1 David vs GMA
2 Sanchez vs Demetriou Petitioner: Sanchez
Respondent: Demetriou
The PAC requested the filing of appropriate
charges against several persons, including
the petitioner in this case. Acting upon this,
the State Prosecutors of the DOJ conducted
a PI (accused was represented by his
counsel).
Meanwhile, the PNP commanded invited the
accused also for an investigation where he
was positively identified by two witnesses.
The accused was then placed on arrest
status and taken to the DOJ in Manila.
The respondent prosecutors then conducted
an inquest, with the counsel of the accused.
f.After the hearing, a warrant of arrest was
served on Sanchez, issued by Judge Enrico
A. Lanzanas of the Regional Trial Court of
Manila, Branch 7, for violation of Section 8, in
relation to Section 1, of R.A. No. 6713 (Code
of Ethics). Sanchez was forthwith taken to the
CIS Detention Center, Camp Crame, where
he remained confined.
Then the prosecutors filed 7 informations with
the RTC of Calamba, Laguna. Judge Sto.
Domingo issues WOA for the rape-slay and
killing.
3 People vs Sequino SPO Elpidio Luna went to the crime scene
where he found an abandoned motorcycle.
People who by then had milled around the
site informed Luna "that the culprit had
already fled." Luna noticed that the "bushes
were compressed" and found "a piece of
paper utilized as toilet paper with a stool on it
[which] was somewhat newly delivered." The
paper was a bio-data sheet 1with the name "
Melvida, Nenito" and the entry for the father's
name filled in with "Elpidio Melvida."
Under R.A. No. 7438, the requisites of a "custodial investigation"
are applicable even to a person not formally arrested but merely
"invited" for questioning. It should likewise be noted that at Camp
Vicente Lim, the petitioner was placed on "arrest status" after he
was pointed to by Centeno and Malabanan His arrest did not
come under Section 5, Rule 113.
The original warrantless arrest of the petitioner was
doubtless illegal. Nevertheless, the Regional Trial Court
lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the person of the
petitioner by virtue of the warrant of arrest it issued on
August 26, 1993 against him and the other accused in
connection with the rape-slay cases. It was belated, to be
sure, but it was nonetheless legal.
The rule is that if the accused objects to the jurisdiction of the
court over his person, he may move to quash the information, but
only on that ground. If, as in this case, the accused raises other
grounds in the motion to quash, he is deemed to have waived
that objection and to have submitted his person to the jurisdiction
of that court.
Pending the issuance of the warrant of arrest for the rape-
slay cases, this first warrant served as the initial justification
for his detention.
Regardless of Luna's claim to the contrary, accused Nenito
Melvida was arrested. An arrest "is the taking of a person into
custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the
commission of an offense," 44 and it is made "by an actual
restraint of the person to be arrested, or by his submission to the
custody of the person making the arrest." 4Melvida's voluntarily
going with Luna upon the latter's "invitation" was a submission to
Luna's custody, and Luna believed that Melvida was a suspect in
the robbery charged herein, hence, Melvida was being held to
answer for the commission of the said offense.
Since he was arrested without a warrant, the inquiry must now be

After finding Nenito Melvida,Luna asked
Melvida to go with him to the barangay
captain's house. Melvida hesitated at first, but
his companions prevailed upon him to go with
Luna.
The barangay captain was not home, so
Luna took Melvida to the police station
instead. Melvida was kept at the station the
whole evening of 24 April 1991 for
investigation conducted, first, by Luna, then,
by his fellow policemen Sgt. Pablo Ygot, Cpl.
Alfredo Mondigo and Eliseo Tepait, as Luna
had to take his supper. Melvida was allowed
to go home the next day, but only after the
police had filed criminal charges against him
he had posted bail. Melvida was not assisted
by counsel during the police investigation,
although Luna assured the trial judge that the
Municipal Mayor of Medellin, who is a lawyer,
was present, While Luna claimed he asked
the Mayor to act as Melvida's counsel, he
admitted that this request did not appear in
the record of the investigation. Luna's
investigation of Melvida was not reduced into
writing.
4 Defensor-Santiago vs Petitioner: MDS
Vasquez Respondents: Vasquez, Ombudsman; Dela
Llana, Special Prosecutor; Sandiganbaya
and RTC
An information was filed against petitioner
with the Sandiganbayan for alleged violation
of Section 3(e), Republic Act No. 3019,
otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act. An order of arrest was
issued in said case against herein petitioner
by Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena
of the Sandiganbayan, with bail for the
whether a valid warrantless arrest was effected. Rule 113 of the
Rules on Criminal Procedure . There was NO valid warrantless
arrest in this case.
