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

2011

Sgt. Jessie Hope who was accompanied by Monina Medina
approached the exit gate and after giving the toll receipt As enunciated in the leading of Papa vs. Mago, in the exercise of the specific
sped away towards Manila. The agents gave a chase and functions, the Tariff Code does not mention the need of a search warrant unlike
overtook the car and they successfully stopped it in the Section 2209 of the same Code which explicitly provides that “dwelling house
tollway to Manila. The agents saw 4 boxes on the back may be entered and searched only upon warrant issued by a judge or justice of
seat of the Dodge and upon inquiry as to what those boxes peace, upon sworn written showing probable cause and particularly describing
were, Hope answered, “I don’t know.” Further inspection the place to be searched and person or thing to be seized. The Court in said
of the car yielded 11 boxes which contained assorted case. Expressed the considered view that “except in the case of the search of a
brands of wrist watches and bracelets, which supposedly dwelling house, persons exercising police authority under the customs law may
untaxed. The boxes were opened in the presence of Hope effect search and seizure without a search warrant in the enforcement of
and Medina, representatives of Bureau of Customs among customs laws. The circumstances of the case at bar undoubtedly fall squarely
others. Pictures were taken by the photographers of Dep’t. within the privileged area where search and seizure may lawfully be effected
of Nat’l. Defense. The Bureau of Customs issued a warrant without the need of a warrant.
of seizure and detention against the articles including the
Dodge car. It was admitted, however, that when the The Order appealed from is set aside and the case is ordered remanded for
apprehending agents arrested respondents and brought further trial and reception of evidence without excluding the articles subject of
them together with the seized articles to the ASAC Office in the seizure.
Camp Aguinaldo, the former were not 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.

2011

Issue:
Whether the warrantless search and seizure conducted by
the ASAC agents is lawful or not.
3. People (Chinese man Tan Why; homicide with robbery; The SC in this case held in the affirmative. The appealed judgment of the
vs. Kagui accused holding a club in his hand; accused lower court was affirmed.
Malasug voluntarily and w/o protest produce the stolen
ui effects of the victim; search and seizure was valid) Ratio decidendi:
63 Phil The police officer who ordered the arrest of the accused has a direct
211 In the morning of March 5 1935, Tan Why, a Chinese knowledge of the aggression committed on the person of Tan Why.
merchant was found lying on the ground, with several Circumstances showed that undoubtedly warranted his arrest without a
wounds in the head. He died as a result of this wound previous judicial warrant. First, based on the testimony of Almada, he saw the
shortly after he was brought to the hospital. When accused holding a club with blood stains was found near the place where Tan
Almada, the government’s witness, found Tan Why that Why was wound. Second, before the victim died, he was able to say that the
morning, the latter was still alive and was able to answer accused was the one who attacked him. Third, when he was searched by the
laconically “Kagui” when asked who attacked him. Almada police officers, he did not show any opposition and he voluntarily placed the
also testified that on the morning in question, he saw the seized items on top of the table of Lieutenant Jacaria. And lastly, in the
appellant with a club in his hand, passed by the house absence of an explanation of how he came into possession of stolen effects
where he and the deceased lived. The club was found near belonging to Mr. Why who was wounded and treacherously killed, must
the place where Tan Why was wounded. necessarily be considered the author of the aggression and death of said
person and of the robbery committed on him. These circumstances showed
Kagui was immediately apprehended by the Constabulary. that the police officers had direct knowledge of the crime committed and
He was brought to the police station and when asked to warranted the accused’s arrest without obtaining a warrant of arrest. Under
produce two bracelets in his possession, he voluntarily and the law, member of the Insular Police or Constabulary may make arrests
without protest put said items on top of the lieutenant’s without judicial warrant, not only when a crime is committed or about to be
table. He was later searched, without opposition or protest committed in their presence but also when there is a reason to believe or
on his part, and it was discovered that he had also the sufficient ground to suspect that one has been committed and that it was
pocketbook owned by Tan Why; the latter’s identification committed by the person hey arrested. An arrest made under said
card; and memorandum of amounts with some Chinese circumstances is not unlawful but perfectly justified; and the agent of authority
characters. Also, there were some change found in one of who makes the arrest does not violate the provisions of Section 269 of the RPC
the pockets of his pants. Consequently, Kagui was charged nor infringe the constitutional precept relative to the inviolability of one’s right
and convicted with the crime of robbery with homicide. He against unreasonable searches and seizures. Relative thereto, when the
was sentenced with a penalty of reclusion perpetua. search of the person detained or arrested and the seizure of the effects found
However, he appealed the decision of the lower court on in his possession are incidental to an arrest made in conformity with the law,
the ground that the articles seized from him should not be they cannot be considered unreasonable, much less unlawful.
admitted as evidence because they were seized without a
corresponding judicial warrant.

2011

Issue:
Whether the arrest, search and seizure without the
corresponding warrant was constitutional.
4. People (“Buy-bust operation; marijuana in a cellophane SC held that the marijuana seized by the NARCOM officers were inadmissible,
vs. Musa bag; “plain-view” doctrine; search and seizure of because the search and seizure made by said officers does not fall within the
217 marijuana was illegal) ambit of “plain-view” doctrine. However, the exclusion of this particular
SCRA evidence does not, however, diminish, in any way, the damaging effect of the
597 An information was received from a civilian informer that other pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution to prove that the
Mari Musa was engaged in selling marijuana in Suterville, appellant sold marijuana, in violation of Article II, Section 4 of the Dangerous
Zamboanga City. Based on such information on 13 Drugs Act of 1972. Thus, the appeal is dismissed and the judgment of the
December 1989, Belagra, leader of NARCOM team, 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 Ratio decidendi:
and gave the description of Musa. Ani was able to buy one There is no doubt that the warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest
newspaper-wrapped dried marijuana for P10.00. The authorizes the arresting officer to make a search upon the person of the person
following day, a buy-bust was planned. Ani was to raise his arrested. It is well-settled that "an officer making an arrest may take from the
right hand if he successfully buys marijuana from Musa. As person arrested any money or property found upon his person which was used
Ani proceeded to the house, the NARCOM team positioned in the commission of the crime or was the fruit of the crime or which might
themselves about 90 to 100 meters away. From his furnish the prisoner with the means of committing violence or of escaping, or
position, Belarga could see what was going on. Musa came which may be used as evidence in the trial of the cause . . . " Hence, in a buy-
out of the house and asked Ani what he wanted. Ani said bust operation conducted to entrap a drug-pusher, the law enforcement agents
he wanted more marijuana and gave Musa the P20.00 may seize the marked money found on the person of the pusher immediately
marked money. Musa went into the house and came back, after the arrest even without arrest and search warrants.
giving Ani two newspaper wrappers containing dried
marijuana . Ani opened and inspected it. He raised his right In the case at bar, the NARCOM agents searched the person of the appellant
hand as a signal to the other NARCOM agents, and the after arresting him in his house but found nothing. They then searched the
latter moved in and arrested Musa inside the house. entire house and, in the kitchen, found and seized a plastic bag hanging in a
Belarga frisked Musa in the living room but did not find the corner.
marked money (he gave it to his wife who slipped away).
T/Sgt. Belarga and Sgt. Lego went to the kitchen and found The warrantless search and seizure, as an incident to a suspect's lawful arrest,
a ‘cellophane colored white and stripe hanging at the may extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include the premises or
corner of the kitchen.’ They asked Musa about its contents surroundings under his immediate control. Objects in the "plain view" of an
but failed to get a response. So they opened it and found officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view are subject to
dried marijuana leaves inside. Musa was then placed under seizure and may be presented as evidence.
arrest. He charged and convicted by the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Zamboanga City, Branch XII, finding him It has also been suggested that even if an object is observed in "plain view,"
guilty of selling marijuana in violation Dangerous Drugs Act the "plain view" doctrine will not justify the seizure of the object where the

2011

of 1972. Hence, this appeal. incriminating nature of the object is not apparent from the "plain view" of the
object. Stated differently, it must be immediately apparent to the police that
Issue: the items that they observe may be evidence of a crime, contraband, or
Whether the seizure of the plastic bag and the marijuana otherwise subject to seizure.
inside it is unreasonable, hence, inadmissible as evidence.
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 It was held that the seizure by the members of the Manila Police Department of
Mago agent by BOC; search and seizure for purposes of the goods in question was in accordance with law and by that seizure the
22 SCRA the enforcement of customs and tariff laws-lawful Bureau of Customs had acquired jurisdiction over the goods for the purpose of
857 even if without a warrant) 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 judge
A reliable information was received by the Manila Police releasing the seized goods was null and void.
Department (MPD) that certain shipment of personal
effects, allegedly misdeclared and undervalued, would be Ratio decidendi:
released from the custom zone of the port of Manila and The Chief of the Manila Police Department, Ricardo G. Papa, having been
loaded on two trucks. Upon orders of Ricardo Papa, Chief deputized in writing by the Commissioner of Customs, could, for the purposes
of the MPD and duly deputized agent of Bureau of Customs of the enforcement of the customs and tariff laws, effect searches, seizures,
(BOC), ordered Martin Alagao to conduct surveillance at and arrests, and it was his duty to make seizure, among others, of any cargo,
gate 1 of the customs zone. The trucks were intercepted articles or other movable property when the same may be subject to forfeiture
by the agents when they left the customs zone. The or liable for any fine imposed under customs and tariff laws. He could lawfully
contents thereof, consisting of nine bales of goods, open and examine any box, trunk, envelope or other container wherever found
including the trucks were seized on instructions of Papa. when he had reasonable cause to suspect the presence therein of dutiable

