Maguan; Go voluntary surrendered after 6 days; no The Supreme Court granted the petition and the ruling of the appellate court was set aside and
Court of preliminary investigation was conducted; unlawful arrest) nullified.
Appeals As a rule, in cases of lawful warrantless arrest, preliminary
206 SCRA investigation may not be conducted, but before the complaint or Petitioner's "arrest" took place six (6) days after the shooting of Maguan. The "arresting" officers
138 information is filed, if the accused request for a preliminary obviously were not present, within the meaning of Section 5(a), at the time petitioner had
investigation, he must sign a waiver of the provisions of Art 125 of RPC, allegedly shot Maguan. Neither could the "arrest" effected six (6) days after the shooting be
[Section 6, Rule 112] reasonably regarded as effected "when [the shooting had] in fact just been committed" within the
meaning of Section 5(b). Moreover, none of the "arresting" officers had any "personal knowledge"
Rolito Go’s car nearly collided with the car of Eldon Maguan when the of facts indicating that petitioner was the gunman who had shot Maguan. The information upon
latter entered a one-way street in San Juan, Metro Manila. Go alighted which the police acted had been derived from statements made by alleged eyewitnesses to the
from his car, walked over and shot Maguan inside his car. Go then shooting — one stated that petitioner was the gunman; another was able to take down the alleged


boarded his car and left the scene. A security guard at a nearby restaurant
was able to take down Go’s car plate number. The police arrived shortly gunman's car's plate number which turned out to be registered in petitioner's wife's name. That
thereafter at the scene of the shooting and there retrieved an empty shell information did not, however, constitute "personal knowledge." 18
and one round of live ammunition for a 9mm caliber pistol. Verification at
the LTO showed that the car was registered to one Elsa Ang Go. The
It is thus clear to the Court that there was no lawful warrantless arrest of petitioner within the
following day, the police returned to the scene of the shooting to find out
meaning of Section 5 of Rule 113. It is clear too that Section 7 of Rule 112 is also not applicable.
where the suspect had come from; they were informed that Go had dined
Indeed, petitioner was not arrested at all.
at a nearby bakeshop shortly before the shooting. The police obtained a
facsimile or impression of the credit card used by Go from the cashier of
the bake shop. The security guard of the bake shop was shown a picture Upon the other hand, petitioner did not waive his right to have a preliminary investigation contrary
of Go and he positively identified him as the same person who had shot to the prosecutor's claim. The right to preliminary investigation is deemed waived when the
Maguan. Having established that the assailant was probably Go, the accused fails to invoke it before or at the time of entering a plea at arraignment. The facts of the
police launched a manhunt for Go. Six days later, Go presented himself case show that petitioner insisted on his right to preliminary investigation before his arraignment
before the San Juan Police Station to verify news reports that he was and he, through his counsel denied answering questions before the court unless they were
being hunted by the police; he was accompanied by two (2) lawyers. The afforded the proper preliminary investigation. For the above reasons, the petition was granted
police forthwith detained him. An eyewitness to the shooting, who was at and the ruling of the appellate court was set aside and nullified. The Supreme Court however,
the police station at that time, positively identified Go as the gunman. contrary to petitioner's allegation, declared that failure to accord the right to preliminary
That same day, the police promptly filed a complaint for frustrated investigation did not impair the validity of the information charging the latter of the crime of
homicide against Go with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal. murder.
Assistant Provincial Pros. Dennis Villa Ignacio informed Go, in the
presence of his lawyers, that he could avail himself of his right to
preliminary investigation but that he must first sign a waiver of the
provisions of Article 125 of the RPC. Go refused to execute any such
waiver. The following day, while the complaint was still with the
Prosecutor, and before an information could be filed in court, the victim,
Eldon Maguan, died of his gunshot wound(s). Accordingly, the Prosecutor,
instead of filing an information for frustrated homicide, filed an
information for murder before the Regional Trial Court. No bail was
recommended. At the bottom of the information, the Prosecutor certified
that no preliminary investigation had been conducted because the
accused did not execute and sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125
of the RPC. In the afternoon of the same day, Go’s counsel filed with the
prosecutor an omnibus motion for immediate release and proper
preliminary investigation, alleging that the warrantless arrest of Go was
unlawful and that no preliminary investigation had been conducted
before the information was filed. On 12 July 1991, Go filed an urgent ex-
parte motion for special raffle in order to expedite action on the


Prosecutor’s bail recommendation. The case was raffled to the sala of
Judge Benjamin V. Pelayo, who, on the same date, approved the cash
bond posted by Go and ordered his release. Go was in fact released that
same day. On 16 July 1991, the Prosecutor filed with the Regional Trial
Court a motion for leave to conduct preliminary investigation and prayed
that in the meantime all proceedings in the court be suspended. On the
said date, the trial court issued an order granting leave to conduct
preliminary investigation and cancelling the arraignment set for 15 August
1991 until after the prosecution shall have concluded its preliminary
investigation. However, the Judge motu proprio issued an Order, (1)
recalling the Order which granted bail; (2) recalling and cancelling granted
leave to the Prosecutor to conduct preliminary investigation; (3) treating
Go’s omnibus motion as a petition for bail; and thereafter, set aside the
case for arraignment. Go filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus before the Supreme Court assailing the Order. Go also moved
for suspension of all proceedings in the case pending resolution by the
Supreme Court of his petition: this motion was, however, denied by Judge
Pelayo. Eventually, Go surrendered to the police. Judge Pelayo issued a
Commitment Order directing the Provincial Warden of Rizal to admit Go
into his custody at the Rizal Provincial Jail. On the same date, Go was
arraigned. In view, however, of his refusal to enter a plea, the trial court
entered for him a plea of not guilty. The trial court then set the criminal
case for continuous hearings on several dates of the months of
September to November 1991. On 27 August 1991, Go filed a petition for
habeas corpus in the Court of Appeals which was granted by said Court.
On 19 September 1991, trial of the criminal case commenced. His
pending petition was decided by the Court of Appeals and a rendered
decision dismissing the 2 petitions on the grounds that Go’s warrantless
arrest was valid and Go’s act of posting bail constituted waiver of any
irregularity attending his arrest, including the deferment of his
arraignment. Hence, this petition for review.
Issue:
Whether or not the warrantless arrest was valid; and that the petitioner
effectively waived his right to preliminary investigation.
ENVIRONMENTAL CASES (Intergenerational Responsibility and Justice; Writ of Continuing Mandamus)