Luna had no personal knowledge of facts indicating Melvida's
guilt; at best, he had an unreasonable suspicion. Melvida's arrest
was thus illegal.
After his unlawful arrest, Melvida underwent custodial
investigation. The custodial investigation commenced when the
police pinpointed Melvida as one of the authors of the crime or
had focused on him as a suspect thereof. his brought into
operation paragraph (1) of Section 12, Article III of the
Constitution guaranteeing the accused's rights to remain silent
and to counsel, and his right to be informed of these rights.
There was no showing that Melvida was ever informed of these
rights, and Luna admitted that Melvida was not assisted by
counsel during the investigation. Indisputably, the police officers
concerned flouted these constitutional rights of Melvida and
Tumangan and deliberately disregarded the rule regarding an
investigator's duties prior to and during custodial interrogation
laid down in Morales vs. Enrile and reiterated in a catena of
subsequent cases.
Santiago is deemed to have voluntarily submitted herself to the
jurisdiction of respondent court upon the filing of her aforequoted
"Urgent Ex-parte Motion for Acceptance of Cash Bail Bond for
and in behalf of Dr. Miriam Defensor-Santiago" wherein she
expressly sought leave "that she be considered as having placed
herself under the jurisdiction of (the Sandiganbayan) for
purposes of the required trial and other proceedings," and
categorically prayed "that the bail bond she is posting in the
amount of P15,000.00 be duly accepted" and that by said motion
"she be considered as having placed herself under the custody"
of said court.
Legal principle: It has been held that where after the filing of the
 release of the accused fixed at P15,000.00. complaint or information a warrant for the arrest of the accused is
She filed an "Urgent Ex-parte Motion for issued by the trial court and the accused either voluntarily
Acceptance of Cash Bail Bond". The submitted himself to the court or was duly arrested, the court
Sandiganbayan issued a resolution thereby acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused. The
authorizing the Santiago to post cash bond voluntary appearance of the accused, whereby the court acquires
which the later filed in the amount of jurisdiction over his person, is accomplished either by his
P15,000.00. Her arraignment was set, but pleading to the merits (such as by filing a motion to quash or
she asked for the cancellation of her bail other pleadings requiring the exercise of the court's jurisdiction
bond and that she be allowed provisional thereover, appearing for arraignment, entering trial) or by filing
release on recognizance. The bail.
Sandiganbayan deferred the arraignment. On the matter of bail, since the same is intended to obtain the
Meanwhile, it issued a hold departure provisional liberty of the accused, as a rule the same cannot be
order against Santiago by reason of the posted before custody of the accused has been acquired by the
announcement she made, which was judicial authorities either by his arrest or voluntary surrender.
widely publicized in both print and
broadcast media, that she would be
leaving for the U.S. to accept a fellowship
at Harvard University.
She directly filed a "Motion to Restrain the
Sandiganbayan from Enforcing its Hold
Departure Order with Prayer for the Issuance
of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or
Preliminary Injunction" with the SC. She
argued that the Sandiganbayan acted without
or in excess of jurisdiction and with grave
abuse of discretion in issuing the hold
departure order considering that it had not
acquired jurisdiction over her person as
she has neither been arrested nor has she
voluntarily surrendered.
ISSUE: WON the Sandiganbayan has
acquired jurisdiction over the person of
Santiago.
5 Cojuanco vs Petitioner: The Sandiganbayan failed to abide by the constitutional mandate
Sandiganbayan Respondent: of personally determining the existence of probable cause before
issuing a warrant of arrest. The 2 cited document above were
The issue is the validity of the warrants of the product of somebody else’s determination, insufficient
arrest issued by the Sandiganbayan. The to support a finding of probable cause by the
latter had two pieces of documents to Sandiganbayan.
consider when it resolved the WOA against
 the accused:
a. Resolution dated June 2, 1992 of the
Panel of Investigators of the Office of
the Ombudsman recommending the
filing of the Information
b. Memorandum dated June 16, 1995
of the Office of the Special
Prosecutor denying the existence of
a prejudicial question which will
warrant the suspen+sion of the
criminal case
The Sandiganbayan had nothing more to
support its resolution.
