1

RIGHTS OF RESPONDENT DURING PRELIMINARY l. Violation of Section 3, paragraph (e) of RA.

INVESTIGATION 3019 for giving D' Group, a private
corporation controlled by his brother-in-law,
Republic of the Philippines unwarranted benefits, advantage or
preference in the discharge of his official
SUPREME COURT functions through manifest partiality and
evident bad faith;

Manila
2. Violation of Section 3, paragraph (b) of
RA. 3019 for receiving a check of
EN BANC P125,000.00 from Roberto Vallar,
President/General Manager of Amity Trading
Corporation as consideration for the release
of a check of P588,000.00 to said
G.R. No. 72335-39 March 21, 1988 corporation for printing services rendered
for the Constitutional Convention
Referendum in 1973;
FRANCISCO S. TATAD, petitioner, vs. THE
SANDIGANBAYAN, and THE TANODBAYAN, respondents.
3. Violation of Section 7 of RA. 3019 on
three (3) counts for his failure to file his
YAP, J.:
Statement of Assets and Liabilities for the
calendar years 1973, 1976 and 1978.
In this petition for certiorari and prohibition, with preliminary
injunction, dated October 16, 1985, petitioner seeks to annul
Accordingly, on June 12, 1985, the following informations were
and set aside the resolution of the Tanodbayan of April 7,
flied with the Sandiganbayan against the petitioner:
1985, and the resolutions of the Sandiganbayan, dated August
9, 1985, August 12,1985 and September 17, 1985, and to
enjoin the Tanodbayan and the Sandiganbayan from Re: Criminal Case No. 10499
continuing with the trial or any other proceedings in Criminal
Cases Nos. 10499, 10500, 10501, 10502 and 10503, an The undersigned Tanodbayan Special
entitled "People of the Philippines versus Francisco S. Tatad." Prosecutor accuses Francisco S. Tatad with
Violation of Section 3, paragraph (b) of
The petition alleges, among other things, that sometime in Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as
October 1974, Antonio de los Reyes, former Head Executive the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,
Assistant of the then Department of Public Information (DPI) committed as follows:
and Assistant Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Broadcasts,
filed a formal report with the Legal Panel, Presidential Security That on or about the 16th day of July, 1973
Command (PSC), charging petitioner, who was then Secretary in the City of Manila, Philippines, and within
and Head of the Department of Public Information, with the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
alleged violations of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known above- named accused, being then the
as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Apparently, no Secretary of the Department (now Ministry)
action was taken on said report. of Public Information, did then and there,
wilfully and unlawfully demand and receive
Then, in October 1979, or five years later, it became publicly a check for Pl25,000.00 from Roberto Vallar,
known that petitioner had submitted his resignation as President/General Manager of Amity Trading
Minister of Public Information, and two months after, or on Corporation as consideration for the
December 12, 1979, Antonio de los Reyes filed a complaint payment to said Corporation of the sum of
with the Tanodbayan (TBP Case No. 8005-16-07) against the P588,000.00, for printing services rendered
petitioner, accusing him of graft and corrupt practices in the for the Constitutional Convention
conduct of his office as then Secretary of Public Information. Referendum of January, 1973, wherein the
The complaint repeated the charges embodied in the previous accused in his official capacity had to
report filed by complainant before the Legal Panel, intervene under the law in the release of the
Presidential Security Command (PSC). funds for said project.

On January 26, 1980, the resignation of petitioner was That the complaint against the above-
accepted by President Ferdinand E. Marcos. On April 1, 1980, named accused was filed with the Office of
the Tanodbayan referred the complaint of Antonio de los the Tanodbayan on May 16, 1980.
Reyes to the Criminal Investigation Service (CIS) for fact-
finding investigation. On June 16, 1980, Roberto P. Dizon, CIS CONTRARY TO LAW.
Investigator of the Investigation and Legal Panel, PSC,
submitted his Investigation Report, with the following Re: Criminal Case No. 10500
conclusion, ". . . evidence gathered indicates that former Min.
TATAD have violated Sec. 3 (e) and Sec. 7 of RA 3019,
respectively. On the other hand, Mr. ANTONIO L. CANTERO is The undersigned Tanodbayan Special
also liable under Sec. 5 of RA 3019," and recommended Prosecutor accuses FRANCISCO S. TATAD
appropriate legal action on the matter. with Violation of Section 7 of Republic Act
No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practice Act, committed as
Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint against him, follows:
claiming immunity from prosecution by virtue of PD 1791, but
the motion was denied on July 26, 1982 and his motion for
reconsideration was also denied on October 5, 1982. On That on or about the 31st day of January,
October 25, 1982, all affidavits and counter-affidavits were 1974 in the City of Manila, Philippines, and
with the Tanodbayan for final disposition. On July 5, 1985, the within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Tanodbayan approved a resolution, dated April 1, 1985, Court, the above- named accused, a public
prepared by Special Prosecutor Marina Buzon, recommending officer being then the Secretary of the
that the following informations be filed against petitioner Department (now Ministry) of Public
before the Sandiganbayan, to wit: Information, did then and there wilfully and
 2
unlawfully fail to prepare and file with the officer being then the Secretary of the
Office of the President, a true detailed and Department (now Ministry) of Public
sworn statement of his assets and liabilities, Information, did then and there wilfully and
as of December 31, 1973, including a unlawfully fail to prepare and file with the
statement of the amounts and sources of his Office of the President, a true and sworn
income, the amounts of his personal and statement of his assets and liabilities, as of
family expenses and the amount of income December 31, 1976, including a statement
taxes paid for the next preceding calendar of the amounts of his personal and family
year (1973), as required of every public expenses and the amount of income taxes
officer. paid for the next preceding calendar year
(1976), as required of every public officer.
That the complaint against the above-
named accused was flied with the Office of That the complaint against the above-
the Tanodbayan on June 20, 1980. named accused was filed with the Office of
the Tanodbayan on June 20, 1988.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Re: Criminal Case No. 10501
Re: Criminal Case No. 10503
The undersigned Tanodbayan Special
Prosecutor accuses FRANCISCO S. TATAD The undersigned Tanodbayan Special
with Violation of Section 3, paragraph (e) of Prosecutor accuses FRANCISCO S. TATAD
Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as with Violation of Section 7 of Republic Act
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft
committed as follows: and Corrupt Practices Act, committed as
follows:
That on or about the month of May, 1975
and for sometime prior thereto, in the City That on or about the 15th day of April, 1979,
of Manila, Philippines, and within the in the City of Manila Philippines, and within
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, a public officer being above-named accused, a public officer being
then the Secretary of the Department (now then the Secretary of the Department (now
Ministry) of Public Information, did then and Ministry) of Public Information, did then and
there, wilfully and unlawfully give Marketing there wilfully and unlawfully fail to prepare
Communication Group, Inc. (D' Group), a and file with the Office of the President, a
private corporation of which his brother-in- true, detailed and sworn statement of his
law, Antonio L. Cantero, is the President, assets and liabilities, as of December 31,
unwarranted benefits, advantage or 1978, including a statement of the amounts
preference in the discharge of his official and sources of his income, the amounts of
functions, through manifest partiality and his personal and family expenses and the
evident bad faith, by allowing the transfer of amount of income taxes paid for the next
D' GROUP of the funds, assets and preceding calendar year (1978), as required
ownership of South East Asia Research of every public officer.
Corporation (SEARCH), allegedly a private
corporation registered with the Securities That the complaint against the above-
and Exchange Corporation on June 4, 1973, named accused was filed with the Office of
but whose organization and operating the Tanodbayan on June 20, 1980.
expenses came from the confidential funds
of the Department of Public Information as it
CONTRARY TO LAW.
was organized to undertake research,
projects for the government, without
requiring an accounting of the funds On July 22, 1985, petitioner filed with the Sandiganbayan a
advanced by the Department of Public consolidated motion to quash the informations on the follow
Information and reimbursement thereof by grounds:
D' GROUP, to the damage and prejudice of
the government. 1 The prosecution deprived accused-movant
of due process of law and of the right to a
That the complaint against the above- speedy disposition of the cases filed against
named accused was filed with the Office of him, amounting to loss of jurisdiction to file
the Tanodbayan on May 16, 1980. the informations;

CONTRARY TO LAW. 2. Prescription of the offenses charged in

Crim. Case Nos. 10499, 10500 and 10501;
Re: Criminal Case No. 10502
3. The facts charged in Criminal Case No.
10500 (for failure to file Statement of Assets
The undersigned Tanodbayan Special
and Liabilities for the year 1973) do not
Prosecutor accuses FRANCISCO S. TATAD
constitute an offense;
with Violation of Section 7 of Republic Act
No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act, committed as 4. No prima facie case against the accused-
follows: movant exists in Criminal Cases Nos. 10500,
10502 and 10503;
That on or about the 31st day of January,
1977 in the City of Manila, Philippines, and 5. No prima facie case against the accused-
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable movant exists in Criminal Case No. 10199
Court, the above-named accused, a public
 3
for Violation of Sec. 3, par. (b) of R.A. 3019, SO ORDERED.
as amended;
On August 10, 1985, in compliance with the Sandiganbayan's
6. No prima facie case against the accused- resolution of August 8, 1985, the Tanodbayan filed an
movant exists in Criminal Case No. 10501 amended information in Criminal Case No. 10500, changing
(for Violation of Sec. 3 (e) of R.A. 3019, as the date of the commission of the offense to September 30,
amended. 1974.

On July 26, 1985, the Tanodbayan filed its opposition to On August 30, 1985, petitioners filed a consolidated motion
petitioner's consolidated motion to quash, stating therein in for reconsideration which was denied by the Sandiganbayan
particular that there were only two grounds in said motion September 17, 1985. Hence, petitioner filed this petition on
that needed refutation, namely: October 16, 1985 assailing the denial of his motion to quash.
On October 22, 1985, the Court, without giving due course the
1. The offense charged in Criminal Cases petition, resolved to require the respondents to comment
Nos. 10499,10500 and 10501, have already thereon and issued a temporary restraining order effective
prescribed and criminal liability is immediately and continuing until further orders of the Court,
extinguished; and enjoining the respondents Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan
from continuing with the trial and other proceedings in
Criminal Cases Nos. 10499, 10500, 10501, 10502 and 10503.
2. The facts charged in the information
In compliance with said resolution, the respondents,
(Criminal Case No. 10500 For failure to
through ,Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, filed their
file Statement of Assets and Liabilities for
comment on January 6, 1986.
the year 1973) do not constitute an offense.

On April 10, 1986, the Court required the parties to move in

On the issue of prescription, Tanodbayan citing the case
the premises considering the supervening events, including
of Francisco vs. Court of Appeals, 122 SCRA 538, contended
the change of administration that had transpired, and the
that the filing of the complaint or denuncia in the fiscal's office
provisions of Sec. 18, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, insofar far
interrupts the period of prescription. Since the above-
as the Public respondents were concerned, which requires the
numbered cases were filed with the Office of
successor official to state whether or not he maintains the
the Tanodbayan in 1980 and the alleged offenses were
action or position taken by his predecessor in office. On June
committed on July 16, 1973, January 31, 1974 and in May
20, 1986, the new Tanodbayan manifested that since "the
1975, respectively, although the charges were actually filed in
charges are not political offenses and they have no political
Court only on July 9, 1985, the Tanodbayan has still the right
bearing whatsoever," he had no alternative but to pursue the
to prosecute the same, it appearing that the ten (10) year
cases against the petitioner, should the Court resolve to deny
prescriptive period has not yet lapsed. Moreover, Tanodbayan
the petition; that in any event, petitioner is not precluded
pointed out that a law such as Batas Pambansa Blg. 195,
from pursuing any other legal remedies under the law, such
extending the period of limitation with respect to criminal
as the filing of a motion for re-evaluation of his cases with the
prosecution, unless the right to acquittal has been acquired, is
Tanodbayan. The new Solicitor General filed a manifestation
constitutional.
dated June 27, 1986 in which he concurred with the position
taken by the new Tanodbayan.
Tanodbayan likewise said that the requirement for the filing of
the Statement of Assets and Liabilities in P.D. 379 is separate
Pursuant to the above manifestation of the new Tanodbayan,
and distinct from that required pursuant to the provisions of
the petitioner filed a motion for re-evaluation with the Office
the Anti-Graft Law, as amended. For while the former requires
of the Tanodbayan, dated July 21, 1986, praying that the
"any natural or juridical person having gross assets of
cases in question be re-evaluated and the informations be
P50,000.00 or more..." to submit a statement of assets and
quashed. The Court is not aware of what action, if any, has
liabilities "... regardless of the networth," the mandate in the
been taken thereon by the Tanodbayan. However, be that as it
latter law is for ALL government employees and officials to
may, the filing of the aforesaid motion for re-evaluation with
submit a statement of assets and liabilities. Hence, the
the Tanodbayan has no material bearing insofar as the duty of
prosecution under these two laws are separate and distinct
this Court to resolve the issues raised in the instant petition is
from each other. Tanodbayan also explained that delay in the
concerned.
conduct of preliminary investigation does not impair the
validity of the informations filed and that neither will it render
said informations defective. Finally, Tanodbayan added that Petitioner has raised the following issues in his petition:
P.D. 911, the law which governs preliminary investigations is
merely directory insofar as it fixes a period of ten (10) days 1. Whether the prosecution's long delay in
from its termination to resolve the preliminary investigation. the filing of these cases with the
Sandiganbayan had deprived petitioner of
On August 9, 1985, the Sandiganbayan rendered its his constitutional light to due process and
challenged resolution denying petitioner's motion to quash, the right to a speedy disposition of the
the dispositive portion of which reads: cases against him.

WHEREFORE, prescinding therefrom, We 2. Whether the crimes charged has already

find, and so hold, that the accused's prescribed.
"Consolidated Motion to Quash" should be
as it is hereby, denied for lack of merit. 3. Whether there is a discriminatory
Conformably to Rule 117, Section 4 of the prosecution of the petitioner by the
1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, the Tanodbayan.
defect in the information in Criminal Case
No. 10500 being one which could be cured 4. Whether Sandiganbayan should have
by amendment, the Tanodbayan is hereby ruled on the question of amnesty raised by
directed to amend said information to the petitioner.
change the date of the alleged commission
of the offense therein charged from January
5. Whether petitioner's contention of the
31, 1974 to September 30, 1974 within five
supposed lack or non- existence of prima
(5) days from receipt hereof.
facie evidence to sustain the filing of the
 4
cases at bar justifies the quashal of the guaranteed by the Constitution? May the court, ostrich like,
questioned informations. bury its head in the sand, as it were, at the initial stage of the
proceedings and wait to resolve the issue only after the trial?
Petitioner claims that the Tanodbayan culpably violated the
constitutional mandate of "due process" and "speedy In a number of cases, 1 this Court has not hesitated to grant
disposition of cases" in unduly prolonging the termination of the so-called "radical relief" and to spare the accused from
the preliminary investigation and in filing the corresponding undergoing the rigors and expense of a full-blown trial where
informations only after more than a decade from the alleged it is clear that he has been deprived of due process of law or
commission of the purported offenses, which amounted to other constitutionally guaranteed rights. Of course, it goes
loss of jurisdiction and authority to file the informations. The without saying that in the application of the doctrine
respondent Sandiganbayan dismissed petitioner's contention, enunciated in those cases, particular regard must be taken of
saying that the applicability of the authorities cited by him to the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case.
the case at bar was "nebulous;" that it would be premature for
the court to grant the "radical relief" prayed for by petitioner Coming to the case at bar, the following relevant facts appear
at this stage of the proceeding; that the mere allegations of on record and are largely undisputed. The complainant,
"undue delay" do not suffice to justify acceptance thereof Antonio de los Reyes, originally filed what he termed "a
without any showing "as to the supposed lack or omission of report" with the Legal Panel of the Presidential Security
any alleged procedural right granted or allowed to the Command (PSC) on October 1974, containing charges of
respondent accused by law or administrative fiat" or in the alleged violations of Rep. Act No. 3019 against then Secretary
absence of "indubitable proof of any irregularity or abuse" of Public Information Francisco S. Tatad. The "report" was
committed by the Tanodbayan in the conduct of the made to "sleep" in the office of the PSC until the end of 1979
preliminary investigation; that such facts and circumstances when it became widely known that Secretary (then Minister)
as would establish petitioner's claim of denial of due process Tatad had a falling out with President Marcos and had resigned
and other constitutionally guaranteed rights could be from the Cabinet. On December 12, 1979, the 1974 complaint
presented and more fully threshed out at the trial. Said the was resurrected in the form of a formal complaint filed with
Sandiganbayan: the Tanodbayan and docketed as TBP Case No. 8005-16-07.
The Tanodbayan acted on the complaint on April 1, 1980-
That there was a hiatus in the proceedings which was around two months after petitioner Tatad's
between the alleged termination of the resignation was accepted by Pres. Marcos by referring the
proceedings before the investigating fiscal complaint to the CIS, Presidential Security Command, for
on October 25, 1982 and its resolution on investigation and report. On June 16, 1980, the CIS report was
April 17, 1985 could have been due to submitted to the Tanodbayan, recommending the filing of
certain factors which do not appear on charges for graft and corrupt practices against former Minister
record and which both parties did not bother Tatad and Antonio L. Cantero. By October 25, 1982, all
to explain or elaborate upon in detail. It affidavits and counter-affidavits were in the case was already
could even be logically inferred that the for disposition by the Tanodbayan. However, it was only on
delay may be due to a painstaking an July 5, 1985 that a resolution was approved by the
gruelling scrutiny by the Tanodbayan as to Tanodbayan, recommending the ring of the corresponding
whether the evidence presented during the criminal informations against the accused Francisco Tatad.
preliminary investigation merited Five (5) criminal informations were filed with the
prosecution of a former high-ranking Sandiganbayan on June 12, 1985, all against petitioner Tatad
government official. In this respect, We are alone.
the considered opinion that the provision of
Pres. Decree No. 911, as amended, A painstaking review of the facts can not but leave the
regarding the resolution of a complaint by impression that political motivations played a vital role in
the Tanodbayan within ten (10) days from activating and propelling the prosecutorial process in this
termination of the preliminary investigation case. Firstly, the complaint came to life, as it were, only after
is merely "directory" in nature, in view of petitioner Tatad had a falling out with President Marcos.
the nature and extent of the proceedings in Secondly, departing from established procedures prescribed
said office. by law for preliminary investigation, which require the
submission of affidavits and counter-affidavits by the
The statutory grounds for the quashal of an complainant and the respondent and their witnesses, the
information are clearly set forth in concise Tanodbayan referred the complaint to the Presidential Security
language in Rule 117, Section 2, of the 1985 Command for finding investigation and report.
Rules on Criminal Procedure and no other
grounds for quashal may be entertained by We find such blatant departure from the established
the Court prior to arraignment inasmuch as procedure as a dubious, but revealing attempt to involve an
it would be itself remiss in the performance office directly under the President in the prosecutorial process,
of its official functions and subject to the lending credence to the suspicion that the prosecution was
charge that it has gravely abused its politically motivated. We cannot emphasize too strongly that
discretion. Such facts and circumstances prosecutors should not allow, and should avoid, giving the
which could otherwise justify the dismissal impression that their noble office is being used or prostituted,
of the case, such as failure on the part of wittingly or unwittingly, for political ends or other purposes
the prosecution to comply with due process alien to, or subversive of, the basic and fundamental objective
or any other constitutionally-guaranteed of serving the interest of justice even handedly, without fear
rights may presented during the trial or favor to any and all litigants alike, whether rich or poor,
wherein evidence for and against the issue weak or strong, powerless or mighty. Only by strict adherence
involved may be fully threshed out and to the established procedure may the public's perception of
considered. Regrettably, the accused herein the of the prosecutor be enhanced.
attempts to have the Court grant such a
radical relief during this stage of the
Moreover, the long delay in resolving the case under
proceedings which precludes a pre-cocious
preliminary investigation can not be justified on the basis of
or summary evaluation of insufficient
the facts on record. The law (P.D. No. 911) prescribes a ten-
evidence in support thereof.
day period for the prosecutor to resolve a case under
preliminary investigation by him from its termination. While
This brings us to the crux of the issue at hand. Was petitioner we agree with the respondent court that this period fixed by
deprived of his constitutional right to due process and the law is merely "directory," yet, on the other hand, it can not be
right to "speedy disposition" of the cases against him as
 5
disregarded or ignored completely, with absolute impunity. It RODRIGO R. DUTERTE and BENJAMIN C. DE
certainly can not be assumed that the law has included a GUZMAN, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE
provision that is deliberately intended to become meaningless SANDIGANBAYAN, respondent.
and to be treated as a dead letter.
DECISION
We find the long delay in the termination of the preliminary
investigation by the Tanodbayan in the instant case to be KAPUNAN, J.:
violative of the constitutional right of the accused to due
process. Substantial adherence to the requirements of the law
governing the conduct of preliminary investigation, including
substantial compliance with the time limitation prescribed by
the law for the resolution of the case by the prosecutor, is part The right to preliminary investigation is not a mere
of the procedural due process constitutionally guaranteed by formal right, it is a substantive right. To deny the accused of
the fundamental law. Not only under the broad umbrella of the such right would be to deprive him of due process.
due process clause, but under the constitutional guarantee of
"speedy disposition" of cases as embodied in Section 16 of In this special civil action for certiorari with preliminary
the Bill of Rights (both in the 1973 and the 1987 injunction, petitioners seek to set aside the Order of the
Constitutions), the inordinate delay is violative of the Sandiganbayan dated 27 June 1997 denying the Motion to
petitioner's constitutional rights. A delay of close to three (3) Quash the information filed against them for violating Sec.
years can not be deemed reasonable or justifiable in the light 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft And
of the circumstance obtaining in the case at bar. We are not Corrupt Practices Act. Petitioners similarly impugn the
impressed by the attempt of the Sandiganbayan to sanitize Resolution of the Sandiganbayan dated 5 August 1997 which
the long delay by indulging in the speculative assumption that denied their Motion for Reconsideration thereof.
"the delay may be due to a painstaking and gruelling scrutiny
by the Tanodbayan as to whether the evidence presented
Pertinent to this case are the following facts:
during the preliminary investigation merited prosecution of a
former high ranking government official." In the first place,
such a statement suggests a double standard of treatment, In 1990, the Davao City Local Automation Project was
which must be emphatically rejected. Secondly, three out of launched by the city government of Davao. The goal of said
the five charges against the petitioner were for his alleged project was to make Davao City a leading center for computer
failure to file his sworn statement of assets and liabilities systems and technology development. It also aimed to
required by Republic Act No. 3019, which certainly did not provide consultancy and training services and to assist all
involve complicated legal and factual issues necessitating local government units in Mindanao set up their respective
such "painstaking and gruelling scrutiny" as would justify a computer systems.
delay of almost three years in terminating the preliminary
investigation. The other two charges relating to alleged To implement the project, a Computerization Program
bribery and alleged giving of unwarranted benefits to a Committee, composed of the following was formed:
relative, while presenting more substantial legal and factual
issues, certainly do not warrant or justify the period of three
Chairman : Atty. Benjamin C. de Guzman, City Administrator
years, which it took the Tanodbayan to resolve the case.

Members : Mr. Jorge Silvosa, Acting City Treasurer

It has been suggested that the long delay in terminating the
preliminary investigation should not be deemed fatal, for even
the complete absence of a preliminary investigation does not Atty. Victorino Advincula, City Councilor
warrant dismissal of the information. True-but the absence of
a preliminary investigation can be corrected by giving the Mr. Alexis Almendras, City Councilor\
accused such investigation. But an undue delay in the conduct
of a preliminary investigation can not be corrected, for until Atty. Onofre Francisco, City Legal Officer
now, man has not yet invented a device for setting back time.

Mr. Rufino Ambrocio, Jr., Chief of Internal Control Office

After a careful review of the facts and circumstances of this
case, we are constrained to hold that the inordinate delay in
Atty. Mariano Kintanar, COA Resident Auditor.[1]
terminating the preliminary investigation and filing the
information in the instant case is violative of the
constitutionally guaranteed right of the petitioner to due The Committees duty was to conduct a thorough study of the
process and to a speedy disposition of the cases against him. different computers in the market, taking into account the
Accordingly, the informations in Criminal Cases Nos. 10499, quality and acceptability of the products, the reputation and
10500, 10501, 10502 and 10503 should be dismissed. In view track record of the manufacturers and/or their Philippine
of the foregoing, we find it unnecessary to rule on the other distributors, the availability of service centers in the country
issues raised by petitioner. that can undertake preventive maintenance of the computer
hardwares to ensure a long and uninterrupted use and, last
but not the least, the capability of the manufacturers and/or
Accordingly, the Court Resolved to give due course to the
Philippine distributors to design and put into place the
petition and to grant the same. The informations in Criminal
computer system complete with the flow of paperwork, forms
Cases Nos. 10499, 10500, 10501, 10502 and 10503, entitled
to be used and personnel required.[2]
"People of the Philippines vs. Francisco S. Tatad" are hereby
DISMISSED. The temporary restraining order issued on
October 22, 1985 is made permanent. Following these guidelines, the Committee
recommended the acquisition of Goldstar computers
manufactured by Goldstar Information and Communication,
SO ORDERED.
Ltd., South Korea and exclusively distributed in the Philippines
by Systems Plus, Inc. (SPI).

After obtaining prior clearance from COA Auditor

THIRD DIVISION
Kintanar, the Committee proceeded to negotiate with SPI,
represented by its President Rodolfo V. Jao and Executive Vice
[G.R. No. 130191. April 27, 1998] President Manuel T. Asis, for the acquisition and installation of
the computer hardware and the training of personnel for the
 6
Electronic Data-Processing Center. The total contract cost 2. Advance payment of P1.7M was made to Systems Plus, Inc.
amounted to P11,656,810.00 covering 15% of the contract cost of P11.6M in
violation of Sec. 45 of PD 477 and Sec. 88 of PD
On 5 November 1990, the City Council (Sangguniang 1445.
Panlungsod) of Davao unanimously passed Resolution No.
1402 and Ordinance No. 173 approving the proposed contract 3. The cost of computer hardware and accessories under
for computerization between Davao City and SPI. The contract with Systems Plus, Inc. (SPI) differed from
Sanggunian, likewise, authorized the City Mayor (petitioner the teams canvass by as much as 1200% or a total
Duterte) to sign the said contract for and in behalf of Davao of P1.8M.
City.[3]
4. The City had no Information System Plan (ISP) prior to the
On the same day, the Sangguniang issued Resolution No. award of the contract to SPI in direct violation of
1403 and Ordinance No. 174, the General Fund Supplemental Malacaang Memo. Order No. 287 and NCC Memo.
Budget No. 07 for CY 1990 appropriating P3,000,000.00 for Circular 89-1 dated June 22, 1989. This omission
the citys computerization project. resulted in undue disadvantage to the City
Government.
Given the go-signal, the contract was duly signed by the
parties thereto and on 8 November 1990, petitioner City 5. To remedy the foregoing deficiencies, the team
Administrator de Guzman released to SPI PNB Check No. recommends that the contract with Systems Plus,
65521 in the amount of P1,748,521.58 as downpayment. Inc. be rescinded in view of the questionable validity
due to insufficient funding. Further, the provisions of
On 27 November 1990, the Office of the Ombudsman- NCC-Memorandum Circular 89-1 dated June 22, 1989
Mindanao received a letter-complaint from a concerned regarding procurement and/or installation of
citizen, stating that some city officials are going to make a computer hardware/system should be strictly
killing in the transaction.[4] The complaint was docketed as adhered to.[7]
OMB-MIN-90-0425. However, no action was taken thereon.[5]
The city government, intent on pursuing its
Thereafter, sometime in February 1991, a complaint computerization plan, decided to follow the audit teams
docketed as Civil Case No. 20,550-91, was instituted before recommendation and sought the assistance of the National
the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 12 by Dean Pilar Computer Center (NCC). After conducting the necessary
Braga, Hospicio C. Conanan, Jr. and Korsung Dabaw studies, the NCC recommended the acquisition of Philips
Foundation, Inc. against the petitioners, the City Council, computers in the amount of P15,792,150.00. Davao City
various city officials and SPI for the judicial declaration of complied with the NCCs advice and hence, was finally able to
nullity of the aforestated resolutions and ordinances and the obtain the needed computers.
computer contract executed pursuant thereto.
Subsequently, on 1 August 1991, the Anti-Graft League-
On 22 February 1991, Goldstar, through its agent, Mr. Davao City Chapter, through one Miguel C. Enriquez, filed an
S.Y. Lee sent a proposal to petitioner Duterte for the unverified complaint with the Ombudsman-Mindanao against
cancellation of the computerization contract. petitioners, the City Treasurer, City Auditor, the whole city
government of Davao and SPI. The League alleged that the
respondents, in entering into the computerization contract,
Consequently, on 8 April 1991, the Sangguniang issued
violated R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act),
Resolution No. 449 and Ordinance No. 53 accepting Goldstars
PD No. 1445 (Government Auditing Code of the Philippines),
offer to cancel the computerization contract provided the
COA circulars and regulations, the Revised Penal Code and
latter return the advance payment of P1,748,521.58 to the
other pertinent laws. The case was docketed as OMB-3-91-
City Treasurers Office within a period of one month. Petitioner
1768.[8]
Duterte, as city mayor, was thus authorized to take the proper
steps for the mutual cancellation of the said contract and to
sign all documents relevant thereto.[6] On 9 October 1991, Graft Investigation Officer (GIO)
Pepito A. Manriquez of the Office of the Ombudsman sent a
letter[9] to COA Chairman Domingo requesting the Special
Pursuant to the aforestated authority, on 6 May 1991,
Audit Team to submit their joint affidavit to substantiate the
petitioner Duterte, in behalf of Davao City, and SPI mutually
complaint in compliance with Section 4, par. (a) of the Rules of
rescinded the contract and the downpayment was duly
Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman (A. O. No. 07).
refunded.

On 14 October 1991, Judge Paul T. Arcangel, issued an

In the meantime, a Special Audit Team of the
Order dismissing Civil Case No. 20,550-91. The dispositive
Commission on Audit was tasked to conduct an audit of the
portion reads, thus:
Davao City Local Automation Project to determine if said
contract conformed to government laws and regulations.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, this case is hereby
dismissed on the ground of prematurity and that it has
On 31 May 1991, the team submitted its Special Audit
become moot and academic with the mutual cancellation of
Report (SAR) No. 91-05 recommending rescission of the
the contract. The other claims of the parties are hereby
subject contract. A copy of the report was sent to petitioner
denied. No pronouncement as to costs.
Duterte by COA Chairman Eufemio C. Domingo on 7 June
1991. In the latters transmittal letter, Chairman Domingo
summarized the findings of the special audit team, thus: SO ORDERED.[10]

1. The award of the contract for the Davao City Local On 12 November 1991, Graft Investigator Manriquez
Automation Project to Systems Plus, Inc., issued an order in OMB-3-91-1768 directing petitioners, Jorge
for P11,656,810 was done thru negotiated contract Silvosa (City Treasurer), Mariano Kintanar (City Auditor) and
rather than thru competitive public bidding in Manuel T. Asis of SPI to:
violation of Sections 2 and 8 of PD 526. Moreover,
there was no sufficient appropriation for this xxx file in ten (10) days (1) their respective verified point-by-
particular contract in violation of Sec. 85 of PD 1445. point comment under oath upon every allegation of the
complaint in Civil Case No. 20,550-91 in the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 12, Davao City Dean Pilar C. Braga, et al.
 7
vs. Illegality of City Council of Davao Resolutions and 3. There is no contract manifestly and grossly
Ordinances, and the Computer Contract executed Pursuant disadvantageous to the government since the
Thereto, for Recovery of Sum of Money, Professional Fees and subject contract has been duly rescinded.
Costs with Injunctive Relief, including the Issuance of a
Restraining Order and/or a Writ of Preliminary Prohibitory On 19 March 1996, the Ombudsman issued a Resolution
Injunction in which they filed a motion to dismiss, not an denying petitioners motion for reconsideration.
answer and (2) the respective comments, also under oath, on
the Special Audit Report No. 91-05, a copy of which is
On 18 June 1997, petitioners filed a Motion to Quash
attached.[11]
which was denied by the Sandiganbayan in its Order dated 27
June 1997. The Sandiganbayan ruled:
On 4 December 1991, the Ombudsman received the
affidavits of the Special Audit Team but failed to furnish
It appears, however, that the accused were able to file
petitioners copies thereof.
motions for the reconsideration of the Resolution authorizing
the filing of the Information herein with the Ombudsman in
On 18 February 1992, petitioners submitted a Manila. This would mean, therefore, that whatever decision
manifestation adopting the comments filed by their co- which might have occurred with respect to the preliminary
respondents Jorge Silvosa and Mariano Kintanar dated 25 investigation would have been remedied by the motion for
November 1991 and 17 January 1992, respectively. consideration in the sense that whatever the accused had to
say in their behalf, they were able to do in that motion for
Four years after, or on 22 February 1996, petitioners reconsideration.
received a copy of a Memorandum prepared by Special
Prosecution Officer I, Lemuel M. De Guzman dated 8 February Considering the denial thereof by the Office of the
1996 addressed to Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto regarding Ombudsman, the Court does not believe itself empowered to
OMB-MIN-90-0425 and OMB-3-91-1768. Prosecutor De authorize a reinvestigation on the ground of an inadequacy of
Guzman recommended that the charges of malversation, the basic preliminary investigation nor with respect to a
violation of Sec. 3(e), R.A. No. 3019 and Art. 177, Revised dispute as to the proper appreciation by the prosecution of
Penal Code against petitioners and their co-respondents be the evidence at that time.
dismissed. He opined that any issue pertaining to
unwarranted benefits or injury to the government and
In view hereof, upon further representation by Atty. Medialdea
malversation were rendered moot and academic by the
that he represents not only Mayor Duterte but City
mutual rescission of the subject contract before the COA
Administrator de Guzman as well, upon his commitment, the
submitted its findings (SAR No. 91-05) or before the
arraignment hereof is now set for July 25, 1997 at 8:00 oclock
disbursement was disallowed. However, Prosecutor De
in the morning.[14]
Guzman recommended that petitioners be charged under Sec.
3(g) of R.A. No. 3019 for having entered into a contract
manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government, On 15 July 1997, petitioners moved for reconsideration
the elements of profit, unwarranted benefits or loss to of the above order but the same was denied by the
government being immaterial.[12] Sandiganbayan for lack of merit in its Resolution dated 5
August 1997.[15]
Accordingly, the following information dated 8 February
1996 was filed against petitioners before the Sandiganbayan Hence, the present recourse.
(docketed as Criminal Case No. 23193):
Petitioners allege that:
That on or about November 5, 1990, in the City of Davao,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE
the above-named accused, both public officers, accused OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
Benjamin C. De Guzman being then the City Administrator of JURISDICTION IN DENYING PETITIONERS MOTION TO QUASH
Davao City, committing the crime herein charged in relation AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, CONSIDERING THAT:
to, while in the performance and taking advantage of their
official functions, and conspiring and confederating with each
A
other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally
enter into a negotiated contract for the purchase of computer
hardware and accessories with the Systems Plus, Incorporated (1) PETITIONERS WERE EFFECTIVELY DEPRIVED OF THEIR
for and in consideration of the amount of PESOS: ELEVEN RIGHT TO A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
MILLION SIX HUNDRED FIFTY-SIX THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED PURSUANT TO SEC. 4, RULE II OF
TEN (P11,656,810.00), which contract is manifestly and ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 07 (RULES OF
grossly disadvantageous to the government, said accused PROCEDURE OF THE OFFICE OF THE
knowing fully-well that the said acquisition cost has been OMBUDSMAN); AND
overpriced by as much as twelve hundred (1200%) percent
and without subjecting said acquisition to the required public (2) ASSUMING THAT A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION WAS
bidding. PROPERLY CONDUCTED, THERE WAS AN
INORDINATE DELAY IN TERMINATING THE SAME
CONTRARY TO LAW.[13] THEREBY DEPRIVING THEM OF THEIR RIGHT TO
DUE PROCESS AND SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF
THE CASE.
On 27 February 1996, petitioners filed a motion for
reconsideration and on 29 March 1996, a Supplemental
Motion for Reconsideration on the following grounds: B

1. Petitioners were deprived of their right to a preliminary THERE IS NO SUFFICIENT BASIS, IN FACT AND IN
investigation, due process and the speedy disposition LAW, TO CHARGE PETITIONERS DUTERTE AND
of their case; DE GUZMAN OF VIOLATING SEC. 3 (G) OF R.A.
3019 IN THAT:

2. Petitioner Duterte acted in good faith and was clothed with

authority to enter into the subject contract; (1) PETITIONER DUTERTE ACTED IN GOOD FAITH AND
WAS CLOTHED WITH FULL LEGAL AUTHORITY
 8
FROM THE CITY COUNCIL TO ENTER INTO A a) If the complaint is not under oath or is based only on official
CONTRACT WITH SYSTEMS PLUS, INC., reports, the investigating officer shall require the complainant
or supporting witnesses to execute affidavits to substantiate
(2) THERE IS NO CONTRACT MANIFESTLY AND GROSSLY the complaints.
DISADVANTAGEOUS TO THE GOVERNMENT TO
SPEAK OF AS THE SAME HAS BEEN RESCINDED b) After such affidavits have been secured, the investigating
AND NO DAMAGE WAS SUFFERED BY THE CITY officer shall issue an order, attaching thereto a copy of the
GOVERNMENT; affidavits and other supporting documents, directing the
respondent to submit, within ten (10) days from receipt
(3) ASSUMING THAT THE CONTRACT WAS NOT thereof, his counter-affidavits and controverting evidence with
RESCINDED, THE SAME CANNOT BE proof of service thereof on the complainant. The complainant
CONSIDERED AS MANIFESTLY AND GROSSLY may file reply affidavits within ten (10) days after service of
DISADVANTAGEOUS TO THE GOVERNMENT.[16] the counter-affidavits.

On 4 September 1997, the Court issued a Temporary c) If the respondent does not file a counter-affidavit, the
Restraining Order enjoining the Sandiganbayan from further investigating officer may consider the comment filed by him,
proceeding with Criminal Case No. 23193. if any, as his answer to the complaint. In any event, the
respondent shall have access to the evidence on record.

The Court finds the petition meritorious.

d) No motion to dismiss shall be allowed except for lack of
jurisdiction. Neither may a motion for a bill of particulars be
We have judiciously studied the case records and we find
entertained. If respondent desires any matter in the
that the preliminary investigation of the charges against
complainants affidavit to be clarified, the particularization
petitioners has been conducted not in the manner laid down
thereof may be done at the time of clarificatory questioning in
in Administrative Order No. 07.
the manner provided in paragraph (f) of this section.

In the 12 November 1991 Order of Graft Investigator

e) If the respondent cannot be served with the order
Manriquez, petitioners were merely directed to submit a point-
mentioned in paragraph 6 hereof, or having been served,
by-point comment under oath on the allegations in Civil Case
does not comply therewith, the complaint shall be deemed
No. 20,550-91 and SAR No. 91-05. The said order
submitted for resolution on the basis of the evidence on
was not accompanied by a single affidavit of any person
record.
charging petitioners of any offense as required by law. [17] They
were just required to comment upon the allegations in Civil
Case No. 20,550-91 of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City f) If, after the filing of the requisite affidavits and their
which had earlier been dismissed and on the COA Special supporting evidences, there are facts material to the case
Audit Report. Petitioners had no inkling that they were being which the investigating officer may need to be clarified on, he
subjected to a preliminary investigation as in fact there was may conduct a clarificatory hearing during which the parties
no indication in the order that a preliminary investigation was shall be afforded the opportunity to be present but without
being conducted. If Graft Investigator Manriquez had intended the right to examine or cross-examine the witness being
merely to adopt the allegations of the plaintiffs in the civil questioned. Where the appearance of the parties or witnesses
case or the Special Audit Report (whose recommendation for is impracticable, the clarificatory questioning may be
the cancellation of the contract in question had been complied conducted in writing, whereby the questions desired to be
with) as his basis for criminal prosecution, then the procedure asked by the investigating officer or a party shall be reduced
was plainly anomalous and highly irregular. As a consequence, into writing and served on the witness concerned who shall be
petitioners constitutional right to due process was violated. required to answer the same in writing and under oath.

Sections (2) and (4), Rule II of Administrative Order No. g) Upon the termination of the preliminary investigation, the
07 (Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman) investigating officer shall be forward the records of the case
provide: together with his resolution to the designated authorities for
their appropriate action thereon.

Sec. 2. Evaluation. Upon evaluating the complaint, the

investigating officer shall recommend whether or not it may No information may be filed and no complaint may be
be: dismissed without the written authority or approval of the
Ombudsman in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan, or the proper Deputy Ombudsman in all other
a) dismissed outright for want of palpable merit;
cases.

b) referred to respondent for comment;

In what passes off as application of the foregoing rules,
all that petitioners were asked to do was merely to file their
c) endorsed to the proper government office or agency which comment upon every allegation of the complaint in Civil Case
has jurisdiction over the case; No. 20,550-91 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and on the
COA Special Audit Report. The comment referred to in Section
d) forwarded to the appropriate office or official for fact- 2(b) Rule II, of A.O. No. 07 is not part of or is equivalent to the
finding investigation; preliminary investigation contemplated in Sec. 4, Rule II, of
the same Administrative Order. A plain reading of Sec. 2 would
convey the idea that upon evaluation of the complaint, the
e) referred for administrative adjudication; or
investigating officer may recommend its outright dismissal for
palpable want of merit; otherwise, or if the complaint appears
f) subjected to a preliminary investigation to have some merit, the investigator may recommend action
under any of those enumerated from (b) to (f), that is, the
xxx investigator may recommend that the complaint be:referred
to respondent for comment, or endorsed to the proper
government office or agency which has jurisdiction over the
Sec. 4. Procedure. The preliminary investigation of cases
case; or forwarded to the appropriate office of official for fact-
falling under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and
finding investigation. Now, if the investigator opts to
Regional Trial Courts shall be conducted in the manner
recommend the filing of a comment by the respondent, it is
prescribed in Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, subject
presumably because he needs more facts and information for
to the following provisions:
 9
further evaluation of the merits of the complaint. That being which in the case at bar was already conducted by the PCGG.
done, the investigating officer shall again recommend any one But after the Ombudsman and his deputies have gathered
of the actions enumerated in Section 2, which include the evidence and their investigation has ceased to be a general
conduct of a preliminary investigation. exploratory one and they decide to bring the action against a
party, their proceedings become adversary and Rule II 4(a)
A preliminary investigation, on the other hand, takes on then applies. This means that before the respondent can be
an adversarial quality and an entirely different procedures required to submit counter-affidavits and other supporting
comes into play. This must be so because the purpose of a documents, the complaint must submit his affidavit and those
preliminary investigation or a previous inquiry of some kind, of his witnesses. This is true not only of prosecutions of graft
before an accused person is placed on trial, is to secure the cases under Rep. Act No. 3019 but also of actions for the
innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution, recovery of unexplained wealth under Rep. Act No. 1379,
and to protect him from an open and public accusation of a because 2 of this latter law requires that before a petition is
crime, from the trouble, expenses and anxiety of public trial. filed there must be a previous inquiry similar to preliminary
[18]
It is also intended to protect the state from having to investigation in criminal cases.
conduct useless and expensive trials.[19] While the right is
statutory rather than constitutional in its fundament, it is a Indeed, since a preliminary investigation is designed to screen
component part of due process in criminal justice. The right to cases for trial, only evidence may be considered. While
have a preliminary investigation conducted before being reports and even raw information may justify the initiation of
bound over to trial for a criminal offense and hence, formally an investigation, the stage of preliminary investigation can be
at risk of incarceration or some other penalty, is not a mere held only after sufficient evidence has been gathered and
formal or technical right; it is a substantive right. To deny the evaluated warranting the eventual prosecution of the case in
accuseds claim to a preliminary investigation would be to court. As this Court held in Cojuangco, Jr. v. PCGG:
deprive him of the full measure of his right to due process.[20]
Although such a preliminary investigation is not a trial and is
Note that in preliminary investigation, if the complaint is not intended to usurp the function of the trial court, it is not a
unverified or based only on official reports (which is the casual affair. The officer conducting the same investigates or
situation obtaining in the case at bar), the complainant is inquires into the facts concerning the commission of the crime
required to submit affidavits to substantiate the complaint. with the end in view of determining whether or not an
The investigating officer, thereafter, shall issue an order, to information may be prepared against the accused. Indeed, a
which copies of the complaint-affidavit are attached, requiring preliminary investigation is in effect a realistic judicial
the respondent to submit his counter-affidavits. In the appraisal of the merits of the case. Sufficient proof of the guilt
preliminary investigation, what the respondent is required to of the accused must be adduced so that when the case is
file is a counter-affidavit, not a comment. It is only when the tried, the trial court may not be bound as a matter of law to
respondent fails to file a counter-affidavit may the order an acquittal. A preliminary investigation has then been
investigating officer consider the respondents comment as the called a judicial inquiry. It is a judicial proceeding. An act
answer to the complaint. Against the foregoing backdrop, becomes judicial when there is opportunity to be heard and
there was a palpable non-observance by the Office of the for the production and weighing of evidence, and a decision is
Ombudsman of the fundamental requirements of preliminary rendered thereof.
investigation.
II
Apparently, in the case at bar, the investigating officer
considered the filing of petitioners comment as a substantial Compounding the deprivation of petitioners of their right
compliance with the requirements of a preliminary to a preliminary investigation was the undue and
investigation. Initially, Graft Investor Manriquez directed the unreasonable delay in the termination of the irregularity
members of the Special Audit Team on 9 October 1991 to conducted preliminary investigation. Petitioners manifestation
submit their affidavits relative to SAR No. 91-05. However, on adopting the comments of their co-respondents was filed on
12 November 1991, before the affidavits were submitted, 18 February 1992. However, it was only on 22 February 1996
Manriquez required petitioners to submit their respective or four (4) years later, that petitioners received a
comments on the complaint in the civil case and on Special memorandum dated 8 February 1996 submitted by Special
Audit Report (SAR) 91-05. Even when the required affidavits Prosecutor Officer I Lemuel M. De Guzman recommending the
were filed by the audit team on 4 December 1991, petitioners filing of information against them for violation of Sec. 3(g) of
were still not furnished copies thereof. The Ombudsman R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The
contends that failure to provide petitioners the complaint- inordinate delay in the conduct of the preliminary
affidavits is immaterial since petitioners were well aware of investigation infringed upon their constitutionally guaranteed
the existence of the civil complaint and SAR No. 91-05. We right to a speedy disposition of their case.[22] In Tatad vs.
find the Ombudsmans reasoning flawed. The civil complaint Sandiganbayan,[23] we held that an undue delay of close to
and the COA Special Audit Report are not equivalent to the three (3) years in the termination of the preliminary
complaint-affidavits required by the rules. Moreover, long investigation in the light of the circumstances obtaining in
before petitioners were directed to file their comments, the that case warranted the dismissal of the case:
civil complaint (Civil Case No. 20, 550-91) was rendered moot
and academic and, accordingly, dismissed following the
We find the long delay in the termination of the preliminary
mutual cancellation of the computerization contract. In SAR
investigation by the Tanodbayan in the instant case to be
No. 91-05, on the other hand, petitioners were merely advised
violative of the constitutional right of the accused to due
to rescind the subject contract which was accomplished even
process. Substantial adherence to the requirements of the law
before the audit report came out. In light of these
governing the conduct of preliminary investigation, including
circumstances, the Court cannot blame petitioners for being
substantial compliance with the time limitation prescribed by
unaware of the proceedings conducted against them.
the law for the resolution of the case by the prosecutor, is part
of the procedural due process constitutionally guaranteed by
In Olivas vs. Office of the Ombudsman,[21] this Court, the fundamental law. Not only under the broad umbrella of the
speaking through Justice Vicente V. Mendoza, emphasized that due process clause, but under the constitutional guarantee of
it is mandatory requirement for the complaint to submit his speedy disposition of cases as embodied in Section 16 of the
affidavit and those of his witnesses before the respondent can Bill of Rights (both in the 1973 and 1987 Constitution), the
be compelled to submit his counter-affidavits and other inordinate delay is violative of the petitioners constitutional
supporting documents. Thus: rights. A delay of close to three (3) years can not be deemed
reasonable or justifiable in the light of the circumstances
Even in investigations looking to the prosecution of a party, obtaining in the case at bar. We are not impressed by the
Rule I, 3 can only apply to the general criminal investigation, attempt of the Sandiganbayan to sanitize the long delay by
 10
indulging in the speculative assumption that the delay may be observing the interest of justice evenhandedly, without fear or
due to a painstaking and grueling scrutiny by the Tanodbayan favor to any and all litigants alike whether rich or poor, weak
as to whether the evidence presented during the preliminary or strong, powerless or mighty. Only by strict adherence to the
investigation merited prosecution of a former high-ranking established procedure may be publics perception of the
government official. In the first place, such a statement impartiality of the prosecutor be enhanced.[26]
suggests a double standard of treatment, which must be
emphatically rejected. Secondly, three out of the five charges The Ombudsman endeavored to distinguish the present
against the petitioner were for his alleged failure to file his suit from the Angchangco case by arguing that in the latter,
sworn statement of assets and liabilities required by Republic Angchangco filed several motions for early resolution,
Act No. 3019, which certainly did not involve complicated implying that in the case at bar petitioners were not as
legal and factual issues necessitating such painstaking and vigilant in asserting or protecting their rights.
grueling scrutiny as would justify a delay of almost three
years in terminating the preliminary investigation. The other
We disagree. The constitutional right to speedy
two charges relating to alleged bribery and alleged giving of
disposition of cases does not come into play only when
unwarranted benefits to a relative, while presenting more
political considerations are involved. The Constitution makes
substantial legal and factual issues, certainly do not warrant
no such distinction. While political motivation in Tatad may
or justify the period of three years, which it took the
have been a factor in the undue delay in the termination of
Tanodbayan to resolve the case.
the preliminary investigation therein to justify the invocation
of their right to speedy disposition of cases, the particular
It has been suggested that the long delay in terminating the facts of each case must be taken into consideration in the
preliminary investigation should not be deemed fatal, for even grant of the relief sought. In the Tatad case, we are reminded:
the complete absence of a preliminary investigation does not
warrant dismissal of the information. True but the absence of
In a number of cases, this Court has not hesitated to grant the
a preliminary investigation can be corrected by giving the
so-called radical relief and to spare the accused from the
accused such investigation. But an undue delay in the conduct
undergoing the rigors and expense of a full-blown trial where
of the preliminary investigation can not be corrected, for until
it is clear that he has been deprived of due process of law or
now, man has not yet invented a device for setting back time.
other constitutional guaranteed rights. Of course, it goes
without saying that in the application of the doctrine
In the recent case of Angchangco, Jr. vs. Ombudsman, enunciated in those cases, particularly regard must be taken
[24]
the Court upheld Angchangcos right to the speedy of the facts and circumstances peculiar to its case. [27]
disposition of his case. Angchangco was a sheriff in the
Regional Trial Court of Agusan del Norte and Butuan City. In
In Alviso vs. Sandiganbayan,[28] the Court observed that
1990 criminal complaints were filed against him which
the concept of speedy disposition of cases is a relative term
remained pending before the Ombudsman even after his
and must necessarily be a flexible concept and that the
retirement in 1994. The Court thus ruled:
factors that may be considered and balanced are the length of
the delay, the assertion or failure to assert such right by the
Here, the Office of the Ombudsman, due to its failure to accused, and the prejudice caused by the delay.
resolve the criminal charges against petitioner for more than
six years, has transgressed on the constitutional right of
Petitioners in this case, however, could not have urged
petitioner to due process and to a speedy disposition of the
the speedy resolution of their case because they were
cases against him, as well as the Ombudsmans own
completely unaware that the investigation against them was
constitutional duty to act promptly on complaints filed before
still on-going. Peculiar to this case, we reiterate, is the fact
it. For all these past 6 years, petitioner has remained under a
that petitioners were merely asked to comment, and not file
cloud, and since his retirement in September 1994, he has
counter-affidavits which is the procedure to follow in a
been deprived of the fruits of his retirement after serving the
preliminary investigation. After giving their explanation and
government for over 42 years all because of the inaction of
after four long years of being in the dark, petitioners,
respondent Ombusman. If we wait any longer, it may be too
naturally, had reason to assume that the charges against
late for petitioner to receive his retirement benefits, not to
them had already been dismissed.
speak of clearing his name. This is a case of plain injustice
which calls for the issuance of the writ prayed for. [25]
On the other hand, the Office of the Ombudsman failed
to present any plausible, special or even novel reason which
We are not persuaded by the Ombudsmans argument
could justify the four-year delay in terminating its
that the Tatad ruling does not apply to the present case which
investigation. Its excuse for the delay-the many layers of
is not politically motivated unlike the former, pointing out the
review that the case had to undergo and the meticulous
following findings of the Court in the Tatad decision:
scrutiny it had to entail has lost its novelty and is no longer
appealing, as was the invocation in the Tatad case. The
A painstaking review of the facts can not but leave the incident before us does not involve complicated factual and
impression that political motivations played a vital role in legal issues, specially in view of the fact that the subject
activating and propelling the prosecutional process in this computerization contract had been mutually cancelled by the
case. Firstly, the complaint came to life, as it were, only after parties thereto even before the Anti-Graft League filed its
petitioner Tatad had a falling out with President Marcos. complaint.
Secondly, departing from established procedures prescribed
by law for preliminary investigation, which require the
The Office of the Ombudsman capitalizes on petitioners
submission of affidavits and counter-affidavits by the
three motions for extension of the time to file comment which
complainant and the respondent and their witnesses, the
it imputed for the delay. However, the delay was not caused
Tanodbayan referred the complaint to the Presidential Security
by the motions for extension. The delay occurred after
Command for fact-finding investigation and report.
petitioners filed their comment. Between 1992-1996,
petitioners were under no obligation to make any move
We find such blatant departure from the established because there was no preliminary investigation within the
procedure as dubious, but revealing attempt to involve an contemplation of Section 4, Rule II of A.O. No. 07 to speak of
office directly under the President in the prosecutional process in the first place.
lending credence to the suspicion that the prosecution was
politically motivated. We cannot emphasize too strongly that
III
prosecutors should not allow, and should avoid, giving the
impression that their noble office is being used or prostituted,
wittingly or unwittingly, for political ends, or other purposes Finally, under the facts of the case, there is no basis in
alien to, or subversive of, the basic and fundamental objective the law or in fact to charge petitioners for violation of Sec.
 11
3(g) of R.A. No. 3019. To establish probable cause against the Criminal Case No. 96-154399,
offender for violation of Sec. 3(g), the following elements must
be present: (1) the offender is a public officer; (2) he entered That on or about November 19, 1996, in
into a contract or transaction in behalf of the government; (3) the City of Manila, Philippines, the said
accused did then and there willfully,
the contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly
unlawfully and knowingly have in his/her
disadvantageous to the government. The second element of possession and under his/her custody and
the crime that the accused public officers entered into a control .38 caliber revolver without serial
contract in behalf of the government is absent. The number with six (6) live ammos and
computerization contract was rescinded on 6 May carrying the same outside his residence
1991 before SAR No. 91-05 came out on 31 May 1991 without first having secured from the
proper authorities the necessary license
and before the Anti-Graft League filed its complaint with the
therefore.
Ombudsman on 1 August 1991. Hence, at that time the Anti-
Graft League instituted their complaint and the Ombudsman No bail was recommended in Criminal Case No. 96-
issued its Order on 12 November 1991, there was no longer 154398.
any contract to speak of. The contract, after 6 May 1991
became in contemplation of the law, non-existent, as if no On December 18, 1996, respondent filed with the trial court a
contract was ever executed. motion for reinvestigation on grounds that he was
apprehended without a warrant of arrest and that no
preliminary investigation was conducted.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is
GRANTED and Criminal Case No. 23193 is hereby On January 28, 1997, the trial court granted respondents
DISMISSED. The temporary restraining order issued on 4 motion.
September 1997 is made PERMANENT.
On April 14, 1998, Prosecutor Virgilio Patag, designated to
conduct the reinvestigation, was appointed judge of the RTC
SO ORDERED. in Iloilo. Apparently, he did not inform the prosecutor who took
his place about the pending reinvestigation. Meanwhile,
respondent has remained in detention.

On January 4, 2001, respondent filed with the trial court a

FIRST DIVISION
motion to dismiss the Informations, contending that the delay
in the reinvestigation violated his right to due process.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No.
156847
On January 12, 2001, the trial court heard the motion to
Petitioner,
dismiss. It turned out that Prosecutor Danilo Formoso, who
Promulgated:
took over the case, was not aware of the pending
- versus - reinvestigation. The trial court then directed him to terminate
January 31, the reinvestigation within thirty (30) days.
2007
On February 16, 2001, Prosecutor Formoso manifested before
SPO4 EMILIANO ANONAS, the trial court that the reinvestigation had been terminated
and that evidence exist to sustain the allegations in the
Respondent Informations against respondent.
.
On August 9, 2001, the trial court issued an Order denying
respondents motion to dismiss the Informations. His motion
for reconsideration was likewise denied in an Order
DECISION dated September 7, 2001.

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: Respondent then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of
Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 67531, contending that
For our resolution is the instant Petition for Review on the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting
Certiorari assailing the Decision [1] of the Court of Appeals to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying his motion to
dated October 11, 2002 in CA-G.R. SP No. 67531. dismiss both Informations.

On November 19, 1996, SPO4 Emiliano Anonas, respondent, On October 11, 2002, the Court of Appeals granted the
assigned at the Western Police District, was apprehended by petition and set aside the Order of the trial court dated August
his colleagues during a raid in Sta. Cruz, Manila. The 9, 2001 and dismissed the criminal charges against
apprehending police officers claimed that he and four other respondent.
persons were sniffing methamphetamine hydrochloride, more
popularly known as shabu, a regulated drug; and that he was The Court of Appeals ruled that having been made to wait for
in possession of an unlicensed .38 caliber revolver the resolution of his motion for reinvestigation for almost five
years while being detained, violated his right to due
On December 9, 1996, the City Prosecutor of Manila filed with process. The Court of Appeals then ordered that respondent
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 53, same city, two be released from custody.
separate Informations against respondent, one for illegal
possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride, docketed as The Government, represented by the Solicitor General, moved
Criminal Case No. 96-154398, and another for illegal for reconsideration, but in its Resolution dated January 10,
possession of firearm, docketed as Criminal Case No. 96- 2003, the Court of Appeals denied the same.
154399, reproduced as follows:
The only issue before us is whether the appellate court erred
Criminal Case No. Case 96-154398 in holding that respondents right to due process has been
violated.
That on or about November 19, 1996, in
the City of Manila, Philippines, the said Philippine organic and statutory law expressly
accused without being authorized by law to guarantees that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall
possess or use any regulated drug, did enjoy his right to a speedy trial. Section 16, Article III of the
then and there willfully, unlawfully and 1987 Constitution provides that All persons shall have the
knowingly have in his possession and right to speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial,
under his custody and control white quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies. This is reinforced by
crystalline substance separately contained Section 3(f), Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
in five (5) plastic bags marked AJ to AJ4 Procedure, as amended, which requires that the investigating
weighting two hundred twenty and .2462 officer shall resolve the case within ten (10) days from the
(222.2462) grams known as Shabu conclusion of the investigation. To ensure a speedy trial of all
containing methamphetamine criminal cases before the Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial Court,
hydrochloride, a regulated drug, without Metropolitan Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court,
the corresponding license or prescription Republic Act No. 8493 (The Speedy Trial Act of 1998) was
thereof.
 12
enacted on February 4, 1998. To implement its provisions, the period of three years, which it took the
Court issued SC Circular No. 38-98 dated September 15, Tanodbayan to resolve the
1998 setting a time limit for arraignment and pre-trial for case. (Emphasis supplied).
thirty (30) days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction
over the person of the accused. The preliminary investigation of the respondent for the
offenses charged took more than four years. He was
The earliest rulings of the Court on speedy trial were rendered apprehended for the offenses charged on November 19,
in Conde v. Judge of First Instance, [2] Conde v. Rivera, et al., 1996. Having been arrested without a warrant of arrest and
[3]
and People v. Castaeda.[4] These cases held that accused not having been afforded a formal investigation, he prayed for
persons are guaranteed a speedy trial by the Bill of Rights and reinvestigation of the cases. The trial court, in an Order
that such right is denied when an accused person, through the dated January 28, 1997 ordered a reinvestigation which was
vacillation and procrastination of prosecuting officers, is terminated only on February 16, 2001. In fact, even the
forced to wait many months for trial. Specifically Solicitor General admitted it took some time for the City
in Castaeda, the Court called on courts to be the last to set an Prosecutor to terminate and resolve the reinvestigation.
example of delay and oppression in the administration of
justice and it is the moral and legal obligation of the courts to There can be no question that respondent was prejudiced by
see to it that the criminal proceedings against the accused the delay, having to be confined for more than four oppressive
come to an end and that they be immediately discharged years for failure of the investigating prosecutors to comply
from the custody of the law. with the law on preliminary investigation. As aptly held by the
Court of Appeals, respondents right to due process had been
In Angcangco, Jr. v. Ombudsman,[5] the Court found the delay violated.
of six years by the Ombudsman in resolving the criminal
complaints to be violative of the constitutionally guaranteed WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition
right to a speedy disposition of cases. Similarly, in Roque v. and AFFIRMS the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
Office of the Ombudsman,[6] the Court ruled that the delay of SP No. 67531. No costs.
almost six years disregarded the Ombudsmans duty to act
promptly on complaints before him. In Cervantes v. SO ORDERED.
Sandiganbayan,[7] it was held that the Sandiganbayan gravely
abused its discretion in not quashing the Information filed six
years after the initiatory complaint, thereby depriving
petitioner of his right to a speedy disposition of the case.

The inordinate delay in terminating the preliminary

investigation of an accused violates his constitutional right to
due process. Thus, in Roque v. Sandiganbayan,[8] the Court,
restating the pronouncement in Tatad v. Sandiganbayan,
[9]
held:

We find the long delay in the termination

of the preliminary investigation by the
Tanodbayan in the instant case to be
violative of the constitutional right of the
accused to due process. Substantial
adherence to the requirements of the law
governing the conduct of preliminary
investigation, including substantial
compliance with the time limitation
prescribed by the law for the resolution of
the case by the prosecutor, is part of the
procedural due process constitutionally
guaranteed by the fundamental law. Not
only under the broad umbrella of due
process clause, but under the
constitutional guaranty of speedy
disposition of cases as embodied in
Section 16 of the Bill of Rights (both in
the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions), the
inordinate delay is violative of the
petitioners constitutional rights. A delay
of close to three (3) years cannot be
deemed reasonable or justifiable in the
light of the circumstances obtaining in the
case at bar. We are not impressed by the
attempt of the Sandiganbayan to sanitize
the long delay by indulging in the
speculative assumption that delay may be
due to a painstaking and grueling scrutiny
by the Tanodbayan as to whether the
evidence presented during the
preliminary investigation merited
prosecution of a former high-ranking
government official. In the first place,
such a statement suggests a double
standard of treatment, which must be
emphatically rejected.Secondly, three out
of the five charges against the petitioner
were for his alleged failure to file his
sworn statement of assets and liabilities
required by Republic Act 3019, which
certainly did not involve complicated legal
and factual issues necessitating such
painstaking and grueling scrutiny as
would justify a delay of almost three years
in terminating the preliminary
investigation. The other two charges
relating to alleged bribery and alleged
giving [of] unwarranted benefits to a
relative, while presenting more
substantial legal and factual issues,
certainly do not warrant or justify the
 13

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1829 condition, whether lawful or unlawful, in order to

prevent a person from appearing in the investigation
PENALIZING OBSTRUCTION OF APPREHENSION AND of or in official proceedings in, criminal cases;
PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL OFFENDERS
(i) giving of false or fabricated information to mislead
WHEREAS, crime and violence continue to proliferate despite or prevent the law enforcement agencies from
the sustained vigorous efforts of the government to effectively apprehending the offender or from protecting the life
contain them; or property of the victim; or fabricating information
from the data gathered in confidence by
investigating authorities for purposes of background
WHEREAS, to discourage public indifference or apathy towards
information and not for publication and publishing or
the apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders, it is
disseminating the same to mislead the investigator
necessary to penalize acts which obstruct or frustrate or tend
or to the court.
to obstruct or frustrate the successful apprehension and
prosecution of criminal offenders;
If any of the acts mentioned herein is penalized by any other
law with a higher penalty, the higher penalty shall be
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND, E. MARCOS, President of the
imposed.
Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law do
hereby decree and order the following:
Section 2. If any of the foregoing acts is committed by a
public official or employee, he shall in addition to the
Section 1. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum
penalties provided thereunder, suffer perpetual
period, or a fine ranging from 1,000 to 6,000 pesos, or both,
disqualification from holding public office.
shall be imposed upon any person who knowingly or willfully
obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of
suspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal Section 3. This Decree shall take effect immediately.
cases by committing any of the following acts:
Done in the City of Manila, this 16th day of January, in the
(a) preventing witnesses from testifying in any year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and eighty-one.
criminal proceeding or from reporting the
commission of any offense or the identity of any
offender/s by means of bribery, misrepresentation,
deceit, intimidation, force or threats; REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7438

(b) altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF PERSON
any paper, record, document, or object, with intent to ARRESTED, DETAINED OR UNDER CUSTODIAL
impair its verity, authenticity, legibility, availability, INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS THE DUTIES OF THE
or admissibility as evidence in any investigation of or ARRESTING, DETAINING AND INVESTIGATING OFFICERS,
official proceedings in, criminal cases, or to be used AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF
in the investigation of, or official proceedings in,
criminal cases;
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the Philippines in Congress assembled::
(c) harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape
of, any person he knows, or has reasonable ground to
Section 1. Statement of Policy. It is the policy of the
believe or suspect, has committed any offense under
Senate to value the dignity of every human being and
existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest
guarantee full respect for human rights.
prosecution and conviction;

Section 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or

(d) publicly using a fictitious name for the purpose of
Under Custodial Investigation; Duties of Public
concealing a crime, evading prosecution or the
Officers.
execution of a judgment, or concealing his true name
and other personal circumstances for the same
purpose or purposes; (a) Any person arrested detained or under custodial
investigation shall at all times be assisted by
counsel.
(e) delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by
obstructing the service of process or court orders or
disturbing proceedings in the fiscal's offices, in (b) Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting
Tanodbayan, or in the courts; under his order or his place, who arrests, detains or
investigates any person for the commission of an
offense shall inform the latter, in a language known
(f) making, presenting or using any record,
to and understood by him, of his rights to remain
document, paper or object with knowledge of its
silent and to have competent and independent
falsity and with intent to affect the course or
counsel, preferably of his own choice, who shall at all
outcome of the investigation of, or official
times be allowed to confer privately with the person
proceedings in, criminal cases;
arrested, detained or under custodial investigation. If
such person cannot afford the services of his own
(g) soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept any counsel, he must be provided with a competent and
benefit in consideration of abstaining from, independent counsel by the investigating
discounting, or impeding the prosecution of a officer.lawphi1
criminal offender;
(c) The custodial investigation report shall be
(h) threatening directly or indirectly another with the reduced to writing by the investigating officer,
infliction of any wrong upon his person, honor or provided that before such report is signed, or
property or that of any immediate member or thumbmarked if the person arrested or detained does
members of his family in order to prevent such not know how to read and write, it shall be read and
person from appearing in the investigation of, or adequately explained to him by his counsel or by the
official proceedings in, criminal cases, or imposing a
 14
assisting counsel provided by the investigating In the absence of any lawyer, no custodial investigation shall
officer in the language or dialect known to such be conducted and the suspected person can only be detained
arrested or detained person, otherwise, such by the investigating officer in accordance with the provisions
investigation report shall be null and void and of no of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.
effect whatsoever.
Section 4. Penalty Clause. (a) Any arresting public officer
(d) Any extrajudicial confession made by a person or employee, or any investigating officer, who fails to inform
arrested, detained or under custodial investigation any person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation
shall be in writing and signed by such person in the of his right to remain silent and to have competent and
presence of his counsel or in the latter's absence, independent counsel preferably of his own choice, shall suffer
upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of a fine of Six thousand pesos (P6,000.00) or a penalty of
the parents, elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, imprisonment of not less than eight (8) years but not more
the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district than ten (10) years, or both. The penalty of perpetual
school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel absolute disqualification shall also be imposed upon the
as chosen by him; otherwise, such extrajudicial investigating officer who has been previously convicted of a
confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any similar offense.
proceeding.
The same penalties shall be imposed upon a public
(e) Any waiver by a person arrested or detained officer or employee, or anyone acting upon orders of
under the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised such investigating officer or in his place, who fails to
Penal Code, or under custodial investigation, shall be provide a competent and independent counsel to a
in writing and signed by such person in the presence person arrested, detained or under custodial
of his counsel; otherwise the waiver shall be null and investigation for the commission of an offense if the
void and of no effect. latter cannot afford the services of his own counsel.

(f) Any person arrested or detained or under (b) Any person who obstructs, prevents or prohibits
custodial investigation shall be allowed visits by or any lawyer, any member of the immediate family of
conferences with any member of his immediate a person arrested, detained or under custodial
family, or any medical doctor or priest or religious investigation, or any medical doctor or priest or
minister chosen by him or by any member of his religious minister chosen by him or by any member
immediate family or by his counsel, or by any of his immediate family or by his counsel, from
national non-governmental organization duly visiting and conferring privately with him, or from
accredited by the Commission on Human Rights of by examining and treating him, or from ministering to
any international non-governmental organization his spiritual needs, at any hour of the day or, in
duly accredited by the Office of the President. The urgent cases, of the night shall suffer the penalty of
person's "immediate family" shall include his or her imprisonment of not less than four (4) years nor
spouse, fianc or fiance, parent or child, brother or more than six (6) years, and a fine of four thousand
sister, grandparent or grandchild, uncle or aunt, pesos (P4,000.00).lawphi1
nephew or niece, and guardian or ward.
The provisions of the above Section notwithstanding, any
As used in this Act, "custodial investigation" shall include the security officer with custodial responsibility over any detainee
practice of issuing an "invitation" to a person who is or prisoner may undertake such reasonable measures as may
investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to be necessary to secure his safety and prevent his escape.
have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the
"inviting" officer for any violation of law. Section 5. Repealing Clause. Republic Act No. No. 857, as
amended, is hereby repealed. Other laws, presidential
Section 3. Assisting Counsel. Assisting counsel is any decrees, executive orders or rules and regulations, or parts
lawyer, except those directly affected by the case, those thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are
charged with conducting preliminary investigation or those repealed or modified accordingly.
charged with the prosecution of crimes.
Section 6. Effectivity. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15)
The assisting counsel other than the government lawyers shall days following its publication in the Official Gazette or in any
be entitled to the following fees; daily newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines.

(a) The amount of One hundred fifty pesos (P150.00) Approved: April 27, 1992
if the suspected person is chargeable with light
felonies;lawphi1alf

(b) The amount of Two hundred fifty pesos (P250.00) ARREST

if the suspected person is chargeable with less grave
or grave felonies;
SECOND DIVISION

(c) The amount of Three hundred fifty pesos RODEL LUZ y ONG, Petitioner, G. R. No.
(P350.00) if the suspected person is chargeable with 197788
a capital offense. - versus -
Promulgated:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,[1]
The fee for the assisting counsel shall be paid by the Respondent. February 29,
city or municipality where the custodial investigation 2012
is conducted, provided that if the municipality of city
cannot pay such fee, the province comprising such DECISION
municipality or city shall pay the fee: Provided, That
the Municipal or City Treasurer must certify that no SERENO, J.:
funds are available to pay the fees of assisting
counsel before the province pays said fees. This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule
45 seeking to set aside the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision in
 15
CA-G.R. CR No. 32516 dated 18 February 2011[2] and Upon review, the CA affirmed the RTCs Decision.
Resolution dated 8 July 2011.
On 12 September 2011, petitioner filed under Rule
Statement of the Facts and of the Case 45 the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari dated 1
September 2011. In a Resolution dated 12 October 2011, this
The facts, as found by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Court required respondent to file a comment on the Petition.
which sustained the version of the prosecution, are as On 4 January 2012, the latter filed its Comment dated 3
follows: January 2012.