18. Oposa vs. (Minors including generations yet unborn=locus standi to file a The SC decided in the affirmative. Petition was granted.
Factoran taxpayer’s suit; Intergenerational responsibility and justice; Protection
224 SCRA by the State of the right to a balance and healthful ecology in accord Ratio decidendi:
792 with the rhythm and harmony of nature) Under Section 16, Article II of the 1987 constitution, it states that: “The state shall protect and
advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and
This petition bears upon the right of Filipinos to a balanced and healthful harmony of nature.”
ecology which the petitioners dramatically associate with the twin
concepts of "inter�generational responsibility" and "inter�generational Petitioners, minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generation yet unborn.
justice." Specifically, it touches on the issue of whether the said We find no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation and for
petitioners have a cause of action to "prevent the misappropriation or the succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding
impairment" of Philippine rainforests and "arrest the unabated generations can only be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the
hemorrhage of the country`s vital life�support systems and continued right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded
rape of Mother Earth." considers the “rhythm and harmony of nature”. Nature means the created world in its entirety.
Such rhythm and harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization,
This civil case originated from the RTC of Makati. The principal petitioners management, renewal and conservation of the country’s forest, mineral, land, waters fisheries,
in this case are all minors duly represented and joined by their respective wildlife, off- shore areas and other natural resources to the end that their exploration,
parents. The complaint was instituted as a taxpayers’ class suit and development and utilization be equitably accessible to the present as well as future generations.
alleges that the plaintiffs are all citizens of the Republic of the Philippines, Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and
taxpayers, and entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the
natural resource treasure that is the country’s virgin tropical rainforests. minor’s assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same time, the
The same was filed for themselves and others who are equally concerned performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come.
about the preservation of said resource but are so numerous that it is
impracticable to bring them all before the Court. The minors further
asseverate that they represent their generation as well as generation yet
unborn. As original defendant, Sec. Factoran of the DENR was impleaded
as such. The plaintiffs anchored their claim on their right to the full
benefit and enjoyment of the country’s natural resources, particularly of
the virgin forest. Consequently, it is prayed for that judgment be
rendered: ordering the defendant, his agents, representatives, and other
persons acting in his behalf to a.) cancel all existing timber license
agreements (TLA) in the country; and b.) cease and desist from receiving,
accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license
agreements. They alleged that the massive commercial logging in the
country is causing vast abuses on rainforest. They likewise asserted that
the right of their generation and the right of the generations yet unborn
to a balanced and healthful ecology be protected.


Issue:
Whether the petitioners have the right cause of action or a legal standing
to file a taxpayer’s suit.
19. MMDA vs. (Application of Continuing mandamus; The remedy of the writ of The SC decided in the affirmative. The cleaning and rehabilitation of Manila Bay can be compelled
Concerned mandamus, which allows for the enforcement of the conduct of the by mandamus.
Residents of tasks to which the writ pertains: the performance of a legal duty)
Mla. Bay Ratio decidendi:
574 SCRA This case started when, on January 29, 1999, respondents Concerned Generally, the writ of mandamus lies to require the execution of a ministerial duty. A ministerial
693 Residents of Manila Bay filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court duty is one that “requires neither the exercise of official discretion nor judgment.” It connotes an
(RTC) in Imus, Cavite against several government agencies, among them act in which nothing is left to the discretion of the person executing it. It is a “simple, definite duty
the petitioners, for the cleanup, rehabilitation, and protection of the arising under conditions admitted or proved to exist and imposed by law.” Mandamus is available
Manila Bay. The complaint alleged that the water quality of the Manila to compel action, when refused, on matters involving discretion, but not to direct the exercise of
Bay had fallen way blow the allowable standard set by law, specifically the judgment or discretion one way or the other.
Philippine Environmental Code. The complaint state: “The reckless, Petitioners maintain that the MMDA’s duty to take measures and maintain adequate solid waste
wholesale, accumulated and ongoing acts of omission or commission of and liquid disposal systems necessarily involves policy evaluation and the exercise of judgment on
the defendants resulting in the clear and present danger to public health the part of the agency concerned. They argue that the MMDA, in carrying out its mandate, has to
and in the depletion and contamination of the marine life of Manila Bay, make decisions, including choosing where a landfill should be located by undertaking feasibility
for which reason all defendants must be held jointly and/or solidarily studies and cost estimates, all of which entail the exercise of discretion. Thus, a mandamus will
liable and be collectively ordered to clean up Manila Bay and to restore not lie.
its water quality to class B waters fit for swimming, skin-diving, and other
forms of contact recreation.” After the conduct of the trial, the RTC It was held that the statutory command is clear and that petitioners’ duty to comply with and act
rendered a decision in favor of the respondents and ordered the according to the clear mandate of the law does not require the exercise of discretion. The
government agencies concerned, including the petitioners, to jointly and petitioners, the MMDA in particular, are without discretion, for example, to choose which bodies
solidarily, clean up and rehabilitate the Manila Bay. The petitioners, of water they are to clean up, or which discharge or spill they are to contain. In other words, it is
before the CA, asserted that the cleaning of the Manila Bay is not a the MMDA’s ministerial duty to attend to such services.
ministerial act which can be compelled by mandamus. However, CA It was further held, that petitioners’ obligation to perform their duties as defined by law, on one
denied the petitioners’ appeal and affirmed the decision of the RTC in hand, and how they are to carry out such duties, on the other, are two different concepts. While
toto. Hence, this petition. the implementation of the MMDA’s mandated tasks may entail a decision-making process, the
enforcement of the law or the very act of doing what the law exacts to be done is ministerial in
Issue: nature and may be compelled by mandamus.
Can the petitioners be compelled by mandamus to clean up and
rehabilitate the Manila Bay? It is very clear in their charters that aside from performing their main functions as an agency, they
are also mandated to perform certain functions relating directly or indirectly to the clean up,
rehabilitation, protection, and preservation of the Manila Bay.


Prosecution of Civil Aspect (Rule 111); Double Jeopardy (Rule 117, Section 3(i); Section 7)
20. Phil. Rabbit  When the accused-employee absconds or jumps bail, the judgment The Court’s Ruling
Bus Line vs. meted out becomes final and executory. The answer is in the negative. The petition has no merit. Petition is DENIED, and the assailed
People  The employer cannot defeat the finality of the judgment by filing a Resolutions AFFIRMED.
427 SCRA notice of appeal on its own behalf in the guise of asking for a review of
456 its subsidiary civil liability. Ration decidendi:
 Both the primary civil liability of the accused-employee and the Civil Liability Deemed Instituted in the Criminal Prosecution
subsidiary civil liability of the employer are carried in one single At the outset, we must explain that the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure has clarified what civil
decision that has become final and executory. actions are deemed instituted in a criminal prosecution.
Section 1 of Rule 111 of the current Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:
On July 27, 1994, accused Napoleon Roman, employee of the petitioner, "When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability
was found guilty and convicted of the crime of reckless imprudence arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action
resulting to triple homicide, multiple physical injuries and damage to unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it
property. The court further ruled that petitioner, in the event of the separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
insolvency of accused, shall be liable for the civil liabilities of the accused.
Evidently, the judgment against accused had become final and executory. Only the civil liability of the accused arising from the crime charged is deemed impliedly instituted
Admittedly, accused had jumped bail and remained at-large. It is worth in a criminal action; that is, unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to
mentioning that Section 8, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court authorizes the institute it separately, or institutes it prior to the criminal action. Hence, the subsidiary civil liability
dismissal of appeal when appellant jumps bail. Counsel for accused, also of the employer under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code may be enforced by execution on the
admittedly hired and provided by petitioner, filed a notice of appeal in basis of the judgment of conviction meted out to the employee.
behalf of the accused which was denied by the trial court. This is
affirmed by the SC in this petition. What is deemed instituted in every criminal prosecution is the civil liability arising from the crime
or delict per se (civil liability ex delicto), but not those liabilities arising from quasi-delicts, contracts
Ruling of the Court of Appeals or quasi-contracts. In fact, even if a civil action is filed separately, the ex delicto civil liability in the
The CA ruled that the institution of a criminal case implied the institution criminal prosecution remains, and the offended party may -- subject to the control of the
also of the civil action arising from the offense. Thus, once determined in prosecutor -- still intervene in the criminal action, in order to protect the remaining civil interest
the criminal case against the accused-employee, the employer’s therein.
subsidiary civil liability as set forth in Article 103 of the Revised Penal
Code becomes conclusive and enforceable. The appellate court further This discussion is completely in accord with the Revised Penal Code, which states that "every
held that to allow an employer to dispute independently the civil liability person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable."
fixed in the criminal case against the accused-employee would be to
amend, nullify or defeat a final judgment. Since the notice of appeal filed Petitioner argues that, as an employer, it is considered a party to the criminal case and is
by the accused had already been dismissed by the CA, then the judgment conclusively bound by the outcome thereof. Consequently, petitioner must be accorded the right
of conviction and the award of civil liability became final and executory. to pursue the case to its logical conclusion -- including the appeal.
Included in the civil liability of the accused was the employer’s subsidiary
liability. Hence, this petition. The argument has no merit. Undisputedly, petitioner is not a direct party to the criminal case,
which was filed solely against Napoleon M. Roman, its employee. Therefore, petitioner has no


