People vs Tonog, Jr.

G.R. No. 94533

February 4, 1992
Facts:
Dumaguete City Police Station received a report that a lifeless body was found who was
later identified as Efren Flores. Based from the investigation, a motorcab stopped near the place
where the deceased was found. It was also revealed that Ignacio Tonog, Jr. was the one who was
responsible for his death and that prior to the incident, there were grudges between the two.
Without warrant, police officers went to Bacong, Negros Oriental, and upon being invited for
questioning, voluntarily went with the law enforcers unaccompanied by a counsel. While they
were on their way to the police station, it was noticed that there were blood stains the the
accuseds pants and when asked about it, he said that it was from a pig. He was then requested
to take off his pants for examination.
At the station, he confessed his guilt but was not recorded. After a month, the pants and
the knife found were brought to the Cebu crime lab and found that the blood was the same as
the victims.
One of the witnesses, Liberato Solamillo, testified that while drinking with the accused
and a certain Allan. The accused left with certain Biyok. At around 11pm, Liberato and Allan
rode a motorcab to look for the accused. They then saw the victim and requested to convey him
to Dumaguete. Allan left and when it fauled to return, Liberato decided to ride a pedicab. On
his way, he saw the motorcab, and when he proceeded to the motorcab, he saw Tonog with
inside and noticed the blood stains on his pants.
All the facts were denied by the accused and that he only confessed because he was told
to do so. Charged with three others, Ignacio Tonog was convicted of murder.
Issue:
Whether the trial court faulted in admitting the pants and knife as evidence since they
were taken during a warrantless arrest?
Rule:
The "acid-washed maong" pants were admissible in evidence, They were taken from
Accused-appellant as an incident of his arrest. It may be that the police officers were not armed
with a warrant when they apprehended Accused-Appellant. The warrantless arrest, however,
was justified under Section 5(b), Rule 133 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure providing
that a peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person "when an offense has in fact just been
committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has
committed it." In this case, Pat. Leguarda, in effecting the arrest of Accused-appellant, had
knowledge of facts gathered by him personally in the course of his investigation indicating that
Accused-appellant was one of the perpetrators.

The "maong" pants having been taken from Accused-appellant as an incident to a lawful arrest,
no infirmity may be attributed to their seizure without a warrant. Section 12 of Rule 126 of the
Rules of Court explicitly provides that "A person charges with an offense may be searched for
dangerous weapons or any thing which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense."