People vs. Mengote

The State (P) vs. Suspicious-looking Individuals (D)
GR 87059, June 22, 1992 (210 SCRA 174)	[T]

Summary: Three persons were searched and thereafter arrested based on a telephone call from an informer that three suspicious-looking persons were standing at a street corner.

Rule of Law: In warrantless arrests under Section 6(b), 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 test of reasonable ground applies only to the identity of the perpetrator.

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 plain clothes men was dispatched to the place and they 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, Rogelio Mengote (D), was found with a .38 caliber revolver with six live bullets in the chamber. His companion had a fan knife secreted in his front right pants pocket. The weapons were taken from them. Mengote (D) and his companion were then turned over to police headquarters for investigation by the Intelligence Division.

Issues: Is the warrantless search valid? Is the warrantless arrest valid?

Ruling: No. In the landmark case of People vs. Burgos, this Court declared:

Under Section 6(a) of Rule 113, the officer arresting a person who has just committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense must have personal knowledge of the fact. The offense must also be committed in his presence or within his view. (Sayo vs. Chief of Police, 80 Phil. 859).

                              xxx xxx xxx

In arrests without a warrant under Section 6(b), however, 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 test of reasonable ground applies only to the identity of the perpetrator.

This doctrine was affirmed in Alih vs. Castro, thus:

If the arrest was made under Rule 113, Section 5, of the Rules of Court in connection with a crime about to be committed, being committed, or just committed, what was that crime? There is no allegation in the record of such a falsification. 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 vs. Burgos.

People vs. Saycon

The State (P) vs. Suspected Shabu Courier (D)
GR 110995, September 5, 1994 (263 SCRA 325)	[T]

Summary: The Coastguard and NARMCOM were alerted to the arrival of a suspected shabu courier in a ship docking that morning. The suspected courier was invited for questioning and asked to reveal the contents of his bag. Prohibited drugs were found and he was arrested.

Rule of Law: Peace officers may lawfully conduct searches of moving vehicles without need of a warrant.

Facts: Alvaro Saycon (D) was charged with violating the Dangerous Drugs Act when he was found with "shabu".

At about 6:00am, a Coastguard personnel received information from a NARCOM agent that a suspected "shabu" courier by the name of Alvaro Saycon (D) was on board the MV Doña Virginia, which was arriving at that moment in Dumaguete City. Upon receipt of the information, the Coastguard chief officer ordered a combined team of NARCOM agents and Philippine Coastguard personnel to intercept the suspect.

The vessel docked at 6:00am that same morning at Dumaguete City. Saycon (D) alighted from the boat carrying a black bag and went through the checkpoint manned by the Philippine Coastguard where he was identified by a police officer of the NARCOM. Saycon (D) was then invited to the Coastguard Headquarters at the Pier area and he willingly went with them. At the headquarters, Saycon (D) was asked to open his bag and he willingly obliged. In it were personal belongings and a maong wallet. Inside that maong wallet, there was a cigarette pack containing the suspected "shabu". When asked whether the cigarette pack containing the suspected "shabu" was his, Saycon (D) merely bowed his head. Then, Saycon (D), his bag and the suspected "shabu" were brought to the NARCOM office for booking. When Alvaro Saycon was arrested, the NARCOM agents did not have a warrant of arrest.

Issues: Is the warrantless search valid? Is the warrantless arrest valid?

Ruling: Yes. The requirement that a judicial warrant must be obtained prior to the carrying out of a search and seizure is not absolute. "There are certain exceptions recognized in our law," the Court noted in People vs. Barros. The exception which appears most pertinent in respect of the case at bar is that relating to the search of moving vehicles. In People vs. Barros, the Court said:

Peace officers may lawfully conduct searches of moving vehicles without need of a warrant, it not being practicable to secure a judicial warrant before searching a vehicle, since such vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant may be sought. (People vs. Bagista, supra; People vs. Lo Ho Wing, supra) In Valmonte vs. De Villa, 178 SCRA 211 (1989), the Court stated:

"Not all searches and seizures are prohibited. Those which are reasonable are not forbidden. A reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of each case."