2011

Upon investigation, a person claimed ownership of the articles introduced into the Philippines contrary to law; and likewise to stop,
goods and showed to the policemen a "Statement and search and examine any vehicle, beast or person reasonably suspected of
Receipts of Duties” issued by the Bureau of Customs in the holding or conveying such article as aforesaid. It cannot be doubted, therefore,
name of a certain Bienvenido Naguit. Claiming to have that Papa, Chief of Police of Manila, could lawfully effect the search and seizure
been prejudiced by the seizure and detention of the two of the goods in question. The policemen had authority to effect the seizure
trucks and their cargo, Remedios Mago and Valentin B. without any search warrant issued by a competent court. The Tariff and
Lanopa filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila a Customs Code does not require said warrant herein. The Code authorizes
petition "for mandamus with restraining order or persons having police authority under Section 2203 of the Tariff and Customs
preliminary injunction, among others, that Remedios Mago Code to enter, pass through or search any land, enclosure, warehouse, store or
was the owner of the goods seized, having purchased them building, not being a dwelling house; and also to inspect, search and examine
from the Sta. Monica Grocery in San Fernando, Pampanga; any vessel or aircraft and any trunk, package, box or envelope or any person
that she hired the trucks owned by Valentin Lanopa to on board, or stop and search and examine any vehicle, beast or person
transport, the goods from said place to her residence; that suspected of holding or conveying any dutiable or prohibited article introduced
the goods were seized by members of the Manila Police into the Philippines contrary to law, without mentioning the need of a search
Department without search warrant issued by a competent warrant in said cases. But in the search of a dwelling house, the Code provides
court; and that unless restrained their constitutional rights that said “dwelling house may be entered and searched only upon warrant
would be violated and they would truly suffer irreparable issued by a judge or justice of the peace.” Except in the case of the search of a
injury. Mago filed an ex parte motion to release the goods, dwelling house, persons exercising police authority under the customs law may
alleging that since the inventory of the goods seized did effect search and seizure without a search warrant in the enforcement of
not show any article of prohibited importation, the same customs laws. The guaranty of freedom from unreasonable searches and
should be released as per agreement of the parties upon seizures is construed as recognizing a necessary difference between a search
her posting of the appropriate bond that may be of a dwelling house or other structure in respect of which a search warrant may
determined by the court. The respondent judge issued an readily be obtained and a search of a ship, motorboat, wagon, or automobile
order releasing the goods to Mago upon her filing of a for contraband goods, where it is not practicable to secure a warrant, because
bond. Papa, on his own behalf, filed a motion for the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the
reconsideration of the order of the court releasing the warrant must be sought. Hence, the SC declared that the seizure by the
goods under bond, upon the ground that the Manila Police members of the MPD of the goods in question was in accordance with law and
Department had been directed by the Collector of Customs by that seizure the Bureau of Customs had acquired jurisdiction over the goods
of the Port of Manila to hold the goods pending termination for the purposes of the enforcement of the customs and tariff laws, to the
of the seizure proceedings. Without waiting for the court’s exclusion of the Court of First Instance of Manila.
action on the motion for reconsideration, and alleging that The guaranty of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures is
they had no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the construed as recognizing a necessary difference between a search of a
ordinary course of law, Papa, et. al. filed the action for dwelling house or other structure in respect of which a search warrant may
prohibition and certiorari with preliminary injunction before readily be obtained and a search of a ship, motorboat, wagon, or automobile
the Supreme Court. for contraband goods, where it is not practicable to secure a warrant, because
the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the
Issue: warrant must be sought. Having declared that the seizure by the members of
Whether or not the goods and the two trucks were legally the Manila Police Department of the goods in question was in accordance with

2011

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

2011

violation of Dangerous Drugs Act before the RTC. Trial was
held and thereafter the lower court found him guilty as proscription. Thus, (1) customs searches; (2) searches of moving
charged and imposed the extreme penalty of death. Thus, vehicles, (3) seizure of evidence in plain view; (4) consented searches;
this appeal. (5) searches incidental to a lawful arrest; and (6) "stop and frisk"
measures have been invariably recognized as the traditional
Issues: exceptions.
1. Whether or not the trial court erred in finding that
he legally caught in flagrante in transporting the
prohibited drugs. In appellant's case, it should be noted that the information relayed by
the civilian informant to the law enforcers was that there would be
2. Whether or not the prohibited drugs (marijuana) delivery of marijuana at Barangay Salitran by a courier coming from
were confiscated in the course of an unlawful
Baguio City in the "early morning" of June 20, 1994. Even assuming
arrest, and therefore invalid as evidence.
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.

2011

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 (Illegal search of newspaper offices; Metropolitan The Supreme Court declared the search warrants issued on 7 December 1982
vs. Mail; We Forum) null and void, and granted the writ of mandatory injunction for the return of the
Chief of seized articles, such articles seized ordered released to the petitioners.
Staff Assailed in this petition for certiorari, prohibition and
133 mandamus with preliminary mandatory and prohibitory Section 3 provides that no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
SCRA injunction is the validity of two search warrants issued on except upon probable cause to be determined by the judge, or such other
815 December 7, 1982 by Judge Ernani Cruz-Pano of the then responsible officer as may be authorized by law, after examination under oath
CFI of Rizal, under which the premises of the "Metropolitan or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
Mail" and "We Forum" newspapers, respectively, were particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be
searched, and office and printing machines, equipment, seized. In the present case, a statement in the effect that the petitioner "is in
paraphernalia, motor vehicles and other articles used in possession or has in his control printing equipment and other paraphernalia,
the printing, publication and distribution of the said news publications and other documents which were used and are all
newspapers, as well as numerous papers, documents, continuously being used as a means of committing the offense of subversion
books and other written literature alleged to be in the punishable under PD 885, as amended" is a mere conclusion of law and does
possession and control of petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. not satisfy the requirements of probable cause. Bereft of such particulars as
publisher-editor of the "We Forum" newspaper, were would justify a finding of the existence of probable cause, said allegation
seized. cannot serve as basis for the issuance of a search warrant. Probable cause for
a search is defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a
Petitioners further pray that a writ of preliminary reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been
mandatory and prohibitory injunction be issued for the committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in
return of the seized articles, and that respondents be the place sought to be searched. When the search warrant applied for is
enjoined from using the articles thus seized as evidence directed against a newspaper publisher or editor in connection with the
against petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. and the other accused in publication of subversive materials, the application and/or its supporting
Criminal Case No. Q- 022782 of the Regional Trial Court of affidavits must contain a specification, stating with particularity the alleged
Quezon City, entitled People v. Jose Burgos, Jr. et al. subversive material he has published or is intending to publish. Mere
generalization will not suffice. Another factor that makes the search warrants
Issue: constitutionally objectionable is that they are in the nature of general warrants.
Whether mere allegations of possession and printing of In Stanford v. State of Texas, the US SC declared this type of warrant void.
subversive materials may be the basis of the issuance of
search warrant.

2011
8. People (Package to be sent to Zurich; odor; package The Court ruled in a negative. In the absence of governmental interference,
vs. contains dried marijuana leaves; warrantless search the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked against the
Andre and seizure by private person; proscription against State.
Marti unlawful searches and seizures applies only to gov’t
193 and its agencies) The judgment of conviction finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
SCRA 57 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 Ratio decidendi:
forwarders in Ermita, Manila, carrying with them 4 gift- The contraband in the case at bar having come into possession of the
wrapped packages be sent to Mr. Mart’s friend in Zurich. Government without the latter transgressing appellant's rights against
The forwarder company is owned by a couple, Job and unreasonable search and seizure, the Court sees no cogent reason why the
Anita Reyes. The latter attended to Mr. Marti. The same should not be admitted against him in the prosecution of the offense
package was not inspected by Anita upon refusal of Mr. charged. The mere presence of the NBI agents did not convert the reasonable
Marti, who assured her that it simply contained some search effected by Reyes into a warrantless search and seizure proscribed by
books and cigars as a gift to his friend. Accordingly, the 4 the Constitution. Merely to observe and look at that which is in plain sight is
gift-wrapped packages were placed in a box and was not a search. Having observed that which is open, where no trespass has been
zealed. committed in aid thereof, is not search. Where the contraband articles are
identified without a trespass on the part of the arresting officer, there is not the
Before delivery of accused box to the Bureau of Customs search that is prohibited by the constitution.
and/ or Bureau of Posts, Mr. Job Reyes, following standard
operating procedure, opened the boxes for final inspection. The Bill of Rights embodied in the Constitution is not meant to be invoked
When he opened the box, a peculiar order emitted against acts of private individuals finds support in the deliberations of the
therefrom. His curiosity aroused, he squeezed one of the Constitutional Commission. True, the liberties guaranteed by the fundamental
bundles allegedly containing gloves and felt dried leaves law of the land must always be subject to protection. But protection against
inside. Opening one of the bundles, he pulled out a whom? Protection against the state. The Bill of Rights governs the relationship
cellophane wrapper protruding from the opening of one of between the individual and the state. Its concern is not the relation between
the gloves. He made an opening on one of the cellophane individuals, between a private individual and other individuals. What the Bill of
wrappers and took several grams of the contents thereof. Rights does is to declare some forbidden zones in the private sphere
Mr. Reyes reported the incident to the NBI and requested a inaccessible to any power holder.
laboratory examination of the samples he extracted from
the cellophane wrapper. It turned out that the dried The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures
leaves were marijuana flowering tops as certified by the therefore applies as a restraint directed only against the government and its
forensic chemist of the Narcotics Section of the NBI. agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. Thus, it could only be
Thereafter, an information was filed against appellant for invoked against the State to whom the restraint against arbitrary and
violation of the Dangerous Drug Act. Mr. Marti contends unreasonable exercise of power is imposed. If the search is made upon the
that the evidence subject of the imputed offense had been request of law enforcers, a warrant must generally be first secured if it is to
obtained in violation of his constitutional rights against pass the test of constitutionality. However, if the search is made at the behest

