You are on page 1of 2

Felipe, Patricia Anne Q.

2016-80073
Criminal Procedure
Atty. Salvador S. Panelo

Hao vs. People


735 SCRA 312
September 17, 2014

Facts: Manuel Dy y Awiten (Dy) invested in Haos investment house through the assistance of other co-
accused. In return, Hao also issued several checks to Dy representing his earnings for his investment. All
these checks were subsequently dishonored when Dy deposited them.
Dy filed a criminal complaint against the petitioners for syndicated estafa penalized under Article
315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended, in relation with Presidential Decree (PD) No.
1689. Judge Placido Marquez issued warrants of arrest against the petitioners and the other accused.
Consequently petitioners immediately filed a motion to defer arraignment and motion to lift
warrant of arrest. In their twin motions, they invoked the absence of probable cause against them and the
pendency of their petition for review with the Department of Justice. In its February 26, 2004 order, the
trial court denied the petitioners twin motions. The petitioners moved for reconsideration but the trial
court also denied this in its July 26, 2004 order. On appeal, the motion was also denied.
As the petitioners alleged, they filed a petition for review with the DOJ on November 21, 2003. Since this
petition had not been resolved yet, they claimed that their arraignment should be suspended indefinitely.

Issue: Whether arraignment may proceed despite the pendency of petition for review of the resolution of
the prosecutor with the DOJ
Held: Yes. Under Section 11(c), Rule 116 of the Rules of Court, an arraignment may be suspended if
there is a petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor pending at either the DOJ, or the Office of
the President. However, such period of suspension should not exceed sixty (60) days counted from the
filing of the petition with the reviewing office.
The right of an accused to have his arraignment suspended is not an unqualified right. In Spouses
Trinidad v. Ang, 641 SCRA 214 (2011), we explained that while the pendency of a petition for review is a
ground for suspension of the arraignment, the Rules limit the deferment of the arraignment to a period of
60 days reckoned from the filing of the petition with the reviewing office. It follows, therefore, that after
the expiration of the 60-day period, the trial court is bound to arraign the accused or to deny the motion to
defer arraignment.
As the trial court found in its February 26, 2004 order, the DOJs delay in resolving the
petitioners petition for review had already exceeded 60 days. Since the suspension of the petitioners
arraignment was already beyond the period allowed by the Rules, the petitioners motion to suspend
completely lacks any legal basis.
Felipe, Patricia Anne Q.
2016-80073
Criminal Procedure
Atty. Salvador S. Panelo

People v. Marcelino
625 SCRA 632
July 26, 2010

Facts: Police officers received a report that accused Elizabeth was engaged in illegal drug activities.
When the test-buy confirmed that Elizabeth was indeed selling illegal drugs, a team was formed to
conduct a buy-bust operation. SPO1 Dela Cruz and his asset went to meet Elizabeth and asked to
buy shabu worth five hundred pesos (PhP 500). Once Elizabeth had handed the shabu to SPO1 Dela
Cruz, he gave the pre-arranged signal, prompting SPO3 Felix Dela Cruz to approach them. SPO3 Dela
Cruz recovered the marked PhP 500 bill and another sachet of suspected shabu from Elizabeth.

Elizabeth argues that her arrest was illegal and that buy-bust operation should never be used as a
cover for an illegal warrantless search and arrest.

Issue: Whether the Elizabeths arrest was valid


Held: Yes.
Under Rule 113, Sec. 5(a) of the Rules of Court, 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 a crime.
In People v. Villamin, 612 SCRA 91 (2010), involving an accused arrested after he sold drugs
during a buy-bust operation, the Court ruled that it was a circumstance where a warrantless arrest is
justified under Rule 113, Sec. 5(a) of the Rules of Court.
The same ruling applies to the instant case. When carried out with due regard for constitutional
and legal safeguards, it is a judicially sanctioned method of apprehending those involved in illegal drug
activities. It is a valid form of entrapment, as the idea to commit a crime comes not from the police
officers but from the accused himself. The accused is caught in the act and must be apprehended on the
spot. From the very nature of a buy-bust operation, the absence of a warrant does not make the arrest
illegal.