531. People v.
Molina ● During trial, they filled a demurrer to evidence alleging that the marijuana is
G.R. No. 133917 | 19 February 2001 | Ynares-Santiago| In flagrante Delicto Arrest
Digest by: ABRAZALDO
Petitioners: People of the Philippines
Respondents: NASARIO MOLINA y MANAMAT @ "BOBONG" and GREGORIO
MULA y MALAGURA @ "BOBOY"
Recit-ready Digest + Doctrine:
SPO1 Marino received a tip about a marijuana pusher. He personally saw Mula when
he was pointed out by the informant. He did not personally see Molina before. SPO1
then received a tip that the pusher will be passing by the NHA in davao city. He then
assembled a team to wait for the pusher to pass by. A “trisikad” [tricycle na pedicab]
carrying the accused passed by. SPO1 then pointed to them as the pushers. The
team, without SPO1 Marino, then followed and overtook the trisikad.
When stopped, Mula was holding a black bag and then gave it to Molina. They were
asked to open the bag. Molina then said to the police “Boss, if possible we will settle
this”. The bag was opened and there were dried marijuana leaves inside. They were
then arrested.
During trial, they filled a demurrer to evidence alleging that the marijuana is
inadmissible, denied. MR, denied. They were convicted and sentenced to death.
Hence, this automatic review.
W/N there was a valid warrantless arrest and search? NO
To constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, 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.
The arresting officer, therefore, must have personal knowledge of such fact or, as
recent case law adverts to, personal knowledge of facts or circumstances
convincingly indicative or constitutive of probable cause. Probable cause means an
actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion. "Reliable information" alone,
absent any overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise in the presence and within
the view of the arresting officers, are not sufficient to constitute probable cause that
would justify an in flagrante delicto arrest.
In this case, holding a bag in a trisikad could not lead a person to believe that they
were committing, attempting to commit or have committed a crime.
Facts:
● SPO1 Marino received a tip about a marijuana pusher. He personally saw
Mula when he was pointed out by the informant. He did not personally see
Molina before.
● SPO1 received a tip that the pusher will be passing by the NHA in davao city.
He then assembled a team to wait for the pusher to pass by. A “trisikad”
[tricycle na pedicab] carrying the accused passed by. SPO1 then pointed to
them as the pushers. The team, without SPO1 Marino, then followed and
overtook the trisikad.
● When stopped, Mula was holding a black bag and then gave it to Molina. They
were asked to open the bag. Molina then said to the police “Boss, if possible
we will settle this”. The bag was opened and there were dried marijuana
leaves inside. They were then arrested.
inadmissible, denied. MR, denied. They were convicted and sentenced to
death. Hence, this automatic review.
Issue/s:
● W/N it was a valid warrantless arrest – NO
● W/N there was a valid warrantless search pursuant to a valid arrest - NO
Ratio:
● A search may be made incidental to a lawful arrest. The law requires that there
be first a lawful arrest before a search can be made — the process cannot be
reversed.
● As a rule, an arrest is considered legitimate if effected with a valid
warrant of arrest. As an exception, a peace officer or a private person
may, without 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 (arrest in flagrante delicto); (b) when an
offense has 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 (arrest effected in hot pursuit); and (c)
when the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a
penal establishment or a 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 (arrest of escaped
prisoners)
● To constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, 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.
● The arresting officer, therefore, must have personal knowledge of such fact
or, as recent case law adverts to, personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances convincingly indicative or constitutive of probable cause.
Probable cause means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion.
The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of actual belief
of the arresting officers, the suspicion that the person to be arrested is
probably guilty of committing the offense, is based on actual facts, i.e.,
supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the
probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. A reasonable suspicion
therefore must be founded on probable cause, coupled with good faith on the
part of the peace officers making the arrest.
● It is settled that "reliable information" alone, absent any overt act indicative of
a felonious enterprise in the presence and within the view of the arresting
officers, are not sufficient to constitute probable cause that would justify an in
flagrante delicto arrest.
● In this case, holding a bag in a trisikad could not lead a person to believe
that they were committing, attempting to commit or have committed a
crime. It matters not that accused-appellant Molina responded "Boss, if
possible we will settle this" to the request of SPO1 Pamplona to open
the bag. Such response which allegedly reinforced the "suspicion" of
 the arresting officers that accused-appellants were committing a crime,
is an equivocal statement which standing alone will not constitute
probable cause to effect an in flagrante delicto arrest.
● SPO1 Marino admitted that he didnt know Mula’s name and address prior to
the arrest. It is even doubtful that he could recognize Mula since he was only
pointed out to him once while the latter was riding a motorcycle. SPO1 didnt
even know Molina prior to the arrest.

Dispositive:
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 17, in
Criminal Case No. 37, 264-96, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. For lack of evidence to
establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, accused-appellants Nasario Molina y
Manamat alias "Bobong" and Gregorio Mula y Malagura alias "Boboy", are
ACQUITTED and ordered RELEASED from confinement unless they are validly
detained for other offenses. No costs.

SO ORDERED.
 532. People v. Alunday
G.R. No. 181546 | 3 September 2008 | Chico-Nazario | Warrantless Arrest.
Digest by: MAGAYANES (CRIMPRO 2D/2E digest) (checked by AÑOVER)
Petitioners: Ricardo Alunday
Respondents: People of the Philippines
Recit-ready Digest + Doctrine:
Intelligence Section of the Police Provincial Office of Mountain Province received a
report regarding a marijuana plantation in Sagada. The police officers then
conducted a series of validations to confirm its existence.
Months later, with no warrant, a group of policemen went to the location of the
plantation and found Ricardo Alunday cutting and gathering marijuana plants. The
police then went up to Alunday, introduced themselves as policemen, and thereafter
questioned him at a nearby hut. At this hut, an M16 rifle was also found by the police.