6 Hodari vs California Two police officers dressed in street clothes
and wearing jackets with the word “Police” on
the front and back were on patrol in Oakland,
California in an unmarked car. As they
approached a group of youths near Foothill
Blvd. and 63rd Ave., the youths panicked and
ran. One of the officers left the car and ran
after Hodari D. Hodari tossed away
something that looked like a small rock just
before the officer tackled him and handcuffed
him. The officer retrieved the rock, which
turned out to be crack cocaine.
With regard to jurisdiction, the rule is well-settled that the giving
or posting of bail by the accused is tantamount to submission of
his person to the jurisdiction of the court. By posting bail, herein
petitioner cannot claim exemption effect of being subject to the
jurisdiction of respondent court. While petitioner has exerted
efforts to continue disputing the validity of the issuance of the
warrant of arrest despite his posting bail, his claim has been
negated when he himself invoked the jurisdiction of respondent
court through the filing of various motions that sought other
affirmative reliefs.
A defendant’s right against unlawful arrest will not operate to
suppress evidence prior to physical restraint. The 4th amendment
protects against unlawful seizure.
Seizure, when applied to the person, as it must be in the context
of arrest, can only refer to physical restraint. The term seizure as
it is commonly understood implies some form of custody or
control. Consequently, any evidence found prior to such custody
or control cannot be said to be the fruit of an illegal seizure.
Hodari had not been placed under physical restraint when he
attempted to conceal the incriminating evidence, so the evidence
should not be suppressed.
Notes:
The significance of the case is that it helps to define when a
person has been seized/arrested. The SC in this case ruled that
an arrest only happens when the person has been physically
seized or when they have submitted voluntarily to the authority of
the police.
The lawyers of Hodari argued that since Hodari had been
arrested and since the arrest was illegal, then the evidence was
inadmissible.
The Court looked to the common law of arrest. It proposes that to
constitute of the person, just as to constitute an arrest, there
must be either the application of physical force, however slight, or
submission to an officer’s show of authority to restrain the
subject’s liberty. The Court noted that there was no physical force
 had been applied in this case because Hodari was untouched by
the police before Hodari dropped the drugs. The Court said that
assuming the officer’s pursuit constituted a show of
authority requiring Hodari to halt, Hodari did not comply with
the injunction and, therefore no seizure occurred until he
was tackled. Since Hodari was not seized, the cocaine was not
considered fruit of a seizure.

Dissent – a seizure occurs whenever an objective evaluation of a

police officer’s show of force conveys the message that the
citizen is not entirely free to leave. Justice Stevens.
7
8 Placer vs Villanueva Petitioner: City fiscal and assistant city fiscals The issuance of a warrant of arrest is not a ministerial function.
Respondent: City judge of City Court of The judge must satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause
Butuan before issuing a warrant or order of arrest. If on the face of
City fiscal and assistant prosecutors filed information the judge finds no probable cause, he may disregard
information before the City Court of Butuan; the fiscal’s certification and require the submission of the
they certified that preliminary examination affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to
had been conducted and that prima facie the existence of probable cause.
cases have been found. Following the In this case, no affidavits of witnesses had been attachment to
receipts thereof, Respondent Judge issued the informations filed in his sala; thus he found no sufficient basis
an order requiring petitioners to submit to the in issuing the warrants of arrest.
Court affidavits of the witnesses and other Note: after the fiscals submitted the required affidavits, Judge
documents to aid him in the exercise of wasted no time in issuing the WOA.
judicial review of the findings of the
prosecutors.
Petitioners petitioned for certiorari and
mandamus to compel the Respondent to
issue warrants of arrest. They argued that the
fiscal’s certification in the informations of the
existence of probable cause constitutes
sufficient justification for the judge to issue
the warrants.
Issue: WON the certification of the
investigating fiscal in the information as
to the existence of probable cause
obligates the City Judge to issue a
warrant of arrest.
9 People vs Inting Petitioner: People (complainant, Editha Respondent: Comelec lacks jurisdiction because the phrase and
Barba, Nursing Attendant) such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law was
 Respondent: Judge Inting, RTC, Dumaguete deleted from the 1987 Constitution.
Petitioner filed a complaint with the Comelec Court distinguished the difference between probable cause as
against OIC Mayor Regalado of Tanjay, determined by the judge and as determined by a prosecutor.
