Cases on Warrantlent Arrest

PEOPLE V. SUCRO G.R. No. 93239 March 18, 1991

FACTS:

Roy Fulgencio, a member of the INP, Kalibo, Aklan, was instructed by their Station Commander to monitor the
activities of appellant Edison Sucro, because of information gathered by Seraspi that Sucro was selling marijuana
As planned Roy Fulgencio monitored the activities of the accused under the house of Regalado and near the chapel
where the accused was selling marijuana to a group of persons around 5 pm.
Pat reported this to their station commander and instructed him to continue his monitoring.
At about 6:30 P.M., Pat. Fulgencio again called up Seraspi to report that a third buyer later Identified as Ronnie
Macabante, was transacting with appellant.
At that point, after Macabante bought from the accused, they pursue Macabante and told them he bought it from
herein accused-appellant.
The police team was able to overtake and arrest appellant at the corner of C. Quimpo and Veterans Sts. The police
recovered 19 sticks and 4 teabags of marijuana from the cart inside the chapel and another teabag from
Macabante,
Accused appealed that the marijuana teabags were seized without serving upon him a search warrant.
The accused-appellant contends that his arrest was illegal, is a violation of his rights granted under Section 2, Article
III of the 1987 Constitution.
He stresses that there was sufficient time for the police officers to apply for a search and arrest warrants considering
that Fulgencio informed his Station Commander of the activities of the accused two days before March 21, 1989,
the date of his arrest.

ISSUE:

WON the arrest without warrant of the accused is lawful and consequently
WON the evidence resulting from such arrest is admissible.

HELD:

YES. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides for the instances where an arrest without
warrant is considered lawful. The rule states:

Arrest without warrant, when lawful. — A peace officer or private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the
person to be arrested has committed it; (Emphasis supplied)

An offense is committed in the presence or within the view of an officer, within the meaning of the rule
authorizing an arrest without a warrant, when the officer sees the offense, although at a distance, or hears the
disturbances created thereby and proceeds at once to the scene thereof.

From the records of the case, Fulgencio saw Sucro three times dealing drugs inside the chapel where he is 2 meters
away monitoring his nefarious activities then after the 3rd deal, the police intercepted the buyer Macabante and
when confronted by the police, Macabante readily admitted that he bought the marijuana from Sucro. Therefore,
Sucro had just committed an illegal act of which the police officers had personal knowledge, being members of the
team which monitored accused-appellants nefarious activity.
The accused questions the failure of the police officers to secure a warrant considering that Fulgencio himself
knew of Sucro's activities even prior to the former's joining the police force. Fulgencio reported Sucro's activities
only three days before the incident.

As the records reveal, Fulgencio and Sucro had known each other since their childhood years and that after
Fulgencio joined the police force, he told the accused-appellant not to sell drugs in their locality. Hence, it is
possible that because of this friendship, Fulgencio hesitated to report his childhood friend and merely advised him
not to engage in such activity. However, because of reliable information was given by some informants that selling
was going on every day, he was constrained to report the matter to the Station Commander.

On the other hand, the failure of the police officers to secure a warrant stems from the fact that their knowledge
acquired from the surveillance was insufficient to fulfill the requirements for the issuance of a search warrant.
What is paramount is that probable cause existed.

The general rule is that searches and seizures must be supported by a valid warrant is not an absolute rule...
Among the exceptions granted by law is a search incidental to a lawful arrest under Sec. 12, Rule 126 of the RCP
which provides that a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be
used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant.

Since the arrest was considered valid, the evidence presented is admissible in evidence.

Hence, this Court is convinced that appellant Edison Sucro had indeed committed the offense charged. The trial
court's decision must be upheld.

PEOPLE vs GO Case Digest

PEOPLE OF THE PHILLIPINES v. BENNY GO
411 SCRA 81 (2003), THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales, J.)

The search and seizure of articles must be limited to those which are particularly described in
the search warrant.

FACTS: A raiding team armed with a warrant entered the home of appelant Benny Go in search of
evidence for the violation of Republic Act 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act), otherwise know as the

Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 . Upon their entry, they met Jack Go, son of the Go
and restrained him. As the former was the only one present at the time they then called on two
baranggay kagawads to act as witnesses on the said search. They then siezed properties and
objects even those which were not included in the warrant. When they were almost finished with
their search Go arrived and immediately together with the two witnesses was made to sign the
inventory reciept.