PO2 Emmanuel L. Alteza, who was Petitioner raised the following grounds in support of
then assigned at the Sub-Station 1 of the his Petition:
Naga City Police Station as a traffic enforcer,
substantially testified that on March 10, (i) THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE
2003 at around 3:00 oclock in the morning, OF THE ALLEGED SUBJECT
he saw the accused, who was coming from SHABU IS INVALID.
the direction of Panganiban Drive and going
to Diversion Road, Naga City, driving a (ii) THE PRESUMPTION OF
motorcycle without a helmet; that this REGULARITY IN THE
prompted him to flag down the accused for PERFORMANCE OF DUTY OF
violating a municipal ordinance which THE POLICE OFFICER CANNOT
requires all motorcycle drivers to wear BE RELIED UPON IN THIS CASE.
helmet (sic) while driving said motor
vehicle; that he invited the accused to come (iii) THE INTEGRITY AND
inside their sub-station since the place EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE
where he flagged down the accused is ALLEGED SUBJECT SPECIMEN
almost in front of the said sub-station; that HAS BEEN COMPROMISED.
while he and SPO1 Rayford Brillante were
issuing a citation ticket for violation of (iv) THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-
municipal ordinance, he noticed that the PETITIONER WAS NOT PROVEN
accused was uneasy and kept on getting BEYOND THE REASONABLE
something from his jacket; that he was DOUBT (sic).[7]
alerted and so, he told the accused to take
out the contents of the pocket of his jacket Petitioner claims that there was no lawful search and seizure,
as the latter may have a weapon inside it; because there was no lawful arrest. He claims that the finding
that the accused obliged and slowly put out that there was a lawful arrest was erroneous, since he was not
the contents of the pocket of his jacket even issued a citation ticket or charged with violation of the
which was a nickel-like tin or metal city ordinance. Even assuming there was a valid arrest, he
container about two (2) to three (3) inches claims that he had never consented to the search conducted
in size, including two (2) cellphones, one (1) upon him.
pair of scissors and one (1) Swiss knife; that
upon seeing the said container, he asked On the other hand, finding that petitioner had been lawfully
the accused to open it; that after the arrested, the RTC held thus:
accused opened the container, he noticed a
cartoon cover and something beneath it; It is beyond dispute that the accused was
and that upon his instruction, the accused flagged down and apprehended in this case
spilled out the contents of the container on by Police Officers Alteza and Brillante for
the table which turned out to be four (4) violation of City Ordinance No. 98-012, an
plastic sachets, the two (2) of which were ordinance requiring the use of crash helmet
empty while the other two (2) contained by motorcycle drivers and riders thereon in
suspected shabu.[3] the City of Naga and prescribing penalties
for violation thereof. The accused himself
Arraigned on 2 July 2003, petitioner, assisted by counsel, admitted that he was not wearing a helmet
entered a plea of Not guilty to the charge of illegal possession at the time when he was flagged down by
of dangerous drugs. Pretrial was terminated on 24 September the said police officers, albeit he had a
2003, after which, trial ensued. helmet in his possession. Obviously, there is
legal basis on the part of the apprehending
During trial, Police Officer 3 (PO3) Emmanuel Alteza officers to flag down and arrest the accused
and a forensic chemist testified for the prosecution. On the because the latter was actually committing
other hand, petitioner testified for himself and raised the a crime in their presence, that is, a violation
defense of planting of evidence and extortion. of City Ordinance No. 98-012. In other
words, the accused, being caught
In its 19 February 2009 Decision, [4] the RTC convicted in flagrante delicto violating the said
petitioner of illegal possession of dangerous Ordinance, he could therefore be lawfully
drugs[5] committed on 10 March 2003. It found the prosecution stopped or arrested by the apprehending
evidence sufficient to show that he had been lawfully arrested officers. x x x.[8]
for a traffic violation and then subjected to a valid search,
which led to the discovery on his person of two plastic sachets We find the Petition to be impressed with merit, but not for
later found to contain shabu. The RTC also found his defense the particular reasons alleged. In criminal cases, an appeal
of frame-up and extortion to be weak, self-serving and throws the entire case wide open for review and the reviewing
unsubstantiated. The dispositive portion of its Decision held: tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed
judgment, or even reverse the trial courts decision based on
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors.[9]
rendered, finding accused RODEL LUZ y
ONG GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for First, there was no valid arrest of petitioner. When he
the crime of violation of Section 11, Article II was flagged down for committing a traffic violation, he was
of Republic Act No. 9165 and sentencing not, ipso facto and solely for this reason, arrested.
him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of
imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order
years and (1) day, as minimum, to thirteen that he or she may be bound to answer for the commission of
(13) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine an offense.[10] It is effected by an actual restraint of the person
of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos to be arrested or by that persons voluntary submission to the
(300,000.00). custody of the one making the arrest. Neither the application
of actual force, manual touching of the body, or physical
The subject shabu is hereby restraint, nor a formal declaration of arrest, is required. It is
confiscated for turn over to the Philippine enough that there be an intention on the part of one of the
Drug Enforcement Agency for its proper parties to arrest the other, and that there be an intent on the
disposition and destruction in accordance part of the other to submit, under the belief and impression
with law. that submission is necessary.[11]

SO ORDERED.[6]
 16
Under R.A. 4136, or the Land Transportation and incrimination to require that he be warned
Traffic Code, the general procedure for dealing with a traffic of his constitutional rights.
violation is not the arrest of the offender, but the confiscation
of the drivers license of the latter: Two features of an ordinary traffic
stop mitigate the danger that a person
SECTION 29. Confiscation of questioned will be induced to speak where
Driver's License. Law enforcement and he would not otherwise do so freely,
peace officers of other agencies duly Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S., at 467. First,
deputized by the Director shall, in detention of a motorist pursuant to a
apprehending a driver for any violation of traffic stop is presumptively temporary
this Act or any regulations issued pursuant and brief. The vast majority of roadside
thereto, or of local traffic rules and detentions last only a few minutes. A
regulations not contrary to any provisions of motorists expectations, when he sees a
this Act, confiscate the license of the driver policemans light flashing behind him, are
concerned and issue a receipt prescribed that he will be obliged to spend a short
and issued by the Bureau therefor which period of time answering questions and
shall authorize the driver to operate a motor waiting while the officer checks his license
vehicle for a period not exceeding seventy- and registration, that he may then be given
two hours from the time and date of issue of a citation, but that in the end he most likely
said receipt. The period so fixed in the will be allowed to continue on his way. In
receipt shall not be extended, and shall this respect, questioning incident to an
become invalid thereafter. Failure of the ordinary traffic stop is quite different from
driver to settle his case within fifteen days stationhouse interrogation, which frequently
from the date of apprehension will be a is prolonged, and in which the detainee
ground for the suspension and/or revocation often is aware that questioning will continue
of his license. until he provides his interrogators the
answers they seek. See id., at 451.
Similarly, the Philippine National Police (PNP) Operations
Manual[12] provides the following procedure for flagging down Second, circumstances
vehicles during the conduct of checkpoints: associated with the typical traffic stop
are not such that the motorist feels
SECTION 7. Procedure in Flagging completely at the mercy of the police.
Down or Accosting Vehicles While in Mobile To be sure, the aura of authority surrounding
Car. This rule is a general concept and will an armed, uniformed officer and the
not apply in hot pursuit operations. The knowledge that the officer has some
mobile car crew shall undertake the discretion in deciding whether to issue a
following, when applicable: x x x citation, in combination, exert some
pressure on the detainee to respond to
m. If it concerns traffic violations, questions. But other aspects of the situation
immediately issue a Traffic Citation substantially offset these forces. Perhaps
Ticket (TCT) or Traffic Violation most importantly, the typical traffic stop is
Report (TVR). Never indulge in public, at least to some degree. x x x
prolonged, unnecessary
conversation or argument with the In both of these respects, the
driver or any of the vehicles usual traffic stop is more analogous to
occupants; a so-called Terry stop, see Terry v. Ohio,
392 U. S. 1 (1968), than to a formal
At the time that he was waiting for PO3 Alteza to write his arrest. x x x The comparatively
citation ticket, petitioner could not be said to have been under nonthreatening character of detentions of
arrest. There was no intention on the part of PO3 Alteza to this sort explains the absence of any
arrest him, deprive him of his liberty, or take him into custody. suggestion in our opinions that Terry stops
Prior to the issuance of the ticket, the period during which are subject to the dictates of Miranda. The
petitioner was at the police station may be characterized similarly noncoercive aspect of ordinary
merely as waiting time. In fact, as found by the trial court, traffic stops prompts us to hold that persons
PO3 Alteza himself testified that the only reason they went to temporarily detained pursuant to such stops
the police sub-station was that petitioner had been flagged are not in custody for the purposes of
down almost in front of that place. Hence, it was only for the Miranda.
sake of convenience that they were waiting there. There was
no intention to take petitioner into custody. xxxxxxxxx

In Berkemer v. McCarty,[13] the United States (U.S.) We are confident that the state of
Supreme Court discussed at length whether the roadside affairs projected by respondent will not
questioning of a motorist detained pursuant to a routine traffic come to pass. It is settled that the
stop should be considered custodial interrogation. The Court safeguards prescribed by Miranda become
held that, such questioning does not fall under custodial applicable as soon as a suspects freedom of
interrogation, nor can it be considered a formal arrest, by action is curtailed to a degree associated
virtue of the nature of the questioning, the expectations of the with formal arrest. California v. Beheler, 463
motorist and the officer, and the length of time the procedure U. S. 1121, 1125 (1983) (per curiam). If a
is conducted. It ruled as follows: motorist who has been detained pursuant to
a traffic stop thereafter is subjected to
It must be acknowledged at the treatment that renders him in custody for
outset that a traffic stop significantly practical purposes, he will be entitled to the
curtails the freedom of action of the driver full panoply of protections prescribed by
and the passengers, if any, of the detained Miranda. See Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U. S.
vehicle. Under the law of most States, it is a 492, 495 (1977) (per curiam). (Emphasis
crime either to ignore a policemans signal to supplied.)
stop ones car or, once having stopped, to
drive away without permission. x x x The U.S. Court in Berkemer thus ruled that, since the motorist
therein was only subjected to modest questions while still at
However, we decline to accord the scene of the traffic stop, he was not at that moment
talismanic power to the phrase in the placed under custody (such that he should have been
Miranda opinion emphasized by respondent. apprised of his Miranda rights), and neither can treatment of
Fidelity to the doctrine announced in this sort be fairly characterized as the functional equivalent of
Miranda requires that it be enforced strictly, a formal arrest. Similarly, neither can petitioner here be
but only in those types of situations in which considered under arrest at the time that his traffic citation
the concerns that powered the decision are was being made.
implicated. Thus, we must decide whether a
traffic stop exerts upon a detained person It also appears that, according to City Ordinance No. 98-012,
pressures that sufficiently impair his free which was violated by petitioner, the failure to wear a crash
exercise of his privilege against self- helmet while riding a motorcycle is penalized by a fine only.
 17
Under the Rules of Court, a warrant of arrest need not be following characteristics of the person giving consent and the
issued if the information or charge was filed for an offense environment in which consent is given: (1) the age of the
penalized by a fine only. It may be stated as a corollary that defendant; (2) whether the defendant was in a public or a
neither can a warrantless arrest be made for such an offense. secluded location; (3) whether the defendant objected to the
search or passively looked on; (4) the education and
This ruling does not imply that there can be no arrest for a intelligence of the defendant; (5) the presence of coercive
traffic violation. Certainly, when there is an intent on the part police procedures; (6) the defendants belief that no
of the police officer to deprive the motorist of liberty, or to incriminating evidence would be found; (7) the nature of the
take the latter into custody, the former may be deemed to police questioning; (8) the environment in which the
have arrested the motorist. In this case, however, the officers questioning took place; and (9) the possibly vulnerable
issuance (or intent to issue) a traffic citation ticket negates subjective state of the person consenting. It is the State that
the possibility of an arrest for the same violation. has the burden of proving, by clear and positive testimony,
that the necessary consent was obtained, and was freely and
Even if one were to work under the assumption that voluntarily given.[19] In this case, all that was alleged was that
petitioner was deemed arrested upon being flagged petitioner was alone at the police station at three in the
down for a traffic violation and while awaiting the morning, accompanied by several police officers. These
issuance of his ticket, then the requirements for a valid circumstances weigh heavily against a finding of valid consent
arrest were not complied with. to a warrantless search.

This Court has held that at the time a person is Neither does the search qualify under the stop and frisk rule.
arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to inform While the rule normally applies when a police officer observes
the latter of the reason for the arrest and must show that suspicious or unusual conduct, which may lead him to believe
person the warrant of arrest, if any. Persons shall be informed that a criminal act may be afoot, the stop and frisk is merely a
of their constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel, limited protective search of outer clothing for weapons.[20]
and that any statement they might make could be used
against them.[14] It may also be noted that in this case, these In Knowles v. Iowa,[21] the U.S. Supreme Court held that when
constitutional requirements were complied with by the police a police officer stops a person for speeding and
officers only after petitioner had been arrested for illegal correspondingly issues a citation instead of arresting the
possession of dangerous drugs. latter, this procedure does not authorize the officer to conduct
a full search of the car. The Court therein held that there was
In Berkemer, the U.S. Court also noted that no justification for a full-blown search when the officer does
the Miranda warnings must also be given to a person not arrest the motorist. Instead, police officers may only
apprehended due to a traffic violation: conduct minimal intrusions, such as ordering the motorist to
alight from the car or doing a patdown:
The purposes of the safeguards
prescribed by Miranda are to ensure that the In Robinson, supra, we noted the
police do not coerce or trick captive two historical rationales for the search
suspects into confessing, to relieve the incident to arrest exception: (1) the need to
inherently compelling pressures generated disarm the suspect in order to take him into
by the custodial setting itself, which work to custody, and (2) the need to preserve
undermine the individuals will to resist, and evidence for later use at trial. x x x But
as much as possible to free courts from the neither of these underlying rationales for
task of scrutinizing individual cases to try to the search incident to arrest exception is
determine, after the fact, whether particular sufficient to justify the search in the present
confessions were voluntary. Those purposes case.
are implicated as much by in-custody
questioning of persons suspected of We have recognized that the first
misdemeanors as they are by questioning of rationaleofficer safetyis both legitimate and
persons suspected of felonies. weighty, x x x The threat to officer safety
from issuing a traffic citation, however, is a
If it were true that petitioner was already deemed arrested good deal less than in the case of a
when he was flagged down for a traffic violation and while he custodial arrest. In Robinson, we stated that
waiting for his ticket, then there would have been no need for a custodial arrest involves danger to an
him to be arrested for a second timeafter the police officers officer because of the extended exposure
allegedly discovered the drugsas he was already in their which follows the taking of a suspect into
custody. custody and transporting him to the police
station. 414 U. S., at 234-235. We
Second, there being no valid arrest, the warrantless recognized that [t]he danger to the police
search that resulted from it was likewise illegal. officer flows from the fact of the arrest, and
its attendant proximity, stress, and
The following are the instances when a warrantless search is uncertainty, and not from the grounds for
allowed: (i) a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest; arrest. Id., at 234, n. 5. A routine traffic
(ii) search of evidence in plain view; (iii) search of a moving stop, on the other hand, is a relatively
vehicle; (iv) consented warrantless search; (v) customs brief encounter and is more analogous
search; (vi) a stop and frisk search; and (vii) exigent and to a so-called Terry stop . . . than to a
emergency circumstances.[15] None of the above-mentioned formal arrest. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468
instances, especially a search incident to a lawful arrest, are U. S. 420, 439 (1984). See also Cupp v.
applicable to this case. Murphy, 412 U. S. 291, 296 (1973) (Where
there is no formal arrest . . . a person might
It must be noted that the evidence seized, although alleged to well be less hostile to the police and less
be inadvertently discovered, was not in plain view. It was likely to take conspicuous, immediate steps
actually concealed inside a metal container inside petitioners to destroy incriminating evidence).
pocket. Clearly, the evidence was not immediately apparent.
[16] This is not to say that the
concern for officer safety is absent in
Neither was there a consented warrantless search. Consent to the case of a routine traffic stop. It
a search is not to be lightly inferred, but shown by clear and plainly is not. See Mimms, supra, at 110;
convincing evidence.[17] It must be voluntary in order to Wilson, supra, at 413-414. But while the
validate an otherwise illegal search; that is, the consent must concern for officer safety in this
be unequivocal, specific, intelligently given and context may justify the minimal
uncontaminated by any duress or coercion. While the additional intrusion of ordering a
prosecution claims that petitioner acceded to the instruction driver and passengers out of the car, it
of PO3 Alteza, this alleged accession does not suffice to prove does not by itself justify the often
valid and intelligent consent. In fact, the RTC found that considerably greater intrusion
petitioner was merely told to take out the contents of his attending a full fieldtype search. Even
pocket.[18] without the search authority Iowa urges,
officers have other, independent bases to
Whether consent to the search was in fact voluntary search for weapons and protect themselves
is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of all from danger. For example, they may order
the circumstances. Relevant to this determination are the out of a vehicle both the driver, Mimms,
 18
supra, at 111, and any passengers, Wilson, Munoz's (petitioners) Urgent Motion for Regular Preliminary
supra, at 414; perform a patdown of a driver Investigation, as well as their subsequent motion for
and any passengers upon reasonable reconsideration.
suspicion that they may be armed and
dangerous, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968); The Antecedent Facts
conduct a Terry patdown of the passenger
compartment of a vehicle upon reasonable The records of the case reveal that on February 20, 2005, at
suspicion that an occupant is dangerous and around 3:15 in the morning, an altercation ensued between
may gain immediate control of a weapon, the petitioners and Atty. Moreno Generoso (Atty.
Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032, 1049 Generoso) at Kasiyahan Street, Barangay Holy Spirit, Quezon
(1983); and even conduct a full search of City where the petitioners and Atty. Generoso reside. 3
the passenger compartment, including any
containers therein, pursuant to a custodial Atty. Generoso called the Central Police District, Station 6
arrest, New York v. Belton, 453 U. S. 454, (Batasan Hills Police Station) to report the incident. 4 Acting on
460 (1981). this report, Desk Officer SPOI Primitivo Monsalve (SPO1
Monsalve) dispatched SP02 Dominador Javier (SP02 Javier) to
Nor has Iowa shown the second justification go to the scene of the crime and to render assistance. 5 SP02
for the authority to search incident to Javier, together with augmentation personnel from the
arrestthe need to discover and preserve Airforce, A2C Alano Sayson and Airman Ruel Galvez, arrived at
evidence. Once Knowles was stopped for the scene of the crime less than one hour after the alleged
speeding and issued a citation, all the altercation6 and they saw Atty. Generoso badly beaten.
evidence necessary to prosecute that
offense had been obtained. No further Atty. Generoso then pointed to the petitioners as those who
evidence of excessive speed was going to mauled him. This prompted the police officers to "invite" the
be found either on the person of the petitioners to go to Batasan Hills Police Station for
offender or in the passenger compartment investigation.
of the car. (Emphasis supplied.)
The petitioners went with the police officers to Batasan Hills
The foregoing considered, petitioner must be acquitted. While Police Station.9 At the inquest proceeding, the City Prosecutor
he may have failed to object to the illegality of his arrest at of Quezon City found that the petitioners stabbed Atty.
the earliest opportunity, a waiver of an illegal warrantless Generoso with a bladed weapon. Atty. Generoso fortunately
arrest does not, however, mean a waiver of the inadmissibility survived the attack.
of evidence seized during the illegal warrantless arrest.[22]
In an Information dated February 22, 2005, the petitioners
The Constitution guarantees the right of the people were indicted for attempted murder allegedly committed as
to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects follows:
against unreasonable searches and seizures.[23]Any evidence
obtained in violation of said right shall be inadmissible for any That on or about the 20th day of February, 2005, in Quezon
purpose in any proceeding. While the power to search and City, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring together,
seize may at times be necessary to the public welfare, still it confederating with and mutually helping one another, with
must be exercised and the law implemented without intent to kill, qualified with evident premeditation, treachery
contravening the constitutional rights of citizens, for the and taking advantage of superior strength, did then and there,
enforcement of no statute is of sufficient importance to justify willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commence the
indifference to the basic principles of government.[24] commission of the crime of Murder directly by overt acts, by
then and there stabbing one Atty. MORENO GENEROSO y
The subject items seized during the illegal arrest are FRANCO, with a bladed weapon, but said accused were not
inadmissible.[25] The drugs are the very corpus delicti of the able to perform all the acts of execution which would produce
crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Thus, their the crime of Murder by reason of some cause/s or accident
inadmissibility precludes conviction and calls for the acquittal other than their own spontaneous desistance, that is, said
of the accused.[26] complainant was able to parry the attack, to his damage and
prejudice.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The 18
February 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR CONTRARY TO LAW.11
No. 32516 affirming the judgment of conviction dated 19
February 2009 of the Regional Trial Court, 5 th Judicial Region, On March 7, 2005, the petitioners filed an Urgent Motion for
Naga City, Branch 21, in Criminal Case No. RTC 2003-0087, is Regular Preliminary Investigation12 on the ground that they
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Rodel had not been lawfully arrested. They alleged that no valid
Luz y Ong is hereby ACQUITTED and ordered immediately warrantless arrest took place since the police officers had no
released from detention, unless his continued confinement is personal knowledge that they were the perpetrators of the
warranted by some other cause or ground. crime. They also claimed that they were just "invited" to the
police station. Thus, the inquest proceeding was improper,
SO ORDERED. and a regular procedure for preliminary investigation should
have been performed pursuant to Rule 112 of the Rules of
Court.

INVITED BY THE POLICE On March 16, 2005, the RTC issued its order denying the
petitioners' Urgent Motion for Regular Preliminary
SECOND DIVISION Investigation.14 The court likewise denied the petitioners'
motion for reconsideration.
G.R. No. 182601, November 10, 2014
The petitioners challenged the lower court's ruling before the
JOEY M. PESTILOS, DWIGHT MACAPANAS, MIGUEL CA on a Rule 65 petition for certiorari. They attributed grave
GACES, JERRY FERNANDEZ AND RONALD abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of
MUNOZ, Petitioners, v. MORENO GENEROSO AND PEOPLE jurisdiction, on the RTC for the denial of their motion for
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents. preliminary investigation.16

DECISION The Assailed CA Decision

BRION, J.: On January 21, 2008, the CA issued its decision dismissing the
petition for lack of merit.17 The CA ruled that the word
We resolve the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 "invited" in the Affidavit of Arrest executed by SP02 Javier
of the Rules of Court challenging the decision 1 dated January carried the meaning of a command. The arresting officer
21, 2008 and the resolution 2 dated April 17, 2008 of the Court clearly meant to arrest the petitioners to answer for the
of Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. SP No. 91541. mauling of Atty. Generoso. The CA also recognized that the
arrest was pursuant to a valid warrantless arrest so that an
The appealed decision affirmed the Order dated March 16, inquest proceeding was called for as a consequence. Thus, the
2005 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 96, Quezon RTC did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in denying
City, denying Joey M. Pestilos, Dwight Macapanas, Miguel the Urgent Motion for Regular Preliminary Investigation.
Gaces, Jerry Fernandez, and Ronald
 19
The CA saw no merit in the petitioners' argument that the Libertatum later became the foundational component of the
order denying the Urgent Motion for Regular Preliminary Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 28 It
Investigation is void for failure to clearly state the facts and provides:
the law upon which it was based, pursuant to Rule 16, Section
3 of the Revised Rules of Court. The CA found that the RTC No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised 29 of
had sufficiently explained the grounds for the denial of the his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or
motion. exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we not pass upon
him, nor condemn him, but by lawful Judgment of his
The petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied Peers, or by the Law of the Land, We will sell to no man,
the motion in its Resolution of April 17, 2008; 18 hence, the we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or
present petition. Right.30 [Emphasis supplied]

The Issues
In United States v. Snyder,31 the United States Supreme Court
The petitioners cited the following assignment of errors: held that this constitutional provision does not prohibit
arrests, searches and seizures without judicial warrant,
I. but only those that are unreasonable.32 With regard to an
arrest, it is considered a seizure, which must also satisfy the
WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONERS WERE VALIDLY test of reasonableness.33
ARRESTED WITHOUT A WARRANT.
In our jurisdiction, early rulings of the Court have
II. acknowledged the validity of warrantless arrests. The Court
based these rulings on the common law of America and
WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONERS WERE LAWFULLY England that, according to the Court, were not different from
ARRESTED WHEN THEY WERE MERELY INVITED TO THE POLICE the Spanish laws.34 These court rulings likewise justified
PRECINCT. warrantless arrests based on the provisions of separate laws
then existing in the Philippines.
III.
In 1905, the Court held in The United States v. Wilson 36 that
WHETHER OR NOT THE ORDER DENYING THE MOTION FOR Section 3737 of Act No. 183, or the Charter of Manila, defined
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION IS VOID FOR FAILURE TO STATE the arresting officer's power to arrest without a warrant, at
THE FACTS AND THE LAW UPON WHICH IT WAS BASED. least insofar as the City of Manila was concerned.

The petitioners primarily argue that they were not lawfully In The United States v. Vallejo, et al.,38 the Court held that in
arrested. No arrest warrant was ever issued; they went to the the absence of any provisions under statutes or local
police station only as a response to the arresting officers' ordinances, a police officer who held similar functions as those
invitation. They even cited the Affidavit of Arrest, which of the officers established under the common law of England
actually used the word "invited." and America, also had the power to arrest without a warrant
in the Philippines.
The petitioners also claim that no valid warrantless arrest took
place under the terms of Rule 112, Section 7 of the Revised The Court also ruled in The United States v. Santos39 that the
Rules of Court. The incident happened two (2) hours before rules on warrantless arrest were based on common sense and
the police officers actually arrived at the crime scene. The reason.40 It further held that warrantless arrest found support
police officers could not have undertaken a valid warrantless under the then Administrative Code41 which directed
arrest as they had no personal knowledge that the petitioners municipal policemen to exercise vigilance in the prevention of
were the authors of the crime. public offenses.

The petitioners additionally argue that the RTC's Order In The United States v. Fortaleza,42 the Court applied Rules 27,
denying the Urgent Motion for Regular Preliminary 28, 29 and 3043 of the Provisional Law for the Application of
Investigation is void because it was not properly issued. the Penal Code which were provisions taken from the Spanish
Law.
The Court's Ruling
These rules were subsequently established and incorporated
We find the petition unmeritorious and thus uphold the in our Rules of Court and jurisprudence. Presently, the
RTC Order. The criminal proceedings against the requirements of a warrantless arrest are now summarized in
petitioners should now proceed. Rule 113, Section 5 which states that:

It is unfortunate that the kind of motion that the petitioners Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. -A peace
filed has to reach this Court for its resolution. The thought is officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
very tempting that the motion was employed simply to delay person:
the proceedings and that the use of Rule 65 petition has been
abused. (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
But accepting things as they are, this delay can be more than commit an offense;
compensated by fully examining in this case the legalities
surrounding warrantless warrants and establishing the proper (b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has
interpretation of the Rules for the guidance of the bench and probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge
the bar. These Rules have evolved over time, and the present of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested
case presents to us the opportunity to re-trace their origins, has committed it; and
development and the current applicable interpretation.
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
I. Brief history on warrantless arrests escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is
serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his
The organic laws of the Philippines, specifically, the Philippine case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred
Bill of 190219 and the 1935,20 197321 and 198722 Constitutions from one confinement to another.
all protect the right of the people to be secure in their persons
against unreasonable searches and seizures. Arrest falls under In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b) above, the person
the term "seizure."23chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the
nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in
This constitutional mandate is identical with the Fourth accordance with section 7 of Rule 112.
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The
Fourth Amendment traces its origins to the writings of Sir A warrantless arrest under the circumstances contemplated
Edward Coke24 and The Great Charter of the Liberties of under Section 5(a) above has been denominated as one "in
England (Magna Carta Libertatum), sealed under oath by King flagrante delicto," while that under Section S(b) has been
John on the bank of the River Thames near Windsor, England described as a "hot pursuit" arrest.44
on June 15, 1215.25 The Magna Carta Libertatum limited the
King of England's powers and required the Crown to proclaim For purposes of this case, we shall focus on Section 5(b) - the
certain liberties26 under the feudal vassals' threat of civil provision applicable in the present case. This provision has
war.27 The declarations in Chapter 29 of the Magna Carta
 20
undergone changes through the years not just in its arrest would be invalid and the arresting officer may be held
phraseology but also in its interpretation in our jurisprudence. liable for its breach.48

We shall first trace the evolution of Section 5(b) and examine In The U.S. v. Hachaw,49 the Court invalidated the warrantless
the applicable American and Philippine jurisprudence to fully arrest of a Chinaman because the arresting person did not
understand its roots and its appropriate present application. state in what way the Chinaman was acting suspiciously or
the particular act or circumstance which aroused the arresting
II. Evolution of Section 5(b), Rule 113 person's curiosity.

A. Prior to the 1940 Rules of Court It appears, therefore, that prior to the establishment in
our Rules of Court of the rules on warrantless
Prior to 1940, the Court based its rulings not just on American arrests, the gauge for a valid warrantless arrest was the
and English common law principle on warrantless arrests but arresting officer's reasonable suspicion (probable cause) that
also on laws then existing in the Philippines. In Fortaleza,45 the a crime was committed and the person sought to be arrested
Court cited Rule 28 of the Provisional Law for the Application has participated in its commission. This principle left so much
of the Penal Code which provided that: discretion and leeway on the part of the arresting officer.
However, the 1940 Rules of Court has limited this discretion.
Judicial and administrative authorities have power to detain,
or to cause to be detained, persons whom there is B. The 1940 Rules of Court (Restricting the arresting
reasonable ground to believe guilty of some offense. It officer's determination of probable cause)
will be the duty of the authorities, as well as of their agents,
to arrest: Rules 27 and 28 of the Provisional Law for the Application of
the Penal Code were substantially incorporated in Section 6,
First. Such persons as may be arrested under the provisions of Rule 109 of the 1940 Rules of Court as follows: 50
rule 27. Second. A person charged with a crime for which the
code provides a penalty greater than that of confinamiento. SEC. 6. Arrest without warrant -When lawful. - A peace officer
or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
Third. A person charged with a crime for which the code
provides a penalty less than that of conjinamiento, if his (a) When the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
antecedents or the circumstances of the case would warrant committing, or is about to commit an offense in his presence;
the presumption that he would fail to appear when summoned
by the judicial authorities. (b) When an offense has in fact been committed, and
he has reasonable ground to believe that the person to
The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not apply, be arrested has committed it;
however, to a defendant who gives sufficient bond, to the
satisfaction of the authority or agent who may arrest him, and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
who it may reasonably be presumed will appear whenever escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is
summoned by the judge or court competent to try him. serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case
is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one
Fourth. A person coining under the provisions of the confinement to another. [Emphasis and underscoring
preceding paragraph may be arrested, although no supplied]
formal complaint has been filed against him, provided
the following circumstances are present: These provisions were adopted in toto in Section 6, Rule
113 of the 1964 Rules of Court.
First. That the authority or agent had reasonable cause
to believe that an unlawful act, amounting to a crime Notably, the 1940 and 1964 Rules have deviated from the old
had been committed. rulings of the Court. Prior to the 1940 Rules, the actual
commission of the offense was not necessary in determining
Second. That the authority or agent had sufficient the validity of the warrantless arrest. Too, the arresting
reason to believe that the person arrested participated officer's determination of probable cause (or reasonable
in the commission of such unlawful act or suspicion) applied both as to whether a crime has been
crime." [Emphasis and underscoring supplied] committed and whether the person to be arrested has
committed it.
In the same decision, the Court likewise cited Section 37 of
the Charter of Manila, which provided that certain officials, However, under the 1940 and the 1964 Rules of Court, the
including police officers may, within the territory defined Rules required that there should be actual commission of
in the law, pursue and arrest without warrant, any an offense, thus, removing the element of the
person found in suspicious places or under suspicious arresting officer's "reasonable suspicion of the
circumstances, reasonably tending to show that such commission of an offense." Additionally, the determination
person has committed, or is about to commit any crime of probable cause, or reasonable suspicion, was limited only
or breach of the peace. to the determination of whether the person to be arrested has
committed the offense. In other words, the 1940 and 1964
In Santos,46 the Court cited Miles v. Weston,47 which ruled that Rules of Court restricted the arresting officer's discretion in
a peace. officer may arrest persons walking in the street at warrantless arrests under Section 6(b), Rule 113 of the 1964
night when there is reasonable ground to suspect the Rules of Court.
commission of a crime, although there is no proof of a
felony having been committed. C. The more restrictive 1985 Rules of Criminal
Procedure
The Court ruled in Santos that the arresting officer must
justify that there was a probable cause for an arrest Section 6, Rule 113 of the 1964 Rules of Court again
without a warrant. The Court defined probable cause as a underwent substantial changes and was re-worded and re-
reasonable ground of suspicion, supported by circumstances numbered when it became Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985
sufficiently strong in themselves as to warrant a reasonable Rules of Criminal Procedure, to wit:
man in believing that the accused is guilty. Besides
reasonable ground of suspicion, action in good faith is another Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when. lawful. A peace
requirement. Once these conditions are complied with, the officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
peace officer is not liable even if the arrested person turned person:
out to be innocent.
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
Based on these discussions, it appears clear that prior to the committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
1940 Rules of Court, it was not necessary for the arresting an offense;
officer to first have knowledge that a crime was actually
committed. What was necessary was the presence of (b) When an offense has in fact just been
reasonably sufficient grounds to believe the existence of an committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts
act having the characteristics of a crime; and that the same indicating that the person to be arrested has
grounds exist to believe that the person sought to be detained committed it; and
participated in it. In addition, it was also established under the
old court rulings that the phrase "reasonable suspicion" was (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
tantamount to probable cause without which, the warrantless escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is
 21
serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case necessary inquiry is not whether there was a warrant
is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one or whether there was time to get one, but whether at
confinement to another. the time of the arrest probable cause existed. The term
probable cause is synonymous to "reasonable cause" and
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the "reasonable grounds."55
person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered
to the nearest police station or jail, and he shall be proceeded In determining the existence of probable cause, the arresting
against in accordance with Rule 112, Section 7. [Emphasis and officer should make a thorough investigation and exercise
underscoring supplied] reasonable judgment. The standards for evaluating the
factual basis supporting a probable cause assessment
As amended, Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules of Court are not less stringent in warrantless arrest situation
retained the restrictions introduced under the 1964 Rules of than in a case where a warrant is sought from a
Court. More importantly, however, it added a qualification that judicial officer. The probable cause determination of a
the commission of the offense should not only have been warrantless arrest is based on information that the arresting
"committed" but should have been "just committed." This officer possesses at the time of the arrest and not on the
limited the arresting officer's time frame for conducting an information acquired later.56
investigation for purposes of gathering information indicating
that the person sought to be arrested has committed the In evaluating probable cause, probability and not certainty is
crime. the determinant of reasonableness under the Fourth
Amendment. Probable cause involves probabilities similar to
D. The Present Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure the factual and practical questions of everyday life upon
which reasonable and prudent persons act. It is a pragmatic
Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure question to be determined in each case in light of the
was further amended with the incorporation of the word particular circumstances and the particular offense
"probable cause" as the basis of the arresting officer's involved. 57
determination on whether the person to be arrested has
committed the crime. In determining probable cause, the arresting officer may rely
on all the information in his possession, his fair inferences
Hence, as presently worded, Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the therefrom, including his observations. Mere suspicion does not
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that: meet the requirements of showing probable cause to arrest
without warrant especially if it is a mere general
When an offense has just been committed, and he has suspicion. Probable cause may rest on reasonably
probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of trustworthy information as well as personal
facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has knowledge. Thus, the arresting officer may rely on
committed it. information supplied by a witness or a victim of a crime; and
under the circumstances, the arresting officer need not verify
From the current phraseology of the rules on warrantless such information.5
arrest, it appears that for purposes of Section S(b), the
following are the notable changes: first, the contemplated In our jurisdiction, the Court has likewise defined probable
offense was qualified by the word "just," connoting cause in the context of Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised
immediacy; and second, the warrantless arrest of a person Rules of Criminal Procedure.
sought to be arrested should be based on probable cause to
be determined by the arresting officer based on his personal In Abelita III v. Doria et al.,59 the Court held that personal
knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person knowledge of facts must be based on probable cause, which
to be arrested has committed it. means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion.
The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence
It is clear that the present rules have objectified" the of actual belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion that the
previously subjective determination of the arresting officer as person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the
to the (1) commission of the crime; and (2) whether the offense is based on actual facts, i.e., supported by
person sought to be arrested committed the crime. According circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the
to Feria, these changes were adopted to minimize arrests probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. A
based on mere suspicion or hearsay.51 reasonable suspicion, therefore, must be founded on probable
cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the peace
As presently worded, the elements under Section 5(b), Rule officers making the arrest.
113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure are: first, an
offense has just been committed; and second, the arresting i.b) Probable cause under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the
officer has probable cause to believe based on personal Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, distinguished
knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be from probable cause in preliminary investigations and
arrested has committed it. the judicial proceeding for the issuance of a warrant of
arrest
For purposes of this case, we shall discuss these elements
separately below, starting with the element of probable cause, The purpose of a preliminary investigation is
followed by the elements that the offense has just been to determine whether a crime has been committed and
committed, and the arresting officer's personal knowledge of whether there is probable cause to believe that the
facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has accused is guilty of the crime and should be held for
committed the crime. trial.60 In Buchanan v. Viuda de Esteban,61 we defined
probable cause as the existence of facts and circumstances as
i) First Element of Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure: Probable cause the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that
the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was
The existence of ''probable cause" is now the "objectifier" or prosecuted.
the determinant on how the arresting officer shall proceed on
the facts and circumstances, within his personal knowledge, In this particular proceeding, the finding of the existence of
for purposes of determining whether the person to be arrested probable cause as to the guilt of the respondent was based
has committed the crime. on the submitted documents of the complainant, the
respondent and his witnesses.62
i.a) U.S. jurisprudence on probable cause in
warrantless arrests On the other hand, probable cause in judicial proceedings
for the issuance of a warrant of arrestis defined as the
In Payton v. New York,52 the U.S. Supreme Court held that the existence of such facts and circumstances that would lead a
Fourth Amendment of the Federal Constitution does not reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an
prohibit arrests without a warrant although such arrests must offense has been committed by the person sought to be
be reasonable. According to State v. Quinn,53 the warrantless arrested.
arrest of a person who was discovered in the act of violating
the law is not a violation of due process. Hence, before i suing a warrant of arrest, the judge must be
satisfied that based on the evidence submitted, there
The U.S. Supreme Court, however indicated in Henry v. United is sufficient proof that a crime has been committed and
States54 that the Fourth Amendment limited the circumstances that the person to be arrested is probably guilty
under which warrantless arrests may be made. The thereof. At this stage of the criminal proceeding, the judge is
not yet tasked to review in detail the evidence submitted
 22
during the preliminary investigation. It is sufficient that he dispatched to arrest Burgos who was then plowing the field.
personally evaluates the evidence in determining probable Indeed, the arrest was invalid considering that the only
cause63 to issue a warrant of arrest. information that the police officers had in effecting the arrest
was the information from a third person. It cannot be also said
In contrast, the arresting officer's determination of in this case that there was certainty as regards the
probable cause under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the commission of a crime.
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure is based on his personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person sought to In People v. del Rosario,70 the Court held that the requirement
be arrested has committed the crime. These facts or that an offense has just been committed means that there
circumstances pertain to actual facts or raw evidence, i.e., must be a large measure of immediacy between the time the
supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves offense was committed and the time of the arrest. If there was
to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be an appreciable lapse of time between the arrest and the
arrested. A reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded commission of the crime, a warrant of arrest must be secured.
on probable cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the
peace officers making the arrest The Court held that the arrest of del Rosario did not comply
with these requirements because he was arrested only a day
The probable cause to justify warrantless arrest ordinarily after the commission of the crime and not immediately
signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by thereafter. Additionally, the arresting officers were not present
circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant and were not actual eyewitnesses to the crime. Hence, they
a cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty had no personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person
of the offense with which he is charged, 64 or an actual belief or to be arrested had committed the offense. They became
reasonable ground of suspicion, based on actual facts.6 aware of del Rosario's identity as the driver of the getaway
tricycle only during the custodial investigation.
It is clear therefore that the standard for determining
"probable cause" is invariable for the officer arresting without In People v. Cendana,71 the accused was arrested one (1) day
a warrant, the public prosecutor, and the judge issuing a after the killing of the victim and only on the basis of
warrant of arrest. It is the existence of such facts and information obtained from unnamed sources. The unlawful
circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet arrest was held invalid.
and prudent person to believe that an offense has
been committed by the person sought to be arrested In Rolito Go v. CA,72 the arrest of the accused six (6) days after
or held for trial, as the case may be. the commission of the crime was held invalid because the
crime had not just been committed. Moreover, the "arresting"
However, while the arresting officer, the public prosecutor and officers had no "personal knowledge" of facts indicating that
the judge all determine "probable cause," within the the accused was the gunman who had shot the victim. The
spheres of their respective functions, its existence is information upon which the police acted came from
influenced heavily by the available facts and circumstance statements made by alleged eyewitnesses to the shooting;
within their possession. In short, although these officers use one stated that the accused was the gunman; another was
the same standard of a reasonable man, they possess able to take down the alleged gunman's car's plate number
dissimilar quantity of facts or circumstances, as set by the which turned out to be registered in the name of the
rules, upon which they must determine probable cause. accused's wife. That information did not constitute "personal
knowledge."
Thus, under the present rules and jurisprudence, the arresting
officer should base his determination of probable cause on his In People v. Tonog, Jr.,73 the warrantless arrest which was done
personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the on the same day was held valid. In this case, the arresting
person sought to be arrested has committed the crime; the officer had knowledge of facts which he personally gathered in
public prosecutor and the judge must base their the course of his investigation, indicating that the accused
determination on the evidence submitted by the parties. was one of the perpetrators.

In other words, the arresting officer operates on the basis of In People v. Gerente,74 the policemen arrested Gerente only
more limited facts, evidence or available information that he about three (3) hours after Gerente and his companions had
must personally gather within a limited time frame. killed the victim. The Court held that the policemen had
personal knowledge of the violent death of the victim and of
Hence, in Santos,66 the Court acknowledged the inherent facts indicating that Gerente and two others had killed him.
limitations of determining probable cause in The warrantless arrest was held valid.
warrantless arrests due to the urgency of its determination
in these instances. The Court held that one should not expect In People v. Alvario,75 the warrantless arrest came
too much of an ordinary policeman. He is not presumed to immediately after the arresting officers received information
exercise the subtle reasoning of a judicial officer. Oftentimes, from the victim of the crime. The Court held that the personal
he has no opportunity to make proper investigation but must knowledge of the arresting officers was derived from the
act in haste on his own belief to prevent the escape of information supplied by the victim herself who pointed to
the criminal.67 Alvario as the man who raped her at the time of his arrest.
The Court upheld the warrantless arrest.
ii) Second and Third Elements of Section 5(b), Rule
113: The crime has just been committed/personal In People v. Jayson,76 there was a shooting incident. The
knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to policemen who were summoned to the scene of the crime
be arrested has committed it found the victim. The informants pointed to the accused as
the assailant only moments after the shooting. The Court held
We deem it necessary to combine the discussions of these that the arresting officers acted on the basis of personal
two elements as our jurisprudence shows that these were knowledge of the death of the victim and of facts indicating
usually taken together in the Court's determination of the that the accused was the assailant. Thus, the warrantless
validity of the warrantless arrests that were made pursuant to arrest was held valid.
Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure. In People v. Acol,77 a group held up the passengers in a
jeepney and the policemen immediately responded to the
In Posadas v. Ombudsman,68 the killing of Dennis Venturina report of the crime. One of the victims saw four persons
happened on December 8, 1994. It was only on December 11, walking towards Fort Bonifacio, one of whom was wearing his
1994 that Chancellor Posadas requested the NBI's assistance. jacket. The victim pointed them to the policemen. When the
On the basis of the supposed identification of two (2) group saw the policemen coming, they ran in different
witnesses, the NBI attempted to arrest Francis Carlo Taparan directions. The Court held that the arrest was valid.
and Raymundo Narag three (3) days after the commission
of the crime. With this set of facts, it cannot be said that the In Cadua v. CA,78 there was an initial report to the police
officers have personal knowledge of facts or circumstances concerning a robbery. A radio dispatch was then given to the
that the persons sought to be arrested committed the crime. arresting officers, who proceeded to Alden Street to verify the
Hence, the Court invalidated the warrantless arrest. authenticity of the radio message. When they reached the
place, they met with the complainants who initiated the report
Similarly, in People v. Burgos,69 one Cesar Masamlok about the robbery. Upon the officers' invitation, the victims
personally and voluntarily surrendered to the authorities, joined them in conducting a search of the nearby area where
stating that Ruben Burgos forcibly recruited him to become a the accused was spotted in the vicinity. Based on the reported
member of the NPA, with a threat of physical harm. Upon statements of the complainants, he was identified as a logical
receipt of this information, a joint team of PC-INP units was
 23
suspect in the offense just committed. Hence, the arrest was and circumstances within his personal knowledge. The
held valid. requirement of the existence of probable
cause objectifies the reasonableness of the warrantless
In Doria,79 the Court held that Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the arrest for purposes of compliance with the Constitutional
1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure does not require the mandate against unreasonable arrests.
arresting officers to personally witness the commission of the
offense. Hence, for purposes of resolving the issue on the validity of
the warrantless arrest of the present petitioners, the question
In this case, P/Supt. Doria alleged that his office received a to be resolved is whether the requirements for a valid
telephone call from a relative of Rosa Sia about a shooting warrantless arrest under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised
incident. He dispatched a team headed by SP03 Ramirez to Rules of Criminal Procedure were complied with,
investigate the incident. SP03 Ramirez later reported that a namely: 1) has the crime just been committed when they
certain William Sia was wounded while Judge Abelita III, who were arrested? 2) did the arresting officer have personal
was implicated in the incident, and his wife just left the place knowledge of facts and circumstances that the petitioners
of the incident. P/Supt. Doria looked for Abelita III and when committed the crime? and 3) based on these facts and
he found him, he informed him of the incident report. P/Supt. circumstances that the arresting officer possessed at the time
Doria requested Abelita III to go with him to the police of the petitioners' arrest, would a reasonably discreet and
headquarters as he had been reported to be involved in the prudent person believe that the attempted murder of Atty.
incident. Abelita III agreed but suddenly sped up his vehicle Generoso was committed by the petitioners?
and proceeded to his residence where P/Supt. Doria caught
him up as he was about to run towards his house. We rule in the affirmative.

The police officers saw a gun in the front seat of the vehicle III. Application of Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised
beside the driver's seat as Abelita III opened the door. They Rules of Criminal Procedure in the present case: there
also saw a shotgun at the back of the driver's seat. The police was a valid warrantless arrest
officers confiscated the firearms and arrested Abelita III. The
Court held that the petitioner's act of trying to get away, We deem it necessary to review the records of the CA because
coupled with the incident report which they investigated, were it has misapprehended the facts in its decision.81 From a
enough to raise a reasonable suspicion on the part of the review of the records, we conclude that the police officers had
police authorities as to the existence of probable cause. personal knowledge of facts or circumstances upon which
they had properly determined probable cause in effecting a
Based on these discussions, it appears that the Court's warrantless arrest against the petitioners. We note, however,
appreciation of the elements that "the offense has just been that the determination of the facts in the present case is
committed" and ''personal knowledge of facts and purely limited to the resolution of the issue on the validity of
circumstances that the person to be arrested committed the warrantless arrests of the petitioners.
it" depended on the particular circumstances of the case.
Based on the police blotter82 entry taken at 4:15a.m. on
However, we note that the element of ''personal knowledge of February 20, 2005, the date that the alleged crime was
facts or circumstances" under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the committed, the petitioners were brought in for investigation at
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure requires clarification. the Batasan Hills Police Station. The police blotter stated that
the alleged crime was committed at 3:15 a.m. on February
The phrase covers facts or, in the alternative, 20, 2005, along Kasiyahan St., Brgy. Holy Spirit, Quezon City.
circumstances. According to the Black's Law
Dictionary,80"circumstances are attendant or accompanying The time of the entry of the complaint in the police blotter at
facts, events or conditions." Circumstances may pertain to 4:15 a.m., with Atty. Generoso and the petitioners already
events or actions within the actual perception, personal inside the police station, would connote that the arrest took
evaluation or observation of the police officer at the scene of place less than one hourfrom the time of the occurrence of
the crime. Thus, even though the police officer has not seen the crime. Hence, . the CA finding that the arrest took place
someone actually fleeing, he could still make a warrantless two (2) hours after the commission of the crime is unfounded.
arrest if, based on his personal evaluation of the
circumstances at the scene of the crime, he could determine The arresting officers' personal observation of Atty. Generoso's
the existence of probable cause that the person sought to be bruises when they arrived at the scene of the crime is
arrested has committed the crime. However, the corroborated by the petitioners' admissions that Atty:
determination of probable cause and the gathering of facts or Generoso indeed suffered blows from petitioner Macapanas
circumstances should be made immediately after the and his brother Joseph Macapanas,83 although they asserted
commission of the crime in order to comply with the element that they did it in self-defense against Atty. Generoso.
of immediacy.
Atty. Generoso's bruises were also corroborated by the
In other words, the clincher in the element of "personal Medico-Legal Certificate84 that was issued by East Avenue
knowledge of facts or circumstances" is the required element Medical Center on the same date of the alleged mauling. The
of immediacy within which these facts or circumstances medical check-up of Atty. Generoso that was made about 8:10
should be gathered. This required time element acts as a a.m. on the date of the incident, showed the following
safeguard to ensure that the police officers have gathered the findings: "Contusion Hematoma, Left Frontal Area; Abrasion,
facts or perceived the circumstances within a very limited T6 area, right midclavicular line periorbital hematoma, left
time frame. This guarantees that the police officers would eye; Abrasion, distal 3rd posterolateral aspect of right forearm;
have no time to base their probable cause finding on facts or Abrasion, 4th and fifth digit, right hand; Abrasion on area of
circumstances obtained after an exhaustive investigation. 7th rib (L ant. Chest wall), tenderness on L peripheral area, no
visible abrasion. In addition, the attending physician, Dr. Eva
The reason for the element of the immediacy is this - as the P. Javier, diagnosed Atty. Generoso of contusion hematoma,
time gap from the commission of the crime to the arrest periorbital L., and traumatic conjunctivitis, o.s.
widens, the pieces of information gathered are prone to
become contaminated and subjected to external factors, To summarize, the arresting officers went to the scene of the
interpretations and hearsay. On the other hand, with the crime upon the complaint of Atty. Generoso of his alleged
element of immediacy imposed under Section 5(b), Rule 113 mauling; the police officers responded to the scene of the
of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the police officer's crime less than one (1) hourafter the alleged mauling; the
determination of probable cause would necessarily be limited alleged crime transpired in a community where Atty. Generoso
to raw or uncontaminated facts or circumstances, gathered and the petitioners reside; Atty. Generoso positively identified
as they were within a very limited period of time. The same the petitioners as those responsible for his mauling and,
provision adds another safeguard with the requirement of notably, the petitioners85 and Atty. Generoso86 lived almost in
probable cause as the standard for evaluating these facts of the same neighborhood; more importantly, when the
circumstances before the police officer could effect a valid petitioners were confronted by the arresting officers, they did
warrantless arrest. not deny their participation in the incident with Atty.
Generoso, although they narrated a different version of what
In light of the discussion above on the developments of transpired.
Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure and our jurisprudence on the matter, we hold that With these facts and circumstances that the police officers
the following must be present for a valid warrantless gathered and which they have personally observed less than
arrest: 1) the crime should have been just committed; and 2) one hour from the time that they have arrived at the scene
the arresting officer's exercise of discretion is limited by the of the crime until the time of the arrest of the petitioners, we
standard of probable cause to be determined from the facts deem it reasonable to conclude that the police officers had
 24
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances justifying the the petitioners, at the time of their arrest, of the charges
petitioners' warrantless arrests. These circumstances were against them before taking them to Batasan Hills Police
well within the police officers' observation, perception and Station for investigation.
evaluation at the time of the arrest. These circumstances
qualify as the police officers' personal observation, which V. The Order denying the motion for preliminary
are within their personal knowledge, prompting them to investigation is valid
make the warrantless arrests.
In their last ditch attempt at avoidance, the petitioners attack
Similar to the factual antecedents in Jayson,88 the police the RTC Order denying the petitioners' urgent motion for
officers in the present case saw Atty. Generoso in his sorry regular preliminary investigation for allegedly having been
bloodied state. As the victim, he positively identified the issued in violation of Article VIII, Section 14 of the 1987
petitioners as the persons who mauled him; however, instead Constitution95 and Rule 16, Section 3 of the Revised Rules of
of fleeing like what happened in Jayson, the petitioners agreed Court.96
to go with the police officers.
The RTC, in its Order dismissing the motion, clearly states
This is also similar to what happened in People v. Tonog, that the Court is not persuaded by the evidentiary nature of
Jr.89 where Tonog did not flee but voluntarily went with the the allegations in the said motion of the accused. Aside from
police officers. More than this, the petitioners in the present lack of clear and convincing proof, the Court, in the exercise
case even admitted to have been involved in the incident with of its sound discretion on the matter, is legally bound to
Atty. Generoso, although they had another version of what pursue and hereby gives preference to the speedy disposition
transpired. of the case."

In determining the reasonableness of the warrantless arrests, We do not see any taint of impropriety or grave abuse of
it is incumbent upon the courts to consider if the police discretion in this Order. The RTC, in resolving the motion, is
officers have complied with the requirements set under not required to state all the facts found in the record of the
Section S(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal case. Detailed evidentiary matters, as the RTC decreed, is
Procedure, specifically, the requirement of immediacy; the best reserved for the full-blown trial of the case, not in the
police officer's personal knowledge of facts or circumstances; preliminary incidents leading up to the trial
and lastly, the propriety of the determination of probable
cause that the person sought to be arrested committed the Additionally, no less than the Constitution itself provides that
crime. it is the decision that should state clearly and distinctly
the facts and the law on which it is based. In resolving
The records show that soon after the report of the incident a motion, the court is only required to state clearly and
occurred, SPOl Monsalve immediately dispatched the arresting distinctly the reasons therefor. A contrary system would only
officer, SP02 Javier, to render personal assistance to the prolong the proceedings, which was precisely what happened
victim.90 This fact alone negates the petitioners' argument to this case. Hence, we uphold the validity of the RTC's order
that the police officers did not have personal knowledge that as it correctly stated the reason for its denial of the
a crime had been committed the police immediately petitioners' Urgent Motion for Regular Preliminary
responded and had personal knowledge that a crime had been Investigation.
committed.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DENY the
To reiterate, personal knowledge of a crime just committed petition, and hereby AFFIRM the decision dated January 21,
under the terms of the above-cited provision, does not require 2008 and the resolution dated April 17, 2008 of the Court of
actual presence at the scene while a crime was being Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 91541. The City Prosecutor of
committed; it is enough that evidence of the recent Quezon City is hereby ORDERED to proceed with the criminal
commission of the crime is patent (as in this case) and the proceedings against the petitioners.
police officer has probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances, that the person to be SO ORDERED.
arrested has recently committed the crime.

Considering the circumstances of the stabbing, particularly

the locality where it took place, its occasion, the personal DISSENTING OPINION
circumstances of the parties, and the immediate on-the-spot
investigation that took place, the immediate and warrantless LEONEN, J.:
arrests of the perpetrators were proper. Consequently, the
inquest proceeding that the City Prosecutor conducted was I regret that I cannot bring myself to agree that the
appropriate under the circumstances. warrantless arrest was valid.

IV. The term "invited" in the Affidavit of Arrest is To review, the facts as established are as follows:
construed to mean as an authoritative command
Both petitioners and respondent are residents of Kasiyahan
After the resolution of the validity of the warrantless arrest, Street, Barangay Holy Spirit, Quezon City.
the discussion of the petitioners' second issue is largely
academic. Arrest is defined as the taking of a person into On February 20, 2005, at around 3:00 to 3:15 a.m., petitioners
custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the Joey M. Pestilos (Pestilos), Dwight Macapanas (Macapanas),
commission of an offense. An arrest is made by an actual Miguel Gaces (Gaces), Jerry Hernandez (Hernandez), and
restraint of the person to be arrested, or by his submission to Ronald Muoz (Muoz), and respondent Atty. Moreno
the custody of the person making the arrest. 91 Thus, Generoso (Atty. Generoso) were waiting for the water supply
application of actual force, manual touching of the body, on Kasiyahan Street. Pestilos and Macapanas got into an
physical restraint or a formal declaration of arrest is not altercation with Atty. Generoso that involved physical
required. It is enough that there be an intention on the part of violence. Immediately after the incident, Pestilos and
one of the parties to arrest the other and the intent of the Macapanas went to the barangay hall to seek help from the
other to submit, under the belief and impression that local barangay officials.
submission is necessary.92
At the barangay hall, Pestilos reported the incident and
Notwithstanding the term "invited" in the Affidavit of wanted to have it inscribed in the barangay blotter. The
Arrest,93 SP02 Javier could not but have the intention of barangay tanod advised them to secure a medical certificate
arresting the petitioners following Atty. Generoso's account. first before Pestilos and Macapanas could register their
SP02 Javier did not need to apply violent physical restraint complaint in the barangay blotter.3 Pestilos and Macapanas
when a simple directive to the petitioners to follow him to the requested the barangay tanod to accompany them on their
police station would produce a similar effect. In other words, way back to their residences on Kasiyahan Street, to avoid
the application of actual force would only be an alternative if further trouble.
the petitioners had exhibited resistance.
At around 5:30 a.m., Pestilos and Macapanas arrived with the
To be sure, after a crime had just been committed and the barangay tanod on Kasiyahan Street. By then, officers from
attending policemen have acquired personal knowledge of the Batasan Hills Police Station were present. Atty. Generoso
incidents of the crime, including the alleged perpetrators, the pointed to Pestilos and Macapanas as perpetrators of his
arrest of the petitioners as the perpetrators pointed to by the alleged mauling.5 The two began complaining about Atty.
victim, was not a mere random act but was in connection with Generosos attack against them. The police officers, led by
a particular offense. Furthermore, SP02 Javier had informed
 25
SPO2 Dominador Javier (SPO2 Javier), brought Pestilos, (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
Macapanas, and Atty. Generoso to the police station. The escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is
other petitioners, Gaces, Hernandez, and Muoz, were serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case
brought by Pestilos and Macapanas to act as their witnesses. is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.
Macapanas left the police station for a while to get a medical
certificate from the East Avenue Medical Center, as advised In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the
by the barangay tanod earlier.6 Meanwhile, at the police person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered
station, Atty. Generoso filed charges against all petitioners to the nearest police station or jail, and he shall be proceeded
(Pestilos, Macapanas, Gaces, Hernandez, and Muoz) for against in accordance with Rule 12, Section 7.
frustrated murder.
This case does not fall under the first and third exceptions.
Macapanas also filed charges against Atty. Generoso for slight The question is whether this falls under the special
physical injuries.8 The police officers in the Batasan Hills Police circumstances of Section 5(b) of Rule 113 of the Rules of
Station rendered reports for both charges. In addition to the Court.
reports, SPO2 Javier executed an affidavit of arrest with
respect to petitioners. The elements of a valid warrantless arrest under Rule 113,
Section 5(b) are the following: (1) the offense has just been
At the Office of the Prosecutor, the prosecutor subjected all committed; (2) the arresting officer has personal knowledge of
the petitioners to inquest, while the complaint against Atty. facts or circumstances; and (3) these facts and circumstances
Generoso was treated as a case subject to preliminary give rise to probable cause that the person to be arrested has
investigation. committed the offense.

Two days after the incident, the prosecutor filed an The first element requires that there are facts leading to a
information against petitioners for attempted murder. conclusion that an offense has been committed. Being based
on objectivity, the first element requires the occurrence of
Before arraignment, petitioners filed an urgent motion for facts that, when taken together, constitutes the commission
regular preliminary investigation. However, the Regional Trial of an offense.
Court of Quezon City, Branch 96, denied the motion. 12 They
filed a motion for reconsideration, but the motion was denied. If we accepted the version of Atty. Generoso, it appears that
he was a victim of an attack from petitioners. The facts that
On appeal via Rule 65, the Court of Appeals sustained the he narrated may, thus, constitute the possible offenses of
order of the Regional Trial Court: physical injuries or even attempted or frustrated homicide or
murder. The offense should be evaluated from the facts and
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is circumstances as it appeared to the person making the
hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. warrantless arrest.

SO ORDERED.14 The element that the offense had just been committed was
introduced in the 1985 revision of the Rules of Criminal
The Court of Appeals denied petitioners motion for Procedure. This element must be read in relation to the
reconsideration in the resolution dated April 17, 2008. 15 They general requirement that a warrant of arrest must be procured
came to this court via a petition for review on certiorari. They to ensure a more impartial determination of the existence of
argue that they are entitled to preliminary investigation. facts and circumstances. This element, however,
Subjecting them to inquest proceedings was irregular because acknowledges the necessities of law enforcement. At times,
they were not properly arrested. Assuming that their decision the police officer arrives at the scene of the crime after the
to go to the police station was an arrest, the arrest was crime just happened and there are facts and circumstances
invalid because it was not made in compliance with the rule such as the sudden flight of a person or the wielding of a
on warrantless arrests. weapon by a person near the incident that reasonably lead
the police officer to believe that the person is the perpetrator.
I vote that the petition be granted. Petitioners are entitled to a In such cases, to ensure that the right person can be put
preliminary investigation because the warrantless arrest was within the jurisdiction of a court, the rules allow a valid
not valid. warrantless arrest.

The right of a person to his or her liberties in the form of This necessity is wanting in this case. Petitioners themselves,
protections against unreasonable searches and seizures together with a barangay tanod, voluntarily went to the police
enjoys a high degree of protection. 16 The Constitution only station. They did so after they had gone to the barangay hall
allows for reasonable searches and seizures. As a general to report the incident and had their own complaints entered
rule, courts decide whether there is probable cause to issue a into the barangay blotter.
search warrant or warrant of arrest. In People v. Burgos,17 this
court stated that: There was no urgency to arrest petitioners. They were not
planning to flee. They voluntarily presented themselves as
The right of a person to be secure against any unreasonable complainants against private respondent. For reasons not
seizure of his body and any deprivation of his liberty is a most clear in the record, they were subjected to a warrantless
basic and fundamental one. The statute or rule which allows arrest and then to inquest. Private respondent, on the other
exceptions to the requirement of warrants of arrest is strictly hand, was allowed to be a respondent in a preliminary
construed. Any exception must clearly fall within the investigation. He was not arrested.
situations when securing a warrant would be absurd or is
manifestly unnecessary as provided by the Rule. We cannot Several cases qualified the time element of just been
liberally construe the rule on arrests without warrant or committed to range from three (3) hours 19 to 14 days.20 This
extend its application beyond the cases specifically provided is not the correct approach.
by law. To do so would infringe upon personal liberty and set
back a basic right so often violated and so deserving of full In Re Petition for Habeas Corpus of Laurente C.
protection.18 (Emphasis supplied). Ilagan21 and Umil v. Ramos,22 cited by the majority, were
decided under the dark days of Martial Law. The dissents in
The limited circumstances for the conduct of reasonable those cases were clarion calls for the protection of our
warrantless arrests are enumerated in Rule 113, Section 5 of liberties.
the Rules of Court.
Former Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee, in his dissent in In Re
SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful A peace officer Ilagan, was of the opinion that just been committed
or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: connotes immediacy in point of time.23 Former Associate
Justice Florenz Regalado24emphasized the requirement of
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has immediacy:
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
an offense; The brevity in the interval of time between the commission of
the crime and the arrest, as now required by Section 5(b),
(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has must have been dictated by the consideration, among others,
probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of that by reason of such recency of the criminal occurrence, the
facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has probability of the arresting officer acquiring personal and/or
committed it; and reliable knowledge of such fact and the identity of the
offender is necessarily enhanced, if not assured. The longer
 26
the interval, the more attenuated are the chances of his The police officers perceived limited facts while investigating
obtaining such verifiable knowledge.25 at the crime scene. These limited facts do not provide
sufficient bases for the liability of anyone at the scene. No one
In the same case, Associate Justice Florentino Feliciano was reported holding a weapon allegedly used against private
illustrated how a hot pursuit warrantless arrest should be respondent. None of the petitioners fled at the sight of the
made: police officers.

Turning to Section 5 (b), two (2) elements must coincide There were only facts relating to the offense, such as the sight
before a warrantless arrest may be sustained under this of an injured private respondent. This fact cannot substitute
subsection: 1) the offense must have just been committed for the personal knowledge of facts and circumstances
when the arresting officer arrived in the scene; and 2) the relating to the liability of petitioners.
officer must have personal knowledge of facts indicating
that the person to be arrested has committed the offense. In Parenthetically, the police officers also had hearsay
somewhat different terms, the first requirement imports that knowledge that private respondent was the perpetrator
the effects or corpus of the offense which has just been against petitioners. For reasons not clear in the records,
committed are still visible: e.g. a person sprawled on the however, the police officers preferred not to arrest him.
ground, dead of a gunshot wound; or a person staggering
around bleeding profusely from stab wounds. The arresting The third element requires that these facts and circumstances
officer may not have seen the actual shooting or stabbing of must lead to the conclusion that there is probable cause to
the victim, and therefore the offense can not be said to have believe that the person to be arrested committed the offense.
been committed in [his] presence. The requirement of Rule 113, Section 5(b) requires that probable cause or
personal knowledge on the part of the arresting actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion must be
officer is a requirement that such knowledge must supported by personal knowledge of facts or circumstances
have been obtained directly from sense perception by that, when taken together, builds the suspicion that an
the arresting officer. That requirement would exclude individual committed the offense.
information conveyed by another person, no matter what his
reputation for truth and reliability might be. Thus, where the The plurality in the phrasing suggests that there should be
arresting officer comes upon a person dead on the street and more than one fact or circumstance. In People v. Cogaed,29 we
sees a person running away with a knife from where the ruled that for there to be a genuine reason to execute a
victim is sprawled on the ground, he has personal knowledge warrantless arrest or search, there should be more than one
of facts which rendered it highly probable that the person suspicious circumstance to infer that there was criminal
fleeing was the doer of the criminal deed. The arresting officer activity.
must, in other words, perceive through his own senses some
act which directly connects the person to be arrested with the In most cases that found the validity of the warrantless arrest,
visible effects or corpus of a crime which has just been there was the presence of more than one circumstance that
committed.26 (Emphasis supplied) formed part of the personal knowledge of the police officers.

The second element under Rule 113, Section 5(b) is that the In People v. Jayson,31 police officers were summoned
arresting officer has personal knowledge of facts and immediately to the crime scene. They found the victim, and
circumstances. Personal knowledge is derived from the saw the accused fleeing. These are two facts that show that
[persons] own perception. the offense was committed and that the person arrested was
probably responsible because he attempted to escape.
On the other hand, information not of personal knowledge is
hearsay. Hearsay is evidence not of what the witness knows In People v. Tonog,32 there was a murder. Police officers at the
himself but of what he has heard from others. crime scene saw the following: the body of the victim and a
motorcab that was driven by Tonog that day. Tonog voluntarily
The arresting officers must obtain personal knowledge of the went to the police station, and one of the police officers
facts and circumstances that lead to the conclusion that an noticed that he had blood splatters on his jeans. All three facts
offense has just been committed. They must also perceive and circumstances were observed by the police officers during
facts and circumstances that would substantiate the probable the arrest, thereby building the probable cause that Tonog
liability of the person. The accused is usually identified when committed the murder.33
he or she is seen fleeing the scene because the act of fleeing
suggests the attempt to evade authority. A person in On the other hand, this court ruled that there are instances
possession of a weapon could also be perceived as the one when there is no personal knowledge of the police officers;
liable for an offense. hence, there is no valid warrantless arrest.

There must be a reasonable amount of facts short of seeing In People v. Burgos,34 a source informed the police officers
the entire offense being committed. A collection of facts, on that Ruben Burgos was engaged in subversive activities. This
the other hand, is a set of circumstances. If the arresting court held that the report was not enough to enact a
officer saw facts and circumstances indicating that an offense warrantless arrest under Rule 113, Section 5(b), especially
has just been committed and the person is probably liable for since there were no facts personally known to the police
that offense, a warrantless arrest is justified under Rule 113, officers that a crime was committed.
Section 5(b). If the arresting officer saw the offense being
committed, then the warrantless arrest will be justified under In Posadas v. Ombudsman,35 the National Bureau of
Rule 113, Section 5(a), not under subsection (b). Investigation officers arrested two students identified by
witnesses as the perpetrators of a killing during a fraternity
Facts or circumstances relating to the nature of the offense rumble. The arrest was made without a warrant, and this court
cannot substitute for personal knowledge of facts or declared the warrantless arrest invalid.
circumstances relating to the liability of the person who
probably committed the offense. One pertains to the object Rule 113, Section 5(b) did not apply in People v.
and the other the method of perception. Briones36 where the accused was arrested after one
eyewitness had identified him as the murderer. This court
SPO2 Javier had personal knowledge of the injuries of private declared that the warrantless arrest was invalid because the
respondent. This is only personal knowledge with respect to police officer who effected the arrest indubitably had no
the offense, not yet as to the identity of the perpetrators. personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be
arrested has committed the crime. It is [the] eyewitness . . .
On the other hand, the information obtained by the police who had such personal knowledge.
officers when private respondent pointed to petitioners as the
perpetrators of the crime was hearsay. Private respondents Jurisprudence often repeats the doctrine summarized in Umil
act of pointing to petitioners communicated that petitioners v. Ramos:
committed the mauling. It becomes hearsay on the part of the
police officers who did not see petitioners mauling private It has been ruled that "personal knowledge of facts", in arrests
respondent. The only personal knowledge obtained by the without warrant must be based upon probable cause, which
police officers was that private respondent pointed to means an actual belief or reasonable ground of suspicion.
petitioners.
The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence
According to petitioners, they returned to the crime scene and of actual belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion that the
saw the police officers. They also informed the police officers person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the
that private respondent attacked them. That is another offense, is based on actual facts, i.e., supported by
hearsay received by the police officers at the crime scene. circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the
 27
probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. A Relaxing our standards in taking individuals under custody
reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on probable enhances the advantage of the prosecution, to the detriment
cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the peace of the individual. Compared to the state, the accused does not
officers making the arrest.39 (Citations omitted) have the resources to question the legitimacy of an arrest.
Some of them do not even know that they are already being
The confusion with this treatment is that it qualifies personal arrested. Many arrested individuals may not even be able to
knowledge with probable cause, not the other way around. afford lawyers until the public attorney steps in during
The rule states that probable cause . . . [is] based on custodial investigation or, worse, during arraignment. By then,
personal knowledge of facts and circumstances. 40 It does not the accused would have already been deprived of his or her
state personal knowledge of facts based on probable cause or liberty.
reasonable suspicion. The import of the text is that reasonable
suspicion and probable cause is built by personal knowledge The circumstances of this case require the vigilance of this
of facts and circumstances. Personal knowledge is the method court in protecting the neglected rights of petitioners.
of perceiving facts. Probable cause is the conclusion of all the Petitioners were just in their 20s when the altercation
facts so perceived. occurred. Pestilos was a student, Macapanas and Muoz were
unemployed, Gaces was a driver, and Fernandez was a
Flight of the accused is often a sign that there is probable printing press operator. Petitioners have been certified as
cause that he or she committed the offense. When he or she indigents.46 They are of limited means. At the time that they
attempts to escape from authorities, the authorities must act were trying to vindicate their rights at the police station, they
immediately because not doing so might compromise the did not have counsel.
investigation.
On the other hand, it is easier for the police officers to be
If there is no personal knowledge of facts and circumstances persuaded by private respondent, a member of the bar who is
on the part of the police officers, a warrantless arrest under fully aware of his constitutional rights. The police officers
Rule 113, Section 5(b) will be unreasonable because there is became more inclined to believe his story because he is a
nothing to base probable cause on that the accused lawyer, while petitioners were all non-lawyers.
committed the offense.
Petitioners were not expected to know that a detention was an
Here, there was no flight of the accused. On the contrary, arrest. The affidavit of arrest stated that SPO2 Javier
petitioners returned to the crime scene 41because they felt that informed all the suspects of the charges imputed against
they were the victims, not the perpetrators. them by complainant Atty. Generoso.47 To an ordinary citizen,
they were just complaints. An invitation is really just an
The police officers were still investigating the matter when invitation for petitioners. They did not go to the police station
petitioners were brought to the police station. The because they were being arrested.
circumstances of the situation did not call for an exception to
the rule requiring a warrant of arrest. The statement made by With the absence of a valid warrantless arrest, petitioners are
private respondent on the identity of his perpetrators, as entitled to preliminary investigation. Preliminary investigation
communicated to the police, could have been reduced to an is an inquiry or a proceeding the purpose of which is to
affidavit used to support an application for a warrant of arrest. determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a
The statements made by petitioners were other pieces of well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the
evidence to be considered for the issuance of a warrant of respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for
arrest. trial.48 The right to preliminary investigation is statutory in
character.49 Being mandated by statute, a preliminary
The police officers were not threatened by the immediate investigation becomes part of the constitutional due process
flight of the alleged perpetrators who believed that they also rights accorded to the accused.50
have a right to vindicate since they were cooperating with the
police. All facts point to the reasonability of obtaining a Under Rule 112, a preliminary investigation is required if an
warrant of arrest. There was no exigency to cause the offense has a penalty of at least four (4) years, two (2)
warrantless arrest of petitioners. months, and one (1) day. However, under Section 6 of the
same rules, a preliminary investigation is no longer necessary
It bears stressing that petitioners went with the police officers if the person accused was arrested lawfully without a warrant.
in their capacity as complainants against private respondent. If there was a valid warrantless arrest under Rule 113, Section
They did not know that they were already being arrested. To 5, inquest proceedings are required.
their mind, the police officers just wanted to continue the
investigation at the police station. This is shown by the police Based on the Manual for Prosecutors, inquests are conducted
report dated February 20, 2005 regarding the complaint of by a public prosecutor assigned as an Inquest Officer. An
petitioner Macapanas against private respondent Atty. inquest is conducted only at the police stations or
Generoso. In this report, petitioner Macapanas was the headquarters of the Philippine National Police, unless
complainant, and private respondent Atty. Generoso was the otherwise directed.51
accused. To wit:
Here, petitioners alleged that they were brought from Batasan
It is worthy to mentioned [sic] that complainant voluntarily Hills Police Station to the Office of the Prosecutor. At the Office
[sic] appeared to this Station wherein he was identified by of the Prosecutor, it was decided that petitioners would be
complainant at [sic] the one who punched him(,) which also subjected to inquest, while respondent would undergo
causing [sic] him to be bitten (by) a dog thereat.42 preliminary investigation. This irregularly conducted inquest
aggravates the fact that petitioners were subjected to an
The existence of two police reports for two separate crimes inquest despite lack of a valid warrantless arrest.
committed during one incident one with petitioners as
accused43 and the other with private respondent as Considering that petitioners were not arrested in accordance
accused44 proves that at the time that petitioners were with the strict guidelines of our Constitution and the Rules of
taken into custody, the police officers were still uncertain Court, petitioners statutory right to preliminary investigation
about what happened. This negates the presence of probable is mandatory.
cause, required by Rule 113, Section 5(b).
ACCORDINGLY, the petition should be GRANTED.
Probable cause must exist at the time of the warrantless
arrest. Otherwise, any form of uncertainty should be resolved
through the exercise of judicial caution.
POLICE LINE UP IS NOT CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
When the police officers became more convinced that private
respondents version was more believable than petitioners, SECOND DIVISION
the police officers should have applied for a warrant of arrest.
SPO2 Javier expedited procedure when he executed an [G.R. NO. 199877 - August 13, 2012]
affidavit of arrest. He made it appear that there was a valid
warrantless arrest, instead of applying for a warrant of arrest. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
This is unacceptable in our Constitution. Appellee, v. ARTURO LARA y ORBISTA, Accused-Appellant.

