People of the Philippines v.

Rogelio Mengote Facts: The Western Police District received a telephone call from an informer that there were three suspicious-looking persons at the corner of Juan Luna and North Bay Boulevard in Tondo anila! Later on" surveillance team went to that place and two of them saw two men looking from side to side" and one of them is holding his a#domen! The two patrolmen" $onaldo ercado and %l#erto Juan approached the two suspicious persons and introduced themselves as policemen! The two tried to escape #ut they did not succeed! %fterwhich" the suspects were then searched and accused-appelant was found to #e in possession of !&' cali#er (mith and Wesson revolver with si) #ullets in the cham#er and his companion had a fan knife secreted in his pocket! The said weapons were taken from them and engote and orellos were taken to the police head*uarters for investigation! $ogelio engote was then charged with illegal possession of firearms under PD No!+',, #efore the $egional Trial -ourt of anila! %ppellant contends that the weapon was not admissi#le as evidence and it was an illegal sei.ure #ecause no warrant was issued! Neither could have #een sei.ed as an incident to a lawful arrest #ecause his arrest is also unlawful for not having effected with a warrant of a arrest! /n the other hand" the (olicitor 0eneral said that the actual e)istence of an offense was not necessary as long as engote1s acts created a reasona#le suspicion on the part of the arresting officers and induced the #elief that an offense had #een committed and that the accused-appellant had committed it!(uch arrest was in accordance with $ule ++& (ection 2 of the $ules of -ourt Issue: Whether or not the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant Ruling: No! The (upreme -ourt held that (ection 2 of $ule ++& under the $ules of court is inapplica#le in the case at #ar! (ec! 2! Arrest without warrant when lawful. 3 % peace officer or private person may" without a warrant" arrest a person4 5a6 When" in his presence" the person to #e arrested has committed" is actually committing" or is attempting to commit an offense4 5#6 When an offense has in fact 7ust #een committed" and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to #e arrested has committed it4 and engote was lawful

5c6 When the person to #e arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal esta#lishment or place where he is serving final 7udgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending" or has escaped while #eing transferred from one confinement to another! The prosecution had not shown that at the time of engote1s arrest an offense had in fact 7ust #een committed and that the arresting officers had personal knowledge of facts indicating that engote had committed it! %ll they had was a hearsay information from a telephone caller a#out a crime that had yet to #e committed! The re*uirements under (ec!2 have not #een esta#lished in the case at #ar! %t the time of the arrest" the accused-appelant was merely looking from side to side and holding his a#domen according to the police officers themselves! There was no offense that had 7ust #een committed or was #eing actually committed or attempted to commit #y the accused in the presence of the police officers! Thus" accused-appellant is ac*uitted and ordered to #e released immediately!

Rolito Go v. Court of Appeals Facts: Private $espondent 8ldon aguan was driving his car along Wilson (t! (an Juan etro anila heading towards P! 0uevarra (t! While petitioner entered a one-way street and started to travel the wrong direction! agnua1s car and petitioner collided with each other! Petitioner then got out of his car and then shot aguan inside his car and left! % security guard was a#le to get the car1s plate num#er and upon verification" it was found out that thecar #elong to one 8lsa %ng 0o! (i) days later" the petitioner went to the police station with his two lawyers to verify information that he is #eing hunted #y the police! The police then detained him! %n eyewitness to the shooting identified him as the culprit! % complaint for frustrated murder was filed against him with the office of the Provincial Prosecutor while the complaint was still with the prosecutor" the victim died! Therefore" the prosecutor filed an information #efore the $T-! /n that same day" counsel for petitioner filed an omni#us motion for immediate release and proper preliminary investigation on the ground that the warrantless arrest was unlawful and no preliminary investigation was conducted! Petitioner prayed for the posting of #ail and it was granted #y the Prosecutor! Petiitoner filed an urgent e)-parte motion for special raffle to e)pedite the #ail recommendation! The case was raffled to the sala of respondent Judge who granted the cash #ond and released the petitioner! 9our days later" Prosecutor filed a motion for leave to conduct preliminary investigation and prayed for the suspension of the proceedings! The motion foe leave was granted and the scheduled date for arraignment was cancelled! Petitioner then filed a motion for certiorari" prohi#ition and mandamus on the ground that no preliminary investigation was conducted! Issue: Whether or not the arrest of petitioner 0o was lawful Ruling: No! The (upreme -ourt held that the warrantless arrest of petitioner does not fall within conditions set forth under (ec!2 $ule ++& of the +:'2 $ules on -riminal Procedure which states that (ec! 2! Arrest without warrant when lawful. 3 % peace officer or private person may" without a warrant" arrest a person4 5a6 When" in his presence" the person to #e arrested has committed" is actually committing" or is attempting to commit an offense4 5#6 When an offense has in fact 7ust #een committed" and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to #e arrested has committed it4 and

5c6 When the person to #e arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal esta#lishment or place where he is serving final 7udgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending" or has escaped while #eing transferred from one confinement to another!