Issue: right to appeal the criminal case against the accused-employee; that by jumping bail, he has
Whether or not an employer, who dutifully participated in the defense of waived his right to appeal; and that the judgment in the criminal case against him is now final.
its accused-employee, may appeal the judgment of conviction
independently of the accused.
21. People vs. (Effect of death pending appeal to the civil liability of the accused; The The appeal is dismissed without qualification.
Bayotas civil liability is extinguished based solely on the act complained of, ie.
236 SCRA Rape.) Yes. The civil liability is extinguished based solely on the act complained of, ie. Rape.
239
Rogelio Bayotas y Cordova was charged with Rape and eventually Ratio: In the case at bar, the Court laid down the rules in resolving the issue at hand.
convicted thereof on June 19, 1991. Pending appeal of his conviction, 1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well
Bayotas died on February 4, 1992 at the National Bilibid Hospital due to as the civil liability based solely thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, "the death
cardio respiratory arrest. Consequently, the Supreme Court in its of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability
Resolution of May 20, 1992 dismissed the criminal aspect of the appeal. directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed,i.e., civil liability ex delicto in
However, it required the Solicitor General to file its comment with regard senso strictiore."
to Bayotas' civil liability arising from his commission of the offense
charged. 2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same
may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict.19 Article 1157 of the Civil Code
In his comment, the Solicitor General expressed his view that the death of enumerates these other sources of obligation from which the civil liability may arise as a result of
accused-appellant did not extinguish his civil liability as a result of his the same act or omission:
commission of the offense charged. The Solicitor General, relying on the
case of People v. Sendaydiego 1 insists that the appeal should still be a) Law; b) Contract; c) Quasi-contracts; d) xxxxx; e) Quasi-delicts
resolved for the purpose of reviewing his conviction by the lower court on
which the civil liability is based. 3. Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2 above, an action for recovery
therefor may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1,
Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. This separate civil action may be
Counsel for the accused-appellant, on the other hand, opposed the view
enforced either against the executor/administrator or the estate of the accused, depending on the
of the Solicitor General arguing that the death of the accused while
source of obligation upon which the same is based as explained above.
judgment of conviction is pending appeal extinguishes both his criminal
and civil penalties. In support of his position, said counsel invoked the
4. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil
ruling of the Court of Appeals in People v. Castillo and Ocfemia 2 which
action by prescription, in cases where during the prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its
held that the civil obligation in a criminal case takes root in the criminal
extinction, the private-offended party instituted together therewith the civil action. In such case,
liability and, therefore, civil liability is extinguished if accused should die
the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the
before final judgment is rendered.
criminal case, conformably with provisions of Article 1155 of the Civil Code, that should thereby
avoid any apprehension on a possible privation of right by prescription.


Issue: Applying this set of rules to the case at bench, we hold that the death of appellant Bayotas
Does death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguished extinguished his criminal liability and the civil liability based solely on the act complained of,i.e.,
his civil liability? rape. Consequently, the appeal is hereby dismissed without qualification.
POWER OF CONTROL OF THE COURT (Rule 110, Section 5)

22. Crespo vs. (Estafa; Motion to dismiss = pending petition for review of information The petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court for lack of merit.
Mogul filed with DOJ; Power of Control of the court once information is filed)
151 SCRA Rule: Where the information has already been filed in the court, the Ratio decidendi:
462 court steps in and takes control of the case until the same is finally It is a cardinal principle that a criminal action, either commenced by complaint or by information,
disposed of, so that the fiscal has no more control over it. shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal. The institution of a criminal
action depends upon the sound discretion of the fiscal. He may or may not file the complaint or
On April 18, 1977 Assistant Fiscal Proceso de Gala with the approval of information, according to whether the evidence in his opinion, is sufficient or not to establish the
the Provincial Fiscal filed an information for estafa against Mario Fl. guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The reason for placing the criminal prosecution
Crespo in the Circuit Criminal Court of Lucena City. When the case was set under the direction and control of the fiscal is to prevent malicious or unfounded prosecution by
for arraignment the accused filed a motion to defer arraignment on the private persons. It cannot be controlled by the complainant. Prosecuting officers under the power
ground that there was a pending petition for review filed with the vested in them by law, not only have the authority but also the duty of prosecuting persons who,
Secretary of Justice of the resolution of the Office of the Provincial Fiscal according to the evidence received from the complainant, are shown to be guilty of a crime
for the filing of the information. The presiding judge, Leodegario L. committed within the jurisdiction of their office. They have equally the legal duty not to prosecute
Mogul, denied the motion but the arraignment was deferred. Upon when after an investigation they become convinced that the evidence adduced is not sufficient to
petition, the Court of Appeals restrained Judge Mogul from proceeding establish a prima facie case. It is through the conduct of a preliminary investigation, that the fiscal
with the arraignment of the accused until further orders of the Court. determines the existence of a prima facie case that would warrant the prosecution of a case. The
Later on, a decision was rendered by the Court of Appeals granting the Courts cannot interfere with the fiscal's discretion and control of the criminal prosecution.
writ and perpetually restraining the judge from enforcing his threat to
compel the arraignment of the accused in the case until the Department The role of the fiscal or prosecutor is to see that justice is done and not necessarily to secure the
of Justice shall have finally resolved the petition for review. conviction of the person accused before the Courts. Thus, in spite of his opinion to the contrary, it
is the duty of the fiscal to proceed with the presentation of evidence of the prosecution to the
Court to enable the Court to arrive at its own independent judgment as to whether the accused
The Undersecretary of Justice, resolving the petition for review reversed
should be convicted or acquitted. The fiscal should not shirk from the responsibility of appearing
the resolution of the Office of the Provincial Fiscal and directed the fiscal
for the People of the Philippines even under such circumstances much less should he abandon the
to move for immediate dismissal of the information filed against the
prosecution of the case leaving it to the hands of a private prosecutor for then the entire
accused. 8 A motion to dismiss for insufficiency of evidence was filed by
proceedings will be null and void. The least that the fiscal should do is to continue to appear for
the Provincial Fiscal with the trial court. The Judge denied the motion and
the prosecution although he may turn over the presentation of the evidence to the private
set the arraignment stating that: “The motion's thrust being to induce this
prosecutor but still under his direction and control.
Court to resolve the innocence of the accused on evidence not before it
but on that adduced before the Undersecretary of Justice, a matter that
The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or information is filed in Court any
not only disregards the requirements of due process but also erodes the
disposition of the case as its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the
Court's independence and integrity.” The Court of Appeals, upon petition
sound discretion of the Court. Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of the
of the accused, issued a restraining order against the respondent judge


