Warrantless Arrest Cases.docx

1|P a g e

Warrantless

Arrest

(Case

Digests)

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. L-63630

The Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. Katz N. Tierra for defendant-appellant. Facts:







In the late evening of March 2, 1982, Patrolmen Silverio Quevedo and Romeo L. Punzalan of the San Fernando Police Station, together with Barangay Tanod, were conducting surveillance mission at the Victory Liner Terminal compound located in Pampanga. The surveillance was aimed not only against persons who may commit misdemeanors at the said place but also on persons who may be engaging in the traffic of dangerous drugs based on information supplied by informers. Patrolmen noticed a person caring a traveling bag who was acting suspiciously and they confronted him; that the person was requested by Patrolmen Quevedo and Punzalan to open the red traveling bag but the person refused, only to accede later on when the patrolmen identified themselves; that found inside the bag were marijuana leaves wrapped in a plastic wrapper. The person was asked of his name and the reason why he was at the said place and he gave his name as Medel Tangliben and explained that he was waiting for a ride to Olongapo City to deliver the marijuana leaves; that the accused was taken to the police headquarters at San Fernando, Pampanga, for further investigation; and that Pat. Silverio Quevedo submitted to his Station Commander his Investigator's Report.

KJMR

 

Issue: 

April 6, 1990

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MEDEL TANGLIBEN Y BERNARDINO, defendant-appellant.



By

Whether or not the court a qou erred in convicting the accused-appellant and finding him guilty of the crime charged on insufficient and doubtful evidence.

Ruling of the Supreme Court: WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction by the trial court is hereby AFFIRMED but MODIFIED. The appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and fine of Six Thousand (P6,000.00) Pesos. 



One of the exceptions to the general rule requiring a search warrant is a search incident to a lawful arrest. Thus, Section 12 of Rule 126 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure provides: o Section 12. Search incident to a 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. Meanwhile, Rule 113, Sec. 5(a) provides:

. . . A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. 

  



Accused was caught in flagrante delicto, since he was carrying marijuana at the time of his arrest. This case therefore falls squarely within the exception. The warrantless search was incident to a lawful arrest and is consequently valid. Although the trial court's decision did not mention it, the transcript of stenographic notes reveals that there was an informer who pointed to the accused-appellant as carrying marijuana. Faced with such on-the-spot information, the police officers had to act quickly.

There was not enough time to secure a search warrant. Even assuming arguendo that the marijuana sent to the PC Crime Laboratory was not properly authenticated, still, we cannot discount the separate field test conducted by witness Roberto Quevedo which yielded positive results for marijuana.



Nor can it be said that the intent to transport is clearly established from the fact that the accused was arrested at San Fernando, Pampanga, a place which is not his residence.



Conviction of a crime with an extremely severe penalty must be based on evidence which is clearer and more convincing than the inferences in this case.



What was therefore proved beyond reasonable doubt is not his intent to transport the marijuana leaves but his actual session.



The offense committed by the appellant is possession of marijuana under Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 as amended).

2|P a g e

Warrantless

Arrest

(Case

Digests)

By

KJMR



Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 91107

June 19, 1991

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MIKAEL MALMSTEDT, *defendant-appellant. The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. Romulo, Mabanta, Buenaventura, Sayoc & De los Angeles for defendant-appellant. PADILLA, J.: Facts:     





 

Accused Mikael Malmstedt, a Swedish national, entered the Philippines for the third time in 1988 as a tourist. At around 7:00 o'clock in the morning of 11 May 1989, accused went to the Nangonogan bus stop in Sagada to catch the first available trip to Baguio City. From Baguio City, accused planned to take a late afternoon trip to Angeles City, then proceed to Manila to catch his flight out of the country. From Sagada, accused took a Skyline bus. Captain Alen Vasco, the Commanding Officer of the First Regional Command (NARCOM) stationed at Camp Dangwa, ordered his men to set up a temporary checkpoint. The order to establish a checkpoint in the said area was prompted by persistent reports that vehicles coming from Sagada were transporting marijuana and other prohibited drugs. Moreover, information was received by the Commanding Officer of NARCOM, that same morning, that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had in his possession prohibited drugs. The bus where accused was riding was stopped. Sgt. Fider and CIC Galutan boarded the bus and announced that they were members of the NARCOM and that they would conduct an inspection.

