RULE 113 : ARREST

Section 2. Arrest How made.

1. Luz v. People, G.R. No. 197788, February 29, 2012.

Facts: Rodel Luz, petitioner was charge with illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The facts of the case
are as follows: PO2 Emmanuel L. Alteza, who was then assigned at the Sub-Station 1 of the Naga City
Police Station as a traffic enforcer, substantially testified that on March 10, 2003 at around 3:00 oclock in
the morning, he saw the accused, who was coming from the direction of Panganiban Drive and going to
Diversion Road, Naga City, driving a motorcycle without a helmet; that this prompted him to flag down
the accused for violating a municipal ordinance which requires all motorcycle drivers to wear helmet (sic)
while driving said motor vehicle; that he invited the accused to come inside their sub-station since the
place where he flagged down the accused is almost in front of the said sub-station; that while he and SPO1
Rayford Brillante were issuing a citation ticket for violation of municipal ordinance, he noticed that the
accused was uneasy and kept on getting something from his jacket; that he was alerted and so, he told
the accused to take out the contents of the pocket of his jacket as the latter may have a weapon inside it;
that the accused obliged and slowly put out the contents of the pocket of his jacket which was a nickel-
like tin or metal container about two (2) to three (3) inches in size, including two (2) cellphones, one (1)
pair of scissors and one (1) Swiss knife; that upon seeing the said container, he asked the accused to open
it; that after the accused opened the container, he noticed a cartoon cover and something beneath it; and
that upon his instruction, the accused spilled out the contents of the container on the table which turned
out to be four (4) plastic sachets, the two (2) of which were empty while the other two (2) contained
suspected shabu.

RTC Ruling: the RTC convicted petitioner of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. It found the prosecution
evidence sufficient to show that he had been lawfully arrested for a traffic violation and then subjected
to a valid search, which led to the discovery on his person of two plastic sachets later found to
contain shabu.

CA Ruling: CA affirmed the RTCs Decision.

ISSUE: W/N there is a lawful arrest and whether the search and seizure of the alleged subject shabu is
valid/lawful.

Supreme Court Ruling: NO. there was no valid arrest of petitioner.

When he was flagged down for committing a traffic violation, he was not, ipso facto and solely for this
reason, arrested. Under R.A. 4136, or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, the general procedure for
dealing with a traffic violation is not the arrest of the offender, but the confiscation of the drivers license.

At the time that he was waiting for PO3 Alteza to write his citation ticket, petitioner could not be said to
have been under arrest. . Hence, it was only for the sake of convenience that they were waiting in the
sub-station . There was no intention to take petitioner into custody.
According to City Ordinance No. 98-012, which was violated by petitioner, the failure to wear a crash
helmet while riding a motorcycle is penalized by a fine only. Under the Rules of Court, a warrant of arrest
need not be issued if the information or charge was filed for an offense penalized by a fine only. This ruling
does not imply that there can be no arrest for a traffic violation. Certainly, when there is an intent on the
part of the police officer to deprive the motorist of liberty, or to take the latter into custody, the former
may be deemed to have arrested the motorist. In this case, however, the officers issuance (or intent to
issue) a traffic citation ticket negates the possibility of an arrest for the same violation.

This Court has held that at the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting officer
to inform the latter of the reason for the arrest and must show that person the warrant of arrest, if any.
Persons shall be informed of their constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel, and that any
statement they might make could be used against them.[14] It may also be noted that in this case, these
constitutional requirements were complied with by the police officers only after petitioner had been
arrested for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

Second, there being no valid arrest, the warrantless search that resulted from it was likewise illegal.

The following are the instances when a warrantless search is allowed: (i) a warrantless search incidental
to a lawful arrest; (ii) search of evidence in plain view; (iii) search of a moving vehicle; (iv) consented
warrantless search; (v) customs search; (vi) a stop and frisk search; and (vii) exigent and emergency
circumstances.[15] None of the above-mentioned instances, especially a search incident to a lawful arrest,
are applicable to this case.
It must be noted that the evidence seized, although alleged to be inadvertently discovered, was not in
plain view. It was actually concealed inside a metal container inside petitioners pocket.

Neither was there a consented warrantless search. Consent to a search is not to be lightly inferred, but
shown by clear and convincing evidence.