but later lifted the same. Hence, this petition for review. prosecution of criminal cases even while the case is already in Court he cannot impose his opinion
on the trial court. The Court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it. The
Issue: determination of the case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and competence. A motion to dismiss
The issue raised in this case is whether the trial court acting on a motion the case filed by the fiscal should be addressed to the Court who has the option to grant or deny
to dismiss a criminal case filed by the Provincial Fiscal upon instructions the same. It does not matter if this is done before or after the arraignment of the accused or that
of the Secretary of Justice to whom the case was elevated for review, may the motion was filed after a reinvestigation or upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice who
refuse to grant the motion and insist on the arraignment and trial on the reviewed the records of the investigation.
merits.
Duplicity of Ofense (Rule 110, Section 13); Grounds for Motion to Quash: Rule 117 Section 3 (a) and (f): PROSECUTION OF COMPLEX CRIME
23. Enrile vs  Rebellion cannot be complexed with any other offense committed The Court reiterates that based on the doctrine enunciated in People vs. Hernandez, the
Salazar in the course thereof; questioned information filed against petitioners Juan Ponce Enrile and the spouses Rebecco and
186 SCRA  All crimes (common crimes under RPC; crimes under special law), Erlinda Panlilio must be read as charging simple rebellion only.
217 which are mere components or ingredients, or committed in
furtherance thereof, become absorbed in the crime of rebellion and Ratio decidendi:
can not be isolated and charged as separate crime in themselves. There is one other reason and a fundamental one at that why Article 48 of the Penal Code cannot
 Grounds for Motion to Quash: Section 3 (a) and (f) be applied in the case at bar. If murder were not complexed with rebellion, and the two crimes
a. That the facts charged do not constitute an offense were punished separately (assuming that this could be done), the following penalties would be
f. That more than one offense is charged except when a single imposable upon the movant, namely: (1) for the crime of rebellion, a fine not exceeding P20,000
punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law and prision mayor, in the corresponding period, depending upon the modifying circumstances
present, but never exceeding 12 years of prision mayor, and (2) for the crime of murder, reclusion
In the afternoon of February 27, 1990, Senate Minority Floor Leader Juan temporal in its maximum period to death, depending upon the modifying circumstances present.
Ponce Enrile was arrested by law enforcement officers led by Director In other words, in the absence of aggravating circumstances, the extreme penalty could not be
Alfredo Lim of the NBI on the strength of a warrant issued by Hon. Judge imposed upon him. However, under Article 48 said penalty would have to be meted out to him,
Salazar of the RTCourt of Quezon City Branch 103, in Criminal Case No. even in the absence of a single aggravating circumstance. Thus, said provision, if construed in
9010941. conformity with the theory of the prosecution, would be unfavorable to the movant.
The warrant had issued on an information signed and earlier that day The plaint of petitioner's counsel that he is charged with a crime that does not exist in the statute
filed by a panel of prosecutors composed of Senior State Prosecutor books, while technically correct so far as the Court has ruled that rebellion may not be complexed
Aurelio C. Trampe, State Prosecutor Ferdinand R. Abesamis and Assistant with other offenses committed on the occasion thereof, must therefore be dismissed as a mere
City Prosecutor Eulogio Mananquil, Jr., charging Senator Enrile, the flight of rhetoric. Read in the context of Hernandez, the information does indeed charge the
spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio, and Gregorio Honasan with the petitioner with a crime defined and punished by the Revised Penal Code: simple rebellion.
crime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder allegedly
committed during the period of the failed coup attempt from November
29 to December 10, 1990.
Senator Enrile was taken to and held overnight at the NBI headquarters


on Taft Avenue, Manila, without bail, none having been recommended in
the information and none fixed in the arrest warrant. The following
morning, February 28, 1990, he was brought to Camp Karingal in Quezon
City where he was given over to the custody of the Superintendent of the
Northern Police District, Brig. Gen. Edgardo Dula Torres.
On the same date of February 28, 1990, Senator Enrile, through counsel,
filed the petition for habeas corpus herein (which was followed by a
supplemental petition filed on March 2, 1990), alleging that he was
deprived of his constitutional rights.
Issue:
a. Whether or not the petitioner has committed complex crime arising
from an offense being necessary means for committing another,
referred to in the 2nd par. of Art. 48 of the RPC?
b. Whether or not the facts charged in the information does not
constitute an offense.
24. Enrile vs. The principle of absorption in rebellion applies to special laws; PD 1829 It was held that Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile cannot be tried separately under PD 1829 in addition to his
Amin Penalizing Obstruction of Apprehension of Criminal Offender; Harboring being prosecuted in the rebellion case. The petition is granted. The information in criminal case is
189 SCRA or Concealing a Criminal=absorbed by the crime of rebellion and cannot quashed.
573 therefore be made the subject of a separate criminal action.
Grounds for Motion to Quash: Section 3(a); (f) Ratio decidendi:
(a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense The petitioner is now facing charges of rebellion in conspiracy with the fugitive Col. Gringo
(f) That more than one offense is charged except when a single Honasan. Necessarily, being in conspiracy with Honasan, petitioners alleged act of harboring or
punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law concealing was for no other purpose but in furtherance of the crime of rebellion thus constitute a
component thereof. It was motivated by the single intent or resolution to commit the crime of
This case again involves Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile in which he was charged rebellion.
as having committed rebellion complexed with murder before the RTC
and another information was filed charging him for violation of PD 1829 The crime of rebellion consists of many acts. It is described as a vast movement of men and a
(Penalizing Obstruction of Apprehension of Criminal Offenders) by complex net of intrigues and plots. Jurisprudence tells us that acts committed in furtherance of the
harboring and concealing Gregorio Honasan. rebellion though crimes in themselves are deemed absorbed in the one single crime of rebellion.
In this case, the act of harboring or concealing Col. Honasan is clearly a mere component or
It was alleged that on 01 December 1989, Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile had ingredient of rebellion or an act done in furtherance of the rebellion. It cannot therefore be made
entertained and accommodated Col. Honasan by giving him food and the basis of a separate charge. The case of People v. Prieto s instructive:
comfort in his house. Knowing that Col. Honasan is a fugitive from
justice, Sen. Enrile allegedly did not do anything to have Honasan arrested In the nature of things, the giving of aid and comfort can only be accomplished by some kind of