Negros Occidental, for transferring her to a PI probable cause – WON there is reasonable ground to believe
very remote barangay without obtaining that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and, thus, WON
permission from Comelec as required by law. he should be subjected to the expense, rigors and
Comelec directed Lituanas, provincial embarrassment of trial. (function of the prosecutor; executive in
election officer to conduct preliminary nature)
investigation and to file the necessary Probable cause proper is a function of the judge.
information in court.
Comelec found probable case and filed with
respondent RTC a criminal case for violation
of the Omnibus Election Code against the
OIC Mayor.
RTC – issued a warrant of arrest. However,
before the accused could be arrested, the
RTC set aside its order on the ground that
the provincial election officer is not authorized
to determine probable cause pursuant to Sec.
2, Article II, 1987 Constitution. Ordered
Lituanas to file another information with a
written approval of the provincial fiscal.
Lituanas failed to comply with the order. RTC
quashed the information. An MR was denied.
ISSUE: WON the PI conducted by a
provincial election supervisor has to be
coursed thru the Provincial Prosecutor
before the RTC may take cognizance of
the information.
10 Allado vs Diokno Petitioner: Allado Yes. There is no probable cause in this cause. Probable cause is
Respondents: Judge Diokno an objective one, for in order that there be probable cause the
facts and circumstances must be such as would warrant a belief
On September 16, 1993, a Security Guard by a reasonably discreet and prudent man that the accused is
and a discharged Philippine Constabulary guilty of the crime which has just been committed. There is
named Escolastico Umbal executed a sworn serious doubt on Van Twest’s reported death since the cropus
statement implicating petitioners Diosdado delicti has not been established, nor have his remains been
Jose Allado and Roberto Mendoza who are recovered.
partners in the Law Firm of Salonga, The PI made by a prosecutor does not bind the judge. It merely
Hernandez and Allado. He accused them as assists him in making the determination of probable cause.
the brains behind the alleged kidnapping and By itself, the prosecutor’s certification of probable cause is
 slaying of Eugen Alexander Van Twest, a ineffectual. It is the report, the affidavits, the transcript of
German national. Based on that confession stenographic notes (if any), and all other supporting documents
of Umbal, a search warrant was issued by behind the prosecutor’s certification which are material in
Judge Roberto Barrios of the RTC of Manila. assisting the judge in his determination of probable cause.
Then, the operatives of the Presidential Anti- The determination of probable cause for the warrant is made by
Crime Commission (PACC), armed with the the judge. The PI – WON there is reasonable ground to believe
search warrant issued separately raided the that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and therefore,
dwellings of police officers who were also WON he should be subjected to the expense, rigors and
pointed by Umbal as the perpetrators of the embarrassment of trial – is a function of the prosecutor.
crimes. Several firearms and ammunitions
were found in the raid including Van Twest's
Cartier sunglasses. So, the two lawyers and
their other co-defendants were charged with
illegal possession of firearms and
ammunitions, carnapping, kidnapping for
ransom with murder, and usurpation of
authority. Their case was referred by the
PACC to the DOJ who took over the case.
After preliminary investigation, the Judge
Roberto Diokno found probable cause and
issued a warrant of arrest without bail. The
petitioners questioned the issued warrants of
arrests. They claim that Judge Diokno acted
with grave abuse of discretion and in excess
of his jurisdiction as there is lack of probable
cause for him to issue the warrants. They
further contend that the judge did not
personally determine the admissibility and
sufficiency of the evidence where the
investigation was based from.
ISSUE: WON the judge erred in finding
probable cause issuing the WOA.

11 Salonga vs Cruz Pano Petitioner: Jovito Salonga
Respondent: Ernani Pano, presiding judge of
CFI of Rizal Branch (QC)
Jovito Salonga was charged with violation of
the Revised Anti-Subversion Act after he was
implicated, along with other 39 accused, by
The respondents call for adherence to the consistent rule that the
denial of a motion to quash or todismiss, being interlocutory in
character, cannot be questioned by certiorari; that since the
question of dismissal will again be considered by the court when
it decides the case, the movant has a plain, speedyand adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law; and that public interest
dictates that criminalprosecutions should not be enjoined.The SC
 Victor Lovely in the series of bombings in held that infinitely more important than conventional adherence to
Metro Manila. He was tagged by Lovely in his general rules of criminalprocedure is respect for the citizen's right
testimony as the leader of subversive to be free not only from arbitrary arrest and punishment butalso
organizations for two reasons: from unwarranted and vexatious prosecution.
