People of the Philippines v. Rogelio Mengote

Facts:

The Western Police District received a telephone call from an informer that there were three suspicious-looking persons at the corner of Juan Luna and North Bay Boulevard in Tondo Manila. Later on, surveillance team went to that place and two of them saw two men looking from side to side, and one of them is holding his abdomen. The two patrolmen, Ronaldo Mercado and Alberto Juan approached the two suspicious persons and introduced themselves as policemen. The two tried to escape but they did not succeed. Afterwhich, the suspects were then searched and accused-appelant was found to be in possession of .38 caliber Smith and Wesson revolver with six bullets in the chamber and his companion had a fan knife secreted in his pocket. The said weapons were taken from them and Mengote and Morellos were taken to the police headquarters for investigation. Rogelio Mengote was then charged with illegal possession of firearms under PD No.1866 before the Regional Trial Court of Manila.

Appellant contends that the weapon was not admissible as evidence and it was an illegal seizure because no warrant was issued. Neither could have been seized as an incident to a lawful arrest because his arrest is also unlawful for not having effected with a warrant of a arrest.

On the other hand, the Solicitor General said that the actual existence of an offense was not necessary as long as Mengote’s acts created a reasonable suspicion on the part of the arresting officers and induced the belief that an offense had been committed and that the accused-appellant had committed it.Such arrest was in accordance with Rule 113 Section 5 of the Rules of Court

Issue:

Whether or not the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant Mengote was lawful

Ruling:

No. The Supreme Court held that Section 5 of Rule 113 under the Rules of court is inapplicable in the case at bar.

Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant when lawful. — A peace officer or 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;

(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

The prosecution had not shown that at the time of Mengote’s arrest an offense had in fact just been committed and that the arresting officers had personal knowledge of facts indicating that Mengote had committed it. All they had was a hearsay information from a telephone caller about a crime that had yet to be committed.

The requirements under Sec.5 have not been established in the case at bar. At the time of the arrest, the accused-appelant was merely looking from side to side and holding his abdomen according to the police officers themselves. There was no offense that had just been committed or was being actually committed or attempted to commit by the accused in the presence of the police officers.

Thus, accused-appellant is acquitted and ordered to be released immediately.

Rolito Go v. Court of Appeals

Facts:

Private Respondent Eldon Maguan was driving his car along Wilson St. San Juan Metro Manila heading towards P. Guevarra St. While petitioner entered a one-way street and started to travel the wrong direction. Magnua’s car and petitioner collided with each other. Petitioner then got out of his car and then shot Maguan inside his car and left. A security guard was able to get the car’s plate number and upon verification, it was found out that thecar belong to one Elsa Ang Go. Six days later, the petitioner went to the police station with his two lawyers to verify information that he is being hunted by the police. The police then detained him. An eyewitness to the shooting identified him as the culprit. A complaint for frustrated murder was filed against him with the office of the Provincial Prosecutor while the complaint was still with the prosecutor, the victim died. Therefore, the prosecutor filed an information before the RTC. On that same day, counsel for petitioner filed an omnibus motion for immediate release and proper preliminary investigation on the ground that the warrantless arrest was unlawful and no preliminary investigation was conducted. Petitioner prayed for the posting of bail and it was granted by the Prosecutor. Petiitoner filed an urgent ex-parte motion for special raffle to expedite the bail recommendation. The case was raffled to the sala of respondent Judge who granted the cash bond and released the petitioner. Four days later, Prosecutor filed a motion for leave to conduct preliminary investigation and prayed for the suspension of the proceedings. The motion foe leave was granted and the scheduled date for arraignment was cancelled.

Petitioner then filed a motion for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus on the ground that no preliminary investigation was conducted.

Issue:

Whether or not the arrest of petitioner Go was lawful

Ruling:

No. The Supreme Court held that the warrantless arrest of petitioner does not fall within conditions set forth under Sec.5 Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure which states that

Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant when lawful. — A peace officer or 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;

(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

Petitioner’s arrest took place 6 days after the shooting of the victim. The arresting officers were not present during the said incident, thus it is not within the meaning of Sec.5 a. Neither the arrest effected 6 days after the shooting is within the meaning of Section 5 b. Which states that an arrestinf officer or a private person may without warrant arrest a person when an offense has in fact just been committed, and he had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.

At the time of the incident, the police officers were not present thus they don’t have personal knowledge of facts that petitioner was the gunman. They merely relied on the statements of alleges eyewitnesses to the shooting.