Petitioner1s arrest took place , days after the shooting of the victim! The arresting officers were not present during the said incident" thus it is not within the meaning of (ec!2 a! Neither the arrest effected , days after the shooting is within the meaning of (ection 2 #! Which states that an arrestinf officer or a private person may without warrant arrest a person when an offense has in fact 7ust #een committed" and he had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to #e arrested has committed it! %t the time of the incident" the police officers were not present thus they don1t have personal knowledge of facts that petitioner was the gunman! They merely relied on the statements of alleges eyewitnesses to the shooting!

People of the Philippines v. Rolando Manlulu Facts: 0erardo %lfaro"a N%$-/ agent was sta##ed and shot with his service pistol in a drinking spree with anlapa. (amson and anlulu! ;e died the following day! anlulu and (amson were arrested +: hours after the incident! Patrolman $eynaldo Pere. arrested anlulu on the information given #y anlapa. who was also present during the incident! During the arrest" Pere. sei.ed !<2 cali#er pistol and -asio wristwatch which #elonged to the victim without warrant and without informing the accused right to counsel! Issue: Whether or not the arrest and sei.ure is valid Ruling: No! The (upreme -ourt held that the arrest and sei.ure was invalid! The killing took place at one o1clock in the morning and the conse*uent search and sei.ure were effected at seven o1clock that evening! This instance does not come within the purview of a valid warrantless arrest! Paragraph 5#6 (ec!2 $ule ++& of the +:'2 $ules on -riminal Procedure provides that the arresting officer must have =personal knowledge> of an offense which has in fact 7ust #een committed! ?n this case" Patromen Pere. don1t have personal knowledge nor the offense in fact 7ust #een committed! The law re*uires personal knowledge not personal gathering of information! The rule re*uires that the arrest immediately follows the commission of the offense" not some +: hours later! ;owever" even if the arrest and sei.ure was invalid" the prosecution was a#le to prove the guilt #eyond reasona#le dou#t! The illegality of the warrantless arrest cannot deprive the state of its right to prosecute the guilty when all other facts on record point to their culpa#ility!

People of the Philippines v. Zenaida Bolasa Facts: %n informer told the police that an illegal transaction of prohi#ited drugs were #eing conducted at a certain house in (ta! Brigida (t! @aruhatan Aalen.uela etro anila! P/& (alonga and -ari.on together with (P/+ 9ernando %renas immediately proceed to the said house! Bpon reaching the house" they peeped through a small window and saw a man and woman repacking suspected mari7uana! They enter the house and introduce themselves as police officers and confiscated the tea #ag and other drug paraphernalia!%fterwhich" the police officers arrested the two"Cenaida Bolasa and $o#erto de los $eyes! Bpon e)amination #y the NB?" the tea #ags were confirmed as mari7uana! Cenaida Bolasa and $o#erto de los $eyes were charged with violation of (ec!' of %rticle ?? of $epu#lic %ct ,<D2 otherwise known as Dangerous Drugs %ct of +:ED! The $T- convicted them of the crime charged! %ccused Bolasa asserts that the search and her arrest was illegal! (he insists that the trial court should not regard the testimony of P/& c-ari.on credi#le #ecause he does not have personal knowledge regarding the conduct of the arrest and search making his testimony a hearsay! Issue: Whether or not the arrest and sei.ure were valid Ruling: No! The (upreme -ourt held that the arrest was invalid #ecause the arresting officers had no personal knowledge that at the time of their arrest" accused-apellants had 7ust committed" were committing or a#out to commit a crime! The arresting officers also have no personal knowledge that a crime was committed nor have a reasona#le ground to #elieve that the accused committed the crime! %nd accused appellants were not prisoners who have escaped from a penal esta#lishment! With respect to the sei.ure of the tea #ags"the court held that it is also invalid #ecause the o#7ects were not sei.ed in plain view! There was no valid intrusion and the evidence was not inadvertently discovered! The police officers intentionally peeped through the window to ascertain the activities of appellants inside the room! ?n like manner" the search cannot #e categori.ed as a search of a moving vehicle" a consented warrantless arrest" a customs search" or a stop and frisk situations! The court stated that the arresting officers should have first conducted a surveillance considering that the identities and addressed of the suspected culprits were already ascertained! %fter conducting the surveillance and determining the e)istence of pro#a#le cause" they should have secured a warrant prior to effecting a valid arrest and sei.ure! The arrest #eing illegal a#