Based on the evidence taken from the search Go was charged for violation of R.A. 6425. Upon
hearing, testimonies as well as evidences were presented by the prosecution against Go. However,
the two witnesses questioned the validity of some of the evidence presented such as the inventory
receipt as well as the illegal drugs said to have been seized from the search.

The Regional Trial Court of Manila convicted Go for violation of the offense cahrged. On appeal, Go
assails the decision of the RTC as well the validity of the search performed by the raiding team and
the admissibility of the evidence taken therefrom. Go also asks for the return of the properties seized
that were not included in the search warrant.

ISSUE: Whether or not the properties not included in the search warrant may be returned to Go

HELD: It bears reiterating that the purpose of the constitutional requirement that the articles to be
seized be particularly described in the warrant is to limit the things to be seized to those, and only
those, particularly described in the search warrant - to leave the officers of the law with no discretion
regarding what articles they should seize. At the same time, the raiding team characterized the
seizure of the assorted documents, passports, bankbooks, checks, check writer, typewriter, dry
seals and stamp pads as ―seizure of evidence in plain view. Under the plain view doctrine, objects
falling in the ―plain view‖ of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are
subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence.

To be sure, the policemen also filed a complaint against Go for alleged possession of instruments or
implements intended for the commission of falsification under paragraph 2 of Article 176 of the
Revised Penal Code on the basis of dry seals and rubber stamps also found in appellant‘s
residence.

The counterfeit nature of the seals and stamps was in fact not established until after they had been
turned over to the Chinese embassy and Bureau of Immigration and Deportation for verification. It is,
therefore, incredible that SPO1 Fernandez could make such determination from a ―plain view‖ of
the items from his vantage point in the sala.

In sum, the circumstances attendant to the case at bar do not warrant the application of the ―plain
view‖ doctrine to justify the seizure and retention of the questioned seized items. The things
belonging to appellant not specifically mentioned in the warrants, like those not particularly
described, must thus be ordered returned to him.

Be that as it may, considering that the two (2) dry seals and eight (8) of the rubber stamps have
been certified to be counterfeit by the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, they may not be
returned and are hereby declared confiscated in favor of the State to be disposed of according to
law.

Moreover, the various bankbooks and passports not belonging to appellant may not be ordered
returned in the instant proceedings. The legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party
whose rights have been impaired thereby, and the objection to an unlawful search and seizure is
purely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties.
Umil v. Ramos, 202 SCRA 251 (1991)
Facts:
 Separate motions before the Court, seeking reconsideration.
 In the Umil case, the arresting officers had good reason to believe that an NPA member
(Rolando Dural, although using a fictitious name) was indeed being treated at St. Agnes Hospital,
QC for gunshot wounds. The information was from the attending doctor and hospital
management, and therefore came from reliable sources.
 In the case of Wilfredo Buenaobra, the same admitted that he was an NPA courier.
 In the case of Amelia Roque, subversive documents and live ammunition were found at the time
of her arrest, and she admitted to owning such documents.
 As regards Domingo Anonuevo&Ramon Casiple, agents frisked them and found subversive
documents & loaded guns without permits.
 With regard to Vicky Ocaya, she arrived at a house subject to a search warrant. Ammunition &
subversive documents were found in her car.
 In the Nazareno case, Narciso Nazareno was identified by Ramil Regala as the latter’s
companion in killing Romulo Bunye II.

Issue:
 Whether or not Rolando Dural (and other petitioners in the other consolidated cases) was
lawfully arrested

Ruling:
 Dural and the other petitioners werelawfully arrested for being members of the New People’s
Army (mere membership is penalized), and for subversion (a continuing offense).
 Subversion and rebellion are anchored on an ideological base which compels the repetition of
the same acts of lawlessness & violence until the objective of overthrowing organized
government is attained.
 Likewise, the arresting officers had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be
arrested is the one who committed the offense (based on actual facts), coupled with good faith
in making the arrest.
 The Court reiterates that mere suspicion of being a Communist Party member or a subversive is
absolutely not a ground for the arrest without warrant of the suspect. The Court predicated the
validity of the arrests on the compliance with the requirements of a long existing law; probable
cause and good faith of the arresting peace officers; and that the arrest be on the basis of actual
facts and circumstances.
 RODEL LUZ y ONG, Petitioner,
vs
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

G. R. No. 197788,
February 29, 2012

Doctrine of the Case:The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures. Any evidence obtained in violation of said right shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding.While the power to search and seize may at times be necessary to the public welfare, still it must be exercised and the law
implemented without contravening the constitutional rights of citizens, for the enforcement of no statute is of sufficient importance to justify
indifference to the basic principles of government.

