PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.

CARLOS DELA CRUZ The facts showed that in the morning of October 20, 2002, an informant tipped off the Drug Enforcement Unit of the Marikina that wanted drug pusher Wifredo Loilo alias "Boy Bicol" was at his nipa hut hideout in San Mateo, Rizal. A team was organized to arrest Boy Bicol. Once there, they saw Boy Bicol by a table talking with accused-appellant. They shouted "Boy Bicol sumuko ka na may warrant of arrest ka. (Surrender yourself Boy Bicol you have a warrant of arrest.)" Upon hearing this, Boy Bicol engaged them in a shootout and was fatally shot. Accused-appellant was seen holding a shotgun through a window. He dropped his shotgun when a police officer pointed his firearm at him. The team entered the nipa hut and apprehended accused-appellant. They saw a plastic bag of suspected shabu, a digital weighing scale, drug paraphernalia, ammunition, and magazines lying on the table. PO1 Calanoga, Jr. put the markings "CVDC," the initials of accused-appellant, on the bag containing the seized drug. Accused-appellant was subsequently arrested. The substance seized from the hideout was sent to the Philippine National Police crime laboratory for examination and tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. He was thus separately indicted for violation of RA 9165 and for illegal possession of firearm. The RTC acquitted accused-appellant of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition but convicted him of possession of dangerous drugs. The CA sustained accused-appellant's conviction. It pointed out that accused-appellant was positively identified by prosecution witnesses, rendering his uncorroborated denial and allegation of frame-up weak. As to accused-appellant's alleged illegal arrest, the CA held that he is deemed to have waived his objection when he entered his plea, applied for bail, and actively participated in the trial without questioning such arrest. On December 20, 2007 accused-appellant filed his Notice of Appeal of the decision of CA. Issue: Held: The Appeal has Merit. The prior or contemporaneous acts of accused-appellant show that: he was inside the nipa hut at the time the buy-bust operation was taking place; he was talking to Boy Bicol inside the nipa hut; he was seen holding a shotgun; when PO1 Calanoga, Jr. pointed his firearm at accused-appellant, the latter dropped his shotgun; and when apprehended, he was in a room which had the seized shabu, digital weighing scale, drug paraphernalia, ammunition, and magazines. Accused-appellant later admitted that he knew what the content of the seized plastic bag was. Given the circumstances, we find that the prosecution failed to establish possession of the shabu, whether in its actual or constructive sense, on the part of accused-appellant. The two buy-bust team members corroborated each other's testimonies on how they saw Boy Bicol talking to accused-appellant by a table inside the nipa hut. That table, they testified, was the same table where they saw the shabu once inside the nipa hut. This fact was used by the prosecution to show that accused-appellant exercised dominion and control over the shabu on the table. The SC, however, find this too broad an application of the concept of constructive possession In the instant case, however, there is no question that accused-appellant was not the owner of the nipa hut that was subject of the buy-bust operation. He did not have dominion or control over the nipa hut. Neither was accused-appellant a tenant or occupant of the nipa hut, a fact not disputed by the prosecution. The target of the operation was Boy Bicol. Accused-appellant was merely a guest of Boy Bicol. But in spite of the lack of evidence pinning accused-appellant to illegal possession of drugs, RTC declared (assumed) that the accused and Boy Bicol were members of a gang hiding in that nipa hut where they were caught red-handed with prohibited items and dangerous [drugs]. The trial court cannot assume, based on the prosecution's evidence, that accused-appellant was part of a gang dealing in illegal activities. 1.WON the accused-appellants arrest was illegal.