initio" the accompanying search was also illegal! 8very evidence thus o#tained during the illegal search cannot #e used against the accused-appellants! The court held that the (tate cannot in a cavalier fashion intrude into the persons of citi.ens as well as into their houses" papers and effects! The -ourt enumerated the e)ceptions as followsF +! Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest4 D! (earch of evidence in Gplain view!The elements of the plain view doctrine areF 5a6 a prior valid intrusion #ased on the valid warrantless arrest in which the policeare legally present in the pursuit of their official duties4 5#6 the evidence was inadvertently discovered #y the police who havethe right to #e where they are4 5c6 the evidence must #e immediately apparent4 and" 5d6 Hplain viewH 7ustified mere sei.ure of evidence without further search!

&! (earch of a moving vehicle! ;ighly regulated #y the government" the vehicles inherent mo#ility reduces e)pectation of privacy especially when its transit in pu#lic thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasona#le suspicion amounting to pro#a#le causethat the occupant committed a criminal activity 4<! -onsented warrantless search 42! -ustoms search 4,! (top and 9risk4 and E! 8)igent and emergency circumstances!

-iting the $ules of -riminal Procedure on lawful warrantless arrest" the -ourt stated that an arrest is lawful even in thea#sence of a warrant F5a6 when the person to #e arrested has committed" is actually committing" or is a#out to commit an offense in his presence45 #6 when an offense has in fact #een committed and he has reasona#le ground to #elieve that the person to #e arrested has committed it4 and" 5c6 when the person to #e arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal esta#lishment or place where he is serving final 7udgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending" or has escaped while #eing transferred from one confinement toanother! 5% person charged with an

offense may #e searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may #e used as proof of the commission of the offense

People v. Escordial Facts: The $egional Trial -ourt found accused %nthony 8scordial guilty of the crime of ro##ery with rape! /n Decem#er DE"+::," two children were playing inside a 7eepney parked in front of a #oarding house! Later" appellant told them to go home! While the three #oarders were sleeping" one of them was awakened #y the presence of the man! This man had his head covered with a t-shirt to prevent identification and carried a knife a#out four inches long! ;e asked for her money and was a#le to get P2II from her! (he then turned to the other petitioners who were already awake #y that time and was a#le to take P&+II from ichelle and none from Teresa #ecause her #ag was in the other room! %fter taking the money" they were told to #lindfold one another! ;e then proceeded to have carnal knowledge with ichelle! %fter he finished raping ichelle" he sat down on the #ed and talked to the women! ;e then raped ichelle for the second time" threatening her so she1d concede that it would #e much worse if he1d call others 5companions6 from outside to rape her! %fter which he left! P/& Tancinco was one of those who responded to the crime! % report was made in the police station! (u#se*uent searches" through the descriptions of the petitioners" the children playing in the 7eep in front of the #oarding house" and others led to the pinpointing of accusedappellant! %ccused was playing in #asket#all when the police =invited> him to the Pontevedra police station for *uestioning! %t the station ichelle saw him and she identified him as his alleged ro##er and rapist! ;e was also #rought to the Bacolod police station so that the other witnesses could identify him! They picked him out of four in the line-up! %ccused claims that he went home to Pontevedra" Negros /ccidental at the time of the incident as testified #y three other witnesses for the defense! %ccused-appellant *uestions the legality of his arrest without a warrant! Issue: Whether or not the warrantless arrest is valid Ruling: The (upreme -ourt held that the warrantless arrest was invalid #ut it was cured #y the accused-appellant1s failure to *uestion the legality of his arrest #efore entering his plea to the crime charged against him! $ule ++& (ec! 2 of the $evised $ules of -riminal Procedure provides that a peace officer or private person may" without a warrant" arrest a person only under the following circumstancesF a! When in his presence" the person to #e arrested has committed" is actually committing or is attempting to commit an offense #! When a n offense had 7ust #een committed and he has pro#a#le cause to #elieve #ased on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to #e arrested has committed it and