The RTC convicted Alunday of Cultivation of Prohibited Drugs. CA Affirmed.
In the SC, Alunday raised that the evidence against him was illegal since the
warrantless arrest was likewise, illegal since the police did not obtain a warrant
despite months of surveillance.
The issue is W/N there was a valid warrantless arrest. – YES.
Section 5(a) provides that 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.
Section 5(a) refers to arrest in flagrante delicto. In flagrante delicto means caught in
the act of committing a crime. This rule, which warrants the arrest of a person without
warrant, requires that the person arrested has just committed a crime, or is
committing it, or is about to commit an offense, in the presence or within view of the
arresting officer.
the arrest was a valid flagrante delicto arrest. Even if the report was received months
before, a validation and confirmation done by the police does not remove the
nature of the arrest as being flagrante delicto. [DOCTRINE]
ADDITIONAL:The objection done by Alunday was only in the Appeal in the Supreme
Court. Objections should only be done before the accused enters his plea.
Facts:
● “Sometime in May 2000, the Intelligence Section of the Police Provincial Office of
Mountain Province received a report from a confidential informant of an existing
marijuana plantation within the vicinity of Mount Churyon, Sadanga, Mountain
Province. Acting on the confidential information, Chief of the Intelligence Section
of Mountain Province, Police Senior Inspector Andrew Cayad (Cayad), engaged
the services of another confidential informant to validate said report. After a series
of validations, the confidential informant confirmed the existence of the subject
plantation. Cayad reported the matter to the Provincial Director, who immediately
directed Cayad to lead a 70-men police contingent to make an operation plan. A
joint operation from the whole Mountain Province Police Force was formed. The
police operation was termed Operation Banana.”
● “ On Aug 3, 2000, A group of policemen, one of whom was SPO1 George
Saipen (Saipen) of the Bontoc PNP, was dispatched to scout the area ahead of
the others, while the rest stayed behind as back-up security. At a distance of 30
meters, Saipen, together with the members of his group, saw Ricardo Alunday
(Alunday) herein accused-appellant, cutting and gathering marijuana plants.
SPO1 Saipen and others approached Alunday and introduced themselves as
members of the PNP. SPO1 Saipen, together with the other policemen, brought
said accused-appellant to a nearby hut. Inside the hut, the operatives saw an old
woman, an M16 rifle and some dried marijuana leaves. The other members of the
raiding team uprooted and thereafter burned the marijuana plants, while the team
from the Provincial Headquarters got some samples of the marijuana plants and
brought the same to their headquarters.”
● On 7 August 2000, two informations were filed against accused appellant before
the RTC of Bontoc, Mountain Province, for Cultivation of Prohibited drugs under
RA 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, and Section 1
of Presidential Decree No. 1866 for Illegal Possession of Firearm.
● The RTC found Alunday guilty of Cultivation, but acquitted him of Illegal
Possession of Firearm for reasonable doubt.
● CA affirmed. Appealed to SC.
● It was only during this appeal that the issue of an invalid warrantless arrest
was raised since the information was gathered in May, but only acted on in
August and therefore, there was more than ample time to get a warrant of
arrest.
Issue/s:
● W/N the arrest of the accused was valid – YES.
Ratio:
● Section 5(a) provides that 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. Section 5(a) refers to arrest in flagrante delicto. In
flagrante delicto means caught in the act of committing a crime. This rule,
which warrants the arrest of a person without warrant, requires that the person
arrested has just committed a crime, or is committing it, or is about to commit
an offense, in the presence or within view of the arresting officer.
● It must be recalled that the Intelligence Section of the Provincial Office of the
Mountain Province received the information sometime in May 2000, and
accused-appellant was arrested by SPO1 Saipen during a police raid at the
plantation at Mount Churyon, Sadanga, only on 3 August 2000. This is so
because the arrest was effected only after a series of validations conducted
 by the team to verify or confirm the report that indeed a marijuana plantation
existed at the area and after an operation plan was formed. As admitted by
the accused in his supplemental brief, the information about the existing
marijuana plantation was finally confirmed only on 2 August 2000. On 3
August 2000, the arresting team of SPO1 Saipen proceeded to the
marijuana plantation. SPO1 Saipen saw accused appellant personally
cutting and gathering marijuana plants. Thus, accused-appellant’s
arrest on 3 August 2000 was legal, because he was caught in flagrante
delicto; that is, the persons arrested were committing a crime in the
presence of the arresting officers.

● It is much too late in the day to complain about the warrantless arrest after a
valid information has been filed, the accused arraigned, trial commenced and
completed, and a judgment of conviction rendered against him.

Dispositive:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated 9 October 2007 of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01164, affirming in toto the Decision of the Regional
Trial Court, First Judicial Region, Branch 35, Bontoc, Mountain Province, in Criminal
Case No. 1528, is hereby AFFIRMED.
 533. People v. Ng Yik Bun, GR No. 180452, 10 January 2011
G.R. No. | Date | Ponente | In flagrante delicto
Digest by: AVILLON
Petitioners: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Respondents: NG YIK BUN (BUN), KWOK WAI CHENG (CHENG), CHANG
CHAUN SHI (SHI), CHUA SHILOU HWAN (HWAN), KAN SHUN MIN (MIN), AND
RAYMOND S. TAN (TAN)
Recit-ready Digest + Doctrine:
Capt. Ibon of Task Force Aduana received information from an operative that there
was an ongoing shipment of contraband in Sariaya, Quezon Province. After forming
a team, they proceeded to a Resort in Sariaya. While observing from 50 meters
away, they spotted 6 chinese men loading bags containing white substances into a
white van. The team went closer and asked what the substances were. Accused
Hwan replied that it was shabu and pointed to accused Tan as their leader. Accused-
appellants claim that no valid in flagrante delicto arrest was made prior to the seizure
and that the police officers placed accused-appellants under arrest even when there
was no evidence that an offense was being committed. Since there was no warrant
of arrest, they argue that the search sans a search warrant subsequently made on
them was illegal. They contend that a seizure of any evidence as a result of an illegal
search is inadmissible in any proceeding for any purpose.
Whether there was a valid warrantless search and arrest - YES. In the instant
case, contrary to accused-appellants’ contention, there was indeed a valid
warrantless arrest in flagrante delicto. Consider the circumstances immediately prior
to and surrounding the arrest of accused-appellants: (1) the police officers received
information from an operative about an ongoing shipment of contraband; (2) the
police officers, with the operative, proceeded to Villa Vicenta Resort in Sariaya,
Quezon; (3) they observed the goings-on at the resort from a distance of around 50
meters; and (4) they spotted the six accused-appellants loading transparent bags
containing a white substance into a white L-300 van. Evidently, the arresting police
officers had probable cause to suspect that accused-appellants were loading and
transporting contraband, more so when Hwan, upon being accosted, readily
mentioned that they were loading shabu and pointed to Tan as their leader. Thus,
the arrest of accused-appellants––who were caught in flagrante delicto of
possessing, and in the act of loading into a white L-300 van, shabu, a prohibited drug
under RA 6425, as amended--––is valid. In the instant case, it can plausibly be
argued that accused-appellants were committing the offense of possessing shabu
and were in the act of loading them in a white van when the police officers arrested
them. The crime was committed in the presence of the police officers with the
contraband, inside transparent plastic containers, in plain view and duly observed
by the arresting officers. The Court notes, as it has consistently held, that accused-
appellants are deemed to have waived their objections to their arrest for not raising
the issue before entering their plea.
Facts:
● Capt. Ibon of Task Force Aduana received information from an operative that
there was an ongoing shipment of contraband in Sariaya, Quezon Province.
● Upon instructions from his superior, Major Tabo, Capt. Ibon formed a team
which then proceeded to Villa Vicenta Resort in Sariaya.
● The members of the team were able to observe the goings-on at the resort
from a distance of around 50 meters.
● They spotted six Chinese-looking men loading bags containing a white
substance into a white van.
● Having been noticed, Capt. Ibon identified his team and asked accused Hwan
what they were loading on the van. Hwan replied that it was shabu and pointed
to co-accused Raymond Tan as the leader.
● A total of 172 bags of suspected shabu were then confiscated. Bundles of
noodles (bihon) were also found on the premises.
● The following are the accused's defenses:
○ Hwan testified that he was planning to buy cheap goods at Villa
Vicenta Resort when he saw a van full of bihon at the resort and
inquired if it was for sale. He went to relieve himself 15 meters away
from the van. A group of police officers arrested him upon his return.
○ Tan testified that he was collecting a debt. He was at a restaurant
with his driver when police officers forcibly brought him inside a car.
He was handcuffed, blindfolded, and badly beaten. He was later
brought to a beach and was ordered to hold some bags while being
photographed with five Chinese-looking men he saw for the first time.
A tricycle driver, Ricky Pineda, corroborated his story by testifying
that he saw Tan being forced into a white Nissan car.
○ Bun testified that he arrived in the Philippines as a tourist. He was at
a beach with some companions when four armed men arrested them.
He was made to pose next to some plastic bags along with other
accused, whom he did not personally know. A friend of his, Cheng,
corroborated his story.
○ Min testified that he arrived in the Philippines for business and
pleasure. He checked into a beach resort. While walking there, he
was suddenly accosted by four or five men who poked guns at him.
He was brought to a cottage where he saw some unfamiliar Chinese-
looking individuals. He likewise testified that he was made to take out
white packages from a van while being photographed. His friend, Shi,
corroborated his story.
● The RTC convicted accused of the crime charged.
● On appeal, the accused-appellants raised the issue of:
○ Whether the trial court erred when it held as valid the warrantless
search, seizure and subsequent arrest of the accused-appellants
despite the non-concurrence of the requisite circumstances that
justify a warrantless arrest as held in the case of People vs. [Cuizon].
● The CA affirmed in toto the RTC Decision. It held:
○ that accused-appellants were first arrested before the seizure of the
contraband was made.
○ that accused-appellants were caught in flagrante delicto loading
transparent plastic bags containing white crystalline substance into
an L-300 van which, thus, justified their arrests and the seizure of the
contraband.
 ○ that the urgency of the situation meant that the buy-bust team had
no time to secure a search warrant.
○ that the warrantless seizure of the transparent plastic bags can
likewise be sustained under the plain view doctrine.
○ that People v. Cuizon was not applicable to the instant case, as,
unlike in Cuizon, the apprehending officers immediately acted on the
information they had received about an ongoing shipment of drugs.
● Essentially, accused-appellants claim that no valid in flagrante delicto arrest
was made prior to the seizure and that the police officers placed accused-
appellants under arrest even when there was no evidence that an offense was
being committed. Since there was no warrant of arrest, they argue that the
search sans a search warrant subsequently made on them was illegal. They
contend that a seizure of any evidence as a result of an illegal search is
inadmissible in any proceeding for any purpose.
Issue/s:
● Whether there was a valid warrantless search and arrest - YES
● In the instant case, it can plausibly be argued that accused-appellants were
committing the offense of possessing shabu and were in the act of loading
them in a white van when the police officers arrested them. As aptly noted by
the appellate court, the crime was committed in the presence of the police
officers with the contraband, inside transparent plastic containers, in plain
view and duly observed by the arresting officers. And to write finis to the issue
of any irregularity in their warrantless arrest, the Court notes, as it has
consistently held, that accused-appellants are deemed to have waived their
objections to their arrest for not raising the issue before entering their plea.
Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CA Decision in CA-G.R. CR-
H.C. No. 00485, finding accused-appellants Ng Yik Bun, Kwok Wai Cheng, Chang
Chaun Shi, Chua Shilou Hwan, Kan Shun Min, and Raymond S. Tan guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violating Sec. 16, Art. III of RA 6425, as amended, is AFFIRMED
IN TOTO. SO ORDERED.

Ratio:

● Under Rule 113, Sec. 5(a) of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, “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”
● The foregoing proviso refers to arrest in flagrante delicto.
● In the instant case, contrary to accused-appellants’ contention, there was
indeed a valid warrantless arrest in flagrante delicto.
● Consider the circumstances immediately prior to and surrounding the arrest
of accused-appellants: (1) the police officers received information from an
operative about an ongoing shipment of contraband; (2) the police officers,
with the operative, proceeded to Villa Vicenta Resort in Sariaya, Quezon; (3)
they observed the goings-on at the resort from a distance of around 50 meters;
and (4) they spotted the six accused-appellants loading transparent bags
containing a white substance into a white L-300 van.
● The following was testified by Capt. Ibon in open court:
○ That while watching the six men loading products in the van, Capt.
Ibon called Major Tabo thru a hand-held radio.
○ That after informing the Major of what Capt. saw, Major directed
Capt. to get closer to the six men to find out if it was indeed
contraband.
○ That what attracted the Capt. to the bags was something crystalline
white in all the bags.
● Evidently, the arresting police officers had probable cause to suspect that
accused-appellants were loading and transporting contraband, more so when
Hwan, upon being accosted, readily mentioned that they were loading shabu
and pointed to Tan as their leader. Thus, the arrest of accused-appellants––
who were caught in flagrante delicto of possessing, and in the act of loading
into a white L-300 van, shabu, a prohibited drug under RA 6425, as
amended--––is valid.
 534. People v. Araneta
GR No. 191064| 20 October 2010 | Mendoza | In Flagrante Delicto
Digest by: AJ
Petitioners: People of the Philippines
Respondents: Rolando “Botong” Araneta; Marilou “Malou” Santos
Recit-ready Digest + Doctrine:
Botong and Malou were convicted of drug pushing (shabu and marijuana fruiting
tops) after a buy-bust operation. On appeal, they averred that the sachet of shabu
seized from them were inadmissible as evidence.
SC disagreed. Pag buy-bust operations, in flagrante delicto. So no need for search
warrant or warrant of arrest.
search, them on the spot because a buy-bust operation is a justifiable mode
of apprehending drug pushers. A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment
whereby ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and
capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan. In this
jurisdiction, the operation is legal and has been proven to be an effective
method of apprehending drug peddlers, provided due regard to constitutional
and legal safeguards is undertaken.
Dispositive:
WHEREFORE, the August 29, 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR-
H.C. No. 02308, is AFFIRMED.

Facts:
● (Di talaga relevant details ng buy-bust so super summarized na lang.)
● A confidential informant reported to the police that couples Rolando Araneta
("BOTONG") and Marilou Santos ("MALOU") were peddling drugs.
● PO2 Damasco and the informant served as poseur-buyers for the buy-bust
operation, and approached BOTONG and MALOU who were standing outside
their house. After a short conversation, BOTONG went inside the house. The
informant introduced PO2 Damaso to MALOU. MALOU asked PO2 Damasco
if he wants to "score". PO2 Damasco gave her the ₱100 marked bill.
● MALOU called BOTONG and when the latter came out, MALOU handed to
him the marked money. BOTONG then gave MALOU a plastic sachet which
she handed to PO2 Damasco.
● PO2 Damasco gave the prearranged signal to the other policemen.
● Another policeman frisked BOTONG, retrieving the marked bill, one plastic
sachet of what looked like marijuana and eight plastic sachets containing white
crystalline substance.
● BOTONG and MALOU were convicted of drug pushing. CA affirmed.
● They assail the conviction on the ground of, among others, that the sachet of
shabu retrieved from them were inadmissible for lack of a search warrant.

Issue/s:
● W/N a search warrant is required for evidence retrieved in a buy-bust
operation? NO, in flagrante delicto

Ratio:
● The illegal drugs seized were not the "fruit of the poisonous tree" as the
defense would like this Court to believe. The seizure made by the buy-bust
team falls under a search incidental to a lawful arrest under Rule 126, Sec. 13
of the Rules of Court, which pertinently provides:
● A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or
anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of
an offense without a search warrant.
● The seized items were admissible. A search warrant or warrant of arrest was
not needed because it was a buy-bust operation and the accused were caught
in flagrante delicto in possession of, and selling, dangerous drugs to the
poseur-buyer. It was definitely legal for the buy-bust team to arrest, and
 535. Posadas v. Ombudsman, GR No. 131492, 29 September 2000
G.R. No. 131492| Date September 29, 2000 | Mendoza, J. | Probable Cause
Digest by: Cacho
Petitioners: Roger Posadas, Rosario Torres Yu & Marichu Lambino
Respondents: Hon. Ombudsman, The Special Prosecutor, & Orlando V Dizon
Recit-ready Digest + Doctrine:
Facts:
Petitioner requested the respondents to assist in the investigation on the death of a
member of the Sigma Rho Fraternity in U.P. On the basis of positive identification of
two eyewitnesses, the respondents attempted to arrest the suspects to the crime.
Petitioners opposed the arrest on the ground that the NBI had no warrants of arrest
and the respondents promised to take the respondents to the NBI office the following
day. As a result the NBI filed criminal charges for obstruction of justice against the
petitioners.
Issues:
WON the arrest of the students may be done validly without a warrant. No
WON there was probable cause for prosecuting the petitioners for obstruction of
justice. No.
Ratio:
The rule is that no arrest may be made except by virtue of a warrant issued by a
judge after examining the complainant and the witnesses he may produce and after
finding probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed the
crime. The exceptions when an arrest may be made even without a warrant are
provided in Rule 113, §5 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The NBI agents in the case at the bar tried to arrest Narag and Taparan four days
after the commission of the crime. They had no personal knowledge of any fact which
might indicate that the two students were probably guilty of the crime. What they had
were the supposed positive identification of two alleged eyewitnesses, which is
insufficient to justify the arrest without a warrant by the NBI.