Apart from his presence in Boy Bicol's nipa hut, the prosecution was not able to show his participation in any drug-dealing. He was not even in possession of drugs in his person. He was merely found inside a room with shabu, not as the room's owner or occupant but as a guest. While he allegedly pointed a firearm at the buy-bust team, the prosecution curiously failed to produce the firearm that accused-appellant supposedly used. The prosecution in this case clearly failed to show all the elements of the crime absent a showing of either actual or constructive possession by the accused-appellant. Since accused-appellant was not in possession of the illegal drugs in Boy Bicol's nipa hut, his subsequent arrest was also invalid. The warrantless arrest of accused-appellant was effected under Rule 113 Sec. 5(a), arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto. For this type of warrantless arrest to be valid, two requisites must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. Accused-appellant's act of pointing a firearm at the buy-bust team would have been sufficient basis for his arrest in flagrante delicto; however, the prosecution was not able to adequately prove that accused-appellant was committing an offense. Although accusedappellant merely denied possessing the firearm, the prosecution's charge was weak absent the presentation of the alleged firearm. He was eventually acquitted by the trial court because of this gaffe. His arrest, independent of the buy-bust operation targeting Boy Bicol, was therefore not lawful as he was not proved to be committing any offense. In sum, we find that there is insufficient evidence to show accusedappellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Having ruled on the lack of material or constructive possession by accused-appellant of the seized shabu and his succeeding illegal arrest, we deem it unnecessary to deal with the other issue raised WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The CA Decision dated November 29, 2007 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02286 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Carlos Dela Cruz is ACQUITTED of violation of Sec. 11(2) of RA 9165 in Criminal Case No. 6518 of the RTC, Branch 77 in San Mateo, Rizal.

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. V. GERMAN AGOJO Facts: On August 23, 1999, Rodolfo Alonzo, a civilian informant, reported the drug trading activities of appellant to Police Chief Inspector Ablang that the sale was to take place in front of the Mercado Hospital in Tanauan, Batangas, on August 27, 1999 at 11:30 p.m. Ablang formed a team to conduct the buy-bust operation and proceeded to Mercado Hospital. Ablang then entrusted Alonzo with P71,000.00 each marked "JUA." to Alonzo and was instructed to remove his hat to signal the team that the sale had been consummated. The buy-bust team arrived at Mercado Hospital at 11:00 p.m. The team members immediately took strategic positions. Alonzo stayed in an eatery in front of the hospital. Agojo (appellant) arrived and approached Alonzo to ask if the latter had the money. Alonzo handed appellant the marked money. Appellant took a VHS box from his car and handed it to Alonzo. Alonzo examined the VHS box then took off his cap to signal the buybust team. The buy-bust team immediately proceeded to the scene. Alonzo told the team that appellant had entered the hospital. Alonzo handed the VHS box to Ablang. Upon examination, the box was found to contain four (4) plastic bags of a crystalline substance which was later on confirmed to be shabu. Ablang instructed Salazar to inform the appellant that his car had been bumped.

Appellant then exited from the hospital via the emergency room door. Salazar introduced himself as a policeman and attempted to arrest HIM. Appellant resisted, but the other team members handcuffed appellant. The team recovered P10,000.00 of the buy-bust money. Ablang opened appellants car and recovered a .45 caliber pistol containing seven (7) bullets and a Panasonic cellular phone from the passenger seat. RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charge against him for violation of Section 1512 of R.A. No. 6425(Dangerous Drug Act of 1972) and acquitted him of the charge of violation of P.D. No. 1866(Illegal Possession of Fire Arms) for lack of sufficient evidence. The case was brought on automatic review before the Supreme Court, since appellant was sentenced to death by the trial court. Issue: WON the warrantless arrest of the accused-appellant was illegal? Held: The Arrest of the Appellant was VALID under Rule 113 Section 5 par. B of the Rules of Court. Appellants assertion that he was framed-up has no merit. In almost every case involving a buy-bust operation, the accused puts up the defense of frame-up. This court has repeatedly emphasized that the defense of "frame-up" is viewed with disfavor, since the defense is easily concocted and is a common ploy of the accused. Therefore, clear and convincing evidence of the frame-up must be shown for such a defense to be given merit. In this case, appellant points to the arrest not being in flagrante delicto, the existence of discrepancies in the serial numbers of the buy-bust money and a prior attempt to frame him up as proofs of the frame-up. However, the fact that the arrest was not in flagrante delicto is of no consequence. Under section 5 par. B of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court: the second instance of lawful warrantless arrest covered by paragraph (b) cited above necessitates two stringent requirements before a warrantless arrest can be effected: (1) an offense has just been committed; and (2) the person making the arrest has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. A review of the records shows that both requirements were met in this case. 1. From the spot where the buy-bust team was, they definitely witnessed the sale of shabu took place. 2. There was a large measure of immediacy between the time of commission of the offense and the time of the arrest. After Alonzo had signaled the buy-bust team when he received the VHS tape from appellant, Ablang approached Alonzo and immediately examined the tape. Soon thereafter, he executed the ruse to make appellant to go down, as the latter had in the meantime gone up. The ruse succeeded when appellant went down, and he was arrested right then and there. There is similarly little weight in the claim of appellant that the inconsistencies revealed by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) certification in the serial numbers of the marked money, as well as the fact that only a fraction of the money was recovered, should exonerate him. The marked money used in the buy-bust operation is not indispensable in drug cases. Otherwise stated, the absence of marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidences provided that the prosecution adequately proves the sale. Only appellant would know what happened to the rest of the marked money since only P10,000.00 out of the P70,000.00 was recovered from him. In any event, the partial recovery of the marked money from appellant would indicate that the buy-bust operation did take place. PEOPLE V. TAN Facts: 1. On January 8, 2006, Fransisco Bobby Tan, father of the accused and Cynthia Marie Tan (stepmother of the accused), were found dead in their house on a compound on M.H. del Pilar St., Molo, Iloilo City.

