Lim vs.

Felix
Facts
In a vicinity of the airport road of the Masbate Domestic Airport, located at the municipality of
Masbate province of Masbate, Congressman Moises Espinosa, Sr. and his security escorts were killed by
a lone assassin.
Harry O. Tantiado, TSg of the PC Criminal Investigation Service at Camp Bagong Ibalon
Legazpi City submitted an amended complaint with the MTC of Masbate accusing Vicente Lim, Sr,
Mayor Susana Lim of Masbate etc, of the crime of multiple murder and frustrated murder in connection
with airport incident. He concluded that there was probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest
for the accused.
The entire records were then transmitted to the Provincial Prosecutor of Masbate in which the
respondent acting was Fiscal Antonio Alfane. Fiscal Alfane modified the charge on the accused with
Murder and a physical injuries for inflicting gunshot wound on the buttocks of Dante Siblante. The cases
were raffled to Branch 56 presided by respondent Judge Nemesio S. Felix.
The petitioner had raised several motions and manifestations. However, the respondent court
issued an order denying for lack of merit the motions and manifestations and issued warrants or arrest
against the accused including the petitioners herein. The judge relied on the prosecutor’s certification in
each information.
Issue/s
WON a judge may issue a warrant of arrest without bail by simply relying on the prosecution’s
certification and recommendation that a probable cause exists.
Ruling
No. the issuance of warrant is not a mere ministerial function. It calls for the exercise of judicial
discretion on the part of the issuing magistrate. Under Section 6 of the Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, the
judge must satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause before issuing a warrant or order of arrest. If
he 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 a probable cause.
The judge has to personally question each complainant and witness or go over the records of the
Prosecutor’s investigation page by page and word for word before he acts on each of a big pile of
applications for arrest warrants on his desk. He must personally determined the probable cause. The
prosecutor cannot determine the probable cause. Reliance on the record of the investigation from the
prosecutor is not personally determined.
In the ruling of Soliven vs. Makasiar, the established doctrine and procedure was 1). Personally
evaluate the report and supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable
cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrantless arrest; or 2). If on the basis thereof he finds no
probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal’s report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of
witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause.
Judge’s personal examination of the report and its annexes depends on the circumstance of each
case but to be sure, the judge must go beyond the prosecutor’s certification and investigation report
whenever necessary. He should call for the complainant and witness themselves to answer the court’s
probing questions when the circumstances of the case so require.
People vs. Edano
Facts
Prosecution charged the appellant and Godofredo Siochi wit violation of Section 11, Article II of
RA No. 9165 under two separate information. The evidence of the prosecution was established on
entrapment conducted by the Metro Manila Drugs Enforcement Group, composed of PO3 Corbe, PO3
Javier, PO3 Padpad, PO3 Alcancia, Jr. together with a female informant. They were able to seize the
accused after the informant waved at PO3 Corbe.
The RTC acquitted Siochi on the ground of reasonable doubt. The CA found PO3 Corbe to be a
credible witness. It also found the appellant’s warrantless arrest to be valid because of the appellant’s
running when PO3 Corbe was approaching him reinforced the latter’s suspicion that “something was
amiss”.
Issue/s
WON the warrantless arrest was valid.
Ruling
No. Under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, “For a warrantless arrest
of an accused caught in flagrante delicto to be valid, two requisites must concur: (1) the person to be
arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the
arresting officer."
There was no overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise that could be properly attributed to the
appellant to arouse suspicion in the mind of PO3 Corbe that he had just committed, was actually
committing or was attempting to commit a crime in the present case. From the testimony of PO3 Corbe,
the appellant and the informant were just talking to each other. There was no exchange of money and
drugs when he approached the car. The waving was also not a prearranged signal to signify that the sale
of drugs had been consummated. PO3 Corbe also admitted that he had no personal knowledge on whether
there was a prohibited drug and gun inside the space wagon when he approached it. The attempt to run
away cannot be attributed as adequate to charge the police officer with personal knowledge that the
appellant had just engaged in, was engaging in or was attempting to engage in criminal activity. Trying to
run away when no crime had been overtly committed, and without more, cannot be evidence of guilt.
Since the warrantless arrest was unlawful, the search and seizure that result from it was likewise illegal,
the alleged plastic bag containing white crystalline substances seized from him is inadmissible in
evidence, having come from an invalid search and seizure.
Manalili vs. CA
Facts
Petitioner Alain Manalili was charged with violation of Section 8, Article II, of RA 6425. The
police conducted a surveillance along Mabini street, Kalookan City, in front of the Kalookan City
Cemetery because of information that drug addicts were roaming the area in front of the Kalookan City
Cemetry. Manalili was caught and crushed marijuana was confiscated from him. Accordingly, the police
bodily searched the accused. The trial court and the CA convicted the accused.
Issue/s
WON the evidence seized during a stop-and-frisk is admissible.
Ruling
Yes. The evidence seized during a stop-and-frisk is admissible because the search was valid akin
to a stop-and-frisk. Stop-and-frisk is a vernacular designation of the right of a police officer to stop a
citizen on the street, interrogate him, and pat him for weapons if the police observes unusual conduct
which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and
that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous.
However, it did not abandon the rule that the police must, whenever practicable, obtain advance
judicial approval of searches and seizure through warrant procedure, excused only by exigent
circumstances.