1. Because his house was used as a
contact point
2. And because of his remarks during
the party of Raul Daza in LA (where
he opined about the likelihood of a
violent struggle in the Philippines if
reforms are not instituted
immediately by Pres. Marcos)
When arrested, he was not informed of the
nature of the charges against him. Neither
was counsel allowed to talk to him until the
Court intervened through the issuance of an
order directing that his lawyers be permitted
to visit him. Only after four months of
detention was the petitioner informed for the
first time of the nature of the charges against
him. After PI, the petitioner moved to dismiss
the complaint but the same was denied.
Subsequently, the respondent judge issued a
resolution ordering the filing of an information
after finding that a prima facie case had been
established against the accused.

12 Lim vs Felix Petitioners: Vicente Lim and Mayor Susana
Lim
Respondent: Judge Nemesio Felix and
Antonio Falane, Provincial Prosecutor
Petitioner Lim and 11 others were accused
for the death of Cong. Espinosa Sr and his
security escorts. After PI, a complaint was
filed with the MTC of Masbate. The Court
issued a warrant of arrest and recommended
bail.
The entire records of the case (261 pages)
were transmitted to the Provincial Prosecutor
If a judge solely relies on the fiscal’s certification, he has not
personally determined probable cause.
But a judge is not precluded from relying on the evidence
earlier gathered by responsible officers. The extent of reliance
depends on the circumstances of each case and is subject to the
Judge’s sound discretion.
Soliven vs Makasiar:
1. The Judge shall personally evaluate the report and the
supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the
existence of probable cause, and on the basis thereof, issue a
warrant of arrest.
2. If on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may
disregard the fiscal’s report and require the submission of
 who affirmed the finding of a prima facie case supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a
against the petitioners and filed with the RTC conclusion as to the existence of probable cause.
4 separate informations of murder against the
accused with no bail.
Petitioner filed with the SC a petitioner for
change of venue; authorized the change of
venue to RTC of Makati to avoid miscarriage
of justice.
The case was raffles to Respondent Felix.
Petitioners filed motions which pray for the
transmittal of documents from Masbate to
Makati to assist the judge in the
determination of a probable cause.
Respondent judge denied the petition.
ISSUE: May a judge issue a WOA without
bail by simply relying on the
prosecution’s certification and
recommendation that a probable cause
exists?
13 Pangandaman vs Petitioners: Accused There is no requirement that the entire procedure for preliminary
Casar Respondent: MCT Judge Casar investigation must be completed before a warrant of arrest may
be issued.
Petitioner asks to annul the warrant for What the Rule provides is that no complaint or information for an
their arrest issued by respondent Judge offense cognizable by the Regional Trial Court may be filed
Dimaporo T. Casar of the Municipal without completing that procedure. But nowhere is it provided
Circuit Court of Masiu, Lanao del Sur. that the procedure must be completed before a warrant of arrest
may issue.
Their plea is essentially grounded on the
Indeed, it is the contrary that is true. The present Section 6 of the
claim that the warrant for their arrest was same Rule 112 clearly authorizes the municipal trial court to
issued by the respondent Judge without order the respondent's arrest even before opening the second
a proper preliminary investigation. phase of the investigation if said court is satisfied that a probable
Argued that the Judge in the case at bar cause exists and there is a necessity to place the respondent
failed to conduct the investigation in under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of
accordance with the procedure justice.
prescribed in Section 3, Rule 112 of the This Court is not prepared to question the propriety of the
Rules of Court: respondent Judge's finding of probable cause or substitute its
a. The first phase consists of an ex- judgment for his in the matter of what questions to put to the
witnesses during the preliminary examination.
parte inquiry into the sufficiency of the
The fact that the Provincial Fiscal may have announced his
complaint and the affidavits and other intention of investigating the incident himself did not, in the view
documents offered in support thereof. of the Court, legally inhibit the respondent Judge from conducting
And it ends with the determination by the his own inquiry into the matter if, as is made to appear here, it
Judge either: (1) that there is no ground was regularly brought before him and no formal complaint was
to continue with the inquiry, in which case filed before the Fiscal. Courtesy may have dictated that in those
circumstances he leave the investigation to the Fiscal and simply
he dismisses the complaint and transmits
endorse to the latter the complaint filed with him; duty did not,
the order of dismissal, together with the and if he nonetheless chose to conduct his own investigation,
records of the case, to the provincial nothing in the rules states or implies that he could not do so.