When, however, a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search, such a warrantless search would be constitutionally permissible only if the officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe, before the search, that either the motorist is a law-offender or the contents or cargo of the vehicle are or have been instruments or the subject matter or the proceeds of some criminal offense.

The Court considers that a valid warrantless search had been conducted. It follows that the warrantless arrest of Saycon (D) which ensued forthwith, was also valid and lawful.

People vs. Aminnudin

The State (P) vs. Suspected Drug Trafficker (D)
GR 74869, July 6, 1988 (163 SCRA 402)	[T]

Summary: A suspected drug trafficker was identified several days before his arrival on board a ship. On the ship's arrival, the informant pointed the suspect out as he was disembarking from the ship and a search of his bag revealed marijuana.

Rule of Law: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable.

Facts: Idel Aminnudin (D) was arrested shortly after disembarking from the M/V Wilcon 9 at about 8:30pm. The PC officers who were in fact waiting for Aminnudin (D) simply accosted him, inspected his bag and finding what looked like marijuana leaves took him to their headquarters for investigation. The two bundles of suspect articles were confiscated from Aminnudin (D) and later taken to the NBI laboratory for examination. When they were verified as marijuana leaves, an information for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act was filed against Aminnudin (D).

The PC officers had earlier received a tip from one of their informers that the Aminnudin (D) was on board a vessel bound for Iloilo City and was carrying marijuana. Aminnudin (D) was identified by name. As Aminnudin (D) descended from the gangplank after the informer had pointed to him. They detained Aminnudin (D) and inspected the bag he was carrying. It was found to contain three kilos of what were later analyzed as marijuana leaves by an NBI forensic examiner. On the basis of this finding, the corresponding charge was then filed against Aminnudin (D).

Issues: Is the warrantless search valid? Is the subsequent warrantless arrest valid?

Ruling: No. There was no warrant of arrest or search warrant issued by a judge after personal determination by him of the existence of probable cause. Contrary to the averments of the prosecution, Aminnudin (D) was not caught in flagrante nor was a crime about to be committed or had just been committed to justify the warrantless arrest allowed under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. Even expediency could not be invoked to dispense with the warrant. In Roldan vs. Arca, the vessels and aircraft are subject to warrantless searches and seizures for violation of the customs law because these vehicles may be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction before the warrant can be secured.

The present case presented no such urgency. From the conflicting declarations of the PC witnesses, it is clear that they had at least two days within which they could have obtained a warrant to arrest and search Aminnudin (D) who was coming to Iloilo on the M/V Wilcon 9. His name was known. The vehicle was identified. The date of its arrival was certain. And from the information they had received, they could have persuaded a judge that there was probable cause, indeed, to justify the issuance of a warrant.

Without the evidence of the marijuana allegedly seized from Aminnudin (D), the case of the prosecution must fall. That evidence cannot be admitted, and should never have been considered by the trial court for the simple fact is that the marijuana was seized illegally. It is the fruit of the poisonous tree, to use Justice Holmes' felicitous phrase. The search was not an incident of a lawful arrest because there was no warrant of arrest and the warrantless arrest did not come under the exceptions allowed by the Rules of Court. Hence, the warrantless search was also illegal and the evidence obtained thereby was inadmissible.

People vs. Burgos

The State (P) vs. Suspect NPA Rebel (D)
GR L-68955, September 4, 1986 (144 SCRA 1)	[T]

Summary: An informant identified a certain person as a member of a subversive group who forcibly recruited him and based on this information, the police went to arrest the suspect. At the time of the arrest, the suspect was merely plowing his field.

Rule of Law: In a warrantless arrest, the officer arresting a person who has just committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense must have personal knowledge of that fact.