Strict standards should be imposed on law enforcement. It is DECISION

said that the prosecution can bring the full resources of the
state to bear on winning. Imposing a heavy burden of proof on REYES, J.:
the prosecution diminishes this advantage.45
 28
This is an automatic appeal from the Decision 1 dated July 28, Manacob at the police station; and (f) before Bautista died, he
2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. was able to interview Bautista at the hospital where the latter
03685. The CA affirmed the Decision2 dated October 1, 2008 was brought after the incident.
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasig City, Branch 268,
finding Arturo Lara (Lara) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of In his defense, Lara testified that: (a) he was a plumber who
robbery with homicide. resided at Dr. Pilapil Street, San Miguel, Pasig City; (b) on May
31, 2001, he was at his house, digging a sewer trench while
On June 14, 2001, an Information 3 charging Lara with robbery his brother, Wilfredo, was constructing a comfort room; (c)
with homicide was filed with the RTC: they were working from 8:00 in the morning until 3:00 in the
afternoon; (d) on June 7, 2001 and at around 7:00 in the
On or about May 31, 2001, in Pasig City, and within the evening, while he was at the house of one of his cousins,
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, armed with a police officers arrived and asked him if he was Arturo Lara; (e)
gun, conspiring and confederating together with one after confirming that he was Arturo Lara, the police officers
unidentified person who is still at-large, and both of them asked him to go with them to the Barangay Hall; (f) he
mutually helping and aiding one another, with intent to gain, voluntarily went with them and while inside the patrol car, one
and by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then of the policemen said, "You are lucky, we were able to caught
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and you in your house, if in another place we will kill you" (sic); (g)
divest from Joselito M. Bautista cash money amounting he was brought to the police station and not the barangay hall
to P230,000.00 more or less and belonging to San Sebastian as he was earlier told where he was investigated for robbery
Allied Services, Inc. represented by Enrique Sumulong; that on with homicide; (h) when he told the police that he was at
the occasion of said robbery, the said accused, with intent to home when the subject incident took place, the police
kill, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously challenged him to produce witnesses; (i) when his witnesses
attack, assault, and shoot said Joselito M. Bautista with the arrived at the station, one of the police officers told them to
said gun, thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal wounds come back the following day; (j) while he was at the police
which directly caused his death. line-up holding a name plate, a police officer told Sumulong
and Atie, "Ituru nyo na yan at uuwi na tayo"; and (k) when his
Contrary to law. witnesses arrived the following day, they were told that he will
be subjected to an inquest.
Following Lara s plea of not guilty, trial ensued. The
prosecution presented three (3) witnesses: Enrique Sumulong To corroborate his testimony, Lara presented one of his
(Sumulong), SPO1 Bernard Cruz (SPO1 Cruz) and PO3 Efren neighbors, Simplicia Delos Reyes. She testified that on May
Calix (PO3 Calix). 31, 2001, while she was manning her store, she saw Lara
working on a sewer trench from 9:00 in the morning to 5:00 in
Sumulong testified that: (a) he was an accounting staff of San the afternoon.9 Lara also presented his sister, Edjosa Manalo,
Sebastian Allied Services, Inc. (San Sebastian); (b) on May 31, who testified that he was working on a sewer line the whole
2001 and at around 9:00 in the morning, he withdrew the day of May 31, 2001.10rll
amount of P230,000.00 from the Metrobank-Mabini Branch,
Pasig City to defray the salaries of the employees of San On October 1, 2008, the RTC convicted Lara of robbery with
Sebastian; (c) in going to the bank, he rode a pick-up and was homicide in a Decision,11 the dispositive portion of which
accompanied by Virgilio Manacob (Manacob), Jeff Atie (Atie) states:
and Joselito Bautista (Bautista); (d) he placed the amount
withdrawn in a black bag and immediately left the bank; (e) at WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds the
around 10:30 in the morning, while they were at the accused ARTURO LARA Y Orbista GUILTY beyond reasonable
intersection of Mercedes and Market Avenues, Pasig City, Lara doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, defined and
suddenly appeared at the front passenger side of the pick-up penalized under Article 294 (1) as amended by Republic Act
and pointed a gun at him stating, "Akin na ang pera, iyong 7659, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
bag, nasaan?"; (f) Bautista, who was seated at the back, imprisonment of reclusion perpetua, with all the accessory
shouted, "Wag mong ibigay"; (g) heeding Bautista s advice, he penalties prescribed by law.
threw the bag in Bautista s direction; (h) after getting hold of
the bag, Bautista alighted from the pick-up and ran; (i) seein Accused is further ordered to indemnify the heirs of the
Bautista, Lara ran after him while firing his gun; (j) when he deceased the sum of Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity and
had the chance to get out of the pick-up, he ran towards Php230,000.00 representing the money carted by the said
Mercedes Plaza and called up the office of San Sebastian to accused.
relay the incident; (k) when he went back to where the pick-
up was parked, he went to the rear portion of the vehicle and SO ORDERED.
saw blood on the ground; (l) he was informed by one
bystander that Bautista was shot and the bag was taken away The RTC rejected Lara s defense of alibi as follows:
from him; (m) when barangay officials and the police arrived,
he and his two (2) other companions were brought to the The prosecution s witness Enrique Sumulong positively
police station for investigation; (n) on June 7, 2001, while on identified accused Arturo Lara as the person who carted away
his way to Barangay Maybunga, Pasig City, he saw Lara the payroll money of San Sebastian Allied Services, Inc., on
walking along Dr. Pilapil Street, Barangay San Miguel, Pasig May 31, 2001 at around 10:30 o clock in the morning along
City; (o) he alerted the police and Lara was thereafter the corner of Mercedez and Market Ave., Pasig City and the
arrested; and (p) at the police station, he, Atie and Manacob one who shot Joselito Bautista which caused his instantaneous
identified Lara as the one who shot and robbed them of San death on the same day. As repeatedly held by the Supreme
Sebastian s money. Court, "For alibi to prosper, an accused must show he was at
some other place for such a period of time that it was
SPO1 Cruz testified that: (a) he was assigned at the Follow-Up impossible for him to have been at the crime scene at the
Unit of the Pasig City Police Station; (b) at around 7:55 in the time of the commission of the crime" (People v. Bano, 419
evening of June 7, 2001, Sumulong went to the police station SCRA 697). Considering the proximity of the distance between
and informed him that he saw Lara walking along Dr. Pilapil the place of the incident and the residence of the accused
Street; (c) four (4) police officers and Sumulong went to Dr. where he allegedly stayed the whole day of May 31, 2001, it is
Pilapil Street where they saw Lara, who Sumulong identified; not physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene
(d) they then approached Lara and invited him for within the same barangay. The positive identification of the
questioning; (e) at the police station, Lara was placed in a accused which were categorical and consistent and without
line-up where he was positively identified by Sumulong, any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses,
Manacob and Atie; and (f) after being identified, Lara was should prevail over the alibi and denial of the accused whose
informed of his rights and subsequently detained. testimony was not substantiated by clear and convincing
evidence (People v. Aves 420 SCRA 259).13 (Emphasis
PO3 Calix testified that: (a) he was a member of the Criminal supplied)
Investigation Unit of the Pasig City Police Station; (b) on May
31, 2001, he was informed of a robbery that took place at the On appeal, Lara pointed out several errors that supposedly
corner of Mercedes and Market Avenues, Pasig City; (c) he, attended his conviction. First, that he was arrested without a
together with three (3) other police officers, proceeded to the warrant under circumstances that do not justify a warrantless
crime scene; (d) upon arriving thereat, one of the police arrest rendered void all proceedings including those that led
officers who were able to respond ahead of them, handed to to his conviction. Second, he was not assisted by counsel
him eleven (11) pieces of empty shells and six (6) deformed when the police placed him in a line-up to be identified by the
slugs of a 9mm pistol; (e) as part of his investigation, he witnesses for the prosecution in violation of Section 12, Article
interviewed Sumulong, Atie, III of the Constitution. The police line-up is part of custodial
investigation and his right to counsel had already attached.
 29
Third, the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond The CA addressed Lara s claim that the prosecution s failure
reasonable doubt. Specifically, the prosecution failed to to present a witness who actually saw him commit the crime
present a witness who actually saw him commit the alleged charged as follows:
acts. Sumulong merely presumed that he was the one who
shot Bautista and who took the bag of money from him. The Third. Appellant takes umbrage at the alleged failure of the
physical description of Lara that Sumulong gave to the police prosecution to present an eyewitness to prove that he shot
was different from the one he gave during the trial, indicating the victim and took the money.
that he did not have a fair glimpse of the perpetrator.
Moreover, this gives rise to the possibility that it was his Such posture is unpersuasive.
unidentified companion who shot Bautista and took
possession of the money. Hence, it cannot be reasonably Contrary to appellant s assertion, prosecution witness
claimed that his conviction was attended with moral certainty. Sumulong actually saw him shoot Bautista, the victim.
Fourth, the trial court erred in discounting the testimony of his Sumulong vividly recounted, viz:
witnesses. Without any showing that they were impelled by
improper motives in testifying in his favor, their testimonies "Q When you said that "tinutukan ka", aside from this act was
should have been given the credence they deserve. While his there any other words spoken by this person?
two (2) witnesses were his sister and neighbor, this does not
by itself suggest the existence of bias or impair their A There was, sir.
credibility.
Q What did he say?
The CA affirmed Lara s conviction. That Lara was supposedly
arrested without a warrant may not serve as a ground to A "Nasaan ang bag ilabas mo yung pera", sir.
invalidate the proceedings leading to his conviction
considering its belated invocation. Any objections to the
Q Where were you looking when this person approached
legality of the warrantless arrest should have been raised in a
you?
motion to quash duly filed before the accused enters his plea;
otherwise, it is deemed waived. Further, that the accused was
A I was looking at his face, sir.
illegally arrested is not a ground to set aside conviction duly
arrived at and based on evidence that sufficiently establishes
culpability: Q And upon hearing those words, what did you do?

Appellant s avowal could hardly wash. A I put out the money, sir, because I got afraid at that time.

It is a shopworn doctrine that any objection involving a Q Did you hand over the black bag containing the money to
warrant of arrest or the acquisition of jurisdiction over the him?
person of an accused must be made before he enters his plea,
otherwise the objection is deemed waived. In voluntarily A No, sir, because one of my companion(s) shouted not to
submitting himself to the court by entering a plea, instead of give the money or the bag so I immediately threw away the
filing a motion to quash the information for lack of jurisdiction bag at the back seat, sir.
over his person, accused-appellant is deemed to have waived
his right to assail the legality of his arrest. Applying the Q And how long approximately was that person standing by
foregoing jurisprudential touchstone, appellant is estopped your car window?
from questioning the validity of his arrest since he never
raised this issue before arraignment or moved to quash A Five (5) to ten (10) minutes, sir.
the Information.
Q And after you have thrown the black bag containing
What is more, the illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient money to the back of the vehicle, what did that person do?
cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a
sufficient complaint after trial free from error. The warrantless A I saw Joey alight(ed) from the vehicle carrying the bag
arrest, even if illegal, cannot render void all other proceedings and ran away, sir, and I also saw somebody shoot a gun?
including those leading to the conviction of the appellants and
his co-accused, nor can the state be deprived of its right to Q Who was firing the gun?
convict the guilty when all the facts on record point to their
culpability.14 (Citations omitted) A The one who held-up us, sir.

As to whether the identification of Lara during the police line- Q By how, do you know his name?
up is inadmissible as his right to counsel was violated, the CA
ruled that there was no legal compulsion to afford him a A No, sir.
counsel during a police line-up since the latter is not part of
custodial investigation. Q But if you can see him again, (were) you be able to
recognize him?
Appellant s assertion that he was under custodial
investigation at the time he was identified in a police line-up A Yes, sir.
and therefore had the right to counsel does not hold water.
Ingrained in our jurisdiction is the rule that an accused is not Q If he is in the courtroom, will you be able to recognize
entitled to the assistance of counsel in a police line-up him?
considering that such is usually not a part of custodial
investigation. An exception to this rule is when the accused A Yes, sir.
had been the focus of police attention at the start of the
investigation. In the case at bench, appellant was identified in Q Please look around and please tell this Honorable Court
a police line-up by prosecution witnesses from a group of whether indeed the person you saw holding you up at that
persons gathered for the purpose. However, there was no time is in court?
proof that appellant was interrogated at all or that a
statement or confession was extracted from him. A priori, We
A Yes, sir.
refuse to hearken to appellant s hollow cry that he was
deprived of his constitutional right to counsel given the hard
Q Will you please stand up and tap his shoulder to identify
fact that during the police line-up, the accusatory process had
him?
not yet commenced.
Interpreter: The witness tap the shoulder of a person sitting
Assuming ex hypothesi that appellant was subjected to
on the first bench of the courtroom wearing yellow t-shirt and
interrogation sans counsel during the police line-up, it does
black pants who when ask identify himself as Arturo Lara (sic).
not in any way affect his culpability. Any allegation of violation
of rights during custodial investigation is relevant and
material only to cases in which an extrajudicial admission or Q And when as you said Joey got the bag. Alighted from the
confession extracted from the accused becomes the basis of vehicle and ran away with it, what did the accused do? (sic)
their conviction. Here, appellant was convicted based on the
testimony of a prosecution witness and not on his alleged A He shot Joey while running around our vehicle, sir.
uncounseled confession or admission.15 (Citations omitted)
Q Around how many shots according to your recollection
were fired?
 30
A There were several shots, more or less nine (9) shots, sir. of appellants, whose testimonies are not substantiated by
clear and convincing evidence.
x x x x x x"
All the more, to establish alibi the accused must prove (a) that
"Q So, you did not personally notice what had transpired or he was present at another place at the time of the
happened after you stepped down from the Nissan pick-up, perpetration of the crime, and (b) that it was physically
that is correct? impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. Physical
impossibility "refers to the distance between the place where
A There was, sir, my companion Joselito Bautista was shot. the accused was when the crime transpired and the place
where it was committed, as well as the facility of access
Q When you heard the gunfire, you were already between the two places. Appellant miserably failed to prove
proceeding towards that store to call your office by phone, the physical impossibility of his presence at the locus criminis
that is correct? at the time of the perpetration of the felonious act. He himself
admitted that his house was just a stone s throw (about three
A Not yet, sir, we were still inside the vehicle. minutes away) from the crime scene.17 (Citations omitted)

Q And was Joselito Bautista at the rear of the Nissan Sentra In a Resolution18 dated February 1, 2012, this Court accepted
when you heard this gunfire? the appeal as the penalty imposed was reclusion
perpetua and the parties were afforded an opportunity to file
A Yes, sir. their supplemental briefs. Both parties waived their right to do
so, stating that they would adopt the allegations in their
Q And so he was at the back, so the shooter was also at the respective briefs that they filed with the CA.
back of the vehicle, that is correct?
Issues
A Yes, sir, he went towards the rear portion of the vehicle,
he followed Joselito Bautista and shot him. The present review of Lara s conviction for robbery with
homicide gives rise to the following issues:
Q So, to be clear, when Joselito Bautista ran to the rear, this
alleged holdup(p)er followed him? A. whether the identification made by Sumulong, Atie and
Manacob in the police line-up is inadmissible because Lara
A Yes, sir. stood therein without the assistance of counsel;

Q And that was the time(,) you heard this gunfire? A Yes, sir. b. whether Lara s supposedly illegal arrest may be raised
for the first time on appeal for the purpose of nullifying his
conviction;
Q So, you did not personally see who fired that firearm?
c. whether there is sufficient evidence to convict Lara; and
A Because at that time he was the one holding the gun, sir.
d. whether Lara s alibi can be given credence so as to
Q So, you are presuming that he was the one who fired the
exonerate him from the crime charged.
gun because he was holding the gun, am I correct?
Our Ruling
A Yes, sir."
This Court resolves to deny the appeal.
xxx
I
Under Section 4, Rule 133, of the Rules of Court,
circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if the
following requisites concur: Jurisdiction over the person of the accused may be acquired
through compulsory process such as a warrant of arrest or
through his voluntary appearance, such as when he
(a) There is more than one circumstance;
surrenders to the police or to the court.19Any objection to the
arrest or acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are
accused must be made before he enters his plea, otherwise
proven; and
the objection is deemed waived. An accused submits to the
jurisdiction of the trial court upon entering a plea and
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to participating actively in the trial and this precludes him
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. invoking any irregularities that may have attended his
arrest.20
Here, the following circumstantial evidence are tellingly
sufficient to prove that the guilt of appellant is beyond Furthermore, the illegal arrest of an accused is not a sufficient
reasonable doubt, viz: ground to reverse and set aside a conviction that was arrived
upon a complaint duly filed and a trial conducted without
1. While the vehicle was at the intersection of Mercedes error.21 As Section 9, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
and Market Avenues, Pasig City, appellant suddenly emerged Procedure provides:
and pointed a gun at prosecution witness Sumulong,
demanding from him to produce the bag containing the Sec. 9. Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground
money. therefor. The failure of the accused to assert any ground of a
motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or
2. Prosecution witness Sumulong threw the bag to the information, either because he did not file a motion to quash
victim who was then seated at the backseat of the vehicle. or failed to allege the same in said motion, shall be deemed a
waiver of any objections except those based on the grounds
3. The victim alighted from vehicle carrying the bag. provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g) and (i) of Section 3 of
this Rule.
4. Appellant chased and fired several shots at the victim.
II
5. The victim sustained several gunshot wounds.
Contrary to Lara s claim, that he was not provided with
6. The police officers recovered from the scene of the crime counsel when he was placed in a police line-up did not
six deformed empty shells.16(Citations omitted and emphasis invalidate the proceedings leading to his conviction. That he
supplied) stood at the police line-up without the assistance of counsel
did not render Sumulong s identification of Lara inadmissible.
Finally, the CA found that Lara s alibi failed to convince. The right to counsel is deemed to have arisen at the precise
Specifically: moment custodial investigation begins and being made to
stand in a police line-up is not the starting point or a part of
Deeply embedded in our jurisprudence is the rule that positive custodial investigation. As this Court previously ruled
identification of the accused, where categorical and in People v. Amestuzo:22
consistent, without any showing of ill motive on the part of the
eyewitness testifying, should prevail over the alibi and denial The contention is not meritorious. The guarantees of Sec. 12
(1), Art. III of the 1987 Constitution, or the so-called Miranda
 31
rights, may be invoked only by a person while he is under Notably, the incident took place in broad daylight and in the
custodial investigation. Custodial investigation starts when middle of a street. Thus, where considerations of visibility are
the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an favorable and the witness does not appear to be biased
unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect against the accused, his or her assertions as to the identity of
taken into custody by the police who starts the interrogation the malefactor should be normally accepted. 27
and propounds questions to the person to elicit incriminating
statements. Police line-up is not part of the custodial Lara did not allege, much less, convincingly demonstrate that
investigation; hence, the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sumulong was impelled by improper or malicious motives to
Constitution cannot yet be invoked at this stage. This was impute upon him, however perjurious, such a serious charge.
settled in the case of People v. Lamsing and in the more Thus, his testimony, which the trial court found to be
recent case of People v. Salvatierra. The right to be assisted forthright and credible, is worthy of full faith and credit and
by counsel attaches only during custodial investigation and should not be disturbed. If an accused had nothing to do with
cannot be claimed by the accused during identification in a the crime, it is against the natural order of events and of
police line-up because it is not part of the custodial human nature and against the presumption of good faith that
investigation process. This is because during a police line-up, a prosecution witness would falsely testify against the
the process has not yet shifted from the investigatory to the former.28
accusatory and it is usually the witness or the complainant
who is interrogated and who gives a statement in the course IV
of the line-up.23 (Citations omitted)
In view of Sumulong s positive identification of Lara, the CA
III was correct in denying Lara s alibi outright. It is well-settled
that positive identification prevails over alibi, which is
It is apparent from the assailed decision of the CA that the inherently a weak defense. Such is the rule, for as a defense,
finding of guilt against Lara is based on circumstantial alibi is easy to concoct, and difficult to disapprove.29
evidence. The CA allegedly erred in this wise considering that
only direct and not circumstantial evidence can overcome the Moreover, in order for the defense of alibi to prosper, it is not
presumption of innocence. enough to prove that the accused was somewhere else when
the offense was committed, but it must likewise be
However, well-settled is the rule that direct evidence of the demonstrated that he was so far away that it was not possible
commission of the crime is not the only matrix wherefrom a for him to have been physically present at the place of the
trial court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt. Even in crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.
the absence of direct evidence, conviction can be had if the Due to its doubtful nature, alibi must be supported by clear
established circumstances constitute an unbroken chain, and convincing proof.
consistent with each other and to the hypothesis that the
accused is guilty, to the exclusion of all other hypothesis that In this case, the proximity of Lara s house at the scene of the
he is not.24 crime wholly negates his alibi. Assuming as true Lara s claim
and that of his witnesses that he was digging a sewer trench
Under Section 4, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules on Criminal on the day of the incident, it is possible that his witnesses
Procedure, circumstantial evidence sufficed to convict upon may not have noticed him leaving and returning given that
the concurrence of the following requisites: (a) there is more the distance between his house and the place where the
than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the subject incident took place can be negotiated, even by
inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of walking, in just a matter of minutes. Simply put, Lara and his
all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction witnesses failed to prove that it is well-nigh impossible for him
beyond reasonable doubt. to be at the scene of the crime.

It is not only by direct evidence that an accused may be In fine, the assailed decision of the CA is affirmed in all
convicted of the crime for which he is charged. Resort to respects.
circumstantial evidence is essential since to insist on direct
testimony would, in many cases, result in setting felons free WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated July
and denying proper protection to the community. 25 28, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 03685
is hereby AFFIRMED.
As the CA correctly ruled, the following circumstances
established by the evidence for the prosecution strongly SO ORDERED.
indicate Lara s guilt: (a) while the vehicle Sumulong, Atie,
Manacob and Bautista were riding was at the intersection of
Mercedes and Market Avenues, he appeared at the front
passenger side thereof armed with a gun; (b) while pointing RIGHTS OF THE RESPONDENT DURING CUSTODIAL
the gun at Sumulong who was at the front passenger seat, INVESTIGATIO
Lara demanded that Sumulong give him the bag containing
the money; (c) instead of giving the bag to Lara, Sumulong EN BANC
gave it to Bautista who was seated at the back of the pick-up;
(d) when Bautista got hold of the bag, he alighted and ran CESAR FORTUNA, G.R. No. 185123
towards the back of the pick-up; (e) Lara ran after Bautista
and while doing so, fired his gun at Bautista s direction; (f)
Petitioner,
Bautista sustained several gunshot wounds; and (g) Bautista s
blood was on the crime scene and empty shells were
- versus -
recovered therefrom.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Indeed, in cases of robbery with homicide, the taking of
personal property with intent to gain must itself be
established beyond reasonable doubt. Conclusive evidence Respondent.
proving the physical act of asportation by the accused must
be presented by the prosecution. It must be shown that the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
original criminal design of the culprit was robbery and the
homicide was perpetrated with a view to the consummation of Plaintiff-Appellee, G.R. No. 187745
the robbery by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. 26 The
mere presence of the accused at the crime scene is not - versus -
enough to implicate him. It is essential to prove the intent to
rob and the use of violence was necessary to realize such SPO2 CESAR FORTUNA y Promulgated:
intent. ABUDO, RAMESES DE JESUS y
CALMA, LENIDO LUMANOG y September 7, 2010
In this case, Lara s intent to gain is proven by Sumulong s LUISTRO, JOEL DE JESUS y
positive narration that it was Lara who pointed the gun at him VALDEZ and AUGUSTO SANTOS
and demanded that the bag containing the money be turned y GALANG, Accused,
over to him. That Lara resorted to violence in order to
actualize his intent to gain is proven by Sumulong s testimony RAMESES DE JESUS y CALMA
that he saw Lara fire the gun at the direction of Bautista, who and JOEL DE JESUS y VALDEZ,
was running away from the pick-up in order to prevent Lara Accused-Appellants.
from taking possession of the money.
DECISION
 32
VILLARAMA, JR., J.: victim by the neck and dropped his body down towards the
pavement at the left door. When there were already several
For review is the Decision[1] dated April 1, 2008 of the Court of people who had come out to see what was happening, one of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00667 which affirmed with the suspects shouted, Walang gagalawDapa!
modification the Joint Decision [2] dated July 30, 1999 of the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 103 in Criminal Minella Alarcon, who was then with her son-in-law on board
Case Nos. Q-96-66679, Q-96-66680, Q-96-66682, Q-96-66683 her white KIA Pride, was following the victims car (at other
and Q-96-66684. side or diagonal line) at the time of the incident. After the
shooting, two (2) of the armed men who fired at the victims
The consolidated cases arose in connection with the killing of car approached their car and pounded at it saying BabaBaba!
former Chief of the Metropolitan Command Intelligence and Terrified, she and her son-in-law got off and crawled towards
Security Group of the Philippine Constabulary, now the the side of the street. The assailants then boarded the KIA
Philippine National Police (PNP), Colonel Rolando N. Abadilla Pride and went away to the direction of an alley along
(Abadilla), who was ambushed in broad daylight while driving Katipunan Avenue. Her car was later recovered, as it was
his car along Katipunan Avenue, Quezon City. found abandoned along Aguinaldo Street near the corner of
J.P. Rizal Street, Project 4, Quezon City, still with bloodstains
The Facts on the car door.[11]

On June 13, 1996, at around 8:00 oclock in the morning, The victim was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital.
Abadilla left his house at Soliven I, Loyola Grand Villas, Loyola The victims identity was confirmed by Susan Abadilla who had
Heights, Quezon City and drove his car, a black Honda Accord rushed to the hospital. Chief Insp. Villena escorted her in
with Plate No. RNA-777. Soon after he left, his wife Susan bringing the victims body to the PNP Crime Laboratory in
Abadilla received a phone call from him and they briefly Camp Crame for the autopsy requested by the CPDC, PNP-
talked. Just a few minutes after their conversation, she NCR, Camp Karingal.[12] From the testimony and medico-legal
received another phone call from Abadillas tailor who was report of Dr. Jesusa N. Vergara, it was disclosed that the victim
asking about her husband because, according to him, he died of hemorrhage as a result of multiple gunshot wounds,
heard a radio broadcast report that Abadilla met an accident. mostly in the head and chest, and also sustained abrasions,
[3] contusions, lacerated skin, hematoma and incised wounds or
cuts in the skin caused by glass splinters. [13]
Meanwhile, at about 8:40 a.m., Senior Police Officer (SPO) 2
Arthur Ortiz, the desk officer on duty at Station 8 of the Records indicate that immediately after the incident, elements
Central Police District Command (CPDC) located at P. Tuazon of the CPDC, PNP-NCR at Camp Karingal were already
Blvd., Project 4, Quezon City, answered a telephone call from coordinating with investigators of Station 8-CPDC who had
a male person who reported a shooting incident along turned over to said office the evidence gathered and referred
Katipunan Avenue.Station Commander Police Chief Inspector the witnesses present at the crime scene.[14] As a result of
(Insp.) Edward Villena, together with his investigators SPO2 follow-up operations, Joel de Jesus, alias Tabong, was
Wahab Magundacan, Police Officer (PO) 2 Gerardo Daganta apprehended on June 19, 1996 at his house at Dahlia St.,
and PO1 Ronald Francisco immediately boarded a PNP marked Fairview, Quezon City. He executed his Sinumpaang
vehicle and headed towards Katipunan Avenue.[4] Salaysay dated June 20, 1996 and Karagdagang Sinumpaang
[15]
Salaysay dated June 21, 1996.
Upon reaching the area at 8:45 a.m., they saw several
onlookers around and near a black Honda Accord with Plate In his first statement, Joel de Jesus narrated that on
No. RNA-777 on a stop position in the middle lane of June 13, 1996 at 6:30 in the morning after parking his tricycle
Katipunan Avenue facing south going to Libis. They found the at the corner of Regalado and Camaro Streets, Fairview, he
victims bloodied and bullet-riddled body partly slumped onto was fetched by Lorenzo Larry delos Santos who was his
the pavement at the cars left door, which was open. The front neighbor at Ruby St. Larry was accompanied by his nephew
windshield and sliding glass windows on the left and right side Ogie, and a certain Tisoy who drove the owner-type
were shattered; a hole was seen on the glass window of the jeep. Larry told him they were going to kill a big-time
left rear door, apparently pierced by a bullet. Glass splinters personality (may titirahin na malaking tao), whose name was
were scattered inside the car and on the pavement at both Abadilla, and that they were going to ambush the latter at
sides of the car. On orders of Chief Insp. Villena, PO2 Daganta Katipunan Avenue. The ambush would be carried out by Joel,
and PO1 Francisco assisted by a certain Cesar Espiritu, Larry, Tisoy, Ram (de Jesus), Cesar who was a policeman, and
immediately brought the victim to the Quirino Memorial four (4) others. That same morning, they proceeded to
Hospital in Project 4, Quezon City. SPO2 Magundacan was Katipunan Avenue on board Larrys owner-type jeep without a
instructed to stay behind to cordon the area for the start of plate and a Mitsubishi L-300 van. They carried .45 and 9 mm.
the investigation while Chief Insp. Villena went to their station pistols; Joel used a .38 caliber revolver. According to Joel, he
to get his camera. [5] After ten (10) minutes, Chief Insp. Villena only acted as lookout; Lorenzo, Ram and Cesar were the ones
returned and took pictures of the crime scene, and also of the who fired shots, while Tisoy focused on a security guard at a
victim at the hospital.[6] SPO2 Magundacan was able to pick store. After the shooting, they separated ways: the owner-type
up several spent shells and two (2) slugs, apparently fired jeep he was riding in headed towards Santolan; Cesars group
from .45 and 9 mm. pistols. [7] A sketch was prepared by PO2 split so that three (3) of them rode the L-300 van and the
Daganta who also interviewed some of the witnesses present three (3) others boarded a car stolen from a woman
at the crime scene.[8] The spot report and list of recovered driver. Upon reaching Commonwealth Avenue and Tandang
items (including a Philippine Military Academy gold ring on Sora, they stopped at Glori Supermarket where all the
which was engraved the name Rolando N. Abadilla) were later firearms used were returned to the group, including the
prepared by SPO2 Magundacan at the police station.[9] revolver earlier given to Joel. It was already dusk when
Lorenzo dropped him off at the tricycle parking area at
On the same day, witnesses Cesar F. Espiritu (who Camaro St.[16]
was driving his car ahead of the victim), Aurora Urbano (Metro
Aide), Ani C. Icot (house gardener of the Abadilla family, Joel further stated that the ambush-slay of Abadilla
Freddie Alejo (security guard posted at Eliscon Electrical was planned by the group three (3) days before, when they
Supply store located at 211 Katipunan Avenue) and Minella met at the house of Ram de Jesus also in Fairview near his
Alarcon (college professor at Ateneo de Manila University) house. Although he did not know the identity of the person
gave their respective statements before the Criminal who masterminded the ambush-slay of Abadilla, he described
Investigation Division of the Central Police District Command the mastermind as the one (1) who opened Abadillas car and
(CID-CPDC), PNP-National Capital Region (NCR) at Camp pulled Abadilla from the inside of the car, and he was also the
Karingal, Sikatuna Village, Quezon City, while the statement of one (1) who drove the L-300 van. Lorenzo told him he should
Merlito Herbas (security guard posted at the Blue Ridge Realty not worry because Lorenzo would take care that he would be
Corporation located at No. 219 Katipunan Avenue, Quezon compensated for his participation. When they reached
City) was taken at Station No. 8, CPDC at P. Tuazon Blvd., Proj. Katipunan Avenue, they alighted from their respective
4, Quezon City.[10] vehicles to wait for Abadilla. The L-300 van where the
mastermind and Cesar rode was just behind Abadillas car.
Based on their accounts, the black Honda Accord with Plate There was no more order given to fire because when traffic
Number RNA-777 was caught in traffic while traversing stopped the vehicles on the road, those in the L-300 van just
Katipunan Avenue going to Santolan at past 8:00 oclock on got down, positioned themselves and fired upon Abadilla. The
the morning of June 13, 1996. While on a stop position, four mastermind not only fired at Abadilla from outside the latters
(4) men armed with handguns surrounded the said car and car, he even made sure Abadilla was dead, as half of his body
fired several successive shots at the man inside it. One (1) of went inside the car, firing again at Abadilla before finally
the men who were positioned at the left side of the car dropping him to the ground. Joel added that he just remained
opened its door and took something inside. He grabbed the silent after the incident, for which he did not earn anything
 33
and was threatened by one (1) of those who were in the L-300 pistol, Cesar a .38 revolver, Lenido a 9 mm., a certain Manuel
van whose name he did not know.[17] dela Rosa who did not get out of the vehicle, carried a .38 cal
revolver, and Lorenzo, also a .38 cal revolver. Rameses, Joel,
In his second statement, Joel pointed to his cohorts in Cesar and Lenido were the ones who shot Abadilla. After the
a police line-up inside the CID-CPDC, PNP-NCR, Camp Karingal, shooting, the group left him behind and he just walked on the
Quezon City where he positively identified Rameses de Jesus street before taking a taxi ride to the Bureau of Customs.
(Ram), Cesar Fortuna, Lenido Lumanog and PO2 Romeo Lorenzo maintained that he was not given any money. He was
Costibolo as among those who participated in the ambush- just picked up from his house at Ruby St., Fairview Subdivision
slaying of Abadilla on June 13, 1996.[18] by Rameses, Lenido, Cesar and Joel. He was made to board
Rameses car with a warning that if he did not join the group,
The afore-named suspects identified by Joel were they would throw a hand grenade at his family. [21]
apprehended during further follow-up operations conducted
on June 20, 1996 by Task Force Rolly subsequently formed by In his Karagdagang Salaysay dated June 21, 1996, security
the PNP after the lead initially provided by him. As mentioned guard Freddie Alejo positively identified Joel and Lorenzo
in the Joint Affidavit executed by Police Senior Inspector (P/Sr. during a police line-up. Alejo confirmed these two (2) as the
Insp.) Ronello N. Navarro, Police Inspector (P/Insp.) Ferdinand persons he saw from his guard post walking to and fro before
A. Marticio, SPO4 Wilfredo G. Galvan and SPO1 Allan dela Cruz the shooting incident. They were also the ones who shouted
dated June 21, 1996, as early as June 15, 1996, or two (2) that no one (1) should interfere at the time the four (4) armed
days after the ambush-slay of Abadilla, their investigation men were firing shots at Abadilla.[22]
already established the identities of a number of suspects
through photo files and forensic sketches of suspects provided SPO2 Cesar Fortuna y Abudo, Rameses de Jesus y Calma,
by eyewitnesses.[19] Said arresting officers were also able to Lorenzo delos Santos y Dela Cruz, Lenido Lumanog y Luistro,
seize certain firearms and other pieces of evidence, to wit: Joel de Jesus y Valdez and Arturo Napolitano y Caburnay were
charged in Criminal Case No. Q-96-66679 with theft of the
4. That after SPO2 cesar Fortuna alleged gun owned by the late Abadilla (Colt Mark IV cal .45
revealed the whereabouts of the slain pistol SN-66BS574), a gold-plated Omega wristwatch and a
victims stolen cal .45 pistol, we conducted a wallet containing an undetermined amount of cash plus
follow up in a gunsmith located at calling cards and other important papers, all of which were
Sampaloc, Manila on 21 June 1996, from supposedly stolen by them after killing Abadilla. [23]
where we held for investigation, one
On the other hand, Lorenzo delos Santos y Dela Cruz, SPO2
DANTE MONTEVIRGEN y Cesar Fortuna y Abudo and Rameses de Jesus y Calma were
VILLANUEVA, 37 years old, married, respectively charged with illegal possession of firearms
self-employed/gunsmith, native of (Presidential Decree No. 1866) in Criminal Case Nos. Q-96-
Pula, Oriental Mindoro and with 66680, Q-96-66682 and Q-96-66683.[24]
given address at 1412 Riverside
Street, Commonwealth Avenue, All the seven (7) named accused in Criminal Case No. Q-96-
Bgy. Holy Spirit, Quezon City. 66684 were indicted for Murder under the following
Information:
5. That upon confrontation said
subject person surrendered two (2) cal .45 That on or about the 13th day of
pistols whom suspect Cesar Fortuna June, 1996 in Quezon City, Philippines, the
allegedly brought to him for above-named accused, conspiring together,
repair/tampering of serial numbers, to wit: confederating with several other persons
whose true names, identities,
(a) 1- COLT MARK IV cal .45 pistol whereabouts have not as yet been
Govt Model ascertained and mutually helping with one
another, did then and there, wilfully,
SN-66B5574; and unlawfully and feloniously with intent to
kill, with evident premeditation, treachery,
(b) 1-COLT MARK IV cal .45 pistol in consideration of a price, reward or
Series 70 promise, and taking advantage of superior
strength, attack and employ personal
SN-647048. violence upon the person of COL. ROLANDO
ABADILLA y NOLASCO by then and there
6. On the same day, 21 June 1996, shooting the latter with the use of different
after SPO2 Cesar Fortuna expressed kinds of firearms, hitting him on the
willingness to surrender the motorcycle different parts of his body, thereby causing
allegedly used in casing and surveillance the instant and immediate cause of his
upon the deceased victim, we took said death, to the damage and prejudice of the
motorcycle at Gate 2 of Camp Crame along heirs of the said COL. ROLANDO ABADILLA y
Santolan Road (Col Bony Serrano Avenue), NOLASCO.
Quezon City, to wit:
Contrary to law.[25]
1- Unit, KAWASAKI motorcycle
without license plate, chassis When arraigned, all the accused pleaded not guilty to the
No. C-5121696, Motor No. 658 murder charge.
122951
In view of the dismissal of the criminal cases for illegal
7. That the aforenamed subject possession of firearms (P.D. No. 1866) and theft (Criminal
person together with the property/articles Case Nos. Q-96-66679, Q-96-66680, Q-96-66682 and Q-96-
recovered were turned over to the Police 66683),[26] our discussion of the proceedings before the trial
Headquarters for investigation and court will be confined to the case for murder against Fortuna,
appropriate action; Lumanog, Joel de Jesus, Rameses de Jesus and Santos.

x x x[20] Evidence for the Prosecution

With respect to Lorenzo delos Santos, he also executed a The prosecution presented the testimonies of police officers
statement dated June 21, 1996 admitting his participation in who conducted the investigation and follow-up operations up
the ambush-slay of Abadilla on June 13, 1996, and pointing to to the actual apprehension of suspects in the killing of
Rameses de Jesus as the mastermind and also named the Abadilla: SPO2 Wahab Magundacan, PO2 Gerardo Daganta,
following suspects: POGS whose real name was Lenido Maj. Edward Villena, P/Insp. Rogelio Castillo, SPO2 Jose Garcia,
Lumanog, Joel de Jesus alias Tabong, Cesar Fortuna and four Jr., SPO3 Romeo De Guzman, SPO2 Pio Tarala, Atty. Florimond
(4) others whom he did not know. He said that he was just Rous, P/Sr. Insp. Jose B. Macanas and P/Insp. Ferdinand
brought along by Rameses de Jesus and was further Marticio.
threatened that if he would not go with them, they would kill
his family. He claimed that he merely acted as a lookout. As The testimonies of P/Insp. Castillo, SPO2 Garcia, SPO2 Tarala,
similarly recounted by Joel, Lorenzo stated that the group Atty. Rous and P/Sr. Insp. Macanas were given in court in the
used an L-300 van, a car and a jeep in going to Katipunan light of serious allegations of torture, forced confessions and
Avenue in the morning of June 13, 1996. Joel had a .45 cal violations of constitutional rights raised by the accused, which
 34
were widely reported in the media and brought before the proceeding to the Quezon City Hall at around 12:00 oclock
Commission of Human Rights (CHR) and eventually to noon, with P/Insp. Castillo who said that Joels statement would
Amnesty International-USA. be taken infront of a counsel. At the Hall of Justice lobby,
P/Insp. Castillo instructed them to guard Joel as he would look
P/Insp. Castillo, testifying on cross-examination, admitted for a counsel. After more or less 25 to 30 minutes, P/Insp.
that accused Joel de Jesus was apprehended by members of Castillo came back and they proceeded to the second floor of
his squad led by Lt. Rodolfo on June 19, 1996, but said suspect the office of the IBP chapter. They were met by a lady
was not presented to him until noontime of the next day, June secretary, and afterwards he saw P/Insp. Castillo talking to a
20, 1996. He did not ask his men if Joel had been subjected to lawyer whom he came to know as Atty. Rous. It seemed Atty.
investigation and if he was, whether he was assisted by Rous could not decide on what P/Insp. Castillo told him and
counsel. He explained that there were still then follow-up said he (Atty. Rous) would first ask the permission of Atty.
operations in which they needed Joel. As for the press Sansano. They waited for Atty. Sansano, who arrived in about
conference wherein Joel was presented together with then twenty (20) to twenty-five (25) minutes. Atty. Sansano and
Secretary Barbers and General Recaredo Sarmiento, he P/Insp. Castillo talked for about five (5) minutes and
learned about it only later.[27] thereafter, Atty. Sansano requested them to leave, because he
would talk personally to Joel. Atty. Sansano and Joel talked
The witness declared that the constitutional mandate and inside the room for five (5) to ten (10) minutes.Thereafter, he,
requirements under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7438 had been P/Insp. Castillo, SPO2 Tarala and SPO1 Edilberto Nicanor went
complied with because he secured the services of a counsel inside the room and that was the time Atty. Sansano
during the interrogation of then suspect Joel de Jesus when his announced that Joel was ready for the taking of his statement.
[31]
sworn statement was taken on June 20, 1996. He had
informed the said suspect of his right to counsel in the
presence of CID personnel and when he brought him to the SPO2 Garcia, Jr. further testified that he took down
office of Atty. Confesor R. Sansano of the Integrated Bar of the the statement of Joel using a typewriter in the office of Atty.
Philippines (IBP) located at the second floor of the Hall of Sansano. He brought said typewriter near the table of Atty.
Justice, Quezon City Hall. Asked why it occurred to him to Sansano and a chair to sit on beside Joel. Joel was seated
bring the suspect to the IBP, the witness replied that he infront of the desk where Atty. Sansano was sitting. After
believed IBP was a private, not a government, institution. He completing the taking down of the statement, he gave it to
also asked Joel -- who was allowed to make a telephone call, Joel and asked the latter to read it. Joel read the typewritten
although he was not aware if Joel made any such call -- statement and when he finished reading, he gave the same to
whether he had his own lawyer. He recalled asking Joel if he Atty. Sansano. Atty. Sansano read all the contents of the
was willing to go with them to the City Hall, because he had document and asked Joel if he understood it, to which he
asked to secure the services of counsel. There had been answered Yes, sir. Atty. Sansano then asked Joel if he was
instances when the IBP lawyers assisted some suspects willing to sign the statement, to which the latter again replied
brought by the CPDC. The CPDC provided the typewriter and in the affirmative. Joel signed the statement in his presence
papers to be used and in this case, Atty. Sansano and also that of Atty. Sansano, who likewise signed it in his
accommodated them in using the facilities of the IBP Chapter presence. SPO2 Garcia, Jr. also identified his own signature
office. Joel executed his statement, with SPO2 Jose L. Garcia, and that of SPO1 Nicanor who signed the statement in his
Jr. propounding the questions. They started taking his presence. From the office of Atty. Sansano, they proceeded to
statement at 1:10 p.m. of June 20, 1996 at Room 235, IBP the fourth floor in the office of Prosecutor Ramon Gerona
Office, Quezon City Hall of Justice in the presence of before whom Joel subscribed his statement. After reading the
Atty. Sansano and a number of people inside said office. [28] He statement, Fiscal Gerona explained to Joel in Tagalog the
was apprised for the first time about a suspect (Joel) who was consequences of the statement he executed. Joel was calm
just apprehended when he called their office upon arriving and said he was only a lookout in the crime. Earlier, before
home on the night of June 19, 1996. The information was propounding questions to Joel at the office of Atty. Sansano,
given to him by the desk sergeant and thereupon he gave the latter addressed Joel in Tagalog: Joel naiintindihan mo na
instruction to contact the witness and include that suspect in ang mga itinatanong sa iyo ng mga pulis? Ito ba sarili mo o
a line-up. He then informed their Chief regarding this boluntaryo ba tong statement mo na ito hindi ka ba nila
development. When he asked for the whereabouts of this tinakot, sinaktan o anupaman? While Joel was answering his
suspect, he was given the reply that the suspect was still with questions, Atty. Sansano halted him from typing the answer
their squad conducting follow-up operations.[29] given by Joel to ask the latter if he could understand the
question propounded to him.The witness was also asked to
P/Insp. Castillo recounted that he reported to the identify Joel de Jesus inside the courtroom.[32]
office at 8:00 oclock in the morning of June 20, 1996 and Joel
was actually presented to him by Lt. Rodolfo at 10:00 oclock On cross-examination, SPO2 Garcia, Jr. affirmed that
that same morning, in the presence of CID men. He told Joel before the taking down of the statement, he had explained to
he was being implicated in the case, to which Joel replied Sir, Joel the consequences of his being a state witness, in
lookout lang naman ako, sir. This initial questioning of Joel accordance with the instruction of P/Insp. Castillo. He
took place at the investigation room of the CID, where there specifically explained to Joel: Itong statement na ito ay
were other private complainants talking to investigators, and puwedeng gamitin laban o panig sa yo sa alinmang hukuman
there were a number of policemen around who were not in dito sa Pilipinas. Ikaw ba ay nakahandang tumestigo sa mga
uniform. He advised Joel that he was free to use the sasabihin ng tao dito sa statement mo na ito na magiging
telephone, and although Joel had no relatives present at that laban sa kanila. Joel told him, Yes, sir. P/Insp. Castillo had told
time, he warned Joel that his case was serious and he must him that Joel was to turn state witness before the latter was
seek the services of counsel. He first thought of the legal brought to the IBP Office. When P/Insp. Castillo had returned
assistance provided by the City Attorney, then that by the to the lobby of the Hall of Justice, he told them that the only
Public Attorneys Office (PAO), and lastly by the IBP. Between person present who would act as Joels counsel would be
12:30 and 1:00 p.m., he and his men, together with Joel in a located at the IBP Office, and Joel would be brought there. It
separate vehicle, left the CID to go to the Quezon City was his first time to meet Atty. Sansano. As to whether Joel
Hall. They scouted for a lawyer and inquired from the IBP was also assisted by Atty. Rous when he was investigated on
chapter office. They found Atty. Florimond Rous and the lady June 21, 1996, the witness said he did not know. [33] Regarding
counsel at a hearing in a courtroom. Atty. Rous advised them the portion of the statement dated June 20, 1996 wherein he
to wait for Atty. Sansano, who apparently was the head of the asked Joel about a pending case against him, which Joel
IBP chapter office. He was moving in and out of the office identified as a rape case, he denied having knowledge of any
while the statement of Joel was being taken in the presence of such pending case before the taking of the statement. He also
Atty. Sansano. Before that, Atty. Sansano talked to Joel alone, did not ask Joel if he already had a counsel, or if Joel already
after which they were called in again for the taking of the knew Atty. Sansano. Another lawyer, Atty. Rous, was actually
statement at 2:00 p.m. They left City Hall at past 4:00 or 5:00 present when he was taking Joels statement at the office of
that afternoon.[30] Atty. Sansano, who was also present throughout the time he
was taking down the statement of Joel. He did not hear Joel
SPO2 Garcia, Jr. testified that he was a member of mention the name of another lawyer to Atty. Sansano,
the CID-CPDC at Camp Karingal. On June 20, 1996 when he specifically that of Atty. David as suggested by defense
reported for duty, he was assigned by P/Insp. Castillo to take counsel.[34]
down the statement of Joel de Jesus. While still inside the
office of P/Insp. Castillo, he asked Joel if his statement was SPO2 Tarala testified that as a member of the PNP
voluntary and what kind of statement he was going to Station in Kamuning, Quezon City, assigned at the CID, he
give. Joel answered that his statement was voluntary and he came to investigate accused Lorenzo delos Santos on June 21,
wanted to be included as state witness in the Abadilla 1996. On that day, after lunch, he was instructed by P/Insp.
case.Together with Joel, SPO2 Tarala and SPO1 Edilberto Castillo to proceed to the Public Assistance and Reaction
Nicanor, he took lunch at the back of their office before Against Crime (PARAC), Dallas Bldg. in Tomas Morato Avenue,
 35
because one (1) of the suspects in the Abadilla slaying was Atty. Rous began interviewing him. He asked Lorenzo if he was
apprehended by the PARAC follow-up team and was supposed willing to execute a confession, and Lorenzo answered he was
to give his statement. So he went there together with SPO1 willing to do so. He then asked Lorenzo if he was willing to
Primo Borito and PO3 Ramil Hatchero. Upon arriving at said have him as his counsel. Evidently, Lorenzo wanted him to be
office, he met P/Sr. Insp. Macanas, who called a person he his counsel during the custodial investigation for the taking of
introduced as Lorenzo delos Santos. Before taking down the his statement. Convinced that Lorenzo was giving his
statement of Lorenzo, he advised the latter of his rights under statement without any pressure or force, they started the
the law, warning that any statement he would make could be investigation proper. The police investigator who accompanied
used against him in any court of law, so that he had the right Lorenzo to their office was the one (1) who had propounded
not to answer any question which to his mind would questions in Tagalog and typed the answers given by Lorenzo
incriminate him. Lorenzo responded by saying that he wanted also in Tagalog. He was just within hearing distance and was
to give a statement and to be a state witness. When Lorenzo present during the entire time of the taking of Lorenzos
asked if he could use a telephone at the information table, he statement.Afterwards, he let Lorenzo read the typewritten
said yes. Lorenzo then called his office because he was a statement, and he asked Lorenzo if those were the questions
customs broker, and also called up a relative who was a given to him and the answers he had given, to which he
certain Col. Sala (Col. Milagros Sala), a Quezon City police replied in the affirmative. He further asked Lorenzo if he was
official. He told Lorenzo that he should have a lawyer of his willing to sign the statement without pressure, and Lorenzo
choice during the taking down of his statement. He prodded said he was willing to sign the same.He asked Lorenzo to sign
Lorenzo to call the lawyer, whom Lorenzo knew to be always his statement before the office of Prosecutor Ben dela
at the City Hall. They then proceeded to the Quezon City Hall Cruz. Prosecutor dela Cruz first read the statement and then
to look for that lawyer at the Office of the City asked Lorenzo if he was willing to sign the same, and he
Attorney. However, Lorenzo was not able to find said lawyer; answered in the affirmative. Lorenzo signed the statement in
he asked somebody (a woman) who referred them to the Hall their presence; he and Prosecutor dela Cruz also signed it.[41]
of Justice.After failing to find the person Lorenzo was looking
for to be his counsel, an old man, a vendor suggested to them Atty. Rous further testified on cross-examination, that
to go upstairs at the IBP Office. The lady secretary of the IBP after the police investigator and Lorenzo had left, a few
chapter office introduced them to Atty. Florimond Rous, who minutes later, some other investigators arrived at their office,
then asked him and his companions to step out of the room so bringing along Joel de Jesus. This Joel de Jesus had given a
Atty. Rous could talk to Lorenzo. Atty. Rous and Lorenzo talked statement the previous day, June 20, 1996, and he was told
for ten (10) to fifteen (15) minutes, after which they were that Joel would be giving this time a supplemental
called again to enter the office. His two (2) companions were statement. The investigators apprised Joel of his constitutional
left outside and he was told by Atty. Rous that he had already rights before the taking down of his statement. He was not
apprised Lorenzo of his rights, but Lorenzo still wanted to give sure if Lorenzo and the police investigator had actually left
a statement.[35] already, and he could not remember exactly what transpired
at this point. The defense counsel noted the absence of the
Upon the instruction of Atty. Rous, he took down the word competent to qualify the word counsel in the preliminary
statement of Lorenzo, the three (3) of them in one (1) corner portion of Lorenzos statement. Atty. Rous described the
of the room while over at the receiving area there were the answers given by Lorenzo as spontaneous, and he did not
secretary and a lady lawyer. The statement of Lorenzo was in recall any hesitancy on the part of the latter. He maintained
Tagalog, typewritten in question-and-answer form. Each time that he found no contusions or abrasions on Lorenzos body.[42]
after he had asked a question, Atty. Rous would in turn ask
Lorenzo if he wanted to answer it, and Lorenzo would answer P/Sr. Insp. Macanas testified that he was then
yes. He was at the typewriter, and the two (2) (Atty. Rous and assigned at the PARAC as its operations officer. They were
Lorenzo) were infront of him, seated across each other. The closely coordinating with and sharing evidence for case build-
taking of the statement started at about 3:10 in the afternoon up operations with the CPDC in the investigation of the killing
and was finished in more than one (1) hour. He asked Lorenzo of Abadilla. On June 19, 1996, at around 3:00 oclock in the
to read first his statement, and then Atty. Rous read it afternoon, they were directed to proceed to the CPDC
also. Next, they went up to the office of Fiscal Refuerzo, but headquarters in view of an information that a certain suspect
was referred by the secretary to the inquest fiscal on duty, alias Tabong was already located while repairing his tricycle
Fiscal Ben dela Cruz. At his office, Fiscal dela Cruz asked somewhere in Fairview, during which he was identified by an
Lorenzo to stand infront of him and asked if the statement eyewitness, security guard Alejo who went there with CPDC
was voluntarily given by him, if what was contained therein operatives. At the time this radio message was received, they
was true, and if he was ready to swear before him. Lorenzo were within the vicinity of Fairview, and the CPDC gave the
answered yes, and the subscribing of his statement before signal for them to accost said suspect. He was present when
Fiscal dela Cruz was also witnessed by Atty. Rous. [36] Lorenzo Tabong, who was later identified as Joel de Jesus, was arrested
had earlier told him and his companions at the PARAC office by the joint elements of the CPDC and PARAC. Joel was turned
that his participation in the ambush-slay of Abadilla was that over to the CID-CPDC at about past 4:00 p.m. Subsequently,
of a lookout, and that he was only forced to join the group their superior, P/Sr. Supt. Bartolome Baluyot, informed them
because of the threat to his family.[37] of revelations given by Joel, for which they were called in
again for joint follow-up operations. They brought Joel to
SPO2 Tarala admitted that the first time he went to Fairview along Ruby St. where Joels supposed companions,
the IBP Office at the Hall of Justice was on June 20, 1996 when namely: one alias Ram, Lorenzo delos Santos, Ogie and one
SPO2 Garcia, Jr. took the statement of Joel de Jesus. Since only (1) alias Cesar, could be found. Joel first pointed to the house
SPO2 Garcia, Jr. and Joel stayed inside the room, he and his of Ram (Rameses de Jesus), but they did not find him there;
companion just walked around.[38] instead they found a man named Cesar Fortuna, whom Joel
pointed to infront of said house. They immediately
Atty. Rous testified that he was one (1) of the free apprehended Fortuna and identified themselves. He informed
legal aid counsels of the Free Legal Aid Committee of the IBP- Fortuna that he was being implicated by Joel in the killing of
Quezon City Chapter. One (1) of their primary duties was to Col. Abadilla. Fortuna introduced himself as a policeman
assist indigents in their cases, and aside from this, they were assigned with the Traffic Management Command (TMC). As a
also tasked to assist the various suspects during custodial standard procedure, they informed Fortuna of his
investigations in the various investigations of different constitutional rights and then brought him to the CPDC for
agencies, such as the CIS and PNP. He recalled handling at investigation. At the time, Fortuna had a gun (caliber .38)
least ten (10) to fifteen (15) of such custodial tucked in his waist, which they confiscated. [43]
investigations. On June 21, 1996, he assisted a person by the
name of Lorenzo delos Santos accompanied by a police P/Sr. Insp. Macanas further testified that in the
investigator (whose name he could no longer remember) from course of their follow-up operations, with information being
the Central Police District, who told him that the said suspect provided by Joel, they were also able to arrest another suspect
was willing to make a confession and asked if he could assist alias Larry, whom they met at a dark alley. Upon being
him during his custodial investigation. He identified Lorenzo pointed to by Joel, they apprehended Larry who was later
inside the courtroom.[39] The police investigator had informed identified as Lorenzo delos Santos, frisked him and found in
him of the charge against Lorenzo, which was the killing of his possession a cal .38 Smith and Wesson, for which he could
Abadilla.[40] not present any license or document. They brought Lorenzo to
the CID-CPDC. He identified both Lorenzo and Fortuna inside
Before the start of the investigation of Lorenzo, Atty. the courtroom.[44] On cross-examination, the witness admitted
Rous related that he asked the policeman to leave him and they had no warrant of arrest when they went to Fairview to
Lorenzo. When the investigators were gone, he asked Lorenzo locate the suspects, as it was a hot person case ordered by
to remove his shirt so he could see if there were any tell-tale their superior and requiring the immediate arrest of suspects
marks of any harm or specific mark upon him. Having satisfied identified by witnesses like, in this case, Joel. Joel had
himself that there were no such mark on the suspects body, admitted to the CID-CPDC investigators his participation in the
 36
Abadilla killing. After accosting Joel at Camaro St., whom they the victim was dropped. The second man who pointed a gun
identified through a photograph, and before taking him to the at him shouted Dapa! and thereupon his companions (the
CID-CPDC, he informed Joel that he was identified as one (1) ones at the right rear side, left rear side, and front right side)
of the suspects in the killing of Col. Abadilla; that he had a faced him for less than a minute. Because at that precise
right to remain silent; that anything he will say could be used moment the gun was not yet poked at him, he was able to
against him; he had the right to counsel of his own choice, recognize their faces. When finally the gun was pointed at
and if he could not afford one, the government would provide him, he became nervous and bowed down his head inside the
him. As to Lorenzo, he was arrested past midnight of June 20, guard house. The color of the clutch bag taken from the victim
1996; they had brought Joel along while moving to locate was black. He could see the inside of the car from his guard
Lorenzo.[45] He was just at the back of those operatives who post because the cars glass window was not tinted and,
actually arrested Lorenzo.[46] besides, his position was elevated or higher than the height of
the car.[58] He confirmed the contents of his Sinumpaang
The principal witness for the prosecution Salaysay (Exhibit L) before policeman Edilberto Nicanor on
was Freddie Alejo, who testified that as a security guard June 13, 1996 taken at the CID-PNP, Camp Karingal at 1:55
employed by Provider Security Agency, he was then assigned p.m. or barely four (4) hours after the shooting incident.[59]
at 211 Katipunan Avenue, Blue Ridge, Quezon City. On June
13, 1996, he reported for duty at 7:00 oclock in the Alejo further testified on cross-examination that on
morning. By 7:30 a.m., he noticed two (2) men walking back June 19, 1996 at around 2:00 oclock in the afternoon, he was
and forth infront of his post. He was shown by the prosecutor fetched by four (4) policemen at his agency in Monumento
some photographs taken of the parking area he was then and they told him they were going to Fairview. Before this, in
guarding, his guard post beside the building and the street the afternoon of June 18, 1996, they showed him a picture of
infront of said building (Exhibits G, H, I and J[47]). a man wearing eyeglasses, but he told them he would not
point a man in photographs, but would like to see the man in
Alejo recounted that there was a man riding in a person. That was the second time he saw Joel de Jesus since
black car who was shot by four (4) persons infront of the the shooting incident on June 13, 1996. He executed a
building he was guarding. The car was in the middle lane of supplemental statement on June 21, 1996 when he identified
the road, and the cars specific location was found in one (1) of said suspect in a police line-up.[60]
the photographs (Exhibit H-4[48]). One (1) of the two (2)
persons he earlier saw walking back and forth in front of him On September 26, 1996, the trial court conducted an
pointed a gun at him (the position of said man was marked as ocular inspection of the place where the shooting incident
Exhibit H-5[49]). That man was holding a short gun and he told took place, in the presence of the prosecutors, defense
Alejo to come down (Baba!), but he did not budge. He then counsel, Alejo and Maj. Villena. Alejo was asked to
saw one (1) of the assailants (No. 1 in Exhibit H [50]), the one demonstrate his exact location, the relative positions of the
(1) standing on the left side of the car (left front door), grab assailants and the victims car, and the entire incident he had
the victim by the neck, get the clutch bag of the victim inside witnessed in the morning of June 13, 1996. The Presiding
the car, pull said victim out of the car, and drop him on the Judge who took the same position of Alejo in the guardhouse
road. He then heard another shot coming from said attacker made the following observations:
(No. 1). Another man (No. 5 in Exhibit H [51])
shouted: Dapawalang makikialam! and the rest of the four (4) COURT: From this position, the
men (marked as Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in Exhibit H [52]) faced him Presiding Judge can see
(witness Alejo). Next, the companion of No. 5, who was earlier the car very clearly even if
walking back and forth infront of him (marked as No. 6 in the car would be moved
Exhibit H[53]), pointed a gun at him. This time, he did come back by another segment
down, lowering his body and bowing his head inside the of the cement or even if it
guardhouse. The witness identified the suspects inside the is forwarded by another
courtroom as the persons he saw and marked as No. 5 (Joel segment also, as segment
de Jesus) the first one who pointed a gun at him can accommodate one car
shouting Baba ka!; No. 1 who grabbed the victim, got his of the likes of Honda
clutch bag and pulled him out of the car (Lenido Accord and the Court
Lumanog); No. 2 (Rameses de Jesus); No. 6 the second observes that from the
person who pointed a gun at him (Lorenzo delos Santos); guard post the faces of
No. 4 (Augusto Santos) and No. 3 who was positioned at the the persons beside the car
right front door of the victims car (Cesar Fortuna). Nos. 1 are very clear.
and 3 (Lumanog and Fortuna) were the ones who shot the
victim with short firearms, while No. 2 (Rameses) was just xxx
standing and facing the victim with a gun in his hand, and No.
4 (Augusto) was also just standing facing the driver and COURT: The Court observed that from where
holding a short gun. It was probably less than a minute when the witness Alejo was he can still
the gunfire stopped, and he stood up at his guard post. The see the whole car as it has been
assailants were no longer in sight and he saw the cars window moved back per the directive of
shattered. He identified the victims black car as shown in Major Villena.
photographs (Exhibits A-1 to A-4[54]).[55]
xxx
Alejo further testified that he was one (1) of those
asked by the policemen who arrived regarding the incident. COURT:
He was told to go to Station 8, which was just near the
place. At Station 8, another security guard of an adjacent The Court adds that from the position of the
building was also being investigated. Thereafter, the police witness, Freddie Alejo, the Court
officers brought him to Camp Karingal, along with the other can still see faces behind the car
security guard.[56] which can accommodate another
car.
On cross-examination, Alejo described his guard post
as elevated; and two (2) arms length on the left and right xxx
side, there was an alley just beside the guard post which was
at the corner.[57] The victims car was infront of the building he COURT: The front right window has been
was guarding, at a slightly slanted direction from it (Lihis po rolled down and also the back right
ng konti). His view was toward the direction of the front door window of the car have been rolled
of the car (rear end). From where he was at the time, the car down with the left front door
was at a distance of more or less ten (10) meters. The first opened, the Court can observed
time one (1) of the suspects pointed a gun at him, he was not the two (2) front seats particularly
scared. He saw four (4) men standing around the victims car, the upper portion, meaning the
two (2) on the left side, and two (2) on the right side. He saw head rest and the back rest, half of
only two (2) of them (the ones at the front left and right sides the back rest, all the head rest can
of the car) shooting at the car; they were carrying short be seen.
firearms. One (1) of these two (2) got the clutch bag (at the
left front side of the car), grabbed the victim by the neck and
xxx
shot him once before dropping him down the road. Even if he
could not see the gun when that assailant pulled the victim
INTERPRETER: (measuring the distance from
from the car, he knew that the victim was shot again, because
the guardhouse to the black car).
he saw a gun smoke just beside the left side of the car where
The measurement from the foot of
 37
the guardpost up to the right front police officers and denial of constitutional rights during
door of the black car is fifteen (15) custodial investigation.
meters.
P/Insp. Reynaldo D. de Guzman, firearms
xxx examiner and Chief of the Firearms Division of the PNP Crime
Laboratory, testified that he conducted an examination of the
INTERPRETER: (Measuring the distance slug recovered from the body of Col. Abadilla, as per request
between the bodega to the black of the CPDC for cross-matching with a bullet also recovered
car) The measurement from the from the body of another shooting victim, Suseso de
front portion of the bodega Dios, i.e., whether or not they were fired from one (1) and the
(papaya) to the side of the black same firearm.[66] The result of their microscopic examination
car is 11.8 meters. was that the aforesaid bullets were fired from the same
firearm.[67]
xxx
Dr. Jesse Rey Cruel, medico-legal officer of the
INTERPRETER: The measurementthe CHR, testified that he examined accused Cesar
distance from where suspect No. 6 Fortuna, Rameses de Jesus, Lenido Lumanog on June 25,
was standing to the guard house 1996 and Lorenzo delos Santos on July 3, 1996. His findings
when measured is 7.34 meters, showed that their bodies bore the following injuries: (1)
your Honor. Fortuna - abrasions on forearm, elbow and knee; contusions
on chest area; and incised wounds on the waist and
xxx legs[68]; (2) Rameses - contusions on chest, abdomen, knee
and thigh areas[69]; (3) Lumanog - contusions on abdomen and
INTERPRETER: The distance from where lumbar region, and a horizontal lacerated wound on the
suspect No. 5 was standing up to forehead[70]; and (4) Lorenzo - abrasions on the arms,
the guard house is 5.17 meters. contusions in thigh and knee, petechia marks (minute
hemorrhages) between chest/abdomen and the penis,
xxx discoloration on right arm, and new scars on left arm, right
foot and second toe.[71] All said wounds required not more
COURT: After the demonstration while than nine (9) days of medical attendance. The defense also
witness Alejo was demonstrating presented pictures taken at the time of the examination.
[72]
how [suspect No. 2] got the clutch On cross-examination, Dr. Cruel opined that it was possible
bag and how [suspect No. the injuries could have been self-inflicted and pointed out that
2] grabbed the neck of the driver of the injury on the forehead of Lumanog was not complained of.
[73]
the black car, the Judge was at the
guard post and saw for himself that
[Alejo] clearly saw the taking of the Remedios Dedicatoria, a fingerprint examiner at
clutch bag even if the untinted the PNP Crime Laboratory testified on the results stated in a
windows were closed and the Dactyloscopy Report No. F-086-96 comparison of the latent
pulling of the driver of the black prints lifted from the Honda Accord with Plate No. RNA-777,
car.[61] Kia Pride PTZ-401 and Mitsubishi Lancer car with the standard
fingerprints of the accused. The only match was found in the
P/Insp. Castillo, on re-direct examination testified specimen fingerprint of Rameses de Jesus with respect to the
that Atty. Sansano actively assisted Joel de Jesus during the fragmentary prints lifted from the Mitsubishi Lancer car. None
time the latters Sinumpaang Salaysay was being taken by of the fingerprints of the accused is identical with the latent
SPO2 Garcia, Jr. There were questions propounded to Joel prints lifted from the Honda Accord and Kia Pride. [74] On cross-
which Atty. Sansano had told Joel not to answer, and advice examination, the witness stated that if a person had touched
was given by said counsel.They left Quezon City Hall at about the car and rubbed it, there would be no fingerprint that could
5:00 oclock in the afternoon and returned to the CPDC be lifted therefrom. She also admitted that no latent print was
headquarters. He maintained that all the accused were taken from inside the Honda Accord nor was there any
brought before the City Prosecutor for inquest proceedings fingerprint taken of the late Rolando Abadilla (only two [2]
prior to the filing of the information in court.[62] fingerprints were taken from his car). When asked if a person
opened the car holding only the back portion of the handle,
the witness answered that there would likewise be no
Susan Samonte-Abadilla testified that their family
fingerprint on the outside of the car.[75]
incurred expenses for the burial of her husband, repair of the
Honda Accord and loss of the .45 cal gold cup pistol and
Omega watch during the shooting of her husband. She further Joel de Jesus testified that on June 19, 1996, at
testified that she was very shocked and saddened by the around 3:00 oclock in the afternoon, he was at their street
tragic death of her husband. Because she led a practically corner fixing his tricycle and was with Arturo Napolitano and
sheltered life, it was difficult for her, as it was the older Felicisimo Herrera. A van stopped and six (6) armed men
children who were now taking care of their businesses, which alighted from it, among whom he recognized Antonio Rodolfo,
were attended to by her husband when he was still Pio Tarala and Dario Aasco (whom he came to know when they
alive. Three (3) of her eight (8) children were still studying charged him with rape on January 17, 1994, from which
(Ana, 14; Nico, 13; and BJ, 10), and one had just graduated charge he was acquitted on June 19, 1996). He even greeted
last March 1997.[63] said cops, but they forced him into the van, and handcuffed
and blindfolded the three (3) of them. They were brought to a
certain house where they were boxed, kicked and slammed on
Merlito Herbas, in his Karagdagang Salaysay dated
the wall. When his blindfold was removed, the police officers
June 21, 1996, identified Joel de Jesus in a police line-up at the
were forcing him to admit that he killed Abadilla. Capt.
CID-CPDC, Camp Karingal, as one (1) of those men who shot
Rodolfo was also there and he later identified the rest of those
the victim on June 13, 1996. [64] However, not having been
who picked him up as Romulo Sales, Lt. Castillo, Bartolome
presented by the prosecution as witness, he testified for the
Baluyot, Major Reyes and Catalua. After he denied having
defense declaring that none of those whom he saw during the
anything to do with the killing, PO2 Tarala tried to suffocate
shooting incident was present inside the courtroom. He
him with a plastic bag. He could not breathe and lost
produced a list of amounts he had received from Mayor
consciousness. Recounting his ordeal in tears, the witness
Abadilla, totaling P30,000.00 in support of his claim that
said that for one (1) hour his captors repeatedly inserted a
Mayor Abadilla did not fulfill his promise to give him exactly
plastic bag and boxed him. A younger looking man then
the same salary he was receiving as security guard
slapped him saying that they had ambushed his father. While
(P6,000.00 monthly only instead of the P8,000.00 he used to
detained, he was only given water to drink and not allowed to
receive as monthly pay), although he admitted having stayed
contact his relatives. He was asked to sign by Lt. Castillo a
for free inside the Abadilla compound from July 11, 1996 up to
seven (7)-page document, torturing him if he refused to do so.
November 26, 1996. He was later told that he would no longer
There were already other signatures on the edge and every
be presented as witness because the testimony of Alejo would
page of said document (Sinumpaang Salaysaydated June 20,
be sufficient.[65]
1996). He denied the contents of this statement but admitted
that he was brought to the IBP Office, Quezon City Hall. After
Defense Evidence
signing, he heard Lt. Castillo call somebody saying, Parating
na kami dyan. He was then made to board a vehicle and was
All the accused raised the defense of alibi, taken to the Quezon City Hall where a man wearing barong
highlighted the negative findings of ballistic and fingerprint tagalog was waiting, asking if he was Joel de Jesus. When Lt.
examinations, and further alleged torture in the hands of Castillo answered in the affirmative, the man just signed the
 38
document. He denied having met Atty. Confesor Sansano, nor sketch and said it was not the place where Col. Abadilla was
was he told of his right to the assistance of counsel; he even ambushed. He was blamed for that fiasco even as he said it
told them the name of his lawyer at that time, but they just was they who prepared the sketch. After an hour, they
said, Mas marunong ka pa sa amin.[76] returned to Palmera Subdivision, Novaliches and this was
already between 2:00 and 3:00 p.m. After rounding the area,
Testifying on cross-examination, Joel insisted that on he found the house, but Rameses was not there. He was made
June 13, 1996, he went home at around 10:00 oclock in the to sit the whole night in the kitchen.[81]
evening. He started plying his route at 6:00 oclock in the
morning; he was hired (inarkila) by a passenger who asked Fortuna continued to narrate that on June 21, 1996,
him to bring her to an albularyo in Roosevelt Avenue, he was made to lie down on a bench covered with a GI sheet
Novaliches. He admitted this was the first time he mentioned and was asked where the firearm of Col. Abadilla was. When
this, as it was not mentioned in his Affidavits [77] which were he answered that he really did not know about it, they
prepared by the police. Atty. Lupino Lazaro assisted him in electrocuted him and poured cold water on his body. He told
filing charges against the police officers and Atty. Hector them that if they needed a gun, he had a gun in Sampaloc, a .
Corpuz before the Department of Justice (DOJ). He admitted 45 cal licensed firearm. Thereupon, they asked him to go to
that he did not say anything about the illegality of his arrest that place where Dante Montevirgen was the gunsmith. Only
and the torture he suffered prior to his arraignment. [78] On re- the policemen alighted from the vehicle and talked to
direct examination, he denied having executed Montevirgen. He saw that Montevirgen gave them two (2)
the Karagdagang Salaysaydated June 21, 1996 before the IBP firearms, after which they went back to the PARAC office. On
lawyer, because at this time he was still detained in a his licensed firearm, he just brought this for repair on May 10,
safehouse where he remained until June 25, 1996. He was just 1996, saying ayaw mag-automatic, while the other gun
forced to sign said document; after signing it, he heard Lt. belonged to Capt. Regis, and these were covered by
Castillo say to one (1) Fiscal Soler, Fiscal, salamat. Thereafter, receipts. Next, they asked him about the Rolex watch of Col.
he and the other accused were presented in a press Abadilla. When he denied having any knowledge about it, he
conference as suspects in the Abadilla slaying inside Camp was again electrocuted. He had filed a complaint before the
Crame. During this time, he pointed to Lorenzo delos Santos CHR for the injuries inflicted on him and the violation of his
and Augusto Santos, because they were his enemies at their rights. Aside from this case and the charge of illegal
place. He only pointed to them out of fear that he might be possession of firearms, he was also charged with an
salvaged by the police and because of the torture. He really administrative case and a criminal complaint for carnapping
did not know Abadilla nor was he at any time within the (of the KIA Pride). The carnapping complaint was dismissed by
vicinity of Katipunan Avenue on June 13, 1996. He knew Assistant Prosecutor Amolin on September 23, 1996. The
Rameses de Jesus, being his longtime neighbor, and also Decision issued by P/Sr. Supt. Rodolfo N. Caisip of the PNP
Lumanog who ran for councilor in their place. All he knows Headquarters Traffic Management Group also dismissed
was that his co-accused were picked up from their place, and Administrative Case No. 96-09-03. He insisted that on the
he saw them only during the press conference. He affirmed morning of June 13, 1996, he was at Camp Crame following up
the contents of the Sinumpaang Salaysay he executed before the reassignment papers of his colleagues, showing the letter-
Police Major (Pol. Maj.) Escote with the assistance of Atty. order issued by Col. Sacramento. He saw PO3 Ramon
Lazaro.[79] Manzano at the Office of the Directorate for Personnel at
about 9:00 oclock in the morning. He left said office as soon
Joel admitted that he was the one (1) who pointed as he got the folder, signed their logbook, gave it to SPO4
out Cesar Fortuna and Rameses de Jesus to the PARAC Mercado of the Office of PNP Personnel Highway Patrol. Then
investigators. He confirmed that he was known as Tabong in he went home to eat before proceeding to the Metro Traffic
their locality. He also filed a complaint before the CHR against Force, Central District at the office of Col. Juanito de Guzman
the same police officers.[80] at Roces St., Quezon City, at around 2:00 oclock in the
afternoon, for the renewal of the license of Col. Sacramentos
Cesar Fortuna testified that he was a member of driver.[82] He also filed with the CHR an administrative
the PNP assigned at Cagayan de Oro City. He came to Manila complaint against those police officers who had illegally
on June 7, 1996, as he was ordered by his superior, Col. arrested, detained and tortured him.
Roberto Sacramento, to attend to the documents required for
reassignment of some of their companions (as evidenced by a Fortuna further testified that PARAC operatives
used Super Ferry ticket and an unused return ticket for June seized his Kawasaki motorcycle which he had left inside Camp
20, 1996). On June 11, 1996, he went to the PNP Directorate Crame because it had no fender. However, the certificate of
for Personnel at the office of Insp. Oscar Alcala. However, on registration was lost since it had been in custody of the police;
the night of June 19, 1996, he was arrested by PARAC the Land Transportation Office (LTO) registration paper was
operatives while he was at the house of an acquaintance, locked inside, and he forgot what its plate number was. He
Rameses de Jesus, in Ruby St., Fairview. He had brought for admitted that he was able to use said motorcycle in June 1996
repair a Ford Maverick Model 69 registered in the name of Col. even with the missing fender. He left the motorcycle at Gate
Sacramento. At 11:00 oclock in the evening, his mechanic 2, Camp Crame before leaving for Cagayan de Oro City; as to
road-tested the car, but since he was left alone, he decided to his car, he left it at Pier 2. He admitted that he was the same
go to the house of Rameses which was near the shop. Several person charged with kidnapping and serious illegal detention
armed policemen arrived and entered the house of with ransom in Criminal Case No. 96-312, which was filed on
Rameses. Not finding Rameses there, they asked him instead July 15, 1996 in Mabalacat, Pampanga against him, Lumanog
to go along with them. He was made to board an owner-type and Rameses by a certain Dr. Jesusa dela Cruz. Said case was
jeep and immediately blindfolded. After one (1) hour, they transferred to the Quezon City RTC in the same sala of the
arrived at a place which he was told was the office of presiding judge in this case. The filing of this case destroyed
PARAC. Somebody approached him and he felt a lighters his reputation as a police officer and affected his children, who
flame touch his chin. He then identified himself as a stopped going to school. He admitted though that he had
policeman, but was only told: Walang pulis pulis dito. They once been dishonorably discharged from the service as a
kept on asking him where Rameses could be found. Still result of an extortion case filed against him. He had appealed
blindfolded, he led them to Palmera Subdivision where he his case and he was reinstated on August 20, 1983. A
knew Rameses had another house. Upon reaching Palmera, memorandum dated June 25, 1996 was issued by Col.
his blindfold was removed, but he was unable to locate the Sacramento to attest to his moral character and loyalty to the
house until they went home at 5:00 p.m. In the morning of service.[83] He admitted that he never raised the issue of the
June 20, 1996, the policemen told him that he was just legality of his arrest or the torture he suffered while in
confusing them (nililito), but he explained that he had been to detention, during his arraignment. When confronted with his
that house only once. The driver of the Honda Civic was sworn statement submitted to the CHR, he admitted that he
already angry at him and inserted a .45 cal pistol in his did not mention therein the pouring of cold water on his body,
mouth. They went back to the PARAC office, and he was that he was asked to make a sketch of Katipunan Avenue, that
interrogated about the Abadilla killing. He was informed that a .45 cal pistol was inserted into his mouth and that there was
he was being implicated as somebody had pointed at no firearm confiscated from him at the time of his
him. When he still denied having any knowledge about the arrest. When he was apprehended on the night of June 19,
ambush-slay, he was repeatedly suffocated with a plastic bag 1996 at the house of Rameses at Ruby St., he was half-naked
placed on his head while he was handcuffed and standing outside at the balcony. He saw someones hand, but
blindfolded. After one (1) hour and due to hardship he not the whole body of that person to whom he was shown that
suffered, he just told them he would admit whatever it was night, and he just heard from the policemen he had been
they wanted him to admit. He said that he acted as a look- positively identified.[84]
out. They had him copy a prepared sketch and when his
blindfold was finally removed, someone introduced himself as Fortunas claim that he was at Camp Crame following
Col. Bartolome Baluyot who told him he just had to obey and up papers in the morning of June 13, 1996 was corroborated
he would not be hurt. Maj. George Reyes arrived, looked at the by Oscar Alcala (Chief Clerk of the Recruitment and Selection
 39
Division) and SPO2 Ramon Manzano (Office of the Directorate Salaysay dated July 3, 1996 which he executed at Camp
for Personnel and Recruitment). However, Alcala could not Crame, and also presented a copy of the birth certificate of
present the particular logbook containing the record of the the baby delivered by his sister at Fabella Hospital. [94]
documents and transaction with Fortuna, as it could not be
located, as it got lost after the office renovation in the early Jonas Padel Ayhon corroborated the foregoing
part of 1997. A xerox copy of the logbook entry was presented testimony of his brother-in-law, Augusto Ogie Santos, whose
in court (Exhibit 70).[85] However, said witness admitted he half-sister was his wife.[95]
was not the custodian of the said logbook, and he did not
have personal knowledge of the date and time of the entries Rameses de Jesus testified that on June 12, 1996 at
in Exhibit 70; it was also SPO2 Manzano who xeroxed the said 7:00 oclock in the evening, he and Lumanog left for
logbook entry.[86] Manzano confirmed that he personally saw Mabalacat, Pampanga on board the latters brand new
Fortuna in the morning of June 13, 1996, between 9:00 and Mitsubishi Lancer, together with Romeo Costibollo, Manny
9:30, when Fortuna retrieved the papers he earlier submitted dela Rosa and Boni Mandaro. They arrived in Mabalacat at
in May 1996.[87] about 10:00 oclock in the evening and after resting they
started digging infront of the church, inside the compound of
On further cross-examination, Fortuna admitted that the Tiglao family, Lumanogs in-laws. They dug until 4:00
he never told his lawyer (Atty. Ramonito M. Delfin) when they oclock in the morning of June 13, 1996. Thereafter, they slept
brought his complaint before the CHR that he had documents and woke up at around 10:00 oclock in the morning. They
to prove he was at Camp Crame in the morning of June 13, helped in the preparations for the celebration of the wedding
1996. He explained that the matter did not enter his mind anniversary of the Tiglaos. After eating lunch, they drank
because he had no food and no sleep for several days: At the liquor. They returned to Manila only on June 14, 1996 at 7:00
time my salaysay was taken from me, everything was still p.m.. On June 19, 1996, they went back to Pampanga and
fresh and there were so many things that I wanted to say but I returned to Manila on June 20, 1996. At around 10:00 p.m.,
was not able to say because masama pa ang aking they proceeded to Fairview, Quezon City to visit the sick child
pakiramdam. Neither did he mention it to Fiscal Refuerzo who of Romeo Costibollo who was then confined at Fairview
interviewed him after the press conference, as they did not Polymedic Hospital. After Costibollo and Lumanog alighted
ask him about it.[88] He had brought up such matter with his from their car and while he was parking infront of the hospital,
lawyer in another case not before the sala of the presiding several armed men came. Two (2) men approached him from
judge in this case.[89] behind and asked him if Costibollo and Lumanog were his
companions. When he replied yes, he was pushed inside the
Lorenzo delos Santos testified that on June 13, car; Costibollo and Lumanog were handcuffed. Without any
1996, he left his house at Fairview and boarded a bus bound warrant, they were apprehended, blindfolded and taken to a
for Quiapo. Upon reaching Quiapo, he heard mass in Quiapo place where he was tortured. They were forcing him to admit
Church until around 8:30 a.m. He arrived in their office at that he and his companions killed Kabise who was the ex-
Binondo on June 13, 1996 at 9:30 a.m. He remembered going governor of Ilocos Norte. Despite his denials they continued to
to the office of the Felipe Santos Brokerage in the same torture him by electrocution and suffocation with a plastic
building to check on the date of arrival of a certain bag. A policeman arrived with Fortuna, who was asked how
shipment. Thereafter, he went back to his office and stayed much Ram gave them, to which Fortuna
there until 2:30 p.m. He left his place of work about 4:30 in replied P10,000.00. He got mad at Fortuna and cursed him for
the afternoon and went to a client who invited him to drink at telling such a lie. After two (2) days, he was brought to Camp
the house of his brother somewhere in Quezon City. On June Karingal still blindfolded. He was again tortured for two (2)
19, 1996, at around 11:00 olock in the evening, several days, the policemen forcing him to admit he participated in
persons suddenly barged into his house while he and his wife the killing of Col. Abadilla. When he could no longer bear the
were sleeping. Sgt. Bela introduced himself, and he was torture, he finally admitted to Insp. Castillo that he took part
slapped and handcuffed and the house was searched. They in the Abadilla ambush-slay. When the one (1) interviewing
took his .38 cal revolver which was licensed. He was him asked how he did it, he just said that Fortuna came to his
blindfolded, made to board a car and taken to a safehouse house with an owner-type jeep and two (2) other persons, and
where he was tied and tortured (suffocation with plastic bag that they rode to Dau, Pampanga and headed to Tarlac, on
and electrocution). He was told that he was pointed to by Joel, their way to Ilocos to kill Abadilla. Insp. Castillo got angry,
but he explained to them that Joel was his opponent in a court saying that he was just fooling them and he was again hit. [96]
case (for grave threats, physical injuries and trespassing).
[90]
He also answered their questions regarding his co- Rameses continued to narrate that after two (2) or
accused. He told them that he used to see Rameses when he three (3) days stay at Camp Karingal, he and the other
brings his children to school and came to know Lumanog accused were presented at a press conference.During the
when he ran as city councilor, while he did not know Fortuna. inquest conducted by Fiscal Refuerzo, he saw Freddie Alejo for
After the interrogation, he was again subjected to torture and the first time, and also his co-accused Lumanog, Fortuna,
he felt weak; this lasted up to June 21, 1996. On June 21, Lorenzo, Joel and Augusto.As far as he knew, they had brought
1996, he was brought to a field (bukid) where he was forced the matter of the torture they suffered in the hands of
to sign a paper. He was then brought to the Quezon City Hall policemen to the DOJ.[97]
of Justice at the second floor and instructed that he should
just walk along. There were two (2) women inside aside from On cross-examination, Rameses was shown a
policemen, and he was elbowed by a policeman to sign a medical certificate issued by Dr. Servillano B. Ritualo III at the
document. He signed it out of fear, and the document was PNP General Hospital, Camp Crame, but he said he could no
handed by the policemen to a man who entered the room, longer remember the date he was examined by said
whom he later came to know as Atty. Florimond Rous. He was doctor. He confirmed that Fortuna was renting a room in his
brought to another floor at the Fiscals Office while he was still house together with his mistress Baby. When confronted with
limping. Somebody there asked why he was in that condition, his Sinumpaang Salaysay dated June 26, 1996 he executed
but one (1) of his police companions elbowed him so he just before the CHR, he admitted that there was no mention
said it was nothing. A man who was probably the Fiscal signed therein of their treasure-hunting trip to Pampanga on June 12
the document, and they left at around 5:00 in the afternoon. to 15, 1996. He said he was never asked about it. He likewise
[91]
Lorenzo admitted he had an owner-type jeep, which was admitted that he was included in the kidnapping charge filed
registered in his own name, but said jeep had been in Mabalacat, but asserted that it was trumped-up (Ipinatong
mortgaged to Danilo Lintag since May 27, 1996. [92] po sa akin yan ni Col. Baluyot).[98]

Lorenzo presented as witness Edith Lingan, an The Trial Courts Verdict

employee of Felipe M. Santos, who corroborated his alibi.[93]
On August 11, 1999, the trial court promulgated a
Augusto Santos testified that on June 13, 1996 at Joint Decision dated July 30, 1999, the dispositive portion of
around 7:00 oclock in the morning, he accompanied his which reads:
brother-in-law Jonas Ayhon whose wife, his sister, gave birth
on June 11, 1996 at the Jose Fabella Hospital at Sta. Cruz, ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby
Manila. He stayed there until 2:00 oclock in the afternoon. On rendered as follows:
June 26, 1996, five (5) men suddenly barged into their
house. He was hit in the neck with a .45 cal. pistol, blindfolded xxx
and brought outside where he was beaten. They had no
warrant of arrest but were forcing him to admit that Joel de V. In Criminal Case No. Q-96-66684,
Jesus gave him big money and that he knew what it was. He for Murder,:
told them that he did not know anything, and that Joel was his
enemy, as his Tito Lorenzo had a quarrel with Joel in which he 1. Accused Arturo Napolitano y
helped his Tito. He confirmed the contents of the Sinumpaang Caburnay is hereby ACQUITTED;
 40
2. Accused SPO2 Cesar Fortuna y could not have really been able to recognize the faces of the
Abudo, Rameses de Jesus y Calma, ambushers for three (3) reasons: (1) he was on the ground
Leonardo Lumanog y Luistro (a.k.a. Leonido when he turned his head (lumingon) towards where the
or Lenido), Joel de Jesus y Valdez, and gunshots were being fired and quite a lot of vehicles in traffic
Augusto Santos y Galang are hereby found stopped at the time; (2) the whole incident, as far as Herbas
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as co- observed, happened in seconds only; and (3) Herbas was
principals of the crime of MURDER as three (3) Meralco posts away from the ambush site. All these
defined and penalized in the Revised Penal factors combined, according to the trial court, could not have
Code for the death of ex-Col. Rolando given Herbas enough time and opportunity to clearly see
Abadilla y Nolasco with the aggravating those who ambushed Abadilla, and hence he was really a poor
circumstances of treachery (absorbing and inadequate witness either for the prosecution or the
abuse of superior strength) and evident defense.[100]
premeditation and they are hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH; Compared to Herbas, the trial court found the
eyewitness testimony of Alejo more credible due to his
3. Accused Lorenzo delos Santos y elevated position at his guard post and the fact that the
dela Cruz is hereby ACQUITTED. ambush had taken place before his very eyes, so near that
one (1) of the conspirators had to order him to lie flat (which
On the civil aspect, accused SPO2 obviously he could not do because of the narrow space inside
Cesar Fortuna y Abudo, Rameses de Jesus y his guard house), and which appeared to be the reason why a
Calma, Leonardo Lumanog y Luistron (a.k.a. second order came for him to get down from the guard house,
Leonido or Lenido), Joel de Jesus y Valdez to which he nervously complied. From his vantage point, Alejo
and Augusto Santos y Galang are hereby sufficiently and in a detailed manner recognized the relative
ordered jointly and solidarily to pay the heirs positions and participations of the ambushers, each of whom
of the deceased ex-Col. Rolando Abadilla y he had identified as Rameses, Fortuna, Lumanog, Augusto and
Nolasco the following: Joel, both in the police line-up and again inside the courtroom
during the trial.[101]
1. As actual damages, the sum of
P294,058.86; The trial court also found that the statements of Joel,
in which he admitted his participation in the crime assisted by
2. As indemnity damages, the sum Atty. Sansano and in the presence of the IBP personnel and
of P50,000.00; police investigators, were not flawed by intimidation or
violence when obtained and sworn to before the fiscal. The
3. As moral damages, the sum of common defense of alibi put up by all the accused was
P500,000.00; rejected by the trial court, holding that (1) the alleged
treasure-hunting trip made by Lumanog and Rameses was
4. As exemplary damages, the sum incredible and unpersuasive, as it was contrary to ordinary
of P500,000.00. human experience; (2) Fortunas claim was weak, the logbook
entry on his supposed transaction in the Office of the
The firearm, one (1) Smith & Directorate for Personnel and Recruitment at Camp Crame
Wesson .38 caliber revolver with Serial No. was a mere photocopy, and also, as in the case of Rameses,
980974, subject of Case No. Q-96-66680 is he never mentioned such digging activity in Pampanga in the
hereby ordered returned to Lorenzo delos sworn complaint he had filed before the CHR; (3)
Santos y dela Cruz. Augustos alibi was supported only by his brother-in-law, and it
was simply not usual for menfolk, instead of women, in our
The firearm, one (1) Amscor .38 family culture, to fetch a woman who had just given birth at
caliber revolver with Serial No. 21907, the hospital, aside from the observation that Augusto could
subject of Case No. Q-96-66683 is hereby have gone straight to Fabella Hospital in Sta. Cruz, Manila
ordered forwarded to the PNP Firearms and instead of going first to Buendia, Makati before 7:00 a.m. to
Explosives Division, Camp Crame, Quezon fetch his brother-in-law. With respect to Lumanog, the trial
City for safekeeping in accordance with law court pointed out that his silence and failure to testify in court,
and as said firearm belongs and is licensed despite the evidence implicating him in the murder of
to accused Leonardo Lumanog y Luistro Abadilla, justified an inference that he was not innocent.[102]
(a.k.a. Leonido or Lenido) who has been
sentenced in Case No. Q-96-66684 for On August 25, 1999, Lumanog filed a motion for
Murder, until further orders from this court. reconsideration.[103] On September 2, 1999, Joel filed a motion
for new trial based on newly discovered evidence to present
Costs against the accused. two witnesses, Merevic S. Torrefranca and Rosemarie P.
Caguioa, who offered to testify on the whereabouts of Joel on
the day of the incident.[104] Lumanog likewise filed a motion
Let the entire records of these
for new trial for the presentation of a new witness, who was
cases be transmitted forthwith to the
allegedly on board a taxi immediately behind Abadillas car,
Honorable Supreme Court for automatic
and who clearly saw that those who perpetrated the
review, in accordance with law and the
gruesome crime were not the accused.[105] In his Supplement
Rules of Court.
to the Motion for Reconsideration, Lumanog assailed the
inconsistencies in the declarations of Alejo, and the non-
SO ORDERED.[99]
presentation of eyewitnesses Minella Alarcon and Metro Aide
Aurora Urbano. In addition, Lumanog pointed to well-
The trial court was firmly convinced that the prosecution publicized statements of the Alex Boncayao Brigade (ABB),
succeeded in establishing the identities of accused Joel, which claimed responsibility for the killing of Abadilla, but the
Rameses, Lumanog, Fortuna and Augusto as the perpetrators investigation got sidetracked by another angle -- that a
in the fatal shooting of Abadilla in the morning of June 13, political rival of Abadilla paid money for a contract
1996. It found that both security guards Alejo and Herbas assassination. He contended that the police opted for the path
confirmed the presence of Joel de Jesus in the crime of least resistance by rounding up the usual suspects, indeed
scene. However, with respect to the positive identification of another glaring example of our law enforcers strategy of
all the five (5) accused, namely, Joel de Jesus, Rameses de instituting trumped-up charges against innocent people just to
Jesus, Cesar Fortuna, Lenido Lumanog and Augusto Santos, comply with their superiors directive to accelerate solving an
the trial court gave more credence to the testimony of Alejo ambush-slay case.[106] In additional pleadings filed by his new
than the declaration on the witness stand of Herbas who had counsel, Lumanog reiterated the ABBs assassination theory in
backtracked on his earlier statement dated June 21, 1996 the light of more recent press statements issued by said
wherein he pointed to Joel as one (1) of those participants in group describing the accused as mere fall guys of the police
the shooting incident. to project an image of efficiency.[107]
In doubting the credibility of Herbas, the trial court On January 25, 2000, the trial court issued an Order ruling on
stressed that Herbas was obviously disgruntled at the Abadilla the pending motions:
familys failure to give him the promised salary, and
circumstances showed that his need for job and money
WHEREFORE, premises considered,
colored his perception and attitude in testifying for the
the court resolves:
defense. Moreover, despite the impression he had given to
the police and the Abadilla family that he could identify the
four (4) persons who surrounded Col. Abadillas car, Herbas
 41
1. to DENY the Motion for introduce evidence on the alleged role of the ABB in the
Reconsideration by accused ambush-slay of Col. Abadilla.On September 7, 2001, we
Lenido Lumanog; denied his petition for certiorari in G.R. No. 142065, [112] as we
thus held:
2. to DENY the Motion for New Trial
by accused Joel de Jesus; A perusal of the pieces of evidence,
except the Omega wristwatch, which are
3. to consider the Motion for New sought to be presented by the petitioners in
Trial by accused Lenido a new trial are not newly discovered
Lumanog as abandoned and/or evidence because they were either available
withdrawn; and could have been presented by the
defense during the trial of the case with the
4. to DENY the Supplement to the exercise of due diligence, such as the
Motion for Reconsideration by alleged newspaper reports and AFP/PNP
accused Lenido Lumanog as intelligence materials on Col. Abadilla. The
well as his addendum thereto wristwatch allegedly belonging to the late
and his Manifestation and Col. Abadilla is immaterial to the case of
Motion dated December 15, murder while the testimony of F. Roberto
1999 to allow him to introduce Reyes on the turn over of the said
additional evidence in support wristwatch by an alleged member of the
of his Supplement to the ABB who purportedly knows certain facts
Motion for Reconsideration; about the killing of Col. Abadilla would be
hearsay without the testimony in court of
5. to DENY the Manifestation and the said alleged member of the ABB. The
Submission dated December document which granted amnesty to
14, 1999 by accused Lenido Wilfredo Batongbakal is irrelevant to the
Lumanog; killing of Col. Abadilla inasmuch as
Batongbakal does not appear privy to the
6. and to ORDER the immediate actual commission of the crime of murder in
transmittal of the records of the case at bar. If at all, those pieces of
these cases to the Honorable additional evidence will at most be merely
Supreme Court for automatic corroborative to the defense of alibi and
review pursuant to law, the denial of herein petitioners. Petitioners
Rules of Court and the Joint alternative prayer that this Court itself
Decision of this court dated conduct hearings and receive evidence on
July 30, 1999. the ABB angle is not well taken for the
reason that the Supreme Court is not a trier
SO ORDERED.[108] of facts.[113]

On January 19, 2000, Fr. Roberto P. Reyes, parish Accused-petitioners motion for reconsideration of the above
priest of the Parish of the Holy Sacrifice, University of the decision was denied with finality on November 20, 2001.
[114]
Philippines at Diliman, Quezon City, assisted by Atty. Neri J. On September 17, 2002, this Court likewise denied for
Colmenares, filed an Urgent Independent Motion for Leave of lack of merit the motion for new trial and related relief dated
Court to Present Vital Evidence. Fr. Reyes claimed that an ABB April 26, 2002 filed by counsel for said accused-petitioner.[115]
personality came to him confessing that the ABB was
responsible for the killing of Abadilla and gave him an object Pursuant to our decision in People v. Mateo,[116] this case was
(Omega gold wristwatch) taken from said victim, which can be transferred to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review on
presented as evidence in this case to prove the innocence of January 18, 2005.[117]
the accused who were erroneously convicted by the trial court
and save them from the penalty of death.[109] Ruling of the CA

After due hearing, the trial court denied the said On April 1, 2008, the CA rendered the assailed decision, thus:
motion of Fr. Reyes, holding that the latters proposed
testimony could not be considered an exception to the WHEREFORE, in the light of the
hearsay rule, considering that: (1) it cannot be said that the foregoing, the impugned decision is
person who allegedly approached Fr. Reyes was unable to AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the
testify, as said person was simply unwilling to face in a court accused-appellants are sentenced each to
of law the legal consequences of whatever admissions he suffer reclusion perpetua without the benefit
made to Fr. Reyes; (2) the alleged admission was made long of parole.
after trial had ended and long after the court had promulgated
its decision, at which time the public and persons interested in In all other respects, the lower
the outcome of the case knew already what were the courts courts decision is AFFIRMED.
findings and conclusions of fact; and (3) going by the
advertised image of the ABB as an ideologically motivated Costs against appellants.
group that would shoot to death public officers and private
individuals perceived by its ranking cadres as corrupt, the SO ORDERED.[118]
court found it hard to believe that ABB gunman would in full
view of idealist comrades and everybody else, would open The CA upheld the conviction of the accused-
Abadillas car and steal that watch, and remain unscathed for appellants based on the credible eyewitness testimony of
his unproletarian act by his peers in the organization. [110] The Alejo, who vividly recounted before the trial court their
trial court, however, ordered that the Omega wristwatch respective positions and participation in the fatal shooting of
allegedly belonging to the late Col. Abadilla, the copy of the Abadilla, having been able to witness closely how they
motion for leave to present vital evidence and the transcript committed the crime. On the sufficiency of prosecution
of the proceedings on January 26, 2000 be attached to the evidence to establish appellants guilt beyond reasonable
records of the case as part of the offer of proof of the defense. doubt and the scant weight of their defense of alibi, as well as
the allegations of torture and intimidation in the hands of the
Two (2) more pleadings were filed by Lumanogs police investigator and negative results of ballistic and
counsel just before the records of Criminal Case No. Q-96- fingerprint tests, the CA ruled as follows:
66684 were transmitted to this Court for automatic review,
namely, a Final Submission to This Court dated February 8, Despite a lengthy and exhaustive
2000, together with an attached copy of the letter of Lt. Gen cross-examination by the defense counsel,
Jose M. Calimlim of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) eyewitness Alejo stuck to the essentials of
Intelligence Service regarding an unsuccessful operation of his story, including the identification of the
the ABB to kill Col. Abadilla, and Final Manifestation to This persons who killed Col. Abadilla. He was
Court dated February 9, 2000.[111] only ten (10) meters away from the locus
crimini. Standing on an elevated
Lumanog challenged before this Court the validity of guardhouse, he had a close and
the Orders dated January 25, 26, and 28, 2000 allegedly unobstructed view of the whole incident. He
issued with grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial was in a vantage position to clearly
judge who thereby denied the accused the opportunity to recognize Col. Abadillas assailants, more so
 42
because the crime happened in clear and person guilty of a crime may escape
broad daylight. punishment. Thus, the Supreme Court
in Draculan vs. Donato, held:
Even standing alone, Alejos
positive and unequivocal declaration is x x x. Pangalawa, ang mga
sufficient to support a conviction for murder karapatan ng mga mamamayan na
against appellants. Indeed, the testimony of natatala sa Saligang Batas (sa Bill
a single witness, when positive and credible, of Rights) ay hindi mga paraan
is sufficient to support a conviction even for upang ang isang tunay na may
murder. For there is no law requiring that pagkakasala na labag sa batas, ay
the testimony of a simple [sic] witness makaligtas sa nararapat na
should be corroborated for it to be accorded pagdurusa. Ang tunay na layunin
full faith and credit. The credible testimony ng mga tadhanang iyon ng
of a lone witness(es) assumes more weight Saligang Batas ay walang iba kundi
when there is no showing that he was tiyakin na sinumang nililitis ay
actuated by improper motive to testify magkaroon ng sapat na
falsely against the accused, as in the case of pagkakataon at paraan na
Freddie Alejo. maipagtanggol ang sarili, bukod sa
pagbabawal ng pagtanggap ng
xxx katibayan (evidence) laban sa
kanya na bunga ng pagpipilit,
appellants failed to prove that it dahas at iba pang paraang labag
was physically impossible for them to be at sa kanyang kalooban.
the locus delicti or within its immediate
vicinity at the time the crime was To repeat, assuming that appellants
committed. allegations of torture were true, the same
do not exculpate them from liability for the
In the case of Joel de Jesus, he crime which the People had adequately
maintains that he was driving his tricycle on established by independent evidence,
a special chartered trip for a passenger neither was their claim that the results of
going to Roosevelt, Novalichez, Quezon the ballistics test purportedly showing that
City. But, it was not impossible for him to the bullets and bullet shells found in the
have also gone to Katipunan Avenue, which crime scene did not match with any of the
is also part of Quezon City; not to mention firearms supposedly in their possession. But
the fact that with his tricycle, he could have these ballistic results are inconclusive and
easily moved from one place to another. can never prevail over appellants positive
identification by eyewitness Freddie Alejo as
The testimonies of Rameses de the persons who perpetrated the ambush-
Jesus and Leonido Lumanog that they were slay of Col. Abadilla. Besides, there is no
treasure hunting in Mabalacat, Pampanga showing that the firearms supposedly found
on the day in question, lack credence as in appellants possession long after the
they are unsupported by the testimonies of incident were the same ones they used in
independent witnesses. At any rate, the ambush-slay.[119]
Rameses de Jesus admitted that they were
using the new car of Leonido Lumanog. In its Resolution[120] dated October 28, 2008, the CA
Hence, it was not physically impossible for denied the motions for reconsideration respectively filed by
them to travel to Quezon City via the North Fortuna and Joel de Jesus.[121]
Expressway at the time the crime took
place. Rameses de Jesus and Joel de Jesus filed notices of
appeal[122] (G.R. No. 187745), while Fortuna (G.R. No. 185123),
Augusto claims that he was at the and Lumanog and Augusto Santos (G.R. No. 182555) filed
Fabella Hospital in Sta. Cruz, Manila, and his their respective petitions for review. On August 6, 2009, G.R.
alibi was corroborated by his brother-in-law, No. 187745 was ordered consolidated with the already
Jonas Padel Ayhon, who is not an impartial consolidated petitions in G.R. Nos. 182555 and 185123.[123] In
witness. Where nothing supports the alibi view of the judgment of the CA imposing the penalty
except the testimony of a relative, it of reclusion perpetua, said petitions for review are treated as
deserves scant consideration. appeals, in accordance with A.M. No. 00-5-03-
SC (Amendments to the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
xxx to Govern Death Penalty Cases)[124]which provides under Rule
124 (c):
Finally, Cesar Fortuna claims that
he was in Camp Crame on the day the (c) In cases where the Court of
murder took place. But it was not impossible Appeals imposes reclusion perpetua, life
for him to have gone to Katipunan Road, imprisonment or a lesser penalty, it shall
Blue Ridge, which is relatively near Camp render and enter judgment imposing such
Crame when the shooting happened around penalty. The judgment may be appealed to
8:40 in the morning. After the shooting, he the Supreme Court by notice of appeal filed
could have easily and quickly transferred to with the Court of Appeals.
Camp Crame between 9:00 and 9:30 in the
morning of the same day. Appellants Arguments

In any event, appellants alibis were Lenido Lumanog and Augusto Santos set forth the following
belied by the positive identification made by arguments in their memorandum, which basically reflect the
prosecution eyewitness Freddie Alejo. same issues raised by appellants in the memorandum filed in
G.R. No. 182555:
xxx
1. The Court of Appeals did not make a real
Further, appellants allegations that and honest review of the appealed
the police authorities maltreated them, and case. There was a failure of appellate
forcibly extracted their extra-judicial review, rendering its decision void.
confessions do not exculpate them from
criminal liability. For one, their conviction 2. The affirmation of the conviction over-
was not based on their extra-judicial relies on the testimony of one alleged
confessions, but on their positive eyewitness, Freddie Alejo.
identification of Freddie Alejo as the authors
of the crime. Such positive identification is 3. The affirmation of the conviction
totally independent of their extra-judicial misappreciates the alibi evidence for the
confessions. For another, the Constitutional defense.
guarantees contained in the Bill of Rights
cannot be used as a shield whereby a
 43
4. The affirmation of conviction gravely executive clemency, based not only on Article VII, Sec. 19, but
erred when it unduly disregarded other also on constitutional tradition and jurisprudence. Although
pieces of vital evidence. the said section does not explicitly mention parole as a form
of executive clemency, constitutional tradition and
5. The penalty imposed by the Court of jurisprudence indicate it to be such. In Tesoro v. Director of
[127]
Appeals is unconstitutional.[125] Prisons, for instance, it was held that the power to pardon
given to the President by the Constitution includes the power
On his part, Fortuna alleges that: to grant and revoke paroles. The aforesaid provision of R.A.
No. 9346 also inflicts an inhuman punishment, which is
I. The Honorable Court of Appeals prohibited by the Constitution, and also violates the equal
committed serious error and gravely abused protection clause of the Bill of Rights.
its discretion when it affirmed the conviction
of the petitioner and his co-accused based Our Ruling
solely on the incredible and contradicted
eyewitness account of Security Guard (S/G) Once again, this Court upholds the constitutional
Alejo. mandate protecting the rights of persons under custodial
investigation. But while we strike down the extrajudicial
II. The Honorable Court of Appeals seriously confession extracted in violation of constitutionally enshrined
erred and gravely abused its discretion in rights and declare it inadmissible in evidence, appellants are
not considering the defense of petitioner not entitled to an acquittal because their conviction
herein despite the weakness of the evidence was not based on the evidence obtained during such custodial
of the prosecution. investigation. Even without the extrajudicial confession of
appellant Joel de Jesus who was the first to have been
III. The Honorable Court seriously erred in arrested, the trial courts judgment is affirmed, as the
favoring the prosecution on the ballistic test testimonial and documentary evidence on record have
showing that the bullets and bullet shells established the guilt of appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
found in the crime scene did not match with
any firearms supposedly in petitioners CA Decision meets the constitutional standard
possession; evidence which was supposed
to support the theory of the The Constitution commands that [n]o decision shall be
prosecution. When such physical evidence rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and
did not favor the prosecutions theory the distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. [128] Judges
same was still taken against the petitioner. are expected to make complete findings of fact in their
decisions and scrutinize closely the legal aspects of the case
IV. The Honorable Court of Appeals seriously in the light of the evidence presented. They should avoid the
erred in disregarding allegations and proof tendency to generalize and form conclusions without detailing
of torture and maltreatment by police the facts from which such conclusions are deduced. [129]
officers against the petitioner in affirming
his conviction.[126] Section 2, Rule 120 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure,
as amended, likewise provides:
Appellants assail the wholesale adoption, if not verbatim
copying, by the CA of the factual narration, as well as the Sec. 2. Form and contents of
arguments for and disposition of the merits of the case from judgments. -- The judgment must be written
the Consolidated Brief for the Appellees, which in turn is in the official language, personally and
based on the memorandum submitted by the private directly prepared by the judge and signed
prosecutors to the trial court. This anomaly, according to the by him and shall contain clearly and
appellants, which was aggravated by the insufficient findings distinctly a statement of the facts
of fact and absence of actual discussion of the assignment of proved or admitted by the accused and
errors raised by each appellant before the CA, resulted in the the law upon which the judgment is
failure of intermediate review without any independent based.
findings and resolution of important issues of the case, thus
rendering the CA decision void. Hence, appellants seek not x x xx x xx x x. [EMPHASIS
just to overturn or reverse the CA decision but also to declare SUPPLIED.]
it null and void, by way of radical relief from this Court.
We have sustained decisions of lower courts as having
On the merits, appellants principally contend that the CA substantially or sufficiently complied with the constitutional
gravely erred in its over-reliance on the problematic injunction, notwithstanding the laconic and terse manner in
identification provided by the prosecutions lone eyewitness, which they were written; and even if there (was left) much to
security guard Alejo. The CA simply did not rule on questions be desired in terms of (their) clarity, coherence and
concerning the credibility of said eyewitness through the comprehensibility, provided that they eventually set out the
totality of circumstances test.They also fault the CA for facts and the law on which they were based, as when they
misappreciating their common defense of alibi, thus stated the legal qualifications of the offense constituted by
disregarding exculpatory documentary evidence including the facts proved, the modifying circumstances, the
negative results of ballistic and fingerprint examinations, and participation of the accused, the penalty imposed and the civil
evidence of torture which appellants had suffered in the hands liability; or discussed the facts comprising the elements of the
of police investigators. Equally deplorable is the trial and offense that was charged in the information, and accordingly
appellate courts refusal to admit evidence coming from rendered a verdict and imposed the corresponding penalty; or
underground revolutionary forces, in particular the ABB which quoted the facts narrated in the prosecutions memorandum,
claimed responsibility for the killing of Col. Abadilla, a but made their own findings and assessment of evidence,
notorious military henchman during the martial law before finally agreeing with the prosecutions evaluation of the
era. Appellants maintain that violations of constitutional rights case.[130]
have been held as a ground for acquittal or dismissal in
certain cases. In one (1) case, the long delay in the In the same vein, we have expressed concern over
termination of preliminary investigation was found to be the possible denial of due process when an appellate court
violative of the accuseds constitutional rights to procedural failed to provide the appeal the attention it rightfully
due process and speedy disposition of cases and was cause deserved, thus depriving the appellant of a fair opportunity to
for the dismissal of the case by this Court as a matter of be heard by a fair and responsible magistrate. This situation
radical relief. becomes more ominous in criminal cases, as in this case,
where not only property rights are at stake but also the liberty
Finally, the appellants argue that the penalty of reclusion if not the life of a human being.[131] The parties to a litigation
perpetua without the benefit of parole meted by the CA should be informed of how it was decided, with an explanation
pursuant to Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 9346 is unconstitutional. Article of the factual and legal reasons that led to the conclusions of
III, Section 19 (1) of the 1987 Constitution provides that any the trial court. The losing party is entitled to know why he lost,
death penalty imposed shall be reduced to reclusion so he may appeal to the higher court, if permitted, should he
perpetua. There is no mention of without the benefit of parole believe that the decision should be reversed. A decision that
or shall not be eligible for parole therein. does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on
which it is based leaves the parties in the dark as to how it
Appellants contend that the questioned provisions of was reached and is precisely prejudicial to the losing party,
R.A. No. 9346 constitute encroachments or dilutions of the who is unable to pinpoint the possible errors of the court for
Presidents broad, if not near absolute, constitutional power of review by a higher tribunal.[132]
 44
In Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Leobrera,[133] we R.A. No. 7438,[137] approved on May 15, 1992, has
held that though it is not a good practice, we see nothing reinforced the constitutional mandate protecting the rights of
illegal in the act of the trial court completely copying the persons under custodial investigation.The pertinent provisions
memorandum submitted by a party, provided that the read:
decision clearly and distinctly states sufficient findings of fact
and the law on which they are based. [134] In another case SEC. 2. Rights of Persons Arrested,
where we upheld the validity of memorandum decisions, we Detained or under Custodial Investigation;
nevertheless took occasion to remind judges that it is still Duties of Public Officers.
desirable for an appellate judge to endeavor to make the
issues clearer and use his own perceptiveness in unraveling a. Any person arrested, detained or
the rollo and his own discernment in discovering the law. No under custodial investigation shall at all
less importantly, he must use his own language in laying times be assisted by counsel.
down his judgment.[135]
b. Any public officer or employee,
Perusing the CA decision, we hold that it cannot be or anyone acting under his order or his
deemed constitutionally infirm, as it clearly stated the facts place, who arrests, detains or
and law on which the ruling was based, and while it did not investigates any person for the
specifically address each and every assigned error raised by commission of an offense shall inform
appellants, it cannot be said that the appellants were left in the latter, in a language known to and
the dark as to how the CA reached its ruling affirming the trial understood by him, of his rights to remain
courts judgment of conviction. The principal arguments raised silent and to have competent and
in their Memorandum submitted before this Court actually independent counsel, preferably of his own
referred to the main points of the CA rulings, such as the choice, who shall at all times be allowed to
alleged sufficiency of prosecution evidence, their common confer private with the person arrested,
defense of alibi, allegations of torture, probative value of detained or under custodial investigation. If
ballistic and fingerprint test results, circumstances qualifying such person cannot afford the services of
the offense and modification of penalty imposed by the trial his own counsel, he must be provided by
court. What appellants essentially assail is with a competent and independent counsel.
the verbatim copying by the CA of not only the facts narrated,
but also the arguments and discussion including the legal xxxx
authorities, in disposing of the appeal. On such wholesale
adoption of the Office of the Solicitor Generals position, as f. As used in this Act, custodial
well as the trial courts insufficient findings of fact, appellants investigation shall include the practice of
anchor their claim of failure of intermediate review by the CA. issuing an invitation to a person who is
investigated in connection with an offense
We now proceed to the other substantive issues he is suspected to have committed, without
presented by appellants. prejudice to the liability of the inviting
officer for any violation of law. [EMPHASIS
Rights of Accused During Custodial Investigation SUPPLIED.]

The rights of persons under custodial investigation are Police officers claimed that upon arresting Joel, they
enshrined in Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution, informed him of his constitutional rights to remain silent, that
which provides: any information he would give could be used against him, and
that he had the right to a competent and independent
Sec. 12 (1) Any person under counsel, preferably, of his own choice, and if he cannot afford
investigation for the commission of an the services of counsel he will be provided with one
offense shall have the right to be informed (1). However, since these rights can only be waived in writing
of his right to remain silent and to have and with the assistance of counsel, there could not have been
competent and independent counsel such a valid waiver by Joel, who was presented to Atty.
preferably of his own choice. If the Sansano at the IBP Office, Quezon City Hall only the following
person cannot afford the services of day and stayed overnight at the police station before he was
counsel, he must be provided with one. brought to said counsel.
These rights cannot be waived except in
writing and in the presence of counsel. P/Insp. Castillo admitted that the initial questioning of
Joel began in the morning of June 20, 1996, the first time said
(2) No torture, force, violence, suspect was presented to him at the CPDC station, even
threat, intimidation or any other means before he was brought to the IBP Office for the taking of his
which vitiate the free will shall be used formal statement. Thus, the possibility of appellant Joel having
against him. Secret detention places, been subjected to intimidation or violence in the hands of
solitary, incommunicado, or other similar police investigators as he claims, cannot be discounted. The
forms of detention are prohibited. constitutional requirement obviously had not been
observed. Settled is the rule that the moment a police officer
(3) Any confession or admission tries to elicit admissions or confessions or even plain
obtained in violation of this or section 17 information from a suspect, the latter should, at that juncture,
hereof (right against self-incrimination) shall be assisted by counsel, unless he waives this right in writing
be inadmissible in evidence against him. and in the presence of counsel.[138] The purpose of providing
counsel to a person under custodial investigation is to curb
(4) The law shall provide for penal the police-state practice of extracting a confession that leads
and civil sanctions for violation of this appellant to make self-incriminating statements. [139]
section as well as compensation for the
rehabilitation of victims of tortures or similar Even assuming that custodial investigation started
practices, and their families. [EMPHASIS only during Joels execution of his statement before Atty.
SUPPLIED.] Sansano on June 20, 1996, still the said confession must be
invalidated. To be acceptable, extrajudicial confessions must
Extrajudicial Confession of Joel de Jesus Not Valid conform to constitutional requirements. A confession is not
valid and not admissible in evidence when it is obtained in
Custodial investigation refers to the critical pre-trial violation of any of the rights of persons under custodial
stage when the investigation is no longer a general inquiry investigation.[140]
into an unsolved crime, but has begun to focus on a particular
person as a suspect.[136] Police officers claimed that appellants Since Joel was provided with a lawyer secured by
were apprehended as a result of hot pursuit activities on the CPDC investigators from the IBP-Quezon City chapter, it
days following the ambush-slay of Abadilla. There is no cannot be said that his right to a counsel preferably of his own
question, however, that when appellants were arrested they choice was not complied with, particularly as he never
were already considered suspects: Joel was pinpointed by objected to Atty. Sansano when the latter was presented to
security guard Alejo who went along with the PARAC squad to him to be his counsel for the taking down of his
Fairview on June 19, 1996, while the rest of appellants were statement. The phrase preferably of his own choice does not
taken by the same operatives in follow-up operations after convey the message that the choice of a lawyer by a person
Joel provided them with the identities of his conspirators and under investigation is exclusive as to preclude other equally
where they could be found. competent and independent attorneys from handling the
defense; otherwise the tempo of custodial investigation would
 45
be solely in the hands of the accused who can impede, nay, however, found prima facie evidence that respondent police
obstruct the progress of the interrogation by simply selecting officers could have violated R.A. No. 7438, particularly on
a lawyer who, for one reason or another, is not available to visitorial rights and the right to counsel, including the law on
protect his interest.[141] Thus, while the choice of a lawyer in arbitrary detention, and accordingly forwarded its resolution
cases where the person under custodial interrogation cannot together with records of the case to the Secretary of Justice,
afford the services of counsel or where the preferred lawyer is Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local
not available is naturally lodged in the police investigators, Government, the PNP Director General and the Ombudsman
the suspect has the final choice, as he may reject the counsel to file the appropriate criminal and/or administrative actions
chosen for him and ask for another one. A lawyer provided by against the person or persons responsible for violating the
the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused when he human rights of the suspects as the evidence may warrant.
[149]
does not raise any objection against the counsels As per the manifestation of appellants, the DOJ, after
appointment during the course of the investigation, and the conducting a preliminary investigation, referred the matter to
accused thereafter subscribes to the veracity of the statement the Ombudsman in 2004. As of July 2007, the case before the
before the swearing officer.[142] Ombudsman docketed as OMB-P-C-04-1269/CPL-C-04-1965
was still pending preliminary investigation.[150]
The question really is whether or not Atty. Sansano
was an independent and competent counsel as to satisfy the Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases
constitutional requirement. We held that the
modifier competent and independent in the 1987 Constitution Appellants further cite the comment made by the
is not an empty rhetoric. It stresses the need to accord the United Nations Human Rights Committee in its
accused, under the uniquely stressful conditions of a custodial Communication No. 1466/2006 that under the circumstances,
investigation, an informed judgment on the choices explained there was, insofar as the eight (8)-year delay in the
to him by a diligent and capable lawyer. [143] An effective and disposition of their appeal in the CA was concerned, a
vigilant counsel necessarily and logically requires that the violation of Article 14, paragraph 3 (c) of the International
lawyer be present and able to advise and assist his client from Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966). It provides that
the time the confessant answers the first question asked by in the determination of any criminal charge against him,
the investigating officer until the signing of the extrajudicial everyone shall be entitled, as among the minimum
confession. Moreover, the lawyer should ascertain that the guarantees provided therein, to be tried without undue delay.
confession is made voluntarily and that the person under [151]

investigation fully understands the nature and the

consequence of his extrajudicial confession in relation to his Section 16, Article III of the 1987
constitutional rights. A contrary rule would undoubtedly be Constitution provides that all persons shall have the right to a
antagonistic to the constitutional rights to remain silent, to speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-
counsel and to be presumed innocent.[144] judicial, or administrative bodies.[152] This protection extends
to all citizens and covers the periods before, during and after
Atty. Sansano, who supposedly interviewed Joel and assisted trial, affording broader protection than Section 14(2), which
the latter while responding to questions propounded by SPO2 guarantees merely the right to a speedy trial. [153] However,
Garcia, Jr., did not testify on whether he had properly just like the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial, speedy
discharged his duties to said client. While SPO2 Garcia, Jr. disposition of cases is a flexible concept. It is consistent with
testified that Atty. Sansano had asked Joel if he understood his delays and depends upon the circumstances. What the
answers to the questions of the investigating officer and Constitution prohibits are unreasonable, arbitrary and
sometimes stopped Joel from answering certain questions, oppressive delays, which render rights nugatory.[154]
SPO2 Garcia, Jr. did not say if Atty. Sansano, in the first place,
verified from them the date and time of Joels arrest and the In this case, the records of Criminal Case No. Q-96-
circumstances thereof, or any previous information elicited 66684 were transmitted to this Court for automatic review on
from him by the investigators at the station, and if said February 11, 2000. On September 7, 2001, this Court
counsel inspected Joels body for any sign or mark of physical rendered a decision dismissing the Petition for Certiorari (Rule
torture. 65) and for Extraordinary Legal and Equitable Relief (G.R. No.
142065). By June 2004, all appeal briefs for the present
The right to counsel has been written into our review had been filed and on July 6, 2004, appellants filed a
Constitution in order to prevent the use of duress and other Consolidated Motion for Early Decision. On December 13,
undue influence in extracting confessions from a suspect in a 2004, they filed a Motion for Early Decision. [155]
crime. The lawyers role cannot be reduced to being that of a
mere witness to the signing of a pre-prepared confession, By resolution of January 18, 2005, we transferred this
even if it indicated compliance with the constitutional rights of case to the CA for intermediate review, conformably with our
the accused. The accused is entitled to effective, vigilant and pronouncement in People v. Mateodecided on July 7,
independent counsel.[145] Where the prosecution failed to 2004. Appellants Urgent Motion for Reconsideration of
discharge the States burden of proving with clear and Transfer to the Court of Appeals filed on February 24, 2005
convincing evidence that the accused had enjoyed effective was denied on March 29, 2005. A similar request filed on June
and vigilant counsel before he extrajudicially admitted his 2, 2005 was likewise denied by our Resolution dated July 12,
guilt, the extrajudicial confession cannot be given any 2005.[156] At the CA, appellants also moved for early resolution
probative value.[146] of their appeal after the case was submitted for decision on
November 29, 2006. The case remained unresolved due to a
With respect to the other appellants, they were likewise number of factors, such as the CA internal reorganization and
entitled to the rights guaranteed by the Constitution when inhibition of some Justices to whom the case was re-raffled.
they were brought to the police station as suspects and were, [157]
Before the retirement of the ponente, Justice Agustin S.
therefore under custodial investigation.[147] However, they Dizon, the CAs Sixteenth Division finally rendered its decision
cannot simply rely on those violations of constitutional rights on April 1, 2008. Appellants motion for reconsideration was
during custodial investigation, which are relevant only when denied by the Special Former Sixteenth Division on October
the conviction of the accused by the trial court is based on the 28, 2008.
evidence obtained during such investigation.[148] As for the
matters stated in the extrajudicial confession of appellant Joel, It must be stressed that in the determination of
these were not the basis for appellants conviction. It has to be whether the right to speedy disposition of cases has been
stressed further that no confession or statement by appellants violated, particular regard must be taken of the facts and
Fortuna, Lumanog, Augusto and Rameses was used as circumstances peculiar to each case. A mere mathematical
evidence by the prosecution at the trial. reckoning of the time involved would not be sufficient.
[158]
Under the circumstances, we hold that the delay of (4)
After a thorough and careful review, we hold that four years during which the case remained pending with the
there exists sufficient evidence on record to sustain appellants CA and this Court was not unreasonable, arbitrary or
conviction even without the extrajudicial confession of oppressive.
appellant Joel de Jesus.
In several cases where it was manifest that due process of law
Allegations of Torture and Intimidation or other rights guaranteed by the Constitution or statutes
have been denied, this Court has not faltered to accord the
The Court notes with utmost concern the serious so-called radical relief to keep accused from enduring the
allegations of torture of appellants who were dubbed by the rigors and expense of a full-blown trial.[159] In this case,
media as the Abadilla 5. This was brought by appellants however, appellants are not entitled to the same relief in the
before the CHR which, in its Resolution dated July 26, 1996, absence of clear and convincing showing that the delay in the
did not make any categorical finding of physical violence resolution of their appeal was unreasonable or arbitrary.
inflicted on the appellants by the police authorities. The CHR,
 46
Credibility of Eyewitness Testimony eyewitnesses should have been presented by the prosecution,
specifically Cesar Espiritu and Minella Alarcon, who allegedly
Time and again, we have held that the testimony of a sole had better opportunity to recognize Abadillas attackers. As
eyewitness is sufficient to support a conviction so long as it is correctly pointed out by the trial judge, Herbas could not have
clear, straightforward and worthy of credence by the trial really seen at close range the perpetrators from his position at
court.[160] Indeed, when it comes to credibility of witnesses, a nearby building, which is several meters away from the
this Court accords the highest respect, even finality, to the ambush site, as confirmed by photographs submitted by the
evaluation made by the lower court of the testimonies of the prosecution, which Herbas failed to refute.The same thing can
witnesses presented before it. This holds true notwithstanding be said of Espiritu who admitted in his Sinumpaang
that it was another judge who presided at the trial and Judge Salaysay that his car was ahead of the Honda Accord driven
Jaime N. Salazar, Jr. who penned the decision in this case by Abadilla, and that he had already alighted from his car
heard only some witnesses for the defense. It is axiomatic some houses away from the exact spot where Abadilla was
that the fact alone that the judge who heard the evidence was ambushed while his car was in the stop position. [169]
not the one who rendered the judgment, but merely relied on
the record of the case, does not render his judgment Positive Identification of Appellants
erroneous or irregular. This is so even if the judge did not have
the fullest opportunity to weigh the testimonies, not having Appellants assail the out-of-court identification made by Alejo
heard all the witnesses speak or observed their deportment who pointed to appellant Joel de Jesus and Lorenzo delos
and manner of testifying.[161] Santos in a line-up at the police station together with police
officers. However, appellants claim that the police officers
Verily, a judge who was not present during the trial who joined the line-up were actually in their police uniforms at
can rely on the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the time, as to make the identification process suggestive and
the trial as basis of his decision. Such reliance does not violate hence not valid, was unsubstantiated.
substantive and procedural due process. [162] We have ruled
in People v. Rayray[163] that the fact that the judge who heard In People v. Teehankee, Jr.,[170] we explained the procedure for
the evidence was not himself the one who prepared, signed out-of-court identification and the test to determine the
and promulgated the decision constitutes no compelling admissibility of such identification, thus:
reason to jettison his findings and conclusions, and does
not per se render his decision void. The validity of a decision Out-of-court identification is
is not necessarily impaired by the fact that its ponente only conducted by the police in various ways. It
took over from a colleague who had earlier presided at the is done thru show-ups where the suspect
trial. This circumstance alone cannot be the basis for the alone is brought face to face with the
reversal of the trial courts decision.[164] witness for identification. It is done
thru mug shots where photographs are
In giving full credence to the eyewitness testimony of shown to the witness to identify the
security guard Alejo, the trial judge took into account his suspect. It is also done thru line-ups where a
proximity to the spot where the shooting occurred, his witness identifies the suspect from a group
elevated position from his guardhouse, his opportunity to view of persons lined up for the purpose. . . In
frontally all the perpetrators for a brief time -- enough for him resolving the admissibility of and relying on
to remember their faces (when the two [2] lookouts he had out-of-court identification of suspects, courts
earlier noticed walking back and forth infront of his guard have adopted the totality of
post pointed their guns at him one [1] after the other, and circumstances test where they consider
later when the four [4] armed men standing around the the following factors, viz: (1) the
victims car momentarily looked at him as he was witness opportunity to view the
approached at the guardhouse by the second lookout), and criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the
his positive identification in the courtroom of appellants as witness degree of attention at that time;
the six (6) persons whom he saw acting together in the fatal (3) the accuracy of any prior
shooting of Abadilla on June 13, 1996. The clear view that description given by the witness; (4)
Alejo had at the time of the incident was verified by Judge Jose the level of certainty demonstrated by the
Catral Mendoza (now an Associate Justice of this Court) during witness at the identification; (5) the length
the ocular inspection conducted in the presence of the of time between the crime and the
prosecutors, defense counsel, court personnel, and witnesses identification; and, (6) the
Alejo and Maj. Villena. suggestiveness of the identification
procedure.[171] [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED.]
The trial judge also found that Alejo did not waver in
his detailed account of how the assailants shot Abadilla who Examining the records, we find nothing irregular in
was inside his car, the relative positions of the gunmen and the identification made by Alejo at the police station for which
lookouts, and his opportunity to look at them in the face. Alejo he executed the Karagdagang Sinumpaang Salaysay dated
immediately gave his statement before the police authorities June 21, 1996, during which he positively identified Joel de
just hours after the incident took place. Appellants make Jesus and Lorenzo delos Santos as those lookouts who had
much of a few inconsistencies in his statement and testimony, pointed their guns at him demanding that he buck down at his
with respect to the number of assailants and his reaction guardhouse. In any case, the trial court did not rely solely on
when he was ordered to get down in his guard post. But such said out-of-court identification considering that Alejo also
inconsistencies have already been explained by Alejo during positively identified appellants during the trial. Thus, even
cross-examination by correcting his earlier statement in using assuming arguendo that Alejos out-of-court identification was
number four (4) to refer to those persons actually standing tainted with irregularity, his subsequent identification in court
around the car and two (2) more persons as lookouts, and that cured any flaw that may have attended it. [172] We have held
he got nervous only when the second lookout shouted at him that the inadmissibility of a police line-up identification should
to get down, because the latter actually poked a gun at him. It not necessarily foreclose the admissibility of an independent
is settled that affidavits, being ex-parte, are almost always in-court identification.[173]
incomplete and often inaccurate, but do not really detract
from the credibility of witnesses.[165] The discrepancies We also found none of the danger signals
between a sworn statement and testimony in court do not enumerated by Patrick M. Wall, a well-known authority in
outrightly justify the acquittal of an accused, [166] as eyewitness identification, which give warning that the
testimonial evidence carries more weight than an affidavit. [167] identification may be erroneous even though the method used
is proper. The danger signals contained in the list, which is not
As to appellants attempt to discredit Alejo by reason exhaustive, are:
of the latters acceptance of benefits from the Abadilla family,
the same is puerile, considering that the trial court even (1) the witness originally stated that he
verified for itself how Alejo could have witnessed the shooting could not identify anyone;
incident and after he withstood intense grilling from defense
lawyers. Case law has it that where there is no evidence that (2) the identifying witness knew the
the principal witness for the prosecution was actuated by accused before the crime, but made
improper motive, the presumption is that he was not so no accusation against him when
actuated and his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. questioned by the police;
[168]

(3) a serious discrepancy exists between

The trial judge also correctly rejected appellants the identifying witness original
proposition that the eyewitness testimony of security guard description and the actual description
Herbas should have been given due weight and that other of the accused;
 47
(4) before identifying the accused at the the police officers, insisting that he would like to see said
trial, the witness erroneously suspect in person. More importantly, Alejo during the trial had
identified some other person; positively identified appellant Joel de Jesus independently of
the previous identification made at the police station. Such in-
(5) other witnesses to the crime fail to court identification was positive, straightforward and
identify the accused; categorical.

(6) before trial, the witness sees the Appellants contend that the subsequent acquittal of
accused but fails to identify him; Lorenzo delos Santos, whom Alejo had categorically pointed to
as one (1) of the two (2) men whom he saw walking to and fro
(7) before the commission of the crime, infront of his guard post prior to the shooting incident, and as
the witness had limited opportunity one (1) of the two (2) men who pointed a gun at him and
to see the accused; ordered him to get down, totally destroyed said witness
credibility and eroded the trustworthiness of each and every
(8) the witness and the person identified uncorroborated testimony he gave in court. This assertion is
are of different racial groups; untenable. A verdict of acquittal is immediately final; hence,
we may no longer review the acquittal of accused Lorenzo
(9) during his original observation of the delos Santos.[176] However, the acquittal of their co-accused
perpetrator of the crime, the witness does not necessarily benefit the appellants. We have ruled
was unaware that a crime was that accused-appellant may not invoke the acquittal of the
involved; other conspirators to merit the reversal of his conviction for
murder.[177]
(10) a considerable time elapsed between
the witness view of the criminal and Ballistic and fingerprint examination results are
his identification of the accused; inconclusive and not indispensable

(11) several persons committed the crime; Appellants deplore the trial courts disregard of the results of
and the ballistic and fingerprint tests, which they claim should
exonerate them from liability for the killing of Abadilla. These
(12) the witness fails to make a positive pieces of evidence were presented by the defense to prove
trial identification.[174] that the empty shells recovered from the crime scene and
deformed slug taken from the body of Abadilla were not fired
Appellants nonetheless point out the allegedly from any of the firearms seized from appellants. Instead, they
doubtful prior descriptions given by Alejo, who was able to matched the same firearm used in the killings of Suseso de
describe the physical appearance of only two (2) suspects in Dios and other supposed victims of ambush-slay perpetrated
his statement: by suspected members of the ABB. Further, none of the
fingerprints lifted from the KIA Pride, used by the gunmen as
getaway vehicle, matched any of the specimens taken from
Iyong tumutok sa akin ay naka-asul
the appellants.
na t-shirt, edad 30-35, 55-56 ang taas,
katamtaman ang katawan, maikli ang
buhok, kayumanggi. Ang baril niya ay tipong We are not persuaded. As correctly held by the CA, the
45 o 9 mm na pistola. Iyong sumakal sa negative result of ballistic examination was inconclusive, for
biktima at nang-agaw ng clutch bag nito ay there is no showing that the firearms supposedly found in
25-30 ang edad, payat, mahaba ang buhok appellants possession were the same ones used in the
na nakatali, maitim, may taas na 55-56, ambush-slay of Abadilla. The fact that ballistic examination
maiksi din ang baril niya at naka-puting revealed that the empty shells and slug were fired from
polo. Iyong iba ay maaring makilala ko kung another firearm does not disprove appellants guilt, as it was
makikita ko uli.[175] possible that different firearms were used by them in shooting
Abadilla.[178] Neither will the finding that the empty shells and
slug matched those in another criminal case allegedly
Appellants claimed that if Alejo was referring to
involving ABB members, such that they could have been fired
appellant Joel de Jesus who pointed a gun at him, his
from the same firearms belonging to said rebel group,
description did not jibe at all since Joel de Jesus was just 22
exonerate the appellants who are on trial in this case and not
years old and not 30-35 years of age, and who stands 59 and
the suspects in another case. To begin with, the prosecution
not 55-56. And if indeed it was appellant Lenido Lumanog
never claimed that the firearms confiscated from appellants,
whom Alejo saw as the gunman who had grabbed the victim
which were the subject of separate charges for illegal
by the neck after opening the cars left front door, his
possession of firearms, were the same firearms used in the
description again failed because far from being maitim,
ambush-slay of Abadilla. A ballistic examination is not
Lumanog was in fact fair-complexioned.
indispensable in this case. Even if another weapon was in fact
actually used in killing the victim, still, appellants Fortuna and
We are not persuaded. Alejo positively identified Joel
Lumanog cannot escape criminal liability therefor, as they
de Jesus in a line-up at the police station and again inside the
were positively identified by eyewitness Freddie Alejo as the
courtroom as the first lookout who pointed a gun at
ones who shot Abadilla to death.[179]
him. Though his estimate of Joels age was not precise, it was
not that far from his true age, especially if we consider that
As this Court held in Velasco v. People[180] --
being a tricycle driver who was exposed daily to sunlight, Joels
looks may give a first impression that he is older than his
actual age. Moreover Alejos description of Lumanog as dark- As regards the failure of the police
skinned was made two (2) months prior to the dates of the to present a ballistic report on the seven
trial when he was again asked to identify him in court. When spent shells recovered from the crime
defense counsel posed the question of the discrepancy in scene, the same does not constitute
Alejos description of Lumanog who was then presented as suppression of evidence. A ballistic report
having a fair complexion and was 40 years old, the private serves only as a guide for the courts in
prosecutor manifested the possible effect of Lumanogs considering the ultimate facts of the case. It
incarceration for such length of time as to make his would be indispensable if there are no
appearance different at the time of trial. credible eyewitnesses to the crime
inasmuch as it is corroborative in
nature. The presentation of weapons or
Applying the totality-of-circumstances test, we thus
the slugs and bullets used and ballistic
reiterate that Alejos out-court-identification is reliable, for
examination are not prerequisites for
reasons that, first, he was very near the place where Abadilla
conviction. The corpus delicti and the
was shot and thus had a good view of the gunmen, not to
positive identification of accused-appellant
mention that the two (2) lookouts directly approached him
as the perpetrator of the crime are more
and pointed their guns at them; second, no competing event
than enough to sustain his conviction. Even
took place to draw his attention from the event; third, Alejo
without a ballistic report, the positive
immediately gave his descriptions of at least two (2) of the
identification by prosecution witnesses is
perpetrators, while affirming he could possibly identify the
more than sufficient to prove accuseds guilt
others if he would see them again, and the entire happening
beyond reasonable doubt. In the instant
that he witnessed; and finally, there was no evidence that the
case, since the identity of the assailant
police had supplied or even suggested to Alejo that appellants
has been sufficiently established, a
were the suspects, except for Joel de Jesus whom he refused
ballistic report on the slugs can be
to just pinpoint on the basis of a photograph shown to him by
 48
dispensed with in proving petitioners quickly fired at close range by two (2) armed men on both
guilt beyond reasonable sides of his car; and much less to retaliate by using his own
doubt. [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED.] gun, as no less than 23 gunshot wounds on his head and
chest caused his instantaneous death. As we have
The negative result of the fingerprint tests conducted by consistently ruled, the essence of treachery is the sudden and
fingerprint examiner Remedios is likewise inconclusive and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim by the
unreliable. Said witness admitted that no prints had been perpetrator of the crime, depriving the victim of any chance to
lifted from inside the KIA Pride and only two (2) fingerprints defend himself or to repel the aggression, thus insuring its
were taken from the car of Abadilla. commission without risk to the aggressor and without any
provocation on the part of the victim.[186]
Defense of Alibi Cannot
Evident premeditation was likewise properly appreciated by
Prevail Over Positive Identification the trial court, notwithstanding the inadmissibility of Joel de
Jesuss extrajudicial confession disclosing in detail the pre-
Alibi is the weakest of all defenses, for it is easy to planned ambush of Abadilla, apparently a contract killing in
fabricate and difficult to disprove, and it is for this reason that which the perpetrators were paid or expected to receive
it cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused payment for the job. As correctly pointed out by the CA, Alejo
by the witnesses.[181] To be valid for purposes of exoneration had stressed that as early as 7:30 in the morning of June 13,
from a criminal charge, the defense of alibi must be such that 1996, he already noticed something unusual going on upon
it would have been physically impossible for the person seeing the two (2) lookouts (appellants Joel de Jesus and
charged with the crime to be at the locus criminis at the time Lorenzo delos Santos) walking to and fro along Katipunan
of its commission, the reason being that no person can be in Avenue infront of the building he was guarding. True enough,
two places at the same time. The excuse must be so airtight they were expecting somebody to pass that way, who was no
that it would admit of no exception. Where there is the least other than Abadilla driving his Honda Accord. After the lapse
possibility of accuseds presence at the crime scene, the of more or less one (1) hour, he already heard successive
alibi will not hold water.[182] gunshots, while in his guard post, from the direction of the
middle lane where Abadillas car was surrounded by four (4)
Deeply embedded in our jurisprudence is the rule men carrying short firearms. All the foregoing disclosed the
that positive identification of the accused, where categorical execution of a pre-conceived plan to kill Abadilla. The essence
and consistent, without any showing of ill motive on the part of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal
of the eyewitness testifying, should prevail over the alibi and act is preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the
denial of appellants, whose testimonies are not substantiated resolution to carry out criminal intent within a span of time
by clear and convincing evidence.[183] However, none of the sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.[187]
appellants presented clear and convincing excuses showing
the physical impossibility of their being at the crime scene The trial court and CA were therefore correct in declaring the
between 8:00 oclock and 9:00 oclock in the morning of June appellants guilty as conspirators in the ambush-slay of
13, 1996. Hence, the trial court and CA did not err in rejecting Abadilla, the presence of treachery and evident premeditation
their common defense of alibi. qualifying the killing to murder under Art. 248 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended.
As to the failure of appellant Lumanog to take the
witness stand, indeed the grave charges of murder and illegal Proper Penalty
possession of firearms would have normally impelled an
accused to testify in his defense, particularly when his life is The CA correctly modified the death penalty imposed by the
at stake. As this Court observed in People v. Delmendo:[184] trial court. At the time the crime was committed, the penalty
for murder was reclusion perpetua to death. Since the penalty
An adverse inference may also be is composed of two (2) indivisible penalties, then for the
deduced from appellant's failure to take the purpose of determining the imposable penalty, Article 63 of
witness stand. While his failure to testify the Revised Penal Code, as amended, must be considered. It
cannot be considered against him, it may provides in part:
however help in determining his guilt. The
unexplained failure of the accused to 1. When in the commission of the deed
testify, under a circumstance where there is present only one aggravating
the crime imputed to him is so serious circumstance, the greater penalty shall be
that places in the balance his very life applied.
and that his testimony might at least
help in advancing his defense, gives With the presence of the aggravating circumstance
rise to an inference that he did not of treachery and there being no mitigating circumstance, the
want to testify because he did not higher penalty of death should be imposed.[188]
want to betray himself.
In view, however, of the passage of Republic Act No.
An innocent person will at once 9346 entitled, An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death
naturally and emphatically repel an Penalty in the Philippines, which was signed into law on June
accusation of crime, as a matter of self- 24, 2006, the imposition of the death penalty has been
preservation, and as a precaution against prohibited. Pursuant to Section 2 thereof, the penalty to be
prejudicing himself. A persons silence, meted to appellants shall be reclusion perpetua. Said section
therefore, particularly when it is persistent, reads:
may justify an inference that he is not
innocent. Thus, we have the general SECTION 2. In lieu of the death
principle that when an accused is silent penalty, the following shall be imposed:
when he should speak, in circumstances
where an innocent person so situated would (a) the penalty of reclusion
have spoken, on being accused of a crime, perpetua, when the law violated makes use
his silence and omission are admissible in of the nomenclature of the penalties of the
evidence against him. Accordingly, it has Revised Penal Code; or
been aptly said that silence may be assent
as well as consent, and may, where a direct (b) the penalty of life
and specific accusation of crime is made, be imprisonment, when the law violated does
regarded under some circumstances as a not make use of the nomenclature of the
quasi-confession.[185] penalties of the Revised Penal Code.