fiscal; or (2) that the complaint and the
supporting documents show sufficient
cause to continue with the inquiry and
this ushers in the second phase.
b. This second phase is designed to
give the respondent notice of the
complaint, access to the complainant's
evidence and an opportunity to submit
counter-affidavits and supporting
documents. At this stage also, the Judge
may conduct a hearing and propound to
the parties and their witnesses questions
on matters that, in his view, need to be
clarified. The second phase concludes
with the Judge rendering his resolution,
either for dismissal of the complaint or
holding the respondent for trial, which
shall be transmitted, together with the
record, to the provincial fiscal for
appropriate action.
The procedure above described must
be followed before the complaint or
information is filed in the Regional
Trial Court.
9. QUESTION: WON the
respondent Judge had the power to
issue the warrant of arrest without
completing the entire prescribed
procedure for preliminary
 investigation. Stated otherwise, is
completion of the procedure laid down
in Section 3 of Rule 112 a condition
sine qua non for the issuance of a
warrant of arrest?

14 De Lima vs Guerrero
How Effected
15 People vs Lumayok
16 Pagalunan vs Albior
Warrantless Arrest
17 People vs Tudtud Toril Police Station received a report froma
civilian asset that Noel Tudtud, defendant,
was engaged in selling marijuana. The asset
informed the police that Tudtud was headed
to Cotabato and would be back later with new
stocks of marijuana. As such a police team
awaited Tudtud’s arrival. When 2 men
disembarked from a bus and helped each
other carry two boxes marked King Flakes.
The police noted that one of the men fitted
Tudtud’s description. Police approached
them and informed them that they had
received info that stocks of illegal drugs
would arrive that day. The police asked him if
he could see the contents of the boxes.
Tudtud opened the box and yielded
marijuana leaves. The police thus arrested
them and informed them of their rights and
brought them to the police station. They were
subsequently charged before the RTC with
illegal possession of prohibited drugs. The
defense questioned the validity of the arrest
and the seizure of evidence. RTC found them
guilty.
ISSUE: WON the evidence was
admissible. WON the arrest and the
seizure were valid.
18 People vs Chua The police received a report from their
Reliable information is not sufficient to justify a warrantless
arrest. Not valid in flagrante delicto arrest. For Sec 5(a) to apply,
the following elements must concur:
1. the person to be arrested must exhibit an overt act indicating
that he has just committed, is committing or is attempting to
commit an offense.
2. Such overt act is done in the presence of the arresting officer.
In this case, the knowledge of the police could not be considered
personal. The asset also obtained the info only from the
neighborsof Tudtud.
Also, the fact that Tudtud did not resist, it did not consist of a
valid waiver:
1. it must appear that the right exists
2. the person involved had knowledge, actual or constructive, of
the existence of such right
3. Said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right
Tudtud’s act was merely a passive conformity under a coercive
or intimidating circumstance. The marijuana leaves are
inadmissible.
The RTC confused the two principles of warrantless searches, ie
confidential informant that the accused was
about to deliver drugs that night at the
Thunder Inn Hotel. They immediately formed
a team of operatives. Their informer then
pointed to a car driven by the accused which
just arrived and parked near the entrance of
Thunder Inn. After accused alighted, carrying
a box of zest o, 2 of the police team accosted
him and introduced themselves. In the course
of the arrest, a small transparent plastic bag
protruded from Chua’s pocket. Then, the
officers subjected him to a body search which
yielded 20 pieces of .22 caliber bullets. Same
officer also peeked into the zest o box and
saw that it contained the same crystalline
substance. Chua was arrested.
RTC acquitted Chua for possession of
ammunition, but convicted him for illegal
possession of prohibited drugs.
RTC ruled that the warrantless arrest was
valid because he was caught in fragrante
delicto, hence the subsequent arrest was
also valid, being incidental to stop and frisk.
incidental to warrantless arrest and stop and frisk.
These two types of warrantless searches differ in terms of: 1. The
requisite quantum of proof, and 2. Their allowable scope.
In flagrante delicto searches: Arrest precedes search;
probable cause (personal knowledge) is required. Arresting
officer may search the person of the arrestee and the
surrounding area where evidence may be located; he may
also seize any property found which was used in the
commission of the crime, or the fruit of the crime, or that
which may be used as evidence.