People of the Philippines v. Rolando Manlulu

Facts:

Gerardo Alfaro,a NARCOM agent was stabbed and shot with his service pistol in a drinking spree with Manlapaz Samson and Manlulu. He died the following day. Manlulu and Samson were arrested 19 hours after the incident. Patrolman Reynaldo Perez arrested Manlulu on the information given by Manlapaz who was also present during the incident. During the arrest, Perez seized .45 caliber pistol and Casio wristwatch which belonged to the victim without warrant and without informing the accused right to counsel.

Issue:

Whether or not the arrest and seizure is valid

Ruling:

No. The Supreme Court held that the arrest and seizure was invalid. The killing took place at one o’clock in the morning and the consequent search and seizure were effected at seven o’clock that evening. This instance does not come within the purview of a valid warrantless arrest. Paragraph (b) Sec.5 Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that the arresting officer must have “personal knowledge” of an offense which has in fact just been committed. In this case, Patromen Perez don’t have personal knowledge nor the offense in fact just been committed. The law requires personal knowledge not personal gathering of information. The rule requires that the arrest immediately follows the commission of the offense, not some 19 hours later.

However, even if the arrest and seizure was invalid, the prosecution was able to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The illegality of the warrantless arrest cannot deprive the state of its right to prosecute the guilty when all other facts on record point to their culpability.

People of the Philippines v. Zenaida Bolasa

Facts:

An informer told the police that an illegal transaction of prohibited drugs were being conducted at a certain house in Sta. Brigida St. Karuhatan Valenzuela Metro Manila. PO3 Salonga and Carizon together with SPO1 Fernando Arenas immediately proceed to the said house. Upon reaching the house, they peeped through a small window and saw a man and woman repacking suspected marijuana. They enter the house and introduce themselves as police officers and confiscated the tea bag and other drug paraphernalia.Afterwhich, the police officers arrested the two,Zenaida Bolasa and Roberto de los Reyes. Upon examination by the NBI, the tea bags were confirmed as marijuana. Zenaida Bolasa and Roberto de los Reyes were charged with violation of Sec.8 of Article II of Republic Act 6425 otherwise known as Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. The RTC convicted them of the crime charged.

Accused Bolasa asserts that the search and her arrest was illegal. She insists that the trial court should not regard the testimony of PO3 cCarizon credible because he does not have personal knowledge regarding the conduct of the arrest and search making his testimony a hearsay.

Issue:

Whether or not the arrest and seizure were valid

Ruling:

No. The Supreme Court held that the arrest was invalid because the arresting officers had no personal knowledge that at the time of their arrest, accused-apellants had just committed, were committing or about to commit a crime. The arresting officers also have no personal knowledge that a crime was committed nor have a reasonable ground to believe that the accused committed the crime. And accused appellants were not prisoners who have escaped from a penal establishment.

With respect to the seizure of the tea bags,the court held that it is also invalid because the objects were not seized in plain view. There was no valid intrusion and the evidence was not inadvertently discovered. The police officers intentionally peeped through the window to ascertain the activities of appellants inside the room. In like manner, the search cannot be categorized as a search of a moving vehicle, a consented warrantless arrest, a customs search, or a stop and frisk situations.

The court stated that the arresting officers should have first conducted a surveillance considering that the identities and addressed of the suspected culprits were already ascertained. After conducting the surveillance and determining the existence of probable cause, they should have secured a warrant prior to effecting a valid arrest and seizure. The arrest being illegal ab

initio, the accompanying search was also illegal. Every evidence thus obtained during the illegal search cannot be used against the accused-appellants.

The court held that the State cannot in a cavalier fashion intrude into the persons of citizens as well as into their houses, papers and effects.

The Court enumerated the exceptions as follows:

1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;

2. Search of evidence in plain view.The elements of the plain view doctrine are: (a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the policeare legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who havethe right to be where they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and, (d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further search.

 

3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the government, the vehicles inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable causethat the occupant committed a criminal activity

;4. Consented warrantless search

;5. Customs search

;6. Stop and Frisk; and

7. Exigent and emergency circumstances.

Citing the Rules of Criminal Procedure on lawful warrantless arrest, the Court stated that an arrest is lawful even in theabsence of a warrant

:(a) when the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is about to commit an offense in his presence;(

b) when an offense has in fact been committed and he has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it; and,

(c) when the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement toanother. (A person charged with an

offense may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense

People v. Escordial

Facts:

The Regional Trial Court found accused Anthony Escordial guilty of the crime of robbery with rape.

On December 27,1996, two children were playing inside a jeepney parked in front of a boarding house. Later, appellant told them to go home. While the three boarders were sleeping, one of them was awakened by the presence of the man.