c! When the person to #e arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal esta#lishment or place where he is serving final 7udgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending" or has escaped while #eing transferred from one confinement to another! The cases at #ar do not fall under paragraphs 5a6 or5 c6 of the afore*uoted rule! %t the time of the arrest" accused-appellant was watching a #asket#all game in the #asket#all court in Barangay iranda Pontevedra Negros /ccidental! ;e was not committing or attempting to commit a crime when he was arrested #y the police officers! Nor was he an escaped prisoner whose arrest could #e effected even without a warrant! ?n these cases" the crime took place on Decem#er DE"+::, and was arrested only on January &" +::E" a week after the occurrence of the crime! %s the arrestingofficers were not present when the crime was committed" they could not have =personalknowledge of the facts and circumstances of the commission of the crime>! Personal knowledge of facts in arrests without a warrant must #e #ased upon =pro#a#le cause> which means =an actual #elief or reasona#le grounds of suspicion!> 5$easona#leF in the a#sence of actual #elief of the arresting officers" the suspicion that the person to #e arrested is pro#a#ly guilty of committing the offense is #ased on actual facts6 The records show that accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged against him during his arraignment without *uestioning his warrantless arrest! ;e thus waived o#7ection to the legality of his arrest!

People of the Philippines v. Facts:

enceslao !a"son

%ccused-appellant Wenceslao Jayson was charged with violation of P!D!+',, in the $egional Trial -ourt of Davao -ity! /n the evening of arch +,"+::+ accused-appellant" a #ouncer at the ?haw-?haw nightclu# in Bonifacio (treet Davao -ity shot one Nelson Jordan! ;e was arrested after eyewitnesses pinpointed him as the gunman! The police officers recovered from him a !&' cali#er revolver containing four #ullets and one empty shell! The firearm and ammunition were covered #y memorandum receipt and mission order issued #y a7or 9rancisco %r*uillano" Deputy -ommander of the -ivil- ilitary /peration and -%90B %ffairs of the Davao etropolitan District -ommand Wwhich authori.ed appellant to intensify intelligence coverage! /n arch DI"+::+ he was charged with murder #ut after plea-#argaining he was allowed to plead guilty to the lesser offense of homicide! /n July +2"+::+ he was charged with illegal possession of firearms and later amended to allege that the firearm su#7ect of the charge has #een used in the killing of a certain Nelson Jordan! /n June +E"+::& he was found guilty #y the regional Trial -ourt and sentenced him to DI years imprisonment! %ccused-appellant maintains that he acted in good faith #elief that he was authori.ed to carry the firearm #y virtue of the mission order and memorandum receipt issued #y a7or %r*uillano! Issue: Whether or not the accused-appellants arrest was lawful Ruling: Jes! The (upreme -ourt held that under $ule ++& (ec! 25#6 of the $evised $ules of -riminal Procedure provides that (ec! 2! %rrest without warrant when lawful- % peace officer or private person may" withour a warrant arrest a person!!!!! #6When an offense has in fact 7ust #een committed and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to #e arrested has committed it!

?n this case"three patrolmen received a radio message from their camp which directs them to proceed to ?haw-?haw where there had #een a shooting! They proceed to the said place and saw the victim! 8yewitnesses pointed to accused-appellant as the gunman! Thus" the police officers had personal knowledge that the accused-appellant was the culprit! The su#se*uent search of accused-appellants person and sei.ure was likewise lawful! $ule +D, (ec!, provides that #ec.$%. #earch incident to a la&ful arrest- A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without search warrant.

People v. #alvatierra Facts: /n %ugust +E"+::I While -harlie 9ernande." a palamig vendor was walking along ! De la 9uente (t! going towards Kuiapo" three persons met him and one of them was appellant David (alvatierra who lunged a pointed instrument at -harlie hitting the latter1s left #reast which resulted to his death! /n Novem#er +2"+::I the police station received a complaint that appellant caused a commotion along inguelin (t! (ampaloc anila! ;e was there#y taken into custody #y Pat! -elso Tan and two other policemen who later found out that appellant was a suspect in the killing of -harlie 9ernande.! ;e was then turned over to the Western Police District! 9our days later" appellant was charged with murder! Bpon arraignment" he pleaded not guilty! %ppellant put up the defense of ali#i that he was with hi wife and children having merienda at home! ;e claims that his constitutional right against warrantless arrests was violated #ecause the record doesn1t show that his arrest for the minor offense of malicious mischief was effected #y virtue of a warrant together with the killing of -harlie 9ernande." which arrest was made & months after the commission of the crime! ;e said that his arrest was illegal Issue: Whether or not there was a violation of appellant1s constitutional right against warrantless arrest Ruling: No! The (upreme court held that while the arguments may #e valid" appellant is estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest considering that he never raised the issue #efore entering his plea! %ny o#7ection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure in the ac*uisition of 7urisdiction over the person of an accused must #e made #efore he enters his plea! ?n this case" this is the first time that appellant is raising the issue of legality of his arrest! oreover" the irregularity attendant to his arrest has #een cured #y his voluntary su#mission to the 7urisdiction of the trial court when he entered his plea and participated during the trial!

