Case Digested by: CRISZ G.

PANGANDAMAN VS. CASAR

PETITION: To annul the warrant of arrest issued by respondent Judge.

FACTS: A shooting incident occurred which left at least five persons dead and two others wounded.
What in fact transpired is still unclear.

A complaint was filed and testimonies by witnesses were heard. Thereafter, respondent Judge
approved the complaint and issued the warrant of arrest against fourteen (14) petitioners as named by
the witnesses and fifty (50) John Does.

A “ex parte” motion for reconsideration was filed seeking the recall of the warrant of arrest on the
ground that the Judge’s initial nvestigation had been hasty and manifestly haphazard. The Judge
denied the motion.

ISSUES: Whether or not the warrant of arrests issued against the petitioners were valid.
Whether or not court warrant of arrest for the fifty (50) John Does valid.

HELD: Supreme Court held that warrant of arrests as to the petitioners were valid. While the warrant
of against the fifty (50) John Does was voided.

RATIONALE: The warrant of arrests as to the petitioners were valid. Such issuance having been
ordered after proceedings and to which no irregularity has been shown to attach, in which the Judge
found sufficient cause for petitioners to answer the crime complained.

However, as said warrant of arrest against fifty (50) John does is not one of whom the witnesses to the
complaint could or would identify. It is of the nature of a general warrant, one of a class of writs long
proscribed as unconstitutional. Clearly violative of the constitutional injunction that warrants of arrest
should particularly describe the person or persons to be seized. Therefore, the warrant must as regards
its unidentified subjects be voided.

PEOPLE VS. ZASPA

PETITION: To review the decision of Regional Trial Court charging the Rolando Zaspa and Julius
Galvan violation of Section 8 of R.A 6425 otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.

FACTS: The police received a confidential information that a certain Rolando Zaspa with a
companion were bringing dried marijuana leaves bound for Mati. When the police arrived at the
place, there were no other people in sight except for the accused suspiciously at the side of the road
with a big black bag. When the police approached them, Zaspa tried to run and denied to own the bag.

The accused plead that their arrest were unlawful and warrantless arrest.

ISSUES: Whether or not the arrest was unlawful.

HELD: No. The arrest was lawful pursuant to Section 5 of Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Court
which authorizes an arrest without a warrant.

RATIONALE: Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Court authorizes an arrest without a
warrant when the person to be arrested has committed a crime, is actually committing or about to
commit a crime in the presence of the police officers. As the appellants were found to be in
possession of the prohibited drug at the time of their arrest, the same is admissible as evidence.
The facts and circumstances leading to the arrest of the accused would show that the arresting officers
have proper and justifiable reasons to arrest the two (2) suspects. First, they received a confidential
information from a police informer that a certain Rolando Zaspa with a companion were bringing
dried marijuana leaves bound for Mati. Second, when the police arrived at the crime scene, the two
(2) suspects were suspiciously at the side of the road with a big black bag in front of them. Third,
there were no other people in sight and it is therefore safe to conclude that the bag containing the
contraband belonged to no one else but the suspects. Lastly, when the police officers were
approaching, the appellant Zaspa attempted to escape.

A warrantless arrest and seizure was valid where it was done by the police team dispatched to look for
persons responsible for the crime. In any case, in accordance with settled jurisprudence, any
objection, defect or irregularity attending an arrest must be made before the accused enters his plea.
Thus, any irregularity attendant to the arrest of the accused was cured when they voluntarily
submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court by entering a plea of not guilty and by participating in
the trial

Case Digested by: CRISZ G.