This man had his head covered with a t-shirt to prevent identification and carried aknife about four inches long. He asked for her money and was able to get P500 from her. Shethen turned to the other petitioners who were already awake by that time and was able to takeP3100 from Michelle and none from Teresa because her bag was in the other room.After taking the money, they were told to blindfold one another. He then proceeded tohave carnal knowledge with Michelle.

After he finished raping Michelle, he sat down on the bed and talked to the women. Hethen raped Michelle for the second time, threatening her so she’d concede that it would bemuch worse if he’d call others (companions) from outside to rape her. After which he left.

PO3 Tancinco was one of those who responded to the crime. A report was made in thepolice station. Subsequent searches, through the descriptions of the petitioners, the childrenplaying in the jeep in front of the boarding house, and others led to the pinpointing of accusedappellant.Accused was playing in basketball when the police “invited” him to the Pontevedrapolice station for questioning. At the station Michelle saw him and she identified him as hisalleged robber and rapist. He was also brought to the Bacolod police station so that the otherwitnesses could identify him. They picked him out of four in the line-up.Accused claims that he went home to Pontevedra, Negros Occidental at the time of theincident as testified by three other witnesses for the defense.

Accused-appellant questions the legality of his arrest without a warrant.

Issue:Whether or not the warrantless arrest is valid

Ruling:The Supreme Court held that the warrantless arrest was invalid but it was cured by the

accused-appellant’s failure to question the legality of his arrest before entering his plea to the crime charged against him.

Rule 113 Sec. 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a peace officer or private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person only under the following circumstances:

a. When in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing or is attempting to commit an offense

b. When a n offense had just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it and

c. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.The cases at bar do not fall under paragraphs (a) or( c) of the aforequoted rule. At the time of the arrest, accused-appellant was watching a basketball game in the basketball court in Barangay Miranda Pontevedra Negros Occidental. He was not committing or attempting to commit a crime when he was arrested by the police officers. Nor was he an escaped prisoner whose arrest could be effected even without a warrant.

In these cases, the crime took place on December 27,1996 and was arrested only on January 3, 1997, a week after the occurrence of the crime. As the arrestingofficers were not present when the crime was committed, they could not have “personalknowledge of the facts and circumstances of the commission of the crime”.Personal knowledge of facts in arrests without a warrant must be based upon “probable cause”which means “an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion.” (Reasonable: in theabsence of actual belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion that the person to be arrested isprobably guilty of committing the offense is based on actual facts)

The records show that accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged against him during his arraignment without questioning his warrantless arrest. He thus waived objection to the legality of his arrest.

People of the Philippines v. Wenceslao Jayson

Facts:

Accused-appellant Wenceslao Jayson was charged with violation of P.D.1866 in the Regional Trial Court of Davao City.

On the evening of March 16,1991 accused-appellant, a bouncer at the Ihaw-Ihaw nightclub in Bonifacio Street Davao City shot one Nelson Jordan. He was arrested after eyewitnesses pinpointed him as the gunman. The police officers recovered from him a .38 caliber revolver containing four bullets and one empty shell. The firearm and ammunition were covered by memorandum receipt and mission order issued by Major Francisco Arquillano, Deputy Commander of the Civil-Military Operation and CAFGU Affairs of the Davao Metropolitan District Command Wwhich authorized appellant to intensify intelligence coverage.

On March 20,1991 he was charged with murder but after plea-bargaining he was allowed to plead guilty to the lesser offense of homicide.

On July 15,1991 he was charged with illegal possession of firearms and later amended to allege that the firearm subject of the charge has been used in the killing of a certain Nelson Jordan.

On June 17,1993 he was found guilty by the regional Trial Court and sentenced him to 20 years imprisonment.

Accused-appellant maintains that he acted in good faith belief that he was authorized to carry the firearm by virtue of the mission order and memorandum receipt issued by Major Arquillano.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused-appellants arrest was lawful

Ruling:

Yes. The Supreme Court held that under Rule 113 Sec. 5(b) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that

Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant when lawful- A peace officer or private person may, withour a warrant arrest a person.....

b)When an offense has in fact just been committed and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.

In this case,three patrolmen received a radio message from their camp which directs them to proceed to Ihaw-Ihaw where there had been a shooting. They proceed to the said place and saw the victim. Eyewitnesses pointed to accused-appellant as the gunman.

Thus, the police officers had personal knowledge that the accused-appellant was the culprit.

The subsequent search of accused-appellants person and seizure was likewise lawful. Rule 126 Sec.6 provides that

Sec.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 search warrant.

People v. Salvatierra

Facts:

On August 17,1990 While Charlie Fernandez, a palamig vendor was walking along M. De la Fuente St. going towards Quiapo, three persons met him and one of them was appellant David Salvatierra who lunged a pointed instrument at Charlie hitting the latter’s left breast which resulted to his death.