or apprehended. And because of such failure the petitioner prevented action. Its very nature partakes of a deed or physical activity as opposed to a mental operation.
Col. Honasan’s arrest and conviction in violation of Section(1) of PD No. This deed or physical activity may be, and often is, in itself a criminal offense under another penal
1829. The rebellion charges filed against the petitioner in Quezon City statute or provision. Even so, when the deed is charged as an element of treason it becomes
were based on the affidavits executed by three (3) employees of the Identified with the latter crime and cannot be the subject of a separate punishment, or used in
Silahis International Hotel who stated that the fugitive Col. Gregorio combination with treason to increase the penalty as article 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides.
"Gringo" Honasan and some 100 rebel soldiers attended the mass and Just as one cannot be punished for possessing opium in a prosecution for smoking the Identical
birthday party held at the residence of the petitioner in the evening of drug, and a robber cannot be held guilty of coercion or trespass to a dwelling in a prosecution for
December 1, 1989. The information particularly reads that on "or about robbery, because possession of opium and force and trespass are inherent in smoking and in
6:30 p.m., 1 December, 1989, Col. Gregorio "Gringo" Honasan conferred robbery respectively, so may not a defendant be made liable for murder as a separate crime or in
with accused Senator Juan Ponce Enrile accompanied by about 100 fully conjunction with another offense where, as in this case, it is averred as a constitutive ingredient of
armed rebel soldiers wearing white armed patches". The prosecution treason.
thereby concluded that in such a situation, Sen. Enrile's talking with rebel
leader Col. Gregorio "Gringo" Honasan in his house in the presence of The prosecution tries to distinguish by contending that harboring or concealing a fugitive is
about 100 uniformed soldiers who were fully armed, can be inferred that punishable under a special law while the rebellion case is based on the Revised Penal Code; hence,
they were co-conspirators in the failed December coup. Respondent Judge prosecution under one law will not bar a prosecution under the other. This argument is specious in
Amin sustained the charge of violation of PD No. 1829 notwithstanding rebellion cases. All crimes, whether punishable under a special law or general law, which are mere
the rebellion case filed against the petitioner on the theory that the components or ingredients, or committed in furtherance thereof, become absorbed in the crime of
former involves a special law while the latter is based on the Revised rebellion and cannot be isolated and charged as separate crimes in themselves.
Penal Code or a general law. Hence, this petition.
As earlier mentioned, the intent or motive is a decisive factor. If Senator Ponce Enrile is not
Issue: charged with rebellion and he harbored or concealed Colonel Honasan simply because the latter is
Whether or not the petitioner could be separately charged for violation of
a friend and former associate, the motive for the act is completely different. But if the act is
PD No. 1829 notwithstanding the rebellion case earlier filed against him.committed with political or social motives, that is in furtherance of rebellion, then it should be
deemed to form part of the crime of rebellion instead of being punished separately.
PREJUDICIAL QUESTION (Ground/s for suspension of Arraignment) Rule 116, Section 11
25. Donato vs. (Bigamy-complaint by 2nd wife; 2nd wife filed for annulment of marriage; The Supreme Court sustained the trial court. The annulment case filed against the accused does
Luna it was the accused who was charged to have used deceit to obtain Paz’s not constitute a prejudicial question to warrant the suspension of the criminal action for bigamy.
160 SCRA consent) The requisites of a prejudicial question do not obtain in the case at bar.
441
Leonilo Donato was charged with bigamy in the CFI (RTC). The The issue before the Domestic Relations Court touching upon the nullity of the 2 nd marriage is not
information was based on the complaint filed by Paz Abayan, who is the determinative of Leonilo’s guilt or innocence in the crime of bigamy. Furthermore, it was Paz, the
2nd wife of the accused. Before, Donato was arraigned, Paz filed with the 2nd wife, who filed the complaint for annulment of the 2nd marriage on the ground that her
Domestic Relations Court a civil action for the declaration nullity of her consent was obtained through deceit. Leonilo cannot apply the rule on prejudicial question since
marriage with the accused, contracted in 1978. Before such marriage, a case for annulment of marriage can be considered a prejudicial question to the bigamy case only
Leonilo and Paz had lived together as husband and wife, without the if it is proved that Leonilo’s consent was obtained by means of duress in order to establish that his


benefit of wedlock for at least five years. She alleged that she consented act in the subsequent marriage was an involuntary one and as such, the same cannot be the basis
to entering into the marriage, since she has no previous knowledge of for conviction. However, this was not proven by the accused.
Leonilo’s first marriage to Rosalinda. The accused interposed the defense
that his second marriage was void since it was solemnized without a Obviously, Leonilo merely raised the issue of prejudicial question to evade the prosecution of the
marriage license and that force was employed by Paz to get his consent to criminal case. Prior to Leonilo’s 2nd marriage, he has been living with Paz for more than five years
the marriage. However, the requisite marriage license was dispensed as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage. Thus, his averments that his consent was
with since they have been living together as husband and wife without obtained by Paz through force and undue influence in entering a subsequent marriage is belied by
the benefit of marriage pursuant to Art. 76 of the New Civil Code. the fact that both of them executed an affidavit which stated that they had lived together as
husband and wife without the benefit of marriage for more than five years until marital union was
Before the criminal case could be tried, Leonilo moved to the suspend the formally ratified by the 2nd marriage. Furthermore, it was Paz who eventually filed a civil action for
proceedings on the ground that the annulment case raises a prejudicial nullity of their marriage.
question which must be determined before the criminal case can
proceed. Nevertheless, the trial court denied the motion to suspend the He who contracts a 2nd marriage before the judicial declaration of nullity of first marriage assumes
proceedings. Hence, this petition. the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy
Issue: Whether annulment case filed against the accused constitutes a

prejudicial question to warrant the suspension of the criminal action for
bigamy.
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION (Rule 112, Sections 3)

26. Webb vs. (Rule 112 – Conduct of Preliminary Investigation; probable cause; The Court finds the petitions bereft of merit. The petitions are dismissed for lack of showing of
Visconde probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest) grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondents.
247 SCRA
652 On 19 June 1994, the NBI files a letter-complaint with the DOJ charging Ratio decidendi:
petitioners Hubert Webb, Michael Gatchalian, Antonio Lejano and six On the First Issue:
others of the crime of rape with homicide. The DOJ formed a panel of The investigating fiscal finds probable cause to hold respondents for trial. He shall prepare the
prosecutors headed by Asst. Chief Prosecutor Jovencio Zuno to conduct resolution and the information. In determining probable cause, facts and circumstances are
the preliminary investigation on the killing on 30 June 1991 of Carmela weighed without resorting to technical rules of evidence, but rather based on common sense.
Vizconde, her mother Estrellita and her sister Anne Marie Jennifer in BF Probable cause are the facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and
Homes, Parañaque. prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and was committed by the suspects.
It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing
During the preliminary investigation, the NBI submitted statements of guilt beyond reasonable doubt and definitely, not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of
Jessica Alfaro, two former housemaids of the Webb family, two of the guilt. The DOJ Panel did not gravely abuse its discretion when it found probable cause against the
Vizconde maids, a security guard, and a car engineer. An autopsy report petitioners. It correctly adjudged that enough evidence had been adduced to establish cause and
was also submitted confirming the presence of spermatozoa on Carmela. clarificatory hearing was unnecessary since preliminary investigation is not part of the trial.
Before submitting his counter-affidavit, Hubert filed a motion for
production of evidence and documents with the DOJ which was granted


and the NBI reproduced it. However, the original statement of Alfaro was On the Second Issue:
lost but they were able to get a copy from Atty. Mercader, Jr. The herein Petitioners support their stance by highlighting the following facts: (1) the issuance of warrants of
petitioner failed to get a copy of the Certification issued by the U.S. arrest in a matter of few hours; (2) the failure of said judges to issue orders of arrest; and (3) the
Federal Bureau of Investigation on the admission to and stay of Hubert records submitted to the trial court were incomplete and insufficient from which to base a finding
Webb in the United States from March 9, 1991 to October 22, 1992. He of probable cause. Petitioners postulate that it was impossible to conduct a "searching
claimed that he was in the US at the time of the crime was corroborated examination of witnesses and evaluation of the documents" on the part of said judges.
by evidence and testimonies. The same was done by the other accused.
The contention of the petitioners has no merit and basis to warrant the grant of their petitions.
On August 8, 1995, the DOJ Panel issued a 26-page Resolution "finding First, insofar as the judge should have first issued an order of arrest prior to the issuance of
probable cause to hold respondents for trial" and recommending that an warrant of arrest, there is no law or rule requiring the issuance of an Order of Arrest prior to a
Information for rape with homicide be filed against petitioners and their warrant of arrest. Second, the DOJ Panel submitted to the trial court its 26-page report, sworn
co-respondents. On the same date, it filed the corresponding Information statements of the witnesses, as well as the counter-affidavits of the petitioners. Apparently, the
against petitioners and their co-accused with the Regional Trial Court of painstaking recital and analysis of the parties' evidence made in the DOJ Panel Report satisfied
Parañaque. The case raffled to the sala of respondent Judge Escano. But both judges that there is probable cause to issue warrants of arrest against petitioners. Again, we
it was respondent Judge De Leon, the pairing judge of Judge Escano, who stress that before issuing warrants of arrest, judges merely determine personally the probability,
issued the warrant of arrest. Judge Escano inhibited himself, thus the not the certainty of guilt of an accused. They just personally review the initial determination of the
case was raffled in the sala of Judge Tolentino. The latter issued a new prosecutor finding a probable cause to see if it is supported by substantial evidence. The
warrant of arrest against the petitioners and their co-accused. Webb sufficiency of the review process cannot be measured by merely counting minutes and hours. The
voluntarily surrendered to the police authorities. His co-accused likewise fact that it took the respondent judges a few hours to review and affirm the probable cause
voluntarily surrendered. However, in their present petition, they contend determination of the DOJ Panel does not mean they made no personal evaluation of the evidence
that the judges abused their discretion when they failed to conduct a attached to the records of the case.
preliminary investigation before issuing the warrant.
Issue:
Whether or not the DOJ gravely abuse its discretion in finding probable
cause for the crime of rape and homicide;
Whether or not the judge should conduct its own preliminary
investigation before issuing a warrant of arrest.
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION = ISSUANCE OF WARRANT OF ARREST (Sections 3 and 5, Rule 112)