Treachery and Evident Premeditation Attended the Notwithstanding the reduction of the penalty
Commission of the Crime imposed on appellants, they are not eligible for parole
following Section 3 of said law which provides:[189]
As regards the presence of treachery as a qualifying
circumstance, the evidence clearly showed that the attack on SECTION 3. Persons convicted of
the unsuspecting victim -- who was inside his car on a stop offenses punished with reclusion
position in the middle of early morning traffic when he was perpetua, or whose sentences will be
suddenly fired upon by the appellants -- was deliberate, reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of
sudden and unexpected. There was simply no chance for this Act, shall not be eligible for parole
Abadilla to survive the ambush-slay, with successive shots
 49
under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the cannot claim the benefit of parole on the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended. basis of the ex post facto clause of the
Constitution, since an ex post facto law is
Appellants attack on the constitutionality of the above one which, among others, changes
provision on grounds of curtailment of the Presidents absolute punishment, and inflicts a greater
power to grant executive clemency, imposition of an inhuman punishment than the law annexed to the
punishment and violation of equal protection clause, is utterly crime when committed. Rep. Act No. 9346
misplaced. had the effect of inflicting a lighter
punishment, not a greater punishment, than
As succinctly explained by this Court in People v. Gardon[190] what the law annexed to the crime when
committed.[193] [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED.]
We should point out that the
benefit of parole cannot be extended to Civil Liability
Gardon even if he committed the crimes for
which he is now convicted prior to the When death occurs due to a crime, the following
effectivity of R.A. No. 9346. Sec. 2 of the damages may be awarded: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for
Indeterminate Sentence Law provides that the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages;
the law shall not apply to persons convicted (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; and (5)
of offenses punished with death penalty or temperate damages.[194]
life- imprisonment. Although the law makes
no reference to persons convicted to suffer Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs
the penalty of reclusion perpetua such as of the victim without need of proof other than the commission
Gardon, the Court has consistently held that of the crime.[195] We have ruled that even if the penalty of
the Indeterminate Sentence Law likewise death is not to be imposed because of the prohibition in R.A.
does not apply to persons sentenced No. 9346, the civil indemnity of P75,000.00 is proper, because
to reclusion perpetua. In People v. it is not dependent on the actual imposition of the death
Enriquez, we declared: penalty but on the fact that qualifying circumstances
warranting the imposition of the death penalty attended the
[R]eclusion perpetua is commission of the offense.[196] As explained in People v.
the only penalty that can be Salome,[197] while R.A. No. 9346 prohibits the imposition of the
imposed against the appellants. As death penalty, the fact remains that the penalty provided for
correctly argued by the Solicitor by the law for a heinous offense is still death, and the offense
General, Act No. 4103, otherwise is still heinous. Accordingly, the heirs of Col. Rolando N.
known as the Indeterminate Abadilla is entitled to civil indemnity in the amount
Sentence Law, cannot be applied in of P75,000.00. The grant of actual damages representing
the case of appellants considering burial expenses, funeral services and cost of repair of the
the proscription in Sec. 2 Honda car, is likewise in order, being duly supported by
thereof, viz: receipts.[198]

xxxx With regard to moral and exemplary damages, we

find the amounts awarded by the trial court excessive and the
Indeed, in People v. same are hereby reduced to P75,000.00 and P30,000.00,
Asturias, Serrano v. Court of respectively. It must again be stressed that moral damages
Appeals, People v. are emphatically not intended to enrich a plaintiff at the
Lampaza and People v. Tan, to expense of the defendant.When awarded, moral damages
name a few cases, we in effect must not be palpably and scandalously excessive as to
equated the penalty of reclusion indicate that it was the result of passion, prejudice or
perpetua as synonymous to life- corruption on the part of the trial judge or appellate court
imprisonment for purposes of the justices.[199] As to exemplary damages, the same is justified
Indeterminate Sentence Law, and under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code when a crime is
ruled that the latter law does not committed with an aggravating circumstance, either
apply to persons convicted of qualifying or generic.[200]
offenses punishable with the said
penalty. Consequently, we affirm WHEREFORE, the consolidated petitions and appeal
the Court of Appeals in not are hereby DISMISSED. The Decision dated April 1, 2008 of
applying the Indeterminate the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00667 is
Sentence Law, and in imposing hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in that the civil
upon appellants the penalty indemnity for the death of Col. Rolando N. Abadilla is hereby
of reclusion perpetua instead. increased to P75,000.00, and the amounts of moral and
exemplary damages awarded to his heirs are reduced
Reclusion perpetua is an indivisible to P75,000.00 and P30,000.00, respectively.
penalty without a minimum or maximum
period. Parole, on the other hand, is With costs against the accused-appellants.
extended only to those sentenced to
divisible penalties as is evident from Sec. 5 SO ORDERED.
of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, which
provides that it is only after any prisoner
shall have served the minimum penalty
imposed on him that the Board of DISSENTING OPINION
Indeterminate Sentence may consider
whether such prisoner may be granted CARPIO, J.:
parole.[191]
An accused has the right to be presumed innocent unless
Further, we cite the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. No less than the
Dante Tinga in People v. Tubongbanua,[192] addressing the fundamental law guarantees such human right.Section 14(2),
issue herein raised by appellants, to wit: Article III of the Constitution mandates that In all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until
No constitutional sanctities will be the contrary is proved. Reinforcing this right, Section 2, Rule
offended if persons previously sentenced to 134 of the Rules of Court specifically provides that In a
death, or persons sentenced to reclusion criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless
perpetua, are denied the benefit of parole his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt.
conformably to Section 3 of Rep. Act No.
9346. As to persons previously The presumption of innocence serves to emphasize that the
sentenced to death, it should be prosecution has the obligation to prove not only each element
remembered that at the time of the of the offense beyond reasonable doubt [1] but also the
commission of the crime, the penalty identity of the accused as the perpetrator. The accused,
attached to the crime was death. To on the other hand, bears no burden of proof. [2] The prosecution
their benefit, Rep. Act No. 9346 reduced evidence must stand or fall on its own weight and cannot
the penalty attached to the crime draw strength from the weakness of the defense.[3]
to reclusion perpetua. Yet such persons
 50
The present consolidated cases involve the ambush-killing of In People v. Teehankee,[5] the Court laid down the guidelines to
former Metropolitan Command Intelligence and Security determine the admissibility and reliability of an out-of-court
Group of the Philippine Constabulary Colonel Rolando N. identification, thus:
Abadilla (Abadilla) on 13 June 1996 by several men while he
was stuck in traffic along Katipunan Avenue, Quezon City. In resolving the admissibility of and relying
on out-of-court identification of suspects,
Accused of being the killers of Abadilla, Lenido Lumanog courts have adopted the totality of
(Lumanog), Augusto Santos (Santos), Cesar Fortuna (Fortuna), circumstances test where they consider
Rameses De Jesus (Rameses), Lorenzo Delos Santos (Delos the following factors, viz: (1) the witness
Santos), Joel De Jesus (Joel), and Arturo Napolitano opportunity to view the criminal at the time
(Napolitano) were charged with murder, aggravated by of the crime; (2) the witness degree of
treachery, evident premeditation, and taking advantage of attention at the time; (3) the accuracy of
superior strength. The trial court convicted Lumanog, Santos, any prior description given by the witness;
Fortuna, Rameses, and Joel, while it acquitted Delos Santos (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by
and Napolitano. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. the witness at the identification; (5) the
length of time between the crime and the
The majority sees no reason to disturb the verdict. The identification; and (6) the suggestiveness
majority discards the extrajudicial confession extracted from of the identification
the accused for being violative of the accuseds constitutional procedure. (Emphasis supplied)
rights. Nevertheless, the majority affirms the trial and
appellate courts finding of guilt, which was basically anchored Hence, in an out-of-court identification, among the factors to
on the alleged positive identification of the accused as be considered is the suggestiveness of the procedure. In this
gunmen and lookouts by a lone eyewitness, Freddie Alejo case, the police resorted to a photographic identification of
(Alejo). The majority gives credence to the prosecutions Joel, who was the first suspect to be apprehended and who
eyewitness, and disbelieves the defenses eyewitness. For provided the identities of the other accused.
these reasons, the majority finds that the prosecution has
sufficiently overthrown the presumption of innocence which In People v. Pineda,[6] the Court explained the rules in proper
the accused enjoy and has proved beyond reasonable doubt photographic identification procedure, to wit:
the accuseds guilt for the crime of murder.
Although showing mug shots of suspects is
I dissent. one of the established methods of
identifying criminals, the procedure used in
I. The photographic identification of Joel De Jesus is this case is unacceptable. The first rule in
tainted with impermissible suggestion, violating the proper photographic identification
accuseds due process rights. procedure is that a series of
photographs must be shown, and not
As the majority found, when appellants (accused) were merely that of the suspect. The second
arrested they were already considered suspects: Joel rule directs that when a witness is
was pinpointed by security guard Alejo who went along shown a group of pictures, their
with the PARAC squad to Fairview on June 19, 1996, x x arrangement and display should in no
x. In other words, insofar as the police was concerned, Joel way suggest which one of the pictures
was already a suspect even before Alejo went with them to pertains to the suspect. Thus:
identify Joel. In fact, before Alejo pinpointed Joel as one
of the suspects, the police showed Alejo a photograph [W] here a photograph has been
of Joel, supporting the fact that the police focused on identified as that of the guilty
Joel as a suspect in the Abadilla killing. Alejo testified: party, any subsequent corporeal
identification of that person may be
ATTY. BAGATSING: based not upon the witnesss
recollection of the features of the
Q Prior to 3:00 oclock PM of June 19, 1996 guilty party, but upon his
on or about 2:00 oclock PM where recollection of the photograph.
were you? Thus, although a witness who is
asked to attempt a corporeal
A Perhaps I was on my way I was fetched by identification of a person whose
the policeman from our agency in photograph he previously identified
Monumento, sir. may say, "Thats the man that did
it," what he may actually mean is,
Q Who was that police officer who fetched "Thats the man whose photograph I
you? identified."

A I cant recall his name which was placed xxx

on his name plate, sir.
A recognition of this psychological
Q How many were they? phenomenon leads logically to the
conclusion that where a witness
A They were four (4) of them, sir. has made a photographic
identification of a person, his
Q After you were fetched from your post or subsequent corporeal identification
agency in Monumento, where did of that same person is somewhat
you go? impaired in value, and its accuracy
must be evaluated in light of the
fact that he first saw a photograph.
A The police officers told me we were going
(Emphasis supplied)
to Fairview, sir.
In Pineda, the Court rejected the out-of-court identification of
Q While you were with these police officers
the accused, since only the photographs of the two accused,
on the way to Fairview, did you
Pineda and Sison, were shown to the witnesses, contrary to
have any conversation with them?
the recognized rules in photographic identification. Finding the
identification of appellant therein tainted with impermissible
A This was what happened. On the 18th of
suggestion, the Court held the identification failed the totality
June in the afternoon of June
of circumstances test, thus:
18, 1996, they showed me a
picture of a man wearing
In the present case, there was
eyeglasses but I told them I will
impermissible suggestion because the
not point a man in photographs I
photographs were only of appellant and
would like to see him in person.
[4] Sison, focusing attention on the two
(Emphasis supplied)
accused. The police obviously suggested
the identity of the accused by showing only
appellant and Sisons photographs to Ferrer
and Ramos.
 51
The testimonies of Ferrer and Ramos show confused, or in common parlance, "rattled."
that their identification of appellant fails the To this already uncommon event was added
totality of circumstances test. The out-of- the shooting of Rositas husband who
court identification of appellant casts doubt charged the robbers with a "bangko" and
on the testimonies of Ferrer and Ramos in was promptly shot, not once but three
court.[7] times. These factors add up to our
conclusion of the unlikelihood of an
Similarly, in this case, Alejo was first shown a independent and reliable identification.
photograph of Joel before Alejo pinpointed Joel as one (Emphasis supplied)
of the suspects. The police showed only one
photograph, that of Joels, highlighting the fact that the The clear import of Rodrigo is that an out-of-
police primed and conditioned Alejo to identify Joel as court identification, made by the lone witness, who
one of the murderers of Abadilla. The police focused on was subjected to impermissible photographic
Joel as one of the suspects, prior to Alejos identification. The suggestion, fatally tainted the subsequent in-court
police did not show Alejo any other photograph, only that of identification made by the same witness. Accordingly,
Joels. Assuming Alejo refused to glance at Joels photograph, the testimony of such witness on the identification of
which is quited unbelievable, the fact that he was shown only the accused, by itself, cannot be considered as proof
one photograph violates standard operating procedures in beyond reasonable doubt of the identity of the
criminal investigations. Clearly, the police, in showing Alejo perpetrator of the crime. Without proof beyond
only a photograph of Joel, instead of a series of photographs reasonable doubt of the identity of the perpetrator, the
arranged in an unsuspicious manner, breached the recognized accused deserves an acquittal.
rules in photographic identification. Undoubtedly, this
procedure seriously corrupted the identification process with Inasmuch as the present case involves the alleged positive
impermissible suggestion. identification by a lone eyewitness and the entire case
depends on such identification, the Rodrigo case squarely
In People v. Rodrigo,[8] the Court, speaking thru Justice Arturo applies here. Moreover, similar to this case, the witness
Brion, acquitted the accused for failure of the prosecution to in Rodrigo was initially shown a single photograph of the
identify the accused as the perpetrator of the crime, which accused.
identification is extremely crucial to the prosecutions burden
of proof. Stressing the importance of a proper identification of Applying Rodrigo to this case, the sole eyewitness Alejos out-
the accused, most especially when the identification is of-court identification which proceeded from impermissible
made by a sole witness and the judgment in the case suggestion tainted his in-court identification of Joel as one of
totally depends on the reliability of the identification, the perpetrators of the crime. As a result, Alejos corrupted
just like in this case, the Court held: testimony on the identification of Joel cannot be considered as
proof beyond reasonable doubt of the identity of Joel as one of
The greatest care should be taken in the perpetrators. Without such proof, Joel must be acquitted.
considering the identification of the accused
especially, when this identification is made In his Separate Concurring Opinion, Justice Lucas P.
by a sole witness and the judgment in the Bersamin distinguishes Rodrigo from the instant case.
case totally depends on the reliability of the Indeed, Rodrigo involved a robbery with homicide while this
identification. This level of care and case is for murder. Notwithstanding the dissimilarity in the
circumspection applies with greater vigor factual milieus, Rodrigo similarly dealt with the
when, as in the present case, the issue goes admissibility and reliability of the identification made
beyond pure credibility into constitutional by a sole witness and the judgment in the case totally
dimensions arising from the due process depends on such identification. In this case, Alejo is
rights of the accused. the sole eyewitness whose identification of the
perpetrators is determinative of the final outcome of
xxxx this case.

That a single photograph, not a series, was Justice Bersamin errs in concluding that Alejos alleged act of
shown to Rosita is admitted by Rosita herself categorically declining to identify any suspect from mere
in her testimony. looking at a photograph removes any taint of impermissible
suggestion from the out-of-court identification. This does not
xxxx detract from the fact that the police showed Alejo no other
photograph, except that of Joels. Moreover, to repeat the
We hold it highly likely, based on the majoritys finding: when appellants (accused) were
above considerations, that Rositas arrested they were already considered suspects: Joel
photographic identification was was pinpointed by security guard Alejo who went along
attended by an impermissible with the PARAC squad to Fairview on June 19, 1996, x x
suggestion that tainted her in-court x. Moreover, the fact remains that Joel testified that the police
identification of Rodrigo as one of the showed me a picture of a man wearing eyeglasses.
three robbers. We rule too that based
on the other indicators of unreliability Further, it must be emphasized that a highly
we discussed above, Rositas suggestive identification results in a denial of the accuseds
identification cannot be considered as right to due process since it effectively and necessarily
proof beyond reasonable doubt of the deprives the accused of a fair trial. In Rodrigo, the Court
identity of Rodrigo as one of the stated:
perpetrators of the crime.
The initial photographic identification in this
A first significant point to us is that Rosita case carries serious constitutional law
did not identify a person whom she had implications in terms of the possible
known or seen in the past. The robbers were violation of the due process rights of the
total strangers whom she saw very briefly. It accused as it may deny him his rights to a
is unfortunate that there is no direct fair trial to the extent that his in-court
evidence of how long the actual robbery and identification proceeded from and was
the accompanying homicide lasted. But the influenced by impermissible suggestions in
crime, as described, could not have taken the earlier photographic identification. In
long, certainly not more than a quarter of an the context of this case, the investigators
hour at its longest. This time element alone might not have been fair to Rodrigo if they
raises the question of whether Rosita had themselves, purposely or unwittingly, fixed
sufficiently focused on Rodrigo to remember in the mind of Rosita, or at least actively
him, and whether there could have been a prepared her mind to, the thought that
reliable independent recall of Rodrigos Rodrigo was one of the robbers. Effectively,
identity. this act is no different from coercing a
witness in identifying an accused, varying
We also find it significant that three robbers only with respect to the means used. Either
were involved, all three brandishing guns, way, the police investigators are the real
who immediately announced a holdup. This actors in the identification of the accused;
is an unusual event that ordinarily would evidence of identification is effectively
have left a person in the scene nervous, created when none really exists.[9]
 52
In Pineda, the Court pointed out the dangers a photographic Any person under investigation for the
identification spawns: an impermissible suggestion and the commission of an offense shall have the
risk that the eyewitness would identify the person he right to be informed of his right to remain
saw in the photograph and not the person he saw silent and to have competent and
actually committing the crime. Citing Patrick M. Wall, the independent counsel preferably of his own
Court stated: choice. If the person cannot afford the
services of counsel, he must be provided
[W]here a photograph has been with one. These rights cannot be waived
identified as that of the guilty except in writing and in the presence of
party, any subsequent corporeal counsel.
identification of that person may
be based not upon the witness In People v. Escordial,[12] the Court pertinently ruled:
recollection of the features of the
guilty party, but upon his As a rule, an accused is not entitled to the
recollection of the photograph. assistance of counsel in a police line-up
Thus, although a witness who is considering that such is usually not a part of
asked to attempt a corporeal the custodial inquest. However, the cases at
identification of a person whose bar are different inasmuch as accused-
photograph he previously appellant, having been the focus of
identified may say, "Thats the attention by the police after he had been
man that did it," what he may pointed to by a certain Ramie as the
actually mean is, "Thats the man possible perpetrator of the crime, was
whose photograph I identified." already under custodial investigation when
these out-of-court identifications were
xxxx conducted by the police.

A recognition of this psychological An out-of-court identification of an accused

phenomenon leads logically to can be made in various ways. In a show-up,
the conclusion that where a the accused alone is brought face to face
witness has made a photographic with the witness for identification, while in a
identification of a person, his police line-up, the suspect is identified by a
subsequent corporeal witness from a group of persons gathered
identification of that same person for that purpose. During custodial
is somewhat impaired in value, investigation, these types of
and its accuracy must be identification have been recognized as
evaluated in light of the fact that critical confrontations of the accused
he first saw a photograph.[10] by the prosecution which necessitate
the presence of counsel for the
Due process dictates that the photographic identification must accused. This is because the results of
be devoid of any impermissible suggestions in order to these pre-trial proceedings might well
prevent a miscarriage of justice. In People v. Alcantara, the settle the accuseds fate and reduce the
Court declared: trial itself to a mere formality. We have
thus ruled that any identification of an
Due process demands that identification uncounseled accused made in a police
procedure of criminal suspects must be free line-up, or in a show-up for that matter,
from impermissible suggestions. As after the start of the custodial
appropriately held in US vs. Wade, the investigation is inadmissible as
influence of improper suggestion upon evidence against him.(Emphasis
identifying witness probably accounts supplied)
for more miscarriages of justice than
any other single factor.[11] (Emphasis As stated in Escordial, generally, an accused is not entitled to
supplied) the assistance of counsel in a police line-up considering that
such is usually not a part of custodial investigation. An
Therefore, the polices act of showing a single photograph to exception to this rule is when the accused had been
Alejo, prior to identifying Joel as a suspect, corrupted the the focus of police attention at the start of the
identification procedure with impermissible investigation. The line-up in this case squarely falls under
suggestion. Through this illegal procedure, the police, this exception. It was established that Joel was already a
purposely or otherwise, suggested and implanted on Alejos suspect prior to the police line-up. In fact, even before Joels
mind that Joel was one of the perpetrators, thereby violating apprehension, the police had already zeroed in on Joel as one
Joels right as an accused to due process. Not only did the of Abadillas killers. As such, Joel was entitled to counsel during
police disregard recognized and accepted rules in the police line-up.
photographic identification, they likewise transgressed the
clear mandate of the Constitution that No person shall be However, there is no question that Joel was not assisted by
deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of counsel, whether of his own choice or provided by the police,
law. More particularly, the police violated Section 14(1) of the during the line up. As Joels identification was uncounseled, it
Constitution which provides: No person shall be held to cannot be admitted in evidence for grossly violating Joels right
answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. to counsel under Section 12(1) of the Constitution.

II. The accused was not assisted by counsel during the Further, the Court held in Escordial that the testimony of the
police line-up, violating the accuseds right to counsel witness regarding the inadmissible identification cannot be
in a custodial investigation. admitted as well, thus:

The second out-of-court identification of Joel was made by Here, accused-appellant was identified by
Alejo when Joel and Delos Santos were presented in a police Michelle Darunda in a show-up on January 3,
line-up conducted at the Criminal Investigation Division in 1997 and by Erma Blanca, Ma. Teresa
Camp Karingal on 21 June 1996, two days after the first out-of- Gellaver, Jason Joniega, and Mark Esmeralda
court identification of Joel. As stated above, Alejo was shown a in a police line-up on various dates after his
picture of Joel prior to the latters arrest on 19 June arrest. Having been made when accused-
1996. Similar to the first out-of-court identification, the appellant did not have the assistance of
identification of Joel in a police line-up likewise proceeded counsel, these out-of-court identifications
from impermissible suggestion. Alejo already saw Joels are inadmissible in evidence against
photograph and had seen Joel in person when Alejo pinpointed him. Consequently, the testimonies of
Joel as a suspect. The necessity for the police line-up was these witnesses regarding these
doubtful and the conduct thereof suspicious considering that identifications should have been held
Joel was already identified by Alejo when the latter went with inadmissible for being the direct result
the police to Fairview to pinpoint the suspect. of the illegal lineup come at by
exploitation of [the primary] illegality.
[13]
More importantly, the police denied Joel his right to counsel
during the line-up, contrary to Section 12(1) of the
Constitution which provides:
 53
III. The in-court identification of the accused did not Notably, the majority failed to consider the disparity in the
cure the flawed out-of-court identification. suspects estimated age and Lumanogs actual age. Alejo
described the gunman as between 25-30 years old, while
Citing Patrick M. Wall,[14] the majority enumerated the danger Lumanog was actually 40 years old. Certainly, a 40 year old
signals which give warning that the identification may be man could not be mistaken for a 25 or 30 year old male,
erroneous even though the method used is proper. Contrary to unless the prosecution had shown that Lumanog, despite his
the majority, some of these danger signals are present in this age, looked quite young, or that Lumanog underwent facial
case: (1) a serious discrepancy exists between the identifying surgery before he supposedly shot the victim to appear as a
witness original description and the actual description of the 25-30 year old male.
accused; (2) the limited opportunity on the part of the witness
to see the accused before the commission of the crime; (3) a With respect to one of the lookouts, who pointed a gun at
considerable time elapsed between the witness view of the him, Alejo described him in his sworn statement as edad 30-
criminal and his identification of the accused; and (4) several 35, 55-56 ang taas, maikli ang buhok, kayumanggi. It must be
persons committed the crime. pointed out that Alejo was only able to give a prior description
of one of the lookouts who pointed a gun at him, despite his
A. Discrepancy between original description and actual later testimony that there were two lookouts who threatened
description his life and were walking to and fro in front of his guardpost
prior to the killing, suggesting Alejo had ample time to see
In his sworn statement, which was executed barely five hours and familiarize himself with the faces of these two lookouts.
after the commission of the crime, Alejo was able to recall the
features of only two suspects, those of one of the gunmen and Considering that in open court, Alejo testified that there were
one of the lookouts. Significantly, Alejo failed to remember the two suspects who each pointed a gun at him, whom he
physical attributes of the rest of the suspects. Alejo described identified as Joel and Delos Santos, the prosecution must
the two suspects as follows: sufficiently and clearly establish as to who between these two
accused would the description in Alejos sworn statement be
20. T Kung makita mo bang muli ang mga used as basis for identification. This the prosecution gravely
suspect, makikilala mo ba sila? failed to do.

S Maaari, sir. With respect to Joel, Alejos prior description given before the
police did not match Joels physical features. Joel was only 22
21. T Ano ba ang itsura ng mga years old then, leaving at least an 8-year difference as to the
suspect? age of the lookout who was described by Alejo as 30-35 years
old. The majority explained the difference in the age by
S Iyong tumutok sa akin stating, thus:
ay naka-asul na t-shirt, edad
30-35, 55 - 56 ang taas, maikli Though his estimate of Joels age was not
ang buhok, kayumanggi. xxx precise, it is not far from his true age,
Iyong sumakal sa biktima at especially if we consider that being a
nang-agaw ng clutch bag nito tricycle driver who is exposed daily to
ay 25-30 ang edad, payat, sunlight, Joels looks may give a first
mahaba ang buhok na nakatali, impression that he is older than his actual
maitim, may taas na 55-56, age.[17]
maiksi din ang baril niya at
nakaputing polo. xxx The majoritys explanation is purely speculative. There was no
evidence presented to prove (1) that Joel plied his tricycle
22. T Ang sabi mo, pagbangon mo everyday during daytime; (2) the amount of Joels exposure to
sa pagkadapa sa guardhouse ay sunlight; and (3) such exposure was excessive as to result to
wala na ang mga suspect, may premature aging of the facial skin.
napansin ka bang sasakyan man
sila sa pagtakas? Moreover, Joels height is 59 whereas the man whom Alejo
described as lookout was about 55-56 tall. There was no
S Mabilis nga sir ang pangyayari. Wala din explanation offered as to the disparity in the height.
akong napansin kung may
sasakyan man sila sa pagtakas. To repeat, Alejo described only one lookout in his sworn
(Emphasis supplied) statement, contrary to his testimony that there were two
lookouts. For such conflicting statements, the trial court
In his in-court identification of the suspects, two months after acquitted Delos Santos, thus:
the crime, Alejo identified Lumanog as Suspect No. 1, who
allegedly took the clutch bag of the victim, sinakal ang The typewriter recording at 1:55 in the
biktima, inilabas ng kotse at nang bagsak sa kalsada ay binaril afternoon of SG Alejos salaysay is but the
pa uli. culmination of a long process of oral
interviews and conversation so that the
However, Lumanogs actual age and physical features are results thereof can be put in systematic
nowhere close to Alejos description of the gunman in his order. Additionally, at that period in time, SG
sworn statement. In a newspaper article, it was reported that Alejos recollection is still very recent and
the police sketch of killer bore no resemblance to any of the fresh and he appears to be solely in touch
Abadilla 5 (referring to the five accused).[15] Lumanog is fair with police investigators who came to know
complexioned, definitely not maitim; 40 years old, not 25 to of the ambush that same morning. His court
30 years of age; and sported a short, not long, hair. The grave testimony, therefore, given at a much later
disparity between the description of the gunman in Alejos date (August 1996) after the arrest of
sworn statement and in his testimony greatly undermines Lorenzo delos Santos wherein SG Alejo
Alejos credibility in identifying the perpetrators of the narrated that there were two (2) men
gruesome crime. loitering about near his post and that one
after the other those two men barked at or
Yet, the majority brushed aside Alejos inconsistencies, ordered him is weakened by what he had
justifying the same, thus: earlier told police investigators disclosing
that only one (1) person shouted orders at
Alejos description of Lumanog as dark- him. In view of this, the court finds the alibi
skinned was made two (2) months prior to of Lorenzo to have been correspondingly
the dates of trial when he was again asked strengthened as to put in doubt the
to identify him in court. When defense prosecutions case against this particular
counsel posed the question of the accused.
discrepancy in Alejos description of
Lumanog who was then presented as The trial court disbelieved Alejos testimony wherein he pinned
having fair complexion and 40 years old, Joel and Delos Santos as the suspects who were walking to
the private prosecutor manifested the and fro and threatened him at his guard post. Despite the fact
possible effect of Lumanogs incarceration that in terms of proximity to Alejo, these two suspects were
for such length of time as to make his nearest him, and would most likely be recognized, if seen
appearance different at the time of the trial. again, the trial court doubted Alejos identification of Delos
[16] Santos. Alejos testimony is fatally inconsistent with his earlier
 54
claim that there was only one lookout who twice ordered him According to Alejo, six men perpetrated the crime. He saw
to lie down (baba). these six male adults, all complete strangers, for the very first
time in a matter of seconds. It is quite unbelievable that Alejo,
Considering there was sufficient reason to doubt Delos Santos whose life was threatened by at least one of the suspects,
culpability based on Alejos conflicting statements, there is focused his attention on all six suspects, looked at them at the
more reason to doubt Joels participation in the crime. The same time, and memorized their faces and features in less
discrepancy between Alejos description given before the than a minute. In fact, he did not witness the entire incident
police and the actual physical appearance of Joel, and the as it unfolded. Alejo did not even see the suspects flee the
inconsistency in the number of lookouts, severely weakened crime scene in a white Kia Pride car as he was ordered to lie
the credibility of Alejo in identifying the real culprits. down by one of the lookouts. The physical impossibility of
looking at the faces of six different men at the same time
B. Limited opportunity for Alejo to see the criminals points to the incredibility of Alejos testimony, certain details of
which clearly run counter to human nature and experience.
There is no dispute that Alejo does not know the
murderers. Neither does he know the accused. Alejo saw the IV. Alejos in-court identification of the accused
gunmen and lookouts for the first time during the proceeded from illegal police activities.
killing. In Rodrigo, the Court observed:
As discussed earlier, Alejos in-court identification of Joel
This fact can make a lot of difference as proceeded from and was influenced by impermissible
human experience tells us: in the suggestions in the earlier photographic identification. As a
recognition of faces, the mind is more consequence, Alejos testimony based on such fatally
certain when the faces relate to those defective identification cannot be considered as proof beyond
already in the minds memory bank; reasonable doubt of the identity of the perpetrators,
conversely, it is not easy to recall or identify warranting Joels acquittal.
someone we have met only once or whose
appearance we have not fixed in our mind. As regards Lumanog, Fortuna, Santos and Rameses, it was
[18]
Joel, through a coerced confession, who supplied the police
investigators with the identities of his supposed cohorts and
Aside from the fact that Alejo did not know the killers, Alejo their whereabouts. The majority notes that Police officers
saw them very briefly. In fact, in his own words, he admitted claimed that appellants were apprehended as a result of hot
this to the police investigators when he answered mabilis ang pursuit activities on the days following the ambush-slay of
mga pangyayari, sir. Likewise, in his testimony, Alejo stated: Abadilla. There is no question, however, that when appellants
were arrested they were already considered suspects: Joel
ATTY. AZARCON was pinpointed by security guard Alejo who went along with
the PARAC squad to Fairview on June 19, 1996, while the
Q And how long a time when the first rest of appellants were taken by the same operatives
suspect poked the gun at you and in follow-up operations after Joel provided them with
the time you faced the other identities of his conspirators and where they could be
suspect? found.

A I faced the man who poked a gun at me The police did not posses any description or prior
for about 5 seconds and then I identification of these accused. There was no leading
looked back towards the four information, or any piece of reliable information for that
suspects. matter, on the identity of the killers, except Joels illegally
extracted extrajudicial confession. Neither did the police have
Q How long a time were you facing the four any evidence linking the other accused to the crime. To
suspects? repeat, Joel provided the police, through a coerced
confession, with the identities of his supposed co-
A Less than a minute, sir.[19] conspirators and where they could be found. Clearly,
the police investigators are the real actors in the
identification of the accused; evidence of identification
We agree with the accused that the swiftness by which the
is effectively created when none really exists.[20]
crime was committed and the physical impossibility of
memorizing the faces of all the perpetrators of the crime
whom the witness saw for the first time and only for a brief The majority strikes down the extrajudicial confession [which
moment under life-threatening and stressful circumstances were] extracted in violation of constitutional enshrined rights
incite disturbing doubts as to whether the witness could and declares it inadmissible in evidence. Since Joels coerced
accurately remember the identity of the perpetrators of the extrajudicial confession is inadmissible, the contents of which,
crime. specifically the identities of the supposed killers, are
unreliable and inadmissible as well.
C. A considerable time elapsed between the witness view of
the criminal and his identification of the accused. In Escordial, the Court stated that the testimonies of the
witnesses on the identification of the accused should be held
inadmissible for being the direct result of the illegal lineup
Except for Joel and Delos Santos, the rest of the accused were
come at by exploitation of [the primary] illegality. [21] Here,
identified for the first time in open court when Alejo testified
being a direct result of an illegal police activity, that is the
during the trial. It must be stressed that there was neither any
coerced extraction of a confession from Joel, the subsequent
prior identification nor prior description of Lumanog, Santos,
in-court identification by Alejo of Lumanog, Rameses, Fortuna
Rameses, and Fortuna as murder suspects in this case.
and Santos must be rejected. The testimony of Alejo on the
identification of the accused as perpetrators of the crime
The crime took place on 13 June 1996, while Alejo testified in
cannot be given any weight. Alejos in-court identification of
August 1996. Alejo was never made to identify Lumanog,
Lumanog, Rameses, Fortuna, and Santos was fatally tainted
Santos, Rameses, and Fortuna prior to their arrest until their
because the identity of the suspects came from a coerced
in-court identification was made. Two months had elapsed
confession of Joel, who himself was identified as a suspect
between Alejos view of the criminals and his identification of
through a fatally defective impermissible suggestion to
the accused in open court. Alejos memory, just like any other
Alejo. In short, Alejos identification of Joel was fatally
humans, is frail. In fact, as noted by the trial court, Alejos
defective; Alejos identification of Lumanog, Rameses,
recollection at the time he gave his statement before the
Fortuna and Santos was also fatally defective. Both
police investigators was more recent and fresher than when
identification directly emanated from illegal police
Alejo testified in court. Accordingly, the trial court gave more
activities impermissible suggestion and coerced
credence to Alejos sworn statement than his testimony in
confession.
acquitting Delos Santos.
Without any credible evidence of their identification as the
Considering Alejos weak recollection of the incident, it is quite
perpetrators of the crime, Lumanog, Rameses, Fortuna,
incredible that Alejo, at the time he identified the accused in
Santos, and Joel must therefore be acquitted.
open court, had perfect memory as to the identity of the five
accused, who were complete strangers allegedly seen by
V. Alejos familiarity with the faces of the accused, due
Alejo for the first time on 13 June 1996 in a very fleeting and
to media exposure of the identities of the accused
extremely stressful moment.
extracted from a coerced confession, impaired his in-
court identification.
D. Several persons committed the crime.
 55
After the police investigators had illegally extracted from Joel b) When an offense has just been
the identities and locations of the other suspects, and after committed, and he has probable cause to
they had arrested Lumanog, Rameses, Fortuna and Santos, believe based on personal knowledge of
the police proudly declared: crime solved and case closed. facts or circumstances that the person to be
With this remarkable development, the accused were arrested has committed it; and
presented before the media in a press conference in Camp
Crame on 24 June 1996 or 11 days after the killing. The c) When the person to be
accused were photographed by mediamen and interviewed arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from
by members of the press. During the press conference, the a penal establishment or place where he is
accused were made to squat on the floor, their names written serving final judgment or is temporarily
on boards dangling from their necks.[22] confined while his case is pending, or has
escaped while being transferred from one
Indisputably, the police extracted the identities of the confinement to another.
accused from a coerced confession of Joel. Then the police
arrested the accused, and allowed the media to take their None of the above instances is present in this case: (1) the
pictures with their names written on boards around their accused were not arrested in flagrante delicto; (2) the arrest
necks. The media promptly published these pictures in was not based on personal knowledge of the arresting officers
several newspapers. Thus, at that time, the faces of the that there is probable cause that the accused were the
accused were regularly splashed all over the newspapers and authors of the crime which had just been committed; (3) the
on television screens in news reports. Alejo could not have accused were not prisoners who have escaped from custody
missed seeing the faces of the accused before he serving final judgment or temporarily confined while their
identified them in court. To rule otherwise strains case is pending. There is no question that all the accused
credulity. were apprehended several days after the crime while doing
ordinary and unsuspicious activities. There is also no question
Alejo, as the star witness in this case, must naturally be that the police had no personal knowledge of probable cause
interested to look, or even stare, at the faces of the alleged that the accused were responsible for the crime which had
killers to make sure he identifies them in court.Assuming been committed. The third situation is inapplicable since the
Alejo failed to personally see the faces of the accused in the accused are not prison escapees. Considering these facts,
newspapers or television, which is highly improbable, if not there is indeed no justification for the warrantless arrests
totally impossible, his family and friends, if not the police, effected by the police in their so-called hot pursuit. Such
would have provided him with photographs of the accused warrantless arrest, therefore, amounts to a violation of Section
from the newspapers for easier identification later in 2, Article III of the Constitution, which provides:
court. Surely, Alejo had ample time to memorize and
familiarize himself with the faces of the accused before he The right of the people to be secure in their
testified in court and identified Lumanog, Santos, Rameses, persons, houses, papers, and effects against
Joel, and Fortuna as the killers of Abadilla. unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall
To give credence to Alejos in-court identification of the be inviolable, and no search warrant or
accused is to admit and give probative value to the warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
coerced confession of Joel. Clearly, the publication of probable cause to be determined personally
the pictures of the accused in the newspapers and by the judge after examination under oath
television came directly from the coerced confession or affirmation of the complainant and the
of Joel. Alejo would not have been able to identify the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
accused without the pictures of the accused that were describing the place to be searched and the
taken by media as a result of the coerced confession persons or things to be seized.
of Joel.
The police investigation work in this case, which led to the
Inexplicably, the majority fails to consider this extensive unlawful warrantless arrest of the accused, is nothing but
media exposure of the accused in ascertaining the reliability sloppy: (1) they chose to rely solely on thesworn
and admissibility of Alejos testimony on the identities of the statement of one eyewitness (Alejo); (2) they failed to
accused. The majority ignores the fact that Alejo had seen obtain any description of the suspects from other
the accused in print and on television, guaranteeing Alejos in- eyewitnesses, including the owner of the Kia Pride
court identification of the accused as the perpetrators of the which was forcefully obtained by the suspects as a get-
crime. The media exposure of the accused casts serious away car; (3) they showed Alejo a picture of Joel to
doubts on the integrity of Alejos testimony on the assist him in identifying the suspect; and (4) they
identification of the murderers. Such doubts are sufficient to arrested the other accused based entirely on the
rule that Alejos in-court identification of the accused as the illegally extracted extrajudicial confession of Joel.
perpetrators of the crime is neither positive nor credible. It is
not merely any identification which would suffice for Worse than their illegal warrantless arrest, the accused
conviction of the accused. It must be positive identification reportedly underwent unspeakable torture in the hands of the
made by a credible witness, in order to attain the level of police. While the Commission on Human Rights, in its
acceptability and credibility to sustain moral certainty Resolution dated July 16, 1996, did not make any categorical
concerning the person of the offender.[23] finding of physical violence inflicted on the appellants by the
police authorities, the CHR found prima facie evidence that
VI. The police investigation and apprehension of the the police officers could have violated Republic Act No. 7438,
accused violated the accuseds rights against particularly on visitorial rights and the right to counsel,
warrantless arrest and against any form of torture. including the law on arbitrary detention, x x x.

The police arrested Joel, without any warrant, on 19 June 1996 The majority also finds that P/Insp. Castillo admitted that the
or six days after the killing. Six days is definitely more initial questioning of Joel began in the morning of June 20,
than enough to secure an arrest warrant, and yet the 1996, the first time said suspect was presented to him at the
police opted to arrest Joel and the other accused, CPDC station, even before he was brought to the IBP Office for
without any warrant, claiming that it was conducted in the taking of his formal statement. Thus, the possibility of
hot pursuit. In law enforcement, hot pursuit can refer to an appellant Joel having been subjected to intimidation or
immediate pursuit by the police such as a car chase. violence in the hands of police investigators as he
[24]
Certainly, the warrantless arrrest of Joel, made six days claims cannot be discounted. During the trial, the police
after the murder, does not fall within the ambit of hot miserably failed to explain Joels whereabouts from the time he
pursuit. The question now is whether the successive was arrested on 19 June 1996 until he was interrogated the
warrantless arrests of the accused are legal. The pertinent next day. Further, there were sufficient evidence that Joel and
provisions of Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure on the other accused suffered physical injuries consistent with
warrantless arrest provide: torture bruises.

Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. The speedy resolution of a crime is never a license for the
- A peace officer or a private person may, police to apprehend any person and beat him to admit his
without a warrant, arrest a person: participation in a gruesome crime. In this case, without any
credible evidence linking the accused to the murder, the
a) When, in his presence, the person to be police blindly resorted to careless investigation and unlawful
arrested has committed, is actually apprehension of innocent men. Worse, the police apparently
committing, or is attempting to commit an tortured the accused to answer for the brutal slaying of
offense; Abadilla.
 56
Indisputably, torturing the accused to extract incriminating enforcers, in their haste to solve crimes,
confessions is repugnant to the Constitution. Section 12(2), strip people accused of serious
Article III of the Constitution expressly provides [n]o torture, offenses of the sanctity of their
force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which constitutional rights. It is again time to
vitiate the free will shall be used against [an accused]. The pound on these law enforcers with the
blatant and unacceptable transgression of the accuseds crania of cavern men that the
constitutional rights, for the sake of delivering speedy, but guarantees of the rights of an accused
false, justice to the aggrieved, can never be countenanced. in the Constitution are not mere
This Court can never tolerate official abuses and perpetuate saccharine statements but the bedrock
the gross violation of these rights. The presumption that a of our liberty. If we allow a meltdown of
public officer had regularly performed his official duty can at these guarantees, our democracy will
no instance prevail over the presumption of innocence. be a delusion. (Emphasis supplied)

VII. Conclusion In view of the gross violations of the accuseds constitutional

rights as well as the seriously flawed identification of the
In reviewing criminal cases, the Court must carefully accused as the perpetrators of the crime, there is sufficient
determine and establish first, the identification of the accused reason to doubt the accuseds guilt for the crime charged. To
as perpetrator of the crime, taking into account the credibility repeat, the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of
of the prosecution witness who made the identification as well proof, specifically to prove the identity of the
as the prosecutions compliance with legal and constitutional perpetrators of the crime beyond reasonable
standards; and second, all the elements constituting the crime doubt. Accordingly, the presumption of innocence in favor of
were duly proven by the prosecution to be present. [25] The the accused prevails. The accused need not even raise the
inexistence of any of these two factors compels us to acquit defenses of denial and alibi as the burden of proof never
the accused.[26] shifted to the defense. Any consideration of the merits of
these defenses is rendered moot and will serve no useful
In this case, the identification of the accused as the purpose.[27] Therefore, the accused are entitled to an acquittal.
perpetrators of the crime was not clearly and convincingly
established raising reasonable doubt on the accuseds guilt for Accordingly, I vote to GRANT the appeals and ACQUIT all the
the crime charged. accused.

Apart from breaching established rules on photographic DISSENTING OPINION

identification, the out-of-court identification of the accused
Joel De Jesus infringes upon his fundamental Constitutional ABAD, J.:
rights (1) to due process; and (2) to counsel. Specifically, the
highly suggestive photographic identification of Joel made by I concur with Mr. Justice Antonio T. Carpios powerful dissent. I
Alejo violated Joels due process rights under Section 1, Article would, however, add a few thoughts that deeply bothered me
III and Section 14(1) of the Constitution. Meanwhile, the failure while pondering the question of whether or not to join
of the police to provide Joel with the assistance of counsel the ponencia of Mr. Justice Martin Villarama, Jr. that affirms the
during the police line-up, regarded as a part of custodial lower courts judgments of conviction against the accused.
investigation, violated Section 12(1) of the Constitution.
The ponencia has to rely solely on the testimony of just one
On the other hand, the in-court identification of Joel and the witness, Freddie Alejo, the private security guard who
rest of the accused did not cure the flawed out-of-court happened to be on the sidewalk of Katipunan
identification. Contrary to the majoritys view, various Avenue in Quezon City when gunmen ambushed Col. Rolando
circumstances signal an erroneous identification: (1) a serious Abadilla, former head of an intelligence and security unit of
discrepancy exists between the identifying witness original the defunct Philippine Constabulary, while driving his car. The
description and the actual description of the accused; (2) the trial court found Alejos testimony straightforward, categorical,
limited opportunity on the part of the witness to see the and convincing, unaffected by any possible ill-motive. His
accused before the commission of the crime; (3) a testimony, said the trial court, obliterated the denials and
considerable time elapsed between the witness view of the alibis of all the accused. Further, like the CA and the RTC,
criminal and his identification of the accused; and (4) several the ponencia downplayed as inconclusive the physical
persons committed the crime. evidence that the defense offered in the case.

Moreover, it was clearly established that Joel was The Issue Presented
tortured in admitting his participation in the crime and
in providing the identities of the his supposed co- Inevitably, the ultimate issue in this case is whether
conspirators. Such despicable act violated the or not Alejos testimony is sufficiently credible to support the
accuseds right under Section 12 (2) of the finding of guilt of all of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Constitution. The torture, aside from the failure of the
police to provide Joel with counsel, renders his Arguments
extrajudicial confession indamissible. Significantly,
without such coerced confession, the police had The ponencia would defer to the factual findings of
nothing to implicate the other accused to the murder. the trial court given that it had the advantage of hearing the
evidence in the case first hand from Alejos lips. But this would
Further, the police arrested the accused without warrant be a false start since the Judge who sat at the trial when Alejo
contrary to Section 2, Article III of the Constitution. Also, none took the witness stand was then Judge Jose C. Mendoza,[1] not
of the instances under Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Judge Jaime N. Salazar, Jr., who eventually weighed the
Procedure exists to justify the accuseds warrantless arrest. evidence and passed judgment on the accused. Judge Salazar
was just as deprived as the members of this Court of the
It devolves upon the police authorities, as law enforcers, to advantage of observing Alejos demeanor as he claimed
ensure the proper and strict implementation of the laws, most having witnessed how the accused gunned down Col. Abadilla
specially, the fundamental law of the land. Lamentably, the in cold blood.
present case showcases the dark reality in our country, where
the police at times assumes the role of law offenders. The Justice Mendoza, who personally heard Alejos
policemen, boasting of solving a highly sensationalized crime, testimony, is of course now a member of the Court. But he
flagrantly disregarded the accuseds constitutional cannot join his colleagues in their deliberation and contribute
rights. These men in uniform openly defiled the Constitution, whatever insight he might have acquired when he listened to
which they are bound to observe and respect, by infringing Alejo testify. For, first, that would mean bringing into the
upon the accuseds rights guaranteed under (1) Section 1, deliberation matters that are not of record. It would mean
Article III; (2) Section 14(1); (3) Section 12(1); (4) Section 12 depriving the parties of their right to confront by cross
(2); and (5) Section 2, Article III of the Constitution. Such examination evidence not adduced at the trial but considered
violations simply cannot be countenanced. Instead, they by this Court on appeal.
deserve utmost condemnation. As the Court declared
emphatically in Alcantara: And, second, it would not be fair to query Justice
Mendoza regarding his assessment of Alejos credibility at the
The records show that [the police] illegally trial minus the responsibility of conscience that every judge
arrested appellant, arbitrarily detained, who renders the decision in a criminal case must bear when
physically abused and coerced him to passing upon such question. Justice Mendoza would merely be
confess to a crime penalized by nothing less required to speculate on what his views would be if he had the
than reclusion perpetua. Too often, our law chance to decide the case. Therefore, like Judge Salazar, the
 57
Court must rely solely on the cold record of the case in The police later interviewed Alejo and brought him
assessing witness Alejos testimony. and another security guard to Camp Karingal.

As already stated, the following discussions are on In addition to what Justice Carpio pointed out in his
top of what Justice Carpio already covered in his separate separate dissenting opinion, Alejos testimony does not inspire
dissenting opinion: belief for the following reasons

The place to start is Alejos supposed lack of ill motive in 1. Alejo said that he noticed earlier that morning de
testifying against the accused. Doubtless he had nothing but Jesus and delos Santos walking to and fro by his guard
good motive when he described to the police, shortly after the post. Since the behavior of the two men seemed to Alejo
shooting of Colonel Abadilla, all that he saw. The Court can at unusual, his trained mind did not put them down in the
that point trust his unembellished story. category of ordinary pedestrians waiting for a ride or
companions. Innocent pedestrians did not walk to and fro on
But something weighs heavily against the version he the same place on the sidewalk for an extended period (more
delivered at the trial. The police apprehended several than an hour) without inviting suspicion. Yet, Alejo did not, as
suspects, including the accused in this case, and built up his training would have made him, take any step to anticipate
evidence against them. Unfortunately, perhaps convinced by some trouble like informing the establishment he was
the police that these men were Colonel Abadillas assailants guarding about it or writing a note on his logbook of the
and desiring to ensure a successful prosecution, his family description of the two men.
took and sheltered Alejo and another security guard, Merlito
Herbas, paying them allowances to make up for their lost 2. Alejo claimed that he actually saw four men shoot
earnings. at the driver of a black car on the street facing his
building. But this is doubtful since, admittedly, he was seated
Called by the defense, Herbas testified that the at his guard post with his back slightly turned towards the
Abadillas housed Alejo and him (together with Melissa Villasin, street.[3] He said, tagilid ang upo ko,[4] and demonstrated this
the latters live-in partner) somewhere in Quezon City. during the ocular inspection.[5] As a matter of fact, he
[2]
Parenthetically, the defense presented Herbas who testified confessed that at the start of the shooting, I did not see
that none of the accused was involved in the ambush. But the because I was still seated and the next gun reports I stood up
RTC rejected Herbas testimony because he admitted having and then I saw.[6]Alejo claimed then seeing the four accused
previously received, together with Alejo, money and economic already in the position described in Exhibit H. [7]
benefits from the Abadillas. And, when the latter were unable
to fulfill their promise to him, Herbas instead testified for the Clearly, then, Alejo did not see the men fire their
defense. guns at Colonel Abadilla. If Alejo were to be believed, the
shots alerted him to the trouble and it was their noise that
The trial courts rejection of Herbas testimony may be made him turn towards the street at the direction of the
correct but the grant by the Abadillas of financial benefit to shooting. Indeed, he said that as he looked what he saw were
Alejo equally tainted the latters testimony. Indeed, economic the four assassins standing two at each side of the cars front
benefit and the sense of obligation that it created appear to seats. The shooting had stopped.
have induced him to disregard his initial physical descriptions
of the two armed men who prevented him from intervening in 3. Besides, Alejo said that he looked in the direction
the shooting of Colonel Abadilla. At the trial, Alejo pointed to of the ambush after he heard the volley of shots. But this
two of the accused who did not fit his prior description of the could not be accurate because it was right after those shots
two armed men. He also enhanced his impression of the were fired that Joel de Jesus pointed a gun at him and told him
actual shooting of the victim by claiming that he had the to get out of the outpost and go down from it. How could Alejo
opportunity, no matter if as brief as a cameras flash, to see see which of four other accused stood at what side of Colonel
and remember the faces of each of all four men who shot the Abadillas car when his attention was at Joel de Jesus who was
colonel down the middle of Katipunan Avenue. threatening to shoot him if he did not come out of his outpost?

The Government has a witness protection program Alejo of course claimed that he was not
designed to secure vital witnesses from threats or intimidated. He did not budge and continued to watch what
harm. Apparently, the public prosecutor chose instead to allow was going on. His courage is surprising, however, since guns
the Abadillas, who had an interest in Alejos testimony, to had been fired so close to him at someone in a car on the
make him dependent on them for his livelihood at least for the street and now he sees a gun pointed directly at him. Since
duration of the trial of the case.Knowing this, I cannot but Alejo chose not to fight back, it seems odd that he would dare
hesitate to swallow everything that Alejo said at the trial. one of the men to shoot him for not obeying the order for him
to step out of the out post.
Consider Alejos testimony, culled from the ponencias
summary. He testified that on June 13, 1996 he was assigned 4. Alejo claimed that Lumanog grabbed Colonel
as security guard at 211 Katipunan Avenue. He went on duty Abadilla by the neck, reached out for the latters clutch bag in
at 7:00 a.m. At about 7:30 a.m., he noted two men, whom he the car, and pulled the colonel out of the car before dropping
later identified as Joel de Jesus and Lorenzo him on the pavement. But if Lumanog held a gun with one
delos Santos suspiciously walking to and fro by his outpost, hand and held the colonels neck by the other, what hand did
which stood between the building he was guarding and the he use to reach out for the clutch bag in the car?
street.
5. Alejo testified that when Joel de Jesus, one of the
Alejo recalled witnessing at about 8:40 a.m. four men two men on the sidewalk, pointed a gun at him and cried
fire their guns at the driver of a black car that had stopped on out: Dapa, walang makikialam!, all four men who fired their
the street before his outpost. One of the two men on the guns at Colonel Abadilla turned their faces towards Alejo on
sidewalk, Joel de Jesus (marked as No. 5 in Exhibit H) pointed the sidewalk, enabling the latter to see their faces clearly. But
his hand gun at Alejo and ordered him to go down his post this is a strained scenario. How could Alejo in such
(Baba!) but he did not budge. Alejo then saw Lenido Lumanog infinitesimal second pay attention to de Jesus pointing a gun
(marked as No. 1 in Exhibit H), standing on the cars left door, at him and commanding him to go out of his guard post and
grab the victim by the neck, reach for the latters clutch bag in lie face down on the ground and at the same time examine
the car, and pull the bloodied body out of the car, dropping the faces of each of the four men surrounding Colonel
him on the pavement. Abadillas car, one after the other, to remember their
identities?
Alejo claimed that at this point he heard Lumanog
fire another shot, evidently at the victim. Just then, Joel de 6. At best, Alejo had but a glimpse of those who took
Jesus, one of the two men with Alejo on the sidewalk, part in shooting down Colonel Abadilla. But the police
shouted, Dapa walang makikialam! At this point, the rest of remedied this. After arresting the several accused in the case,
the shooters on the street, namely, Rameses de Jesus (No. 2); the police first took their pictures at the police
Cesar Fortuna (No. 3); and Augusto Santos (No. 4) turned their headquarters. Now, rather than call Alejo to make a direct
faces towards Alejo, enabling him to make a mental note of identification of the accused from a police lineup and rule out
their identities. Next, delos Santos, the second man on the any possibility of suggestion and mistake, the police
sidewalk, pointed a gun at Alejo, prompting the latter to lower investigators first showed him the pictures of the men they
his body and hide behind the covered half of the guard nabbed. This is admission that the police needed to prepare
post. Less than a minute after the shooting had stopped, Alejo Alejo with those pictures before showing to him the accused
stood up. The assailants were gone, leaving the window of the who had been in their custody all along.
victims car shattered.
 58
It is very well known that the police, bent on their accused were guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
theory of a case, would sometimes falsely tell the supposed treacherous killing of the victim.
eyewitness that those in the pictures had already confessed to
the crime. It takes little subtle convincing to make a witness A
believe that the person or persons on the pictures were the
ones he saw commit the crime and that, unless he identified In his separate opinion, Mr. Justice Carpio urges the acquittal
them, they would walk out free. Naturally, later at the police of all the accused due to the inadmissibility of the positive
lineup, the witness when asked would unhesitatingly identify out-of-court identification of appellant Joel De Jesus (De Jesus)
the men he saw on the pictures. His point of reference would by the eyewitness security guard Freddie Alejo (Alejo) for
be the men on the pictures rather than his recollection of the being tainted with impermissible suggestiveness that cast
persons he saw or did not see at the crime scene. grave doubt on the reliability of the identification. Mr. Justice
Carpio observes that the police had first shown a photograph
7. It was rush hour when the incident happened of De Jesus to Alejo prior to their face-to-face confrontation,
and Katipunan Avenue was filled with traffic. It was most and contends that the police thereby implanted in the mind of
unlikely for the assassins who surrounded Colonel Abadillas Alejo the identity of De Jesus as one of the perpetrators of the
car to pose exclusively for Alejo, turning their faces towards crime. He concludes that De Jesus was not reliably identified,
him in unison as if he was going to take a class picture of and insists that the illegally-taken extrajudicial confession (by
them from the sidewalk.The street was teeming with other which he had implicated the other perpetrators) rendered De
cars and people in them. The assassins had enough to watch Jesus identification of the other accused also baseless and
out for, the least of which was the sidewalk where they knew inadmissible.
they had lookouts protecting them from any kind of
interference. B

Being housed and paid allowances by the victims Citing People v. Rodrigo,[1] Mr. Justice Carpio advocates the
family enabled Alejo to substantially alter the previous acquittal of all the accused.
descriptions he gave to the police of some of the
accused. Further, he got to look with plenty of time at the I do not disagree that the Court properly dismissed as
faces of those who fired their guns at Colonel Abadilla and, unreliable the positive out-of-court and in-court identifications
despite the threats to his life by two men on the sidewalk who made in People v. Rodrigo. The established facts and
had their guns on him, he could remember with remarkable circumstances in that case fully warranted the ultimate
details the shooting of the victim on the street. acquittal of Rodrigo, for the presumption of innocence in his
favor was not overcome without his reliable identification as
8. The assassins fled on a hijacked vehicle. When this was one of the robbers.
recovered, none of the fingerprint marks on that vehicle
matched any of those of the accused. Men would lie but Yet, I cannot join Mr. Justice Carpios reliance
object evidence like fingerprints would not. on People v. Rodrigo, because the established facts and
circumstances there were not similar to those herein.
9. One cannot ignore the fact that, based on the
ballistics report, a slug recovered from the body of Colonel People v. Rodrigo was a prosecution for robbery with
Abadilla matched a slug recovered from the body of a known homicide. There, the Court acquitted Lee Rodrigo, one of the
victim of the Alex Boncayao Brigade (ABB) of the New Peoples three alleged robbers, because his out-of-court
Army. This is clear evidence of the truth of the ABBs claim, identification by the victims wife, the lone eyewitness for the
told the media, that they were the ones responsible for State, was held to be defective based on the totality of the
Colonel Abadillas death. Again, physical evidence cannot lie; it circumstances and did not come up to the standard for
is a silent witness that could not be housed and bought.Since reliable photographic identification set in People v. Pineda.
none of the accused had been identified with the ABB, they [2]
The Court particularly took into account that Rodrigo had
could not have been involved in that killing. been a stranger to the eyewitness, who had not known him
prior to the identification; that the eyewitness had had only a
The Court should also have taken judicial notice of very brief encounter with the robbers (there being no direct
the fact that, as former head of the dreaded Metropolitan evidence on the time the actual robbery and the
Command Intelligence and Security Group of President Marcos accompanying homicide had taken); that she (eyewitness)
Philippine Constabulary, Colonel Abadilla had always been a had already known the name of Rodrigo long before
natural target of the communists death squad, the she positively identified him, due to a neighbor of hers having
ABB. Indeed, there had been reports of its previous attempts told her that one of the malefactors had been Lee Rodrigo;
to kill him. that she could not have focused solely on the robber, because
she had actually been closer in proximity to another
I have more than reasonable doubt for not being malefactor; that she had made the out-of-court identification
taken in by Alejos testimony. Those who saw the daylight based on Rodrigo's photograph more than a month after the
shooting of Colonel Abadilla did not know the assassins by commission of the crime; and that she had been inconsistent
face. How the police got to identify and pick up the particular on the precise role that Rodrigo had played in the commission
accused in this case from their homes or places of work to be of the of the crime.[3]
shown to the witnesses as their prime suspects is a mystery
that the prosecution did not bother to tell the trial court. I can The Court noted in People v. Rodrigo that the eyewitness,
only assume that this is the handy work of police informers, being the wife of the victim and thus an aggrieved party, had
those who made a living of snitching on criminals and saving hardly been a disinterested witness whose testimony should
the police from the shame of having another crime, a crime be equated to or treated as that from a detached party; and
called to such tremendous public attention because of the concluded that based on the above considerations, that
identity of the slain victim, left unsolved. Rosita's (eyewitness) photographic identification was attended
by an impermissible suggestion that tainted her in-court
I vote to GRANT the appeals and ACQUIT all the accused. identification of Rodrigo (accused) as one of the three robbers
xxx [and] based on the other indicators of unreliability we
discussed above, Rosita's identification cannot be considered
as proof beyond reasonable doubt of the identity of Rodrigo as
CONCURRING OPINION one of the perpetrators of the crime.

BERSAMIN, J.: In contrast, the records of the present case show that
impermissible suggestion did not precede Alejos out-of-court
I concur with the thorough ponencia of Mr. Justice Villarama. positive identification of De Jesus as one of the perpetrators of
Indeed, the People established beyond reasonable doubt the the crime. Alejos testimony on September 3, 1996 reveals, on
guilt of the appellants for the murder charged herein. the contrary, that Alejo even categorically declined to identify
any suspect by mere looking at a photograph, to wit:
Through this humble concurrence, I only desire to
spotlight some aspects of the case to banish the unfounded ATTY. BAGATSING:
misgivings my two illustrious colleagues, Mr. Justice Carpio
and Mr. Justice Abad, so eloquently expressed about the Q Prior to 3:00 o'clock PM of June 19,
affirmance of the two lower courts judgments. I would have 1996 on or about 2:00 o'clock
unhesitatingly joined them in disagreeing with PM where were you?
the ponencia had their misgivings been well founded. Alas, I
cannot do so, for the records firmly established that the
 59
A Perhaps I was on my way I was fetched by pointed a gun at the latter. The records show that Alejo was
the policeman from out agency in standing inside his elevatedguardhouse at the time of the
Monumento, sir. commission of the crime, from where he had a clear view of
the incident and of the persons involved. His good vantage
xxx point was confirmed during the ocular inspection conducted
by the trial judge,[8] who observed for the record the high
Q After you were fetched from your post or visibility of the events from such vantage point. Moreover,
agency in Monumento, where did Alejo definitely had a good look at De Jesus, considering that
you go? the latter himself twice shouted at and even poked his gun at
Alejo. Lastly, any discrepancy between Alejo's estimate and
A The police officers told me we were going the alleged actual height of De Jesus was easily accounted for
to Fairview, sir. by the higher location of Alejo in relation to De Jesus. This
explanation is made plausible by the fact that Alejo's
Q While you were with these police officers estimation was off by only three to four inches.
on the way to Fairview, did you have
any conversation with them? Alejos description of Lumanog's pony-tailed long hair
at the time of the commission of the crime did not also
A This is what happened. On the 18th of June detract from Alejos reliability by reason of Lumanogs hair at
in the afternoon of June 18, the time of his arrest being shorter. There is no question that
1996, they showed me a picture Lumanog could have meanwhile cut his hair to look different
of a man wearing eyeglasses but (which he had a good motive to do). I might doubt the
I told them I will not point a man identification had Alejo described Lumanogs hair as very short
in photographs I would like to at the time of the commission of the crime, due to the
see him in person. physical impossibility for hair to grow beyond a couple of
inches within the span of the two months between the
Verily, the procedure outlined in People v. Pineda[4] and People commission of the crime and his arrest.
v. Teehankee[5] for a proper out-of-court identification
was neither disregarded nor violated. The discrepancy between Alejos recollection of
Lumanogs dark skin tone at the time of the commission of the
C crime (maitim) and the latter's lighter one at the in-court
identification (kayumanggi) did not diminish the reliability of
The reliability of Alejo's in-court identification of all the Alejo as an eyewitness. For one, Alejo declared when asked
accused is being assailed on the ground that the identification that he had describedLumanog as maitim instead
of the other accused had supposedly resulted from the of kayumanggi because, to
illegally taken extrajudicial confession of De Jesus, and that him, maitim and kayumanggi meant the same thing.[9] Also, as
such identification had suffered from flaws, specifically: (a) the Mr. Justice Villarama rightly indicates in his ponencia, the
discrepancies about the descriptions of two of the accused variance in Lumanogs skin tone depended on the degree of
and their features in Alejo's sworn statement given a few his exposure to sunlight. Consequently, Lumanog's lighter skin
hours after the commission of the crime; (b) Alejo's having tone at the time of his in-court identification as compared to
seen the killers only very briefly; (c) the lapse of a his skin tone when arrested was really attributable to the
considerable length of time between the commission of the lessened exposure to the sun during the period of over two
crime and Alejo's in-court identification of all the accused months of his incarceration.
sufficed to cast doubt on Alejo's ability to still recall with
clarity the details of the crime; and (d) the crime was I have no doubt in my mind that whatever were the perceived
committed by six perpetrators. discrepancies in Alejos recollection of the event and the
persons involved in it related only to minor and collateral
I now address the aforecited misgivings. matters, and did not diminish the veracity and weight of his
positive identification of the accused as the heartless
assailants of the victim.[10] That the laws of physics and our
The challenge to the reliability of the in-court identification of
daily human experience easily explained
De Jesus and Lenido Lumanog (Lumanog) was predicated on a
the perceived discrepancies affirms that such discrepancies
report contained in a newspaper article (which was extracted
were not factors of doubt that depreciated, but rather
from the internet)[6] to the effect that the police sketch of [the]
increased, Alejos value as an eyewitness. For, as all courts
killer bore no resemblance to any of the Abadilla 5 (referring
ought to know, no person who may be a witness in court
to the five accused).[7] Allegedly, the physical descriptions of
possesses perfect faculties of observation or unerring senses
De Jesus and Lumanog given in Alejo's sworn statement that
of perception. Thus, the courts are often reminded to
the lookout (De Jesus) was edad 30-35, 5'5-5'6 ang taas,
disregard discrepancies in testimony when the essential
maikli ang buhok, kayumanggi while the other suspect
integrity of the State's evidence in its material whole is not
(Lumanog) looked like 25-30 ang edad, payat, mahaba ang
damaged by such discrepancies. The courts are instructed
buhok na nakatali, maitim, may taas na 5'5-5'6 did not match
instead to regard the discrepancies as erasing the suspicion
reality, considering that De Jesus actually stood at 5'9 and
that the testimony was rehearsed or contrived. Verily, honest
was only 22 years of age at the time of the commission of the
inconsistencies usually serve to strengthen rather than
crime, and Lumanog was 40 years old and fair
destroy the witness credibility.[11]
complexioned (kayumanggi), not dark skinned (maitim) at the
time of the in-court identification.
D
With all due respect, the inconsistencies are more apparent
than real, and did not discredit the positive in-court Alejo testified in court for the first time on August 20, 1996, or
identification of all the accused. only over two months following the commission of the
crime. Yet, Mr. Justice Carpio regards the interval as a
considerable length of time that rendered unreliable Alejos
To state that a police sketch of the killer bore no resemblance
recollection of the significant circumstances of the crime,
to any of the accused is to make a
particularly the identities of the malefactors.
very subjective assessment. It is worth nothing in forensic
determination. At any rate, a discrepancy between a police
artists sketch of a perpetrator of a crime based on I concede that what is considerable length of time
descriptions of witnesses at the scene of the crime, on one that can affect the integrity of testimony solely based on
hand, and an actual identification of the perpetrator by an recollection cannot be defined with any consistency. In my
eyewitness given in court, on the other hand, is a very long experience as a trial judge for over 16 years, [12] however,
minimal factor of doubt on the reliability of the identification. I never regarded the short period of only slightly over two
In any criminal prosecution there are more and better months between the commission of the crime and the court
circumstances to consider other than the initial sketch of a testimony of an eyewitness as a considerable length of time
police artist for determining the reliability of an identification. sufficient to warp and distort testimonial recollection. In this
We have to remember that a police artists sketch of a particular instance, that the eyewitness was a trained security
perpetrator of a crime is initially for purposes of pursuing an guard is even a better reason to hold that the lapse of over
investigation, and has seldom any impact on the case after two months from the commission of the crime to the time of
that. his giving testimony did not weaken his recollection.

That there might be a discrepancy between the In fact, I find that Alejo remained consistent and
alleged actual height of De Jesus and eyewitness Alejos unshaken in his recollection of the circumstances of people,
estimate of it did not negate the reliability of the latters in- acts and place, despite his standing as a witness in court for
court identification of the former as the lookout who had nine days (that is, August 20, 21, 22, 28 and 29, and
 60
September 3, 4, 5 and 17, all in 1996). My finding is based on you 'babaka' (sic), will you
his not wavering or not varying from his earlier eyewitness please pointed (sic) to us?
account of the crime despite his exhaustive cross examination
on eight of those nine days. INTERPRETER: Witness went down from the
witness stand and approaching to
E the group of persons and witness
pointing to a man seated in the
The integrity and reliability of Alejos identification of courtroom wearing stripe
the accused were even fortified in the course of the trial. polo and when asked to identify
himself he gave his name as
To insulate Alejos in-court identification of the JOEL DE JESUS.
accused from the prejudicial effects of prior improper
suggestion made by the police, if any, the Defense xxxx
deliberately subjected to a severe test the trustworthiness of
his recollection when the time came for Alejo to make the PROS. CHUA CHENG: This person referred
identification in court by resorting to moves that would by you as #1 the person who got
confuse him and would make the identification difficult. the clutch bag, grabbed the
Specifically, the several accused donned regular clothing, neck and pulled the victim
instead of the regulation orange prison shirts; and outside the car, is he inside the
commingled with the public inside the courtroom, with some courtroom?
putting on eyeglasses.
A: Yes, maam.
As the following excerpts from the records of the
proceedings reveal, Alejo creditably hurdled the test, viz: Q: Please step down and pointed (sic) to us
that person?
PROS. CHUA CHENG: Mr. Witness, you said
that if you will be able to see those six (6) INTERPRETER: Witness went down from the
persons again you will be able to identify witness stand and approaching to
them? the group of persons and witness
pointing to a man wearing maroon
A: Yes, mam. T-shirt and when asked to
identify himself he gave his
xxx name as LENIDO LUMANOG.

Q: The person who first pointed the gun at xxxx

you and told you to 'bumabaka' (sic),
if he is inside the courtroom will you PROS. CHUA CHENG: This #2 which you
please step down from your place referred to in the picture if he is
and tap the shoulder of that person inside the courtroom, will you
or point at him if that person is please point him to us?
inside the courtroom...
INTERPRETER:Witness stepping down from
ATTY. AZARCON: I object to the pointing, your the witness stand and approaching
Honor, no basis to the identity of the the group of people and pointed at a
suspects mentioned from 1 to 6, man wearing printed polo
your Honor. shirt and when asked to identify
himself he gave his name
PROS. CHUA CHENG: That is the reason why as RAMESES DE JESUS.
we requested the witness to point to
the suspect, your Honor. Before the ATTY. CORPUZ: May we make it of record
witness comply with the that the person pointed to by
request, may we request that the witness who answered the
whoever pointed by the witness name as RAMESES DE
be (sic) refrained from any JESUS even transferred his
comment, your Honor. position from the group of the
suspects to the right side of the
Q: Inside the courtroom ... will you please audience and that is also true
look around the court room and with accused LENIDO LUMANOG
tell us if these suspects #1, 2, 3, that before the identification
4, 5, & 6 are inside the court was made he transferred his
room. (sic) sitting position and even used
eye glasses, your Honor.
INTERPRETER: Witness looking around the
courtroom. xxx

ATTY. CORPUZ: May we request, your INTERPRETER: Witness stepping down from
Honor, that all those persons the witness stand approaching the
wearing glasses including group of people and pointed at a
lawyers removed (sic) their man and when asked to identify
eyeglasses. himself he gave his name as
LORENZO DELOS SANTOS.
ATTY. AZARCON: Your Honor, that is
uncalled for. That is not xxx
necessary.
INTERPRETER: Witness stepping down from
PROS. CHUA CHENG: May we move, your the witness stand approaching the
Honor, that all persons inside group of people and pointed at a
the courtroom to sit down. man and when asked to identify
himself he gave his name as
COURT: All persons inside the courtroom AUGUSTO SANTOS.
please sit down.
xxx
PROS. CHUA CHENG: Are all these six (6)
persons inside the court room? INTERPRETER: Witness stepping down from
the witness stand approaching the
A: Yes, mam. group of people and pointed at a
man and when asked to identify
Q: This number 5 the person who first himself he gave his name as
pointed a gun at you and told CESAR FORTUNA.[13]
 61
F receiving the evidence and observing the demeanor of the
witnesses to self-inhibit from the case once the State
Neither did the fact that Alejos initial sworn completed the presentation of its evidence in order to prevent
statement had described only two suspects dent his another judge from rendering the proper judgment against the
credibility, considering that he did not at all state or declare accused.
therein that he could not describe the other suspects. On the
other hand, he asserted that he could do so when required. I

G Mr. Justice Abad imputes to Alejo the ill-motive to

fabricate his testimony in order to favor the Prosecution and
That Alejo had the full opportunity to take in the the family of the victim due to the latter's sheltering him and
circumstances of the killing of the victim and should be extending to him some financial or economic benefits. He
accorded the highest reliance is beyond question. He had a implies that Alejo not only disregarded his earlier physical
close proximity to the vehicle of the victim and to the descriptions of the two armed men involved in the
accused. His vantage point from his elevated position inside commission of the crime, but actually enhanced his
the guardhouse gave him a frontal view of the commission of impression of the actual shooting in consideration of his
the crime. The circumstances played out like a scene from an intervening affinity with the victims family.
action-packed movie right before his very eyes, as confirmed
by the trial courts ocular inspection of the scene of the crime. The mere imputation of ill-motive without
His boldness in looking at what was happening in his presence proof was speculative at best. To start with, that the family of
until finally forced at gunpoint to look away was made the victim might have extended economic or financial support
plausible by his being a security guard then on duty in that to Alejo did not necessarily warrant the presumption of bias
area. on the part of Alejo as a witness. There was no evidence
showing that any such support was for the purpose of unduly
The insinuation that Alejo could not have observed influencing his testimony. Likelier than not, the support was
enough and thus could not reliably recall the persons and only an expression of the familys appreciation for his
events in view of the fleeting character of the encounter was cooperation in the public prosecution of the culprits, or for his
at best speculative. We should not ignore that Alejo was a resolve to ensure the successful prosecution of the
security guard who had undergone some professional training perpetrators.
that included how to respond to a crime committed within his
area of responsibility. With his training investing him an J
appreciation of the crucial importance of identification and
discernment, he was not likely affected by the excitement of Mr. Justice Abad contends that Alejos eyewitness
the startling situation, unlike an untrained observer. account was further suspect in light of the following
observations: (a) Alejo did not take any steps to anticipate
H and prevent trouble despite having observed two strangers
walking to and fro in front of the establishment he was then
For his part, Mr. Justice Abad similarly assails the guarding; (b) Alejo did not see what was happening on the
credibility of Alejo as an eyewitness able to reliably identify street because he was seated inside the guardhouse with his
the perpetrators of the crime. He rejects an outright reliance back slightly turned towards the street; (c) Alejo did not see
on the factual findings of the trial court mainly because the which of the four strangers stood at which side of the car of
trial judge who penned the decision had not been the same the victim, because his attention was already focused on De
judge who had heard the testimony of Alejo and had thus Jesus and the latters gun poked at his face; (d) Lumanog could
observed his demeanor. He urges, instead, that the place to not possibly hold a gun in one hand and grab the victims neck
start is Alejo's lack of ill motive in testifying against the with the other, and still manage to reach for the clutch bag of
accused, which, if true, would render him trustworthy enough. the victim inside the car; (e) Alejo could not focus his
He states that Alejo did not lack ill motive, in light of the attention on De Jesus and still simultaneously examine the
revelation that the family of the victim had sheltered him and faces of the other four perpetrators who were standing by the
had extended financial benefits to him, thereby tainting his car of the victim in a short span of time; (f) Alejo identified all
testimony. the accused as the perpetrators of the crime through
photographs and while the accused were already in custody;
I take a contrary view. and (g) the accused could not have turned to face Alejo in
unison as if posing for a class picture.
That the judge who wrote the decision had not heard
all the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses did not taint I disagree.
or disturb the decision,[14] or did not necessarily render it
assailable,[15] for, after all, he had before him the records of On the failure to make any preemptive move upon
the trial, including the transcripts of the stenographic notes noticing the two strangers walking to and fro in front of the
(TSNs). This, among others, explains why all trial courts are establishment he was then guarding, Alejo clarified during his
required to be courts of record.[16] cross examination that he became more alert after noticing
the two strangers,[19] but he explained why he did not confront
The validity of a decision is not impaired when its the two strangers, to wit:
writer only took over from another judge who had earlier
presided at the trial, unless there is a clear showing of grave ATTY. BUTED (to the witness) Did you
abuse of discretion in the appreciation of the facts. [17] No such confront these 2 men?
grave abuse of discretion was shown herein. The trial records
demonstrate, on the contrary, that the factual findings of the A No sir.
trial court and the assessment of the credibility of Alejo as an
eyewitness rested on a most careful and thorough study of Q And since you consider it unusual
the evidence adduced by both parties. Indeed, although he and you are a security guard,
did not observe the demeanor of Alejo as a witness, the why did you not confront these
writing judge (Judge Jaime N. Salazar) was not entirely 2 men?
deprived of a proper sense of Alejos demeanor considering
that the TSNs were replete with the detailed manifestations xxx
on Alejos appearance, behavior, deportment, disposition, and
mien during the many days of his testimony that the various A I cant do that sir because according
counsel of both parties zealously put on record for to the law of security guards
memorialization.[18] you cannot ask passersby or
any person for that matter who
Indeed, a decision rendered by a judge who has not havent done anything unlawful.
himself received the evidence during the trial and has relied
on the TSNs of the trial is as good and binding as one xxx
rendered by a judge who has seen and heard the witnesses as
they testified in court. It is up to the party disagreeing with Q Were you not apprehensive that these 2
the dispositions contained in the formers decision to establish men would do something to you or
that the rendering judge ignored some facts or to the establishment?
misappreciated material evidence. A mere generalized attack
against such decision should not diminish its value as a ATTY. CORPUZ: Already answered your
judicial adjudication. Otherwise, we would frequently have the Honor please, because the
undesirable situation of the accused forcing the trial judge
 62
security guard answered he On the impossibility of Alejos claim that Lumanog
became alert when he noticed held a gun with one hand and grabbed the victim by the neck
these 2 men walking to and fro. with the other, while also reaching for the victims clutch bag,
[20]
inside the car, it seems that Lumanog was being simplistically
projected to have simultaneously done all such actions.
On the implausibility of Alejo actually seeing what
was happening on the street due to his back being then I cannot accept such simplistic projection. It is
slightly turned towards the street while he was seated inside evident that Lumanog executed his acts in sequence. His
the guardhouse, I submit that this attempt to discredit sequential execution was easy for him to do, for the victims
emanates from a wrong interpretation of tagilid ang upper torso, including the neck and face, had by then been
upo, Alejos description of his position inside the guardhouse. riddled with bullets, leaving the already lifeless victim
slumped over the steering wheel of his own car. Obviously,
How good a vantage point did Alejo have when he Lumanog became confident enough to open the car door in
witnessed the crime was ascertained during the ocular order to reach for the clutch bag of the victim with his right
inspection of the scene of the crime conducted by the trial hand, having transferred his gun to his left hand. His reaching
judge on September 26, 1996. The ocular right hand had to curve around the slumped body of the
inspection confirmed that the car of the victim was not victim.
directly in front of the guard house, but a few meters further
down the road to the right; and that Alejos stool, relative to Describing the situation during his cross
the front portion of the store facing Katipunan Avenue, examination, Alejo recalled not anymore seeing the gun in
positioned him at an angle towards the car of the victim and Lumanogs right hand at the point when Lumanog reached in
the southbound direction, i.e., White Plains/Blue Ridge area. for the clutch bag of the victim.[25] Understandably, Lumanog
With himself taking the position of Alejo inside the was holding the gun with his left hand because there was no
guardhouse, the trial judge then observed for the record that more need for him at that point to hold the gun with his right
he can see the car very clearly even if the car would be hand.
moved back by another segment also xxx and the Court
observes that from the guard post the faces of the persons In the course of the ocular inspection conducted on
beside the car are very clear.[21] The trial judge also recorded September 26, 1996, Alejo demonstrated how Lumanog had
that even if Alejo had been tagilid ang upo,[22] the means to stood at the left side of the victim (with both Lumanog and
observe the goings-on for anyone in that position of Alejo the victim facing the front of the car) and how in that position
were still unhampered, thus: Lumanog had curved his right arm around the victims neck in
order to pull the victims body partly out of the car and onto
COURT: The Court observed that from the pavement, when he had then delivered a final shot to the
where witness Alejo was he can head.[26] Without any resistance from the lifeless victim,
still see the whole car as it has Lumanog had then easily reached for the clutch bag with his
been moved back per the right hand.
directive of Major Villena.[23]
The thing about all the accused improbably turning in
xxx unison towards Alejo as if posing for a class photograph did
not reflect what is in the trial records.
INTERPRETER: Witness demonstrating
how suspect No. 1 took the The records proved that Alejos ample personal
clutch bag from the front observation of what each of the attackers backstopped the
passenger seat by leaning his reliability of his identification of the attackers. It was definitely
body forward into the car over not as if his observation occurred in an infinitesimal second,
the body of the victim slumped as Mr. Justice Abad has put it. We note that the others turned
on the steering wheel, and towards Alejos direction by reflex upon hearing the loudly
after the taking of the clutch shouted command of De Jesus for Alejo to lie low in his
bag, the witness puts his right guardhouse. The following excerpt from Alejos testimony
arm around the victims neck bears it out:
while standing on the left side
of the victim as both face the ATTY. BUTED (to the witness)
front of the car.
Q Because you were not nervous and
COURT: After the demonstration while you were not scared?
witness Alejo was
demonstrating how he got the A Yes sir.
clutch bag and how he grabbed
the neck of the driver of the Q When for the second time when he
black car, the Judge was at the said dapa, what did you do?
guard post [house] and saw for
himself that he clearly saw the A When he shouted at me dapa his
taking of the clutch bag even if companions faced me because
the untinted windows were of his loud voice.
closed and the pulling of the
driver of the black car.[24] Q Whom do you mean companions?

Next, to insist that Alejo could not have noticed A The one that was at the right rear
where the four assailants had stood in relation to the car of side, another one at the left
the victim due to his (Alejo) attention being already focused rear side and another one was
on De Jesus and the gun that De Jesus had poked at Alejo's at the right front side.
face was, again, to speculate. The records do not contain any
factual foundation for such insistence. Instead, the sequence Q So thats all?
of events indicated that Alejo had the ample opportunity to
commit to memory the facial descriptions of the perpetrators.
A No sir there was another one, one of
Moreover, it is noted that Alejo had first noticed the presence
the 2 men who were earlier
of the two strangers walking to and fro nearly an hour prior to
walking to and fro who was at
the shooting of the victim, which means that his observation
the corner also faced me and
of them was ample enough. This belied the unsupported claim
pointed the gun at me.[27]
that he had only a mere fleeting glance of De Jesus and his
cohorts.
Indeed, the loudly shouted command of De Jesus
made his cohorts instantaneously turn towards Alejos
It is also clear that Alejo continued to watch the
direction, because it was there where the shout had come
unfolding scene and the various persons involved. He had
from. Their facing towards that direction was reflexive,
ignored the first shouted command for him to get down (dapa)
because De Jesus had been the lookout designated to ensure
and had continued to observe until the second command for
their safety. Their common reaction of looking in his
him to get down, with the gun poked directly in his face, was
direction further enabled Alejo to have a good look at their
harshly shouted at him.
faces, which were not concealed by masks or other disguises,
 63
as the trial judge noted in the order dated January 25, 2000, WITNESS: Bayanihan Street sir.
thus:
xxx
13. Indeed, the court is impressed with the
brazenness that the shooters/gunmen ATTY. CORPUZ: How far was that KIA
and the look-out had displayed during Pride to the Honda Accord
the actual ambush incident as they when you lifted latent prints,
did not even cover their faces with how many meters away when
masks or bonnets so as to conceal you lifted that latent prints
their identities considering the time Madam witness?
and place. It is not surprising,
therefore, that they were not also WITNESS: About fifteen (15) to twenty
smart enough but had the audacity to (20) meters away sir.[31]
go on their daily routine as if nothing
petrifying had happened.[28] As the records reveal, the perpetrators
had abandoned the hijacked KIA Pride on Aguinaldo Street in
I Project 4, Quezon City, near its intersection with J.P. Rizal
Street. The vehicle was, therefore, nowhere on Katipunan
Mr. Justice Abad contends that the presence of any of Avenue; neither was it anywhere near the Honda Accord of
the accused at the scene of the crime was not established the victim, least of all a mere 15-20 meters away from the
because none of the fingerprint marks on [the hijacked] latter vehicle.[32]
vehicle (KIA Pride) matched any of those of the accused.[29]
Nonetheless, even assuming that Mrs. Dedicatoria
The contention has no basis. was a competent witness, certain factors might still render her
testimony on the absence of fingerprints inconclusive,
Worth clarifying is that the Defense did not present in namely:
this case any credible evidence, exculpatory or otherwise, on
the fingerprints. Although the Defense presented Mrs. (a) Fingerprints made on smooth
Remedios Dedicatoria, a fingerprints expert, to testify on the surfaces (like the exterior of the
fingerprints lifted from the vehicles involved in this case, her vehicles) could easily be wiped off, or
testimony on the matter turned out to be untrustworthy in erased;
view of her admission on cross examination that she had not
been present or involved in the lifting of the fingerprints from (b) If the fingerprints of the victim and
either the hijacked KIA Pride or the victims Honda Accord. In of Lumanog were not found on the
fact, she had had no contact with the vehicles, as the door handle of the victims car, [33] the
following excerpt of her testimony indicated:[30] simple explanation was that the
victim and Lumanog possibly lifted
ATTY. CORPUZ: Are you sure, Madam the handle from its underside. It is
witness you were present when notable that, as Mrs. Dedicatoria
all those fingerprints were admitted, no examination was made
lifted Madam witness? on the underside of said handle; and

xxx (c) No thorough examination for

fingerprints was done on the cars,
ATTY. CORPUZ: Are you sure you were considering that even the victim was
present when the fingerprints said not to have left any fingerprints
were lifted, allegedly taken on the Honda Accord despite his
from the two (2) cars, Honda having owned and driven it on the
Accord car and KIA pride (sic) fatal day.[34]
Madam witness?
In fine, the Dactyloscopy Report and the expert testimony of
WITNESS: I was not the one who lifted Mrs. Dedicatoria were inconclusive, and should not be relied
the latent prints. I was not upon to disprove the actual presence of the accused in the
present sir. place and scene of the crime at the time of its commission.

ATTY. CORPUZ: In short, you were not K

present when all those
fingerprints were taken from Mr. Justice Abad states that the slug recovered from
these cars, Honda Accord and the body of the victim matched the slug taken from a known
Kia Pride Madam witness? victim of the Alex Boncayao Brigade (ABB) of the New Peoples
Army. He then concludes that those responsible for the
WITNESS: Yes sir. murder of the victim were also from the ABB. Hence, he
deduces that because none of the accused had been
Moreover, Mrs. Dedicatoria was exposed as a lying witness. In identified with the ABB, they could not have been involved in
a clear attempt to conceal from the trial court her failure that killing.
to personally lift the fingerprint marks off the hijacked KIA
Pride, she professed to know the whereabouts of the vehicle. The concern about the slug extracted from the victim
On cross examination, however, her prevarication was being ballistically similar to the slug extracted from a known
exposed, viz: victim of the ABB is devoid of factual justification and
deserves no consideration.
ATTY. CORPUZ: Is it not a fact that
Madam witness, that car KIA In his order dated January 25, 2000 denying the
Pride car was found at the motion for reconsideration and/or new trial filed by the
Police station near 10 th Avenue accused grounded on the same concern, the trial judge
or another street, not in explained very well why the concern was unfounded, thus:
Katipunan Avenue, is it not
Madam witness? 9. The transference of responsibility to
the ABB for the ambush-slay of
WITNESS: It was at Katipunan Road, sir. the victim is based on alleged
news reports. Said news reports
ATTY. CORPUZ: Where in Katipunan are hearsay and not admissible in
Madam witness? evidence. The requisites on the
applicability of the rule on
WITNESS: At Project 4 sir. declaration against interest, as
an exception to the hearsay rule,
ATTY. CORPUZ: Which place in Project 4, were not convincingly shown
in relation to this Honda Accord before this court as being
car Madam witness? present in such alleged press
statements by the ABB;
 64
10. While the records do not indicate Antecedent Facts
that accused were ABB
operatives, the same records do On October 19, 2006, an Information3 was filed charging
not bear that they are not. appellant with the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the
Anyone can simply claim that he accusatory portion of which reads:
is not the one who he is or who
he is not xxx.[35] On or about October 14, 2006, in Pasig City, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, not being
It is relevant to remind that the Court itself has lawfully authorized by law, did then and there willfully,
already affirmed the propriety of the aforecited order unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to PO1
dated January 25, 2000 in Lumanog, et al. v. Hon. Salazar, Jr. Dario Gunda, Jr., a police poseur-buyer, one (1) heat-sealed
[36]
transparent plastic sachet containing two centigrams
(0.02gram), of white crystalline substance, which was found
L positive to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.
The urging to take judicial notice of the fact that the
victim was a natural target of the ABB for being the former Contrary to law.
head of the Metropolitan Command Intelligence and Security
Group (MISG) of the Philippine Constabulary during the Marcos Appellant pleaded not guilty upon his arraignment on April 30,
regime is unwarranted. 2007. Trial on the merits immediately followed. In the course
thereof, the testimony of prosecution witness P/Sr. Insp.
The victims heading the MISG was not material to the Lourdeliza G. Cejes (PSI Cejes), the Forensic Chemist of the
question of whether or not the State established beyond Eastern Police District (EPD) Crime Laboratory Office, was
reasonable doubt the guilt of all the accused herein for the dispensed with after the prosecution and the defense
crime charged. Taking judicial notice that the victim was a stipulated on the following:
natural target of the ABB is even improper, considering that
such fact could not be reasonably inferred from his having 1. That in relation to the arrest of appellant, a request
headed the MISG during the Marcos regime. For sure, that the for laboratory examination was made on October 14,
victim was a natural target of the ABB was neither a matter of 2006 by P/Sr. Insp. Bernouli D. Abalos (PSI Abalos) of
public knowledge, nor capable of unquestionable the EPD Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task
demonstration, nor ought to be known to judges by reason of Force to the Chief of the EPD Crime Laboratory
their judicial functions.[37] Lastly, the Court no less, albeit on Service;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
another occasion,[38] already declared that appellations or
opprobriums would not sway it against the victim, Col. 2. That attached to the request is one heat-sealed
Rolando N. Abadilla, observing: transparent plastic sachet containing an
undetermined amount of white crystalline substance
The Court is not unaware that suspected to be shabu with markings Exh-A RCD/DG
accused-respondent Abadilla, rightly or dated October 13, 2006, but not as to the source of
wrongly, is identified with the violent arm of the specimen;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
the past regime. To many, he is regarded
with unusual ease and facility as the hit man 3. That the request together with the specimen were
of that regime. The Court, however, is not delivered by PO2 Michael Familara (PO2 Familara),
swayed by appellations or opprobriums. Its recorded by PO1 Menese and received by PSI
duty, as a temple of justice, is to accord to Cejes;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
every man who comes before it in
appropriate proceedings the right to due 4. That a qualitative examination on the specimen was
process and the equal protection of the conducted by PSI Cejes which gave positive result for
laws. the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug, as shown in Physical Sciences
CONCLUSION Report No. D-452-2006E; and

In our resolution of this appeal, we should be guided 5. The regularity and due execution of the Physical
only by the weighty and competent evidence on record. We Sciences Report.5
should resolve with objectivity and detachment. We should
eschew speculation and passion. We should not allow angles Version of the Prosecution
or theories not supported by the evidence on record to
distract us. The prosecutions version of the event as derived from the
combined testimonies of PO1 Dario Gunda, Jr. (PO1 Gunda)
Convinced that the presumption of innocence in favor and PO2 Familara is summarized as follows:
of the accused was sufficiently overcome by the State, I vote
to dismiss the consolidated petitions of the accused, and to At about 6:00 p.m. on October 13, 2006, a confidential
affirm their conviction for the felony of murder. informant (CI) went to the EPD-District Intelligence
Investigation Division (EPD-DIID) Headquarters of Pasig City
and informed PSI Abalos that a certain Paeng Putol, later
identified as the appellant, was engaged in selling illegal
IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO BUY BUST drugs in Purok 4, BarangayPineda, Pasig City. Acting on the
information, PSI Abalos organized a buy-bust team composed
SECOND DIVISION of himself, PO1 Gunda, PO1 Daniel Robiene, PO2 Familara,
SPO1 Jessie Bautista, and PO1 Ambrosio Gam, among others,
G.R. No. 198024, March 16, 2015 to entrap appellant. PO1 Gunda was designated as the
poseur-buyer and was thus given two 100-peso bills 6 which he
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAFAEL marked with his initials DG, while the rest of the team would
CUNANAN Y DAVID ALIAS PAENG PUTOL, Accused- act as back-ups. After a short briefing, PSI Abalos prepared a
Appellant. Pre-Operation Report/Coordination Sheet7 and coordinated the
buy-bust operation with the Pasig City Police Station and the
RESOLUTION Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). Thereafter, the
team proceeded to and arrived at the target area at 9:20
DEL CASTILLO, J.: p.m. PO1 Gunda and the CI walked towards a store along an
alley while the others strategically positioned themselves
On appeal is the January 27, 2011 Decision 1 of the Court of some five to seven meters away. The CI saw a man wearing
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04062, which affirmed the gloves standing beside the store and informed PO1 Gunda
July 1, 2009 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig that the man was the appellant. Together, they approached
City, Branch 164 in Criminal Case No. 15143-D finding appellant who is familiar to the CI. PO1 Gunda was introduced
appellant Rafael Cunanan y David alias Paeng Putol to appellant as a drug user who wanted to buy shabu worth
(appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of P200.00. After receiving the marked money from PO1 Gunda,
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 or the appellant entered a narrow alley and came back with a small
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and sentencing plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance which he
him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a handed to PO1 Gunda. Thereupon, PO1 Gunda gave the pre-
fine of P500,000.00 and the costs. arranged signal to inform the buy-bust team of the
consummated transaction and arrested appellant. When
 65
asked to empty his pocket, recovered from appellant were the identified in court was the same item allegedly seized and
two marked 100-peso bills used as buy-bust money. Appellant confiscated from him; and (4) the testimonies of PO1 Gunda
was then informed of his constitutional rights and the nature and PO2 Familara as to who was in possession of the seized
of the accusation against him and brought to the EPD item from the target area up to the police station were
Headquarters. PO1 Gunda stapled the marked money on a conflicting.
bond paper and wrote thereon recovered pre-marked buy-
bust money dated October 13, 2006. He also marked the Our Ruling
plastic sachet with Exh-A RCD/DG 10/13/06. The said items
were likewise brought to the EPD Headquarters and turned The appeal is without merit.
over to PO2 Familara for further investigation. Later, the
seized substance were inventoried and photographed. After Appellant was lawfully arrested after he was caught in
this, PO1 Gunda and PO2 Familara brought appellant, together flagrante delicto selling an illegal drug in a buy-bust
with a request for his drug testing, 8 and the seized substance, operation; contrary to his contention, it was not
as well as a request for its laboratory examination, 9 to the EPD inconceivable that he would openly sell an illegal drug in
Crime Laboratory. The substance with the corresponding public.
marking Exh-A RCD/DG 10/13/06 on its plastic sachet was
received by PSI Cejes in the morning of October 14, 2006. Per Appellant assails the legality of his arrest contending that he
Physical Sciences Report No. D-452-2006E issued by PSI was not caught in flagrante delicto. Appellants contention
Cejes,10 the substance weighing 0.02 gram was found positive fails to convince. The testimony of PO1 Gunda who acted as
for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous the poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation clearly recounts
drug. how the sale transaction between him and appellant
transpired, viz:
Version of the Defense
Q- After you were introduced by this confidential informant
Appellant denied the charge and interposed the defenses of to Paeng Putol that you are user of illegal drugs, what
denial and frame-up/extortion. He alleged that after eating was the reaction of the target person, this Paeng Putol?
dinner on October 13, 2006, he was watching a bingo game
when three men arrived and held him by both hands. They A- The confidential [informant] asked him, Paeng,
introduced themselves as policemen and told him that they halagang dos, meron ka ba[?], kukuha kami.
have a warrant for his arrest. They then handcuffed and
frisked him and took away his wallet and cellphone. The men Q- What was the reply of this alias Paeng Putol?
brought him to a police station where PO2 Familara
threatened to file a case against him unless he gives the A- Akina iyong pera, sabi niya.
police P50,000.00 as settlement. He failed to give the said
amount.
Q- What did you do?
Another witness for the defense, Genedina Guevarra Ignacio,
A- I gave to him the two pieces of one[-]hundred peso
testified that she was outside her house between 7:00 p.m.
bill[s].
and 8:00 p.m. of October 13, 2006 when she noticed three
men passed by her in haste. The men approached appellant
Q- What happened?
who was then watching a bingo game across the street and
suddenly handcuffed him. She heard appellant asking the
reason for his arrest. She did not know what happened next A- Sinabi niya na antayin ninyo ako diyan. Pumasok siya sa
since she already went inside her house. eskinita, hindi kalayuan, mga two to three meters.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court Q- What did he do?

In its July 1, 2009 Decision, 11 the trial court adjudged appellant A- He returned and gave me one plastic sachet containing
guilty of the crime charged, thus:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary suspected shabu.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Rafael Cunanan y David Q- After he handed to you that plastic sachet, what did you
alias Paeng Putol GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of do next?
violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 and hereby
imposes upon him the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine A- Nag pre-arranged signal ako para tulungan ako sa
of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00) with the paghuli kay alias Paeng Putol.
accessory penalties provided for under Section 35 of said R.A.
9165. x x x
x
The plastic sachet containing shabu (Exhibit I) is hereby
ordered confiscated in favor of the government and turned Q- What happened?
over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for
destruction. A- Hinawakan ko siya. Tapos pinakuha ko kung ano iyong
laman ng bulsa niya. Ayun na recover ko sa kanyang
With costs against the accused. possession iyong dalawang daan.15

SO ORDERED.12 It is crystal clear from the foregoing that a sale transaction

took place between appellant and PO1 Gunda. That the said
Ruling of the Court of Appeals transaction involved the illegal sale of dangerous drug was
sufficiently shown by the prosecution through its
On appeal, the CA affirmed appellants conviction in its establishment of the following elements of the offense: (1)
January 27, 2011 Decision,13viz: the identity of the buyer and the seller, object and
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment therefor.16 Undoubtedly, appellant was lawfully
WHEREFORE, there being no reversible error committed by
arrested after he was caught in flagrante
the trial court, the appeal is dismissed. The assailed Decision
delicto selling shabu in a buy-bust operation.
dated July 1, 2009 of the RTC, Branch 164, Pasig City, in
Criminal Case No. 15143-D, is AFFIRMED.
In any event, jurisprudence is settled that any irregularity
attending the arrest of an accused should be timely raised in a
SO ORDERED.
motion to quash the Information at any time before
arraignment, failing [in] which, he is deemed to have
Hence, this appeal where appellant points out that: (1) there
waived17 his right to question the regularity of his arrest. As
was no in flagrante delicto arrest as he was not committing
the records show, except during the inquest proceedings
any crime at the time he was apprehended but was merely
before the prosecutors office, appellant never objected to the
watching a bingo game; (2) it was inconceivable for him to
regularity of his arrest before his arraignment. In fact, he
openly sell illegal drugs as PO1 Gunda himself testified that at
even actively participated in the trial of the case. With these
the time of the alleged sale transaction there were many
lapses, he is estopped from raising any question regarding the
people around the target area; (3) the apprehending officers
same.
failed to comply with the guidelines on the proper custody of
the seized dangerous drug, specifically with respect to its
Also not persuasive is appellants argument that it is
inventory and taking of photograph, and this casts doubt on
inconceivable that he would openly sell an illegal drug in a
whether the plastic sachet with white crystalline substance
 66
place where there were many people. The Court has already affirmed by the CA are in order. It must be added, however,
stated that drug pushers now sell their prohibited articles to that appellant shall not be eligible for parole.24
any prospective customer, be he a stranger or not, in private
as well as in public places, and even in daytime. WHEREFORE, the January 27, 2011 Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04062, which affirmed the July
The identity and evidentiary value of the seized item have 1, 2009 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City,
been preserved. Branch 164 in Criminal Case No. 15143-D finding appellant
Rafael Cunanan y David guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
Appellant assails the proof of the corpus delicti by pointing out violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and
the arresting officers non compliance with the procedure on sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and
the proper custody and disposition of the seized item under to pay a fine of P500,000.00, is AFFIRMED with the
Section 21 of RA 9165 and its Implementing Rules and modification that appellant shall not be eligible for parole.
Regulations, particularly with respect to the inventory and
taking of photograph of the seized item. He contends that SO ORDERED.
while PO1 Gunda testified that an inventory of the seized item
was made and a photograph thereof was taken, such
inventory and photograph were not offered as evidence.
FIRST DIVISION
Appellants contention is untenable. This Court has
consistently ruled that non-compliance with the requirements
of Section 21 of [RA] 9165 will not necessarily render the G.R. No. 177158 : February 06, 2013
[item] seized or confiscated in a buy-bust operation
inadmissible. Strict compliance with the letter of Section 21 is
not required if there is a clear showing that the integrity and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LINDA
evidentiary value of the seized [item] have been ALVIZ y YATCO and ELIZABETH DE LA VEGA y
preserved, i.e., the [item] being offered in court as [exhibit is], BAUTISTA, Accused-Appellants.
without a specter of doubt, the very same [one] recovered in
the buy-bust operation.20 Thus, the primordial concern is the
preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the DECISION
seized items as the same would be utilized in the
determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. 21 LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
Here, the records reveal that after the consummation of the
sale and the consequent arrest of appellant, the plastic sachet On appeal is the Decision 1 dated September 2 7, 2006 of the
sold by appellant was marked with Exh-A Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00489, which
RCD/DG/10/13/0622 by PO1 Gunda at the place where it was affirmed the Decision2 dated December 7, 2004 of the
confiscated. Thereafter, appellant and the seized drug were Regional Trial Court (RTC), National Capital Judicial Region,
brought to the police station. And as stipulated by the
Branch 103, Quezon City, in Criminal Case No. Q-03- 114964,
parties, a request for laboratory examination of a plastic
sachet containing white crystalline substance with marking finding accused-appellants Linda Y. Alviz aka "Peking" (Linda)
Exh-A RCD/DG/10/13/06 was prepared; the said request and and Elizabeth B. de la Vega aka "Beth" (Elizabeth) guilty of
specimen were delivered by PO2 Familara and PO1 Menese to violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165,
EPD Crime Laboratory and received by PSI Cejes; and, a otherwise known as The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
qualitative examination of the specimen by PSI Cejes revealed of 2002.
that the same is positive for metamphetamine hydrochloride
or shabu, a dangerous drug. During trial, the marked plastic
sachet was presented and identified by PO1 Gunda as the The Information3 charging both Linda and Elizabeth, filed
same item sold to him by appellant. before the RTC, reads:

From this sequence of events, the prosecution was able to

show an unbroken link in the chain of custody of the subject That on or about the 4th day of Feb., 2003, in Quezon City,
item which is the proof of the corpus delicti. Its integrity and Philippines, the said accused, conspiring together,
evidentiary value were shown not to have been compromised confederating with and mutually helping each other, not being
notwithstanding the fact that the inventory and photograph authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or
thereof which PO1 Gunda claimed to have been made were distribute any dangerous drug, did, then and there, willfully
not offered in evidence. Besides, [t]he integrity of the and unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or
evidence is presumed to have been preserved unless there is
a showing of bad faith, ill will or proof that the evidence has act as broker in the said transaction, zero point zero two
been tampered with.23 In this case, the defense failed to (0.02) gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a
prove ill motive on the part of the apprehending officers that dangerous drug.
would have impelled them to fabricate a serious crime against
appellant. Also, the alleged inconsistency in the testimonies
When arraigned on March 21, 2003, both Linda and Elizabeth
of PO1 Gunda and PO2 Familara as to who was in possession
of the item from the police station to the EPD crime laboratory pleaded not guilty to the crime charged and stipulated that
did not create any doubt that what was submitted for they were arrested without a warrant of arrest.
laboratory examination and later presented in court as
evidence was the same drug actually sold by the appellant.
At the trial, the prosecution presented as witnesses Police
Officer (PO) 2 Edsel Ibasco (Ibasco), the poseur-buyer, and
Appellants defenses of denial and frame-up/extortion must
fail. Senior Police Officer (SPO) 4 Edgardo Reburiano (Reburiano), a
member of the buy-bust team. The prosecution dispensed
Appellants defenses of denial and frame-up/extortion must with the testimony of Forensic Analyst Leonard Jabonillo
fail in light of the positive testimony of PO1 Gunda, the (Jabonillo), Chemist II of the Philippine National Police (PNP)
poseur-buyer, that appellant sold to him the illegal drug. Central Police District Crime Laboratory Office (CPDCLO), as
Moreover, it was not shown that appellant filed any criminal or the defense already admitted (1) the Memorandum5 dated
administrative charges against the apprehending officers,
February 4, 2003 of Police Inspector (P/Insp.) Oliver Magtibay
thus clearly belying his claim of frame-up/extortion against
them. Villanueva (Villanueva) requesting laboratory examination of a
small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, containing an
All told, appellants violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 undetermined quantity of white crystalline substance,
was duly established beyond reasonable doubt by the suspected as shabu; and (2) Chemistry Report No. D-198-
prosecution. Hence, the Court affirms his conviction. 20036 prepared by Forensic Analyst Jabonillo stating that the
examined specimen positively tested for methylamphetamine
Penalty
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
Under RA 9165, the unauthorized sale of shabu, regardless of
its quantity and purity, carries with it the penalty of life Accused-appellants Linda and Elizabeth and Lindas daughter,
imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 Ronalyn Alviz (Ronalyn), took the witness stand for the
to P10 million. Here, the penalty of life imprisonment and a defense.
fine of P500,000.00 imposed upon appellant by the RTC and
 67
The RTC promulgated its Decision on December 7, 2004, three children were asked to board a Ford Fiera and were
convicting and sentencing Linda and Elizabeth as taken to the police station. Linda and Elizabeth were frisked
follows:cralawlibrary and Lindas P500.00, which was meant as payment to
the magtatawas, and Elizabeths P200.00 were taken by the
ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered finding both two men, who turned out to be PO2 Ibasco and SPO4
accused Linda Alviz y Yatco and Elizabeth dela Vega y Rebu[r]iano. PO2 Ibasco and SPO4 Rebu[r]iano told Linda and
Bautista GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for drug pushing Elizabeth that they have shabu, which the two denied. Linda
penalized under Section 5, Article II, R.A. 9165 and each is and Elizabeth were then brought to the Prosecutors Office for
hereby sentenced to suffer LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay inquest.
a fine of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos.
Ronalyn Alviz, the ten-year old daughter of Linda Alviz,
The drug involved in this case weighing zero point zero two corroborated the testimonies of her mother, Linda, and aunt,
(0.02) gram is ordered transmitted to the Philippine Drug Elizabeth, that they were asked by two (2) men to alight from
Enforcement Agency (PDEA) thru the Dangerous Drugs Board the passenger jeepney, boarded in another vehicle and
for proper disposition. brought to the police station. Linda and Elizabeth were
detained while she, her younger brother, Allan, and cousin,
Marlyn, were allowed to go home.
Linda and Elizabeth appealed to the Court of Appeals which
reviewed the parties conflicting versions of the events of
February 4, 2003, when Linda and Elizabeth were arrested. In its Decision dated September 27, 2006, the Court of
Appeals affirmed in toto the judgment of conviction of the RTC
against Linda and Elizabeth. The appellate court found that
The Court of Appeals summarized the evidence for the
the testimonies of PO2 Ibasco and SPO4 Reburiano were
prosecution, as follows:
credible and deserved full faith and credit; that the defenses
of denial and frame-up of Linda and Elizabeth could not
The evidence for the prosecution shows that at about 4:00 prevail over their positive identification as the persons who
oclock in the afternoon of February 4, 2003, a confidential sold a sachet of shabu for P100.00 to PO2 Ibasco during the
informant arrived at Police Station 1, La Loma, Quezon City buy-bust operation; that the defense failed to overcome the
and talked to the Officer-in- Charge. Thereafter, the Officer-in- presumption of regularity in the police officers performance of
Charge formed a team to conduct surveillance and buy-bust official duty as there was no proof establishing improper
operations at Isarog Street, Sta. Teresita, Quezon City. PO2 motive on the part of said police officers in effecting the arrest
Edsel Ibasco was designated as the poseur-buyer with SPO4 of Linda and Elizabeth, with the latter two even admitting that
Edgardo Rebu[r]iano and other policemen as back-up. they did not know the police officers prior to their arrest; and
that the police team properly observed the procedure outlined
Upon arrival at Isarog Street, PO2 Ibasco and the confidential by Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.
informant approached Linda Alviz outside her house. The
confidential informant told Linda that PO2 Ibasco was deeply Initially, both Linda and Elizabeth appealed before the Court.
in need of shabu. Linda asked for the money and PO2 Ibasco However, Linda executed a Motion for Withdrawal of Appeal
gave a P100.00 bill on which he earlier placed his initials "EI." on August 14, 2007.
Linda called for Elizabeth dela Vega, who was inside the
house, and the two talked. Elizabeth then went inside the
The Resolution dated September 3, 2007 11 granted Lindas
house. After a while, Elizabeth came out and handed a plastic
Motion for Withdrawal of Appeal, and the case insofar as she
sachet to Linda. Linda gave the P100.00 bill to Elizabeth and
was concerned was considered closed and terminated. The
the plastic sachet to PO2 Ibasco. PO2 Ibasco then gave the
judgment against Linda was accordingly recorded in the Book
pre-arranged signal by scratching his head. SPO4 Rebu[r]iano,
of Entries of Judgments on October 24, 2007.
who was only two (2) meters away, rushed to the group,
arrested Elizabeth and recovered from the latter the buy-bust
money, while PO2 Ibasco arrested Linda. The police officers Now, only Elizabeths appeal is left for consideration by the
brought Linda and Elizabeth to the police station. PO2 [Ibasco] Court. In her Brief 13 filed before the Court of Appeals,
placed the letters "EV-LA" on the plastic sachet containing Elizabeth assigned the following errors purportedly committed
white crystalline substance. by the RTC:

A request for laboratory examination of the white crystalline I

substance was made by the La Loma Police Station 1 to the
PNP Central Police District Crime Laboratory Office (CPDCLO). THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE
Forensic Analyst Leonard M. Jabonillo submitted a Report ACCUSED-APPELLANTS WERE ILLEGALLY ARRESTED.
stating that the qualitative examination conducted on the
specimen gave positive result to methylamphetamine II
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. The defense admitted the
request for examination, the Report and the specimen, for
THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO
which reason, the prosecution dispensed with the testimony of
THE INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS OF THE POLICE OFFICERS.
the Forensic Analyst.9 (Citations omitted.)

III
The appellate court similarly summed up the evidence for the
defense, to wit:
THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
Linda Alviz and Elizabeth dela Vega are sisters-in-law and
FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 5, ARTICLE II OF REPUBLIC ACT
reside in the same house at 17 Isarog Street, Sta. Teresita,
9165.
Quezon City. They denied the accusations against them,
claiming that they are vendors of native baskets.
There is no merit in the instant appeal.
Linda and Elizabeth tried to show that they and their children
were on board a passenger jeepney on their way to Quintos Elizabeth insists that there was no buy-bust operation and
Street to see a magtatawas because Lindas daughter was what actually took place was an unlawful warrantless arrest.
sick. Upon reaching Dr. Alejos Street, the jeepney was flagged She claims that none of the circumstances justifying an arrest
down by two men in civilian clothes who asked them to alight. without a warrant under Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of
However, the jeepney driver and two (2) other passengers Court15 was present. When she was arrested, she was neither
were not bothered by the two men. Linda, Elizabeth and their committing nor was about to commit any crime, and she was
 68
not acting in any manner that would engender a reasonable presumption of regularity in the performance of the police
ground to believe that she was committing a crime. Elizabeth officers duties. To substantiate such defense, which can be
argues that whatever evidence was obtained from her and easily concocted, the evidence must be clear and convincing
Linda on occasion of their arrest is inadmissible being the fruit and should show that the members of the buy-bust team were
of a poisonous tree. inspired by any improper motive or were not properly
performing their duty. Otherwise, the police officers
The People, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit.
(OSG), asserts that the warrantless arrest of Linda and (Citations omitted.)
Elizabeth was lawful because the police officers caught
them in flagrante delicto selling shabu to PO2 Ibasco in In this case, there is absolute lack of evidence that the
exchange for P100.00. members of the buy-bust team were stirred by illicit motive or
had improperly performed their duties in arresting Linda and
As to which of the foregoing versions is more credible, given Elizabeth. Both Linda and Elizabeth admitted that they did not
the evidence presented at trial by both parties, especially the know the police officers prior to their arrest. Hence, there
witnesses testimonies, the Court generally relies upon the could not have been any bad blood between them and said
assessment and factual findings of the RTC. police officers.20 The Court further quotes with approval the
following observations of the RTC on the matter:

It is a fundamental rule that factual findings of the trial courts

involving credibility are accorded respect when no glaring It is (sic) appears remote that the police officers, in so far as
errors, gross misapprehension of facts, and speculative, the circumstances obtaining in this case, could openly do the
arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from act being attributed to them by the accused. That, Ibasco and
such findings. The reason for this is that the trial court is in a Reburiano, for no reason at all, would instantly flagged (sic)
better position to decide the credibility of witnesses having down a passenger jeepney and forcibly drag and then frisked
heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and (sic) some of its passengers, herein accused and their
manner of testifying during the trial. The rule finds an even children, and thereafter, transferred them into another
more stringent application where said findings are sustained vehicle.
by the Court of Appeals, 16 such as in this case. The Court,
therefore, has no reason to deviate from this rule. According to the accused, the incident happened at Alejos St.,
along Dapitan and it was about 4:00 p.m. while they were on
Jurisprudence has identified the elements that must be their way to a "magtatawas" together with their children, on
established for the successful prosecution of illegal sale of board a jeepney. They were together with three (3) other
dangerous drugs, viz: (1) the identity of the buyer and the passengers and the driver. Considering the scenario described
seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of by the accused, the rest of the passengers who were likewise
the thing sold and the payment for the same. What is material innocently seated would have also been the victim of the
is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, indiscriminate and rampant arrest of the police. But, to the
coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti. courts surprise, these police officers, from the very own
The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the testimonies of the accused, spared their fellow passengers by
receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust allowing them to leave the area. This vital circumstance
transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused. renders unbelievable the defense version in this case.
In other words, the commission of the offense of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs, like shabu, merely requires the It is also the courts observation that if indeed the incident
consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the happened as it was demonstrated by the accused, certainly, a
moment the exchange of money and drugs between the commotion should have taken place right there and then. The
buyer and the seller takes place. other passengers of the jeepney should have panicked or at
least have sought the help of others but unfortunately, there
The RTC found, and the Court of Appeals eventually affirmed, was none. In fact, even Linda herself admitted that she did
that all these elements have been amply proven by the not bother to ask the reason why the police who were in
prosecution. The prosecution, through the detailed civilian clothes, suddenly flagged down their vehicle. The
testimonies of PO2 Ibasco and SPO4 Reburiano, established speculation of Linda that the jeepney will be hired by those
that there was a consummated sale of shabu by Linda and policemen is, to the mind of the court, an afterthought of a
Elizabeth to PO2 Ibasco during the buy-bust operation. The cock-and-bull story.
police officers testimonies reveal that the buy-bust operation
was planned and conducted following a report from a Aside from the incredulity of the testimonies of the accused,
confidential informant (CI);18 PO2 Ibasco, accompanied by the both accused made inconsistent statements, which are
CI, approached Linda outside the latters house at Isarog St., significant and material in nature. Accused Linda denied that
Sta. Teresita, Quezon City; PO2 Ibasco pretended that he was the police conducted an investigation but according to Beth,
looking for a "score;" Linda immediately demanded payment both of them were asked questions by the police. Also,
and PO2 Ibasco handed to her the P100.00 marked money; according to Beth, her daughter was crying when the police
Linda called Elizabeth, who stepped out of the house; after a were arresting them but Linda made no allegation about it,
brief conversation between the two women, Elizabeth went which is very unusual and unnatural.
inside the house to return with a plastic sachet of shabu;
Elizabeth handed the sachet to Linda, who, in turn, handed The only other witness for the defense, presented to
the same to PO2 Ibasco; upon PO2 Ibascos signal, the other corroborate the testimonies of Linda and Elizabeth, was
members of the buy-bust team came forward and arrested Ronalyn, Lindas daughter and Elizabeths niece. However, the
Linda and Elizabeth; and SPO4 Reburiano recovered the RTC did not give much weight to her testimony for the
marked money from Elizabeth. Forensic testing would following reasons:
subsequently confirm that the contents of the sachet from
Linda and Elizabeth were indeed shabu. The defense was not
The Court finds the testimony of Ronalyn to be a mere
able to impeach the police officers testimonies.
sounding board of the testimonies of her mother and her
auntie. The Court finds her testimony to be a rehearsed one in
There is little credence in Elizabeths assertion that she and view of Ronalyns demeanor while testifying. Her manner of
Linda were mere victims of a frame-up. As the Court declared testifying was significantly mechanical and unfeeling. There
in People v. Capalad19: was no touch at all of a hurt emotion or color of disgust in her,
were her version true.
Charges of extortion and frame-up are frequently made in this
jurisdiction. Courts are, thus, cautious in dealing with such
accusations, which are quite difficult to prove in light of the
 69
As a result of the finding that a buy-bust operation actually elected public official who shall be required to sign the
took place and that Linda and Elizabeth were apprehended in copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof[.]
flagrante delicto, the evidence gathered and presented by the (Emphases supplied.)
prosecution on the occasion of their lawful arrest without
warrant cannot be deemed as the "fruits of a poisonous tree," The above rule is implemented by Section 21(a) of the
but are admissible and competent proof of their guilt. Implementing Rules and Regulations which expounds on how
it is to be applied, and notably, also provides for a saving
Elizabeth also harps on purported contradictions and mechanism in case the procedure laid down in the law was
improbabilities in the testimonies of PO2 Ibasco and SPO4 not strictly complied with:
Reburiano, specifically, as to: (1) the composition of the buy-
bust team; (2) the existence of a preoperation report and (a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and
coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
(PDEA); and (3) the markings made by PO2 Ibasco on the confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in
sachet of shabu. the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such
items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
The Court is not swayed. The inconsistencies adverted to by representative or counsel, a representative from the media
Elizabeth are trivial and insignificant and refer only to minor and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public
details. Time and again, the Court has steadfastly ruled that official who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inconsistencies on minor and trivial matters only serve to inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the
strengthen rather than weaken the credibility of witnesses for physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the
they erase the suspicion of rehearsed testimony. Furthermore, place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest
the Court cannot expect the testimonies of different witnesses police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending
to be completely identical and to coincide with each other officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
since they have different impressions and recollections of the seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with
incident. Hence, it is only natural that their testimonies are at these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long
variance on some minor details.23 As this Court ruled in People as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
v. Madriaga24: items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such
Settled is the rule that discrepancies on minor matters do not seizures of and custody over said item[.] (Emphasis
impair the essential integrity of the prosecutions evidence as ours).
a whole or reflect on the witnesses honesty. These
inconsistencies, which may be caused by the natural The integrity and evidentiary value of seized items are
fickleness of memory, even tend to strengthen rather than properly preserved for as long as the chain of custody of the
weaken the credibility of the prosecution witnesses because same are duly established. Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs
they erase any suspicion of rehearsed testimony. What is Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, implementing
important is that the testimonies agree on the essential facts Republic Act No. 9165, defines chain of custody as follows:
and that the respective versions corroborate and substantially
coincide with each other to make a consistent and coherent Chain of Custody means the duly recorded authorized
whole. (Citations omitted.) movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled
chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory
Indeed, in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, equipment of each stage, from the time of
what is material is the proof that the accused peddled illicit seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to
drugs, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such
delicti,25 both of which were satisfactorily complied with by the record of movements and custody of seized item shall include
prosecution in this case. the identity and signature of the person who held temporary
custody of the seized item, the date and time when such
Finally, Elizabeth argues that the police officers blatantly transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping
ignored the mandatory provisions of Section 21, paragraph 1 and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.
of Republic Act No. 9165, particularly, the requirements on
making an inventory report and taking photographs of the In Malillin v. People,26 the Court discussed how the chain of
seized drugs in the presence of the accused or the latters custody of seized items should be established, thus:
representative or counsel.
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody
Once more, the Court is not swayed. rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by
evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in
Article II, Section 21, paragraph 1 of Republic Act No. 9165 question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would
provides: include testimony about every link in the chain, from the
moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into
evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the
Sec. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized,
exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received,
and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of
where it was and what happened to it while in the witness
Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential
possession, the condition in which it was received and the
Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory
condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the
Equipment. - The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of
chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions
all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
taken to ensure that there had been no change in the
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
the chain to have possession of the same. (Citations omitted.)
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition
in the following manner:
In several cases, the Court found that the chain of custody of
the seized drugs in a buy-bust operation had been sufficiently
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control
established when there was proof of the following: first, the
of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the
recovered from the accused by the apprehending
same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from
officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the
whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the
representative or counsel, a representative from the
turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the
media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any
forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the
 70
turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized Reynaldo Belocura y Perez, a police officer charged with illegal
from the forensic chemist to the court. possession of 1,789.823 grams of marijuana in violation of
Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as
amended by Republic Act No. 7659, was found guilty of the
Given the law, rules, and jurisprudence, the failure of the crime charged on April 22, 2003 by the Regional Trial Court
police officers to make an inventory report and to photograph (RTC) in Manila, and sentenced to suffer reclusion
the drugs seized from Linda and Elizabeth, as required by perpetua and to pay a fine of P 500,000.00.
Article II, Section 21, paragraph 1 of Republic Act No. 9165,
are not automatically fatal to the prosecution's case, as it was On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction
on January 23, 2006.2 Hence, this final appeal for his acquittal.
able to trace and prove the chain of custody of the same:
after arresting Linda and Elizabeth during the buy-bust
Antecedents
operation, the police officers brought the two women to the
police station; at the police station, P02 lbasco, who acted as Belocura was charged on April 13, 1999 by the Office of the
the poseur-buyer, marked the sachet of suspected shabu he City Prosecutor of Manila with a violation of Section 8 of
received from Linda and Elizabeth during the buy-bust with his Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659,
initials "EV -LA" and turned over the same to P/Insp. in the Manila RTC through the information:
Villanueva; P/Insp. Villanueva prepared the Request for
That on or about March 22, 1999, in the City of Manila,
Laboratory Examination of the contents of the sachet; P02
Philippines, the said accused did then and there willfully,
Ibasco delivered the Request for Laboratory Examination and unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and under his
the sachet of suspected shabu to the PNP Crime Laboratory, custody and control one (1) plastic bag colored red and white,
CPDCLO, Quezon City, where the Request and specimen were with label "SHIN TON YON", containing the following:
received by P02 Piau; the contents of the sachet were
examined by Forensic Analyst Jabonillo, who prepared One (1) newspaper leaf used to wrap one (1) brick of
Chemistry Report No. D-198-2003, confirming that the dried marijuana fruiting tops weighing 830.532 grams;
specimen tested positive for shabu28 and lastly, during the
One (1) newspaper leaf used to wrap one (1) brick of
trial, the marked sachet of shabu, as well as the marked
dried marijuana fruiting tops weighing 959.291 grams.
money used in purchasing the same, were presented as
evidence and identified by P02 Ibasco and SP04 Reburiano. With a total weight of 1,789.823 grams, a prohibited drug.

All told, there is no reason for the Court to disturb the findings Contrary to law.
of the RTC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that Elizabeth
After Belocura pleaded not guilty,4 the State presented three
is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of dangerous
witnesses, namely: Insp. Arlene Valdez Coronel, Chief Insp.
drug, as defined and penalized under Article II, Section 5 of Ferdinand Ortales Divina, and SPO1 Gregorio P. Rojas. On the
Republic Act No. 9165. According to said provision, "[t]he other hand, the Defense presented Belocura as its sole
penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from witness.
Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million
pesos (PI 0,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, I The State s Evidence
who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer,
On March 22, 1999, at 11 o clock in the morning, Chief Insp.
dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in
Divina was in his office in the headquarters of the Western
transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all Police District (WPD) on United Nations Avenue in Manila when
species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity he received a call from a male person who refused to identify
involved, or shall act as broker in any such transactions." himself for fear of reprisal. The caller tipped him off about a
Consequently, the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine robbery to be staged along Lopez Street, Tondo, Manila. After
of P500,000.00 imposed upon Elizabeth by the RTC and relaying the tip to his superior officer, he was immediately
affirmed by the Court of Appeals are in accordance with law. ordered to form a team composed of operatives of the District
Intelligence Group and to coordinate with the Special
Weapons and Attack Team (SWAT) and the Mobile Patrol of the
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal- of Elizabeth de Ia Vega WPD.
is DENIED and the Decision dated September 27, 2006 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00489 convicting her After a briefing, Chief Insp. Divina and the other operatives
for violation of Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 proceeded to Lopez Street, reaching the site before 1:00 pm.
Chief Insp. Divina and PO2 Eraldo Santos positioned
is AFFIRMED in toto.
themselves along Vitas Street. At around 2:00 pm, Chief Insp.
Divina spotted an owner-type jeep bearing a spurious
SO ORDERED. government plate (SBM-510) cruising along Vitas Street and
told the rest of the team about it. The numbers of the car
plate were painted white. The driver was later identified as
Belocura. Chief Insp. Divina signaled for Belocura to stop for
verification but the latter ignored the signal and sped off
IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO towards Balut, Tondo. The team pursued Belocura s jeep until
they blocked its path with their Tamaraw FX vehicle, forcing
FIRST DIVISION Belocura to stop. At this point, Chief Insp. Divina and the rest
of the team approached the jeep and introduced themselves
[G.R. NO. 173474 - August 29, 2012] to Belocura as policemen. Chief Insp. Divina queried Belocura
on the government plate. SPO1 Rojas confiscated Belocura s
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff- Berreta 9 mm. pistol (Serial Number M13086Z) that was
Appellee, v. REYNALDO BELOCURA y PEREZ, Accused- tucked in his waist and its fully loaded magazine when he
Appellant. could not produce the appropriate documents for the pistol
and the government plate. They arrested him.
DECISION
PO2 Santos searched Belocura s jeep, and recovered a red
BERSAMIN, J.: plastic bag under the driver s seat. Chief Insp. Divina directed
PO2 Santos to inspect the contents of the red plastic bag,
The credibility of the evidence of the corpus delicti in a which turned out to be two bricks of marijuana wrapped in
prosecution for illegal possession of marij11ana under newspaper.
Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, depends on the integrity
of the chain of custody of the marijuana from the time of its Afterwards, the team returned with Belocura to the WPD
seizure until the time of its presentation as evidence in court. Headquarters on board the Tamaraw FX. The team turned
Short of that, the accused is entitled to an acquittal because over the jeep and the red plastic bag with its contents to the
the State fails to establish the guilt of the accused beyond General Assignment Section for proper disposition.
reasonable doubt.
Chief Insp. Divina said that the caller did not mention
The Case anything about any vehicle; that he and his men were in
civilian clothes at the time; that it was PO2 Santos who
 71
recovered the red plastic bag containing the marijuana bricks; As already stated, the CA affirmed the conviction.
and that SPO1 Rojas examined the contents of the bag in his
presence. Issues

SPO1 Rojas confirmed his part in the operation. 7 He conceded Belocura now submits that:
that he was not present when the red plastic bag containing
the bricks of marijuana was seized, and saw I.
the marijuana bricks for the first time only at the police
station.8 THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED
Forensic Chemist Insp. Coronel attested that her office NOTWITHSTANDING THE PHYSICIAL IMPOSSIBILITY FOR THE
received from the General Assignment Section of the WPD one DRIED BRICKS OF MARIJUANA PLACED UNDER THE DRIVER S
red plastic bag labeled "SHIN TON YON" containing two bricks SEAT (sic).
of dried suspected marijuanafruiting tops individually wrapped
in newspaper at about 12:30 pm of March 23, 1999. The first II.
brick bore the marking "RB-1" and weighed 830.532 grams
while the other bore the marking "RB-2" and weighed 959.291 THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-
grams, for a total weight of 1,789.823 grams. She conducted APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED BASED ON THE
a chemical examination of the marijuana bricks pursuant to INCONSISTENT AND CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS OF THE
the request for laboratory examination from Chief Insp. Nelson PROSECUTION WITNESS.
Yabut of the WPD; and concluded as the result of three
qualitative examinations that the submitted specimen tested III.
positive for marijuana, a prohibited drug.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING IN EVIDENCE THE
II Evidence of the Defense MARIJUANA DESPITE THE ILLEGALITY OF ITS SEIZURE DUE TO
THE ABSENSE (sic) OF A VALID SEARCH WARRANT.
Belocura denied the charge. His version, which differed from
that of the Prosecution, was as follows. IV.

On March 22, 1999, Belocura was a police officer assigned in THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-
Police Station 6 of the WPD with a tour of duty from 3:00 pm APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED WHEN HIS GUILT WAS
to 11:00 pm. At 2:00 pm of that day, he was on his way to NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
work on board his owner-type jeep when about thirty police
officers blocked his path. He introduced himself to them as a Belocura argues that the Prosecution did not establish his guilt
police officer, but they ignored him. Instead, they disarmed for the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt; that his
and handcuffed him, and confiscated the memorandum warrantless arrest was unlawful considering that his only
receipt covering his firearm, his money and his police ID card. violation was only a breach of traffic rules and regulations
He recognized some of his arrestors as former members of the involving the illegal use of a government plate on his newly-
CIS. They forced him into their jeep, and brought him to the assembled jeep; that the warrantless search of his jeep was
WPD headquarters, where they locked him up in a room that contrary to law for violating his right against illegal search and
looked like a bodega. They subjected him to interrogation on seizure protected under Section 17, Article III (Bill of Rights) of
his alleged involvement in a robbery hold-up. They informed the 1987 Constitution;17 and that the bricks
him of the drug-related charge to be filed against him only of marijuana supposedly seized from him, being the fruit of a
three days later. poisonous tree, were inadmissible against him.
Belocura denied owning or possessing the bricks of marijuana, The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) counters that
saying that he saw the bricks of marijuanafor the first time Belocura s arrest and the ensuing search of the jeep were
only in court. He insisted that it was physically impossible for valid, the search being incidental to a valid, albeit warrantless,
the bricks of marijuana to be found under the driver s seat of arrest; that the arresting policemen had a reasonable ground
his jeep on account of the clearance from the flooring being to effect his warrantless arrest; that it became their duty
only about three inches. At the time of his arrest, he was in following the lawful arrest to conduct the warrantless search
Type-B uniform (i.e., blue pants with white side piping and not only of the person of Belocura as the arrestee but also of
blue T-shirt) because he was reporting to work that afternoon. the areas within his reach, which then resulted in the recovery
Belocura said that his arrest was effected possibly because he of the dried bricks of marijuana from under the driver s seat;
had incurred the ire of a superior; that it was not unusual for a and that any irregularity attendant to the arrest was cured by
policeman like him to incur the ire of a superior officer or a Belocura s failure to object to the validity of his arrest before
fellow policeman; that he had arrested a suspect for drug entering his plea and by his submission to the jurisdiction of
pushing and had detained him in Police Precinct 2, but the the RTC when he entered his plea and participated in the trial.
suspect turned out to be the nephew of Captain Sukila of
Precinct 2 who admitted to him that Captain Sukila owned the
Ruling
drugs; that on the day following the arrest of the suspect,
Captain Sukila called Belocura to request the release of the
After a meticulous examination of the records, the Court
suspect (ina-arbor ang huli ko); that he told Captain Sukila
concludes that a reversal of the conviction is justified and
that they should meet the next day so that he could turn over
called for.
the suspect; and that on the next day, he was surprised to
learn that the suspect had already been released.
No arrest, search and seizure can be made without a valid
warrant issued by a competent judicial authority. So sacred
Belocura did not personally know Chief Insp. Divina prior to
are the right of personal security and privacy and the right
his arrest,11 or the other arresting policemen. He mentioned
from unreasonable searches and seizures that no less than
that his owner-type jeep had been assembled in 1995, and
the Constitution ordains in Section 2 of its Article III, viz:
that he had attached the plate number assigned to his old
vehicle pending the registration of the jeep despite knowing
that doing so was a violation of law; and that the incident Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their
involving the arrest of the nephew of Captain Sukila was the persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable
only reason he could think of why charges were filed against searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
him. purpose, shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant
of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge after examination under
On re-direct examination, Belocura replied that he did not see
oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he
the bricks of marijuana whether at the time of his arrest, or at
may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
the police precinct, or during the inquest proceedings. On re-
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
cross, he clarified that while the driver s seat were fixed to the
jeep, the bricks of marijuana could nevertheless be placed
under the driver s seat only if pressed hard enough, but in The consequence of a violation of the guarantees against a
that case the wrappings would get torn because the wirings of violation of personal security and privacy and against
the car underneath the seat were exposed. He recalled that unreasonable searches and seizures is the exclusion of the
the wrappings of the bricks of marijuana were intact. evidence thereby obtained. This rule of exclusion is set down
in Section 3(2), Article III of the Constitution, to wit:
On April 22, 2003, the RTC convicted Belocura of the crime
charged and sentenced him to suffer reclusion perpetua and Section 3. xxx
to pay the fine of P 500,000.00.
 72
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding being the person who has the direct knowledge of the
section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any possession.
proceeding.
Chief Insp. Divina who headed the team of policemen
Even so, the right against warrantless arrest, and the right disclosed that it was PO2 Santos, a member of the team, who
against warrantless search and seizure are not absolute. had discovered and had actually recovered the red plastic bag
There are circumstances in which the arrest, or search and containing the bricks of marijuana from the jeep. Excerpts of
seizure, although warrantless, are nonetheless valid or Chief Insp. Divina s relevant declarations follow:
reasonable. Among the circumstances are those mentioned in
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, which lists down ATTY LEE: Mr. Witness, it was SPO1 Rojas who examined the
when a warrantless arrest may be lawfully made by a peace contents of the plastic bag. That is correct?
officer or a private person, namely:
a I had testified that it was SPO1 Rojas who examined the
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has contents.
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
an offense; q Okay, it was Mr. Rojas who retrieved the plastic bag? Is that
correct?
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he
has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to a No sir, It was not SPO1 Rojas.
be arrested has committed it; and
q It was not you who retrieved that plastic bag from the jeep?
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is a No, Sir. I was not the one.
serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case
is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one q It was Dela Cruz?
confinement to another.
a No, Sir.
On the other hand, the constitutional proscription against
warrantless searches and seizures admits of the following q Who retrieved the plastic bag from the jeep?
exceptions, namely: (a) warrantless search incidental to a
lawful arrest recognized under Section 13, Rule 126 of the WITNESS: It was PO2 Reynaldo Santos, Sir.
Rules of Court;19 (b) seizure of evidence under plain view; (c)
search of a moving vehicle; (d) consented warrantless search;
ATTY LEE : It was Santos who brought the plastic bag to the
(e) customs search; (f) stop-and-frisk situations (Terry search);
headquarters. Is that correct?
and (g) exigent and emergency circumstances. 20 In these
exceptional situations, the necessity for a search warrant is
A Yes, Sir.
dispensed with.
q And you never had a chance to examine that plastic bag,
Belocura argues that his arrest and the ensuing search of his
the contents of that plastic bag is that correct?
vehicle and recovery of the incriminating bricks
of marijuana were in violation of his aforementioned rights
under the Constitution because he was then violating only a a I had a chance to see it at the place where we had flagged
simple traffic rule on the illegal use of a government plate. He down a vehicle.
claims that the arresting policemen had no probable cause to
search his vehicle for anything. q You saw only the plastic bag. Is that correct?

The argument of Belocura does not persuade. a No, Sir. When the bag was recovered from under the driver s
seat and when it was opened, I had the chance to see it.
Belocura was caught in flagrante delicto violating Section 31
of Republic Act No. 4139 (The Land Transportation and Traffic THE COURT: Including the contents?
Code).21 In flagrante delicto means in the very act of
committing the crime. To be caught in flagrante delicto WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
necessarily implies the positive identification of the culprit by
an eyewitness or eyewitnesses. Such identification is a direct ATTY LEE: It was not you who bring that bag to xxx
evidence of culpability, because it "proves the fact in dispute
without the aid of any inference or presumption." 22 Even by THE COURT:Already answered.
his own admission, he was actually committing a crime in the
presence or within the view of the arresting policemen. Such ATTY LEE: And after that, you never had the chance to see
manner by which Belocura was apprehended fell under the that bag again. Is that correct?
first category in Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. The
arrest was valid, therefore, and the arresting policemen a Not anymore Sir.
thereby became cloaked with the authority to validly search
his person and effects for weapons or any other article he The Prosecution also presented SPO1 Rojas, another member
might use in the commission of the crime or was the fruit of of the team, but he provided no direct evidence about the
the crime or might be used as evidence in the trial of the possession by Belocura of the confiscated marijuana bricks,
case, and to seize from him and the area within his reach or and actually stated that he did not witness the recovery of
under his control, like the jeep, such weapon or other article. the marijuana bricks from Belocura, viz:
The evident purpose of the incidental search was to protect
the arresting policemen from being harmed by him with the PUB. PROS. TAN, JR: While you were taking the gun of this
use of a concealed weapon. Accordingly, the warrantless accused what were your other companion specifically Major
character of the arrest could not by itself be the basis of his Divina doing?
acquittal.23
WITNESS: Since I was the first one who approached Reynaldo
In convicting Belocura as charged, the RTC relied on the Belocura I was the one who took the gun from his waistline
testimonies of Chief Insp. Divina and SPO1 Rojas to establish and I informed Major Divina that I already took the gun and
the fact of possession of the marijuana bricks. An evaluation place it inside the Tamaraw FX and when I left the members of
of the totality of the evidence on record indicates, however, the SWAT arrive at the scene and I don t know what
that the corpus delicti of the crime charged was not transpired.
established beyond reasonable doubt.
PUB. PROS. TAN, JR: And where was Major Divina then?
The elements of illegal possession of marijuana under
Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, are that: (a) the accused a Beside the owner type jeep, sir.
is in possession of an item or object that is identified to
be marijuana, a prohibited drug; (b) such possession is not q You are referring to the owner type jeep of the accused?
authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously
possessed the said drug.24 What must be proved beyond a Yes, sir.
reasonable doubt is the fact of possession of the prohibited
drug itself. This may be done by presenting the police officer
q Did you go back to the said jeep?
who actually recovered the prohibited drugs as a witness,
 73
a I did not return there anymore sir because the members of Indeed, only PO2 Santos could reliably establish Belocura s
the other group surrounded the place, sir. illegal possession of the marijuana bricks, if Chief Insp. Divina
s account was to be believed. Surprisingly, the RTC did not
q Since you were then at that scene did you come to know if give due and proper significance to the failure to present PO2
there is any other thing that was retrieved from the herein Santos as a witness against Belocura.
accused in the said vehicle?
Nonetheless, the OSG contends that the State had no need to
xxx present PO2 Santos because his testimony would only be
corroborative; and that the testimonies of Chief Insp. Divina
WITNESS: Yes. When I was there according to and SPO1 Rojas sufficed to establish Belocura s guilt beyond
them marijuana was taken from the owner type jeep. reasonable doubt.

PUB. PROS. TAN, JR: Who said that? The OSG s contention is grossly erroneous.

xxx As the arresting officer who alone actually seized

the marijuana bricks from Belocura s vehicle beyond the
WITNESS: The member of the SWAT and other team, sir were viewing distance of his fellow arresting officers, PO2 Santos
there. was the Prosecution s only witness who could have reliably
established the recovery from Belocura of
q And then what else happen after such recovery? the marijuana bricks contained in the red plastic bag labeled
as "SHIN TON YON." Without PO2 Santos testimony, Chief
a Actually sir at the scene I did not see anything recovered Insp. Divina s declaration of seeing PO2 Santos recover the
but it was only in the office that I heard their conversation red plastic bag from under the driver s seat of Belocura s jeep
about it. was worthless. The explanation why none of the other police
officers could credibly attest to Belocura s possession of
q What did you see or observe while in your office? the marijuana bricks was that they were at the time
supposedly performing different tasks during the operation.
Under the circumstances, only PO2 Santos was competent to
a He was investigated.
prove Belocura s possession.
q Investigated for what?
Worse, the Prosecution failed to establish the identity of the
prohibited drug that constituted the corpus delicti itself. The
a According to them the recovery of the plate number and the
omission naturally raises grave doubt about any search being
expired MR of the gun and the marijuana recovered.
actually conducted and warrants the suspicion that the
prohibited drugs were planted evidence.
PUB. PROS. TAN, JR: Before whom was he investigated?
In every criminal prosecution for possession of illegal drugs,
WITNESS: General Assignment Section, sir.28rll the Prosecution must account for the custody of the
incriminating evidence from the moment of seizure and
xxx confiscation until the moment it is offered in evidence. That
account goes to the weight of evidence. 32 It is not enough that
On further examination, SPO1 Rojas reiterated that he did not the evidence offered has probative value on the issues, for the
actually witness the seizure of the marijuana bricks from evidence must also be sufficiently connected to and tied with
Belocura s possession, to wit: the facts in issue. The evidence is not relevant merely
because it is available but that it has an actual connection
ATTY LEE: Mr. Witness, so you did not see the actual the with the transaction involved and with the parties thereto.
alleged recovery of marijuana, is that correct? This is the reason why authentication and laying a foundation
for the introduction of evidence are important. 33rll
WITNESS: Yes sir.
Yet, no such accounting was made herein, as the following
ATTY LEE: And you have never that marijuana? excerpts from the testimony of Chief Insp. Divina bear out, to
wit:
WITNESS: Yes sir. But only in the office.
PUB. PROS TAN, JR: How about the plastic bag containing the
q What do you only took from the accused is a gun, is that suspected stuff, what did you do with the same? You did not
correct? know?

a Yes sir. WITNESS: I think it was turned over to the investigator of the
General Assignment Section who made the proper disposition.
q So you cannot say positively that there was
a marijuana recovered from the accused because you did not q Who is the investigator again, Mr. witness?
see?
a I remember SPO4 Boy Guzman
a I just got the information from my co-police officer, sir.29
q Did you know what SPO4 Boy Guzman did with the accused
xxx as well as the confiscated stuff?

PUB. PROS TAN, JR: Were you able to see the marijuana in the xxx
police station?
WITNESS: The items upon turn over to the investigator on
WITNESS: Yes sir. case were handed to the custodian with proper receipt and
after those disposition, there were case filed against the
q You mean to say that was the first time that you saw subject.
the marijuana?
PUB. PROS. TAN, JR Were you able to know what did they do
a Yes, sir.30 with the accused as well as the confiscated stuff if you know?

The Prosecution presented no other witnesses to establish the a I remember appearing in the MTC court Br, 20, I saw the
seizure of the marijuana bricks from Belocura. exhibits, firearm and plate number, two blocks of marijuana. I
don t have any idea where did the investigator brought them
Based on the foregoing, Chief Insp. Divina and SPO1 Rojas or have done.34rll
declarations were insufficient to incriminate Belocura, much
less to convict him. If neither of them was personally xxx
competent to be an eyewitness regarding the seizure of
the marijuana bricks from Belocura, their testimonies could q You never had a knowledge of what happened to that bag
not be accorded probative value, considering that the Rules of and the contents thereof?
Court requires that a witness could testify only to facts that he
knew of his own knowledge, that is, only to those facts
derived from his own perception.
 74
a I learned later that the items that were confiscated were The chain of custody is essential in establishing the link
turned over to the General Assignment Section which held the between the article confiscated from the accused to the
investigation. evidence that is ultimately presented to the court for its
appreciation. As the Court said in Mallillin v. People:
q So, it was not your group who conducted the examination
and the alleged things that were recovered from the alleged As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody
accused?35rll rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by
evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in
xxx question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would
include testimony about every link in the chain, from the
a No, Sir. moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into
evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the
q How about the things that were allegedly recovered from exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received,
the accused? where it was and what happened to it while in the witness
possession, the condition in which it was received and the
a I just said that it was the General Assignment Section who condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the
handled the investigation. chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions
taken to ensure that there had been no change in the
The Prosecution thereby failed to establish the linkage condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in
between the bricks of marijuana supposedly seized by PO2 the chain to have possession of the same.
Santos from Belocura s jeep following his arrest and the bricks
of marijuana that the Prosecution later presented as evidence While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the
in court. That linkage was not dispensable, because the failure standard because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an
to prove that the specimens of marijuana submitted to the unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable and
forensic chemist for examination were the essential when the item of real evidence is not distinctive and
same marijuanaallegedly seized from Belocura irreparably is not readily identifiable, or when its condition at the time of
broke the chain of custody that linked the testing or trial is critical, or when a witness has failed to
confiscated marijuanato the marijuana ultimately presented observe its uniqueness. The same standard likewise obtains in
as evidence against Belocura during the trial. Proof beyond case the evidence is susceptible to alteration, tampering,
reasonable doubt demanded that unwavering exactitude must contamination and even substitution and exchange. In other
be observed in establishing the corpus delicti the body of the words, the exhibit s level of susceptibility to fungibility,
crime whose core was the confiscated prohibited substances. alteration or tampering without regard to whether the same is
Thus, every fact necessary to constitute the crime must be advertent or otherwise not dictates the level of strictness in
established. the application of the chain of custody rule.

The chain-of-custody requirement ensures that all doubts The first link in the chain of custody started with the seizure
concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. 38The from the jeep of Belocura of the red plastic bag said to contain
requirement has come to be associated with prosecutions for the marijuana bricks. The first link was immediately missing
violations of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Drugs Act because the Prosecution did not present PO2 Santos, the only
of 2002),39 by reason of Section 2140 of Republic Act No. 9165 person with direct knowledge of the seizure and confiscation
expressly regulating the actual custody and disposition of of the marijuana bricks. Without his testimony, proof that
confiscated and surrendered dangerous drugs, controlled the marijuana bricks were really taken from the jeep of
precursors, essential chemicals, instruments, paraphernalia, Belocura did not exist. The second link was the turnover of
and laboratory equipment. Section 21(a) of the Implementing the marijuana bricks by PO2 Santos to another officer back at
Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 issued by the the WPD Headquarters. As to this, Chief Insp. Divina stated
Dangerous Drugs Board pursuant to its mandate under that he learned following the seizure by PO2 Santos that
Section 94 of Republic Act No. 9165 reiterates the the marijuana bricks were turned over to the General
requirement, stating: Assignment Section for investigation. That was all. On the
other hand, SPO1 Rojas testimony contributed nothing to the
xxx establishment of the second link because he had immediately
left after seizing the gun from Belocura. As for the subsequent
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and links, the records45 showed that the marijuana bricks were
control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and forwarded to the General Assignment Section on March 22,
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in 1999, but the Prosecution did not prove the identities of the
the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such officer from the General Assignment Section who received the
items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her red plastic bag containing the marijuana bricks, and the
representative or counsel, a representative from the media officer from whom the receiving officer received
and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public the marijuana bricks. Although Chief Insp. Nelson Yabut
official who shall be required to sign the copies of the prepared the request for laboratory examination of
inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the the marijuana bricks,46 which were thereafter examined by
physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the Forensic Chemist Valdez, the records did not show if Chief
place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest Insp. Yabut was the officer who had received
police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending the marijuana bricks from the arresting team. The request for
officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless laboratory examination was dated March 23, 1999, or the day
seizures; Provided, further that non-compliance with these following Belocura s arrest and the seizure of
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the the marijuana bricks from his jeep; however, the Prosecution
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are did not identify the person from whom Chief Insp. Yabut had
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall received the marijuana bricks.
not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over
said items. Sadly, the Prosecution did not establish the links in the chain
of custody. This meant that the corpus delicti was not credibly
xxx proved. This further meant that the seizure and confiscation of
the marijuana bricks might easily be open to doubt and
suspicion, and thus the incriminatory evidence would not
That this case was a prosecution brought under Republic Act
stand judicial scrutiny.
No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as amended by
Republic Act No. 7659, did not matter. The chain-of-custody
requirement applied under both laws by virtue of the universal Thirdly, Belocura s denial assumed strength in the face of the
need to competently and sufficiently establish the corpus Prosecution s weak incriminating evidence. In that regard,
delicti. It is basic under the Rules of Court, indeed, that Belocura denied possession of the marijuana bricks and
evidence, to be relevant, must throw light upon, or have a knowledge of them as well, to wit:
logical relation to, the facts in issue to be established by one
party or disproved by the other. 41 The test of relevancy is q Were you able to view the alleged marijuana that were
whether an item of evidence will have any value, as confiscated from you?
determined by logic and experience, in proving the
proposition for which it is offered, or whether it would a: I saw it for the first time when it was presented in Court, Sir.
reasonably and actually tend to prove or disprove any matter
of fact in issue, or corroborate other relevant evidence. The q: Now, according to Inspector Divina, it was police officer
test is satisfied if there is some logical connection either Santos who was able to recover from your vehicle these two
directly or by inference between the fact offered and the fact bricks of marijuana. What can you say about this?
to be proved.
 75
a: At first, I did not see this marijuana, Sir, that they are control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet
saying because they immediately handcuffed me and containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance and one
disarmed me even before I could board my owner type (1) piece of aluminum foil strip with trace of white crystalline
jeepney. substance, which were found positive [for] Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride, commonly known as "shabu", a regulated drug,
The Court holds that the guilt of Belocura for the crime without the corresponding license and prescription, in
charged was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Mere violation of the above cited law.
suspicion of his guilt, no matter how strong, should not sway
judgment against him. Every evidence favoring him must be Contrary to law.[3]
duly considered. Indeed, the presumption of innocence in his
favor was not overcome. Hence, his acquittal should follow, When arraigned on September 6, 2000, petitioner entered a
for, as the Court fittingly said in Patula v. People:48 plea of not guilty. After pre-trial, trial on the merits forthwith
commenced.
xxx in all criminal prosecutions, the Prosecution bears the
burden to establish the guilt of the accused beyond At about 4:40 in the afternoon of July 27, 2000, PO3 George
reasonable doubt. In discharging this burden, the Prosecution Garcia (PO3 Garcia) and PO3 Romeo Sotomayor, Jr. (PO3
s duty is to prove each and every element of the crime Sotomayor), together with Michael Fermin and Joseph
charged in the information to warrant a finding of guilt for that Apologista, all members of the Mayor's Action Command
crime or for any other crime necessarily included therein. The (MAC) of Mandaluyong City, were on routine patrol along M.
Prosecution must further prove the participation of the Cruz St., Barangay Mauway, when they chanced upon two
accused in the commission of the offense. In doing all these, individuals chanting and in the act of exchanging something.
the Prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence, The police officers introduced themselves and then inquired
and not anchor its success upon the weakness of the evidence from petitioner what he was holding. Petitioner took out from
of the accused. The burden of proof placed on the Prosecution his possession three strips of aluminum foil which PO3 Garcia
arises from the presumption of innocence in favor of the confiscated. PO3 Sotomayor also found on petitioner a plastic
accused that no less than the Constitution has guaranteed. sachet which contained white crystalline substance which
Conversely, as to his innocence, the accused has no burden of looked like tawas. Suspecting that the substance was "shabu",
proof, that he must then be acquitted and set free should the he confiscated the plastic sachet. Petitioner and his
Prosecution not overcome the presumption of innocence in his companion, who was later identified as Clarito Yanson
favor. In other words, the weakness of the defense put up by (Clarito), were brought to the MAC station at the Criminal
the accused is inconsequential in the proceedings for as long Investigation Division (CID) for investigation. After laboratory
as the Prosecution has not discharged its burden of proof in examination, the contents of the plastic sachet weighing 0.03
establishing the commission of the crime charged and in gram were found positive for Methamphetamine
identifying the accused as the malefactor responsible for it. Hydrochloride or shabu, a regulated drug. The test on the
three strips of aluminum foil also yielded positive for traces
WHEREFORE, we REVERSE and SET ASIDE the decision of shabu.
promulgated on January 23,
2006; ACQUITaccused REYNALDO BELOCURA y PEREZ for On the basis thereof, petitioner was correspondingly charged
failure of the Prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable with illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Clarito, on the
doubt; DIRECT the immediate release from detention other hand, was further investigated by the City Prosecutor's
of REYNALDO BELOCURA y PEREZ, unless he is also Office.
detained for some other lawful cause; and ORDER the Director
of the Bureau of Corrections to forthwith implement this Petitioner denied the charge against him. He claimed that he
decision upon receipt and to report his action hereon to this was merely standing in front of a store waiting for the change
Court within 10 days from receipt. No pronouncement on of his P500.00 bill when he was suddenly accosted by the MAC
costs of suit. team.