2011

unreasonable searches and seizures and privacy of or initiative of the proprietor of a private establishment for its own and private
communication and therefore argues that the same should purposes, as in the case at bar, and without the intervention of police
be held inadmissible in evidence. The case at bar authorities, the right against unreasonable search and seizure cannot be
assumes a peculiar character since the evidence invoked for only the act of private individual, not the law enforcers, is involved.
sought to be excluded was primarily discovered and In sum, the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures
obtained by a private person, acting in a private cannot be extended to acts committed by private individuals so as to
capacity and without the intervention and bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the
participation of state authorities. 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 (Hashish; Swedish national; principle of knowledge The appealed judgment of conviction by the trial court is affirmed.
vs. and probable cause to justify warrantless arrest)
Malmste The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their
dt In the evening of 7 May 1989, Malmstedt, a Swedish persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and
198 national, left for Baguio City. Upon his arrival thereat in the seizures. However, where the search is made pursuant to a lawful arrest, there
SCRA morning of the following day, he took a bus to Sagada and is no need to obtain a search warrant. A lawful arrest without a warrant may be
401 stayed in that place for two (2) days. 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
At about 8: 00 o'clock in the morning of that same day (11 warrant, arrest a person (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested
May 1989), Captain Alen Vasco, the Commanding Officer of has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
NARCOM, ordered his men to set up a temporary (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal
checkpoint at Kilometer 14, Acop, Tublay, Mountain knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it;
Province, for the purpose of checking all vehicles coming and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a
from the Cordillera Region. The order to establish a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily
checkpoint in the said area was prompted by persistent confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from
reports that vehicles coming from Sagada were one confinement to another. In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b)
transporting marijuana and other prohibited drugs. hereof, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to
Moreover, there was an information received by Capt. the nearest police station or jail, and he shall be proceeded against in
Vasco, that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had in his accordance with Rule 112, Section 7.” In the instant case, Malmstedt was
possession prohibited drugs. At the set up checkpoint at caught in flagrante delicto, when he was transporting prohibited drugs. Thus,
the designated area, NARCOM officers inspected all the search made upon his personal effects falls squarely under paragraph (1)
vehicles coming from the Cordillera Region. In the bus of the foregoing provisions of law, which allow a warrantless search incident to

2011

where Malmstedt was boarded, NARCOM officers started a lawful arrest. While it is true that the NARCOM officers were not armed with
their inspection from the front going towards the rear of a search warrant when the search was made over the personal effects of
the bus. Accused who was the sole foreigner riding the bus accused, however, under the circumstances of the case, there was sufficient
was seated at the rear thereof. 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

2011

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 (M/V Wilcon 9; 3 kilos of marijuana; police have The SC reversed the decision of the lower and acquitted the accused.
. vs. enough time to obtain a warrant; accused illegally
Amminu arrested; search and seizure unlawful; marijuana No. The arrest and the search and seizure made by the police officers were
din inadmissible; accused acquitted) illegal. The accused-appellant was not caught in flagrante nor was a crime
A63 about to be committed or had just been committed to justify the warrantless
SCRA Idel Amminudin, accused-appellant, was arrested in 25 arrest allowed under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. Even expediency could
402 June 1984, shortly after disembarking from the M/V Wilcon not be invoked to dispensed with the obtention of the warrant.
9 at about 8:30 in the evening, in Iloilo City. Based on the
testimony of the police, they received a reliable tip two The present case presented no such urgency. It is clear that the police officers
days before a drug operation allegedly headed by the had at least two days within which they could have obtained a warrant to
accused. He was already identified by name and the police arrest and search Amminudin who was coming to Iloilo on board the M/V
knew exactly the date of his arrival. When Amminudin Wilcon 9. His name was known and the date of his a
descended from the gangplank after the informer pointed Rival was certain. And from the information they had received they could
to him, the PC officers where in fact waiting for him simply have persuaded a judge that there was probable cause to justify the issuance
accosted him, inspected is bag and found inside it three of a warrant. Yet they did nothing. No effort was made to comply with the law.

2011

kilos of what later analyzed as marijuana leaves by an NBI Furthermore, the accused-appellant was not, at the moment of his arrest,
forensic examiner. On the basis of this finding, a committing a crime nor was it shown that he was about to do so or that he had
corresponding charge was filed against Amminudin for just done so. What he was doing was descending the gangplank of the vessel
violation of the Dangerous Drug Act. In his defense, the and there was no outward indication that called for his arrest.
accused-appellant disclaimed the marijuana, averring that
all he had in his bag was his pieces of clothing. He alleged Insofar as the marijuana allegedly seized from the accused-appellant, it cannot
that he was arbitrarily arrested and immediately be admitted as evidence and should never have been considered by the trial
handcuffed. His bag was confiscated without a search court for the simple fact the it was seized illegally. It is the fruit of a poisonous
warrant. He insisted he did not even know marijuana tree. The search was not an incident of lawful arrest because there was no
looked like and that his business was selling watches and warrant of arrest and the warrantless arrest did not come under the exceptions
sometimes cigarettes. However, the RTC rejected his allowed by the Rules of Court. Hence, the warrantless search was also illegal
allegations. Saying the he only has two watches during his and the evidence obtained thereby was inadmissible.
arrest and that he did not sufficiently proved the injuries
allegedly sustained. Hence, this appeal.
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: (NPA Sparrow unit member in hospital; 2 CAPCOM SC held that it is clear that the arrest, without warrant, of Dural was made in
. Umil, soldiers were shot; Javelon in fact is Dural; Petition compliance with the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 5, Rule
Umil vs. for Habeas Corpus) 113.
Ramos
187 This consolidated case of 8 petitions for habeas corpus Ratio decidendi:
SCRA assails the validity of the arrests and searches made by the Dural was arrested for being a member of the New Peoples Army (NPA), an
311 military on the petitioners. On 1 February 1988, the outlawed subversive organization. Subversion being a continuing offense, the
Regional Intelligence Operations Unit of the Capital arrest of Rolando Dural without warrant is justified as it can be said that he was
Command (RIOU-CAPCOM) received confidential committing an offense when arrested. The crimes of rebellion, subversion,
information about a member of the NPA Sparrow Unit conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and crimes or offenses
being treated for a gunshot wound at the St. Agnes committed in furtherance thereof or in connection therewith constitute direct
Hospital in Roosevelt Avenue, Quezon City. Upon assaults against the State and are in the nature of continuing crimes. The
verification, it was found that the wounded person, who arrest of persons involved in the rebellion whether as its fighting armed
was listed in the hospital records as Ronnie Javelon, is elements, or for committing non-violent acts but in furtherance of the rebellion,
actually Rolando Dural, a member of the NPA Sparrow Unit, is more an act of capturing them in the course of an armed conflict, to quell the
responsible for the killing of 2 CAPCOM soldiers the day rebellion, than for the purpose of immediately prosecuting them in court for a
before, or on 31 January 1988, Bagong Barrio, Caloocan statutory offense. The arrest, therefore, need not follow the usual procedure in
City. In view of this verification, Dural was transferred to the prosecution of offenses which requires the determination by a judge of the
the Regional Medical Services of the CAPCOM, for security existence of probable cause before the issuance of a judicial warrant of arrest

2011

reasons. While confined thereat, or on 4 February 1988, and the granting of bail if the offense is bailable. Obviously, the absence of a
Dural was positively identified by eyewitnesses as the judicial warrant is no legal impediment to arresting or capturing persons
gunman who went on top of the hood of the CAPCOM committing overt acts of violence against government forces, or any other
mobile patrol car, and fired at the 2 CAPCOM soldiers milder acts but equally in pursuance of the rebellious movement. The arrest or
seated inside the car. As a consequence of this positive capture is thus impelled by the exigencies of the situation that involves the
identification, Dural was referred to the Caloocan City very survival of society and its government and duly constituted authorities.
Fiscal who conducted an inquest and thereafter filed with
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 (Inserted fingers in plastic bag, smelled marijuana; The judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED.
. vs. Anita 1.1 kilos of dried marijuana leaves; no need for
Claudio warrant of arrest; accused caught in flagrante Ratio decidendi:
160 delicto.) Appellant Claudio was caught transporting prohibited drugs. Pat. Daniel Obiña
SCRA did not need a warrant to arrest Claudio as the latter was caught in flagrante
648 Pat. Obina, a member of the Narcotics Unit, was on board delicto. The warrantless search being an incident to a lawful arrest is in itself
the Victory Liner, seated on the second seat at the back. lawful. Therefore, there was no infirmity in the seizure of the 1.1 kilos of
While he was thus seated, suspect Anita Claudio boarded marijuana.

2011

the same bus and took the seat in front of him after putting
a bag which she was carrying at the back of the seat of The applicable provisions on this issue are found in the Rules on Criminal
Obiña. The bag placed by suspect behind his seat was a Procedure.
wooven buri bag made of plastic containing some Rule 113, Sec. 5(a) of the said Rules provides:
vegetables. The act of the accused putting her bag behind .. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
Pat. Obiña's seat aroused his suspicion and he felt nervous. person:
With the feeling that there was some unusual, he had the (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
urge to search the woven plastic bag. But it was only at actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.
San Fernando, Pampanga when he was able to go to the xxx xxx xxx
bag. He inserted one of his fingers in a plastic bag located Meanwhile, its Rule 126, Sec. 12 provides:
at the bottom of the woven bag and smelt marijuana. The Section 12. Search incident to lawful arrest.— A person lawfully arrested
plastic woven bag appearing to contain camote tops on the may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as
top has a big bundle of plastic of marijuana at the bottom. proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant. (12a)
He could recognize the smell of marijuana because he was
assigned at that time at 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.