The two (2) NARCOM officers started their inspection from the front going towards the rear of the bus.  Accused who was the sole foreigner riding the bus was seated at the rear thereof.  During the inspection, CIC Galutan noticed a bulge on accused's waist.  Suspecting the bulge on accused's waist to be a gun, the officer asked for accused's passport and other identification papers.  When accused failed to comply, the officer required him to bring out whatever it was that was bulging on his waist.  The wrapped objects turned out to contain hashish, a derivative of marijuana.  Thereafter, accused was invited outside the bus for questioning.  In the chemistry report, it was established that the objects examined were hashish. a prohibited drug which is a derivative of marijuana.  Thus, an information was filed against accused for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.  During the arraignment, accused entered a plea of "not guilty."

Ruling of RTC: 

WHEREFORE, finding the guilt of the accused Mikael Malmstedt established beyond reasonable doubt, this Court finds him GUILTY of violation of Section 4, Article 11 of Republic Act 6425.



  









Issues: 

Whether or not the search of his personal effects was illegal because it was made without a search warrant and, therefore, the prohibited drugs which were discovered during the illegal search are not admissible as evidence against him.

Ruling of Supreme Court: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed judgment of conviction by the trial court is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against the accused-appellant.



The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.5 However, where the search is made



 

pursuant to a lawful arrest, there is no need to obtain a search warrant. A lawful arrest without a warrant may be made by a peace officer or a private person under the following circumstances. o Rule 113, Sec 5. Accused was searched and arrested while transporting prohibited drugs (hashish). A crime was actually being committed by the accused and he was caught in flagrante delicto. Thus, the search made upon his personal effects falls squarely under paragraph (1) of the foregoing provisions of law, which allow a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest While it is true that the NARCOM officers were not armed with a search warrant when the search was made over the personal effects of accused, however, under the circumstances of the case, there was sufficient probable cause for said officers to believe that accused was then and there committing a crime. Probable cause has been defined as such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonable, 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 sought to be searched. The required probable cause that will justify a warrantless search and seizure is not determined by any fixed formula but is resolved according to the facts of each case. Warrantless search of the personal effects of an accused has been declared by this Court as valid, because of existence of probable cause, where the smell of marijuana emanated from a plastic bag owned by the accused, or where the accused was acting suspiciously and attempted to flee. The receipt of information by NARCOM that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had prohibited drugs in his possession, plus the suspicious failure of the accused to produce his passport, taken together as a whole, led the NARCOM officers to reasonably believe that the accused was trying to hide something illegal from the authorities. From these circumstances arose a probable cause which justified the warrantless search that was made on the personal effects of the accused. In other words, the acts of the NARCOM officers in requiring the accused to open his pouch bag and in opening one of the wrapped objects found inside said bag (which was discovered to contain hashish) as well as the two (2) travelling bags containing two (2) teddy bears with hashish stuffed inside them, were prompted by accused's own attempt to hide his identity by refusing to present his passport, and by the information received by the NARCOM that a

3|P a g e

Warrantless

Arrest

(Case

Digests)

Caucasian coming from Sagada had prohibited drugs in his possession. To deprive the NARCOM agents of the ability and facility to act accordingly, including, to search even without warrant, in the light of such circumstances, would be to sanction impotence and ineffectiveness in law enforcement, to the detriment of society.



   

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

 

G.R. No. 128222 June 17, 1999



PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CHUA HO SAN @ TSAY HO SAN, accused-appellant.

 

DAVIDE, JR., C.J.: Facts: 





    



In response to reports of rampant smuggling of firearms and other contraband, Jim Lagasca Cid as Chief of Police began patrolling the Bacnotan coastline with his officers. While monitoring the coastal area, he intercepted a radio call from the Barangay Captain of Barangay Tammocalao requesting police assistance regarding an unfamiliar speedboat the latter had spotted. According to Brgy. Capt. Almoite, the vessel looked different from the boats ordinarily used by fisherfolk of the area and was poised to dock at Tammocalao shores. CID and six of his men led by his Chief Investigator, proceeded forthwith to Tammocalao beach and there conferred with Brgy. Capt. CID then observed that the speedboat ferried a lone male passenger. When the speedboat landed, the male passenger alighted, and using both hands, carried what appeared a multicolored strawbag. He then walked towards the road. By this time, ALMOITE, CID and BADUA, the latter two conspicuous in their uniform and issued side-arms, became suspicious of the man as he suddenly changed direction and broke into a run upon seeing the approaching officers. Speaking in English, CID then requested the man to open his bag, but he seemed not to understand. CID thus tried speaking Tagalog, then Ilocano, but still to no avail.