People v. 'ernande( Facts: /n January D+" +::D" at a#out &F&I p!m!" accused Loren.o drove 8va to the ?mmaculate -oncepcion %cademy to get (harleen! ;e parked the car in the schoolLs parking lot and 8va alighted to get (harleen! inutes later" 8va and (harleen returned to the car! (harleen took the #ackseat" #ehind the driver! While 8va was starting to #oard #eside (harleen" an unidentified man sit #eside her and warned her not to shout! %fter DI minutes" the car slowed down in front of an iron gate and the man in the front seat and (harleen got out of the car! %fter a couple of minutes" the man release the nanny to inform her employer of (harleenLs ransom! 8va called up her employerLs house" recounted the incident and asked that she #e picked up at Paterno (treet! inutes later" (amson -heng" (harleenLs uncle" fetched 8va and #rought her #ack to the Tan residence!MDN (harleenLs father" received a call from one of the kidnappers demanding a +I ransom! They haggled in the amount and reached no agreement! The police then left TanLs house!M&N Thereafter" several phone calls were made #y the kidnappers to the Tan family! Jacinto asked for a lower ransom in the amount of <I:"III wherein the kidnappers agreed and instructed Jacinto to leave the money in a gar#age can in front of the Town and -ountry Lodge in /ld (ta! esa" anila! Jacinto complied and then returned to his house to await the call of the kidnappers on (harleenLs release! % week later"the kidnappers again called up the Tan residence! They informed Jacinto that they had released (harleen and left her at the Perpetual ;elp ;ospital in 8spaOa" anila! Jacinto rushed to the hospital and found (harleen who was e)tremely traumati.ed #y the incident! Jacinto himself suffered from nervous #reakdown!M2N %n intensive manhunt was launched to capture the kidnappers of (harleen! -?( -hief ?nspector a7or $u#en Cacarias organi.ed two 5D6 teams to conduct the hunt! The team composed of (P/& 0regorio -uachon and (P/+ Danilo T! (alas and headed #y ?nspector Warlito Platon was directed to verify the information that (harleen was hidden #y accused %lfredo Tumaneng in a house at P+2 @ennedy (treet" $oad DI" Pro7ect '" Kue.on -ity! /fficers -uachon and (alas conducted a discreet surveillance of the area and were a#le to verify the information! They also found out that accused Tumaneng had left the safehouse and has transferred to ayupis" ala#on" etro anila! (even 5E6 suspects were identified #y the -?(! 9ive of them" namely" ;ernande." Tumaneng" Loren.o" Jaco# and 9amodulan" were captured #y the -?( operatives! 8ach e)ecuted an e)tra7udicial confession which #ecame the #asis of the criminal charge against them! Bpon arraignment" the five accused pleaded not guilty! During pendency of the trial" accused ;ernande. and Jaco# escaped from detention! They were tried in a#sentia! %ppellant Tumaneng and Loren.o contends that their warrantless arrest was illegal and their e)tra7udicial confession were o#tained without the #enefit of a competent and independent counsel of their own choice!

/n the other hand" appellant 9amodulan contends that he was not positively identified as one of the conspirators and he was arrested and investigated in violation f his constitutional rights! Issue: Whether or not the warrantless arrests were illegal Ruling: The (upreme -ourt held that appellants were arrested without the #enefit of a warrant and under circumstances other than 7ustifying a warrantless arrest! -learly" their warrantless arrests violated the -onstitution #ut such was cured #y the failure of the appellants to move for the *uashing of the information #efore the arraignment! ?n the case at #ar" #y entering a plea of not guilty and participating in the trial" appellants waived their right to challenge the legality of their arrest!