FACTS:

 On March 10, 2003 at around 3:00 o’clock in the morning, PO2 Emmanuel L. Alteza, who was then assigned as a traffic enforcer
saw the accused, who was coming from the direction of Panganiban Drive and going to Diversion Road, Naga City, driving a
motorcycle without a helmet; this prompted him to flag down the accused for violating a municipal ordinance which requires all
motorcycle drivers to wear helmet while driving said motor vehicle, he invited the accused to come inside their sub-station since the
place is almost in front of the said sub-station.

 He was alerted of the accused’s uneasy movement and thus asked to take out the contents of the pocket of his jacket, as the latter
may have a weapon inside it; the accused obliged and slowly put out the contents of the pocket of his jacket which was a nickel-like
tin or metal container about two (2) to three (3) inches in size, including two (2) cellphones, one (1) pair of scissors and one (1)
Swiss knife; upon seeing the said container, he asked the accused to open it; after the accused opened the container, he noticed a
cartoon cover and something beneath it; and upon his instruction, the accused spilled out the contents of the container on the table
which turned out to be four (4) plastic sachets, the two (2) of which were empty while the other two (2) contained suspected shabu.

 The RTC convicted petitioner of illegal possession of dangerous drugs as the substances are positive of methampethamine
hydrochloride. Upon appeal, the CA affirmed the RTCs Decision.

 Upon a petition for review on certiorari, petitioner claims that there was no lawful search and seizure, because there was no lawful
arrest. He claims that the finding that there was a lawful arrest was erroneous, since he was not even issued a citation ticket or
charged with violation of the city ordinance. Even assuming there was a valid arrest, he claims that he had never consented to the
search conducted upon him.

ISSUE:
Whether the roadside questioning of a motorist,pursuant to a routine traffic stop can be considered a formal arrest.

RULING:

There was no valid arrest. When the petitioner was flagged down for committing a traffic violation, he was not, by the fact itself (ipso
facto) and solely for this reason, arrested. Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he or she may be bound to answer for the
commission of an offense. It is effected by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested or by that person’s voluntary submission to the
custody of the one making the arrest. Neither the application of actual force, manual touching of the body, or physical restraint, nor a formal
declaration of arrest, is required. It is enough that there be an intention on the part of one of the parties to arrest the other, and that there be an
intent on the part of the other to submit, under the belief and impression that submission is necessary. There being no valid arrest, the
warrantless search that resulted from it was likewise illegal. The following are the instances when a warrantless search is allowed:

(i) a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;

(ii) search of evidence in “plain view;”
(iii) search of a moving vehicle;
(iv) consented warrantless search;
(v) customs search;
(vi) a “stop and frisk” search; and
(vii) exigent and emergency circumstances.

None of the above-mentioned instances, especially a search incident to a lawful arrest, are applicable to this case.

The subject items seized during the illegal arrest are inadmissible. The drugs are the very concrete evidence (corpus delicti) of the crime illegal
possession of dangerous drugs. Thus, their inadmissibility precludes conviction and calls for the acquittal of the accused

PEOPLE VS. GERENTE

July 11, 2013
GR No. 95847-48, March 10 1993

FACTS:

Edna Edwina Reyes testified that Gabriel Gerente, together with Fredo

Echigoren and Totoy Echigoren, started drinking liquor and smoking

marijuana in the house of the appellant. She overheard the three men talking

about their intention to kill Clarito Blace. Fredo, Totoy Echigoren and

Gerente carried out their plan to kill Clarito Blace . Reyes, testified that she
witnessed the killing as follows: Fredo Echigoren struck the first blow against

Clarito Blace, followed by Totoy Echigoren and Gabriel Gerente who hit him

twice with a piece of wood in the head and when he fell, Totoy Echigoren

dropped a hollow block on the victim's head. Thereafter, the three men

dragged Blace to a place behind the house of Gerente.