Neither does the search qualify under the stop and frisk rule. While the rule normally applies when a
police officer observes suspicious or unusual conduct, which may lead him to believe that a criminal act
may be afoot, the stop and frisk is merely a limited protective search of outer clothing for weapons

Petitioner must be acquitted. While he may have failed to object to the illegality of his arrest at the earliest
opportunity, a waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not, however, mean a waiver of the
inadmissibility of evidence seized during the illegal warrantless arrest. The subject items seized during the
illegal arrest are inadmissible. Thus, their inadmissibility precludes conviction and calls for the acquittal of
the accused.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Petitioner Rodel Luz y Ong is hereby ACQUITTED.
SECTION 8. Method of Arrest by Officer Without Warrant.
1. People v. Tan, G.R. Nos. 116200-02. June 21, 2001.

RULE 114 : Bail

Section 8 Burden of Proof in Application of Bail

Criselda C. Gacad vs. Judge Hilarion P. Clapis, Jr.
A.M. No. RTJ-10-2257

Facts:

Criselda Gacad led a complaint against Judge Clapis for Grave Misconduct and Ignorance of the Law and
other violations of the canon.

In her complaint, Criselda Gacad said that she along with her father and sister-in-law filed a murder complaint
of her brother Gregorio against Rodolfo Comania before the Provincial Prosecutors Office where they met
prosecutor Arafol. Gacad said Arafol even advised her not to hire a private lawyer. Also, Arafol even
suggested to Criselda to meet Judge Clapis so he would deny the Motion for Reinvestigation to be led by
accused Rodolfo and that Criselda should prepare P50,000.00 for Judge Clapis.

They met Clapis at the Golden Palace Hotel wherein they talk about the case. Judge Clapis asked What do
you want me to do? Arafol said they wanted to have the motion denied. Arafol added: Wag kang mag-alala,
may handa siya sa iyo. The judge then said Leave it to me, well crush them!

The next day, a cash of P50,000.00 was allegedly given to Clapis at Mikos Coffee Bar. And on January 2010,
Gacad received a court order handed down by Clapis denying the accused motion for reconsideration.

Then, Arafol told Gacad the Judge would be borrowing 50k for the his mothers hospital bills but Gacad failed
to produce the amount. Since then, Gacad said that Arafol and Judge Clapis began to play different hideous
schemes to prejudice their case. Judge Clapis then set hearings on 4 February, 8 February and 1 March 2010,
but notices for hearings were only mailed on 1 March 2010 and were received by Gacad on 3 march 2010.
Judge Clapis also set a hearing for petition for bail on March 29, which Gacad was never notified. Even
without a written petition for bail, Judge Clapis calendared the hearing for the petition for bail on 12, 13 and 14
of April 2010. The petition for bail was eventually granted by Judge Clapis.

ISSUE: W/N Clapis is guilty for Grave Misconduct and Ignorance of the Law.

Ruling: Yes. Judge Clapis was liable for Grave misconduct.

Investigating Justice ruled that Judge Clapis committed grave misconduct for acting contrary to the
prescribed standard of conduct for judges. AlthoughbJudge Capis could not be liable for receiving the
bribe. But no substantial evidence was given by Gacad to prove that he received such bribe. However,
Judge Clapis is liable for gross misconduct because he merely denied the allegations without providing
for evidence to support such denial.

Judge Clapis is also liable for gross ignorance of the law for failing to observer the rules in hearing the
petition for bail and to accord the prosecution due process. He is liable for gross ignorance of the law
for conducting bail hearings without a petition for bail being led by accused and without affording
prosecution an opportunity to prove the guilt of the accused is strong.

As per Section 8, the prosecution has the burden of proving that evidence of guilt is strong. The judge set
the first bail hearing on March 29 even if the Petition for Bail was led by the accused only on April 8. The
other bail hearings reveal that the prosecution was not given the chance to be heard. Gacad appeared by
herself on the 12th because her counsel requested to be relieved. While Clapis allowed her to secure a
new one, the hearing proceeded with the accused alone being given the chance to present evidence. It was
only on the last hearing that Gacad was represented by another lawyer, but after the defense completed
evidence, bail was granted. Judge didnt even question the personality, risk of flight, and other facts for
bail. He based his judgment merely on the affidavit of one prosecution witness. HE IS DISMISSED (Did
the same before).

As per Section 8, the prosecution must be given the opportunity to present evidence that guilt is strong.

Also, Judge Clapis had already been administratively sanctioned in Humol v. Clapis, Jr. where he was
fined P30,000.00 for gross ignorance of the law. In the Humol case, he was already reminded by the
court of his duties as a trial judge when an application for bails is filed, but in the present case, he ignored
the same.

Wherefore, Judge Clapis is Dismiss.