Stop and Frisk Searches
Search precedes arrest. Probable cause is not required;
well-grounded suspicion is enough, provided that according
to the surrounding conditions and the officer’s experience, a
person of suspect behavior may be reasonably believed to
be potentially dangerous. Limited search of outer clothing of
a person for weapons or contraband.
Common elements of a stop-and-frisk are: (1) the police officer
firstly introduces himself properly and make initial inquiries; (2)
then approach and restrain a person who manifests unusual and
suspicious conduct; and (3) check the latter’s outer clothing for
possibly concealed weapons
It serves a two-fold interest: (1) the general interest of effective
crime prevention and detection;10 and (2) the interest of safety
and self-preservation.
In the case at bar, neither the in flagrante delicto nor the
“stop and frisk” principles is applicable to justify the
warrantless arrest and consequent search and seizure made
by the police operatives on Chua. “Reliable information” alone,
absent any overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise in the
presence and within the view of the arresting officers, is not
sufficient to constitute probable cause that would justify an in
flagrante delicto arrest.
Further militating the case of the prosecution is the fact
established by the arresting officer’s testimony on trial to the
effect that they have already known and investigated Chua’s
drug-dealing activities for two years prior to his actual arrest
this only means that whatever information the civilian asset

19 People vs Mendez
20 People vs Doria Members of the North Metropolitan District
PNP Narcotics Command (Narcom) received
info from two civilians that a certain Jun was
engaged in illegal drug activities in
Mandaluyong.
They decided to conduct a buy bust. During
the buy bust, Jun appeared at the agreed
place and took out from his bag an object
wrapped in plastic and gave it to PO3
Manlangit. They then arrested Jun and
frisked him. But the didn’t find the marked
bills in him. Jun revealed that he left the
money at the house of his associate Neneth.
Manlangit then looked over Neneth’s house
and he noticed a carton box under the dining
relayed to the police on the night of the arrest was not an “on-the-
spot” tip which may excuse them from obtaining the proper
warrant of arrest
No valid stop and frisk. He was first arrested before the search
and seizure of the alleged illegal items found in his possession
(contrary to established stop-and-frisk principle that requires the
search to precede the arrest).
The accused were arrested without warrants. The police who
arrested had no personal knowledge of facts as required by
Section 2(b). Personal knowledge here must be based upon
probable cause, which means an actual belief or reasonable
grounds of suspicion. It is reasonable when it is supported by
circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the
probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested.
Cabagtong meanwhile was arrested by Zosimo Mejica, a
member of the Citizens Crime Watch. He did not have any
personal knowledge of the incident. He based his arrest on the
information supplied by Aurea Cabagtong.
Also, the accused were not assisted by counsel in the course of
the investigaton. While no confession was obtained at that time,
their interrogation could have given the police valuable leads into
the unsolved crime.
The “buy-bust” operation was valid absent any showing of ill-
motives or abuse of power on the part of the arresting officer,
hence, DORIA'S warrantless arrest and search arising from such
lawful exercise is UPHELD. His conviction perforce must be
AFFIRMED. The warrantless arrest and subsequent search of
Gaddao, on the other hand, is tainted with fatal procedural
irregularities which merit her ACQUITTAL based on reasonable
doubt.
Gaddao ’s warrantless arrest was illegal because she was
arrested solely on the basis of the alleged identification made by
Doria. Doria did not point to her as his associate in the drug
business, but as the person with whom he left the marked bills.
Since the warrantless arrest of Gaddao was illegal, the search of
her person and home and the subsequent seizure of the marked
 table. One of the box's flaps was open and
inside the box was something wrapped in
plastic. The plastic wrapper appeared similar
to the wrapper of the marijuana earlier "sold"
to him by "Jun".
He peeked inside the box and found that it
contained ten (10) bricks of what appeared to
be dried marijuana leaves. Simultaneous with
the box's discovery, SPO1 Badua recovered
the marked bills from "Neneth."
RTC convicted the accused.
ISSUE: WON the buy bust was valid. WON
the consequent warrantless arrest and
search of the appellants were valid.
21 Cadua vs CA
22 People vs Montilla A reliable informer had informed the police
that a drug courier, whom said informer could
recognize, would be arriving somewhere in
Dasmarinas from Baguio. Montilla was
caught
23 People vs Burgos
bills and marijuana cannot be deemed legal as an incident to her
arrest.