Facts: Cesar Masamlok personally and voluntarily surrendered to the authorities stating that he was forcibly recruited by accused Ruben Burgos (D) as member of the NPA, threatening him with the use of firearm against his life, if he refused. Pursuant to this information, PC-INP members went to the house of the Burgos (D) and saw him plowing his field when they arrived. One of the arresting offices called Burgos (D) and asked him about the firearm. At first, Burgos (D) denied having any firearm, but later, Burgos's (D) wife pointed to a place below their house where a gun was buried in the ground.

After recovery of said firearm, Burgos (D) pointed to a stock pile of cogon where the officers recovered alleged subversive documents. Burgos (D) further admitted that the firearm was issued to him by Nestor Jimenez, team leader of sparrow unit.


Issues: Is the warrantless arrest valid? Is the warrantless search valid?

Ruling: No. Under Section 6(a) of Rule 113, the officer arresting a person who has just committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense must have personal knowledge of that fact. The offense must also be committed in his presence or within his view. (Sayo vs. Chief of Police, 80 Phil. 859).

There is no such personal knowledge in this case. Whatever knowledge was possessed by the arresting officers, it came in its entirety from the information furnished by Cesar Masamlok. The location of the firearm was given by the wife of Burgos (D).

In arrests without a warrant under Section 6(b), however, 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 test of reasonable ground applies only to the identity of the perpetrator.

In this case, the Burgos (D) was arrested on the sole basis of Masamlok's verbal report. Masamlok led the authorities to suspect that the accused had committed a crime. They were still fishing for evidence of a crime not yet ascertained. The subsequent recovery of the subject firearm on the basis of information from the lips of a frightened wife cannot make the arrest lawful. If an arrest without warrant is unlawful at the moment it is made, generally nothing that happened or is discovered afterward can make it lawful. The fruit of a poisoned tree is necessarily also tainted.

People vs. Sucro

The State (P) vs. Marijuana Dealer (D)
GR 93239, March 18, 1991 (195 SCRA 388)	[T]

Summary: A suspected marijuana dealer was being watched by the police after receiving information from informant. Having witnessed several transactions, the police moved in on a third and apprehended the buyer who identified the suspect as the seller.

Rule of Law: A peace officer or private person may, without 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; and 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.

Facts: Edison Sucro (D) was charged with and convicted of violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.

Sucro (D) was suspected of selling marijuana based on information from a police informant. His activities were monitored and confirmed several transactions taking place in the area of a certain chapel. The police decided to move in on an ongoing transaction and was able to apprehend a buyer who identified Sucro (D) as the seller. The police also recovered several marijuana sticks from the chapel where Sucro (D) left them.

Issues: Is the warrantless arrest valid?

Ruling: Yes. A peace officer or 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;

(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;

An offense is committed in the presence or within the view of an officer, within the meaning of the rule authorizing an arrest without a warrant, when the officer sees the offense, although at a distance, or hears the disturbances created thereby and proceeds at once to the scene thereof. (U.S. vs. Fortaleza, 12 Phil. 472 (1909); and U.S. vs. Samonte, 16 Phil. 516 (1910))

The failure of the police officers to secure a 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.

People vs. Alunday

The Government (P) vs. Marijuana Grower (D)
GR 181546, September 3, 2008	[T]

Summary: A suspected marijuana plantation was the subject of a raiding operation when the alleged marijuana grower was caught cutting and gathering marijuana. Further, when taken to a nearby hut, an unlicensed firearm was found.

Rule of Law: 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.

Facts: The Intelligence Section of the Police Provincial Office of the Mountain Province received a report from a confidential informant that there was an existing marijuana plantation within the vicinity of Mt. Churyon. After a series of validations, the existence of the subject plantation was finally confirmed.

The Police Director ordered a contingent of policemen to the subject plantation and upon arriving at the area saw Ricardo Alunday (D) cutting and gathering marijuana leaves. The police took Alunday (D) to the hut where they saw a woman, an M16 riffle and some dried marijuana leaves.

Issues: Is the warrantless arrest valid?

Ruling: Yes. 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) of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court refers to arrest in flagrante delicto.

Furthermore, the Court has consistently ruled that any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure for the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. We have also ruled that an accused may be estopped from assailing the illegality of his arrest if he fails to move for the quashing of the information against him before his arraignment. And since the legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused, any defect in the arrest of the accused may be deemed cured when he voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the trial court. We have also held in a number of cases that the illegal arrest of an accused is not a sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from error; such arrest does not negate the validity of the conviction of the accused.

Herein, Alunday (D) went into arraignment and entered a plea of not guilty. Thereafter, he actively participated in his trial. He raised the additional issue of irregularity of his arrest only during his appeal to this Court. He is, therefore, deemed to have waived such alleged defect by submitting himself to the jurisdiction of the court by his counsel-assisted plea during his arraignment; by his actively participating in the trial and by not raising the objection before his arraignment.

Padilla vs. Court of Appeals

Owner of Illegal Firearms (D) vs. the Government (P)
GR 121917, March 12, 1997 (269 SCRA 414)	[T][T]

Summary: In response to a hit-and-run accident reported by an eyewitness, the police was able to catch up with and apprehend the driver fleeing the scene and discovered several firearms in the vehicle in plain view.

Rule of Law: A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person 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. Objects whose possession are prohibited by law inadvertently found in plain view are subject to seizure even without a warrant.

Facts: At 8:00pm, Maranarag and his companion witnessed a hit-and-run accident involving the Mitsubishi Pajero of Robin Padilla (D), who was the unknown driver at the time. As a member of a civic group, Maranarag decided to report the incident to the police via VHF radio. Mobile patrols responded and chased the fleeing Pajero to the north. They finally caught up with the Padilla (D) and found several firearms in the vehicle and in his person.

Issues: Is the warrantless arrest valid? Is the warrantless search valid?

Ruling: Yes. The Court acknowledges police authority to make the forcible stop since they had more than mere "reasonable and articulable" suspicion that the occupant of the vehicle has been engaged in criminal activity after the hit-and-run incident was reported to them. Thus, the warrantless arrest was proper as Padilla (D) was caught in flagrante delicto with possession of unlicensed firearms and ammunition.

People vs. Elamparo

The Government (P) vs. Drug Dealer (D)
GR 121572, March 31, 2000 (329 SCRA 402)	[T]

Summary: A buy-bust operation led the pursuing officers of a drug runner into the house of his alleged supplier/dealer. In the house, they witnessed the alleged dealer repacking bricks of marijuana and arrested him.

Rule of Law: 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.

Facts: Joel Elamparo (D) has been convicted with Illegal Possession of Drugs and penalized with reclusion perpetua. The case was raised for automatic review.

Police Officer Baldonado of Caloocan City Police received a report from an informant that "some people are selling shabu and marijuana somewhere in Bagong Bario, Caloocan City." Thus, Baldonado organized a buy-bust team and deployed at a known "market" for buyers of marijuana. Thereafter, a runner approached the poseur-buyer to confirm an order. The runner then left and returned with the marijuana. Gaviola, the poseur-buyer and buy-bust team member, then handed over the marked money and arrested the runner who freed himself and ran.

The buy-bust team pursued the runner, who ran inside a bungalow-type house with steel gate. Having trapped the runner inside the house, the police officers frisked him and recovered the marked money. The police officers likewise found Joel Elamparo (D) repacking five bricks of "marijuana" wrapped in a newspaper on top of the round table inside the house. Elamparo (D) was then arrested.

Issues: Is the warrantless arrest valid?

Ruling: Yes. Five generally accepted exceptions to the right against warrantless searches and seizures have been judicially formulated: (1) search incidental to a lawful arrest, (2) search of moving vehicles, (3) seizure in plain view, (4) customs searches, and (5) waiver by the accused themselves of their right against unreasonable search and seizure.