As a general rule, a search and seizure must be validated by a previously secured judicial warrant;
otherwise, such search and seizure are unconstitutional and subject to challenge. Any evidence obtained
in violation of the mentioned provision is legally inadmissible in evidence. However, this is not absolute.
The exceptions to the rule against warrantless search and seizure are "(1) search incidental to a lawful
arrest, (2) search of moving vehicles, (3) seizure in plain view, (4) customs search, and (5) waiver by the
accused themselves of their right against unreasonable search and seizure." In these cases, the search and
seizure may be made only with probable cause as the essential requirement. Although the term eludes
exact definition, probable cause for a search is, at best, defined as a reasonable ground of suspicion,
supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man in the belief that
the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged; or the existence of such facts and
circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been
committed and that the item(s), article(s) or object(s) sought in connection with said offense or subject to
seizure and destruction by law is in the place to be searched. Stop-and-frisk has already been adopted as
another exception to the general rule against a search without a warrant. In such a situation, it was
reasonable for a police officer to stop a suspicious individual briefly in order to determine his identity or
to maintain the status quo while obtaining more information, rather than to simply shrug his shoulders and
allow a crime to occur.
Moreover, the petitioner effectively waived the inadmissibility of any evidence illegally obtained
when he failed to raise his issue or to object thereto during trial. The requirements of a valid waiver are
1). The right to be waived existed, 2). The person waiving it had knowledge, actual or constructive, 3). He
or she had an actual intention to relinquish the right. Petitioner has been deemed to have waived such
right for his failure to raise its violation before the trial court.
People vs. Nazareno
Facts
PO3 Renato de Leon saw appellant from a distance of about 8 to 10 meters away, holding and
scrutinizing in his hand a plastic sachet of shabu. He approached the appellant and recognized him as
someone he had previously arrested for illegal drug possession. Appellant tried to escape but was quickly
apprehended with the help of a tricycle driver.
The RTC convicted the appellant and the CA sustained the conviction finding “a clear case of in
flagrante delicto warrantless arrest”.
Issue/s
WON the warrantless arrest was valid.
Ruling
No. Warrantless arrest under Section 5(a) of Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure operate in two elements 1). The person to be arrested must execute an overt act indication that
he just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime, and 2). Such overt act is
done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer and 5(b) requires for its application that at
the time of the arrest, an offense had in fact just been committed and the arresting officer had personal
knowledge of facts indicating that the appellant had committed it. Both instances require the officer’s
personal knowledge of the fact of the commission of an offense.
PO3 de Leon could not be able to identify with reasonable accuracy from a distance of about 8 to
10 meters away while simultaneously driving a motorcycle, a negligible and minuscule amount of
powdery substance inside the plastic sachet allegedly held by appellant. Even when he successfully
effected numerous arrests through this, it is still not a valid conclusion that he was able to see that it was
really shabu. There was no other overt act that could attribute to appellant as to arouse suspicion in the
mind of PO3 de Leon. Even when had been acting unusually. Without the overt act that would pin the
liability to the accused, PO3 de Leon was merely impelled to apprehend appellant on account of the
latter’s previous charge for the same offense. Even a previous arrest of the accused even for the same
offense will not suffice to satisfy the exacting requirements provided under Section 5, Rule 113. In
interpreting “personal knowledge” as referring to a person’s reputation or past criminal citations would
create a dangerous precedent and unnecessarily stretch the authority and power of police officers to effect
warrantless arrests based solely on knowledge of a person’s previous criminal infractions, rendering
nugatory the rigorous requisites laid out under Section 5. Appellant’s act of darting away from PO3 de
Leon should not be construed against him. Flight per se is not synonymous with guilt and must not always
be attributed to one’s consciousness of guilt. This is not a reliable indicator of guilt. Moreover, appellant
walking along the street holding something in his hands, even if they appeared dubious does not by
themselves sufficient to incite suspicion of criminal activity or to create probable cause enough to justify
a warrantless arrest. “Probable cause” means a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by
circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man’s belief that the person accused
is guilty of the offense with which he is charged. While it is true that the legality of an arrest depends on
the reasonable discretion of the officer or functionary to whom the law at the moment leaves, it cannot be
arbitrarily exercised without unduly compromising a citizen’s constitutionally-guarnteed right to liberty.
Thus, the right of the person to be secure against unreasonable seizure of his body and any
deprivation of his liberty is a fundamental right. The statute of rule which allows exceptions to the
requirement of warrants of arrest must be strictly construed.
People vs. Sucro
Facts
Pat Roy Fulgencio was monitoring the activities of appellant Edison Sucro because of the
information gathered that Sucro was selling marijuana. Pat Fulgencio was able to arrest Sucro without
warrant after conducting surveillance. He was caught while transacting marijuana with his customers
outside of the chapel
Issue/s
WON the arrest without a warrant of the accused is lawful and consequently, WON the evidence
resulting from such arrest is admissible.
Ruling
Yes. It was a lawful arrest without warrant. The offense committed by appellant was in the
presence or within the view of an officer. The record showed that Fulgencio was able to see Sucro two
meters away performing illegal activities. The failure of the police officers to secure warrant stems from
the fact that their knowledge acquired from the surveillance was insufficient to fulfill the requirements for
the issuance of a search warrant. What is paramount is that probable cause existed.
Yes. Searches and seizures must be supported by a valid warrant is not an absolute rule. An
exception is when 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. Since it was a lawful
arrest, the fruits obtain from such lawful arrest are admissible in evidence.