Patrolman Jaime Urrutia of the Valenzuela Police Station received a report

from the Palo Police Detachment about a mauling incident. He went to the

Valenzuela District Hospital where the victim was brought. He was informed

by the hospital officials that the victim died on arrival. The cause of death

was massive fracture of the skull caused by a hard and heavy object.

Right away, Patrolman Urrutia, proceeded to Paseo de Blas where the

mauling incident took place. There they found a piece of wood with blood

stains, a hollow block and two roaches of marijuana. They were informed by

Reyes, that she saw the killing and she pointed to Gabriel Gerente as one of

the three men who killed Clarito.

The policemen proceeded to the house of the appellant who was then

sleeping. They told him to come out of the house and they introduced

themselves as policemen. Patrolman Urrutia frisked appellant and found a

coin purse in his pocket which contained dried leaves wrapped in cigarette

foil. Only the appellant, Gabriel Gerente, was apprehended by the police. The

other suspects, Fredo and Totoy Echigoren, are still at large.

Two separate informations were filed by Assistant Provincial Prosecutor

Benjamin Caraig against him for Violation of Section 8, Article II, of

Republic Act No. 6425, and for Murder. The trial court convicted him of

Violation of Section 8 of R.A. 6425 and of Murder.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the court erred in admitting the marijuana leaves adduced

in evidence by the prosecution; and

2. Whether or not the court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of the

crimes charged despite the absence of evidence required to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.

HELD:

The appealed decision was affirmed.

ARREST

The policemen arrested Gerente only some three (3) hours after Gerente and

his companions had killed Blace. They saw Blace dead in the hospital and

when they inspected the scene of the crime, they found the instruments of

death: a piece of wood and a concrete hollow block which the killers had

used to bludgeon him to death. The eye-witness, Edna Edwina Reyes,

reported the happening to the policemen and pinpointed her neighbor,

Gerente, as one of the killers. Under those circumstances, since the

policemen had personal knowledge of the violent death of Blace and of facts

indicating that Gerente and two others had killed him, they could lawfully

arrest Gerente without a warrant. If they had postponed his arrest until they

could obtain a warrant, he would have fled the law as his two companions
did.

SEARCH and SEIZURE

The search conducted on Gerente's person was likewise lawful because it was

made as an incident to a valid arrest. This is in accordance with Section 12,

Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court which provides: A person lawfully

arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be

used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant.

The frisk and search of appellant's person upon his arrest was a permissible

precautionary measure of arresting officers to protect themselves, for the

person who is about to be arrested may be armed and might attack them

unless he is first

CONSPIRACY

When there is a conspiracy to commit a crime, the act of one conspirator is

the act of all. The conspiracy was proven by the eyewitness-testimony of

Edna Edwina Reyes, that she overheard the appellant and his companions
conspire to kill Blace, that acting in concert, they attacked their victim with a

piece of wood and a hollow block and caused his death. "When there is no

evidence indicating that the principal witness for the prosecution was moved

by improper motive, the presumption is that he was not so moved and his

testimony is entitled to full faith and credit".

PEOPLE VS. GERENTE

July 11, 2013
GR No. 95847-48, March 10 1993

FACTS:
Edna Edwina Reyes testified that Gabriel Gerente, together with Fredo

Echigoren and Totoy Echigoren, started drinking liquor and smoking

marijuana in the house of the appellant. She overheard the three men talking

about their intention to kill Clarito Blace. Fredo, Totoy Echigoren and

Gerente carried out their plan to kill Clarito Blace . Reyes, testified that she

witnessed the killing as follows: Fredo Echigoren struck the first blow against

Clarito Blace, followed by Totoy Echigoren and Gabriel Gerente who hit him

twice with a piece of wood in the head and when he fell, Totoy Echigoren

dropped a hollow block on the victim's head. Thereafter, the three men

dragged Blace to a place behind the house of Gerente.

Patrolman Jaime Urrutia of the Valenzuela Police Station received a report

from the Palo Police Detachment about a mauling incident. He went to the

Valenzuela District Hospital where the victim was brought. He was informed

by the hospital officials that the victim died on arrival. The cause of death

was massive fracture of the skull caused by a hard and heavy object.
Right away, Patrolman Urrutia, proceeded to Paseo de Blas where the

mauling incident took place. There they found a piece of wood with blood

stains, a hollow block and two roaches of marijuana. They were informed by

Reyes, that she saw the killing and she pointed to Gabriel Gerente as one of

the three men who killed Clarito.