27. Pangandaman (Lanao del Sur; Shooting incident; 5 persons dead; Plea of the accused is The warrant complained of is upheld and declared valid insofar as it orders the arrest of the
vs. Casar essentially grounded on the claim that the warrant for their arrest was petitioners. Said warrant is voided to the extent that it is issued against fifty (50) "John Does."
159 SCRA 599 issued by the respondent Judge without a proper preliminary
investigation; no requirement that the entire procedure for preliminary Ratio decidendi:
investigation must be completed before a warrant of arrest may be Insofar as the warrant issued against fifty (50) "John Does" not one of whom the witnesses to the
issued.) complaint could or would Identify, it is of the nature of a general warrant, one of a class of writs
long proscribed as unconstitutional and once anathematized as "totally subversive of the liberty of


On July 27, 1985, a shooting incident occurred in Pantao, Masiu, Lanao the subject." Clearly violative of the constitutional injunction that warrants of arrest should
del Sur, which left at least five persons dead and two others wounded. particularly describe the person or persons to be seized, the warrant must, as regards its
What in fact transpired is still unclear. On the following day, Atty. unidentified subjects, be voided.
Mangurun Batuampar, claiming to represent the widow of one of the
victims, filed a letter-complaint with the Provincial Fiscal at Marawi City, However, the main issue in the case at bar is whether the completion of the procedure laid down
asking for a "full blast preliminary investigation" of the incident. The in Section 3 of Rule 112 a condition on sine qua non for the issuance of a warrant of arrest?
letter adverted to the possibility of innocent persons being implicated by
the parties involved on both sides - none of whom was, however, The Court ruled in a negative. Sec 3 of Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure provides
identified - and promised that supporting affidavits would shortly be filed. the procedure in conducting a pre-investigation of any crime cognizable in the RTCs. Although not
No case relative to the incident was, however, presented to the specifically declared the said provision actually mandates two phases.
respondent Judge until Saturday, August 10, 1985, when a criminal The first phase consists of an ex-parte inquiry into the sufficiency of the complaint and the
complaint for multiple murder was filed before him. On that same day, affidavits and other documents offered in support thereof. And it ends with the determination by
the respondent Judge "examined personally all 3 witnesses (brought by the Judge either:
the sergeant) under oath thru .. his closed and direct supervision," (1) that there is no ground to continue with the inquiry, in which case he dismisses the
reducing to writing the questions to the witnesses and the latter's complaint and transmits the order of dismissal, together with the records of the case, to
answers. Thereafter the Judge "approved the complaint and issued the the provincial fiscal; or
corresponding warrant of arrest" against the fourteen (14) petitioners (2) that the complaint and the supporting documents show sufficient cause to continue
and fifty (50) "John Does." Atty. Batuampar filed an ex-parte motion for with the inquiry and this ushers in the second phase.
reconsideration seeking to recall the warrant of arrest and subsequent
holding of a "thorough investigation" on the ground that the Judge's This second phase is designed to give the respondent notice of the complaint, access to the
initial investigation had been "hasty and manifestly haphazard" with "no complainant's evidence and an opportunity to submit counter-affidavits and supporting
searching questions" having been propounded. The respondent Judge documents. At this stage also, the Judge may conduct a hearing and propound to the parties and
denied the motion for "lack of basis." The present petition, alleged that their witnesses questions on matters that, in his view, need to be clarified. The second phase
the judge could not have determined probable cause against the 64 concludes with the Judge rendering his resolution, either for dismissal of the complaint or holding
accused since he MTC is open only from 8am to 1pm. They further the respondent for trial, which shall be transmitted, together with the record, to the provincial
alleged that the judge disregarded the fiscal who has taken cognizance of fiscal for appropriate action.
the case and about to conduct its own preliminary investigation; and that
the warrant violates the Constitution requiring that such warrants should There is no requirement that the entire procedure for preliminary investigation must be completed
particularly describe the persons or things to be seized. before a warrant of arrest may be issued.
Issue: The present Section 6 of the same Rule 112 clearly authorizes the municipal trial court to order the
Whether the warrant of arrest issued was null and void. respondent's arrest:
Whether or not the completion of the procedure laid down in Section 3 “Sec. 6. When warrant of arrest may issue.- xxx xxx xxx (b) By the Municipal Trial Court. If the
of Rule 112 a condition sine qua non for the issuance of warrant of arrest. municipal trial judge conducting the preliminary investigation is satisfied after an examination in
writing and under oath of the complainant and his witnesses in the form of searching question and
answers, that a probable cause exists and that there is a necessity of placing the respondent under
immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice, he shag issue a warrant of arrest.”

The argument, therefore, must be rejected that the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of
discretion in issuing the warrant of arrest against petitioners without first completing the
preliminary investigation in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The rule is and has always
been that such issuance need only await a finding of probable cause, not the completion of the
entire procedure of preliminary investigation.
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED AGAINST TESTIMONIAL COMPULSION (Rule 115, Section 1)
30. People vs. Prohibition against testimonial compulsion; Rule 115, Section 1(d) and The Orders of the respondent Judge were rendered with grave abuse of discretion. They should be
Judge Ayson (e); To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to cross- as they are annulled and set aside. The admission and statements made by the accused should be
175 SCRA examination on matters covered by direct examination; To be exempt admitted as evidence in the criminal action against him.
216 from being compelled to be a witness against himself.
What has given rise to the controversy at bar is the equation by the Ratio decidendi:
respondent Judge of the right of an individual not to "be compelled to At the crux of this controversy is the apparent misapprenhension by respondent Judge of the
be a witness against himself" accorded by Section 20, Article III of the nature and import of the disparate rights set forth in Section 20, Article IV of the 1973
Constitution, with the right of any person "under investigation for the Constitution:
commission of an offense . . . to remain silent and to counsel, and to be
informed of such right," granted by the same provision “SEC. 20. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself Any person under
investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel,
Felipe Ramos was a ticket freight clerk of the Philippine Airlines, assigned and to be informed of such right. No force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means
at its Baguio City station. It was alleged that he was involved in which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. Any confession obtained in violation of this
irregularities in the sales of plane tickets. The PAL management notified section shall be inadmissible in evidence.”
him that an investigation will be conducted. The investigation was
scheduled in accordance with PAL's Code of Conduct and Discipline, and
It should at once be apparent that there are two (2) rights, or sets of rights, dealt with in the
the Collective Bargaining Agreement signed by it with the Philippine
section, namely:
Airlines Employees' Association (PALEA) to which Ramos is a member. A
1) the right against self-incrimination — i.e., the right of a person not to be compelled to be a
letter was sent by Ramos stating his willingness to settle the amount of
witness against himself — set out in the first sentence.
P76,000. Felipe Ramos was informed "of the finding of the Audit Team."
2) the rights of a person in custodial interrogation, i.e., the rights of every suspect "under
Thereafter, his answers in response to questions by Cruz, were taken
investigation for the commission of an offense."
down in writing. Ramos' answers were to the effect that he had not
indeed made disclosure of the tickets mentioned in the Audit Team's
Right Against Self-Incrimination
findings, and that the proceeds had been "misused" by him; and that
The first right, against self-incrimination, mentioned in Section 20, Article IV of the 1973
although he had planned on paying back the money, he had been
Constitution, is accorded to every person who gives evidence, whether voluntarily or under
prevented from doing so. However, he was still willing to settle his
compulsion of subpoena, in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding. The right is NOT to
obligation, and proferred a "compromise to pay on staggered basis. He
"be compelled to be a witness against himself".
later on willingly signed the statements he made. However, it seems that
no compromise agreement was reached much less consummated. Two
The precept set out in that first sentence has a settled meaning. It prescribes an "option of refusal
months after a crime of estafa was charged against Ramos. Ramos
to answer incriminating questions and not a prohibition of inquiry." It simply secures to a witness,


