ALLADO V.

DIOKNO
G.R. No. 113630 May 5, 1994
Warrant of Arrest, Probable Cause, Personally
examined.
Facts:
Petitioner Allado and Mendoza (Petitioners) accused
in kidnapping and the killing of a German national.
Upon the sworn statements of a ecurit! guard and a
discharged Philippine consta"ular! a earch #arrant
was issued "! $udge %o"erto &arrios of %'( Manila.
'hen and there) the operati*es of Presidential Anti+
(rime commission (PA(() raided the dwellings of
alleged suspects in the crime and a"le to confiscate
se*eral firearms and ammunitions including a
sunglasses owned "! the German ,ational.
PA(( later referred the case to the -.$.
$udge %o"ert -iokno (%espondent) found pro"a"le
cause after preliminar! in*estigation and) hence)
issued an arrest warrant without "ail.
'he petitioners contended that $udge -iokno acted
with gra*e a"use of discretion and in e/cess of his
0urisdiction as there is lack of pro"a"le cause for him
to issue the warrants.
Further contended that the 0udge did not personall!
determine the admissi"ilit! and sufficienc! of the
e*idence where the in*estigation was "ased from.
1ssue:
#2, the 0udge erred in finding pro"a"le cause
issuing the search warrant.
%uling:
3es. Pro"a"le cause in this case is wanting.
'here4s a serious dou"t on the death of the German
national since the (orpus -elicti was not esta"lished
nor his remains ha*e "een reco*ered. For a pro"a"le
cause to e/ist the facts and circumstances must "e
such as would warrant a "elief "! a reasona"l!
discreet and prudent man that the accused is guilt! of
the crime which has 0ust "een committed.
Moreo*er) the %espondent 0udge merel! relied on the
certification of the prosecutors that pro"a"le cause
e/isted. (learl!) pro"a"le cause ma! not "e
esta"lished simpl! "! showing that a trial 0udge
su"0ecti*el! "elie*es that he has good grounds for his
action. Good faith is not enough.
PEOPLE V. ALBIOR
G.R. No. 75034 Jun 30, 19!!
Issues which were never raised in the
proceedins before the trial court cannot be
considered and passed upon on appeal. !Citation
from "errera #oo$, herein "errera%
Facts:
Accused Fransicso Al"ior conspiringl!) ro" the house
of Garces. Upon unlawful) forcefull! entering
through window) another accused Peter -oe raped
and killed certain -ana Garces and carried awa!
personal "elongings.
%'( rendered the accused Al"ior guilt! of the crime
of ro""er! with homicide with rape.
'he accused contends that he was not present at the
time the crime happened) and he did not in fact
understand tagalog) since he is a (e"uano)
withstanding the written e/tra+0udicial confession
was signed "! him for he was told that if he did sign
he would "e released. 5e also assailed the legalit! of
his arrest and the seizure of the stolen goods "! the
(1 agents.
5owe*er) these issues were ne*er raised in the
proceedings "efore the trial court.
1ssue
#2, the issues raised "! Fransico Al"ior can "e
considered on appeal.
%uling:
,o) the! cannot "e considered and passed upon on
appeal. ('he ( did not e/pound their ruling
regarding this issue) hence) this is onl! for the
purpose of our (riminal Procedure su"0ect. .ther
unnecessar! issues are intentionall! omitted.)
A.G. 2014 Criminal Procedure
PEOPLE V. MOLINA
G.R. No. 133917 "#$ua$y 19, %001
&eliable information alone, absent any overt act
indicative of a felonious enterprise in the
presence of and within the view of the arrestin
o'cers, are not su'cient to constitute probable
cause that would (ustify an in )arante delicto
arrest !"errera%
Facts:
A Mem"er of the Philippine ,ational Police (P,P)
P.6 Marino Paguidopon recei*es an information
regarding the presence of an alleged mari0uana
pusher. (in da*ao)
'he informant pointed out Molina and Mula as the
alleged pushers.
'hereafter) P.6 Paguidopon dispatched his mem"er
on the said area where the! would wait for the
alleged pusher to pass "!.
.n the same occasion) a trisikad passing "! carr!ing
Molina has "een pointed out "! P.6 Paguidopon)
then the P,P team "oarded the trisikad and accosted
Molina and Mula.
A "lack "ag possessed "! them were ordered "! the
Police officers to open its contents) at first the! (the
petitioners) ask if the! can settle the matters) "ut the
police officers denied the re7uest and insisted it to "e
open and re*eals dried mari0uana lea*es.
'he! were found guilt! of *iolation of the -angerous
-rugs Act. 'he! (ontended that such e*idence is
inadmissi"le for ha*ing "een o"tained in *iolation of
their constitutional right against unlawful searches
and seizures.
1ssue:
#2, Mula and Molina manifested outward indication
that would 0ustif! their arrest) and the seizure of the
prohi"ited drugs.
%uling:
,o) Mula and Molina in carr!ing a "ag on a trisikad
could not "e said to "e committing) attempting to
commit or ha*e committed a crime.
Moreo*er such attempt to settle the matters "! the
petitioners is an e7ui*ocal statement which standing
alone will not constitute pro"a"le cause to effect and
in flagrante delicto arrest. 5ence the search
conducted on their person was likewise illegal.
PEOPLE V. OBRERO
G.R. No. 1%%14% May 17, %000
Custodial Investiation, Counsel competent and
independent.
Facts:
$imm! ."rero is a deli*er! "o! engaged in selling
chickens.
.n a certain da!) $imm! ."rero and a co+emplo!ee
conspired to ro" one of their customer. 'he! went to
the house of the same and found out the homeowner
was not their "ut onl! the two maids.
'he! proceeded with the heist and murdered the two
maids therein and di*ided the mone!.
$imm! ."rero was arrested and taken for custodial
in*estigation wherein with the assistance of Attorne!
-e los %e!es who was also the state commander of
the police precint) he e/ecuted and e/tra0udicial
confession.
1ssue:
#2, $imm! ."rero4s right to counsel during a
custodial in*estigation was *iolated.
%uling
3es. 'he (onstitution re7uires that counsel assisting
suspects in custodial in*estigations "e competent and
independent.
5ere) the accused was assisted "! Attorne! -e los
re!es.) who) though presuma"l! competent) cannot "e
considered an 8independent counsel9 as contemplated
"! the law for the reason that he was station
commander of the police precinct at the time he
assisted A.
'he independent counsel re7uired "! the (onstitution
cannot "e a special counsel) pu"lic or pri*ate
prosecutor) municipal attorne!) or counsel of the
police whose interest is admittedl! ad*erse to the
accused.
A.G. 2014 Criminal Procedure
G&MABON V. DIRE'(OR O" PRI)ON)
G.R. No. L*300%6 Janua$y 30, 1971
Where there is a violation of basic constitutional
rights courts are ousted of !urisdiction. "ence
the violation of the state#s right to due $rocess
raises a serious !urisdictional error. %"errera&'
Facts:
Guma"on et al were charged for re"ellion punished
under Art 6:; of the %P(. 'heir offense was
comple/ed with multiple murder) ro""er!) arson) and
kidnapping.
'heir sentence had "ecome final and e/ecutor! when
the 5ernandez -octrine was promulgated "! the (.
5ernandez -octrine simpl! states that murder cannot
"e comple/ed to re"ellion as it is necessaril!
a"sor"ed therein. 5ence much more lower penalt!
Guma"on precisel! assert a depri*ation of a
constitutional right) namel!) the denial of e7ual
protection. 'he petitioners were con*icted "! (F1 for
the *er! same re"ellion for which 5ernandez and
others were con*icted.
1ssue:
#hether or not Guma"on et al is entitled to the
effects of the 5ernandez -octrine.
%uling:
3es) what is re7uired under this constitutional
guarantee is the uniform operation of legal norms so
that all persons under similar circumstances would "e
accorded the same treatment "oth in the pri*ileges
conferred and the lia"ilities imposed. As was noted in
a recent decision: Fa*oritism and undue preference
cannot "e allowed. For the principle is that e7ual
protection and securit! shall "e gi*en to e*er! person
under circumstances) which if not identical are
analogous.
1f Guma"on et al would continue to endure
imprisonment) then this would "e repugnant to e7ual
protection) people similarl! situated were not
similarl! dealt with.
1f law "e looked upon in terms of "urden or charges)
those that fall within a class should "e treated in the
same fashion) whate*er restrictions cast on some in
the group e7uall! "inding on the rest.
PEOPLE V. PAVILLARE
G.R. No. 1%%970 A+$,- 5, %000
*he stae of the investiation wherein a person
is as$ed to stand in a police line+up is outside the
mantle of protection of the riht to counsel
Facts:
Pa*illare) without the assistance of counsel) was
identified "! the complainant in a police+line up as
one of the kidnappers. 5e was su"se7uentl! found
guilt! with kidnapping for ransom.<
1ssue:
#2, the identification made "! the complainant in
the police line+up is inadmissi"le "ecause the accused
stood up at the line+up without the assistance of
counsel.