The policemen proceeded to the house of the appellant who was then

sleeping. They told him to come out of the house and they introduced

themselves as policemen. Patrolman Urrutia frisked appellant and found a

coin purse in his pocket which contained dried leaves wrapped in cigarette

foil. Only the appellant, Gabriel Gerente, was apprehended by the police. The

other suspects, Fredo and Totoy Echigoren, are still at large.

Two separate informations were filed by Assistant Provincial Prosecutor

Benjamin Caraig against him for Violation of Section 8, Article II, of

Republic Act No. 6425, and for Murder. The trial court convicted him of

Violation of Section 8 of R.A. 6425 and of Murder.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the court erred in admitting the marijuana leaves adduced

in evidence by the prosecution; and

2. Whether or not the court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of the

crimes charged despite the absence of evidence required to prove his guilt

beyond reasonable doubt.

HELD:

The appealed decision was affirmed.

ARREST

The policemen arrested Gerente only some three (3) hours after Gerente and

his companions had killed Blace. They saw Blace dead in the hospital and

when they inspected the scene of the crime, they found the instruments of

death: a piece of wood and a concrete hollow block which the killers had

used to bludgeon him to death. The eye-witness, Edna Edwina Reyes,

reported the happening to the policemen and pinpointed her neighbor,

Gerente, as one of the killers. Under those circumstances, since the

policemen had personal knowledge of the violent death of Blace and of facts

indicating that Gerente and two others had killed him, they could lawfully

arrest Gerente without a warrant. If they had postponed his arrest until they

could obtain a warrant, he would have fled the law as his two companions

did.

SEARCH and SEIZURE

The search conducted on Gerente's person was likewise lawful because it was

made as an incident to a valid arrest. This is in accordance with Section 12,

Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court which provides: A person lawfully

arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be

used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant.

The frisk and search of appellant's person upon his arrest was a permissible

precautionary measure of arresting officers to protect themselves, for the

person who is about to be arrested may be armed and might attack them

unless he is first
CONSPIRACY

When there is a conspiracy to commit a crime, the act of one conspirator is

the act of all. The conspiracy was proven by the eyewitness-testimony of

Edna Edwina Reyes, that she overheard the appellant and his companions

conspire to kill Blace, that acting in concert, they attacked their victim with a

piece of wood and a hollow block and caused his death. "When there is no

evidence indicating that the principal witness for the prosecution was moved

by improper motive, the presumption is that he was not so moved and his

testimony is entitled to full faith and credit".

 CRIMRPO
Title GR No. 136267
PEOPLE VS CUBCUBIN Date: July 10, 2001
Ponente: J. Mendoza
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee FIDEL ABRENICA CUBCUBIN, JR., accused-appellant
SUMMARY
The accused was charged with the murder of a tricycle driver. In his defense, he contended that the arrest
was not valid, given that the arrest violated his right to due process. The court ruled in his favor, stating that
there was no personal knowledge of the arresting officers to begin with, and that the statements of the
prosecution were contradicting.
DOCTRINE

For a warrantless arrest to be valid: first, the offender has just committed an offense and, second, the
arresting peace officer or private person has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be
arrested has committed it. It has been held that personal knowledge of facts in arrests without a warrant
must be based upon probable cause, which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion

Nature of the case: Automatic review of the decision dated October 5, 1998, of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 88, Cavite City, finding accused-appellant Fidel AbrenicaCubcubin, Jr. guilty of murder and sentencing
him to suffer the penalty of death.
FACTS

 According to the prosecution (from the 8 witnesses presented):

o A desk officer of the Cavite City police station, received a telephone call that a person had been shot
near the cemetery
o A police team, responded to the call, and found that he victim was last seen together with the
accused coming out of Sting Café, the café server confirmed such, but did not know if they left
together as she was serving other customers
o The policemen went to the accused’s house, identified themselves and informed him that he was
being sought in connection with the shooting near the cemetery. Accused denied involvement, so
the police asked permission to enter and look around
o SPO1 Malinao notices a white shirt which was bloodied, and when he picked it up, two spent .38
caliber shells fell.
o They also found on top of a drum a homemade Smith and Wesson caliber .38 revolver, without a
serial number
o After an evaluation of the evidence, SPO4 Pilapil formally filed a criminal complaint for murder
o NBI conducted a ballistics examination which showed that the evidence bullets were fired from the
subject firearm. No photographs were taken. The empty shells recovered were no longer examined.
o Also, the bloodstained white Hanes t-shirt and the blood sample of the victim yielded positive
results for human blood belonging to blood type O