   

Issue: 

By

KJMR

CID then resorted to what he termed "sign language;" he motioned with his hands for the man to open the bag. This time, the man apparently understood and acceded to the request. A search of the bag yielded several transparent plastic packets containing yellowish crystalline substances. CID then gestured to the man to close the bag, which he did. As CID wished to proceed to the police station, he signaled the man to follow, but the latter did not to comprehend. Hence, CID placed his arm around the shoulders of the man and escorted the latter to the police headquarters. At the police station, CID surmised, after having observed the facial features of the man, that he was probably Taiwanese. The interpreter, Mr. Go Ping Guan, finally arrived, through whom the man was "apprised of his constitutional rights." Chemistry report stated that the substances are shabu. CHUA was initially charged with illegal possession of methaphetamine hydrochloride before the RTC which was later on amended to "transporting" At his arraignment on 31 July 1995, CHUA entered a plea of not guilty. CHUA denounced the prosecution's story as a distortion of the truth. He denied he was ever favored with an interpreter or informed of his "constitutional rights," particularly of his right to counsel. Whether or not the warrantless arrest, search and seizure conducted under the facts of the case at bar constitute a valid exemption from the warrant requirement.

Ruling of the Supreme Court: WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 66, San Fernando, La Union in Criminal Case No. 4037 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and accused-appellant CHUA HO SAN @ TSAY HO SAN is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged, the evidence not being sufficient to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.  

Enshrined in the Constitution is the inviolable right to privacy home and person. Inseparable, and not merely corollary or incidental to said right and equally hallowed in and by the Constitution, is the exclusionary principle which decrees that any evidence obtained in violation of said right is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceedings.









 





In cases of in fragrante delicto, arrests, a peace officer or a private person may without a warrant, arrest a person, when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. The arresting officer, therefore, must have personal knowledge of such facts or as recent case law adverts to, personal knowledge of facts or circumstances convincingly indicative or constitutive of probable cause. Guided by these principles, this Court finds that there are no facts on record reasonably suggestive or demonstrative of CHUA's participation in on going criminal enterprise that could have spurred police officers from conducting the obtrusive search. The RTC never took the pains of pointing to such facts, but predicated mainly its decision on the finding that was "accused was caught red-handed carrying the bagful of [s]habu when apprehended." In short, there is no probable cause. This Court, however, finds that these do not constitute "probable cause." None of the telltale clues, e.g., bag or package emanating the pungent odor of marijuana or other prohibited drug, confidential report and/or positive identification by informers of courier(s) of prohibited drug and/or the time and place where they will transport/deliver the same, suspicious demeanor or behavior and suspicious bulge in the waist — accepted by this Court as sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest exists in this case. The search cannot therefore be denominated as incidental to an arrest. While a contemporaneous search of a person arrested may be effected to deliver dangerous weapons or proofs or implements used in the commission of the crime and which search may extend to the area within his immediate control where he might gain possession of a weapon or evidence he can destroy, a valid arrest must precede the search. The process cannot be reversed.

4|P a g e

Warrantless

Arrest

(Case

Digests)  

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila

 

THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 100920 June 17, 1997 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NOLI SALCEDO @ "KA TONY," GEMO IBAÑEZ @ "KA TITING," BOLODOY CALDERON, JUANITO SUAL, JR., EDISON BANCULO, NONOY ESQUILONA, GIL RAPSING, JOSE FERNANDEZ, REYNALDO CORTEZ, NOE ALBAO, ELY RAPSING, PACO MANLAPAZ, DANILO LAURIO and NORIE HUELVA, accused, NOLI SALCEDO, EDISON BANCULO, JUAN SUAL, JR., and DANILO LAURIO, accused-appellants.

  

 

PANGANIBAN, J.:

By

KJMR

Cortes claimed to have witnessed all these since the accused had a flashlight and the moon was just rising. P/Sgt. Jose Bajar of the Aroroy Police Station testified that he had conducted the investigation of Accused Danilo Laurio, Juan Sual, Jr. and Edison Banculo on August 22, 1988. The investigation was in the form of questions and answers in the vernacular which were reduced into writing. During cross-examination, he admitted that the three were not assisted by counsel when they signed their respective waivers-neither during the investigation nor at the time they affixed their signatures to their respective statements. Pfc. Wencell Esquilona, member of the INP (now PNP) Baleno Police Station, was presented as a rebuttal witness for the prosecution. He stated that he had effected the arrest of six of the accused. As to the latter three, Esquilona admitted that he was not armed with a warrant for their arrest but that he had only received a wire from the headquarters that the three were suspects in the murder of Aparejado. At the time of the arrest, he likewise recovered one lantaka, an "armalite" revolver and fatigue uniforms at the house where the three were arrested. He stated further that he did not maltreat any of them and was not present during their investigation conducted by Sgt. Jose Bajar.

