RULE 113 HELD:
PEOPLE VS. VASQUEZ
FACTS:
 Vasquez is unlawfully, wilfully and
knowingly sell drugs “shabu”.
 On arraignment in RTC, Vasquez is
pleaded guilty of the charges of
possession and selling illegal drugs.
 According to Police Inspector Fajardo
testified (during trial) that a
confidential informant went to office
and reported that Vasquez was
engaged in illegal drug activity.
According to that informant, Vasquez
is an employee of NBI and if he
would present potential buyer,
Vasquez promised him good
commission.
 They set buy bust operation and went
to the address that Vasquez suggested
exchanging the materials, Fajardo
gave the signal to the team. They
arrested the 2 suspects and Fajardo
took the custody of the “shabu”.
 Household helper heard a knock.
There are 2 men entered in the house
of Vasquez while the latter is
sleeping. He woke up hearing the
noise. Those policemen opened the
cabinet and got the drug specimen.
(tinutukan sila)
RTC: Convicted (given presumption of
regularity on the performance of
duty). Vasquez failed to present any
evidence that would show that the
police officer have evil motive to
charge him.
CA: Affirmed.
ISSUE: Whether or not the arrest
made is valid.
Yes.
As the Rules of Court, Rule 113 recognize
permissible warrantless arrest to wit: 1.)
Arrest is flagrante delicto 2.) Arrest affected
in hot pursuit 3.) Arrest of escaped prisoners.
Hence, Vasquez was caught flagrante delicto
of selling illegal drugs to an undercover
police officer in a buy bust operation. Hence,
this arrest falls under (5) Sec. of ROC 113,
when arrest is made without warrant deemed
lawful.
Under Rules of Court 115. One of the rights
of the accused is to have an opportunity to be
heard. Jurisprudence provides that pre-
suspension hearing is basically a due process
requirement which gives the accused public
official opportunity to be heard on his
possible defenses. It is well settled that an
opportunity to be heard does not only mean
oral argument in court; one may be heard
also through pleading. Here, the petitioner
filed 1.) Vigorous Opposition 2.) Moved for
reconsideration of the suspension order and
3.) Filed a reply to the Office of Special
Prosecutors Opposition to plea for
reconsideration.
Hence, the Court held that the demand for the
conduct of an actual pre-suspension hearing
has legally nothing to anchor itself on.