2011
Issue:
Whether or not the warrantless search, seizure and
apprehension is unlawful.
13 People (NPA; possession of illegal firearm and subversive The conclusions reached by the trial court are erroneous. The judgment of
. vs. documents; Plowing field when arrested; unlawful conviction rendered by the trial court is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
Ruben arrest; unlawful seizure of firearm and subversive accused-appellant is ACQUITTED,
Burgos documents) Meaning of personal knowledge; Strict
144 interpretation Ratio decidendi:
SCRA 1 Under Section 6(a) of Rule 113, the officer arresting a person who has just
Ceasar Masamlok surrendered to the PC on 12 May 1982 committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense must have
stating that he was forcibly recruited by Ruben Burgos, a personal knowledge of that fact. The offense must also be committed in his
member of the NPA, threatening him with the use of presence or within his view. There is no such personal knowledge in this case.
firearm against his life if he refused. A joint team of Whatever knowledge was possessed by the arresting officers, it came in its
members of the PC-INP was dispatched the following day to entirety from the information furnished by Cesar Masamlok. The location of the
arrest Ruben Burgos and they were able to locate and firearm was given by the appellant's wife.
arrest him while he was plowing his field. Interrogation
was made in the house of the accused. He first denied At the time of the appellant's arrest, he was not in actual possession of any
possession of the firearm but later, upon further firearm or subversive document. Neither was he committing any act which
questioning, the team with the wife of the accused, went could be described as subversive. He was, in fact, plowing his field at the time
below their house and pointed to the place where the gun of the arrest.
was hidden. After recovery of the firearm, the accused In arrests without a warrant under Section 6(b), however, it is not enough that
likewise pointed to the subversive documents which the PC there is reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has
found kept in a stock pile of cogon grass, at a distance of committed a crime. A crime must in fact or actually have been committed first.
three meters apart from the Burgos’s house. When Ruben That a crime has actually been committed is an essential precondition. It is not
Burgos was confronted with the possession of the firearm, enough to suspect that a crime may have been committed. The fact of the
he readily admitted that the same was issued to him by commission of the offense must be undisputed. The test of reasonable ground
the team leader of the sparrow unit. He was then arrested applies only to the identity of the perpetrator.
and was convicted by the lower court with a crime of illegal
possession of firearm in furtherance of subversion. The In this case, the accused was arrested on the sole basis of Masamlok's verbal
trial court justified the arrest of the accused-appelant report. Masamlok led the authorities to suspect that the accused had
without any warrant as falling under one of the instances committed a crime. They were still fishing for evidence of a crime not yet
when arrests may be validly made without a warrant. Rule ascertained. The subsequent recovery of the subject firearm on the basis of
113, Section 6 of the Rules of Court. Hence, this appeal. 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
Issue: nothing that happened or is discovered afterwards can make it lawful. The fruit
Was the arrest of Ruben Burgos lawful? Were the search of of a poisoned tree is necessarily also tainted.

2011

his house and the subsequent confiscation of a firearm and
documents allegedly found therein conducted in a lawful More important, the Court finds no compelling reason for the haste with which
and valid manner? the arresting 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 (Buy-bust operation; marijuana leaves; warrantless The SC upheld the warrantless arrest, search and seizure made on Merabueno,
. vs. arrest; warrantless search and seizure) Trinidad, and Basilio. However, as far as Cruz is concerned the warrantless
Merabue arrest, search and seizure made was unlawful but he did not timely question
no On July 18, 1987, the Unit of the Eastern Police District, the validity of his arrest. Hence, the judgment of the lower court was affirmed,
239 received an information by telephone regarding the with modification as the penalty imposed.
SCRA rampant peddling of marijuana Barangay Parang, Marikina.
197 Thus, a team was organized to conduct a surveillance of Ratio decidendi:
the place. The surveillance yielded positive results as the Appellant's contention that a blatant violation of their constitutional rights was
police team was able to pinpoint Merabueno, Trinidad and committed when they were arrested and searched without a warrant, is bereft
Basilio, herein accused-appellants, as the suspected of merit. Suffice it to say the law allows warrantless searches in certain cases
pushers. Pat. Romeo Cavizo was designated to act as the as provided in Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. They
poseur-buyer. He was given a marked P20 bill to be used in are as follows:
purchasing marijuana from the suspects. The other
members of the team, who were deployed in inconspicuous
places, employed pre-arranged hand signals as their Arrest without warrant, when lawful. — A peace officer or private person may,
means of communication. without warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
Shortly thereafter, Pat. Cavizo spotted Merabueno, and committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
approached the latter and inquired if he could "iskor ng (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal
damo" worth P20.00. When Merabueno asked for the knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.
money, Pat. Cavizo handed him the marked twenty-peso
bill. After telling him to wait, Merabueno went to an alley, Appellants Merabueno, Trinidad and Basilio were caught in flagrante delicto, in
unknowing other members of the team were following him. the act of committing drug trafficking. As a consequence of the arrest, the
Merabueno headed towards Trinidad to whom he gave the three were searched and were found to be in possession of marijuana. Since

2011

marked twenty-peso bill. Trinidad handed him a packet, the arrests were lawfully made, it follows that the searches made incidental
the size of a tea bag. After Merabueno left, members of the thereto were also valid.
Narcotics team accosted Trinidad.
The procedure followed by the police with respect to the seizure of the
The policemen, together with Trinidad, followed Merabueno marijuana from Cruz after a warrantless search is another matter. The
to town. They saw Merabueno talking with Basilio. They warrantless arrest and search of Cruz, whose identity was only made known
surrounded the two and ordered the three suspects to during the investigation of persons earlier lawfully arrested are not valid. The
empty their pockets. Two tea bags of marijuana were arrest was not made in the course of a “hot-pursuit” because he was not in
recovered from Merabueno; one tea bag of marijuana from Marikina during the buy-bust operation. There was no reasonable basis to
Basilio and the marked twenty-peso bill from Trinidad. The place Cruz under arrest without warrant and then search him without a
trio were brought to the Marikina Police Headquarters, warrant. In such a case, the police should have secured an arrest warrant.
where Basilio revealed the name of Ernesto "Erning" Cruz, However, Cruz did not timely question the legality of his arrest, the search on
a resident of Antipolo, Rizal, as his source of marijuana. his person and the seizure of the marijuana. As a matter of fact, he made an
That same morning, the team, together with Merabueno extrajudicial confession with the assistance of counsel. There is no legal basis
and Basilio, went to Antipolo but they were not able to to set aside said confession.
apprehend Cruz. However, at about 7:00 P.M. of the same
day, the team went back to 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 (Involves a continuing buy-bust operation where In holding in the affirmative, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the
. vs. after the sale, the shabu was handed to a policeman accused-appellant.
Cuachon a block away who after determining it was shabu

2011

238 which only took a few minutes immediately Ratio decidendi:
SCRA proceeded to the house of the appellant and The Court justified the warrantless arrest under Section 5, Rule 113 of the
540 arrested him) Rules of Court on warrantless arrest and the obligation of the police to
apprehend even without a warrant. Pat. Uggandan witnessed the illegal act of
This case involves the accused-appellant’s (Romeo selling shabu on the occasion of the buy-bust operation in front of the room of
Cuachon) pleading for the reversal of his conviction by the the accused. He did not make the arrest right then and there because there
RTC of Makati finding him guilty of violating RA 6425 or the were only himself and the informant as against the different male and female
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. voices he heard from both rooms of Cuachon’s house.
The antecedents: On 20 November 1988, a confidential Considering that the operation took place inside the house of the appellant,
informant reported to the police that was rampant selling understandably Pat. Uggadan and his informant had to get of the house and
of shabu in the residence of Romeo Cuachon. Forthwith, a inform their backup that the sale had been consummated. Furthermore,
team of police officers was formed to conduct a buy-bust weighty consideration is the fact that, as previously stated, Uggadan
operation against the accused. As planned, Pat. Uggadan immediately gave the shabu to Reyes who was only a block away and after the
and the informant proceeded to the residence of their latter had determined that it was shabu, which only took a few minutes, they
quarry while Pat. Reyes and other members of the team all immediately proceeded to the house of Cuachon and arrested him. It was a
posted themselves in strategic places. After a few continuing buy-bust operation which, as the phrase connotes, commenced with
minutes, Uggadan together with the informant, reported buying shabu and culminates in Cuachon’s arrest. Since his arrest was lawful,
to Reyes that he had succeeded in buying shabbu from the it follows that the incidental search was also valid.
accused at the same time presenting the merchandise to
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 (One kilo of marijuana; accused carrying red The answer of the Court is in the affirmative. The contention of the accused is
. vs. travelling bag; acting suspiciously; arrest was based devoid of merit. The judgment of conviction by the trial court is AFFIRMED but
Medel on suspicion; where there is urgency; compared to MODIFIED as to the penalty imposed in the light that what was proven beyond