%uling:
,o. 'he (onstitution prohi"its custodial in*estigation
conducted without the assistance of counsel. An!
e*idence o"tained in *iolation of the constitutional
mandate is inadmissi"le in e*idence.
'he prohi"ition howe*er) does not e/tend to a person
in a police line+up "ecause that stage of an
in*estigation is not !et a part of custodial
in*estigation.
(ustodial in*estigation commences when a person is
taken into custod! and is singled out as a suspect in
the commission of the crime under in*estigation and
the police officers "egin to ask 7uestions on the
suspect4s participation therein and which tend to elicit
an admission
'he stage of the in*estigation wherein a person is
asked to stand in a police line+up is outside the
mantle of protection of the right to counsel "ecause it
A.G. 2014 Criminal Procedure
in*ol*es a general in7uir! into an unsol*ed crime and
is purel! in*estigator! in nature.
PEOPLE V. ALOJADO
G.R. No.. 1%%966*67 Ma$/0 %5, 1999
(he ob!ection to the legalit) of an arrest must be
submitted to the trial court before the accused
enters his $lea.'
Facts:
'wo separate complainants charged appellant herein
=dgar Allo0ado with statutor! rape.
After preliminar! in*estigation) said (omplaints
were su"se7uentl! treated as information. Alo0ado
pleaded 8not guilt!9 on arraignment and the two
cases were 0ointl! tried.
%'( Angeles (it! was swa!ed "! the prosecution4s
case and rendered herein assailed 0udgment
con*icting Alo0ado of two counts of rape.
Appellant allege and maintains that he was illegall!
arrested. 5owe*er this argument comes too late in the
da!) "ecause appellant failed to allege it prior to his
arraignment.
1ssue:
#2, the o"0ection to the legalit! of arrest is tena"le.
%uling:
,o) the (ourt emphasized that an o"0ection to the
legalit! of an arrest must "e su"mitted to the trial
court "efore the accused enters his plea.
1n People *. al*atierra) Appellant is estopped from
7uestioning the legalit! of his arrest considering that
he ne*er raised this "efore entering his plea.
An! o"0ection in*ol*ing a warrant of arrest or the
ac7uisition of 0urisdiction o*er the person of an
accused must "e made "efore he enters his plea)
otherwise the o"0ection is deemed wai*ed.
(onse7uentl!) an!) defect concerning the arrest of the
appellant was cured "! his *oluntar!) su"mission to
the 0urisdiction of the trial court) as shown when he
entered his plea during his arraignment) and when he
acti*el! participated in the trial thereafter.
)A1O V. '2IE" O" POLI'E
G.R. No. L*%1%! May 1%, 194!
Warrantless arrest u$on $robable cause not
merel) from a com$laint. '
Facts:
Upon complaint of &ernardino Malinao) charging
Melencio a!o and $oa7uin Mostero with ha*ing
committed the crime of ro""er!) &en0amin -umlao) a
policeman of the (it! of Manila) arrested the a!o
and Mostero) and presented a complaint against them
with the fiscal>s office of Manila.
#hen the petition for ha"eas corpus was heard) the
a!o and Mostero were still detained or under arrest)
and the cit! fiscal had not !et released or filed
charges against them with the proper courts 0ustice.
1ssue:
#2, 'he warrantless arrest *alid.
%uling:
,o. Under the constitution) no person ma! "e
depri*ed of his li"ert! e/cept "! warrant of arrest or
commitment issued upon pro"a"le cause "! a 0udge
after e/amination of the complainant and his witness.
A peace officer has no power or authorit! to arrest a
person without a warrant upon complaint of the
offended part! or an! other person) e/cept in those
cases e/pressl! authorized "! law.
#hat he or the complainant ma! do in such case is to
file a complaint with the cit! fiscal or directl! with
the 0ustice of the peace courts in municipalities and
A.G. 2014 Criminal Procedure
other political su"di*isions. A fortiori a police officer
has no authorit! to arrest and detain a person charged
with an offense upon complaint of the offended part!
or other persons e*en though) after in*estigation) he
"ecomes con*inced that the accused is guilt! of the
offense charged.
A.G. 2014 Criminal Procedure