"Personal knowledge" of facts in arrests without a warrant under Section 5 (b)
of Rule 113 must be based upon "probable cause" which means an "actual
belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion." The grounds of suspicion are
reasonable when, in the absence of actual belief of the arresting officers, the
suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense
is based on actual facts, i.e., supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in
themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. A
reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on probable cause, coupled with
good faith on the part of the peace officers making the arrest.
The respondents can neither charge petitioners with obstruction of justice since the
arrest supposed to be done was invalid for being done without the necessary
warrants of arrest as required by law, otherwise such an arrest would be illegal.
Facts:
● Dennis Venturina, a member of Sigma Rho at the University of the Philippines,
was killed in a rumble between his fraternity and another fraternity. Petitioner
Roger Posadas, then Chancellor of U.P. Diliman in Quezon City,asked the
Respondent, Director of the National Bureau of Investigation for assistance in
determining the persons responsible for the Sigma Rho member Dennis
Venturina.
● In response to the request,respondent and his men went to U.P., on the basis
of the supposed positive identification of two alleged eyewitnesses, Leandro
Lachica and Cesar Mangrobang, Jr., attempted to arrest Francis Carlo
Taparan and Raymundo Narag, officers/members of the Scintilla Juris
Fraternity, as suspects in the killing of Venturina. It appears that the two
suspects had come that day to the U.P. Police Station for a peace talk
between their fraternity and the Sigma Rho Fraternity.
● Petitioners Posadas, Marichu Lambino, and Rosario Torres-Yu, also of U.P.,
and a certain Atty. Villamor, counsel for the suspects, objected on the ground
that the NBI did not have warrants of arrest with them. Posadas and Atty.
Villamor promised to take the suspects to the NBI Office the next day. As a
result of their intervention, Taparan and Narag were not arrested by the NBI
agents on that day. 1 However, criminal charges were filed later against the
two student suspects.
● Dizon then filed a complaint in the Office of the Special Prosecutor, charging
petitioners Posadas, Torres-Yu, Lambino, Col. Eduardo Bentain, Chief of the
Security Force of the U.P. Police, and Atty. Villamor with violation of P.D.
1829, which makes it unlawful for anyone to obstruct the apprehension and
prosecution of criminal offenders
● Later, on motion of petitioners, the Special Prosecutor’s Office recommended
the dismissal of the case. But the recommendation was disapproved. In a
memorandum, dated September 8, 1997, the Office of the Ombudsman
directed the Special Prosecutor to proceed with the prosecution of petitioners
in the Sandiganbayan. Hence this petition for certiorari and prohibition to set
aside the resolution of the Ombudsman’s office ordering the prosecution of
petitioners.
Issue/s:
● WON the arrest of the students may be done validly without a warrant. No
● WON there was probable cause for prosecuting the petitioners for obstruction
of justice. No.
Ratio:
●
Dispositive:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the Ombudsman and his agents are
hereby prohibited from prosecuting petitioners for violation of P.D. No. 1829 §1(c) as a
result of the incident complained of in Criminal Case No. 22801 and the Sandiganbayan
is ORDERED to dismiss the information in Criminal Case No. 22801 against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.
 536. People v. Mengote
G.R. No. 87059 | 22 June 1992 | CRUZ, J. | Warrantless arrests: When an offense
has just been committed
Digest by: capacite
Petitioners: THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee
Respondents: ROGELIO MENGOTE y TEJAS, accused-appellant
Recit-ready Digest + Doctrine:
The police received a telephone call from an informer that there were 3 suspicious-
looking persons at North Bay Boulevard in Tondo, Manila. A surveillance team of
plainclothesmen was forthwith dispatched to the place. Patrolmen Rolando Mercado
and Alberto Juan saw two men "looking from side to side," one of whom was holding
his abdomen. They approached these persons and identified themselves as
policemen, whereupon the two tried to run away but were unable to escape because
the other lawmen had surrounded them. The suspects were then searched. One of
them, who turned out to be the Mengote, was found with a .38 caliber Smith and
Wesson revolver with six live bullets in the chamber.
Besides the police officers, one other witness, Danganan, identified the subject
weapon as among the articles stolen from him during the robbery in his house. He
pointed to Mengote as one of the robbers.
Mengote was convicted of illegal possession of firearms on the strength mainly of
the stolen pistol found on his person at the moment of his warrantless arrest. In this
appeal, he pleads that the weapon was not admissible as evidence against him
because it had been illegally seized, and was therefore, the fruit of the poisonous
tree. The Solicitor General, however, insists that the revolver was validly received in
evidence by the trial judge because its seizure was incidental to an arrest that was
doubtless lawful even if admittedly without warrant.
Issue: W/N the revolver obtained from Menote was illegally seized from him. YES
Sec. 5 (b) of the Rules of Court cannot apply here because its no less stringent
requirements have not been satisfied. In arrests without a warrant under this
provision, 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. 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 officer making the
arrest must also have personal knowledge of the ground therefor.
The prosecution has 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 hearsay
1 (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or
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
information from the telephone caller, and about a crime that had yet to be
committed.
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.
● A surveillance team of plainclothesmen was forthwith dispatched to the place.
Patrolmen Rolando Mercado and Alberto Juan saw two men "looking from
side to side," one of whom was holding his abdomen.
○ They approached these persons and identified themselves as
policemen, whereupon the two tried to run away but were unable to
escape because the other lawmen had surrounded them.
● The suspects were then searched. One of them, who turned out to be the
accused-appellant, was found with a .38 caliber Smith and Wesson revolver
with six live bullets in the chamber.