Plain view issue
Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in
the position to have that view are subject to seizure even without
a search warrant and may be introduced in evidence.
Requisites
1. 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
2. The discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent
3. It is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he
observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or
otherwise subject to seizure
An object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly exposed to
sight. The difficulty arises when the object is inside a closed
container. Where the object seized was inside a closed package,
the object itself is not in plain view and therefore cannot be
seized without a warrant. If the package is such that an
experienced observer could infer from its appearance that it
contains the prohibited article, then the article is deemed in plain
view. It must be immediately apparent to the police that the items
that they observe may be evidence of a crime, contraband or
otherwise subject to seizure.
In his direct examination, PO3 Manlangit said that he was sure
that the contents of the box were marijuana because he himself
checked and marked the said contents. On cross-examination,
however, he admitted that he merely presumed the contents to
be marijuana because it had the same plastic wrapping as the
“buy-bust marijuana.”
Weird ng case. Note the justification of the in flagrante delicto
case. Compare with People vs Burgos
Note: In hot pursuit, it is not enough that there is reasonable
ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a
crime. A crime must in fact or actually have been committed first.
 That a crime has actually been committed is an essential
precondition. It is not enough to suspect that a crime may have
been committed. The fact of the commission of the offense must
be undisputed. The test of reasonable ground applies only to
the identity of the perpetrator.
24 People vs Jayson The arresting officers thus acted on the basis of personal
knowledge of the death of the victim and of facts indicating that
Jayson was the assailant.
25 Terry vs Ohio Notes:
The 4th amendment applies to seizures of the person that do not
result in being taken to the police station and being prosecuted
for a crime. The 4th amendment governs more than just custodial
arrests. It must be recognized that when a police officer confronts
an individual and restricts his freedom to walk away, a seizure
has occurred. Not all confrontations between policemen and
citizens involve seizures of persons. A seizure occurs when the
officer, by actual force or display of authority, has restrained a
citizen’s liberty in some way.
25 People vs Mahinay 1. The person arrested, detained, invited or under custodial
investigation must be informed in a language known to and
understood by him of the reason for the arrest and he must be
shown the warrant of arrest, if any; Every other warnings,
information or communication must be in a language known to
and understood by said person;
2. He must be warned that he has a right to remain silent and
that any statement he makes may be used as evidence against
him;
3. He must be informed that he has the right to be assisted at all
times and have the presence of an independent and competent
lawyer, preferably of his own choice;
4. He must be informed that if he has no lawyer or cannot afford
the services of a lawyer, one will be provided for him; and that a
lawyer may also be engaged by any person in his behalf, or may
be appointed by the court upon petition of the person arrested or
one acting in his behalf;
5. That whether or not the person arrested has a lawyer, he must
be informed that no custodial investigation in any form shall be
conducted except in the presence of his counsel or after a valid
waiver has been made;
6. The person arrested must be informed that, at any time, he
 has the right to communicate or confer by the most expedient
means – telephone, radio, letter or messenger – with his lawyer
(either retained or appointed), any member of his immediate
family, or any medical doctor, priest or minister chosen by him or
by any one from his immediate family or by his counsel, or be
visited by/confer with duly accredited national or international
non-government organization. It shall be the responsibility of the
officer to ensure that this is accomplished;
7. He must be informed that he has the right to waive any of said
rights provided it is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently
and ensure that he understood the same;
8. In addition, if the person arrested waives his right to a lawyer,
he must be informed that it must be done in writing AND in the
presence of counsel, otherwise, he must be warned that the
waiver is void even if he insist on his waiver and chooses to
speak;
9. That the person arrested must be informed that he may
indicate in any manner at any time or stage of the process that
he does not wish to be questioned with warning that once he
makes such indication, the police may not interrogate him if the
same had not yet commenced, or the interrogation must ceased
if it has already begun;
10. The person arrested must be informed that his initial waiver
of his right to remain silent, the right to counsel or any of his
rights does not bar him from invoking it at any time during the
process, regardless of whether he may have answered some
questions or volunteered some statements;
11. He must also be informed that any statement or evidence, as
the case may be, obtained in violation of any of the foregoing,
whether inculpatory or exculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be
inadmissible in evidence.
26 David vs GMA
27 People vs Valdez