1. Sanchez v. Demetriou
Cruz, J. | November 9, 1993 | Arrest (generally)
SUMMARY: Mayor Sanchez was accused of being involved in the crimes of
rape and killing. An invitation to the preliminary
investigation was served on him, and it is by virtue of that invitation that he
was taken to Camp Vicente Lim for questioning, and it
was found out that he was the perpetrator of the act. Formal charges were
subsequently filed. Petitioner assails validity of arrest in
the form of invitation. Court held that original arrest (invitation) was illegal,
but subsequent issuance of warrant cures its defect.
DOCTRINE: Filing of charges and the issuance of corresponding warrant of
arrest against a person invalidly detained will cure
defect of detention
FACTS:
On July 28, 1993, pursuant to the request of the Presidential
Anti-Crime Commission, the Panel of State Prosecutors of the
Department of Justice conducted a preliminary investigation
with regard to the charges to be filed against several persons,
including petitioner Mayor Antonio Sanchez. Petitioner, along
with others, was alleged to be involved in the killing of one
Allan Gomez and the rape-slay of Mary Eileen Sarmienta.
Petitioner was not present during the preliminary investigation
but was represented by his counsel, instead.
Thereafter, he was served an invitation on August 13, 1993 to
the investigation in Camp Vicente in Laguna. At the
confrontation, he was identified by Aurelio Centeno, and SPO
III Vivencio Malabanan, who both executed confessions
implicating him as a principal in the rape-slay of Sarmenta and
the killing of Gomez. He was then put on “arrest status” and
was taken to DOJ. Following the hearing, warrant of arrest
was issued by Judge Enrico A. Lanzanas in connection with
the cases for violation of Section 8, in relation to Section 1, of
R.A. No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees) Sanchez was forthwith taken
to the CIS Detention Center, Camp Crame. Respondent
prosecutors filed complaint in RTC Manila for the crime of
special complex crime of rape with homicide for the rape and
killing of Sarmienta, aggravated with the killing of Gomez.
Subsequently, warrant of arrest was served to six other
accused.
ISSUE/S:
WON the arrest of Mayor Sanchez was valid – YES
RULING/RATIO:
August 13, 1993 illegal detention (invitation constituted an
invalid arrest) was cured by subsequent issuance of a valid
warrant of arrest.
Section 1, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court defines arrest as the
taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound
to answer for the commission of an offense. Under Section 2
of the same Rule, an arrest is effected by an actual restraint of
the person to be arrested or by his voluntary submission to the
custody of the person making the arrest.
Application of actual force, manual touching of the body,
physical restraint or a formal declaration of arrest is not,
required. It is enough that there be an intent on the part of
one of the parties to arrest the other and an intent onthe
part of the other to submit, under the belief and
impression that submission is necessary. “Invitation” came
from a high-ranking military official and the investigation of
Sanchez was to be made at a military camp. Command or an
order of arrest that the petitioner could hardly he expected to
defy. In fact, apparently cowed by the "invitation," he went
without protest (and in informal clothes and slippers only)
with the officers who had come to fetch him. Note that under
R.A. No. 7438, the requisites of a "custodial investigation"
are applicable even to a person not formally arrested but
merely "invited" for questioning.
Petitioner was right when he contended that such arrest was
not under those included in valid warrantless arrest under
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court because only the
testimonies were relied upon regarding the identifcation of
petitioner, so that arresting officer had no personal knowledge
nor were present during the commision of the crime. Neither it
has just been committed because arrest took place 46 days
after the crime was perpetrated. However, even if the original
arrest was illegal, the RTC later on acquired jurisidticon
on his person by virtue of the warrant issued to him and
co-accused. Even on the assumption that no warrant was
issued at all, the trial court still lawfully acquired jurisdiction
over the person of the petitioner. Filing of charges, and the
issuance of the corresponding warrant of arrest, against a
person invalidly detained will cure the defect of that
detention or at least deny him the right to be released
because of such defect.
Other points:
1. There were seven informations charging seven separate
homicides because the homicide committed on the occasion or
by reason of each rape, must be deemed as a constituent of the
special complex crime of rape with homicide. Therefore, there
will be as many crimes of rape with homicide as there are
rapes committed.
2.
Petitioner’s contention that he wa not accorded roght to
present counter-affidavit was negated by the fact that his
counsel manifested that his client was waiving the
presentation of a counter-affidavit. And despite the reminder
reminder from the court that he could still present such, he still
did not do so.
2. PEOPLE VS. JOSEPH GREY
FACTS: Mayor Jojo Grey, his son Francis Grey and teo others were charge of
the crime Murder which resulted in a filing of a counter-charge of Perjury
for the death of Rolando Diocton. Judge Band was thrn the presiding judge
who denied the motion for issuance of warrant of arrest due to insufficiency
but later on inhibit herself and denied the motion for reconsideration.
Respondent then filed his own petition for the change of venue alleging that
the one who took over the case was a pawn. Judge Natividad who was then
the presiding judge proceeded with the preliminary investigation and issued
warrant of arrest against the respondent. Consequently, respondent filed a
petition alleging that petitioner gravely abuse his discretion for issuing order
and for seeking a TRO. CA then issued a permanent TRO, ordering warrant
of arrest but it was set aside and dismissed the case. Petitioner argued that
respondent committed forum shopping which would warrant the outright
dismissal of their petition.
ISSUE: WON respondents was guilty of forum shopping.
WON Judge Natividad gravely abuse his discretion for issuing the order and
warrant of arrest.
WON Judge Natividad violates the constitutional mandate for the
determination of probable cause.
HELD: The Court of Appelas correctly ruled that respondents were not guilty
of forum shopping when they filed the two actions. Respondemts raised
different issues and sought different reliefs in the two actions, although
both have the same fcts. Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis
pendentia are present, and where a final judgment in one case will amount
to res judicata in the other.
The elements of res judicita are: (a) the former judgment must be final; (b)
the court which rendered judgment had jurisdiction over the parties and the
subject matter; (c) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (d) there must
be, between the first and second actions, identity of parties, subject matter,
and cause of action.
The Court ruled that Judge Natividad did not gravely abuse his discretion in
issuing warrant of arrest. His personal determination revealed no improper
motive on the part of the prosecution and no circumstance which would
overwhelm presumption of regularity in the performance of official
functions.
Judge Natividad complied with constitution to personally determine the
complainant and witnesses for probable cause before issuing the warrant of
arrest. The Court ruled that personal determination of complainant and
witnesses is not mandatory and indispensable in determination of probable
cause for the issuance of warrant of arrest.
3. PEOPLE VS DEQUINA
Facts: Accused Nelida Dequina was charged for violations of the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972, the pertinent facts of the case are as follows: P03
Masange along with two other companions were given a tip that a huge
amount of marijuana will be delivered in the corner of Juan Luna and
Rexabano Street in Tondo Manila. Being given the description of the
purported carriers, P03 Masange et al. proceeded to the area and, a male
and two females were seen getting off the taxi and carrying individual black
bags. The officers went to the individuals and the three began to panic. One
of them is accused Nelida Dequina who dropped the bag she was carrying,
causing the zipper to open and revealed what seemed to be bricks of
marijuana. The bags of her two other companion contained the same.
Dequina raised as a defense that she only did what she did because she was
under the gun, that her daughter was in the hands of the mastermind
threatening her that something bad is to happen to her daughter if she
would not complete what she is asked to do.
determine its content because when the latter noticed the police officers’
presence, she walked briskly away and in her hurry, accidentally dropped
her traveling bag, causing the zipper to open and exposed the dried
marijuana bricks therein. Since a crime was then actually being committed
by the accused-appellants, their warrantless arrest was legally justified, and
the following warrantless search of their traveling bags was allowable as
incidental to their lawful arrest.

The RTC convicted her party of the crime and was affirmed by the
CA. Dequina and party assail their conviction, asserting that their arrests
were illegal. They were not doing anything illegal that would have justified
their warrantless arrest, much less a warrantless search of their persons and
belongings. A search made without a warrant cannot be justified as an
incident of arrest unless the arrest itself was lawful. The People counters
that accused-appellants’ arrests were lawful as they were then actually
committing a crime. Since accused-appellants were lawfully arrested, the
resulting warrantless search of their persons and belongings was also
valid. In addition, accused-appellants did not refute that they were indeed
transporting prohibited drugs when they were arrested and, instead,
alleged as defenses that Dequina acted under the impulse of uncontrollable
fear, and Jundoc and Jingabo were merely accommodating a trusted
childhood friend.

Issue: W/N the warrantless arrest of Dequina is valid.

Held: Yes. The party of Dequina was in inflagrante delicto at the time of the
arrest.

Ratio: Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides that a lawful arrest
without a warrant may be made by a peace officer or a private person
under the following circumstances: 1. When the person to be arrested is in
inflagrante delicto. 2. When the arresting officer is in hot pursuit. 3. When
the person to be arrested is an escapee.

“Transport” as used under the Dangerous Drugs Act is defined to mean “to
carry or convey from one place to another.” The evidence in this case
shows that at the time of their arrest, accused-appellants were caught in
flagrante carrying/transporting dried marijuana leaves in their traveling
bags. PO3 Masanggue need not even open Dequina’s traveling bag to