2011

Tanglibe Amminudin Case) reasonable doubt is not his intent to transport the marijuana leaves but his
n actual possession of the same.
184 In the late evening of 2 March 1982, Pat. Quevedo and
SCRA Punzalan of the San Fernando Police Station, together with Ratio decidendi:
220 a barangay tanod, were conducting surveillance mission at One of the exceptions to the general rule requiring a search warrant is a search
the Victory Liner Terminal compound located at Barangay incident to a lawful arrest. Thus, Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules on Criminal
San Nicolas, San Fernando, Pampanga. The surveillance Procedure provides that “A person lawfully arrested may be searched for
mission was aimed not only against persons who may dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the
commit misdemeanors at said place but also on persons commission of an offense, without a search warrant.” Meanwhile, Rule
who may be engaging in the traffic of dangerous drugs 113, Sec. 5(a) provides that “A peace officer or a private person may,
based on information supplied by informers. Around 9:30 without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, the
p.m., said patrolmen noticed a person carrying a red person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
traveling bag who was acting suspiciously and they attempting to commit an offense.” Tangliben was caught in flagrante,
confronted him. The person was requested by the police since he was carrying marijuana at the time of his arrest. This case therefore
officers to open the red traveling bag but the person falls squarely within the exception. The warrantless search was incident to a
refused, only to accede later on when the patrolmen lawful arrest and is consequently valid. The Court is not unmindful of its
identified themselves. Found inside the bag were decision in People v. Aminnudin (163 SCRA 402 [1988]). In that case the PC
marijuana leaves wrapped in a plastic wrapper and officers had earlier received a tip from an informer that accused-appellant was
weighing one kilo, more or less. The person was asked of on board a vessel bound for Iloilo City and was carrying marijuana. Acting on
his name and the reason why he was at said place and he this tip, they waited for him one evening, approached him as he descended
gave his name as Medel Tangliben and explained that he from the gangplank, detained him and inspected the bag he was carrying. Said
was waiting for a ride to Olongapo City to deliver the bag contained marijuana leaves. The Court held that the marijuana could not
marijuana leaves. The accused was taken to the police be admitted in evidence since it was seized illegally, as there was lack of
headquarters for further investigation; and later Quevedo urgency, and thus a search warrant can still be procured. However, in the case
submitted to his Station Commander his Investigator’s at bar, there presented urgency. Although the trial court’s decision did not
Report. The RTC found Tangliben guilty beyond reasonable mention it, the transcript of stenographic notes reveals that there was an
doubt of violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act 6425 informer who pointed to Tangliben as carrying marijuana. Faced with such on-
(Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 as amended) and sentenced the-spot information, the police officers had to act quickly. There was not
him to life imprisonment, to pay a fine of P20,000 and to enough time to secure a search warrant. The Court cannot therefore apply the
pay the costs. Tangliben appealed. In his appeal, it is ruling in Aminnudin in the present case. To require search warrants during on-
contended that the marijuana allegedly seized from him the-spot apprehensions of drug pushers, illegal possessors of firearms, jueteng
was a product of an unlawful search without a warrant and collectors, smugglers of contraband goods, robbers, etc. would make it
is therefore inadmissible in evidence. extremely 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.

2011

17 Rolito Go (Shot Eldon Maguan; Go voluntary surrendered after The Supreme Court granted the petition and the ruling of the appellate court
. vs. Court 6 days; no preliminary investigation was conducted; was set aside and nullified.
of unlawful arrest)
Appeals As a rule, in cases of lawful warrantless arrest, Petitioner's "arrest" took place six (6) days after the shooting of Maguan. The
206 preliminary investigation may not be conducted, but "arresting" officers obviously were not present, within the meaning of Section
SCRA before the complaint or information is filed, if the 5(a), at the time petitioner had allegedly shot Maguan. Neither could the
138 accused request for a preliminary investigation, he "arrest" effected six (6) days after the shooting be reasonably regarded as
must sign a waiver of the provisions of Art 125 of effected "when [the shooting had] in fact just been committed" within the
RPC, [Section 6, Rule 112] meaning of Section 5(b). Moreover, none of the "arresting" officers had any
"personal knowledge" of facts indicating that petitioner was the gunman who
Rolito Go’s car nearly collided with the car of Eldon Maguan had shot Maguan. The information upon which the police acted had been
when the latter entered a one-way street in San Juan, derived from statements made by alleged eyewitnesses to the shooting — one
Metro Manila. Go alighted from his car, walked over and stated that petitioner was the gunman; another was able to take down the
shot Maguan inside his car. Go then boarded his car and alleged gunman's car's plate number which turned out to be registered in
left the scene. A security guard at a nearby restaurant was petitioner's wife's name. That information did not, however, constitute
able to take down Go’s car plate number. The police "personal knowledge." 18
arrived shortly thereafter at the scene of the shooting and
there retrieved an empty shell and one round of live
ammunition for a 9mm caliber pistol. Verification at the It is thus clear to the Court that there was no lawful warrantless arrest of
LTO showed that the car was registered to one Elsa Ang petitioner within the meaning of Section 5 of Rule 113. It is clear too that
Go. The following day, the police returned to the scene of Section 7 of Rule 112 is also not applicable. Indeed, petitioner was not arrested
the shooting to find out where the suspect had come from; at all.
they were informed that Go had dined at a nearby
bakeshop shortly before the shooting. The police obtained Upon the other hand, petitioner did not waive his right to have a preliminary
a facsimile or impression of the credit card used by Go investigation contrary to the prosecutor's claim. The right to preliminary
from the cashier of the bake shop. The security guard of investigation is deemed waived when the accused fails to invoke it before or at
the bake shop was shown a picture of Go and he positively the time of entering a plea at arraignment. The facts of the case show that
identified him as the same person who had shot Maguan. petitioner insisted on his right to preliminary investigation before his
Having established that the assailant was probably Go, the arraignment and he, through his counsel denied answering questions before
police launched a manhunt for Go. Six days later, Go the court unless they were afforded the proper preliminary investigation.
presented himself before the San Juan Police Station to For the above reasons, the petition was granted and the ruling of the appellate
verify news reports that he was being hunted by the police; court was set aside and nullified. The Supreme Court however, contrary to
he was accompanied by two (2) lawyers. The police petitioner's allegation, declared that failure to accord the right to preliminary
forthwith detained him. An eyewitness to the shooting, who investigation did not impair the validity of the information charging the latter of
was at the police station at that time, positively identified the crime of murder.
Go as the gunman. That same day, the police promptly
filed a complaint for frustrated homicide against Go with
the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal. Assistant

2011

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

2011

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 (Minors including generations yet unborn=locus The SC decided in the affirmative. Petition was granted.
. vs. standi to file a taxpayer’s suit; Intergenerational
Factoran responsibility and justice; Protection by the State of Ratio decidendi:
224 the right to a balance and healthful ecology in Under Section 16, Article II of the 1987 constitution, it states that: “The state
SCRA accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature) shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful
792 ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.”
This petition bears upon the right of Filipinos to a balanced
and healthful ecology which the petitioners dramatically Petitioners, minors assert that they represent their generation as well as
associate with the twin concepts of "inter�generational generation yet unborn. We find no difficulty in ruling that they can, for

2011

responsibility" and "inter�generational justice." themselves, for others of their generation and for the succeeding generations,
Specifically, it touches on the issue of whether the said file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations
petitioners have a cause of action to "prevent the can only be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as
misappropriation or impairment" of Philippine rainforests the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right, as
and "arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country`s hereinafter expounded considers the “rhythm and harmony of nature”. Nature
vital life�support systems and continued rape of Mother means the created world in its entirety. Such rhythm and harmony
Earth." indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization,
management, renewal and conservation of the country’s forest, mineral, land,
This civil case originated from the RTC of Makati. The waters fisheries, wildlife, off- shore areas and other natural resources to the
principal petitioners in this case are all minors duly end that their exploration, development and utilization be equitably accessible
represented and joined by their respective parents. The to the present as well as future generations.
complaint was instituted as a taxpayers’ class suit and Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve
alleges that the plaintiffs are all citizens of the Republic of that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful
the Philippines, taxpayers, and entitled to the full benefit, ecology. Put a little differently, the minor’s assertion of their right to a sound
use and enjoyment of the natural resource treasure that is environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation
the country’s virgin tropical rainforests. The same was to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come.
filed for themselves and others who are equally concerned
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:

2011

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

2011

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

2011

Code becomes conclusive and enforceable. The appellate
court further held that to allow an employer to dispute Petitioner argues that, as an employer, it is considered a party to the criminal
independently the civil liability fixed in the criminal case case and is conclusively bound by the outcome thereof. Consequently,
against the accused-employee would be to amend, nullify petitioner must be accorded the right to pursue the case to its logical
or defeat a final judgment. Since the notice of appeal filed conclusion -- including the appeal.
by the accused had already been dismissed by the CA,
then the judgment of conviction and the award of civil The argument has no merit. Undisputedly, petitioner is not a direct party to the
liability became final and executory. Included in the civil criminal case, which was filed solely against Napoleon M. Roman, its employee.
liability of the accused was the employer’s subsidiary Therefore, petitioner has no right to appeal the criminal case against the
liability. Hence, this petition. accused-employee; that by jumping bail, he has waived his right to appeal; and
that the judgment in the criminal case against him is now final.
Issue:
Whether or not an employer, who dutifully participated in
the defense of its accused-employee, may appeal the
judgment of conviction independently of the accused.
21 People (Effect of death pending appeal to the civil liability of the The appeal is dismissed without qualification.
. vs. accused; The civil liability is extinguished based solely on
Bayotas the act complained of, ie. Rape.) Yes. The civil liability is extinguished based solely on the act complained of,
236 ie. Rape.
SCRA Rogelio Bayotas y Cordova was charged with Rape and
239 eventually convicted thereof on June 19, 1991. Pending Ratio: In the case at bar, the Court laid down the rules in resolving the issue at
appeal of his conviction, Bayotas died on February 4, 1992 hand.
at the National Bilibid Hospital due to cardio respiratory 1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his
arrest. Consequently, the Supreme Court in its Resolution criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. As opined by
of May 20, 1992 dismissed the criminal aspect of the Justice Regalado, in this regard, "the death of the accused prior to final
appeal. However, it required the Solicitor General to file its judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability directly
comment with regard to Bayotas' civil liability arising from arising from and based solely on the offense committed,i.e., civil liability ex
his commission of the offense charged. delicto in senso strictiore."
In his comment, the Solicitor General expressed his view 2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of
that the death of accused-appellant did not extinguish his accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other
civil liability as a result of his commission of the offense than delict.19 Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these other sources of
charged. The Solicitor General, relying on the case of obligation from which the civil liability may arise as a result of the same act or
People v. Sendaydiego 1 insists that the appeal should still omission:
be resolved for the purpose of reviewing his conviction by
the lower court on which the civil liability is based. a) Law; b) Contract; c) Quasi-contracts; d) xxxxx; e) Quasi-delicts