SO ORDERED. Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

The trial court found petitioner guilty as charged and

sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six
FIRST DIVISION months of arresto mayor as minimum to two years and four
months of prision correccional as maximum. The trial court
[G.R. No. 175700 : July 05, 2010] gave credence to the straightforward testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses and ruled that the elements of the
SALVADOR V. REBELLION, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF offense charged were duly established.
THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
DECISION
On appeal, petitioner insisted that his warrantless arrest was
DEL CASTILLO, J.: unlawful since he was not committing any crime when he was
arrested.
The threshold issue confronting us is whether the facts
presented in this case make out a legitimate instance of a On September 26, 2006, the CA affirmed the judgment of the
warrantless arrest, i.e. under circumstances sufficient to RTC with modification. The appellate court sustained the
engender a reasonable belief that some crime was being or validity of the warrantless arrest of petitioner holding that the
about to be committed or had just been committed. latter was caught by the MAC team in flagrante delicto or
while he was in the act of giving to Clarito a plastic sachet
This petition for review assails the September 26, 2006 of shabu. The CA brushed aside the self-serving version of
Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. petitioner. The dispositive portion of the Decision provides:
29248 which affirmed with modification the December 8, 2004
Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision dated December 8, 2004
City, Branch 209, finding petitioner guilty of violation of of the trial court is affirmed, subject to the modification of
Section 16, Article III of Republic Act (RA) No. 6425, as accused-appellant's imprisonment sentence which should be
amended (otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of six (6) months of arresto mayor maximum, as the minimum
1972, as amended). penalty, to two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of
prision correccional medium, as the maximum penalty.
Factual Antecedents
SO ORDERED.[4]
On July 31, 2000, an Information was filed charging petitioner
Salvador V. Rebellion with violation of Section 16, Article III of Issue
RA 6425, as amended, the accusatory portion thereof reads:
Reconsideration having been denied, petitioner is now before
That on or about the 27th day of July 2000, in the City of us raising a singular issue on:
Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not having WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE
been lawfully authorized to possess or otherwise use any DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT FINDING THE
regulated drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and PETITIONER GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE
knowingly have in his possession and under his custody and CRIME CHARGED.
 76
Petitioner challenges the legality of his warrantless arrest by appellate court in addressing the matter of the purportedly
asserting that at the time he was apprehended, he was not invalid warrantless arrest:
committing or attempting to commit an offense. Petitioner
argues that since his arrest was illegal, the eventual search on In any event, the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant was
his person was also unlawful. Thus, the illicit items lawful because he was caught by the police officers
confiscated from him are inadmissible in evidence for being in flagrante delicto or while he was in the act of handing to
violative of his constitutional right against unreasonable Clarito Yanson a plastic sachet of "shabu". Upon seeing the
searches and seizure. exchange, PO3 Sotomayor and PO3 Garcia approached
accused-appellant and Clarito Yanson and introduced
Our Ruling themselves as members of the MAC. PO3 Sotomayor
confiscated from accused-appellant the plastic sachet of
We sustain the appellate court in affirming petitioner's "shabu" while PO3 Garcia confiscated the aluminum foil strips
conviction by the trial court. which accused-appellant was also holding in his other hand.

Petitioner's claim that his warrantless arrest is illegal lacks Jurisprudence is settled that the arresting officer in a
merit. We note that nowhere in the records did we find any legitimate warrantless arrest has the authority to search on
objection interposed by petitioner to the irregularity of his the belongings of the offender and confiscate those that may
arrest prior to his arraignment. It has been consistently ruled be used to prove the commission of the offense. x x x
that an accused is estopped from assailing any irregularity of
his arrest if he fails to raise this issue or to move for the Petitioner's version, on the other hand, cannot stand against
quashal of the information against him on this ground before the positive evidence of the prosecution. It strains our
arraignment. Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or credulity to believe his version that at the time of his arrest,
the procedure by which the court acquired jurisdiction over he was merely standing in front of the store waiting for the
the person of the accused must be made before he enters his change of his P500.00 bill and that the small plastic sachet
plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. [5] In this was in fact recovered from another male individual standing in
case, petitioner was duly arraigned, entered a negative plea front of him. Petitioner is thus suggesting that he was
and actively participated during the trial. Thus, he is deemed arrested for no cause at all. We are not swayed by his
to have waived any perceived defect in his arrest and account. His version of the incident is simply incredible.
effectively submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court Moreover, he was positively, categorically and consistently
trying his case. At any rate, the illegal arrest of an accused is identified by the prosecution witnesses who were shown to
not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment have no ill motive on their part in testifying against him.
rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from Consequently, their testimonies should prevail over the alibi
error. It will not even negate the validity of the conviction of and denial of petitioner whose testimony is not substantiated
the accused.[6] by clear and convincing evidence.[8]

A lawful arrest without a warrant may be made by a peace In fine, we defer to the findings of the trial court which were
officer or a private individual under any of the following affirmed by the appellate court, there being no cogent reason
circumstances:[7] to veer away from such findings. Well-settled is the rule that
the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court and the
Sec 5. Arrest without warrant, when lawful - A peace officer or CA are entitled to great weight and respect and will not be
a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: disturbed on appeal in the absence of any clear showing that
the trial court overlooked certain facts or circumstance which
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has would substantially affect the disposition of the case.[9]
committed, is actually committing or is attempting to commit
an offense; The essential elements in illegal possession of dangerous
drugs are (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has that is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession
probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and
facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has consciously possess the said drug. All these elements are
committed it; and obtaining and duly established in this case.

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has We now proceed to determine the propriety of the penalty
escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is imposed upon petitioner.
serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his
case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from Petitioner was charged with and convicted for violation of
one confinement to another. Section 16, Article III of RA 6425, as amended, for having
possessed a sachet of shabu with a weight of 0.03 gram.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the Section 16 provides a penalty of imprisonment ranging from
person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered six months and one day to four years and a fine ranging from
to the nearest police station or jail and he shall be proceeded P600.00 to P4,000.00 on any person found in possession or
against in accordance with Section 7, Rule 112. use of any regulated drug without the corresponding license
or prescription, irrespective of the volume or amount of the
Our own review discloses sufficient evidence that the drug involved. However, said Section 16 was amended by RA
warrantless arrest of petitioner was effected under Section 7659[10] which took effect on December 31, 1993. As
5(a), or the arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto. The MAC amended, Section 16 now provides:
team witnessed petitioner handing a piece of plastic sachet to
Clarito. Arousing their suspicion that the sachet Section 16. Possession or Use of Regulated Drugs. - The
contains shabu, team members PO3 Garcia and PO3 penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from
Sotomayor alighted from their motorcycles and approached five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be
them. Clarito was not able to completely get hold of the imposed upon any person who shall possess or use any
plastic sachet because of their arrival. At the first regulated drug without the corresponding license or
opportunity, the team members introduced themselves. Upon prescription, subject to the provisions of Section 20 hereof.
inquiry by PO3 Garcia what petitioner was holding, the latter
presented three strips of aluminum foil which the former Section 20 of RA 6425 was likewise amended by Section 17 of
confiscated. At a distance, PO3 Sotomayor saw petitioner in RA 7659 where the imposable penalty now depends on the
possession of the plastic sachet which contains white quantity of the dangerous drugs involved. Thus, as amended
crystalline substance. There and then, petitioner and Clarito by Section 17, the pertinent provision of Section 20, Article IV
were apprehended and brought to the CID for investigation. of RA 6425 now reads:
After laboratory examination, the white crystalline substance
placed inside the plastic sachet was found positive for Section 17. Section 20, Article IV of Republic Act No. 6425, as
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a regulated drug. amended, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, is
hereby amended to read as follows:
Under these circumstances, we entertain no doubt that
petitioner was arrested in flagrante delicto as he was then Section 20. Application of Penalties, Confiscation and
committing a crime, violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, Forfeiture of the Proceeds or Instruments of the Crime. - The
within the view of the arresting team. Thus, his case comes penalties for offenses under Sections 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of Article
under the exception to the rule requiring a warrant before II and Sections 14-A, 15 and 16 of Article III of this Act shall
effecting an arrest. Consequently, the results of the attendant be applied if the dangerous drugs involved is in any of the
search and seizure were admissible in evidence to prove his following quantities:
guilt of the offense charged. As correctly pointed out by the
 77
xxxx That on or about August 28, 2002, in the Municipality of San
Pedro, Province of Laguna, Philippines and within the
3. 200 grams or more of shabu or methylamphetamine jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the said accused, not
hydrochloride being authorized by law, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, control and
xxxx custody one (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet
containing METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE commonly
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing known as "shabu," a dangerous drug, weighing zero point zero
quantities, the penalty shall range from prision six (0.06) gram.
correcional to reclusion perpetua depending upon the
quantity. CONTRARY TO LAW.4

Thus, in People v. Tira,[11] we classified the penalties and During arraignment, Araza pleaded "not guilty." 5 Thereafter,
graduated the same by degree where the quantity of trial ensued.
the shabu or methylamphetamine hydrochloride involved is
less than 200 grams, viz: Version of the Prosecution

Under Section 16, Article III of RA 6425, as amended, the The prosecution presented Police Officer 1 Edmund Talacca
imposable penalty of possession of a regulated drug, less than (PO1 Talacca) who testified as follows:
200 grams, in this case, shabu, is prision
correccional to reclusion perpetua. Based on the quantity of At around 8:00 p.m. of August 28, 2002, PO1 Talacca
the regulated drug subject of the offense, the imposable accompanied the Barangay Chairman, BarangayTanods and
penalty shall be as follows: several members of the barangay council in confiscating a
video karera machine inside the house of a certain Alejandro
QUANTITY IMPOSABLE PENALTY Sacdo (Sacdo). While confiscating said machine, PO1 Talacca
saw nine persons, including Araza, sniffing shabu or engaging
less than one (1) gram to 49-25 grams prision correccional in a pot session inside the house of Sacdo. He arrested and
frisked them. Recovered from the pocket of Araza was a small
49.26 grams to 98-50 grams prision mayor heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance which PO1 Talacca suspected to
98.51 grams to 147.75 grams reclusion temporal be shabu. PO1 Talacca immediately seized said sachet and
brought Araza and his companions to the police station. He
147.76 grams to 199 grams reclusion perpetua turned over the said sachet to the chief investigator, Larry
Cabrera (Cabrera), who marked the same with the initials
Following the above illustration and considering "RSA" in his presence.
the shabu found in the possession of the petitioner is only
0.03 gram, the imposable penalty for the crime The prosecution was supposed to also present Police Senior
is prision correccional. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Inspector Donna Villa Huelgas (P/Sr. Insp. Huelgas), the
Law, the appellate court correctly sentenced petitioner to Forensic Chemist who examined the confiscated white
suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six crystalline substance, but her testimony was dispensed with
months of arresto mayor as minimum to two years, four after the defense agreed to the following stipulations: 1)
months and one day of prision correccional as maximum. Chemistry Report No. D-2028-02 as Exhibit "B"; 2) the name
of suspect Rommel Araza y Sagun as Exhibit "B-l"; 3) the
RA 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous specimen submitted as Exhibit "B-2"; 4) findings as Exhibit "B-
Drugs Act of 2002, increased the penalty for illegal possession 3"; 5) conclusion as Exhibit "B-4"; 6) the name and signature
of less than five grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride of P/Sr. Insp. Huelgas as Exhibits "B-5"; 7) the request for
or shabu to an imprisonment of 12 years and one day to 20 laboratory examination as Exhibit "C"; 8) the name of suspect
years and a fine ranging from P300,000.00 to P400,000.00. Rommel Araza y Sagun as Exhibit "C-1"; 9) the evidence
Said law, however, not being favorable to the petitioner, submitted as Exhibit "C-2"; 10) the stamp mark as Exhibit "C-
cannot be given retroactive application in this case. 3"; 11) the half-size white envelope as Exhibit "D"; 12) the
plastic sachet as Exhibit "D-l"; and 13) the small heat-sealed
plastic sachets as Exhibit "D-1 -A." 6
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the September 26, 2006
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 29248
affirming the conviction of petitioner Salvador V. Rebellion for Version of the Defense
the unlawful possession of 0.03 gram of shabu and sentencing
him to suffer the penalty of six months of arresto mayor as The defense presented a completely different version of the
minimum to two years, four months and one day of prision incident. Araza testified that he was sleeping inside a room in
correccional as maximum is affirmed. the house of Sacdo when PO1 Talacca suddenly woke him up
and frisked him. PO1 Talacca confiscated his wallet that
SO ORDERED. contained coins then took him to the police station and
charged him with illegal possession of prohibited drugs.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

SECOND DIVISION
The RTC ruled that the prosecution was able to establish the
guilt of Araza beyond reasonable doubt. It gave credence to
G.R. No. 190623, November 17, 2014
the testimony of PO1 Talacca since he is presumed to have
regularly performed his duties and there was no evidence that
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
he had any motive to falsely testify against Araza. The RTC
Appellee, v. ROMMEL ARAZA Y SAGUN, Accused-Appellant.
rejected Araza's alibi as a feeble defense that cannot prevail
over the positive testimony of PO1 Talacca. The dispositive
DECISION portion of the December 11, 2007 Decision7 of the RTC reads:
DEL CASTILLO, J.: WHEREFORE, the Court hereby sentences accused ROMMEL
ARAZA y SAGUN to suffer an indeterminate penalty of
In this appeal, appellant Rommel Araza y Sagun (Araza) imprisonment from twelve (12) years and one (1) day as
assails the October 14, 2009 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals minimum to fifteen (15) years as maximum and to pay a fine
(CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03164 which affirmed the in the amount of P300,000.00.
December 11, 2007 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 93, San Pedro, Laguna in Criminal Case No. 3829-SPL The 0.06 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride "shabu"
finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal which constitutes the instrument in the commission of the
possession of shabu. crime is confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government.
Atty. Jaarmy Bolus-Romero, Branch Clerk of Court, is hereby
Factual Antecedents directed to immediately transmit the 0.06 [gram] of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride "shabu" to the Dangerous
On August 15, 2003, an Information 3 for violation of Section Drugs Board for proper disposition.
11, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165) otherwise
known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002- Costs against accused.
was filed against Araza, the accusatory portion of which reads
as follows: SO ORDERED.8
 78
Araza filed a notice of appeal 9 which was approved by the happened?
RTC. Hence, the entire records of the case were forwarded to
the CA.10 A We [went directly] to the house of Alejandro Sacdo
[where] we found a video karera.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Q What did you do when you saw that there was a video
In his brief,11 Araza highlighted PO1 Talacca's admission under karera machine inside the house?
oath that the shabu was confiscated from his pocket and not
in plain view. He posited that the shabu is inadmissible in A The barangay chairman and [the] members of our
evidence since it was illegally seized, having been taken from group immediately confiscated the video karera
his pocket and not as an incident of an arrest in flagrante machine.
delicio. Araz likewise argued that the rule on chain of
custody was not properly adhered to since there was no Q Was Alejandro Sacdo inside his house then?
evidence that a physical inventory of the shabu was
conducted in the presence of any elected local government A Yes, ma'am, he was present.
official and the media. He claimed that the possibility of
tampering, alteration or substitution of the substance may xxxx
have been present since the investigating officer who marked
the seized shabu in the police station and the person who Q Aside from Alejandro Sacdo, who else, if any, was inside
delivered the same to the crime laboratory were not that house?
presented during the trial.
A There were all in all nine persons, including Alejandro
The CA, however, was not impressed. It ruled that Araza was Sacdo.
estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest for his failure
to move to quash the Information against him prior to Q What were they doing?
arraignment. It also held that he could no longer question the
chain of custody for failing to raise the same during trial.
A They were inside the house of Alejandro Sacdo sniffing
Besides, the prosecution was able to establish the integrity
shabu.
and evidentiary value of the seized item. Thus, the CA issued
its assailed Decision12 with the following dispositive portion:
Q After that, what did you do?
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision dated 11 December 2007
A I called the attention of our companions, the barangay
of the Regional Trial Court, Fourth Judicial Region, San Pedro,
officials and the tanods and we immediately [entered]
Laguna, Branch 93, in Criminal Case No. 3829-SPL, is hereby
the house and arrested these nine people.
AFFIRMED.
Q After you arrested the nine people, including Alejandro
SO ORDERED.13
Sacdo, what happened next?
Hence, this appeal where Araza seeks for his
A When we arrested the nine persons, it is our standard
acquittal.chanrobleslaw
operating procedure to search each suspect and when I
searched Mr. Araza, I found one small heat[-]sealed
Issues
plastic sachet [on] him.
On February 15, 2010, the parties were directed to file their
Q You retened to Mr. Rommel Araza y Sagun as the one
respective supplemental briefs but both of them opted to just
from whom you were able to confiscate a small
adopt the brief they submitted before the CA.
heat[-]sealed plastic [sachet], if he is in court right now,
will you be able to identify him?
Araza imputes error upon the RTC and CA in upholding the
validity of his warrantless arrest and in finding that the
A Yes, ma'am, there he is (witness pointing to a man
procedure for the custody and control of prohibited drugs was
seated inside the courtroom who identified himself as
complied with.14chanrobleslaw
Rommel Araza y Sagun)
Our Ruling
Q After you arrested the nine persons including Alejandro
Sacdo and herein accused Araza and after confiscating
The appeal is unmeritorious. from him the small heat[-] sealed plastic sachet, what
did you do next?
The offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs
has been established. A We brought them to the barangay hall of Brgy.
Langgam.
The elements that must be established in the successful
prosecution of a dangerous drugs case are: "(1) the accused is Q What did you do next?
in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a
prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law;
A After we [took down their names and pertinent details]
and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the
in the blotter, all of them were brought to the police
drug."15"Mere possession x x x of a prohibited drug, without
station for investigation and proper filing of case
legal authority, is punishable under [RA9165]."16
against them.
The prosecution satisfied the foregoing elements during trial.
Q What did you do with the specimen you confiscated
The arresting officer, PO1 Talacca, positively identified Araza
from Araza?
as the person caught in possession of the shabu presented in
court. He stated that the shabu was validly confiscated after
A I gave it to our chief investigator, Officer Larry Cabrera,
Araza was arrested in flagrante delicio sniffing shabu in the
for proper [marking] of the specimen and for them to
company of other people. Relevant portions of his testimony
deliver the same to the crime laboratory for
are as follows:
examination.
Q Do you recall where you were on August 28, 2002 at
Q Where were you then when the police investigator put
around 8:00 o'clock in the evening?
the markings on the specimen?
A Yes, ma'am, I was with the barangay chairman of Brgy.
A I was in front of him, ma'am.
Langgam, San Pedro, Laguna, Police Officer Mendoza,
some members of the barangay council and members
of the barangay tanod[. W]e went to Brgy. Langgam to Q Did you see what markings were placed on the
conduct a confiscation of video karera in the house of specimen?
Alejandro Sacdo.
A Yes, ma'am, it was RSA which stands for the name of
xxxx Rommel Araza y Sagun.17

Q When you arrived at the house of Alejandro Sacdo, what Chemistry Report No. D-2028-02 confirmed that a qualitative
examination conducted on the specimen inside the plastic
 79
sachet seized from Araza yielded positive result for (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is
serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case
We find the statement of PO1 Talacca to be credible. The is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one
narration of the incident by a police officer, "buttressed by the confinement to another.
presumption that they have regularly performed their duties
in the absence of convincing proof to the contrary, must be PO1 Talacca testified that he saw Araza and his companions
given weight."19 His testimony, the physical evidence and the sniffing substance that seemed to be shabuinside the
facts stipulated upon during trial were consistent with each premises where a video karera machine was being
other. Araza also failed to adduce evidence showing that he confiscated by the barangay officials for whom he provided
had legal authority to possess the seized drugs. Thus, there is security. He thus entered the room, effected their arrest and
no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC as affirmed by the conducted a body search on them. Upon searching the person
CA. of Araza, POl Talacca recovered from him a plastic sachet
containing white crystalline substance. Araza and the seized
An accused cannot assail any irregularity in the item were then brought to the police station. After a
manner of his arrest after arraignment laboratory examination, the white crystalline substance inside
the sachet was found positive for shabu.
Araza calls attention to the admission of PO1 Talacca that
the shabu was confiscated from his pocket and was not in Considering the foregoing, Araza was clearly apprehended in
plain view. He therefore posits that he was not flagrante delicio as he was then committing a crime
apprehended in flagrante delicio and the ensuing warrantless (sniffing shabu) in the presence of PO1 Talacca. Hence, his
arrest was invalid. Moreover, the sachet allegedly seized from warrantless arrest is valid pursuant to Section 5(a) of the
him is not admissible in evidence against him being the fruit above-quoted Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. And having been
of a poisonous tree. lawfully arrested, the warrantless search that followed was
undoubtedly incidental to a lawful arrest, which as mentioned,
Such an argument is unworthy of credence since objections to is an exception to the constitutional prohibition on warrantless
a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the court search and seizure. Conversely, the shabu seized from Araza
acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be is admissible in evidence to prove his guilt of the offense
manifested prior to entering his plea.20 Otherwise, the charged.
objection is deemed waived.21 Moreover, jurisprudence
dictates that "the illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient Failure to comply with Section 21, Article II of Republic
cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a Act No, 9165 is not fatal.
sufficient complaint after a trial free from error. It will not even
negate the validity of the conviction of the accused." Araza hinges his claim for acquittal on the failure of the police
officers to submit a pre-coordination report and physical
Here, Araza did not object to the alleged irregularity of his inventory of the seized dangerous drug. He cites Section
arrest before or during his arraignment. He even actively 21(1), Art. II of RA 9165, which provides:
participated in the proceedings before the RTC. He is,
therefore, deemed to have waived any defect he believes to Sec. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized,
have existed during his arrest and effectively submitted and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of
himself to the jurisdiction of the RTC. In other words, Araza is Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential
already estopped from assailing any irregularity in his arrest Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory
after he failed to raise this issue or to move for the quashal of Equipment. - The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of
the Information on this ground before his arraignment. all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
Circumstances when warrantless search and instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
subsequent seizure are valid. confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition
in the following manner:
As to the admissibility of the shabu seized from Araza, it is
crucial to ascertain whether the search that yielded the (1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control
alleged contraband was lawful.23 The Constitution states that of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation,
failure to secure a judicial warrant prior to the actual search physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence
and consequent seizure would render it unreasonable and any of the accused, or the person/s from whom such items were
evidence obtained therefrom shall be inadmissible for any confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
purpose in any proceeding.24 constitutional prohibition, counsel, a representative from the media and the Department
however, admits of the following exceptions: of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest; copy thereof.

2. Search of evidence in "plain view"; However, it has been held time and again that failure to
strictly comply with aforesaid procedure will not render an
3. Search of a moving vehicle; arrest illegal or the seized items inadmissible in evidence.
Substantial compliance is sufficient as provided under Section
4. Consented warrantless search; 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA
9165, viz:
5. Customs search;
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and
6. Stop and Frisk; and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in
7. Exigent and emergency circumstances.25 the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such
items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media
In this case, there is sufficient evidence to prove that the
and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public
warrantless search of Araza was effected as an incident to a
official who shall be required to sign the copies of the
lawful arrest. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court
inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the
provides in part:
physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the
place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer
police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending
or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
officer/ team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
seizures; Provided further, that non-compliance with
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
an offense; items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has seizures of and custody over said items; (Emphasis
probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of supplied)
facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and Araza's contention that there must be compliance with a pre-
coordination report has no legal basis since nowhere is it
stated in the foregoing provision that this is an essential
 80
procedural requisite. A pre-coordination report is also not and identified in court. There is therefore no reason to disturb
needed when an accused is apprehended in flagrante the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, that he is guilty
delicio for obvious reason. beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of a dangerous
drug.
Further, failure by the prosecution to prove that the police
officers conducted the required physical inventory of the Proper Penalty
seized shabu does not immediately result in the unlawful
arrest of an accused or render inadmissible in evidence the Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, provides:
items seized. "What is essential is the preservation of the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the Sec. 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of life
same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred
innocence of the accused." 26 Here, the records reveal that the thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos
police officers substantially complied with the process of (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person who,
preserving the integrity of the seized shabu. unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in
the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity
The chain of custody has not been broken. thereof;

Araza likewise contends that the prosecution failed to properly xxxx

establish the chain of custody of evidence, and this adversely
affected its admissibility. He argues that the non-presentation Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing
of the investigating officer and the person who delivered the quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:
specimen to the police crime laboratory creates serious doubt
that the alleged shabu confiscated from him was the same xxxx
one marked, forwarded to the crime laboratory for
examination, and later presented as evidence in court. He (3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day
puts forward the possibility that the evidence may have been to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three
tampered, altered, and/or substituted as would affect its hundred thousand (P300,000.00) pesos to Four
identity and integrity. hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities
of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium,
Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana
Series of 2002, implementing RA 9165, defines chain of resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine
custody as "the duly recorded authorized movements and hydrochloride or "shabu"or other dangerous drugs such as,
custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant but not limited to MDMA or "ecstasy," PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB,
sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and
stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if
forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic
destruction. Such record of movements and custody of [the] requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of
seized item shall include the identity and signature of the marijuana x x x. (Emphasis supplied)
person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the
date and time when such transfer of custody were made in Araza was found guilty of possessing 0.06 gram of shabu, or
the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and less than five grams of the dangerous drug, without any legal
the final disposition." authority. Under these circumstances, the penalty of
imprisonment imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA,
The chain of custody requirement ensures the preservation of which is twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items such fifteen (15) years as maximum, is within the range provided
that doubts as to the identity of the evidence are by RA 9165. Thus, the Court finds the same, as well as the
eliminated.27 "To be admissible, the prosecution must show by payment of fine of P300,000.00 in order.
records or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the
exhibit at least between the time it came into possession of WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated
the police officers and until it was tested in the laboratory to October 14, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C.
determine its composition up to the time it was offered in No. 03164 is AFFIRMED.
evidence."
SO ORDERED.
Here, the prosecution proved the chain of custody of the
seized shabu as follows: After arresting Araza for possession
of a sachet of suspected shabu, PO1 Talacca brought him and
the confiscated item to the police station. The said sachet was FIRST DIVISION
turned over to the chief investigator, Cabrera, who marked it
with the initials "RSA" in front of PO1 Talacca. A request for
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 180452
laboratory examination of the contents of said sachet was
Plaintiff-Appellee,
delivered, together with the sachet of suspected shabu, to the
PNP Crime Laboratory in Calamba, Laguna. Forensic Chemist
- versus -
P/Sr. Insp. Huelgas examined the contents of the sachet with
markings "RSA" and prepared Chemistry Report No. D-2028- Promulgated:
02, confirming that the specimen tested positive for shabu. NG YIK BUN, KWOK WAI
During the trial, this result was submitted to the RTC as CHENG, CHANG CHAUN SHI,
Exhibit "D" and stipulated on by both parties. 29 The marked CHUA SHILOU HWAN, KAN
sachet of shabu was also presented in evidence and identified SHUN MIN, and RAYMOND S. January 10, 2011
by PO1 Talacca. TAN, Accused-Appellants.

Araza's contention that the investigating officer who received DECISION

the seized drug in the police station and the person who
delivered the same to the crime laboratory should have been VELASCO, JR., J.:
presented to establish an unbroken chain of custody fails to
impress. It is not necessary to present all persons who came The Case
into contact with the seized drug to testify in court. 30 "As long
as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly This is an appeal from the January 16, 2007 Decision of the
established to have not been broken and the prosecution did Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00485
not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is not entitled People of the Philippines v. Ng Yik Bun, Kwok Wai
indispensable that each and every person who came into Cheng, Chang Chaun Shi, Chua Shilou Hwan, Kan Shun Min
possession of the drugs should take the witness stand." 31 The and Raymond S. Tan, which affirmed the April 1, 2004
non-presentation as witnesses of the evidence custodian and Decision in Criminal Case No. Q-01-99437 of the Regional Trial
the officer on duty is not a crucial point against the Court (RTC), Branch 103 in Quezon City. The RTC found
prosecution since it has the discretion as to how to present its accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
case and the right to choose whom it wishes to present as violating Section 16, Article III of Republic Act No. (RA) 6425 or
witnesses.32 the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.

Based on the foregoing findings, the chain of custody of the The Facts
seized substance was not broken. The suspected illegal drug
confiscated from Araza was the same substance presented An Information indicted accused-appellants of the following:
 81
That on or about the 24th day of (2) Accused-appellant Tan testified that he was a
August 2000, at Barangay Bignay II, businessman collecting a debt in Lucena City on August 24,
Municipality of Sariaya, Province of Quezon, 2000. He was at a restaurant with his driver when three
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this persons identified themselves as police officers and forcibly
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, brought him inside a car. He was handcuffed, blindfolded, and
conspiring and confederating together and badly beaten. He was later brought to a beach and was
mutually helping one another, did then and ordered to hold some bags while being photographed with five
there knowingly, willfully, unlawfully and Chinese-looking men he saw for the first time. A tricycle
feloniously transport, deliver and distribute, driver, Ricky Pineda, corroborated his story by testifying that
without authority of law, on board an L-300 he saw Tan being forced into a white Nissan car on August 24,
Mitsubishi van, bearing Plate No. UBU 827, 2000.
and have in their possession, custody, and
control, without the corresponding license or (3) Accused-appellant Ng Yik Bun (Bun) testified that
prescription, twenty-five (25) heat-sealed he arrived in the Philippines as a tourist on August 22,
transparent plastic bags containing 2000. On August 24, 2000, he was at a beach with some
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a companions when four armed men arrested them. He was
regulated drug, each containing: 2.954 made to pose next to some plastic bags along with other
grams, 2.901 grams, 2.926 grams, 2.820 accused-appellants, whom he did not personally know. He was
grams, 2.977 grams, 2.568 grams, 2.870 then charged with illegal possession of drugs at the police
grams, 2.941 grams, 2.903 grams, 2.991 station. A friend of his, accused-appellant Kwok Wai Cheng
grams, 2.924 grams, 2.872 grams, 2.958 (Cheng), corroborated his story.
grams, 2.972 grams, 2.837 grams, 2.908
grams, 2.929 grams, 2.932 grams, 2.899 (4) Accused-appellant Kan Shun Min (Min) testified
grams, 2.933 grams, 2.938 grams, 2.943 that he arrived in the Philippines on July 1, 2000 for business
grams, 2.955 grams, 2.938 grams and 2.918 and pleasure. On August 24, 2000, he checked into a beach
grams, respectively, with a total weight of resort. While walking there, he was suddenly accosted by four
72.707 kilos, and one hundred forty seven or five men who poked guns at him. He was brought to a
(147) self-sealing transparent plastic bags cottage where he saw some unfamiliar Chinese-looking
likewise containing Methamphetamine individuals. He likewise testified that he was made to take out
Hydrochloride (shabu), also a regulated white packages from a van while being photographed. His
drug, with a total weight of 291.350 kilos, or friend, accused-appellant Chang Chaun Shi (Shi), corroborated
with a grand total weight of 364.057 kilos. his story.

The RTC convicted accused-appellants of the crime

charged. The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:
That the above acts were committed by a
syndicate with the use of two (2) motor ACCORDINGLY, the Court hereby renders
vehicles, namely: L-300 Mitsubishi Van judgment finding the six (6) accused namely
bearing Plate No. UBU 827 and a Nissan Ng Yik Bun, Kwok Wai Cheng, Chang Chaun
Sentra Exalta car without Plate Number. Shi, Chua Shilou Hwan, Kan Shun Min and
Raymond S. Tan (some also known by other
names), GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
violating Section 16 of RA 6425, as
Contrary to law.[1] amended and each is hereby sentenced to
suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA
As summarized in the appealed CA decision, the facts are as and to pay a fine of Five Million Pesos
follows: (P5,000,000.00) each.

On August 24, 2000, at around 9:00 p.m., Capt. Danilo Ibon of The shabu involved in this case and their
Task Force Aduana received information from an operative accompanying paraphernalia are ordered
that there was an ongoing shipment of contraband disposed of in accordance with law, now RA
in Barangay Bignay II, Sariaya, Quezon Province. Upon 9165. The two (2) vehicles are forfeited in
instructions from his superior, Major Carlo Magno Tabo, Capt. favor of the government.
Ibon formed a team in coordination with a Philippine National
Police detachment, and, along with the operative, the team SO ORDERED.[2]
then proceeded to Villa Vicenta Resort in Barangay Bignay II,
Sariaya. In questioning the RTC Decision before the CA,
accused-appellants Bun, Cheng, Shi, Min, and Tan raised the
The members of the team were able to observe the lone issue of: whether the trial court erred in ruling that there
goings-on at the resort from a distance of around 50 was a valid search and arrest despite the absence of a
meters. They spotted six Chinese-looking men loading bags warrant.
containing a white substance into a white van. Having been
noticed, Capt. Ibon identified his team and asked accused- On the other hand, accused-appellant Hwan sought
appellant Chua Shilou Hwan (Hwan) what they were loading an acquittal on the basis of the following submissions:
on the van. Hwan replied that it was shabu and pointed, when
probed further, to accused-appellant Raymond Tan as the I
leader. A total of 172 bags of suspected shabu were then
confiscated. Bundles of noodles (bihon) were also found on The trial court erred when it held as valid
the premises. the warrantless search, seizure and
subsequent arrest of the accused-appellants
A laboratory report prepared later by Police Inspector Mary despite the non-concurrence of the requisite
Jean Geronimo on samples of the 172 confiscated bags circumstances that justify a warrantless
showed the white substance to be shabu. arrest as held in the case of People
vs. [Cuizon].
On January 10, 2001, an Amended Information for violation of
Sec. 16, Article III of RA 6425 was filed against accused- II
appellants, who entered a plea of not guilty upon re-
arraignment. The trial court violated Article III, Section 14
of the 1987 Constitution as well as Rule 115
Accused-appellants all maintained their innocence and of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
presented the following defenses: when it heard the case at bench on June 26,
2001 at the chemistry division of the PNP
(1) Accused-appellant Hwan testified that he was Crime Laboratory in Camp Crame, Quezon
planning to buy cheap goods at Villa Vicenta Resort on August City without the presence of both the herein
24, 2000, when he saw a van full of bihonat the resort and accused-appellant and his counsel de parte.
inquired if it was for sale. He went to relieve himself 15
meters away from the van. A group of police officers arrested III
him upon his return.
The trial court erred when it issued and
dictated in open hearing a verbal order
 82
denying accuseds formal Motion to appellants were performing their respective task[s] with the
Suppress Illegally Procured Evidence upon a objective of loading the plastic bags of shabu into an L-300
[ratiocination] that is manifestly contrary to van.[6]
law [and] jurisprudence set in
the Cuizon case, supra. The CA disposed of the appeal as follows:

IV WHEREFORE, the Decision dated April 1, 2004 of the

Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch
The trial court erred when with lack of the 103, in Criminal Case No. Q-01-99437, is
desired circumspection, it sweepingly ruled hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
the admission in evidence the 731 exhibits
listed in the prosecutions 43-page formal SO ORDERED.[7]
offer of evidence over the itemized written
objections of the defense in a terse verbal On February 18, 2008, the Court, acting on the appeal of
order (bereft of reason for the denial of the accused-appellants, required the parties to submit
raised objections) dictated in open hearing supplemental briefs if they so desired.
which reads: All the exhibits of the
prosecution are hereby admitted. The court On March 27, 2008, accused-appellants Bun, Cheng, Shi, Min,
believes that as far as the evidence and Tan filed their Supplemental Brief on the sole issue that:
submitted goes, these exhibits of the
prosecution consisting of several plastic THERE WAS NO VALID SEARCH AND ARREST
bags of shabu were not yet shown to be the DUE TO ABSENCE OF A WARRANT
fruit of a poisonous plant. x x x
On June 4, 2008, accused-appellant Hwan filed his
V Supplemental Brief, raising the following errors, allegedly
committed by the trial court:
The trial court also erred in admitting the
prosecutions photographs (Exhibit K and M, I
inclusive of their sub-markings), the
photographer who took the shots not having THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED ARTICLE III,
taken the witness stand to declare, as SECTION 14 OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION AS
required by the rules, the circumstances WELL AS RULE 115 OF THE REVISED RULES
under which the photographs were taken. ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE WHEN IT
CONDUCTED A HEARING ON JUNE 26, 2001
VI AT THE CHEMISTRY DIVISION OF THE PNP
CRIME LABORATORY IN CAMP CRAME,
The trial court erred when it tried and QUEZON CITY WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF
applied the provisions of R.A. 9165, the BOTH THE HEREIN ACCUSED-APPELLANT
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, in the instant AND HIS COUNSEL IN SUCH VITAL
case even though [the] crime charged took [PROCEEDINGS].
place on 24 August 2000.
II
VII
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT HELD AS
The trial court erred in finding conspiracy VALID THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH, SEIZURE
among the accused.[3] AND SUBSEQUENT ARREST OF THE HEREIN
APPELLANT DESPITE THE NON-
The appellate court found accused-appellants CONCURRENCE OF THE REQUISITE
contentions unmeritorious as it consequently affirmed in CIRCUMSTANCES THAT JUSTIFY A
toto the RTC Decision. WARRANTLESS ARREST.

The CA ruled that, contrary to accused-appellants Essentially, accused-appellants claim that no valid in
assertion, they were first arrested before the seizure of the flagrante delicto arrest was made prior to the seizure and that
contraband was made. The CA held that accused-appellants the police officers placed accused-appellants under arrest
were caught in flagrante delicto loading transparent plastic even when there was no evidence that an offense was being
bags containing white crystalline substance into an L-300 van committed. Since there was no warrant of arrest, they argue
which, thus, justified their arrests and the seizure of the that the search sans a search warrant subsequently made on
contraband. The CA agreed with the prosecution that the them was illegal. They contend that a seizure of any evidence
urgency of the situation meant that the buy-bust team had no as a result of an illegal search is inadmissible in any
time to secure a search warrant. Moreover, the CA also found proceeding for any purpose.
that the warrantless seizure of the transparent plastic bags
can likewise be sustained under the plain view doctrine.

The CA debunked accused-appellant Hwans Accused-appellant Hwan additionally claims that he was
arguments in seriatim. First, the CA ruled that People v. deliberately excluded when the trial court conducted a
Cuizon[4] was not applicable to the instant case, as, unlike hearing on June 26, 2001 to identify 172 bags of shabu for
in Cuizon, the apprehending officers immediately acted on the trial purposes. He asserts that no formal notice of the hearing
information they had received about an ongoing shipment of was sent to him or his counsel, to his prejudice.
drugs.
The Courts Ruling
Second, the CA also noted that accused-appellant
Hwan effectively waived his right to be present during the On the issue of warrantless arrest, it is apropos to mention
inspection of exhibits and hearing, for the manifestation made what the Bill of Rights under the present Constitution provides
by the prosecution that accused-appellant Hwan waived his in part:
right to be present was never raised in issue before the trial
court. SEC. 2. The right of the people to
be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
And third, the CA found accused-appellant Hwans and effects against unreasonable searches
other arguments untenable. It held that the trial court and seizures of whatever nature and for any
correctly admitted Exhibits K and M even if the photographer purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
was not presented as a witness. The CA based its ruling warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
on Sison v. People,[5] which held that photographs can be except upon probable cause to be
identified either by the photographer or by any other determined personally by the judge after
competent witness who can testify to its exactness and examination under oath or affirmation of the
accuracy. It agreed with the Solicitor General that accused- complainant and the witnesses he may
appellants were correctly tried and convicted by the trial court produce, and particularly describing the
under RA 6425 and not RA 9165, as can be gleaned from place to be searched and the persons or
the fallo of the RTC Decision. The CA likewise dismissed the things to be seized.
argument that conspiracy was not proved by the prosecution,
noting that the evidence presented established that accused-
 83
A settled exception to the right guaranteed in the A: Another at the right corner[.] There was
aforequoted provision is that of an arrest made during the also somewhat a multi-purpose house and it
commission of a crime, which does not require a [was] well-lighted your honor.
warrant. Such warrantless arrest is considered reasonable and
valid under Rule 113, Sec. 5(a) of the Revised Rules on Q: This is a resort and that multi-purpose
Criminal Procedure, which states: house that you are referring to are the
cottages of the resort?
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when
lawful. A peace officer or a private person A: Yes your honor.
may, without a warrant, arrest a
person: FISCAL: You said you saw six persons who
were loading goods[.] In what vehicle [were
(a) When, in his presence, the person to they] transferring those things?
be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an A: Into [an] L-300 van sir.
offense; (Emphasis supplied.)
Q: What is the color of the van?
The foregoing proviso refers to arrest in flagrante
[8]
delicto. In the instant case, contrary to accused-appellants A: White sir.
contention, there was indeed a valid warrantless arrest in
flagrante delicto. Consider the circumstances immediately Q: What did you see that these six persons
prior to and surrounding the arrest of accused-appellants: (1) [were] loading?
the police officers received information from an operative
about an ongoing shipment of contraband; (2) the police A: We saw [them] holding white plastic with
officers, with the operative, proceeded to Villa Vicenta Resort white substance your honor.
in Barangay Bignay II, Sariaya, Quezon; (3) they observed the
goings-on at the resort from a distance of around 50 meters; Q: What container [were they] loading?
and (4) they spotted the six accused-appellants loading
transparent bags containing a white substance into a white L-
A: Actually there were several checkered
300 van. The following exchange between Capt. Ibon and the
bags and other plastic [bags] sir.
prosecutor sheds light on the participation of all six accused-
appellants:
Q: How [were] they loading these bags?
Q: Upon arriving at Villa Vicenta Resort in
A: [Manually] your honor.
Brgy. Bignay II, [in] what specific area [did]
you position yourselves?
Q: Will you please describe how they [were]
loading it, Mr. Witness?
A: Initially we [were] about three hundred
meters away from Villa Vicenta Resort, then
we walked [stealthily] so as not to [be] A: Actually the plastic bags [some were]
[spotted] until we were about fifty meters sir. repacked [into] checkered [bags] while
others [were] loading inside the checkered
bag sir.
Q: So you [positioned] yourself about fifty
meters away from the point of Villa Vicenta
Resort? Q: Did they put that on their shoulder or
what?
A: From the actual location we saw about six
personnel walking together loading A: Holding and holding [sic] sir.
contraband.
Q: Nobody carrying [it] on their back?
Q: You said you [were] about fifty meters
away from these six persons who were A: Nobody sir.
loading contraband, is that what you mean?
xxxx
A: Yes sir.
Q: You said you saw these six persons, will
Q: In that place where you [positioned] you please look around this courtroom and
yourself, could you tell us, what was the tell us if these six persons that you are
lighting condition in the place where you referring to are present?
positioned yourselves?
COURT: Considering that there are many
A: It was totally dark in our place sir. persons inside this courtroom, will you
please stand up and please [tap] the
Q: How about the position of the six persons shoulder of these six persons?
who were loading contraband?
xxxx
A: They were well-lighted sir.
INTERPRETER: Witness tapped the
Q: Why do you say that they are well- [shoulders] of six male persons inside the
lighted? courtroom.

A: There were several [fluorescent] lamps sir. xxxx

Q: Where? FISCAL: May we manifest your honor that

when these six persons stood up when their
names [were] called on the basis [of] what
A: One search light placed near where they
[was] written [on] the information [were]
were loading the shipment sir.
once tapped on their shoulder by this
witness.
Q: How about the other?
The last question I have [is] how
A: About two fluorescent lamps at the house
long you stayed in this position watching
near the six persons your honor.
these six persons loading those [products]
in the L-300 van?
COURT: Are these portable lamps:
A: Ten to fifteen minutes sir.
A: Fixed lamps your honor.
Q: Within that period could you tell us what
Q: Where else? transpired?
 84
A: I called Major Tabo to inform [him of] what INTERPRETER: A man stood and [nodded] his
I saw, I called Major Tabo through the hand- head.
held radio sir.
xxxx
Q: What was the reply of major Tabo with
respect to your information? FISCAL: Now after they [froze], what did you
do?
A: He directed me to get closer to these six
persons and find out if really the contraband A: I inspected the contraband and I found
is shabu that was first reported sir. these bags and I immediately called Major
Tabo and informed [him of] the matter sir.
Q: So did you in fact go closer?
Q: How many bags were you able to
A: Yes sir. confiscate in the scene?

Q: How [close] were you [to] the six persons A: All in all 172 your honor.
at the time?
Q: That 172, one of them is the bag in front
A: When we were closing [in] somebody of you [which] you identified earlier?
noticed us and they were surprised, I
immediately shouted Freeze, dont move, we A: Yes sir.
are Filipino soldiers, we further identified
[ourselves] sir. Q: When you saw that bag could you tell us
what particular [contents] attracted you
Q: What was the reaction of the six persons upon seeing these bags?
when you shouted those words?
A: It was marked by the members
A: They [froze] sir. (interrupted).

xxxx Q: No what attracted you?

Q: When you went closer and they [froze], A: Something crystalline white sir.
what happened?
Q: Are you referring to all the bags?
A: I asked them who among them are
English-speaking? A: All the bags sir.[9] x x x

Q: What was the reply given to you? Evidently, the arresting police officers had probable
cause to suspect that accused-appellants were loading and
A: Somebody replied tagalog lang. transporting contraband, more so when Hwan, upon being
accosted, readily mentioned that they were loading shabu and
Q: Who was that person who replied tagalog pointed to Tan as their leader. Thus, the arrest of accused-
lang? appellantswho were caught in flagrante delicto of possessing,
and in the act of loading into a white L-300 van, shabu, a
A: Chua Shilou Hwan sir. prohibited drug under RA 6425, as amendedis valid.

Q: Will you please [identify] for us who In People v. Alunday, we held that when a police
answered that in [T]agalog? officer sees the offense, although at a distance, or hears the
disturbances created thereby, and proceeds at once to the
COURT: Please [tap] his shoulder. scene, he may effect an arrest without a warrant on the basis
of Sec. 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, as the offense is
A: This man sir. deemed committed in his presence or within his view. [10] In the
instant case, it can plausibly be argued that accused-
COURT: Witness tapped the shoulder of a appellants were committing the offense of
man who identified himself as Chua Shilou possessing shabu and were in the act of loading them in a
Hwan. 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
CHUA SHILOU HWAN: Opo. 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
FISCAL: After answering you [with] tagalog
deemed to have waived their objections to their arrest for not
lang, what happened?
raising the issue before entering their plea.[11]
A: I further asked them Ano ang dala ninyo?
Moreover, present in the instant case are all the
elements of illegal possession of drugs: (1) the accused is in
Q: What was the reply?
possession of an item or object which is identified to be a
prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law;
A: Chua Shilou Hwan said shabu. and (3) the accused freely and consciously possesses the said
drug.[12] Accused-appellants were positively identified in court
Q: So [what] did you do next? as the individuals caught loading and possessing illegal
drugs. They were found to be in possession of prohibited
A: I asked them who is their leader, sir. drugs without proof that they were duly authorized by law to
possess them. Having been caught in flagrante delicto, there
Q: What was the reply? is, therefore, a prima facie evidence of animus possidendi on
the part of accused-appellants.[13] There is, thus, no merit to
A: He told me it was Raymond Tan, sir. the argument of the defense that a warrant was needed to
arrest accused-appellants.
Q: Is he inside this courtroom now?
Accused-appellants were not able to show that there
A: Yes sir. was any truth to their allegation of a frame-up in rebutting the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. They relied on mere
COURT: Please tap [his] shoulder. denials, in contrast with the testimony of Capt. Ibon, who
testified that he and his team saw accused-appellants loading
WITNESS: This man sir. plastic bags with a white crystalline substance into an L-300
van at the Villa Vicenta Resort. Accused-appellants, except for
COURT: Ikaw ba Raymond Tan? Tan, claimed that they were ordered by the police officers to
act like they were loading bags onto the van. Accused-
 85
appellant Tan told a different tale and claims he was arrested SECOND DIVISION
inside a restaurant. But as the trial court found, the persons
who could have corroborated their version of events were not
presented in court. The only witness presented by Tan, a G.R. NO. 201363 : March 18, 2013
tricycle driver whose testimony corroborated Tans alone, was
not found by the trial court to be credible. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. NAZARENO VILLAREAL y LUALHATI, Accused-
As no ill motive can be imputed to the prosecutions
Appellant.
witnesses, we uphold the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duties and affirm the trial courts
finding that the police officers testimonies are deserving of DECISION
full faith and credit. Appellate courts generally will not disturb
the trial courts assessment of a witness credibility unless
certain material facts and circumstances have been PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
overlooked or arbitrarily disregarded.[14] We find no reason to
deviate from this rule in the instant case.
This is an appeal from the May 25, 2011 Decision 1 of the Court
of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 31320 which affirmed in
On the alleged lack of notice of hearing, it is now too late for
accused-appellant Hwan to claim a violation of his right to toto the December 11, 2007 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial
examine the witnesses against him. The records show the Court of Caloocan City, Branch 123 (RTC), convicting appellant
following exchange on June 26, 2001: Nazareno Villareal y Lualhati (appellant) of violation of Section
11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 3 (RA 9165) and
FISCAL LUGTO: sentencing him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for
twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and
I would like to manifes[t] that Atty.
eight (8) months and to pay a fine of P300,000.00.
Agoot, counsel of accused Chua Shilou
Hwan, waived his right to be present
for todays trial for purposes of The Factual Antecedents
identification of the alleged shabu.

ATTY SAVELLANO: On December 25, 2006 at around 11:30 in the morning, as

PO3 Renato de Leon (PO3 de Leon) was driving his motorcycle
[Are] we made to understand that this on his way home along 5th Avenue, he saw appellant from a
hearing is for identification of shabu only? distance of about 8 to 10 meters, holding and scrutinizing in
his hand a plastic sachet of shabu. Thus, PO3 de Leon, a
FISCAL LUGTO: member of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operation
Unit (SAID-SOU) in Caloocan City, alighted from his motorcycle
Yes despite the testimony of the Forensic
and approached the appellant whom he recognized as
Chemist, this is for continuation with the
direct testimony for purposes of someone he had previously arrested for illegal drug
identification which was confiscated or possession.4
seized by the joint operation of the Military
and the PNP at Sariaya, Quezon.
Upon seeing PO3 de Leon, appellant tried to escape but was
quickly apprehended with the help of a tricycle driver. Despite
For the record, this [is] for the continuation
of the direct testimony of Forensic Chemist appellant's attempts to resist arrest, PO3 de Leon was able to
Mary Jean Geronimo.[15] board appellant onto his motorcycle and confiscate the plastic
sachet of shabu in his possession. Thereafter, PO3 de Leon
As the records confirm, accused-appellant Hwan and his brought appellant to the 9th Avenue Police Station to fix his
counsel were not present when the forensic chemist handcuffs, and then they proceeded to the SAID-SOU office
testified. The prosecution made a manifestation to the effect where PO3 de Leon marked the seized plastic sachet with
that accused-appellant Hwan waived his right to be present at
"RZL/NV 12-25-06," representing his and appellant's initials
that hearing. Yet Hwan did not question this before the trial
court. No evidence of deliberate exclusion was shown. If no and the date of the arrest.5
notice of hearing were made upon him and his counsel, they
should have brought this in issue at the trial, not at the late Subsequently, PO3 de Leon turned over the marked evidence
stage on appeal.
as well as the person of appellant to the investigator, PO2
Randulfo Hipolito (PO2 Hipolito) who, in turn, executed an
All told, we hold that the findings of both the RTC and the CA
must be affirmed. The trial courts determination as to the acknowledgment receipt6 and prepared a letter request 7 for
credibility of witnesses and its findings of fact should be the laboratory examination of the seized substance. PO2
accorded great weight and respect more so when affirmed by Hipolito personally delivered the request and the confiscated
the appellate court. To reiterate, a look at the records shows item to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory,
no facts of substance and value that have been overlooked, which were received by Police Senior Inspector Albert Arturo
which, if considered, might affect the outcome of the instant
(PSI Arturo), the forensic chemist.8chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
appeal. Deference to the trial courts findings must be made as
it was in the position to easily detect whether a witness is
telling the truth or not.[16] Upon qualitative examination, the plastic sachet, which
contained 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance, tested
Penalty Imposed positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous
drug.9chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Accused-appellants were each sentenced by the lower court
to reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of PhP 5,000,000. This
is within the range provided by RA 6425, as amended. [17] We, Consequently, appellant was charged with violation of Section
therefore, affirm the penalty imposed on accused-appellants. 11, Article II of RA 9165 for illegal possession of dangerous
drugs in an Information10 which reads:
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, That on or about the 25th day of December, 2006 in Caloocan
Chua Shilou Hwan, Kan Shun Min, and Raymond S. Tan guilty City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sec. 16, Art. III of RA Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by
6425, as amended, is AFFIRMED IN TOTO. law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
have in his possession, custody and control,
SO ORDERED.
METHYLAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (Shabu) weighing
0.03 gram which, when subjected to chemistry examination
gave positive result of METHYLAMPHETAMIME
NOT IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO HYDROCHLORIDE, a dangerous drug.
 86
CONTRARY TO LAW. unbroken chain of custody of the seized item, from the time it
was confiscated from appellant by PO3 de Leon, marked at
When arraigned, appellant, assisted by counsel de oficio, the police station, turned over to PO2 Hipolito and delivered to
entered a plea of not guilty to the offense charged.11 the crime laboratory, where it was received by PSI Arturo, the
forensic chemist, up to the time it was presented in court for
proper identification.
In his defense, appellant denied PO3 de Leon's allegations and
instead claimed that on the date and time of the incident, he
was walking alone along Avenida, Rizal headed towards 5th The Issue
Avenue when someone who was riding a motorcycle called
him from behind. Appellant approached the person, who The sole issue advanced before the Court for resolution is
turned out to be PO3 de Leon, who then told him not to run, whether the CA erred in affirming in toto the RTC's Decision
frisked him, and took his wallet which contained P1,000.00.12 convicting appellant of the offense charged.

Appellant was brought to the 9th Avenue police station where The Ruling of the Court
he was detained and mauled by eight other detainees under
the orders of PO3 de Leon. Subsequently, he was brought to The appeal is meritorious.
the Sangandaan Headquarters where two other police officers,
whose names he recalled were "Michelle" and "Hipolito," took
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
him to the headquarters' firing range. There, "Michelle" and
lays down the basic rules on lawful warrantless arrests, either
"Hipolito" forced him to answer questions about a stolen
by a peace officer or a private person, as follows:
cellphone, firing a gun right beside his ear each time he failed
to answer and eventually mauling him when he continued to
deny knowledge about the cellphone.13 Thus, appellant Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or
sustained head injuries for which he was brought to the a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
Diosdado Macapagal Hospital for proper treatment. 14
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
The following day, he underwent inquest proceedings before committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
one Fiscal Guiyab, who informed him that he was being an offense;
charged with resisting arrest and "Section 11." 15 The first
charge was eventually dismissed. (b) When an offense has just been committed and he has
probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of
The RTC Ruling facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and
After trial on the merits, the RTC convicted appellant as
charged upon a finding that all the elements of the crime of (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
illegal possession of dangerous drugs have been established, escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is
to wit: (1) the appellant is in possession of an item or object serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his
which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) that such case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from
possession is not authorized by law; and (3) that the accused one confinement to another.
freely and consciously possesses said drug. Finding no ill
motive on the part of PO3 de Leon to testify falsely against xxx
appellant, coupled with the fact that the former had
previously arrested the latter for illegal possession of drugs
For the warrantless arrest under paragraph (a) of Section 5 to
under Republic Act No. 642516 (RA 6425), the RTC gave full
operate, two elements must concur: (1) the person to be
faith and credit to PO3 de Leon's testimony. Moreover, the RTC
arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just
found the plain view doctrine to be applicable, as the
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
confiscated item was in plain view of PO3 de Leon at the place
a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or
and time of the arrest.
within the view of the arresting officer. 19 On the other hand,
paragraph (b) of Section 5 requires for its application that at
On the other hand, the RTC gave scant consideration to the the time of the arrest, an offense had in fact just been
defenses of denial and frame-up proffered by the appellant, committed and the arresting officer had personal knowledge
being uncorroborated, and in the light of the positive of facts indicating that the appellant had committed it. 20
assertions of PO3 de Leon. It refused to give credence to
appellant's claim that PO3 de Leon robbed him of his money,
In both instances, the officer's personal knowledge of the fact
since he failed to bring the incident to the attention of PO3 de
of the commission of an offense is absolutely required. Under
Leon's superiors or to institute any action against the latter.
paragraph (a), the officer himself witnesses the crime while
under paragraph (b), he knows for a fact that a crime has just
Consequently, the RTC sentenced appellant to suffer the been committed.
penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day
to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months and to pay a fine
In sustaining appellant's conviction in this case, the appellate
of P300,000.00.
court ratiocinated that this was a clear case of an "in flagrante
delicto warrantless arrest" under paragraphs (a) and (b) of
The CA Ruling Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure, as above-quoted.
In its assailed Decision, the CA sustained appellant's
conviction, finding "a clear case of in flagrante delicto The Court disagrees.
warrantless arrest"17 as provided under Section 5, Rule 113 of
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. The CA held that
A punctilious assessment of the factual backdrop of this case
appellant "exhibited an overt act or strange conduct that
shows that there could have been no lawful warrantless
would reasonably arouse suspicion," 18 aggravated by the
arrest. A portion of PO3 de Leon's testimony on direct
existence of his past criminal citations and his attempt to flee
examination in court is revelatory:
when PO3 de Leon approached him.

FISCAL LARIEGO: While you were there at 5th Avenue, was

Citing jurisprudence, the appellate court likewise ruled that
there anything unusual that transpired?
the prosecution had adequately shown the continuous and
 87
PO3 DE LEON: Yes Ma am. scrutinizing a piece of plastic wrapper containing a white
powderly substance. PO3 Renato de Leon was quite familiar
Q: What was this incident? with appellant, having arrested him twice before for the same
illegal possession of drug. It was not just a hollow suspicion.
The third time around, PO3 de Leon had reasonably assumed
A: While I was on board my motorcycle on my home, I saw a
that the piece of plastic wrapper appellant was holding and
man looking at the shabu in his hand, Ma am.
scrutinizing also contained shabu as he had personal
knowledge of facts regarding appellant's person and past
Q: And exactly what time was this? criminal record. He would have been irresponsible to just wait
and see and give appellant a chance to scamper away. For his
A: Around 11:30 in the morning, Ma am. part, appellant being, in fact, in possession of illegal drug,
sensing trouble from an equally familiar face of authority, ran
away. Luckily, however, PO3 de Leon caught up with him
Q: How far were you from this person that you said was
through the aid of a tricycle driver. Appellant's act of running
verifying something in his hand?
away, indeed, validated PO3 de Leon's reasonable suspicion
that appellant was actually in possession of illegal drug. x x
A: Eight to ten meters, Ma am. x23

Q: What exactly did you see he was verifying? A: The shabu However, a previous arrest or existing criminal record, even
that he was holding, Ma am. for the same offense, will not suffice to satisfy the exacting
requirements provided under Section 5, Rule 113 in order to
Q: After seeing what the man was doing, what did you do justify a lawful warrantless arrest. "Personal knowledge" of the
next? arresting officer that a crime had in fact just been committed
is required. To interpret "personal knowledge" as referring to a
person's reputation or past criminal citations would create a
A: I alighted from my motorcycle and approached him, Ma am.
dangerous precedent and unnecessarily stretch the authority
and power of police officers to effect warrantless arrests
Q: In the first place why do you say that what he was based solely on knowledge of a person's previous criminal
examining and holding in his hand was a shabu? infractions, rendering nugatory the rigorous requisites laid out
under Section 5.
A: Because of the numerous arrests that I have done, they
were all shabu, Ma am.21(Underscoring supplied) It was therefore error on the part of the CA to rule on the
validity of appellant's arrest based on "personal knowledge of
On the basis of the foregoing testimony, the Court finds it facts regarding appellant's person and past criminal record,"
inconceivable how PO3 de Leon, even with his presumably as this is unquestionably not what "personal knowledge"
perfect vision, would be able to identify with reasonable under the law contemplates, which must be strictly
accuracy, from a distance of about 8 to 10 meters and while construed.24
simultaneously driving a motorcycle, a negligible and
minuscule amount of powdery substance (0.03 gram) inside Furthermore, appellant's act of darting away when PO3 de
the plastic sachet allegedly held by appellant. That he had Leon approached him should not be construed against him.
previously effected numerous arrests, all involving shabu, is Flight per se is not synonymous with guilt and must not
insufficient to create a conclusion that what he purportedly always be attributed to one's consciousness of guilt. 25 It is not
saw in appellant's hands was indeed shabu. a reliable indicator of guilt without other circumstances, 26 for
even in high crime areas there are many innocent reasons for
Absent any other circumstance upon which to anchor a lawful flight, including fear of retribution for speaking to officers,
arrest, no other overt act could be properly attributed to unwillingness to appear as witnesses, and fear of being
appellant as to rouse suspicion in the mind of PO3 de Leon wrongfully apprehended as a guilty party. 27 Thus, appellant's
that he (appellant) had just committed, was committing, or attempt to run away from PO3 de Leon is susceptible of
was about to commit a crime, for the acts per se of walking various explanations; it could easily have meant guilt just as it
along the street and examining something in one's hands could likewise signify innocence.
cannot in any way be considered criminal acts. In fact, even if
appellant had been exhibiting unusual or strange acts, or at In fine, appellant's acts of walking along the street and
the very least appeared suspicious, the same would not have holding something in his hands, even if they appeared to be
been sufficient in order for PO3 de Leon to effect a lawful dubious, coupled with his previous criminal charge for the
warrantless arrest under paragraph (a) of Section 5, Rule 113. same offense, are not by themselves sufficient to incite
suspicion of criminal activity or to create probable cause
Neither has it been established that the rigorous conditions enough to justify a warrantless arrest under Section 5 above-
set forth in paragraph (b) of Section 5, Rule 113 have been quoted. "Probable cause" has been understood to mean a
complied with, i.e., that an offense had in fact just been reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances
committed and the arresting officer had personal knowledge sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man's
of facts indicating that the appellant had committed it. belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense with
which he is charged. 28Specifically with respect to arrests, it is
The factual circumstances of the case failed to show that PO3 such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably
de Leon had personal knowledge that a crime had been discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been
indisputably committed by the appellant. It is not enough that committed by the person sought to be arrested, 29 which
PO3 de Leon had reasonable ground to believe that appellant clearly do not obtain in appellant's case.
had just committed a crime; a crime must in fact have been
committed first, which does not obtain in this case. Thus, while it is true that the legality of an arrest depends
upon the reasonable discretion of the officer or functionary to
Without the overt act that would pin liability against appellant, whom the law at the moment leaves the decision to
it is therefore clear that PO3 de Leon was merely impelled to characterize the nature of the act or deed of the person for
apprehend appellant on account of the latter's previous the urgent purpose of suspending his liberty,30 it cannot be
charge22 for the same offense. The CA stressed this point arbitrarily or capriciously exercised without unduly
when it said: compromising a citizen's constitutionally-guaranteed right to
liberty. As the Court succinctly explained in the case of People
v. Tudtud:31
It is common for drugs, being illegal in nature, to be concealed
from view. PO3 Renato de Leon saw appellant holding and
 88
The right of a person to be secure against any unreasonable handing plastic sachets to the other. Thinking that the sachets
seizure of his body and any deprivation of his liberty is a most may contain shabu, they immediately stopped and
basic and fundamental one. The statute or rule which allows approached Comerciante and Dasilla. At a distance of around
five (5) meters, PO3 Calag introduced himself as a police
exceptions to the requirement of warrants of arrest is strictly
officer, arrested Comerciante and Dasilla, and confiscated two
construed. Any exception must clearly fall within the (2) plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance from
situations when securing a warrant would be absurd or is them. A laboratory examination later confirmed that said
manifestly unnecessary as provided by the Rule. We cannot sachets contained methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
liberally construe the rule on arrests without warrant or
extend its application beyond the cases specifically provided After the prosecution rested its case, Dasilla filed a demurrer
by law. To do so would infringe upon personal liberty and set to evidence, which was granted by the RTC, thus his acquittal.
However, due to Comerciante's failure to file his own demurrer
back a basic right so often violated and so deserving of full
to evidence, the RTC considered his right to do so waived and
protection. ordered him to present his evidence.

Consequently, there being no lawful warrantless arrest, the In his defense, Comerciante averred that PO3 Calag was
shabu purportedly seized from appellant is rendered looking for a certain "Barok", who was a notorious drug pusher
in the area, when suddenly, he and Dasilla, who were just
inadmissible in evidence for being the proverbial fruit of the
standing in front of a jeepney along Private Road, were
poisonous tree. As the confiscated shabu is the very corpus arrested and taken to a police station. There, the police
delicti of the crime charged, appellant must be acquitted and officers claimed to have confiscated illegal drugs from them
exonerated from all criminal liability. and were asked money in exchange for their release. When
they failed to accede to the demand, they were brought to
another police station to undergo inquest proceedings, and
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in
thereafter, were charged with illegal possession of dangerous
CA-G.R. CR No. 31320 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant drugs.
Nazareno Villareal y Lualhati is ACQUITTED on reasonable
doubt of the offense charged and ordered immediately The RTC Ruling
released from detention, unless his continued confinement is
warranted by some other cause or ground. In a Judgment11 dated July 28, 2009, the RTC found
Comerciante guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of
Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, and accordingly, sentenced
SO ORDERED. him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for twelve (12)
years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years, and ordered him
to pay a fine in the amount of P300,000.00.

The RTC found that PO3 Calag conducted a valid warrantless

FIRST DIVISION
arrest on Comerciante, which yielded two (2) plastic sachets
containing shabu. In this relation, the RTC opined that there
G.R. No. 205926, July 22, 2015
was probable cause to justify the warrantless arrest,
considering that PO3 Calag saw, in plain view, that
ALVIN COMERCIANTE Y GONZALES, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE Comerciante was carrying the said sachets when he decided
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. to approach and apprehend the latter. Further, the RTC found
that absent any proof of intent that PO3 Calag was impelled
DECISION by any malicious motive, he must be presumed to have
properly performed his duty when he arrested Comerciante.
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Aggrieved, Comerciante appealed to the CA.
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the
Decision2 dated October 20, 2011 and the Resolution3 dated The CA Ruling
February 19, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR
No. 32813, which affirmed in toto the Judgment4 dated July 28, In a Decision14 dated October 20, 2011 the CA affirmed
2009 of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, Branch Comerciante's conviction. It held that PO3 Calag had probable
213 (RTC) in Crim. Case No. MC-03-7242-D convicting cause to effect the warrantless arrest of Comerciante, given
petitioner Alvin Comerciante y Gonzales (Comerciante) of the that the latter was committing a crime in flagrante delicto;
crime of illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs defined and and that he personally saw the latter exchanging plastic
penalized under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) sachets with Dasilla. According to the CA, this was enough to
9165,5 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous draw a reasonable suspicion that those sachets might
Drugs Act of 2002. be shabu, and thus, PO3 Calag had every reason to inquire on
the matter right then and there.15
The Facts
Dissatisfied, Comerciante moved for reconsideration 16 which
On July 31, 2003, an Information was filed before the RTC was, however, denied in a Resolution17 dated February 19,
charging Comerciante ofviolation of Section 11, Article II of RA 2013. Hence, this petition.
9165, to wit:
The Issue Before the Court
That on or about the 30th day of July 2003, in the City of
Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of The core Issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not having CA correctly affirmed Comerciante's conviction for violation of
been lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drugs, did Section 11, Article II of RA 9165.
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and
knowingly have in his possession, custody and control Two (2)
In his petition, Comerciante essentially contends that PO3
heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet (sic) each containing
Carag did not effect a valid warrantless arrest on him.
0.15 gram (sic) and 0.28 gram (sic) of white crystalline
Consequently, the evidence gathered as a result of such
substance with a total of 0.43 grams which was found positive
illegal warrantless arrest, i.e., the plastic sachets
to the test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride commonly
containing shabu should be rendered inadmissible, necessarily
known as "shabu", a dangerous drug.
resulting in his acquittal.
CONTRARY TO LAW.6
On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General, on
behalf of respondent People of the Philippines, maintains that
According to the prosecution, at around 10 o'clock in the Comerciante's warrantless arrest was validly made pursuant
evening of July 30, 2003, Agent Eduardo Radan (Agent Radan) to the "stop and frisk" rule, especially considering that he was
of the NARCOTICS group and PO3 Bienvy Calag II (PO3 Calag) caught in flagrante delicto in possession of illegal drugs.
were aboard a motorcycle, patrolling the area while on their
way to visit a friend at Private Road, Barangay Hulo,
The Court's Ruling
Mandaluyong City. Cruising at a speed of 30 kilometers per
hour along Private Road, they spotted, at a distance of about
The petition is meritorious.
10 meters, two (2) men - later identified as Comerciante and a
certain Erick Dasilla7 (Dasilla) - standing and showing
"improper and unpleasant movements," with one of them
 89
Section 2, Article III21 of the Constitution mandates that a ma'am.
search and seizure must be carried out through or on the
strength of a judicial warrant predicated upon the existence of xxxx
probable cause; in the absence of such warrant, such search
and seizure becomes, as a general rule, "unreasonable" within Q: And who were with you while you were patrolling?
the meaning of said constitutional provision. To protect people
from unreasonable searches and seizures, Section 3 (2), A: Eduardo Radan, Ma'am.
Article III22 of the Constitution provides an exclusionary rule
which instructs that evidence obtained and confiscated on the Q: And who is this Eduardo Radan?
occasion of such unreasonable searches and seizures are
deemed tainted and should be excluded for being the A: He is an agent of the Narcotics Group, ma'am.
proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree. In other words, evidence
obtained from unreasonable searches and seizures shall be Q: While you were along Private Road, Hulo, Mandaluyong
inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. City, what unusual incident that happened if any?
The exclusionary rule is not, however, an absolute and rigid A: We spotted somebody who was then as if handing a
proscription. One of the recognized exceptions established by plastic sachet to someone.
jurisprudence is a search incident to a lawful arrest. 24 In this
instance, the law requires that there first be a lawful arrest
xxxx
before a search can be made the process cannot be
reversed.25 Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on
Q: Now how far were you when you saw this
Criminal Procedure lays down the rules on lawful warrantless
incident from these two male persons you
arrests, as follows:
already identified?
SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A peace officer
A: About ten (10) meters away ma'am.
or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
Q: What were their positions in relation to you when you
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
saw them in that particular act?
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
an offense;
A: They were quite facing me then.
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has
probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of Q: What was the speed of your motorcycle when
facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has you were traversing this Private Road, Hulo,
committed it; and Mandaluyong City?

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has A: About thirty (30) kilometers per hour, ma'am.
escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is
serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his Q: And who was driving the motorcycle?
case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from
one confinement to another. A: Eduardo Radan, ma'am.

In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the Q: When you spotted them as if handing something to
person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered each other, what did you do?
to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded
against in accordance with Section 7 of Rule 112. A: We stopped ma'am.

The aforementioned provision provides three (3) instances Q: And how far were you from them when you stopped,
when a warrantless arrest may be lawfully effected: (a) arrest more or less?
of a suspect in flagrante delicto; (b) arrest of a suspect where,
based on personal knowledge of the arresting officer, there is A: We passed by them for a short distance before we
probable cause that said suspect was the perpetrator of a stopped ma'am.
crime which had just been committed; (c) arrest of a prisoner
who has escaped from custody serving final judgment or Q: And after you passed by them and you said you
temporarily confined during the pendency of his case or has stopped, what was the reaction of these two male
escaped while being transferred from one confinement to persons?
another.26
A: They were surprised, ma'am.
For a warrantless arrest under Section 5 (a) to operate, two
(2) elements must concur, namely: (a) the person to be xxxx
arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit Q: And what was their reaction when you said you
a crime; and (b) such overt act is done in the presence or introduced yourself as police officer?
within the view of the arresting officer. 27 On the other hand,
Section 5 (b) requires for its application that at the time of the A: They were surprised.
arrest, an offense had in fact just been committed and the
arresting officer had personal knowledge of facts indicating Q: When yon say "nabigla" what was their reaction
that the accused had committed it. that made you say that they were surprised?

In both instances, the officer's personal knowledge of the fact A: They were stunned.
of the commission of an offense is absolutely required. Under
Section 5 (a), the officer himself witnesses the crime; while in Q: After they were stunned, what did you do next,
Section 5 (b), he knows for a fact that a crime has just been police officer?
committed.
A: I arrested them, ma'am. I invited them.
A judicious review of the factual milieu of the instant case
reveals that there could have been no lawful warrantless Q: What did you say to them? How did you invite them? In
arrest made on Comerciante. PO3 Calag himself admitted that short, napakasimple lang ng tanong ko sa yo eh. Did
he was aboard a motorcycle cruising at a speed of around 30 you say anything?
kilometers per hour when he saw Comerciante and Dasilla
standing around and showing "improper and unpleasant
Court: Mr. Witness, stop making unnecessary movements, just
movements," with one of them handing plastic sachets to the
listen.
other. On the basis of the foregoing, he decided to effect an
arrest. PO3 Calag's testimony on direct examination is
Pros. Silao: Are you fit to testify? May sakit ka ba o wala?
revelatory:
Witness: Wala po.
Pros. Now on July 30, 2003 around 10:00 o'clock in the
Silao: evening, kindly tell the court where were you?
Pros. Silao: Eh, bakit di ka makapagsalita?
A: We were then conducting our patrol on a motorbike
 90
Court: You keep touching your eyes. Just relax. Answer the Philippine jurisprudence, this court approximated the
question, ano sinabi mo sa kanila? suspicious circumstances as probable cause:

Pros. Silao: Are you fit to testify? Wala ka bang sakit? The probable cause is that when the petitioner acted
suspiciously and attempted to flee with the buri bag there was
Witness: Wala po. a probable cause that he was concealing something illegal in
the bag and it was the right and duty of the police officers to
xxxx inspect the same.