This case falls squarely under the plain view doctrine. In People vs. Doria, 301 SCRA 668, 710-711 (1999), the Court held that—

Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced in evidence. The "plain view" doctrine applies when the following requisites concur (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The object must be open to eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent.

When the runner wrenched himself free from the grasp of Gaviola, he instinctively ran towards the house of Elamparo (D). The members of the buy-bust team were justified in running after him and entering the house without a search warrant for they were pursuing a fleeing criminal. Once inside the house, the police officers cornered the runner and recovered the buy-bust money from him. They also caught Elamparo (D) in flagrante delicto repacking the marijuana bricks which were in full view on tap of a table.

Sayo vs. Chief of Police

Detainee (D) vs. Arresting Authorities (P)
GR L-2128, , May 12, 1948 (80 Phil. 859)	[T]

Summary: Two suspects of a robbery were arrested upon a complaint of another person.

Rule of Law: Under the constitution, no person may be deprived of his liberty except by warrant of arrest or commitment issued upon probable cause by a judge after examination of the complainant and his witness.

Facts: Upon complaint of Bernardino Malinao, charging Melencio Sayo (D) and Joaquin Mostero (D) with having committed the crime of robbery, Benjamin Dumlao, a policeman of the City of Manila, arrested the Sayo (D) and Mostero (D), and presented a complaint against them with the fiscal's office of Manila. When the petition for habeas corpus was heard, the Sayo (D) and Mostero (D) were still detained or under arrest, and the city fiscal had not yet released or filed charges against them with the proper courts justice.

Issues: Is the warrantless arrest valid?

Ruling: No. Under the constitution, no person may be deprived of his liberty except by warrant of arrest or commitment issued upon probable cause by a judge after examination of the complainant and his witness.

A peace officer has no power or authority to arrest a person without a warrant upon complaint of the offended party or any other person, except in those cases expressly authorized by law. What he or the complainant may do in such case is to file a complaint with the city fiscal or directly with the justice of the peace courts in municipalities and other political subdivisions. A fortiori a police officer has no authority to arrest and detain a person charged with an offense upon complaint of the offended party or other persons even though, after investigation, he becomes convinced that the accused is guilty of the offense charged.

U.S. vs. Samonte

The Government (P) vs. Accused (D)
GR 5649, September 6, 1910 (16 Phil. 516)	[T]

Summary: A policeman responded to a call for help and attempted to arrest the assailant in an ongoing quarrel. He did so without a warrant of arrest.

Rule of Law: Any officer in charged with the preservation of the public peace may arrest, without a warrant, any person who is committing, or has committed, a breach of the peace in his presence.

Facts: Isaac Samonte (D) was charged with criminal attempt against an agent of the authorities in the Province of Tayabas, and appealed to the Supreme Court.

At about 8 o'clock pm, Samonte (D) and Basilio Rabe were together in the house of Barrio Councilman Demetrio Pandenio and met in the streets afterwards, where they quarreled. Rabe shouted for the police while being maltreated by Samonte (D). Then, a policeman came as Rabe was getting up and attempted to arrest Samonte (D), but was unable to when Samonte (D) struck him with a knife. Because of this, the policemen went to Councilman Pandenio.

Together with and upon Pandenio's order, the policeman again attempted to arrest Samonte (D), but Samonte (D) struck them both with a knife.

Issues: Is the warrantless arrest valid?

Ruling: Yes. Any officer in charged with the preservation of the public peace may arrest, without a warrant, any person who is committing, or has committed, a breach of the peace in his presence.

An offense is committed in the presence or within the view of an officer, within the meaning of the rule authorizing an arrest without a warrant, when the officer sees the offense, although at a distance, or hears the disturbances created thereby and proceeds at once to the scene thereof; of the offense is continuing, or has not been consummated, at the time the arrest is made.