Ruling of the Supreme Court: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is partially GRANTED. Appellants Edison Banculo, Juanito Sual, Jr. and Danilo Laurio are hereby ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt and are ordered RELEASED immediately unless they are being detained for some other legal cause. The assailed Decision finding Noli Salcedo GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of murder and imposing on him the penalty of reclusion perpetua as well as the payment of the sum of P50,000.00 as indemnity to the heirs of the victim, Honorio Aparejado y Fideles, is AFFIRMED. Furthermore, accused-appellant is also ordered to pay moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 to the victim's wife, Lydia Aparejado. The other parts of the said Decision, insofar as they are not inconsistent with the foregoing, are hereby also AFFIRMED.

 



Facts: Ruling of the RTC: 

   

 



The principal witness for the prosecution, Edwin Cortes, a 30-year old farmer, resident of Gabi, Baleno, Masbate, and brother-in-law of the victim, Honorio Aparejado. Edwin Cortes was in his house together with his wife, their four children and the victim when several armed men led by Accused Noli Salcedo arrived. Salcedo shouted for him and the victim to come out of the house. Once outside, Cortes and Aparejado were ordered to lie on the ground; then they were hogtied. Thereafter, they were told to get up and were led to the other side of a creek, about twenty (20) meters from the house, where they were ordered to lie down again. While the witness and the victim were in such position about two or three meters apart, Salcedo shot Aparejado twice, then hacked him. Salcedo's companions likewise hacked the victim. Afterwards, they turned Aparejado's body around, opened his stomach and took out his liver. His kneecap was also removed. Then all the accused left, bringing with them the victim's liver and kneecap.







WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused NOLI SALCEDO GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA Accused Edison Banculo, Juan Sual Jr. and Danilo Laurio as Accomplice (sic) in the crime of Murder, they are hereby sentenced to suffer Indeterminate Penalty of EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Mayor, as minimum, to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS and EIGHT (8) MONTHS of Reclusion Temporal, as maximum, in the absence of any mitigating circumstance. Accused Teodulo Esquilona, Jr., Reynaldo Cortes and Paco Manlapaz are hereby ACQUITTED.



  

Issue: 

Whether or not the trial court erred in not acquitting them on the ground of reasonable doubt and in not giving due credit to their defense of denial and alibi.



Thus, we partially grant this appeal insofar as the conviction of Appellants Juanito Sual, Jr., Edison Banculo and Danilo Laurio is concerned. However, with regard to Appellant Noli Salcedo, in the face of the clear and categorical testimony of Prosecution Witness Edwin Cortes who related in minutiae the extent of Salcedo's participation in the vicious slaughtering of the hapless victim, his conviction must stand. Even assuming that in the instant case the extrajudicial confession made by appellant spoke the truth and was not extracted through violence or intimidation, still the failure of the police investigators to inform appellant of his right to remain silent, coupled with the denial of his right to a competent and independent counsel or the absence of effective legal assistance when he waived his constitutional rights, rendered the confession inadmissible under Sec. 12, par. 3, Art. III, of the 1987 Constitution. The Court understands the difficulties faced by law enforcement agencies in apprehending violators of the law . . . . It sympathizes with the public clamor for the bringing of criminals before the altar of justice. However, quick solution of crimes and the consequent apprehension of malefactors are not the end-all and be-all of law enforcement. Enforcers of the law must follow the procedure mandated by the Constitution and the law. Otherwise, their efforts would be meaningless. And their expenses in trying to solve crimes would constitute needless expenditures of taxpayers' money. This Court values liberty and will always insist on the observance of basic constitutional rights as a condition sine qua non against the awesome investigative and prosecutory powers of government.

5|P a g e  





 

 

Warrantless

Arrest

(Case

Digests)

The constitutionally infirm confessions of appellants, therefore, cannot be given any iota of consideration. And without such statements, the remaining prosecution evidence is sorely inadequate to prove the participation of Banculo, Sual, Jr. and Laurio in the crime. The lone prosecution eyewitness, Edwin Cortes, tried to implicate all the accused by describing the kind of weapon each had been armed with during the night of the incident. His statements relative thereto are, however, suspect. In the rest of his testimony, he referred to the accused, other than Salcedo, merely as Salcedo's "companions." On a specific question proffered by the public prosecutor, Cortes admitted not knowing the identities of the other accused. Appellant Salcedo, instead of introducing evidence to show that the witness had evil motive in imputing the crime to him, even admitted that he knew of no reason why Edwin Cortes would testify falsely against him. Consequently, Cortes' positive and clear identification of Salcedo is sufficient to convict him. It has been repeatedly held that the testimony of a single witness, if credible and positive and satisfies the court as to the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, is sufficient to convict.

By

KJMR