People v Gerente

Facts:
Gerente together with 2 persons was accused of and was found guilty of killing Blace by
bludgeoning the latter using a piece of wood and a concrete hollow block. The planning and the act
killing of Blace was witnessed by Edna Reyes and informed the authorities of said crime. The policemen
went to accused-appellants house and arrested Gerente while the other 2 persons are still at large.
Gerente appealed contending that the arrest and search and seizure was illegal because the same was
conducted without a warrant
Issue:
WON the arrest and the search and seizure is illegal
Ruling:
No. the arrest and the search and seizure is not illegal. The arrest without a warrant in this case
was grounded on Sec.5 Rule 113 of the Revised ROC. Par (a) and (b)
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense;"
(b) 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; . the police offer has personal knowledge that Gerente
committed a crime from Edna Reyes’ information.
The search was also lawful since it was done as an incident to a lawful arrest and was done as
a precautionary measure. It is in accordance with Sec. 12 Rule 126 of ROC:
SECTION 12. Search incident to lawful 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
a search warrant."

People v Doria
Facts:
The NARCOM received an information that one Jun was engaged in illegal drug activities. In lieu
of the information that NARCOM decided to entrap and arrest jun through a buy-bust operation

Issue:
WON the arrest is of Jun/Doria is valid
WON the arrest of Neneth/Gaddao and search of her house is valid
Ruling:
Yes the arrest of Jun/Doria is valid under Under Section 5 (a), as abovequoted,
A person may be arrested without a warrant if he "has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense." Appellant Doria was caught in the act of committing an offense
which is the selling of the drugs. When an accused is apprehended in flagrante delicto as a result of a
buybust operation, the police are not only authorized but duty bound to arrest him even without a
warrant.

No. the arrest of Neneth/Gaddao is illegal. She was could be arrested under Sec5. Of Rule 113
since she was not committing any crime. the Narcom agents had no reasonable grounds to believe that
she was engaged in drug pushing. If there is no showing that the person who effected the warrantless
arrest had, in his own right, knowledge of facts implicating the person arrested to the perpetration of
a criminal offense, the arrest is legally objectionable.
Consequently since the arrest is illegal the search of her person and home.
The "plain view" doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer
in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can
view a particular area; (b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately
apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise
subject to seizure.

The marijuana was not in plain view and its seizure without the requisite search warrant was in violation
of the law and the Constitution.[135] It was fruit of the poisonous tree and should have been excluded
and never considered by the trial court.

probable cause, meaning the existence of such facts and circumstances which
would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has
been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in
the place to be searched