 Meanwhile, the defense presented:

o Accused admitted knowing the victim whom he addressed as Kuya.
o He and some friends played tong-its after which he proceeded to the Sting Cafe where he had some
drinks Piamonte arrived and had drinks with him. the victim left as a passenger was waiting, but
 came back and had another bottle the victim again left to transport another passenger, but did not
come back anymore
o Accused said he was sleeping on the sofa when he was awakened by the arrival of three policemen,
who pointed their guns at him and told him to lie face down. He was handcuffed while they
searched his room
o Before leaving, the policemen took from the clothes stand a white t-shirt belonging to his son
Denver.
o Accused-appellant said that he did not ask them why they were searching the place as he was afraid
they would maltreat him and denied that the white t-shirt had blood stains.
o He claimed that the policemen did not have any search warrant nor a warrant of arrest when they
took him into custody, nor did they inform him of his constitutional right to remain silent and to be
assisted by counsel.

 TC found the accused guilty of murder, based on the prosecution’s evidence and rejected the accused’s
alibi. The Court then received a letter from the mother of accused, with an attached affidavit of
desistance executed by Marilou B. Piamonte, widow of the victim, stating that accused-appellant had
been mistakenly identified, however, not being formally offered before the trial court, has no probative
value.

ISSUE/S
I. WHETHER THE ARREST WAS VALID. NO.
RATIO

 Under 5(b), two conditions must concur for a warrantless arrest to be valid:
o first, the offender has just committed an offense and,
o second, the arresting peace officer or private person has personal knowledge of facts
indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it

 In this case, the arrest of accused-appellant was effected shortly after the victim was killed. The
question, therefore, is whether there was probable cause for the arresting officers, to believe that
accused committed the crime.
o It was held that there was none. The two did not have personal knowledge, as they based it
trough someone who called the PNP station and reported that a man had been killed. Thus,
PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao, Jr. merely relied on information given to them by others.
 Nor can it be argued that the arresting officers had probable cause to believe accused to be guilty of
the killing of the victim because they found a bloodstained t-shirt, a .38 caliber revolver, and two
spent .38 caliber shells in his house. At the time accused-appellant was arrested, he was not doing
anything overtly criminal. The alleged discovery of the gun came after his arrest. Moreover, as will
presently be explained, the objects allegedly seized from accused-appellant were illegally obtained
without a search warrant.
 Also, the server really did not know if they left together. There is thus serious doubt as to whether
 accused-appellant was really the last person seen with the victim. Her testimony is insufficient. Nor is
there adequate evidence to prove any ill motive on the part of accused-appellant. Finally, SPO1
Malinao, Jr. quibbled but in the process committed more contradictions.

Notes:
Mentioned din sa case na: But the accused cannot now question the validity of his arrest without a
warrant. The records show that he pleaded not guilty to the charge when arraigned.
Regarding the issue of search and seizure:
 To be sure, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right which may be
waived expressly or impliedly.
 A waiver by implication cannot be presumed. There must be persuasive evidence of an actual
intention to relinquish the right.
 The courts do not place the citizen in the position of either contesting an officers authority by force,
or waiving his constitutional rights; but instead they hold that a peaceful submission to a search or
seizure is not consent or an invitation thereto, but is merely a demonstration or regard for the
supremacy of the law. (PasionVda de Garcia v. Locsin)

 Even assuming the warrantless arrest to be valid, the search cannot be considered an incident
thereto.
 A valid arrest allows only the seizure of evidence or dangerous weapons either in the person of the
one arrested or within the area of his immediate control.
 The rationale for such search and seizure is to prevent the person arrested either from destroying
evidence or from using the weapon against his captor.
 The plain view doctrine is usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence against
the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object.
 Here, the search of accused-appellants house was illegal and, consequently, the things obtained as a
result of the illegal search, are inadmissible in evidence against him. The gun was purposely sought
by the police officers and they did not merely stumble upon it.
 Nor were the police officers justified in seizing the white Hanes t-shirt placed on top of the divider in
plain view as such is not contraband nor is it incriminating in nature which would lead SPO1 Malinao,
Jr. to conclude that it would constitute evidence of a crime
RULING

The decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 88, Cavite City, finding accused-appellant Fidel
AbrenicaCubcubin, Jr. guilty of the crime of murder, is REVERSED and accused-appellant is hereby
ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt.
Accused-appellant is ordered immediately released from custody unless he is being held for some other
lawful cause. The Director of Prisons is directed to implement this Decision and to report to the Court the
action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt hereof.
(FELICIANO)
 PEOPLE V. DON RODRIGUEZA - CASE DIGEST -
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
PEOPLE V. DON RODRIGUEZA G.R. No. 95902 February 4, 1992

FACTS:

The police officers of Ibalon, Legaspi City, received a confidential information regarding an ongoing illegal traffic of
prohibited drugs in Tagas, Daraga, Albay.
The police officer (Taduran) acted as a poseur-buyer. He was told by the informant to look for a certain Don, the
alleged seller of prohibited drugs.
Taduran went to Tagas alone and, while along the road, he met Samuel Segovia. He asked Segovia where be could
find Don and where he could buy marijuana. Segovia left for a while and when be returned, he was accompanied
by a man who was later on introduced to him as Don, herein appellant.
After agreeing on the price (P200.00) for 100 grams of marijuana, Don left Taduran and Segovia and when he came
back, he’s already bringing with him a plastic containing Marijuana. Thereafter, Taduran returned to the
headquarters and made a report regarding his said purchase of marijuana.
Based on that information, they apprehended the accused without a warrant of arrest.
Thereafter, NARCOM agents raided without a search warrant the house of the father(Jovencio Rodrigueza) of herein
accused-appellant. During the raid, they were able to confiscate dried marijuana leaves and a plastic syringe,
among others.
The next 2 days, the father was released and Don and co-accused remained.
The three accused (Don, Segovia, Lonceras) presented different versions of their alleged participation.
RTC found Don Rodrigueza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 4, Article II of the Dangerous Drugs
Act of 1972 (Republic Act No. 6425, as amended) while the two co-accused were acquitted.
Hence, this appeal raising the issue of the legality of his arrest.

ISSUE:

WON the warrantless arrest was in consonance to his constitutional right

HELD:

NO. The arrest and seizure were illegally conducted.

As provided in the present Constitution, a search, to be valid, must generally be authorized by a search warrant
duly issued by the proper government authority. True, in some instances, this Court has allowed government
authorities to conduct searches and seizures even without a search warrant.
when the owner of the premises waives his right against such incursion;
when the search is incidental to a lawful arrest;
when it is made on vessels and aircraft for violation of customs laws;
when it is made on automobiles for the purpose of preventing violations of smuggling or immigration laws;
when it involves prohibited articles in plain view;
in cases of inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of fire, sanitary and building regulations,

In the case at bar, however, the raid conducted by the NARCOM agents in the house of Jovencio Rodrigueza was
not authorized by any search warrant.

It does not appear, either, that the situation falls under any of the aforementioned cases above.

Hence, appellant's right against unreasonable search and seizure was clearly violated. The NARCOM agents could
not have justified their act by invoking the urgency and necessity of the situation because the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses reveal that the place had already been put under surveillance for quite some time. Had it
been their intention to conduct the raid, then they should, because they easily could, have first secured a search
warrant during that time.

The Court further notes the confusion and ambiguity in the identification of the confiscated marijuana leaves and
other prohibited drug paraphernalia presented as evidence against appellant.

From the records of the case, Taduran (poseur-buyer) bought 100 grams of marijuana from Don but the evidence
presented were the prohibited articles were among those confiscated during the so-called follow-up raid in the
house of Jovencio Rodrigueza.

The unanswered question then arises as to the identity of the marijuana leaves that became the basis of
appellant's conviction. In People vs. Rubio, this Court had the occasion to rule that the plastic bag and the dried
marijuana leaves contained therein constitute the corpus delicti of the crime. As such, the existence thereof must
be proved with certainty and conclusiveness. Failure to do so would be fatal to the cause of the prosecution.

Finally, the Court has repeatedly ruled that to sustain the conviction of the accused, the prosecution must rely on
the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the defense. 31 As clearly shown by the evidence, the
prosecution has failed to establish its cause. It has not overcome the presumption of innocence accorded to
appellant. This being the case, appellant should not be allowed to suffer for unwarranted and imaginary
imputations against him.