2011

3. Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2 above, an action
Counsel for the accused-appellant, on the other hand, for recovery therefor may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil
opposed the view of the Solicitor General arguing that the action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
death of the accused while judgment of conviction is Procedure as amended. This separate civil action may be enforced either
pending appeal extinguishes both his criminal and civil against the executor/administrator or the estate of the accused, depending on
penalties. In support of his position, said counsel invoked the source of obligation upon which the same is based as explained above.
the ruling of the Court of Appeals in People v. Castillo and
Ocfemia 2 which held that the civil obligation in a criminal 4. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to
case takes root in the criminal liability and, therefore, civil file this separate civil action by prescription, in cases where during the
liability is extinguished if accused should die before final prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its extinction, the private-
judgment is rendered. offended party instituted together therewith the civil action. In such case, the
statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted during the
pendency of the 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:
Does death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction
extinguished his civil liability? Applying this set of rules to the case at bench, we hold that the death of
appellant Bayotas extinguished his criminal liability and the civil liability based
solely on the act complained of,i.e., rape. Consequently, the appeal is hereby
dismissed without qualification.
POWER OF CONTROL OF THE COURT (Rule 110, Section 5)

22 Crespo (Estafa; Motion to dismiss = pending petition for The petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court for lack of merit.
. vs. review of information filed with DOJ; Power of
Mogul Control of the court once information is filed) Ratio decidendi:
151 Rule: Where the information has already been filed It is a cardinal principle that a criminal action, either commenced by complaint
SCRA in the court, the court steps in and takes control of or by information, shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the
462 the case until the same is finally disposed of, so fiscal. The institution of a criminal action depends upon the sound discretion of
that the fiscal has no more control over it. the fiscal. He may or may not file the complaint or information, according to
whether the evidence in his opinion, is sufficient or not to establish the guilt of
On April 18, 1977 Assistant Fiscal Proceso de Gala with the the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The reason for placing the criminal
approval of the Provincial Fiscal filed an information for prosecution under the direction and control of the fiscal is to prevent malicious
estafa against Mario Fl. Crespo in the Circuit Criminal Court or unfounded prosecution by private persons. It cannot be controlled by the
of Lucena City. When the case was set for arraignment the complainant. Prosecuting officers under the power vested in them by law, not
accused filed a motion to defer arraignment on the ground only have the authority but also the duty of prosecuting persons who,
that there was a pending petition for review filed with the according to the evidence received from the complainant, are shown to be
guilty of a crime committed within the jurisdiction of their office. They have

2011

equally the legal duty not to prosecute when after an investigation they
Secretary of Justice of the resolution of the Office of the become convinced that the evidence adduced is not sufficient to establish a
Provincial Fiscal for the filing of the information. The prima facie case. It is through the conduct of a preliminary investigation, that
presiding judge, Leodegario L. Mogul, denied the motion the fiscal determines the existence of a prima facie case that would warrant
but the arraignment was deferred. Upon petition, the the prosecution of a case. The Courts cannot interfere with the fiscal's
Court of Appeals restrained Judge Mogul from proceeding discretion and control of the criminal prosecution.
with the arraignment of the accused until further orders of
the Court. Later on, a decision was rendered by the Court The role of the fiscal or prosecutor is to see that justice is done and not
of Appeals granting the writ and perpetually restraining the necessarily to secure the conviction of the person accused before the Courts.
judge from enforcing his threat to compel the arraignment Thus, in spite of his opinion to the contrary, it is the duty of the fiscal to
of the accused in the case until the Department of Justice proceed with the presentation of evidence of the prosecution to the Court to
shall have finally resolved the petition for review. enable the Court to arrive at its own independent judgment as to whether the
accused should be convicted or acquitted. The fiscal should not shirk from the
responsibility of appearing for the People of the Philippines even under such
The Undersecretary of Justice, resolving the petition for circumstances much less should he abandon the prosecution of the case
review reversed the resolution of the Office of the leaving it to the hands of a private prosecutor for then the entire proceedings
Provincial Fiscal and directed the fiscal to move for will be null and void. The least that the fiscal should do is to continue to appear
immediate dismissal of the information filed against the for the prosecution although he may turn over the presentation of the evidence
accused. 8 A motion to dismiss for insufficiency of evidence to the private prosecutor but still under his direction and control.
was filed by the Provincial Fiscal with the trial court. The
Judge denied the motion and set the arraignment stating The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or information is
that: “The motion's thrust being to induce this Court to filed in Court any disposition of the case as its dismissal or the conviction or
resolve the innocence of the accused on evidence not acquittal of the accused rests in the sound discretion of the Court. Although the
before it but on that adduced before the Undersecretary of fiscal retains the direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases even
Justice, a matter that not only disregards the requirements while the case is already in Court he cannot impose his opinion on the trial
of due process but also erodes the Court's independence court. The Court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before
and integrity.” The Court of Appeals, upon petition of the it. The determination of the case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and
accused, issued a restraining order against the respondent competence. A motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be
judge but later lifted the same. Hence, this petition for addressed to the Court who has the option to grant or deny the same. It does
review. not matter if this is done before or after the arraignment of the accused or that
the motion was filed after a reinvestigation or upon instructions of the
Issue: Secretary of Justice who reviewed the records of the investigation.
The issue raised in this case is whether the trial court
acting on a motion to dismiss a criminal case filed by the
Provincial Fiscal upon instructions of the Secretary of
Justice to whom the case was elevated for review, may
refuse to grant the motion and insist on the arraignment
and trial on the merits.

2011
Duplicity of Offense (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 The Court reiterates that based on the doctrine enunciated in People vs.
. Salazar offense committed in the course thereof; Hernandez, the questioned information filed against petitioners Juan Ponce
186 • All crimes (common crimes under RPC; crimes Enrile and the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio must be read as charging
SCRA under special law), which are mere components simple rebellion only.
217 or ingredients, or committed in furtherance
thereof, become absorbed in the crime of Ratio decidendi:
rebellion and can not be isolated and charged as There is one other reason and a fundamental one at that why Article 48 of the
separate crime in themselves. Penal Code cannot be applied in the case at bar. If murder were not complexed
with rebellion, and the two crimes were punished separately (assuming that
• Grounds for Motion to Quash: Section 3 (a) and
this could be done), the following penalties would be imposable upon the
(f)
movant, namely: (1) for the crime of rebellion, a fine not exceeding P20,000
a. That the facts charged do not constitute an
and prision mayor, in the corresponding period, depending upon the modifying
offense
circumstances present, but never exceeding 12 years of prision mayor, and (2)
f. That more than one offense is charged
for the crime of murder, reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death,
except when a single punishment for various
depending upon the modifying circumstances present. In other words, in the
offenses is prescribed by law
absence of aggravating circumstances, the extreme penalty could not be
imposed upon him. However, under Article 48 said penalty would have to be
In the afternoon of February 27, 1990, Senate Minority
meted out to him, even in the absence of a single aggravating circumstance.
Floor Leader Juan Ponce Enrile was arrested by law
Thus, said provision, if construed in conformity with the theory of the
enforcement officers led by Director Alfredo Lim of the NBI
prosecution, would be unfavorable to the movant.
on the strength of a warrant issued by Hon. Judge Salazar
of the RTCourt of Quezon City Branch 103, in Criminal Case
The plaint of petitioner's counsel that he is charged with a crime that does not
No. 9010941.
exist in the statute books, while technically correct so far as the Court has
ruled that rebellion may not be complexed with other offenses committed on
The warrant had issued on an information signed and
the occasion thereof, must therefore be dismissed as a mere flight of rhetoric.
earlier that day filed by a panel of prosecutors composed
Read in the context of Hernandez, the information does indeed charge the
of Senior State Prosecutor Aurelio C. Trampe, State
petitioner with a crime defined and punished by the Revised Penal Code:
Prosecutor Ferdinand R. Abesamis and Assistant City
simple rebellion.
Prosecutor Eulogio Mananquil, Jr., charging Senator Enrile,
the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio, and Gregorio
Honasan with the 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

2011

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 It was held that Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile cannot be tried separately under PD
. Amin special laws; PD 1829 Penalizing Obstruction of 1829 in addition to his being prosecuted in the rebellion case. The petition is
189 Apprehension of Criminal Offender; Harboring or granted. The information in criminal case is quashed.
SCRA Concealing a Criminal=absorbed by the crime of
573 rebellion and cannot therefore be made the subject Ratio decidendi:
of a separate criminal action. The petitioner is now facing charges of rebellion in conspiracy with the fugitive
Grounds for Motion to Quash: Section 3(a); (f) Col. Gringo Honasan. Necessarily, being in conspiracy with Honasan,
(a) That the facts charged do not constitute an petitioners alleged act of harboring or concealing was for no other purpose but
offense in furtherance of the crime of rebellion thus constitute a component thereof. It
(f) That more than one offense is charged was motivated by the single intent or resolution to commit the crime of
except when a single punishment for various rebellion.
offenses is prescribed by law
The crime of rebellion consists of many acts. It is described as a vast
This case again involves Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile in which he movement of men and a complex net of intrigues and plots. Jurisprudence tells
was charged as having committed rebellion complexed us that acts committed in furtherance of the rebellion though crimes in
with murder before the RTC and another information was

