Summary Of Cases.docx

1 2

3

David vs GMA Sanchez vs Demetriou

People vs Sequino

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. 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 rapeslay 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 Vasquez

Petitioner: MDS 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

5

Cojuanco vs Sandiganbayan

release of the accused fixed at P15,000.00. She filed an "Urgent Ex-parte Motion for Acceptance of Cash Bail Bond". The Sandiganbayan issued a resolution authorizing the Santiago to post cash bond which the later filed in the amount of P15,000.00. Her arraignment was set, but she asked for the cancellation of her bail bond and that she be allowed provisional release on recognizance. The Sandiganbayan deferred the arraignment. Meanwhile, it issued a hold departure order against Santiago by reason of the announcement she made, which was 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. Petitioner: Respondent: The issue is the validity of the warrants of arrest issued by the Sandiganbayan. The latter had two pieces of documents to consider when it resolved the WOA against

complaint or information a warrant for the arrest of the accused is issued by the trial court and the accused either voluntarily submitted himself to the court or was duly arrested, the court thereby acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused. The voluntary appearance of the accused, whereby the court acquires jurisdiction over his person, is accomplished either by his pleading to the merits (such as by filing a motion to quash or other pleadings requiring the exercise of the court's jurisdiction thereover, appearing for arraignment, entering trial) or by filing bail. On the matter of bail, since the same is intended to obtain the provisional liberty of the accused, as a rule the same cannot be posted before custody of the accused has been acquired by the judicial authorities either by his arrest or voluntary surrender.

The Sandiganbayan failed to abide by the constitutional mandate of personally determining the existence of probable cause before issuing a warrant of arrest. The 2 cited document above were the product of somebody else’s determination, insufficient to support a finding of probable cause by the Sandiganbayan.

6

Hodari vs California

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. 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

9

People vs Inting

Petitioner: City fiscal and assistant city fiscals Respondent: City judge of City Court of Butuan City fiscal and assistant prosecutors filed information before the City Court of Butuan; they certified that preliminary examination had been conducted and that prima facie cases have been found. Following the receipts thereof, Respondent Judge issued an order requiring petitioners to submit to the Court affidavits of the witnesses and other documents to aid him in the exercise of 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. Petitioner: People (complainant, Editha Barba, Nursing Attendant)

The issuance of a warrant of arrest is not a ministerial function. The judge must satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause before issuing a warrant or order of arrest. If on the face of information the judge finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal’s certification and require the submission of the affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause. In this case, no affidavits of witnesses had been attachment to the informations filed in his sala; thus he found no sufficient basis in issuing the warrants of arrest. Note: after the fiscals submitted the required affidavits, Judge wasted no time in issuing the WOA.

Respondent: Comelec lacks jurisdiction because the phrase and such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law was

10

Allado vs Diokno

Respondent: Judge Inting, RTC, Dumaguete Petitioner filed a complaint with the Comelec against OIC Mayor Regalado of Tanjay, Negros Occidental, for transferring her to a very remote barangay without obtaining permission from Comelec as required by law. Comelec directed Lituanas, provincial election officer to conduct preliminary investigation and to file the necessary 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. Petitioner: Allado Respondents: Judge Diokno On September 16, 1993, a Security Guard and a discharged Philippine Constabulary named Escolastico Umbal executed a sworn statement implicating petitioners Diosdado Jose Allado and Roberto Mendoza who are partners in the Law Firm of Salonga, Hernandez and Allado. He accused them as the brains behind the alleged kidnapping and

deleted from the 1987 Constitution. Court distinguished the difference between probable cause as determined by the judge and as determined by a prosecutor. PI probable cause – WON there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and, thus, WON he should be subjected to the expense, rigors and embarrassment of trial. (function of the prosecutor; executive in nature) Probable cause proper is a function of the judge.