pleaded not guilty. Evidence by the prosecution contained Ramos’ written whether he be a party or not, the right to refue to answer any particular incriminatory question,
admission and statement, to which defendants argued that the i.e., one the answer to which has a tendency to incriminate him for some crime. However, the right
confession was taken without the accused being represented by a lawyer. can be claimed only when the specific question, incriminatory in character, is actually put to the
Respondent Judge did not admit such statement stating that accused was witness. It cannot be claimed at any other time. It does not give a witness the right to disregard a
not reminded of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to have subpoena, to decline to appear before the court at the time appointed, or to refuse to testify
counsel. A motion for reconsideration filed by the prosecutors was altogether. The witness receiving a subpoena must obey it, appear as required, take the stand, be
denied. Hence this appeal. sworn and answer questions. It is only when a particular question is addressed to him, the answer
to which may incriminate him for some offense, that he may refuse to answer on the strength of
Issue: the constitutional guaranty.
Whether or not it was grave abuse of discretion for respondent Judge to
have excluded the written admission and statement of the accused. Rights in Custodial Interrogation
Section 20 states that whenever any person is "under investigation for the commission of an
offense"--
1) he shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such right,
2) nor force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be
used against him; and
3) any confession obtained in violation of these rights shall be inadmissible in evidence.
Every person under custody must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to
remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right
to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for
him prior to any questioning if he so desires. Opportunity to exercise those rights must be afforded
to him throughout the interrogation. After such warnings have been given, such opportunity
afforded him, the individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to
answer or make a statement. But unless and until such warnings and waivers are demonstrated by
the prosecution at the trial, no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against
him.
Rights of Defendant in Criminal Case

The accused in a criminal case in court has other rights in the matter of giving testimony or
refusing to do so. An accused "occupies a different tier of protection from an ordinary witness."
Under the Rules of Court, in all criminal prosecutions the defendant is entitled among others-
1) to be exempt from being a witness against himself; and 2) to testify as witness in his own
behalf; but if he offers himself as a witness he may be cross-examined as any other witness;
however, his neglect or refusal to be a witness shall not in any manner prejudice or be used against
him.


The right of the defendant in a criminal case "to be exempt from being a witness against himself'
signifies that he cannot be compelled to testify or produce evidence in the criminal case in which
he is the accused, or one of the accused. He cannot be compelled to do so even by subpoena or
other process or order of the Court. He cannot be required to be a witness either for the
prosecution, or for a co-accused, or even for himself. In other words — unlike an ordinary witness
(or a party in a civil action) who may be compelled to testify by subpoena, having only the right to
refuse to answer a particular incriminatory question at the time it is put to him-the defendant in a
criminal action can refuse to testify altogether. He can refuse to take the witness stand, be sworn,
answer any question. And, as the law categorically states, "his neglect or refusal to be a witness
shall not in any manner prejudice or be used against him."
It should by now be abundantly apparent that respondent Judge has misapprehended the nature
and import of the disparate rights set forth in Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution. He
has taken them as applying to the same juridical situation, equating one with the other. In so
doing, he has grossly erred. His Orders were thus rendered with grave abuse of discretion. They
should be as they are hereby, annulled and set aside.
In the case at bar, it is clear from the undisputed facts that Felipe Ramos was not in any sense
under custodial interrogation, as the term should be properly understood, prior to and during the
administrative inquiry into the discovered irregularities in ticket sales in which he appeared to have
had a hand. The constitutional rights of a person under custodial interrogation under Section 20,
Article IV of the 1973 Constitution did not therefore come into play, were of no relevance to the
inquiry. It is also clear, too, that Ramos had voluntarily answered questions posed to him on the
first day of the administrative investigation, February 9, 1986 and agreed that the proceedings
should be recorded, the record having thereafter been marked during the trial of the criminal
action subsequently filed against him, just as it is obvious that the note that he sent to his
superiors on February 8,1986, the day before the investigation, offering to compromise his liability
in the alleged irregularities, was a free and even spontaneous act on his part. They may not be
excluded on the ground that the so-called "Miranda rights" had not been accorded to Ramos.
31. U.S. vs. Tan (Chinaman; rape of 7 y/o girl; found with gonorrhea; admission of The Court answered in the negative. The judgment of the lower court was modified and the
Teng bodily fluids taken from the accused=admissible as evidence; maximum penalty of six years of prision correccional of imprisonment should be imposed.
23 Phil 145 Constitutional prohibition against testimonial compulsion)


Ratio decidendi:
On 15 September 1910, while Olivia Pacomio, a girl seven years of age, In the case at bar, the defendant contended that the result of the scientific examination made by
while staying at her sister’s house in Manila, the defendant Tan Teng, the Bureau of Science of the substance taken from his body, at or about the time he was arrested,
willfully, unlawfully and criminally, and employing force, lie and have was not admissible in evidence as proof of the fact that he was suffering from gonorrhea. That to
carnal intercourse with her. On said day, several Chinamen including the admit such evidence was to compel the defendant to testify against himself. The Court finds no
defendant were gambling at the house of the victim’s sister. When Olivia merit in this contention. It explained:
went to her room after taking a bath, the defendant followed her. Then “The accused was not compelled to make any admissions or answer any questions, and the mere
and there he threw Olivia upon the floor, placing his private parts upon fact that an object found on his person was examined: seems no more to infringe the rule invoked,
hers, and remained in that position for some little time. Several days than would the introduction in evidence of stolen property taken from the person of a thief.”
later, perhaps a week or two, the sister of Oliva discovered that the latter
was suffering from a venereal disease known as gonorrhea. It was at the The substance was taken from the body of the defendant without his objection, the examination
time of this discovery that Oliva related to her sister what happened upon was made by competent medical authority and the result showed that the defendant was suffering
the morning of the 15 September 1910. The sister at once put on foot an from said disease. As was suggested, had the defendant been found with stolen property upon his
investigation to find the Chinaman. Oliva identified him at once as the person, there certainly could have been no question had the stolen property been taken for the
one who had attempted to violate her. Upon this information the purpose of using the same as evidence against him. So also if the clothing which he wore, by
defendant was arrested and taken to the police station and stripped of his reason of blood stains or otherwise, had furnished evidence of the commission of a crime, there
clothing and examined. The policeman who examined the defendant certainly could have been no objection to taking such for the purpose of using the same as proof.
swore from the venereal disease known as gonorrhea. The policeman No one would think of even suggesting that stolen property and the clothing in the case indicated,
took a portion of the substance emitting from the body of the defendant taken from the defendant, could not be used against him as evidence, without violating the rule
and turned it over to the Bureau of Science for the purpose of having a that a person shall not be required to give testimony against himself.
scientific analysis made of the same. The result of the examination
showed that the defendant was suffering from gonorrhea. Based on the
The prohibition of compelling a man in a criminal court to be a witness against himself, is a
evidence, the defendant was charged with the crime of rape and the trial
prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion, to extort communications from him, not an
court found the defendant guilty of the charged and sentenced with a
exclusion of his body as evidence, when it may be material. The prohibition contained in the
penalty of prision correccional. From this sentence, the defendant
Constitution that a person shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself, is simply a
appealed. Hence, this present case.
prohibition against legal process to extract from the defendant's own lips, against his will, an
admission of his guilt. The fact that both the defendant and the victim were both suffering from a
Issue:
common disease clearly shows that the former indeed committed the offense charged.
Whether or not the physical examination conducted is violation of the
defendant’s right against self-incrimination.
INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN CRIMINAL PROSECUTION (Section 3, Rule 110)