On November 15,1990 the police station received a complaint that appellant caused a commotion along Minguelin St. Sampaloc Manila. He was thereby taken into custody by Pat. Celso Tan and two other policemen who later found out that appellant was a suspect in the killing of Charlie Fernandez. He was then turned over to the Western Police District.

Four days later, appellant was charged with murder. Upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty.

Appellant put up the defense of alibi that he was with hi wife and children having merienda at home.

He claims that his constitutional right against warrantless arrests was violated because the record doesn’t show that his arrest for the minor offense of malicious mischief was effected by virtue of a warrant together with the killing of Charlie Fernandez, which arrest was made 3 months after the commission of the crime. He said that his arrest was illegal

Issue:

Whether or not there was a violation of appellant’s constitutional right against warrantless arrest

Ruling:

No. The Supreme court held that while the arguments may be valid, appellant is estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest considering that he never raised the issue before entering his plea. Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure in the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before he enters his plea. In this case, this is the first time that appellant is raising the issue of legality of his arrest.

Moreover, the irregularity attendant to his arrest has been cured by his voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the trial court when he entered his plea and participated during the trial.

People v. Hernandez

Facts:

On January 21, 1992, at about 3:30 p.m., accused Lorenzo drove Eva to the Immaculate Concepcion Academy to get Sharleen.  He parked the car in the school's parking lot and Eva alighted to get Sharleen.  Minutes later, Eva and Sharleen returned to the car.  Sharleen took the backseat, behind the driver.  While Eva was starting to board beside Sharleen, an unidentified man sit beside her and warned her not to shout.  After 20 minutes,  the car slowed down in front of an iron gate and the man in the front seat and Sharleen got out of the car. After a couple of minutes, the man release the nanny to inform her employer of Sharleen's ransom.  Eva called up her employer's house, recounted the incident and asked that she be picked up at Paterno Street.  Minutes later, Samson Cheng, Sharleen's uncle, fetched Eva and brought her back to the Tan residence.[2]

Sharleen's father, received a call from one of the kidnappers demanding a 10M ransom.  They haggled in the amount and reached no agreement.  The police then left Tan's house.[3]

Thereafter, several phone calls were made by the kidnappers to the Tan family.  Jacinto asked for a lower ransom in the amount of 409,000 wherein the kidnappers agreed and instructed Jacinto to leave the money in a garbage can in front of the Town and Country Lodge in Old Sta. Mesa, Manila.  Jacinto complied and then returned to his house to await the call of the kidnappers on Sharleen's release.   A week later,the kidnappers again called up the Tan residence.  They informed Jacinto that they had released Sharleen and left her at the Perpetual Help Hospital in España, Manila.  Jacinto rushed to the hospital and found Sharleen who was extremely traumatized by the incident.  Jacinto himself suffered from nervous breakdown.[5]

An intensive manhunt was launched to capture the kidnappers of Sharleen.  CIS Chief Inspector Major Ruben Zacarias organized two (2) teams to conduct the hunt.  The team composed of SPO3 Gregorio Cuachon and SPO1 Danilo T. Salas and headed by Inspector Warlito Platon was directed to verify the information that Sharleen was hidden by accused Alfredo Tumaneng in a house at #15 Kennedy Street, Road 20, Project 8, Quezon City.   Officers Cuachon and Salas conducted a discreet surveillance of the area and were able to verify the information.  They also found out that accused Tumaneng had left the safehouse and has transferred to Mayupis, Malabon, Metro Manila.

Seven (7) suspects were identified by the CIS.  Five of them, namely, Hernandez, Tumaneng, Lorenzo, Jacob and Famodulan, were captured by the CIS operatives.  Each executed an extrajudicial confession which became the basis of the criminal charge against them.

Upon arraignment, the five accused pleaded not guilty. During pendency of the trial, accused Hernandez and Jacob escaped from detention. They were tried in absentia.

Appellant Tumaneng and Lorenzo contends that their warrantless arrest was illegal and their extrajudicial confession were obtained without the benefit of a competent and independent counsel of their own choice.

On the other hand, appellant Famodulan contends that he was not positively identified as one of the conspirators and he was arrested and investigated in violation f his constitutional rights.

Issue:

Whether or not the warrantless arrests were illegal

Ruling:

The Supreme Court held that appellants were arrested without the benefit of a warrant and under circumstances other than justifying a warrantless arrest. Clearly, their warrantless arrests violated the Constitution but such was cured by the failure of the appellants to move for the quashing of the information before the arraignment.

In the case at bar, by entering a plea of not guilty and participating in the trial, appellants waived their right to challenge the legality of their arrest.