○ His companion, later identified as Nicanor Morellos, had a fan knife
secreted in his front right pants pocket. The weapons were taken
from them.
○ Mengote and Morellos were then turned over to police headquarters
for investigation by the Intelligence Division.
● Besides the police officers, one other witness presented by the prosecution
was Rigoberto Danganan, who identified the subject weapon as among the
articles stolen from him during the robbery in his house.
○ He pointed to Mengote as one of the robbers. He had duly reported
the robbery to the police, indicating the articles stolen from him,
including the revolver.
○ For his part, Mengote made no effort to prove that he owned the
firearm or that he was licensed to possess it and claimed instead that
the weapon had been "Planted" on him at the time of his arrest.
● The gun, together with the live bullets and its holster, were offered as exhibits
and admitted over the objection of the defense. Accused-appellant Rogelio
Mengote was convicted of illegal possession of firearms on the strength mainly
of the stolen pistol found on his person at the moment of his warrantless arrest.
○ In this appeal, he pleads that the weapon was not admissible as
evidence against him because it had been illegally seized, and was
therefore, the fruit of the poisonous tree.
○ The Solicitor General, while conceding Article III, Section 3(2), of the
Constitution, maintains that it is not applicable in the case at bar
because the arrest and search of Mengote and the seizure of the
revolver from him were lawful under Rule 113, Section 5,1 of the
Rules of Court.
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.
In cases failing under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith
delivered to the nearest police station or jail, and he shall be proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112,
Section 7.
 ▪ It insists that the revolver was validly received in evidence
by the trial judge because its seizure was incidental to an
arrest that was doubtless lawful even if admittedly without
warrant.
Issue:
● W/N the revolver obtained from Menote was illegally seized from him. YES
Ratio:
● There is no question that evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search or
seizure is inadmissible in any proceeding for any purpose. That is the absolute
prohibition of Article III, Section 3(2), of the Constitution.
○ This is the celebrated exclusionary rule based on the justification
given by Judge Learned Hand that "only in case the prosecution,
which itself controls the seizing officials, knows that it cannot profit
by their wrong will the wrong be repressed."
● We have carefully examined the wording of this Rule and cannot see how we
can agree with the prosecution.
● Par. (c) of Section 5 is obviously inapplicable as Mengote was not an escapee
from a penal institution when he was arrested.
● We therefore confine ourselves to determining the lawfulness of his arrest
under either Par. (a) or Par. (b) of this section.
● Par. (a) requires that the person be arrested (1) after he has committed
or while he is actually committing or is at least attempting to commit an
offense, (2) in the presence of the arresting officer.
○ These requirements have not been established in the case at bar.
○ At the time of the arrest in question, the accused-appellant was
merely "looking from side to side" and "holding his abdomen,"
according to the arresting officers themselves.
○ There was apparently no offense that had just been committed or
was being actually committed or at least being attempted by Mengote
in their presence.
● The Solicitor General submits 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 in them the belief that an offense had
been committed and that the accused-appellant had committed it."
○ The question is, What offense? What offense could possibly have
been suggested by a person "looking from side to side" and "holding
his abdomen" and in a place not exactly forsaken?
● These are certainly not sinister acts. And the setting of the arrest made them
less so, if at all.
○ It might have been different if Mengote bad been apprehended at an
ungodly hour and in a place where he had no reason to be, like a
darkened alley at 3 o'clock in the morning.
○ But he was arrested at 11:30 in the morning and in a crowded street
shortly after alighting from a passenger jeep with his companion.
○ He was not skulking in the shadows, but walking in the clear light of
day. There was nothing clandestine about his being on that street at
that busy hour in the blaze of the noonday sun.
● On the other hand, there could have been a number of reasons, all of them
innocent, why his eyes were darting from side to side and he was holding his
abdomen.
○ If they excited suspicion in the minds of the arresting officers, as the
prosecution suggests, it has nevertheless not been shown what their
suspicion was all about.
○ In fact, the policemen themselves testified that they were dispatched
to that place only because of the telephone call from the informer that
there were "suspicious-looking" persons in that vicinity who were
about to commit a robbery at North Bay Boulevard.
○ The caller did not explain why he thought the men looked suspicious
nor did he elaborate on the impending crime.
● People v. Malmstedt: SC sustained the warrantless arrest of the accused
because there was a bulge in his waist that excited the suspicion of the
arresting officer and, upon inspection, turned out to be a pouch containing
hashish.
● People v. Claudio: the accused boarded a bus and placed the buri bag she
was carrying behind the seat of the arresting officer while she herself sat in
the seat before him.
○ His suspicion aroused, he surreptitiously examined the bag, which
he found to contain marijuana. He then and there made the
warrantless arrest and seizure that we subsequently upheld on the
ground that probable cause had been sufficiently established.
● The case before us is different because there was nothing to support the
arresting officers' suspicion other than Mengote's darting eyes and his hand
on his abdomen.
○ By no stretch of the imagination could it have been inferred from
these acts that an offense had just been committed, or was actually
being committed, or was at least being attempted in their presence.
● This case is similar to People v. Aminnudin, where the SC held that the
warrantless arrest of the accused was unconstitutional.
○ This was effected while he was coming down a vessel, to all
appearances no less innocent than the other disembarking
passengers.
○ He had not committed nor was he actually committing or attempting
to commit an offense in the presence of the arresting officers. He was
not even acting suspiciously.
○ In short, there was no probable cause that, as the prosecution
incorrectly suggested, dispensed with the constitutional requirement
of a warrant.
● Par. (b) is no less applicable because its no less stringent requirements
have also not been satisfied.
○ The prosecution has 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 hearsay information from the telephone caller, and
about a crime that had yet to be committed.