2011

filed charging him for violation of PD 1829 (Penalizing
Obstruction of Apprehension of Criminal Offenders) by themselves are deemed absorbed in the one single crime of rebellion. In this
harboring and concealing Gregorio Honasan. case, the act of harboring or concealing Col. Honasan is clearly a mere
component or ingredient of rebellion or an act done in furtherance of the
It was alleged that on 01 December 1989, Sen. Juan Ponce rebellion. It cannot therefore be made the basis of a separate charge. The case
Enrile had entertained and accommodated Col. Honasan by of People v. Prieto s instructive:
giving him food and comfort in his house. Knowing that
Col. Honasan is a fugitive from justice, Sen. Enrile allegedly In the nature of things, the giving of aid and comfort can only be accomplished
did not do anything to have Honasan arrested or by some kind of action. Its very nature partakes of a deed or physical activity
apprehended. And because of such failure the petitioner as opposed to a mental operation. This deed or physical activity may be, and
prevented Col. Honasan’s arrest and conviction in violation often is, in itself a criminal offense under another penal statute or provision.
of Section(1) of PD No. 1829. The rebellion charges filed Even so, when the deed is charged as an element of treason it becomes
against the petitioner in Quezon City were based on the Identified with the latter crime and cannot be the subject of a separate
affidavits executed by three (3) employees of the Silahis punishment, or used in combination with treason to increase the penalty as
International Hotel who stated that the fugitive Col. article 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides. Just as one cannot be punished
Gregorio "Gringo" Honasan and some 100 rebel soldiers for possessing opium in a prosecution for smoking the Identical drug, and a
attended the mass and birthday party held at the robber cannot be held guilty of coercion or trespass to a dwelling in a
residence of the petitioner in the evening of December 1, prosecution for robbery, because possession of opium and force and trespass
1989. The information particularly reads that on "or about are inherent in smoking and in robbery respectively, so may not a defendant
6:30 p.m., 1 December, 1989, Col. Gregorio "Gringo" be made liable for murder as a separate crime or in conjunction with another
Honasan conferred with accused Senator Juan Ponce Enrile offense where, as in this case, it is averred as a constitutive ingredient of
accompanied by about 100 fully armed rebel soldiers treason.
wearing white armed patches". The prosecution thereby
concluded that in such a situation, Sen. Enrile's talking with
rebel leader Col. Gregorio "Gringo" Honasan in his house in The prosecution tries to distinguish by contending that harboring or concealing
the presence of about 100 uniformed soldiers who were a fugitive is punishable under a special law while the rebellion case is based on
fully armed, can be inferred that they were co-conspirators the Revised Penal Code; hence, prosecution under one law will not bar a
in the failed December coup. Respondent Judge Amin prosecution under the other. This argument is specious in rebellion cases. All
sustained the charge of violation of PD No. 1829 crimes, whether punishable under a special law or general law, which are mere
notwithstanding the rebellion case filed against the components or ingredients, or committed in furtherance thereof, become
petitioner on the theory that the former involves a special absorbed in the crime of rebellion and cannot be isolated and charged as
law while the latter is based on the Revised Penal Code or separate crimes in themselves.
a general law. Hence, this petition.
As earlier mentioned, the intent or motive is a decisive factor. If Senator Ponce
Issue: Enrile is not charged with rebellion and he harbored or concealed Colonel
Whether or not the petitioner could be separately charged Honasan simply because the latter is a friend and former associate, the motive
for violation of PD No. 1829 notwithstanding the rebellion for the act is completely different. But if the act is committed with political or
social motives, that is in furtherance of rebellion, then it should be deemed to

2011

case earlier filed against him.
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 (Bigamy-complaint by 2nd wife; 2nd wife filed for The Supreme Court sustained the trial court. The annulment case filed against
. vs. Luna annulment of marriage; it was the accused who was the accused does not constitute a prejudicial question to warrant the
160 charged to have used deceit to obtain Paz’s suspension of the criminal action for bigamy. The requisites of a prejudicial
SCRA consent) question do not obtain in the case at bar.
441
Leonilo Donato was charged with bigamy in the CFI (RTC). The issue before the Domestic Relations Court touching upon the nullity of the
The information was based on the complaint filed by Paz 2nd marriage is not determinative of Leonilo’s guilt or innocence in the crime of
Abayan, who is the 2nd wife of the accused. Before, Donato bigamy. Furthermore, it was Paz, the 2nd wife, who filed the complaint for
was arraigned, Paz filed with the Domestic Relations Court annulment of the 2nd marriage on the ground that her consent was obtained
a civil action for the declaration nullity of her marriage with through deceit. Leonilo cannot apply the rule on prejudicial question since a
the accused, contracted in 1978. Before such marriage, case for annulment of marriage can be considered a prejudicial question to the
Leonilo and Paz had lived together as husband and wife, bigamy case only if it is proved that Leonilo’s consent was obtained by means
without the benefit of wedlock for at least five years. She of duress in order to establish that his act in the subsequent marriage was an
alleged that she consented to entering into the marriage, involuntary one and as such, the same cannot be the basis for conviction.
since she has no previous knowledge of Leonilo’s first However, this was not proven by the accused.
marriage to Rosalinda. The accused interposed the defense
that his second marriage was void since it was solemnized Obviously, Leonilo merely raised the issue of prejudicial question to evade the
without a marriage license and that force was employed by prosecution of the criminal case. Prior to Leonilo’s 2nd marriage, he has been
Paz to get his consent to the marriage. However, the living with Paz for more than five years as husband and wife without the
requisite marriage license was dispensed with since they benefit of marriage. Thus, his averments that his consent was obtained by Paz
have been living together as husband and wife without the through force and undue influence in entering a subsequent marriage is belied
benefit of marriage pursuant to Art. 76 of the New Civil by the fact that both of them executed an affidavit which stated that they had
Code. lived together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage for more
than five years until marital union was formally ratified by the 2nd marriage.
Before the criminal case could be tried, Leonilo moved to Furthermore, it was Paz who eventually filed a civil action for nullity of their
the suspend the proceedings on the ground that the marriage.
annulment case raises a prejudicial question which must
be determined before the criminal case can proceed. He who contracts a 2nd marriage before the judicial declaration of nullity of
Nevertheless, the trial court denied the motion to suspend first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy
the proceedings. Hence, this petition.
Issue: Whether annulment case filed against the accused

constitutes a prejudicial question to warrant the

2011

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

26 Webb vs. (Rule 112 – Conduct of Preliminary Investigation; The Court finds the petitions bereft of merit. The petitions are dismissed for
. Visconde probable cause; probable cause to issue a warrant lack of showing of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondents.
247 of arrest)
SCRA Ratio decidendi:
652 On 19 June 1994, the NBI files a letter-complaint with the On the First Issue:
DOJ charging petitioners Hubert Webb, Michael Gatchalian, The investigating fiscal finds probable cause to hold respondents for trial. He
Antonio Lejano and six others of the crime of rape with shall prepare the resolution and the information. In determining probable
homicide. The DOJ formed a panel of prosecutors headed cause, facts and circumstances are weighed without resorting to technical
by Asst. Chief Prosecutor Jovencio Zuno to conduct the rules of evidence, but rather based on common sense. Probable cause are the
preliminary investigation on the killing on 30 June 1991 of facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent
Carmela Vizconde, her mother Estrellita and her sister man to believe that an offense has been committed and was committed by the
Anne Marie Jennifer in BF Homes, Parañaque. suspects. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt,
neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt and definitely,
During the preliminary investigation, the NBI submitted not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt. The DOJ Panel did not
statements of Jessica Alfaro, two former housemaids of the gravely abuse its discretion when it found probable cause against the
Webb family, two of the Vizconde maids, a security guard, petitioners. It correctly adjudged that enough evidence had been adduced to
and a car engineer. An autopsy report was also submitted establish cause and clarificatory hearing was unnecessary since preliminary
confirming the presence of spermatozoa on Carmela. 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. On the Second Issue:
However, the original statement of Alfaro was lost but they Petitioners support their stance by highlighting the following facts: (1) the
were able to get a copy from Atty. Mercader, Jr. The herein issuance of warrants of arrest in a matter of few hours; (2) the failure of said
petitioner failed to get a copy of the Certification issued by judges to issue orders of arrest; and (3) the records submitted to the trial court
the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation on the admission were incomplete and insufficient from which to base a finding of probable
to and stay of Hubert Webb in the United States from cause. Petitioners postulate that it was impossible to conduct a "searching
March 9, 1991 to October 22, 1992. He claimed that he examination of witnesses and evaluation of the documents" on the part of said
was in the US at the time of the crime was corroborated by judges.
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. First, insofar as the judge should have first issued an order of
On August 8, 1995, the DOJ Panel issued a 26-page arrest prior to the issuance of warrant of arrest, there is no law or rule
Resolution "finding probable cause to hold respondents for requiring the issuance of an Order of Arrest prior to a warrant of arrest.
trial" and recommending that an Information for rape with Second, the DOJ Panel submitted to the trial court its 26-page report, sworn
homicide be filed against petitioners and their co- statements of the witnesses, as well as the counter-affidavits of the petitioners.

2011

respondents. On the same date, it filed the corresponding Apparently, the painstaking recital and analysis of the parties' evidence made
Information against petitioners and their co-accused with in the DOJ Panel Report satisfied both judges that there is probable cause to
the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque. The case raffled to issue warrants of arrest against petitioners. Again, we stress that before
the sala of respondent Judge Escano. But it was issuing warrants of arrest, judges merely determine personally the probability,
respondent Judge De Leon, the pairing judge of Judge not the certainty of guilt of an accused. They just personally review the initial
Escano, who issued the warrant of arrest. Judge Escano determination of the prosecutor finding a probable cause to see if it is
inhibited himself, thus the case was raffled in the sala of supported by substantial evidence. The sufficiency of the review process
Judge Tolentino. The latter issued a new warrant of arrest cannot be measured by merely counting minutes and hours. The fact that it
against the petitioners and their co-accused. Webb took the respondent judges a few hours to review and affirm the probable
voluntarily surrendered to the police authorities. His co- cause determination of the DOJ Panel does not mean they made no personal
accused likewise voluntarily surrendered. However, in evaluation of the evidence attached to the records of the case.
their present petition, they contend that the judges abused
their discretion when they failed to conduct a 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 Panganda (Lanao del Sur; Shooting incident; 5 persons dead; The warrant complained of is upheld and declared valid insofar as it orders the
. man vs. Plea of the accused is essentially grounded on the arrest of the petitioners. Said warrant is voided to the extent that it is issued
Casar claim that the warrant for their arrest was issued by against fifty (50) "John Does."
159 SCRA
the respondent Judge without a proper preliminary
599
investigation; no requirement that the entire Ratio decidendi:
procedure for preliminary investigation must be Insofar as the warrant issued against fifty (50) "John Does" not one of whom
completed before a warrant of arrest may be the witnesses to the complaint could or would Identify, it is of the nature of a
issued.) general warrant, one of a class of writs long proscribed as unconstitutional and
once anathematized as "totally subversive of the liberty of the subject."
On July 27, 1985, a shooting incident occurred in Pantao, Clearly violative of the constitutional injunction that warrants of arrest should
Masiu, Lanao del Sur, which left at least five persons dead particularly describe the person or persons to be seized, the warrant must, as
and two others wounded. What in fact transpired is still regards its unidentified subjects, be voided.
unclear. On the following day, Atty. Mangurun Batuampar,
claiming to represent the widow of one of the victims, filed However, the main issue in the case at bar is whether the completion of the
a letter-complaint with the Provincial Fiscal at Marawi City, procedure laid down in Section 3 of Rule 112 a condition on sine qua non for
asking for a "full blast preliminary investigation" of the the issuance of a warrant of arrest?