28. Brocka vs. General Rule: The SC answered in affirmative. It ruled in favor of Brocka and his co-accused, and enjoin their
Enrile Criminal prosecution may not be restrained or stayed by injunction, criminal prosecution for the second offense of inciting to sedition.
192 SCRA preliminary or final. Public interest requires that criminal acts be


783 immediately investigated and prosecuted for the protection of the Ratio decidendi:
society. The primary issue here is the legality of enjoining the criminal prosecution of a case, since the two
Exceptions: These exceptions were given by the Court in this case. other issues raised by Brocka are matters of defense against the sedition charge.
Indeed, the general rule is that criminal prosecution may not be restrained or stayed by injunction,
Issue: preliminary or final.
Whether or not criminal prosecution of a case may be enjoined.
There are however exceptions, among which are:
a. To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused "
b. When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of
actions "
c. When there is a pre-judicial question which is sub judice
d. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority
e. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation
f. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent "
g. Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense
h. Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution
i. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance, and
j. When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that
ground has been denied.
In the petition before us, Brocka have cited the circumstances to show that the criminal
proceedings had become a case of persecution, having been undertaken by state officials in bad
faith.
29. Chavez vs. Prohibition against testimonial compulsion; Rule 115, Section 1(d) and
CA (e); To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to cross-
22 SCRA 663 examination on matters covered by direct examination; To be exempt
from being compelled to be a witness against himself.
32. Galman vs. Immunity Statutes

Pamaran
38 SCRA 294

Case Matrix For Crimproc1

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Case Matrix For Crimproc1

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Criminal Procedure Case Matrix SY 2010-2011

CASE TITLE FACTS/ISSUES/(KEYWORDS) DECISIONS/DOCTRINES

Eppie D. Severino PSU School of Law Page 1

CASE TITLE FACTS/ISSUES/(KEYWORDS) DECISIONS/DOCTRINES

Eppie D. Severino PSU School of Law Page 2

CASE TITLE FACTS/ISSUES/(KEYWORDS) DECISIONS/DOCTRINES

Eppie D. Severino PSU School of Law Page 3

CASE TITLE FACTS/ISSUES/(KEYWORDS) DECISIONS/DOCTRINES

Eppie D. Severino PSU School of Law Page 4

CASE TITLE FACTS/ISSUES/(KEYWORDS) DECISIONS/DOCTRINES

Eppie D. Severino PSU School of Law Page 5

CASE TITLE FACTS/ISSUES/(KEYWORDS) DECISIONS/DOCTRINES

Eppie D. Severino PSU School of Law Page 6

CASE TITLE FACTS/ISSUES/(KEYWORDS) DECISIONS/DOCTRINES

Eppie D. Severino PSU School of Law Page 7

CASE TITLE FACTS/ISSUES/(KEYWORDS) DECISIONS/DOCTRINES

Eppie D. Severino PSU School of Law Page 8

CASE TITLE FACTS/ISSUES/(KEYWORDS) DECISIONS/DOCTRINES

Eppie D. Severino PSU School of Law Page 9

CASE TITLE FACTS/ISSUES/(KEYWORDS) DECISIONS/DOCTRINES

Accused was then brought to the headquarters of the NARCOM at Camp

Eppie D. Severino PSU School of Law Page 10

CASE TITLE FACTS/ISSUES/(KEYWORDS) DECISIONS/DOCTRINES

Eppie D. Severino PSU School of Law Page 11

CASE TITLE FACTS/ISSUES/(KEYWORDS) DECISIONS/DOCTRINES

Eppie D. Severino PSU School of Law Page 12

CASE TITLE FACTS/ISSUES/(KEYWORDS) DECISIONS/DOCTRINES

Eppie D. Severino PSU School of Law Page 13

CASE TITLE FACTS/ISSUES/(KEYWORDS) DECISIONS/DOCTRINES

Eppie D. Severino PSU School of Law Page 14

CASE TITLE FACTS/ISSUES/(KEYWORDS) DECISIONS/DOCTRINES

Eppie D. Severino PSU School of Law Page 15

CASE TITLE FACTS/ISSUES/(KEYWORDS) DECISIONS/DOCTRINES

Eppie D. Severino PSU School of Law Page 16

CASE TITLE FACTS/ISSUES/(KEYWORDS) DECISIONS/DOCTRINES

Eppie D. Severino PSU School of Law Page 17

CASE TITLE FACTS/ISSUES/(KEYWORDS) DECISIONS/DOCTRINES

Eppie D. Severino PSU School of Law Page 18

CASE TITLE FACTS/ISSUES/(KEYWORDS) DECISIONS/DOCTRINES

Eppie D. Severino PSU School of Law Page 19

CASE TITLE FACTS/ISSUES/(KEYWORDS) DECISIONS/DOCTRINES

ENVIRONMENTAL CASES (Intergenerational Responsibility and Justice; Writ of Continuing Mandamus)

Eppie D. Severino PSU School of Law Page 20

CASE TITLE FACTS/ISSUES/(KEYWORDS) DECISIONS/DOCTRINES

Eppie D. Severino PSU School of Law Page 21

CASE TITLE FACTS/ISSUES/(KEYWORDS) DECISIONS/DOCTRINES

Eppie D. Severino PSU School of Law Page 22

CASE TITLE FACTS/ISSUES/(KEYWORDS) DECISIONS/DOCTRINES

Eppie D. Severino PSU School of Law Page 23

CASE TITLE FACTS/ISSUES/(KEYWORDS) DECISIONS/DOCTRINES

Eppie D. Severino PSU School of Law Page 24

CASE TITLE FACTS/ISSUES/(KEYWORDS) DECISIONS/DOCTRINES

POWER OF CONTROL OF THE COURT (Rule 110, Section 5)

Eppie D. Severino PSU School of Law Page 25

CASE TITLE FACTS/ISSUES/(KEYWORDS) DECISIONS/DOCTRINES

Eppie D. Severino PSU School of Law Page 26

CASE TITLE FACTS/ISSUES/(KEYWORDS) DECISIONS/DOCTRINES

Eppie D. Severino PSU School of Law Page 27

CASE TITLE FACTS/ISSUES/(KEYWORDS) DECISIONS/DOCTRINES

Eppie D. Severino PSU School of Law Page 28

CASE TITLE FACTS/ISSUES/(KEYWORDS) DECISIONS/DOCTRINES

Issue: Whether annulment case filed against the accused constitutes a

PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION (Rule 112, Sections 3)