● The truth is that they did not know then what offense, if at all, had been ● We commend Atty. Violeta Calvo-Drilon for her able and spirited defense of
committed and neither were they aware of the participation therein of the the accused-appellant not only in the brief but also in the reply brief, which she
accused-appellant. did not have to file but did so just the same to stress the constitutional rights
○ It was only later, after Danganan had appeared at the Police of her client.
headquarters, that they learned of the robbery in his house and of ○ The fact that she was acting only as a counsel de oficio with no
Mengote's supposed involvement therein. expectation of material reward makes her representation even more
○ As for the illegal possession of the firearm found on Mengote's commendable. *clap clap*
person, the policemen discovered this only after he had been ● The Court feels that if the peace officers had been more mindful of the
searched and the investigation conducted later revealed that he was provisions of the Bill of Rights, the prosecution of the accused-appellant might
not its owners nor was he licensed to possess it. have succeeded. As it happened, they allowed their over-zealousness to get
○ Before these events, the Peace officers had no knowledge even of the better of them, resulting in their disregard of the requirements of a valid
Mengote' identity, let alone the fact (or suspicion) that he was search and seizure that rendered inadmissible the vital evidence they had
unlawfully carrying a firearm or that he was involved in the robbery invalidly seized.
of Danganan's house. ● This should be a lesson to other peace officers. Their impulsiveness may be
● People v. Burgos (landmark case): Under Section 6(a) of Rule 113, the officer the very cause of the acquittal of persons who deserve to be convicted,
arresting a person who has just committed, is committing, or is about to escaping the clutches of the law because, ironically enough, it has not been
commit an offense must have personal knowledge of the fact. observed by those who are supposed to enforce it.
○ The offense must also be committed in his presence or within
his view. Dispositive:
○ In arrests without a warrant under Section 6(b), however, it is not WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The accused-
enough that there is reasonable ground to believe that the appellant is ACQUITTED and ordered released immediately unless he is validly
person to be arrested has committed a crime. detained for other offenses. No costs. SO ORDERED.
i. A crime must in fact or actually have been committed
first. 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.
ii. The test of reasonable ground applies only to the identity of
the perpetrator.
● Alih v. Castro: Parenthetically, it may be observed that under the Revised Rule
113, Section 5(b), the officer making the arrest must have personal
knowledge of the ground therefor as stressed in the recent case of
People v. Burgos.
● It would be a sad day, indeed, if any person could be summarily arrested and
searched just because he is holding his abdomen, even if it be possibly
because of a stomach-ache, or if a peace officer could clamp handcuffs on
any person with a shifty look on suspicion that he may have committed a
criminal act or is actually committing or attempting it.
○ This simply cannot be done in a free society. This is not a police state
where order is exalted over liberty or, worse, personal malice on the
part of the arresting officer may be justified in the name of security.
● There is no need to discuss the other issues raised by the accused-appellant
as the ruling we here make is sufficient to sustain his exoneration.
○ Without the evidence of the firearm taken from him at the time of his
illegal arrest, the prosecution has lost its most important exhibit and
must therefore fail.
○ The testimonial evidence against Mengote (which is based on the
said firearm) is not sufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime imputed to him.
 537. Pestilos v. Generoso
GR No. 182601 | 10 November 2014 | Brion, J.
| Warrantless arrests - when an offense has just been committed
Digest by: DE LA TORRE
Petitioners: JOEY M. PESTILOS, DWIGHT MACAPANAS, MIGUEL GACES,
JERRY FERNANDEZ and RONALD MUNOZ
Respondents: MORENO GENEROSO and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Recit-ready Digest:
The petitioners stabbed the respondent Atty. with a bladed weapon. The respondent
then called the cops. The police officers then arrived at the crime scene less than an
hour after the incident and saw the respondent in his bloodied state. The respondent
then pointed to the petitioners as the perpetrators. The police officers then “invited”
the petitioners to go to the police station for investigation, which the petitioners
agreed to do and went with the police officers. They were then charged with
attempted murder, which they opposed on the gorund that they were not lawfully
arrested and that no valid warrantless arrest took place because the police officers
had no personal knowledge that they were perpetrators of the crime (kasi nga tinuro
lang sila ng respondent noong dumating ‘yung mga pulis and weren’t actually
THERE-there when the incident happened diba?).
W/N there was a valid warrantless arrest? YES, there was a valid warrantless
arrest.
The elements under Section 5(b), Rule 113 are: first, an offense has just been
committed; and second, the arresting officer has probable cause to believe
based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be
arrested has committed it.
What is essential in the element of ''personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances" is the required element of immediacy within which these facts
or circumstances should be gathered. This required time element guarantees
that the police officers would have no time to base their probable cause finding
on facts or circumstances obtained after an exhaustive investigation. Thus,
the following must be present for a valid warrantless arrest: (1) the crime
should have been just committed; and (2) the arresting officer's exercise of
discretion is limited by the standard of probable cause to be determined from
the facts and circumstances within his personal knowledge.
Personal knowledge of a crime just committed under the terms of S5b, R113,
does not require actual presence at the scene while a crime was being
committed; it is enough that evidence of the recent commission of the crime
is patent (as in this case) and the police officer has probable cause to believe
based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances, that the person to be
arrested has recently committed the crime.
The police officers had personal knowledge justifying the petitioners’ warrantless
arrests, because the former were able to gather facts and circumstances, which they
have personally observed less than one hour from the time they arrived at the crime
scene until the time of the arrest of the petitioners. Considering the circumstances
of the stabbing, particularly the locality where it took place, its occasion, the personal
circumstances of the parties, and the immediate on-the-spot investigation that took
place, the immediate and warrantless arrests of the perpetrators were proper.
(not that related to our syllabus topic, i think) The term "invited" in the Affidavit of
Arrest is construed to mean as an authoritative command, because application of
actual force, manual touching of the body, physical restraint or a formal declaration
of arrest is not required. SP02 Javier did not need to apply violent physical restraint
when a simple directive to the petitioners to follow him to the police station would
produce a similar effect. In other words, the application of actual force would only be
an alternative if the petitioners had exhibited resistance.