2011

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

2011

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 Prohibition against testimonial compulsion; Rule The Orders of the respondent Judge were rendered with grave abuse of
. vs. Judge 115, Section 1(d) and (e); To testify as a witness in discretion. They should be as they are annulled and set aside. The admission
Ayson his own behalf but subject to cross-examination on and statements made by the accused should be admitted as evidence in the
175 matters covered by direct examination; To be criminal action against him.
SCRA exempt from being compelled to be a witness
216 against himself. Ratio decidendi:
What has given rise to the controversy at bar is the At the crux of this controversy is the apparent misapprenhension by
equation by the respondent Judge of the right of an respondent Judge of the nature and import of the disparate rights set forth in
individual not to "be compelled to be a witness Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution:
against himself" accorded by Section 20, Article III
of the Constitution, with the right of any person “SEC. 20. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself Any
"under investigation for the commission of an person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the
offense . . . to remain silent and to counsel, and to right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such right. No
be informed of such right," granted by the same force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the free
provision will shall be used against him. Any confession obtained in violation of this
section shall be inadmissible in evidence.”
Felipe Ramos was a ticket freight clerk of the Philippine
Airlines, assigned at its Baguio City station. It was alleged
that he was involved in irregularities in the sales of plane It should at once be apparent that there are two (2) rights, or sets of rights,
tickets. The PAL management notified him that an dealt with in the section, namely:
investigation will be conducted. The investigation was 1) the right against self-incrimination — i.e., the right of a person not to be
scheduled in accordance with PAL's Code of Conduct and compelled to be a witness against himself — set out in the first sentence.
Discipline, and the Collective Bargaining Agreement signed 2) the rights of a person in custodial interrogation, i.e., the rights of every
by it with the Philippine Airlines Employees' Association suspect "under investigation for the commission of an offense."
(PALEA) to which Ramos is a member. A letter was sent by
Ramos stating his willingness to settle the amount of Right Against Self-Incrimination
P76,000. Felipe Ramos was informed "of the finding of the The first right, against self-incrimination, mentioned in Section 20, Article IV of
Audit Team." Thereafter, his answers in response to the 1973 Constitution, is accorded to every person who gives evidence,
questions by Cruz, were taken down in writing. Ramos' whether voluntarily or under compulsion of subpoena, in any civil, criminal, or
answers were to the effect that he had not indeed made administrative proceeding. The right is NOT to "be compelled to be a witness
disclosure of the tickets mentioned in the Audit Team's against himself".
findings, and that the proceeds had been "misused" by
him; and that although he had planned on paying back the The precept set out in that first sentence has a settled meaning. It prescribes

2011

money, he had been prevented from doing so. However, he an "option of refusal to answer incriminating questions and not a prohibition of
was still willing to settle his obligation, and proferred a inquiry." It simply secures to a witness, whether he be a party or not, the right
"compromise to pay on staggered basis. He later on to refue to answer any particular incriminatory question, i.e., one the answer to
willingly signed the statements he made. However, it which has a tendency to incriminate him for some crime. However, the right
seems that no compromise agreement was reached much can be claimed only when the specific question, incriminatory in character, is
less consummated. Two months after a crime of estafa was actually put to the witness. It cannot be claimed at any other time. It does not
charged against Ramos. Ramos pleaded not guilty. give a witness the right to disregard a subpoena, to decline to appear before
Evidence by the prosecution contained Ramos’ written the court at the time appointed, or to refuse to testify altogether. The witness
admission and statement, to which defendants argued that receiving a subpoena must obey it, appear as required, take the stand, be
the confession was taken without the accused being sworn and answer questions. It is only when a particular question is addressed
represented by a lawyer. Respondent Judge did not admit to him, the answer to which may incriminate him for some offense, that he
such statement stating that accused was not reminded of may refuse to answer on the strength of the constitutional guaranty.
his constitutional rights to remain silent and to have
counsel. A motion for reconsideration filed by the Rights in Custodial Interrogation
prosecutors was denied. Hence this appeal. Section 20 states that whenever any person is "under investigation for the
commission of an offense"--
Issue: 1) he shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed
Whether or not it was grave abuse of discretion for of such right,
respondent Judge to have excluded the written admission 2) nor force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates
and statement of the accused. 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

2011

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

2011

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. (Chinaman; rape of 7 y/o girl; found with gonorrhea; The Court answered in the negative. The judgment of the lower court was
. Tan Teng admission of bodily fluids taken from the modified and the maximum penalty of six years of prision correccional of
23 Phil accused=admissible as evidence; Constitutional imprisonment should be imposed.
145 prohibition against testimonial compulsion)
Ratio decidendi:
On 15 September 1910, while Olivia Pacomio, a girl seven In the case at bar, the defendant contended that the result of the scientific
years of age, while staying at her sister’s house in Manila, examination made by the Bureau of Science of the substance taken from his
the defendant Tan Teng, willfully, unlawfully and criminally, body, at or about the time he was arrested, was not admissible in evidence as
and employing force, lie and have carnal intercourse with proof of the fact that he was suffering from gonorrhea. That to admit such
her. On said day, several Chinamen including the evidence was to compel the defendant to testify against himself. The Court
defendant were gambling at the house of the victim’s finds no merit in this contention. It explained:
sister. When Olivia went to her room after taking a bath, “The accused was not compelled to make any admissions or answer any
the defendant followed her. Then and there he threw Olivia questions, and the mere fact that an object found on his person was examined:
upon the floor, placing his private parts upon hers, and seems no more to infringe the rule invoked, than would the introduction in
remained in that position for some little time. Several days 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 The substance was taken from the body of the defendant without his objection,
known as gonorrhea. It was at the time of this discovery the examination was made by competent medical authority and the result
that Oliva related to her sister what happened upon the showed that the defendant was suffering from said disease. As was suggested,
morning of the 15 September 1910. The sister at once put had the defendant been found with stolen property upon his person, there
on foot an investigation to find the Chinaman. Oliva certainly could have been no question had the stolen property been taken for
identified him at once as the one who had attempted to the purpose of using the same as evidence against him. So also if the clothing
violate her. Upon this information the defendant was which he wore, by reason of blood stains or otherwise, had furnished evidence
arrested and taken to the police station and stripped of his of the commission of a crime, there certainly could have been no objection to
clothing and examined. The policeman who examined the taking such for the purpose of using the same as proof. No one would think of
defendant swore from the venereal disease known as even suggesting that stolen property and the clothing in the case indicated,
gonorrhea. The policeman took a portion of the substance

2011

emitting from the body of the defendant and turned it over
to the Bureau of Science for the purpose of having a taken from the defendant, could not be used against him as evidence, without
scientific analysis made of the same. The result of the violating the rule that a person shall not be required to give testimony against
examination showed that the defendant was suffering from himself.
gonorrhea. Based on the evidence, the defendant was
charged with the crime of rape and the trial court found
the defendant guilty of the charged and sentenced with a The prohibition of compelling a man in a criminal court to be a witness against
penalty of prision correccional. From this sentence, the himself, is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion, to extort
defendant appealed. Hence, this present case. communications from him, not an exclusion of his body as evidence, when it
may be material. The prohibition contained in the Constitution that a person
Issue: shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself, is simply a prohibition
Whether or not the physical examination conducted is against legal process to extract from the defendant's own lips, against his will,
violation of the defendant’s right against self-incrimination. an admission of his guilt. The fact that both the defendant and the victim were
both suffering from a common disease clearly shows that the former indeed
committed the offense charged.
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,
. Enrile Criminal prosecution may not be restrained or and enjoin their criminal prosecution for the second offense of inciting to
192 SCRA stayed by injunction, preliminary or final. Public sedition.
783 interest requires that criminal acts be immediately
investigated and prosecuted for the protection of Ratio decidendi:
the society. The primary issue here is the legality of enjoining the criminal prosecution of a
Exceptions: These exceptions were given by the case, since the two other issues raised by Brocka are matters of defense
Court in this case. against the sedition charge.
Indeed, the general rule is that criminal prosecution may not be restrained or
Issue: stayed by injunction, 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

2011

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 Prohibition against testimonial compulsion; Rule

. vs. CA 115, Section 1(d) and (e); To testify as a witness in
22 SCRA his own behalf but subject to cross-examination on
663 matters covered by direct examination; To be
exempt from being compelled to be a witness
against himself.
32 Galman Immunity Statutes

. vs.
Pamaran
38 SCRA
294

Case Matrix For Crimproc1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Matrix For Crimproc1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Procedure Case Matrix SY 2010-

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

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

Thereafter, accused was invited outside the bus for

Accused was then brought to the headquarters of the

Eppie D. Severino PSU School of Law Page 12

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

Seeking the reversal of the decision of the trial court

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

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

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

Eppie D. Severino PSU School of Law Page 24

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

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