2. The principal suspects are the sons of Bobby, Michael Tan.

Archie Tan and Jan

3. On January 13, 2006, police officers from the Regional CIDG submitted their investigation report to the City Prosecutors Office of Iloilo City. This pointed to respondents Archie and Jan-Jan as principal suspects in the brutal killing of their parents and a young stepsister. 4. On December 23, 2008 Rosalinda Garcia-Zayco, Cindys mother pointed out that the two had sufficient motive to commit the crimes of which they were charged. They openly showed disrespect towards their father, Bobby, and constantly had heated arguments with him. They also nurtured ill feelings and resentment towards Cindy, their stepmother, they being illegitimate children. They never accepted the fact that Bobby married Cindy rather than their mother. The National Bureau of Investigation report classified the crimes as motivated by hatred. 5. On October 27, 2006 the RTC, then temporarily presided over by Judge Narciso Aguilar, found no probable cause against respondents Archie and Jan-Jan. 6. After a new presiding judge, Judge Globert Justalero, took over the RTC, he issued an order on March 30, 2007 granting the prosecutions request for additional time within which to comply with the courts order of January 12, 2007. 7. On April 23, 2007 Judge Justalero reversed the order of the previous presiding judge. He found probable cause against respondents Archie and Jan-Jan this time and ordered the issuance of warrants for their arrest. 8. CA reversed the RTCs (Judge Justaleros decision). Issues: Whether or not the CA committed error in ruling that Judge Justalero gravely abused his discretion when he made a finding that there is probable cause to issue a warrant for the arrest of the two. Held: YES, there is probable cause. But what is probable cause? Probable cause assumes the existence of facts that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that a crime has been committed and that it was likely committed by the person sought to be arrested. It requires neither absolute certainty nor clear and convincing evidence of guilt. The test for issuing a warrant of arrest is less stringent than that used for establishing the guilt of the accused. As long as the evidence shows a prima facie case against the accused, the trial court has sufficient ground to issue a warrant for his arrest. Here, admittedly, the evidence against respondents Archie and Jan-Jan is merely circumstantial. The prosecution evidence shows that they had motive in that they had been at odds with their father and stepmother. They had opportunity in that they were still probably home when the crime took place. Archie took two pairs of new gloves from his car late that evening. Cindy was apparently executed inside Archies room. The separate rooms of the two accused had, quite curiously, been wiped clean even of their own fingerprints. A trial, unlike preliminary investigations, could yield more evidence favorable to either side after the interrogations of the witnesses either on direct examination or on cross-examination. What is important is that there is some rational basis for going ahead with judicial inquiry into the case. This Court does not subscribe to the CAs position that the prosecution had nothing to go on with. WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the Court of Appeals decision dated December 19, 2007 and resolution dated March 25, 2008, and AFFIRMS and REINSTATES the Regional Trial Courts order dated April 23, 2007