Yes. There is no probable cause in this cause. Probable cause is an objective one, for in order that there be probable cause the facts and circumstances must be such as would warrant a belief by a reasonably discreet and prudent man that the accused is guilty of the crime which has just been committed. There is serious doubt on Van Twest’s reported death since the cropus delicti has not been established, nor have his remains been recovered. The PI made by a prosecutor does not bind the judge. It merely assists him in making the determination of probable cause. By itself, the prosecutor’s certification of probable cause is

11

Salonga vs Cruz Pano

slaying of Eugen Alexander Van Twest, a German national. Based on that confession of Umbal, a search warrant was issued by Judge Roberto Barrios of the RTC of Manila. Then, the operatives of the Presidential AntiCrime Commission (PACC), armed with the search warrant issued separately raided the dwellings of police officers who were also pointed by Umbal as the perpetrators of the 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.

ineffectual. It is the report, the affidavits, the transcript of stenographic notes (if any), and all other supporting documents behind the prosecutor’s certification which are material in assisting the judge in his determination of probable cause. The determination of probable cause for the warrant is made by the judge. The PI – WON there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and therefore, WON he should be subjected to the expense, rigors and embarrassment of trial – is a function of the prosecutor.

Petitioner: Jovito Salonga Respondent: Ernani Pano, presiding judge of CFI of Rizal Branch (QC)

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

Jovito Salonga was charged with violation of the Revised Anti-Subversion Act after he was implicated, along with other 39 accused, by

12

Lim vs Felix

Victor Lovely in the series of bombings in Metro Manila. He was tagged by Lovely in his testimony as the leader of subversive organizations for two reasons: 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.

held that infinitely more important than conventional adherence to general rules of criminalprocedure is respect for the citizen's right to be free not only from arbitrary arrest and punishment butalso from unwarranted and vexatious prosecution.

Petitioners: Vicente Lim and Mayor Susana Lim Respondent: Judge Nemesio Felix and Antonio Falane, 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

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

13

Pangandaman vs Casar

who affirmed the finding of a prima facie case against the petitioners and filed with the RTC 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? Petitioners: Accused Respondent: MCT Judge Casar Petitioner asks to annul the warrant for

their arrest issued by respondent Judge Dimaporo T. Casar of the Municipal Circuit Court of Masiu, Lanao del Sur. Their plea is essentially grounded on the claim that the warrant for their arrest was issued by the respondent Judge without a proper preliminary investigation. Argued that the Judge in the case at bar failed to conduct the investigation in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court: a. The first phase consists of an exparte inquiry into the sufficiency of the complaint and the affidavits and other

supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause.

There is no requirement that the entire procedure for preliminary investigation must be completed before a warrant of arrest may be issued. What the Rule provides is that no complaint or information for an offense cognizable by the Regional Trial Court may be filed without completing that procedure. But nowhere is it provided that the procedure must be completed before a warrant of arrest may issue. Indeed, it is the contrary that is true. The present Section 6 of the same Rule 112 clearly authorizes the municipal trial court to order the respondent's arrest even before opening the second phase of the investigation if said court is satisfied that a probable cause exists and there is a necessity to place the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. This Court is not prepared to question the propriety of the respondent Judge's finding of probable cause or substitute its judgment for his in the matter of what questions to put to the witnesses during the preliminary examination. The fact that the Provincial Fiscal may have announced his intention of investigating the incident himself did not, in the view

documents offered in support thereof. And it ends with the determination by the Judge either: (1) that there is no ground to continue with the inquiry, in which case he dismisses the complaint and transmits the order of dismissal, together with the records of the case, to the provincial 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

of the Court, legally inhibit the respondent Judge from conducting his own inquiry into the matter if, as is made to appear here, it was regularly brought before him and no formal complaint was filed before the Fiscal. Courtesy may have dictated that in those circumstances he leave the investigation to the Fiscal and simply endorse to the latter the complaint filed with him; duty did not, and if he nonetheless chose to conduct his own investigation, nothing in the rules states or implies that he could not do so.

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

18

People vs Chua

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. 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

relayed to the police on the night of the arrest was not an “on-thespot” tip which may excuse them from obtaining the proper warrant of arrest

19

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.

People vs Mendez

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.

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

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 illmotives 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

21 22

Cadua vs CA People vs Montilla

23

People vs Burgos

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.

bills and marijuana cannot be deemed legal as an incident to her arrest.

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

Weird ng case. Note the justification of the in flagrante delicto case. Compare with People vs Burgos

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.”

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.

24

People vs Jayson

25

Terry vs Ohio

25

People vs Mahinay

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. 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. 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. 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 27

David vs GMA People vs Valdez