Doctrine: those emphasized in bold
Facts:
● An altercation ensued between the petitioners and the respondent Atty.
Moreno Generoso, wherein the former stabbed the latter with a bladed
weapon.
○ The respondent Atty. then called the Batasan Hills Police Station to
report the incident, which was acted upon by dispatching one SP02
Dominador Javier to go to the scene of the crime.
○ SP02 Javier and other officers arrived there less than one hour after
the alleged altercation and saw that the respondent Atty. had been
badly beaten and had bruises. The latter then pointed to the
petitioners as the ones who beat him up.
○ The police officers then “invited” the petitioners to go to Batasan Hills
Police Station for investigation. The petitioners then went with the
police officers and then were subsequently charged with attempted
murder.
● The petitioners then filed an Urgent Motion for Regular Preliminary
Investigation on the ground that they were not lawfully arrested and that no
valid warrantless arrest took place because the police officers had no personal
knowledge that they were the perpetrators of the crime.
○ They further contended that they were merely “invited” to the police
station, as expressly written by the Affidavit of Arrest. Thus, the
inquest proceeding was improper and that a regular procedure for
preliminary investigation should have been performed pursuant to
Rule 112 of the Rules of Court.
○ Additionally, although they admitted that the respondent Atty. indeed
did suffer blows from Macapanas (one of the petitioners), they
asserted that it was only done in self-defense against the
respondent.
○ The RTC denied the petitioners’ Urgent Motion.
○ The CA found that the RTC sufficiently explained the grounds for the
denial of the [Urgent Motion].
● Other important facts:
○ The police blotter entry was taken at 4:15 AM on the date of the
incident.
○ The police blotter stated that the alleged crime was committed at 3:15
AM.

Issue/s:
● W/N there was a valid warrantless arrest? YES, there was a valid
warrantless arrest.
Ratio:
● The elements under Section 5(b), Rule 113 are:
○ first, an offense has just been committed; and
○ second, the arresting officer has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be
arrested has committed it.
● What is essential in the element of ''personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances" is the required element of immediacy within which these facts
or circumstances should be gathered.
○ This required time element guarantees that the police officers would
have no time to base their probable cause finding on facts or
circumstances obtained after an exhaustive investigation.
○ The reason for the element of the immediacy is this - as the time gap
from the commission of the crime to the arrest widens, the pieces of
information gathered are prone to become contaminated and
subjected to external factors, interpretations and hearsay.
○ On the other hand, with the element of immediacy imposed under
Section 5(b), Rule 113, the police officer's determination of probable
cause would necessarily be limited to raw or uncontaminated facts
or circumstances, gathered as they were within a very limited period
of time.
● Thus, the following must be present for a valid warrantless arrest:
○ the crime should have been just committed; and
○ the arresting officer's exercise of discretion is limited by the standard
of probable cause to be determined from the facts and circumstances
within his personal knowledge.
● For purposes of resolving the issue on the validity of the warrantless arrest of
the present petitioners, the question to be resolved is whether the
requirements for a valid warrantless arrest under Section 5(b), Rule 113 were
complied with, namely:
○ has the crime just been committed when they were arrested?
○ did the arresting officer have personal knowledge of facts and
circumstances that the petitioners committed the crime? and
○ based on these facts and circumstances that the arresting officer
possessed at the time of the petitioners' arrest, would a reasonably
discreet and prudent person believe that the attempted murder of
Atty. Generoso was committed by the petitioners?
○ These questions have been answered in the affirmative by the Court.
● The bruises of the respondent Atty. have been corroborated by both the
petitioners and a Medico-Legal Certificate issued by the East Avenue Medical
Center.
● The police officers had personal knowledge justifying the petitioners’
warrantless arrests, because the former were able to gather facts and
circumstances, which they have personally observed less than one hour from
the time they arrived at the crime scene until the time of the arrest of the
petitioners. These circumstances were well within the police officers'
observation, perception and evaluation at the time of the arrest.
○ The police officers saw the respondent Atty. in his bloodied state,
who, as the victim, positively identified the petitioners as the
perpetrators, who then agreed to go with the cops.
○ Personal knowledge of a crime just committed under the terms of
S5b, R113, does not require actual presence at the scene while a
crime was being committed; it is enough that evidence of the recent
commission of the crime is patent (as in this case) and the police
officer has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge
of facts or circumstances, that the person to be arrested has recently
committed the crime.
○ Considering the circumstances of the stabbing, particularly the
locality where it took place, its occasion, the personal circumstances
of the parties, and the immediate on-the-spot investigation that took
place, the immediate and warrantless arrests of the perpetrators
were proper.
● The term "invited" in the Affidavit of Arrest is construed to mean as an
authoritative command.
○ Arrest is defined as the taking of a person into custody in order that
he may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense. An
arrest 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.
○ Thus, application of actual force, manual touching of the body,
physical restraint or a formal declaration of arrest is not required.
○ SP02 Javier did not need to apply violent physical restraint when a
simple directive to the petitioners to follow him to the police station
would produce a similar effect. In other words, the application of
actual force would only be an alternative if the petitioners had
exhibited resistance.
○ To be sure, after a crime had just been committed and the attending
policemen have acquired personal knowledge of the incidents of the
crime, including the alleged perpetrators, the arrest of the petitioners
as the perpetrators pointed to by the victim, was not a mere random
act but was in connection with a particular offense. Furthermore,
SP02 Javier had informed the petitioners, at the time of their arrest,
of the charges against them before taking them to Batasan Hills
Police Station for investigation
Dispositive:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DENY the petition, and hereby
AFFIRM the decision dated January 21, 2008 and the resolution dated April 17, 2008
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 91541. The City Prosecutor of Quezon City
is hereby ORDERED to proceed with the criminal proceedings against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.