Q: From what portion of his body, I am referring to Alvin For warrantless searches, probable cause was defined as a
Comerciante did you recover the plastic sachet? reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances
sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to
A: From his hand ma'am. believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense with
which he is charged.
Q: Left or right hand?
Malacat v. Court of Appeals clarifies the requirement
Pros. Silao: You cannot recall? Hindi mo matandaan. further. It does not have to be probable cause, but it
Sabihin mo kung hindi mo matandaan, no problem. cannot be mere suspicion. It has to be a genuine
Kaliwa, kanan or you cannot recall?30 (Emphases and reason to serve the purposes of the "stop and frisk"
underscoring supplied) exception:

On the basis of such testimony, the Court finds it highly Other notable points of Terry are that while probable
implausible that PO3 Calag, even assuming that he has cause is not required to conduct a "stop and frisk," it
perfect vision, would be able to identify with reasonable nevertheless holds that mere suspicion or a hunch will
accuracy especially from a distance of around 10 meters, and not validate a "stop and frisk." A genuine reason must
while aboard a motorcycle cruising at a speed of 30 exist, in light of the police officer's experience and
kilometers per hour miniscule amounts of white crystalline surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the
substance inside two (2) very small plastic sachets held by person detained has weapons concealed about him.
Comerciante. The Court also notes that no other overt act
could be properly attributed to Comerciante as to rouse In his dissent for Esquillo v. People, Justice Bersamin reminds
suspicion in the mind of PO3 Calag that the former had just us that police officers must not rely on a single
committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime. suspicious circumstance. There should be "presence of
Verily, the acts of standing around with a companion and more than one seemingly innocent activity, which,
handing over something to the latter cannot in any way be taken together, warranted a reasonable inference of
considered criminal acts. In fact, even if Comerciante and his criminal activity." The Constitution prohibits "unreasonable
companion were showing "improper and unpleasant searches and seizures." Certainly, reliance on only one
movements" as put by PO3 Calag, the same would not have suspicious circumstance or none at all will not result in a
been sufficient in order to effect a lawful warrantless arrest reasonable search.35 (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
under Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure.31 That his reasonable suspicion bolstered by (a) the In this case, the Court reiterates that Comerciante's acts of
fact that he had seen his fellow officers arrest persons in standing around with a companion and handing over
possession of shabu; and (b) his trainings and seminars on something to the latter do not constitute criminal acts. These
illegal drugs when he was still assigned in the province are circumstances are not enough to create a reasonable
insufficient to create a conclusion that what he purportedly inference of criminal activity which would constitute a
saw in Comerciante was indeed shabu. "genuine reason" for PO3 Calag to conduct a "stop and frisk"
search on the former. In this light, the "stop and frisk" search
Neither has the prosecution established that the rigorous made on Comerciante should be deemed unlawful.
conditions set forth in Section 5 (b), Rule 113, have been
complied with, i.e., that an offense had in fact just been In sum, there was neither a valid warrantless arrest nor a valid
committed and the arresting officer had personal knowledge "stop and frisk" search made on Comerciante. As such,
of facts indicating that the accused had committed it. As the shabu purportedly seized from him is rendered
already discussed, the factual backdrop of the instant case inadmissible in evidence for being the proverbial fruit of the
failed to show that PO3 Calag had personal knowledge that a poisonous tree. Since the confiscated shabu is the very corpus
crime had been indisputably committed by Comerciante. delicti of the crime charged, Comerciante must necessarily be
Verily, it is not enough that the arresting officer had acquitted and exonerated from all criminal liability.
reasonable ground to believe that the accused had just
committed a crime; a crime must, in fact, have been WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the
committed first, which does not obtain in this case. Decision dated October 20, 2011 and the Resolution dated
February 19, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No.
In this relation, the Court finds respondent's assertion that 32813 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly,
there was a valid "stop and frisk" search made on petitioner Alvin Comerciante y Gonzales is
Comerciante untenable. In People v. Cogaed,34 the Court had hereby ACQUITTED of the crime of violating Section 11,
an opportunity to exhaustively explain "stop and frisk" Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The Director of the Bureau
searches of Corrections is ordered to cause his immediate release,
unless he is being lawfully held for any other reason.
"Stop and frisk" searches (sometimes referred to
as Terry searches) are necessary for law enforcement. That is, SO ORDERED.cr
law enforcers should be given the legal arsenal to prevent the
commission of offenses. However, this should be balanced
with the need to protect the privacy of citizens in accordance
with Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. NO PROBABLE CAUSE

The balance lies in the concept of "suspiciousness" SECOND DIVISION

present where the police officer finds himself or herself
in. This may be undoubtedly based on the experience of the
police officer. Experienced police officers have personal G.R. No. 198694 February 13, 2013
experience dealing with criminals and criminal behavior.
Hence, they should have the ability to discern - based on facts
that they themselves observe - whether an individual is acting RAMON MARTINEZ y GOCO/RAMON GOCO y MARTINEZ
in a suspicious manner. Clearly, a basic criterion would be @ MON, Petitioner,
that the police officer, with his or her personal vs.
knowledge, must observe the facts leading to the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
suspicion of an illicit act.

xxxx DECISION

Normally, "stop and frisk" searches do not give the law PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
enforcer an opportunity to confer with a judge to determine
probable cause. In Posadas v. Court of Appeals, one of the
earliest cases adopting the "stop and frisk" doctrine in
 91
Assailed in this Petition for Review on Centiorari1 under Rule alsoupheld the legality of Ramons warrantless arrest,
45 of the Rules of Court are the June 30, 2011 Decision 2 and observing that Ramon was disturbing the peace in violation of
September 20, 2011 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) the Manila City Ordinance during the time of his
in CA-G.R. No. 32544 which affirmed the April 30, 2009 apprehension. Consequently, Ramon was sentenced to suffer
Decision4 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila Branch 2 (RTC) the penalty of imprisonment oftwelve (12) years and one (1)
in Criminal Case No. 08-358669 convicting petitioner Ramon day as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months
Martinez y Goco/Ramon Goco y Martinez (Ramon) of the crime as maximum and to pay a fine of 300,000.00. Aggrieved,
of possession of dangerous drugs punished under Section Ramon elevated his conviction to the CA.
11(3) Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165) otherwise
known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The CA Ruling

The Factual Antecedents In its June 30, 2011 Decision,the CA denied Ramons appeal
and thereby affirmedhis conviction. Itupheld the factual
At around 9:15 in the evening of December 29, 2007, PO2 findings of the RTC which found that the elements of the crime
Roberto Soque (PO2 Soque), PO2 Alejandro Cepe(PO2 Cepe) of possession of dangerous drugs were extant, to wit: (1) that
and PO3Edilberto Zeta (PO3 Zeta), who wereall assigned tothe the accused is in possession of a prohibited drug; (2) that
Station Anti-Illegal Drugs (SAID) Section of the Malate Police such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) that the
Station 9 (Police Station 9), conducted a routine foot patrol accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. 6
along Balingkit Street, Malate, Manila. In the process, they
heard a man shouting "Putanginamo! Limangdaannabaito?" Likewise, the CA sustained the validity of the body search
Forpurportedly violating Section 844 of the Revised Ordinance made on Ramon as an incident of alawful warrantless arrest
of the City of Manila (Manila City Ordinance)which punishes for breach of the peace which he committed in the presence
breaches of the peace, the man, later identified as Ramon,was of the police officers, notwithstanding its (the case for breach
apprehended and asked to empty his pockets. In the course of the peace)subsequent dismissal for failure to prosecute.
thereof, the police officers were able to recover from him a
small transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline
Moreover, the CAobserved that every link in the chain of
substance suspected to beshabu.PO2 Soque confiscated the
custody of the prohibited drug wassufficiently establishedfrom
sachet and brought Ramon to Police Station 9 where the
the time PO2Soque took the sameup to its actual presentation
former markedthe item with the latters initials, "RMG." There,
in court.
Police Superintendent Ferdinand
RicafrenteQuirante(PSuptQuirante) prepared a request for
laboratory examination which, together with the specimen, Finally, it did not give credence to Ramons claim of extortion
was brought by PO2 Soque to the PNP Crime Laboratory for as his asseverationsfailed to overcome the presumption of
examination. regularity in the performance of the police officers official
duties.
Forensic Chemist Police Senior Inspector Erickson Calabocal
(PSInspCalabocal)examinedthe specimen which contained The Issue
0.173 gram of white crystalline substanceand found the same
positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride (or shabu). The sole issue raised in this petition is whether or not the CA
erred in affirming the Decision of the RTC convicting Ramon of
Consequently, Ramon was charged with possession of the crime of possession of dangerous drugs.
dangerous drugs under Section 11(3), Article II of RA 9165
throughan Information dated January 3, 2008 which states: The Ruling of the Court

That on or about December 29, 2007, in the City of Manila, The petition is meritorious.
Philippines, the said accused, without being authorized by law
to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully,
Enshrined in the fundamental law is a persons right against
unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and under his
unwarranted intrusions by the government. Section 2, Article
custody and control one (1) heat sealed transparent
III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution (Constitution) states
plastic sachet containing ZERO POINT ONE SEVEN
that:
THREE (0.173) gram of white crystalline substance
containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride known as
SHABU, a dangerous drug.5 Section 2.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
In defense, Ramon denied the charge and gave his version of
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall
the incident. He narrated that on December 29, 2007, at
issue except upon probable cause to be determined
around 4:00 in the afternoon, whilewalking alongBalingkit
personally by the judge after examination under oath or
Street to borrow a welding machine from one Paez Garcia, a
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
man in civilian clothing approached and asked him if he is
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched
Ramon Goco. Upon affirming his identity, he was immediately
and the persons or things to be seized.
handcuffed by the man who eventually introduced himself as
a police officer. Together, they boarded a tricycle (sidecar)
wherethe said officer asked him if he was carrying illegal Accordingly, so as to ensure that the same sacrosanct right
drugs. Despite his denial, he was still brought to a precinct to remains revered, effects secured by government authoritiesin
be detained. Thereafter, PO2 Soquepropositioned Ramon and contraventionof the foregoingarerendered inadmissible in
asked for P20,000.00 in exchange for his release.When evidence for any purpose, in any proceeding. In this regard,
Ramons wife,AmaliaGoco, was unable to produce the Section 3(2), Article III of the Constitution provides that:
20,000.00 which PO2 Soquehad asked for, he (Ramon) was
brought to the Manila City Hall for inquest proceedings. 2. Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding
section [referring to Section 2] shall be inadmissible for any
The RTC Ruling purpose in any proceeding.

In its April 30, 2009 Decision, the RTCconvicted Ramon of the Commonly known as the "exclusionary rule," the above-cited
crime of possession of dangerous drugs as charged, finding all proscription is not, however, an absolute and rigid one. 7 As
its elements tohave been established through the testimonies found in jurisprudence, the traditional exceptions are customs
of the prosecutionsdisinterested witnesses. In this relation,it searches,8 searches of moving vehicles,9seizure of evidence in
plain view,10 consented searches,11 "stop and frisk"
 92
measures12 andsearches incidental to a lawful arrest. 13 This A: Along the street of Balingkit, sir.
last-mentioned exception is of particular significance to this
case and thus, necessitates further disquisition. Q: How far were you from this shouting, as you said?

A valid warrantless arrest which justifies a subsequent search A: About ten (10) meters, sir.
is one that is carried out under the parameters of Section
5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court 14 which requires that the
Q: Tell the Court what happened, what next follows?
apprehending officer must have been spurred by probable
cause to arresta person caught in flagrante delicto. To be
sure,the term probable cause has been understood to mean a A: We proceeded to the voice where it came from, then, we
reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances saw a man, sir.
sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man's
belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense with Q: Who was that man?
which he is charged.15 Specifically with respect to arrests, it is
such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably
A: Goco, sir.
discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been
committed by the person sought to be arrested. 16 In this light,
the determination of the existence or absence of probable Q: Who is this Goco in relation to this case?
cause necessitates a re-examination of the factual incidents.
A: Ramon Martinez Goco, sir.
Records show that PO2 Soque arrested Ramon for allegedly
violating Section 844 of the Manila City Ordinance which Q: Who is this Goco in relation to this case?
provides as follows:
A: He is the one that we apprehended, sir.
Sec. 844. Breaches of the Peace. No person shall make,
and, countenance, or assist in making any riot, affray,
Q: What was he doing then when you said you responded
disorder, disturbance, or breach of the peace; or assault, beat
immediately, when you saw a man?
or use personal violence upon another without just cause in
any public place; or utter any slanderous, threatening or
abusive language or expression or exhibit or display any A: We saw him shouting on top of his voice, sir.
emblem, transparency, representation, motto, language,
device, instrument, or thing; or do any act, in any public Q: That is why you came near him, the one who shouted?
place, meeting or procession, tending to disturb the peace or
excite a riot, or collect with other persons in a body or crowd A: Yes, sir.
for any unlawful purpose; or disturbance or disquiet any
congregation engaged in any lawful assembly.1wphi1
Q: So, what did you do, Mr. Witness, together with your other
cooperatives?
PENALTY: Imprisonment of not more than six (6) months and /
or fine not more than Two Hundred pesos (PHP 200.00)
A: We apprehended him for bringing [sic] the silence of the
serenity of the place, sir.
As may be readily gleaned, the foregoing ordinancepenalizes
the following acts: (1) making, countenancing, or assisting in
Q: What time was that already at that time, the incident of
making any riot, affray, disorder, disturbance, or breach of the
shouting?
peace; (2) assaulting, beating or using personal violence upon
another without just cause in any public place; (3) uttering
any slanderous, threatening or abusive language or A: Past 9:00, sir.
expression or exhibiting or displaying any emblem,
transparency, representation, motto, language, device, Q: Who actually accosted Goco, the one who shouted?
instrument, or thing; and (4) doing any act, in any public
place, meeting or procession, tending to disturb the peace or
A: Me, sir.
excite a riot, or collect with other persons in a body or crowd
for any unlawful purpose, or disturbance or disquiet any
congregation engaged in any lawful assembly. Evidently, the Q: Tell the Court, how many were there at that time present
gravamen of these offenses is the disruption of communal with Goco?
tranquillity. Thus, to justify a warrantless arrest based on the
same, it must be established that the apprehension was A: They scampered away when they saw the police were
effected after a reasonable assessment by the police officer coming near the place, sir, they scampered in different
that a public disturbance is being committed. directions.

In this regard, PO2 Soques testimony detailed the Q: Tell the Court what were Cepe and Zeta doing also when
surrounding circumstances leading to Ramons warrantless you approached the accused?
warrant, viz:
A: They followed me, sir.
DIRECT EXAMINATION:
Q: So, tell the Court what happened when you approached
ASST. CITY PROS. YAP: Tell the Court, what happened when accused therein Goco?
you were there on patrol? PO2 Soque:
A: We apprehended Goco for violation for alarm scandal, sir.
A: While we were on routinary patrol we heard a man shouting
on top of his voice telling "Putang ina mo! Limang daan na ba
x x x x17
ito?" pointing to his right front pocket, sir.

CROSS EXAMINATION:
Q: There was a shouting, where was this man shouting, where
was the shouting came from?
xxxx
 93
ATTY. AMURAO: Consequently, as it cannot be said that Ramon was validly
arrested the warantless search that resulted from it was also
Q: So, just like Leveriza, Balingkit is also thickly populated? illegal. Thus, the subject shabu purportedly seized from
PO2 Soque: Ramon is inadmissible in evidence for being the proverbial
fruit of the poisonous tree as mandated by the above
discussed constitutional provision. In this regard, considering
A: Yes, sir.
that the confiscated shabuis the very corpus delicitof the
crime charged, Ramon's acquital should therefore come as a
Q: And there are many people outside their houses? matter of course.

A: Yes, sir. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The June 30, 2011
Decision and September 20, 2011 Resolution of the Court of
Q: And I can imagine everybody there outside was talking Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 32544 are REVERSED and SET
also? ASIDE. Petitioner Ramon Martinez y Goco/Ramon Goco y
Martinez is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged.

A: Yes, sir.
SO ORDERED.

Q: I was very noisy, everybody talking, altogether?

A: They were talking casually. SECOND DIVISION

x x x x18 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No.

Appellee, 188611

Clearly, a perusal of the foregoing testimony negates the

presence of probable cause when the police officers
conducted their warrantless arrest of Ramon. - versus - Promulgated:

To elucidate, it cannot be said that the act of shouting in a

thickly-populated place, with many people conversing with BELEN MARIACOS, Appellant. June 16, 2010
each other on the street, would constitute any of the acts
punishable under Section 844 of the Manila City Ordinance as DECISION
above-quoted. Ramon was not making or assisting in any riot,
affray, disorder, disturbance, or breach of the peace; he was NACHURA, J.:
not assaulting, beating or using personal violence upon
another; and, the words he allegedly shouted Before this Court is an appeal from the Decision [1] of the Court
of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02718, which affirmed
"Putanginamo! Limangdaannabaito?" are not slanderous,
the decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 29, San
threatening or abusive, and thus, could not have tended to Fernando City, La Union, in Criminal Case No. 7144, finding
disturb the peace or excite a riot considering that at the time appellant Belen Mariacos guilty of violating Article II, Section 5
of the incident, Balingkit Street was still teeming with people of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, or the Comprehensive
and alive with activity. Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The facts of the case, as summarized by the CA, are

Further, it bears stressing that no one present at the place of as follows:
arrest ever complained that Ramons shouting disturbed the
public. On the contrary, a disinterested member of the Accused-appellant Belen Mariacos was
community (a certain Rosemarie Escobal) even testified that charged in an Information, dated November 7,
Ramon was merely standing in front of the store of a certain 2005 of violating Section 5, Article II of
MangRomy when a man in civilian clothes, later identified as Republic Act [No.] 9165, allegedly committed
as follows:
PO2 Soque, approached Ramon, immediately handcuffed and
took him away.19 That on or about the
27th day of October, 2005,
In its totality, the Court observes that these facts and in the Municipality of San
Gabriel, Province of La
circumstances could not have engendereda well-founded
Union, Philippines, and
belief that any breach of the peace had been committed by within the jurisdiction of
Ramon at the time that his warrantless arrest was effected. All this Honorable Court, the
told, noprobable cause existedto justify Ramons warrantless above-named accused,
arrest. did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously transport,
Indeed, while it is true that the legality of arrest depends upon deliver 7,030.3, (sic)
the reasonable discretion of the officer or functionary to whom grams of dried marijuana
the law at the moment leaves the decision to characterize the fruiting tops without the
nature of the act or deed of the person for the urgent purpose necessary permit or
of suspending his liberty,20 this should not be exercised in a authority from the proper
government agency or
whimsical manner, else a persons liberty be subjected to
office.
ubiquitous abuse. Aslaw enforcers, it is largely expectedof
them to conduct a more circumspect assessment of the CONTRARY TO LAW.
situation at hand. The determination of probable cause is not
a blanket-license to withhold liberty or to conduct When arraigned on December 13, 2005,
unwarranted fishing expeditions. It demarcates the line accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. During
between legitimate human conduct on the one hand, and the pre-trial, the following were stipulated
ostensible criminal activity, on the other. In this respect, it upon:
must be performedwisely and cautiously, applying the
1. Accused admits that she
exacting standards of a reasonably discreet and prudent man. is the same person
Surely, as constitutionally guaranteed rightslie at the fore, the identified in the
duty to determine probable cause should be clothed with information as Belen
utmost conscientiousness as well as impelled by a higher Mariacos;
sense of public accountability.
 94
2. That accused is a When the jeepney reached the poblacion,
resident of PO2 Pallayoc alighted together with the
Brgy. Lunoy, San other passengers. Unfortunately, he did not
Gabriel, La Union; notice who took the black backpack from
atop the jeepney. He only realized a few
3. That at the time of the moments later that the said bag and three
arrest of the accused, (3) other bags, including a blue plastic bag,
accused had just were already being carried away by two (2)
alighted from a women. He caught up with the women and
passenger jeepney; introduced himself as a policeman. He told
them that they were under arrest, but one
4. That the marijuana of the women got away.
allegedly taken from
the possession of the PO2 Pallayoc brought the woman, who was
accused contained in later identified as herein accused-appellant
two (2) bags were Belen Mariacos, and the bags to the police
submitted for station. At the police station, the
examination to the investigators contacted the Mayor of San
Crime Lab; Gabriel to witness the opening of the bags.
When the Mayor arrived about fifteen (15)
5. That per Chemistry minutes later, the bags were opened and
Report No. D-109- three (3) bricks of marijuana wrapped in
2005, the alleged newspaper, two (2) round bundles of
drug submitted for marijuana, and two (2) bricks of marijuana
examination gave fruiting tops, all wrapped in a newspaper,
positive result for the were recovered.
presence of
marijuana; Thereafter, the investigators marked,
inventoried and forwarded the confiscated
6. That the drugs allegedly marijuana to the crime laboratory for
obtained from the examination. The laboratory examination
accused contained showed that the stuff found in the bags all
(sic) and submitted tested positive for marijuana, a dangerous
for examination drug.
weighed 7,030.3
grams; When it was accused-appellants turn to
present evidence, she testified that:
7. The Prosecutor admits
the existence of a On October 27, 2005, at around 7:00 in the
counter-affidavit morning, accused-appellant, together with
executed by the Lani Herbacio, was inside a passenger
accused; and jeepney bound for the poblacion. While the
jeepney was still at the terminal waiting for
8. The existence of the passengers, one Bennie Lao-ang (Lao-ang),
affidavits executed by her neighbor, requested her to carry a few
the witnesses of the bags which had been loaded on top of the
accused family (sic): jeepney. At first, accused-appellant refused,
Lyn Punasen, but she was persuaded later when she was
Mercedes Tila and told that she would only be carrying the
Magdalena Carino. bags. When they reached the poblacion,
Lao-ang handed accused-appellant and her
During the trial, the prosecution established companion, Lani Herbacio, the bags, and
the following evidence: then Lao-ang suddenly ran away. A few
moments later, PO2 Pallayoc was upon
On October 26, 2005, in the evening, the them, arresting them. Without explanation,
San Gabriel Police Station of San Gabriel, La they were brought to the police station.
Union, conducted a checkpoint near the When they were at the police station, Lani
police station at the poblacion to intercept a Herbacio disappeared. It was also at the
suspected transportation of marijuana from police station that accused-appellant
Barangay Balbalayang, San Gabriel, La discovered the true contents of the bags
Union. The group at the checkpoint was which she was asked to carry. She
composed of PO2 Lunes B. Pallayoc (PO2 maintained that she was not the owner of
Pallayoc), the Chief of Police, and other the bags and that she did not know what
policemen. When the checkpoint did not were contained in the bags. At the police
yield any suspect or marijuana, the Chief of station (sic) she executed a Counter-
Police instructed PO2 Pallayoc to proceed to Affidavit.[3]
Barangay Balbalayang to conduct
surveillance operation (sic). On January 31, 2007, the RTC promulgated a decision, the
dispositive portion of which states:
At dawn on October 27, 2005, in Barangay
Balbalayang, PO2 Pallayoc met with a secret WHEREFORE, the Court finds the
agent of the Barangay Intelligence Network accused Belen Mariacos GUILTY as
who informed him that a baggage of charged and sentences here (sic) to suffer
marijuana had been loaded on a passenger the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay
jeepney that was about to leave for a fine of P500,000.00.
the poblacion. The agent mentioned three
(3) bags and one (1) blue plastic The 7,030.3 grams of marijuana are ordered
bag. Further, the agent described a confiscated and turned over to the
backpack bag with an O.K. marking. PO2 Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for
Pallayoc then boarded the said jeepney and destruction in the presence of the Court
positioned himself on top thereof. While the personnel and media.
vehicle was in motion, he found the black
backpack with an O.K. marking and peeked SO ORDERED.[4]
inside its contents. PO2 Pallayoc found
bricks of marijuana wrapped in newspapers. Appellant appealed her conviction to the CA. She argued that
He then asked the other passengers on top the trial court erred in considering the evidence of the
of the jeepney about the owner of the bag, prosecution despite its inadmissibility. [5] She claimed that her
but no one knew. right against an unreasonable search was flagrantly violated
by Police Officer (PO)2 Pallayoc when the latter searched the
bag, assuming it was hers, without a search warrant and with
 95
no permission from her. She averred that PO2 Pallayocs possible the tip and check the contents of
purpose for apprehending her was to verify if the bag she was the bags.
carrying was the same one he had illegally searched earlier.
Moreover, appellant contended that there was no probable Thirdly, x x x the search was conducted in a
cause for her arrest.[6] moving vehicle. Time and again, a search of
a moving vehicle has been justified on the
Further, appellant claimed that the prosecution failed to prove ground that the mobility of motor vehicles
the corpus delicti of the crime.[7] She alleged that the makes it possible for the vehicle to move
apprehending police officers violated Dangerous Drugs Board out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the
Regulation No. 3, Series of 1979, as amended by Board warrant must be sought. Thus, under the
Regulation No. 2, Series of 1990, which prescribes the facts, PO2 Pallayoc could not be expected to
procedure in the custody of seized prohibited and regulated secure a search warrant in order to check
drugs, instruments, apparatuses, and articles. The said the contents of the bags which were loaded
regulation directs the apprehending team having initial on top of the moving jeepney. Otherwise, a
custody and control of the drugs and/or paraphernalia, search warrant would have been of no use
immediately after seizure or confiscation, to have the same because the motor vehicle had already left
physically inventoried and photographed in the presence of the locality.[13]
appellant or her representative, who shall be required to sign
copies of the inventory. The failure to comply with this Appellant is now before this Court, appealing her conviction.
directive, appellant claimed, casts a serious doubt on the
identity of the items allegedly confiscated from her. She, Once again, we are asked to determine the limits of the
likewise, averred that the prosecution failed to prove that the powers of the States agents to conduct searches and seizures.
items allegedly confiscated were indeed prohibited drugs, and Over the years, this Court had laid down the rules on searches
to establish the chain of custody over the same. and seizures, providing, more or less, clear parameters in
determining which are proper and which are not.
On the other hand, the People, through the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG), argued that the warrantless arrest of Appellants main argument before the CA centered on
appellant and the warrantless seizure of marijuana were valid the inadmissibility of the evidence used against her. She
and legal,[8] justified as a search of a moving vehicle. It claims that her constitutional right against unreasonable
averred that PO2 Pallayoc had reasonable ground to believe searches was flagrantly violated by the apprehending officer.
that appellant had committed the crime of delivering
dangerous drugs based on reliable information from their Thus, we must determine if the search was lawful. If it was,
agent, which was confirmed when he peeked into the bags then there would have been probable cause for the
and smelled the distinctive odor of marijuana. [9] The OSG also warrantless arrest of appellant.
argued that appellant was now estopped from questioning the
illegality of her arrest since she voluntarily entered a plea of Article III, Section 2 of the Philippine Constitution
not guilty upon arraignment and participated in the trial and provides:
presented her evidence.[10] The OSG brushed aside appellants
argument that the bricks of marijuana were not photographed Section 2. The right of the people to be
and inventoried in her presence or that of her counsel secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
immediately after confiscation, positing that physical effects against unreasonable searches and
inventory may be done at the nearest police station or at the seizures of whatever nature and for any
nearest office of the apprehending team, whichever was purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
practicable.[11] warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
except upon probable cause to be
In a Decision dated January 19, 2009, the CA dismissed determined personally by the judge after
appellants appeal and affirmed the RTC decision in toto.[12] It examination under oath or affirmation of the
held that the prosecution had successfully proven that complainant and the witnesses he may
appellant carried away from the jeepney a number of bags produce, and particularly describing the
which, when inspected by the police, contained dangerous place to be searched and the persons or
drugs. The CA ruled that appellant was caught in flagrante things to be seized.
delicto of carrying and conveying the bag that contained the
illegal drugs, and thus held that appellants warrantless arrest Law and jurisprudence have laid down the instances
was valid. The appellate court ratiocinated: when a warrantless search is valid. These are:

It must be stressed that PO2 Pallayoc had

earlier ascertained the contents of the bags 1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful
when he was aboard the jeep. He saw the arrest recognized under Section 12 [now
bricks of marijuana wrapped in newspaper. Section 13], Rule 126 of the Rules of
That said marijuana was on board the Court and by prevailing jurisprudence;
jeepney to be delivered to a specified
destination was already unlawful. PO2
Pallayoc needed only to see for himself to 2. Seizure of evidence in plain view, the
whom those bags belonged. So, when he elements of which are:
saw accused-appellant carrying the bags,
PO2 Pallayoc was within his lawful duty to
make a warrantless arrest of accused- (a) a prior valid intrusion
appellant. based on the valid
warrantless arrest in
xxxx which the police are
legally present in the
Firstly, this Court opines that the pursuit of their official
invocation of Section 2, Article III of the duties;
Constitution is misplaced. At the time, when
PO2 Pallayoc looked into the contents of the
suspicious bags, there was no identified (b) the evidence was
owner. He asked the other passengers atop inadvertently discovered
the jeepney but no one knew who owned by the police who had the
the bags. Thus, there could be no violation
right to be where they are;
of the right when no one was entitled
thereto at that time.
(c) the evidence must be
Secondly, the facts of the case show the immediately apparent[;]
urgency of the situation. The local police has and;
been trying to intercept the transport of the
illegal drugs for more than a day, to no
avail. Thus, when PO2 Pallayoc was tipped (d) plain view justified
by the secret agent of the Barangay mere seizure of evidence
Intelligence Network, PO2 Pallayoc had no without further search.
other recourse than to verify as promptly as
 96
3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. A
regulated by the government, the vehicle's reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on probable
inherent mobility reduces expectation of cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the peace
officers making the arrest.[20]
privacy especially when its transit in public
thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable
suspicion amounting to probable cause that Over the years, the rules governing search and
the occupant committed a criminal activity; seizure have been steadily liberalized whenever a moving
vehicle is the object of the search on the basis of
practicality. This is so considering that before a warrant could
4. Consented warrantless search;
be obtained, the place, things and persons to be searched
must be described to the satisfaction of the issuing judge a
5. Customs search; requirement which borders on the impossible in instances
where moving vehicle is used to transport contraband from
6. Stop and Frisk; and one place to another with impunity.[21]

7. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances.[14] This exception is easy to understand. A search

warrant may readily be obtained when the search is made in a
store, dwelling house or other immobile structure. But it is
Both the trial court and the CA anchored their respective
impracticable to obtain a warrant when the search is
decisions on the fact that the search was conducted on a
conducted on a mobile ship, on an aircraft, or in other motor
moving vehicle to justify the validity of the search.
vehicles since they can quickly be moved out of the locality or
jurisdiction where the warrant must be sought.[22]
Indeed, the search of a moving vehicle is one of the
doctrinally accepted exceptions to the Constitutional mandate
Given the discussion above, it is readily apparent
that no search or seizure shall be made except by virtue of a
that the search in this case is valid. The vehicle that carried
warrant issued by a judge after personally determining the the contraband or prohibited drugs was about to leave. PO2
existence of probable cause.[15] Pallayoc had to make a quick decision and act fast. It would be
unreasonable to require him to procure a warrant before
conducting the search under the circumstances. Time was of
In People v. Bagista,[16] the Court said:
the essence in this case. The searching officer had no time to
obtain a warrant. Indeed, he only had enough time to board
The constitutional proscription
the vehicle before the same left for its destination.
against warrantless searches and seizures
admits of certain exceptions. Aside from a
It is well to remember that on October 26, 2005, the
search incident to a lawful arrest, a
night before appellants arrest, the police received information
warrantless search had been upheld in
that marijuana was to be transported from Barangay
cases of a moving vehicle, and the seizure
Balbalayang, and had set up a checkpoint around the area to
of evidence in plain view.
intercept the suspects. At dawn of October 27, 2005, PO2
Pallayoc met the secret agent from the Barangay Intelligence
With regard to the search of
Network, who informed him that a baggage of marijuana was
moving vehicles, this had been justified on
loaded on a passenger jeepney about to leave for
the ground that the mobility of motor
the poblacion. Thus, PO2 Pallayoc had probable cause to
vehicles makes it possible for the vehicle to
search the packages allegedly containing illegal drugs.
be searched to move out of the locality or
jurisdiction in which the warrant must be
This Court has also, time and again, upheld as valid a
sought.
warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest. Thus, Section
13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court provides:
This in no way, however, gives the
police officers unlimited discretion to
SEC. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest.A
conduct warrantless searches of
person lawfully arrested may be searched
automobiles in the absence of probable
for dangerous weapons or anything which
cause. When a vehicle is stopped and
may have been used or constitute proof in
subjected to an extensive search, such a
the commission of an offense without a
warrantless search has been held to be valid
search warrant.[23]
only as long as the officers conducting the
search have reasonable or probable cause
to believe before the search that they will For this rule to apply, it is imperative that there be a
find the instrumentality or evidence prior valid arrest. Although, generally, a warrant is necessary
pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle to be for a valid arrest, the Rules of Court provides the exceptions
searched. therefor, to wit:

It is well to remember that in the instances we have SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when
recognized as exceptions to the requirement of a judicial lawful.A peace officer or a private person
warrant, it is necessary that the officer effecting the arrest or may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
seizure must have been impelled to do so because of probable
cause. The essential requisite of probable cause must be
satisfied before a warrantless search and seizure can be (a) When, in his
lawfully conducted.[17] Without probable cause, the articles presence, the person to be
seized cannot be admitted in evidence against the person arrested has committed, is
arrested.[18]
actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an
Probable cause is defined as a reasonable ground of
suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in offense;
themselves to induce a cautious man to believe that the
person accused is guilty of the offense charged. It refers to (b) When an
the existence of such facts and circumstances that can lead a
offense has just been
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an
offense has been committed, and that the items, articles or committed and he has
objects sought in connection with said offense or subject to probable cause to believe
seizure and destruction by law are in the place to be based on personal
searched.[19] knowledge of facts or
circumstances that the
The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the person to be arrested has
absence of actual belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion
committed it; and
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
 97
(c) When the circumstances establish the purpose of an accused to
person to be arrested is a transport and the fact of transportation itself, there should be
prisoner who has escaped no question as to the perpetration of the criminal act. [31] The
fact that there is actual conveyance suffices to support a
from a penal
finding that the act of transporting was committed and it is
establishment or place immaterial whether or not the place of destination is reached.
where he is serving final [32]

judgment or is temporarily
confined while his case is Moreover, appellants possession of the packages
pending, or has escaped containing illegal drugs gave rise to the disputable
while being transferred presumption[33] that she is the owner of the packages and
their contents.[34] Appellant failed to rebut this presumption.
from one confinement to
Her uncorroborated claim of lack of knowledge that she had
another. prohibited drug in her possession is insufficient.

In cases falling under paragraphs Appellants narration of facts deserves little credence. If it is
(a) and (b) above, the person arrested true that Bennie Lao-ang merely asked her and her
without a warrant shall be forthwith companion to carry some baggages, it is but logical to first
delivered to the nearest police station or jail ask what the packages contained and where these would be
and shall be proceeded against in taken. Likewise, if, as appellant said, Lao-ang ran away after
accordance with section 7 of Rule 112.[24] they disembarked from the jeepney, appellant and her
companion should have ran after him to give him the bags he
Be that as it may, we have held that a search had left with them, and not to continue on their journey
substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the without knowing where they were taking the bags.
arrest if the police has probable cause to make the arrest at
the outset of the search.[25] Next, appellant argues that the prosecution failed to prove
the corpus delicti of the crime. In particular, she alleged that
Given that the search was valid, appellants arrest the apprehending police officers failed to follow the procedure
based on that search is also valid. in the custody of seized prohibited and regulated drugs,
instruments, apparatuses, and articles.
Article II, Section 5 of the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002 states: In all prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous
Drugs Act, the existence of all dangerous drugs is a sine qua
SEC. 5 Sale, Trading, Administration, non for conviction. The dangerous drug is the very corpus
Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and delicti of that crime.[35]
Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or
Controlled Precursors and Essential Thus, Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 prescribes the
Chemicals. The penalty of life imprisonment procedure for custody and disposition of seized dangerous
to death and a fine ranging from Five drugs, to wit:
hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to
Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be Section 21. Custody and Disposition of
imposed upon any person, who, unless Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered
authorized by law, shall sell, trade, Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of
administer, dispense, deliver, give away to Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and
another, distribute, dispatch in transit or Essential Chemicals,
transport any dangerous drug, including any Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or
and all species of opium poppy regardless of Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall take
the quantity and purity involved, or shall act charge and have custody of all dangerous
as a broker in any of such transactions. drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential
The penalty of imprisonment ranging from chemicals, as well as
twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
(20) years and a fine ranging from One equipment so confiscated, seized and/or
hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to surrendered, for proper disposition in the
Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) following manner:
shall be imposed upon any person who,
unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, (1) The apprehending
administer, dispense, deliver, give away to team having initial
another, distribute, dispatch in transit or custody and control of the
transport any controlled precursor and drugs shall, immediately
essential chemical, or shall act as a broker after seizure and
in such transactions. confiscation, physically
inventory and photograph
In her defense, appellant averred that the packages she was the same in the presence
carrying did not belong to her but to a neighbor who had of the accused or the
asked her to carry the same for him. This contention, person/s from whom such
however, is of no consequence. items were confiscated
and/or seized, or his/her
When an accused is charged with illegal possession representative or counsel,
or transportation of prohibited drugs, the ownership thereof is a representative from the
immaterial. Consequently, proof of ownership of the media and the
confiscated marijuana is not necessary.[26] Department of Justice
(DOJ), and any elected
Appellants alleged lack of knowledge does not public official who shall be
constitute a valid defense. Lack of criminal intent and good required to sign the copies
faith are not exempting circumstances where the crime of the inventory and be
charged is malum prohibitum, as in this case. [27] Mere given a copy thereof.
possession and/or delivery of a prohibited drug, without legal
authority, is punishable under the Dangerous Drugs Act. [28] The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No.
9165 further provides:
Anti-narcotics laws, like anti-gambling laws, are
regulatory statutes. They are rules of convenience designed to SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition
secure a more orderly regulation of the affairs of society, and of Confiscated, Seized and/or
their violation gives rise to crimes mala prohibita. Laws Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant
defining crimes mala prohibita condemn behavior directed not Sources of Dangerous Drugs,
against particular individuals, but against public order.[29] Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia
Jurisprudence defines transport as to carry or convey and/or Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA
from one place to another.[30] There is no definitive moment shall take charge and have custody of all
when an accused transports a prohibited drug. When the dangerous drugs, plant sources of
 98
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and Further, the actions of the police officers, in relation
essential chemicals, as well as to the procedural rules on the chain of custody, enjoyed
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
equipment so confiscated, seized and/or functions. Courts accord credence and full faith to the
surrendered, for proper disposition in the testimonies of police authorities, as they are presumed to be
following manner: performing their duties regularly, absent any convincing proof
to the contrary.[39]
(a) The apprehending
officer/team having initial custody In sum, the prosecution successfully established appellants
and control of the drugs shall, guilt. Thus, her conviction must be affirmed.
immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the appeal
and photograph the same in the is DISMISSED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-
presence of the accused or the G.R. CR-HC No. 02718 is AFFIRMED.
person/s from whom such items
were confiscated and/or seized, or SO ORDERED.
his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and
the Department of Justice (DOJ),
and any elected public official who SECOND DIVISION
shall be required to sign the copies
of the inventory and be given a PEOPLE OF THE G.R. No. 191366
copy thereof: Provided, that the
physical inventory and photograph PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
shall be conducted at the place Appellee,
where the search warrant is
Promulgated:
served; or at the nearest police
station or at the nearest office of
December 13, 2010
the apprehending officer/team,
- versus -
whichever is practicable, in case of
warrantless seizures; Provided,
further, that non-compliance with
these requirements under
justifiable grounds, as long as the ARNOLD MARTINEZ Y
integrity and the evidentiary value
of the seized items are properly ANGELES, EDGAR DIZON
preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void Y FERRER,
and invalid such seizures of and REZIN MARTINEZ
custody over said items.
Y CAROLINO, and
PO2 Pallayoc testified that after apprehending appellant, he RAFAEL
immediately brought her to the police station. At the station,
the police requested the Mayor to witness the opening of the GONZALES Y CUNANAN,
bags seized from appellant. When the Mayor arrived, he Accused-Appellants.
opened the bag in front of appellant and the other police
officers. The black bag yielded three bricks of marijuana DECISION
wrapped in newspaper, while the plastic bag yielded two
bundles of marijuana and two bricks of marijuana fruiting MENDOZA, J.:
tops.[36] PO2 Pallayoc identified the bricks. He and PO3 Stanley
Campit then marked the same. Then the seized items were This is an appeal from the August 7, 2009 Decision[1] of the
brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. HC-NO. 03269, which
affirmed the February 13, 2008 Decision [2] of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 41, Dagupan City (RTC), in Criminal Case No.
2006-0525-D, finding the accused guilty of violating Section
It is admitted that there were no photographs taken of the 13, in relation to Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165
drugs seized, that appellant was not accompanied by counsel, for Possession of Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social
and that no representative from the media and the DOJ were Gatherings or Meetings.
present. However, this Court has already previously held that
non-compliance with Section 21 is not fatal and will not render The Facts
an accuseds arrest illegal, or make the items seized
inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation The Information indicting the accused reads:
of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.[37]
That on or about the 2nd day of
Based on the testimony of PO2 Pallayoc, after September 2006, in the City of Dagupan,
appellants arrest, she was immediately brought to the police Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
station where she stayed while waiting for the Mayor. It was Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
the Mayor who opened the packages, revealing the illegal ARNOLD MARTINEZ y ANGELES, EDGAR
drugs, which were thereafter marked and sent to the police DIZON y FERRER, REZIN MARTINEZ y
crime laboratory the following day. Contrary to appellants CAROLINO, ROLAND DORIA y DIAZ and
claim, the prosecutions evidence establishes the chain RAFAEL GONZALES y CUNANAN, without
of custody from the time of authority of law, confederating together,
acting jointly and helping one another, did
appellants arrest until the prohibited drugs were tested at the then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
police crime laboratory. criminally, sniff and possess dangerous
drugs (shabu residues) contained in empty
While it is true that the arresting officer failed to plastic sachets and rolled aluminum foil,
state explicitly the justifiable ground for non-compliance with during a party, or at a social gathering or
Section 21, this does not necessarily mean that appellants meeting, or in the proximate company of at
arrest was illegal or that the items seized are inadmissible. least two (2) person[s].
The justifiable ground will remain unknown because appellant
did not question the custody and disposition of the items Contrary to Section 13, Article II, R.A. 9165.
taken from her during the trial. [38] Even assuming that the [3]

police officers failed to abide by Section 21, appellant should

have raised this issue before the trial court. She could have Version of the Prosecution
moved for the quashal of the information at the first instance.
But she did not. Hence, she is deemed to have waived any As culled from the testimonies of prosecution
objection on the matter. witnesses, Police Officer 1 Bernard Azardon (PO1 Azardon),
one of the apprehending officers, and Police Inspector Lady
Ellen Maranion (P/Insp. Maranion), the forensic chemical
 99
officer, it appears that on September 2, 2006, at around 12:45 The CA ruled that there was sufficient evidence to
oclock in the afternoon, PO1 Azardon was on duty at the Police support the findings of the RTC as to the constructive
Community Precinct II along Arellano Street, Dagupan City, possession of the dangerous drugs by the accused.It further
when a concerned citizen entered the precinct and reported held that although the procedure regarding the custody and
that a pot session was going on in the house of accused disposition of evidence prescribed by Section 21 of R.A. No.
Rafael Gonzales (Gonzales) in Trinidad Subdivision, Dagupan 9165 was not strictly complied with, the integrity and
City. Upon receipt of the report, PO1 Azardon, PO1 Alejandro evidentiary value of the evidence were nonetheless
Dela Cruz (PO1 Dela Cruz), and members of the Special safeguarded. The CA was of the view that the presumption of
Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team hied to Trinidad regularity in the performance of official duty was not
Subdivision, DagupanCity. Upon inquiry from people in the sufficiently controverted by the accused.
area, the house of Gonzales was located.
Not in conformity, the accused now interposes this
As the police officers entered the gate of the house, appeal before this Court praying for the reversal of the subject
they saw accused Orlando Doria (Doria) coming out of the decision, presenting the following
side door and immediately arrested him.Inside the house,
they saw accused Gonzales, Arnold Martinez (A. Martinez), Assignment of Errors
Edgar Dizon (Dizon), and Rezin Martinez (R. Martinez) in a
room. The four were surprised by the presence of the For accused Arnold Martinez, Edgar Dizon and Rezin
police. In front of them were open plastic sachets (containing Martinez
shabu residue), pieces of rolled used aluminum foil and pieces
of used aluminum foil. 1. The lower court erred in finding
the accused-appellants
The accused were arrested and brought to the police
precinct. The items found in the room were seized and turned to be having a pot session at the time
over to the Pangasinan Provincial Police Crime Laboratory of their arrest;
Officer, P/Insp. Maranion. The latter conducted a laboratory
examination on the seized items and all 115 plastic sachets, 2. The lower court erred in not
11 pieces of rolled used aluminum foil, and 27 of the 49 seeing through the antics of the
pieces of used aluminum foil tested positive for police to plant the shabu
methamphetamine hydrochloride. The accused were paraphernalia to justify the arrest
subjected to a drug test and, except for Doria, they were of the accused-appellants without
found to be positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. warrant;

Version of the Defense 3. The lower court erred in not

finding that the corpus delicti has
The defense, through its witnesses, accused A. Martinez, not been sufficiently established;
Dizon, and R. Martinez, claimed that in the morning of
September 2, 2006, the three of them were along Arellano 4. The lower court erred in not
Street in Trinidad Subdivision, Dagupan City, to meet with a finding the uncorroborated
certain Apper who bumped the passenger jeep of R. Martinez testimony of PO1 Azardon
and who was to give the materials for the painting of said insufficient to convict the accused-
jeep. As they were going around the subdivision looking for appellants of the crime charged;
Apper, they saw Gonzales in front of his house and asked him
if he noticed a person pass by. While they were talking, Doria 5. The lower court erred in not
arrived. It was then that five to seven policemen emerged and acquitting the accused-appellants.
apprehended them. They were handcuffed and brought to the
police station in Perez, Dagupan City, where they were For accused Rafael Gonzales
incarcerated and charged with sniffing shabu.
I
The Ruling of the RTC
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
The case against Doria was dismissed on a demurrer CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
to evidence. DESPITE THE PROSECUTIONS FAILURE
TO OVERTHROW THE CONSTITUTIONAL
On February 13, 2008, the RTC rendered its decision, the PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE.
dispositve portion of which reads:
II
WHEREFORE, premises considered,
judgment is hereby rendered finding THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
accused ARNOLD MARTINEZ y Angeles, CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
EDGAR DIZON y Ferrer, REZIN MARTINEZ y DESPITE THE PROSECUTIONS FAILURE
Carolino, and RAFAEL GONZALES y Cunanan TO ESTABLISH THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the OF THE ALLEGED CONFISCATED DRUG.
crime of Possession of Dangerous Drugs
During Parties, Social Gatherings or
After an assiduous assessment of the evidentiary
Meetings defined and penalized under
records, the Court finds that the prosecution failed to prove
Section 13 in relation to Section 11, Article II
the guilt of the accused. The principal reasons are 1] that the
of Republic Act 9165, and each of them is
evidence against the accused are inadmissible; and 2] that
sentenced to suffer the penalty of life
granting the same to be admissible, the chain of custody has
imprisonment and to pay the fine in the
not been duly established.
amount of P500,000.00, and to pay the cost
of suit.
Illegal Arrest, Search and Seizure
The subject items are hereby
Indeed, the accused is estopped from assailing the
forfeited in favor of the government and to
legality of his arrest if he fails to raise such issue before
be disposed of in accordance with the law.
arraignment.[5] However, this waiver is limited only to the
arrest. The legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of
SO ORDERED.[4]
the court over the person of the accused. A waiver of an
illegal warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the
The RTC was of the view that the positive testimony inadmissibility of evidence seized during the illegal
of prosecution witness PO1 Azardon, without any showing of warrantless arrest.[6]
ill-motive on his part, prevailed over the defenses of denial
and alibi put up by the accused. The accused were held to
Although the admissibility of the evidence was not raised as in
have been in constructive possession of the subject items. A
issue by the accused, it has been held that this Court has the
conspiracy was also found present as there was a common
power to correct any error, even if unassigned, if such is
purpose to possess the dangerous drug.
necessary in arriving at a just decision, [7] especially when the
transcendental matter of life and liberty is at stake. [8] While it
The Ruling of the CA is true that rules of procedure are intended to promote rather
than frustrate the ends of justice, they nevertheless must not
 100
be met at the expense of substantial justice. Time and again, A review of the facts reveal that the arrest of the
this Court has reiterated the doctrine that the rules of accused was illegal and the subject items were confiscated as
procedure are mere tools intended to facilitate the attainment an incident thereof. According to the testimony of PO1
of justice, rather than frustrate it. Technicalities should never Azardon and his Joint Affidavit [13] with PO1 Dela Cruz, they
be used to defeat substantive rights.[9] Thus, despite the proceeded to, and entered, the house of accused Gonzales
procedural lapses of the accused, this Court shall rule on the based solely on the report of a concerned citizen that a pot
admissibility of the evidence in the case at bench. The clear session was going on in said house, to wit:
infringement of the accuseds right to be protected against
unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be ignored. Q: I go back to the information referred to
you by the informant, did he not
The State cannot, in a manner contrary to its tell you how many persons were
constitutional guarantee, intrude into the persons of its actually conducting the pot
citizens as well as into their houses, papers and effects. session?
[10]
Sec. 2, Art. III, of the 1987 Constitution provides:
A: Yes, sir.
Section 2. - The right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and Q: When you went to the place of Rafael
effects against unreasonable searches and Gonzales, of course you were not
seizures of whatever nature and for any armed with a search warrant,
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search correct?
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
except upon probable cause to be A: None, sir.
determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the Q: Before the information was given to you
complainant and the witnesses he may by your alleged informant, you did
produce, and particularly describing the not know personally Rafael
place to be searched and the persons or Gonzales?
things to be seized.
A: I have not met [him] yet but I heard his
This constitutional guarantee, however, is not a name, sir.
blanket prohibition against all searches and seizures without
warrant. Arrests and seizures in the following instances are Q: When this informant told you that he was
allowed even in the absence of a warrant (i) warrantless told that there was [an] ongoing
search incidental to a lawful arrest; [11] (ii) search of evidence pot session in the house of Rafael
in "plain view;" (iii) search of a moving vehicle; (iv) consented Gonzales, was this report to you
warrantless search; (v) customs search; (vi) stop and frisk; placed in the police blotter before
and (vii) exigent and emergency circumstances. [12] you proceeded to the house of
Rafael Gonzales?
This case would appear to fall under either a
warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest or a plain view A: I think it was no longer recorded, sir.
search, both of which require a lawful arrest in order to be
considered valid exceptions to the constitutional guarantee. Q: In other words, you did not even bother
Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides to get the personal data or identity
for the circumstances under which a warrantless arrest is of the person who told you that he
lawful. Thus: was allegedly informed that there
was an ongoing pot session in the
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; house of Rafael Gonzales?
when lawful. A peace officer or a private
person may, without a warrant, arrest a A: What I know is that he is a jeepney driver
person: of a downtown jeepney but he does
not want to be identified because
(a) When, in his presence, he was afraid, sir.
the person to be
arrested has Q: And likewise, he did not inform you who
committed, is actually told him that there was an ongoing
committing, or is pot session in the house of Rafael
attempting to commit Gonzales?
an offense;
A: No more, sir.
(b) When an offense has
just been committed Q: But upon receiving such report from that
and he has probable jeepney driver you immediately
cause to believe based formed a group and went to the
on personal knowledge place of Rafael Gonzales?
of facts or
circumstances that the
A: Yes, sir.
person to be arrested
has committed it; and
xxx
(c) When the person to be
arrested is a prisoner
who has escaped from
a penal establishment Q: When you were at the open gate of the
or place where he is premises of Rafael Gonzales, you
serving final judgment could not see what is happening
or is temporarily inside the house of Rafael
confined while his case Gonzales?
is pending, or has
escaped while being A: Yes, sir.
transferred from one
confinement to Q: You did not also see the alleged
another. paraphernalia as well as the
plastic sachet of shabu on the
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) table while you were outside the
above, the person arrested without a premises of the property of Rafael
warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the Gonzales?
nearest police station or jail and shall be
proceeded against in accordance with xxx
section 7 of Rule 112.
 101
Q: Before they entered the premises they On the contrary, it indicates that
could not see the paraphernalia? the apprehending officers should have
conducted first a surveillance considering
COURT: Answer. that the identities and address of the
suspected culprits were already ascertained.
A: Of course because they were inside the After conducting the surveillance and
room, how could we see them, sir. determining the existence of probable cause
for arresting accused-appellants, they
Q: But still you entered the premises, only should have secured a search warrant prior
because a certain person who told to effecting a valid arrest and seizure. The
you that he was informed by arrest being illegal ab initio, the
another person that there was an accompanying search was likewise illegal.
ongoing pot session going on Every evidence thus obtained during the
inside the house of Rafael illegal search cannot be used against
Gonzales? accused-appellants; hence, their acquittal
must follow in faithful obeisance to the
A: Yes, sir. fundamental law.[19]

Q: And that is the only reason why you It has been held that personal knowledge of facts in
barged in inside the house of arrests without warrant must be based upon probable cause,
Rafael Gonzales and you arrested which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of
the persons you saw? suspicion. The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when the
suspicion, that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of
A: Yes, sir.[14] committing an offense, is based on actual facts, that is,
supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves
Paragraph (c) of Rule 113 is clearly inapplicable to to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be
this case. Paragraphs (a) and (b), on the other hand, may be arrested. [20]
applicable and both require probable cause to be present in
order for a warrantless arrest to be valid. Probable cause has As to paragraph (a) of Section 5 of Rule 113, the
been held to signify a reasonable ground of suspicion arresting officers had no personal knowledge that at the time
supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves of the arrest, accused had just committed, were committing,
to warrant a cautious mans belief that the person accused is or were about to commit a crime, as they had no probable
guilty of the offense with which he is charged.[15] cause to enter the house of accused Rafael Gonzales in order
to arrest them. As to paragraph (b), the arresting officers had
Although this Court has ruled in several dangerous no personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that would
drugs cases[16] that tipped information is sufficient probable lead them to believe that the accused had just committed an
cause to effect a warrantless search,[17]such rulings cannot be offense. As admitted in the testimony of PO1 Azardon, the tip
applied in the case at bench because said cases involve either originated from a concerned citizen who himself had no
a buy-bust operation or drugs in transit, basically, personal knowledge of the information that was reported to
circumstances other than the sole tip of an informer as basis the police:
for the arrest. None of these drug cases involve police officers
entering a house without warrant to effect arrest and seizure Q: Mr. Witness, you claimed that the reason
based solely on an informers tip. The case of People v. for apprehending all the accused
Bolasa[18] is informative on this matter. was based on a tip-off by an
informant?
In People v. Bolasa, an anonymous caller tipped off
the police that a man and a woman were repacking prohibited A: Yes, sir.
drugs at a certain house. The police immediately proceeded
to the house of the suspects. They walked towards the house Q: What exactly [did] that informant tell
accompanied by their informer. When they reached the house, you?
they peeped inside through a small window and saw a man
and woman repacking marijuana. They then entered the A: He told us that somebody told him that
house, introduced themselves as police officers, confiscated there was an ongoing pot session in
the drug paraphernalia, and arrested the suspects. This Court the house of one of the accused
ruled: Rafael Gonzales, sir.

The manner by which accused- Q: You mean to say that it was not the
appellants were apprehended does not fall informant himself to whom the
under any of the above-enumerated information originated but from
categories. Perforce, their arrest is illegal. somebody else?
First, the arresting officers had no personal
knowledge that at the time of their arrest, A: That was what he told me, sir.
accused-appellants had just committed,
were committing, or were about to commit a Q: Because of that you proceeded to where
crime. Second, the arresting officers had no the alleged pot session was going
personal knowledge that a crime was on? [No Answer]
committed nor did they have any
reasonable ground to believe that accused- Q: Did you[r] informant particularly
appellants committed it. Third, accused- pinpointed [sic] to where the
appellants were not prisoners who have alleged pot session was going on?
escaped from a penal establishment.
A: No more because he did not go with us,
Neither can it be said that the sir.
objects were seized in plain view. First, there
was no valid intrusion. As already discussed, Q: So you merely relied on what he said that
accused-appellants were illegally arrested. something or a pot session was
Second, the evidence, i.e., the tea bags going on somewhere in Arellano
later on found to contain marijuana, was not but you dont know the exact place
inadvertently discovered. The police officers where the pot session was going
intentionally peeped first through the on?
window before they saw and ascertained the
activities of accused-appellants inside the A: Yes, sir.
room. In like manner, the search cannot be
categorized as a search of a moving vehicle, Q: And your informant has no personal
a consented warrantless search, a customs knowledge as to the veracity of
search, or a stop and frisk; it cannot even the alleged pot session because he
fall under exigent and emergency claimed that he derived that
circumstances, for the evidence at hand is information from somebody else?
bereft of any such showing.
 102
A: This is what he told us that somebody the confiscated items conducted at the crime scene, no
told him that there was an ongoing photograph of the items taken, no compliance with the rule
pot session, sir. requiring the accused to sign the inventory and to give them
copies thereof, and no showing of how the items were handled
Q: Despite of [sic] that information you from the time of confiscation up to the time of submission to
proceeded to where? the crime laboratory for testing. Therefore, the corpus
delicti was not proven, thereby producing reasonable doubt as
A: Trinidad Subdivision, sir. to their guilt. Thus, they assert that the presumption of
innocence in their favor was not overcome by the
xxx presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty.

Q: Mr. Witness, did your informant named The essential requisites to establish illegal possession of
[sic] those included in the alleged dangerous drugs are: (i) the accused was in possession of the
pot session? dangerous drug, (ii) such possession is not authorized by law,
and (iii) the accused freely and consciously possessed the
A: No, sir. dangerous drug.[25] Additionally, this being a case for violation
of Section 13 of R.A. No. 9165, an additional element of the
Q: That was, because your informant dont crime is (iv) the possession of the dangerous drug must have
[sic] know physically what was occurred during a party, or at a social gathering or meeting,
really happening there? or in the proximate company of at least two (2) persons.

A: He was told by another person that there The existence of the drug is the very corpus delicti of
was an ongoing pot session there, the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and, thus, a
sir.[21] [Emphasis supplied] condition sine qua non for conviction. In order to establish the
existence of the drug, its chain of custody must be sufficiently
Neither can it be said that the subject items were established. The chain of custody requirement is essential
seized in plain view. The elements of plainview are: (a) a prior to ensure that doubts regarding the identity of the evidence
valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which are removed through the monitoring and tracking of the
the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official movements of the seized drugs from the accused, to the
duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police, to the forensic chemist, and finally to the court.
[26]
police who have the right to be where they are; (c) the Malillin v. People was the first in a growing number of cases
evidence must be immediately apparent; and, (d) "plain view" to explain the importance of chain of custody in dangerous
justified mere seizure of evidence without further search. [22] drugs cases, to wit:

The evidence was not inadvertently discovered as As a method of authenticating

the police officers intentionally entered the house with no evidence, the chain of custody rule requires
prior surveillance or investigation before they discovered the that the admission of an exhibit be
accused with the subject items. If the prior peeking of the preceded by evidence sufficient to support a
police officers in Bolasa was held to be insufficient to finding that the matter in question is what
constitute plain view, then more so should the warrantless the proponent claims it to be. It would
search in this case be struck down. Neither can the search be include testimony about every link in the
considered as a search of a moving vehicle, a consented chain, from the moment the item was
warrantless search, a customs search, a stop and frisk, or one picked up to the time it is offered into
under exigent and emergency circumstances. evidence, in such a way that every person
who touched the exhibit would describe how
and from whom it was received, where it
The apprehending officers should have first
was and what happened to it while in the
conducted a surveillance considering that the identity and
witness' possession, the condition in which
address of one of the accused were already ascertained. After
it was received and the condition in which it
conducting the surveillance and determining the existence of
was delivered to the next link in the chain.
probable cause, then a search warrant should have been
These witnesses would then describe the
secured prior to effecting arrest and seizure. The arrest being
precautions taken to ensure that there had
illegal, the ensuing search as a result thereof is likewise
been no change in the condition of the item
illegal. Evidence procured on the occasion of an unreasonable
and no opportunity for someone not in the
search and seizure is deemed tainted for being the proverbial
chain to have possession of the same.[27]
fruit of a poisonous tree and should be excluded. [23] The
subject items seized during the illegal arrest are thus
inadmissible. The drug, being the very corpus delicti of the Section 1(b) of DDB Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002,
[28]
crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, its defines chain of custody as follows:
inadmissibility thus precludes conviction, and calls for the
acquittal of the accused. b. Chain of Custody means the duly
recorded authorized movements and custody
As has been noted previously by this Court, some of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or
lawmen, prosecutors and judges have glossed over illegal plant sources of dangerous drugs or
searches and seizures in cases where law enforcers are able laboratory equipment of each stage, from the
to present the alleged evidence of the crime, regardless of the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the
methods by which they were obtained. This attitude tramples forensic laboratory to safekeeping to
on constitutionally-guaranteed rights in the name of law presentation in court for destruction. Such
enforcement. It is ironic that such enforcement of the law record of movements and custody of seized
fosters the breakdown of our system of justice and the item shall include the identity and signature
eventual denigration of society. While this Court appreciates of the person who held temporary custody of
and encourages the efforts of law enforcers to uphold the law the seized item, the date and time when
and to preserve the peace and security of society, we such transfer of custody were made in the
nevertheless admonish them to act with deliberate care and course of safekeeping and used in court as
within the parameters set by the Constitution and the law. [24] evidence, and the final disposition;

Chain of Custody Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165,

provides for safeguards for the protection of the identity and
integrity of dangerous drugs seized, to wit:
Even granting that the seized items are admissible as
evidence, the acquittal of the accused would still be in order
for failure of the apprehending officers to comply with the SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of
chain of custody requirement in dangerous drugs cases. Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered
Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of
Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and
The accused contend that the identity of the seized
Essential Chemicals,
drug was not established with moral certainty as the chain of
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or
custody appears to be questionable, the authorities having
Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall take
failed to comply with Sections 21 and 86 of R.A. No. 9165, and
charge and have custody of all dangerous
Dangerous Drug Board (DDB) Resolution No. 03, Series of
drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs
1979, as amended by Board Regulation No. 2, Series of 1990.
controlled precursors and essential
They argue that there was no prior coordination with the
chemicals, as well as
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), no inventory of
 103
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory office of the apprehending officer/team,
equipment so confiscated, seized and/or whichever is practicable, in case of
surrendered, for proper disposition in the warrantless seizures;Provided, further that
following manner: non-compliance with these
requirements under justifiable grounds,
(1) The apprehending team having initial as long as the integrity and the
custody and control of the drugs shall, evidentiary value of the seized items
immediately after seizure and confiscation, are properly preserved by the
physically inventory and photograph the apprehending officer/team, shall not
same in the presence of the accused or the render void and invalid such seizures of
person/s from whom such items were and custody over said items. [Emphasis
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her supplied]
representative or counsel, a representative
from the media and the Department of Accordingly, non-compliance with the prescribed procedural
Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official requirements will not necessarily render the seizure and
who shall be required to sign the copies of custody of the items void and invalid, provided that (i) there is
the inventory and be given a copy thereof. a justifiable ground for such non-compliance, and (ii) the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
People v. Habana thoroughly discusses the proper properly preserved. In this case, however, no justifiable
procedure for the custody of seized or confiscated items in ground is found availing, and it is apparent that there was a
dangerous drugs cases in order to ensure their identity and failure to properly preserve the integrity and evidentiary value
integrity, as follows: of the seized items to ensure the identity of the corpus
delicti from the time of seizure to the time of presentation in
Usually, the police officer who court. A review of the testimonies of the prosecution
seizes the suspected substance turns it over witnesses and the documentary records of the case reveals
to a supervising officer, who would then irreparably broken links in the chain of custody.
send it by courier to the police crime
laboratory for testing. Since it is According to the apprehending police officers in their Joint
unavoidable that possession of the Affidavit, the following were confiscated from the accused, to
substance changes hand a number of times, wit:
it is imperative for the officer who seized the
substance from the suspect to place his a) Several pcs of used empty plastic
marking on its plastic container and seal the sachets containing suspected shabu
same, preferably with adhesive tape that residues.
cannot be removed without leaving a tear
on the plastic container. At the trial, the b) Eight used (8) disposable lighters ( two
officer can then identify the seized (2) pcs colored orange, two (2) pcs
substance and the procedure he observed to colored yellow, one (1) pc colored green
preserve its integrity until it reaches the & one (1) pc colored white ).
crime laboratory.
c) Several pcs of used rolled aluminum
If the substance is not in a plastic foil containing suspected shabu
container, the officer should put it in one residues.
and seal the same. In this way the
substance would assuredly reach the d) Several pcs of used cut aluminum foil
laboratory in the same condition it was containing suspected shabu residues.
seized from the accused. Further, after the
laboratory technician tests and verifies the e) One (1) pc glass tube containing suspected
nature of the substance in the container, he shabu residues.[30]
should put his own mark on the plastic
container and seal it again with a new seal [Emphases supplied]
since the police officers seal has been
broken. At the trial, the technician can then At the police station, the case, the accused, and the
describe the sealed condition of the plastic above-mentioned items were indorsed to Duty Investigator
container when it was handed to him and Senior Police Officer 1 Pedro Urbano, Jr. (SPO1 Urbano) for
testify on the procedure he took afterwards proper disposition.[31] A letter-request for laboratory
to preserve its integrity. examination was prepared by Police Superintendent Edgar
Orduna Basbag for the following items:
If the sealing of the seized
substance has not been made, the a) Pieces of used empty small plastic
prosecution would have to present every sachets with suspected shabu residues
police officer, messenger, laboratory marked DC&A-1.
technician, and storage personnel, the
entire chain of custody, no matter how b) Pieces of used rolled and cut
briefly ones possession has been. Each of aluminum foil with suspected shabu
them has to testify that the substance, residues marked DC&A-2.
although unsealed, has not been tampered
with or substituted while in his care.[29]
c) Pieces of used cut aluminum foil with
suspected shabu residues
Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and marked DC&A-3.[32]
Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 further elaborates, and
provides for, the possibility of non-compliance with the
[Emphases supplied]
prescribed procedure:
The letter-request and above-mentioned items were
(a) The apprehending officer/team having
submitted to P/Insp. Maranion by SPO3 Froilan Esteban (SPO3
initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
Esteban). Final Chemistry Report No. D-042-06L listed the
immediately after seizure and confiscation,
specimens which were submitted for testing, to wit:
physically inventory andphotograph the
same in the presence of the accused or the
SPECIMENS SUBMITTED:
person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative A A1 to A115 One Hundred fifteen
from the media and the Department of (115) open transparent plastic sachet with
Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official tag each containing suspected shabu
who shall be required to sign the copies of residue without markings.
the inventory and be given a copy
thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory B B1 to B11 Eleven (11) rolled used
and photograph shall be conducted at the aluminum foil with tag each containing
place where the search warrant is served; or suspected shabu residue without
at the nearest police station or at the nearest markings.
 104
C C1 to C49 Forty-nine (49) used First, the apprehending team failed to comply with Section 21
aluminum foil with tag each containing of R.A. No. 9165. After seizure and confiscation of the subject
suspected shabu residue without items, no physical inventory was conducted in the presence of
markings.[33] the accused, or their representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected
[Emphases supplied] public official. Thus, no inventory was prepared, signed, and
provided to the accused in the manner required by law. PO1
Three days after the subject items were seized, or Azardon, in his testimony,[36] admitted that no photographs
on September 5, 2006, a Confiscation Receipt was issued by were taken. The only discernable reason proffered by him for
PO1 Azardon and PO1 Dela Cruz, which reads: the failure to comply with the prescribed procedure was that
the situation happened so suddenly.Thus:
DCPS AID SOTG 05 September 2006
Q: But upon receiving such report from that
CONFISCATION RECEIPT jeepney driver you immediately
formed a group and went to the
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: place of Rafael Gonzales?

THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on or A: Yes, sir.

about 12:45 noon of September 4,
2006, we together with our precinct Q: Such that you did not even inform the
supervisor, SPO4 Pedro Belen Jr., and SWAT PDEA before you barged in that
members composed of SPO1 Marlon place of Rafael Gonzales?
Decano, PO3 Manuel Garcia, PO2 Adriano
Cepiroto and PO1 Aldrin Guarin A: It was so suddenly, [sic] sir.
apprehended the following names of
persons of ARNOLD MARTINEZ Y ANGELES, Q: And that explains the reason why you
37 yrs old, married, jobless, a resident of were not able to have pictures
Lucao Dist., this city; EDGAR DIZON Y taken, is that correct?
FERRER, 36 yrs old, single, tricycle driver, a
resident of 471 Lucao Dist., this city. REZIN A: Yes, sir.[37]
MARTINEZ Y CAROLINO, 44 yrs old, married,
jitney driver, a resident of Lucao Disttrict [Emphasis supplied]
this city; ROLAND DORIA Y DIAZ, 39 yrs old,
married, businessman, resident of The Court does not find such to be a justifiable
Cabeldatan, Malasiqui, Pangasinan and ground to excuse non-compliance. The suddenness of the
RAFAEL GONZALES Y CUNANAN, 49 yrs old, situation cannot justify non-compliance with the requirements.
separated, jobless and a resident of Trinidad The police officers were not prevented from preparing an
Subd., Arellano-Bani this city. inventory and taking photographs. In fact, Section 21(a) of the
IRR of R.A. No. 9165 provides specifically that in case of
Suspects were duly informed of warrantless seizures, the inventory and photographs shall be
their constitutional rights and were brought done at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of
to Dagupan City Police the apprehending officer/team. Whatever effect the
Station, Perez Market Site Dagupan City and suddenness of the situation may have had should have
indorsed to Duty Desk Officer to record the dissipated by the time they reached the police station, as the
incident and the sachet of suspected suspects had already been arrested and the items
Shabu Paraphernalias were brought to seized. Moreover, it has been held that in case of warrantless
PNP Crime Laboratory, Lingayen, seizures nothing prevents the apprehending officer from
Pangasinan for Laboratory Examination. immediately conducting the physical inventory and
photography of the items at their place of seizure, as it is
Seizing Officer: more in keeping with the laws intent to preserve their
integrity and evidentiary value.[38]
(sgd.) (sgd.)
This Court has repeatedly reversed conviction in drug cases
PO1 Bernard B Azardon PO1 Alejandro Dela Cruz for failure to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165,
resulting in the failure to properly preserve the integrity and
Affiant Affiant evidentiary value of the seized items. Some cases are People
v. Garcia,[39] People v. Dela Cruz,[40] People v. Dela Cruz,
[41]
Remarks: People v. Santos, Jr.,[42] People v. Nazareno,[43] People v.
Orteza,[44] Zarraga v. People,[45] and People v. Kimura.[46]
Refused to Signed
Second, the subject items were not properly marked.
Refused to Signed The case of People v. Sanchez is instructive on the
requirement of marking, to wit:
Refused to Signed
What Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165
Refused to Signed and its implementing rule do not expressly
specify is the matter of "marking" of the
Refused to Signed[34] seized items in warrantless seizures to
ensure that the evidence seized upon
apprehension is the same evidence
[Emphases supplied]
subjected to inventory and photography
when these activities are undertaken at the
The 115 open transparent plastic sachets, 11 pieces of rolled
police station rather than at the place of
used aluminum foil, and 27 (of the 49) pieces of used
arrest. Consistency with the "chain of
aluminum foil, all containing shabu residue, as identified in
custody" rule requires that the "marking" of
the Final Chemistry Report, were presented in court and
the seized items - to truly ensure that they
marked as Exhibits H and series, I and series, and J and series,
are the same items that enter the chain and
respectively. Said items were identified by PO1 Azardon and
are eventually the ones offered in evidence -
P/Insp. Maranion at the witness stand.[35]
should be done (1) in the presence of the
apprehended violator (2) immediately
The CA ruled that the integrity and evidentiary value of the upon confiscation. This step initiates the
subject items were properly preserved as there was sufficient process of protecting innocent persons from
evidence to prove that the items seized from the accused dubious and concocted searches, and of
were the same ones forwarded to the crime laboratory for protecting as well the apprehending officers
examination, as shown in the Confiscation Receipt and the from harassment suits based on planting of
letter-request for laboratory examination. evidence under Section 29 and on
allegations of robbery or theft.
A review of the chain of custody indicates, however,
that the CA is mistaken. For greater specificity, "marking"
means the placing by the apprehending
 105
officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials confiscated from the accused. Interestingly, no glass tube was
and signature on the item/s seized. x x x submitted for laboratory examination.
Thereafter, the seized items shall be placed
in an envelope or an evidence bag unless In sum, numerous lapses and irregularities in the
the type and quantity of the seized items chain of custody belie the prosecutions position that the
require a different type of handling and/or integrity and evidentiary value of the subject items were
container. The evidence bag or container properly preserved. The two documents specifically relied on
shall accordingly be signed by the handling by the CA, the Confiscation Receipt and the letter-request for
officer and turned over to the next officer in laboratory examination, have been shown to be grossly
the chain of custody. [47] [Emphasis in the insufficient in proving the identity of the corpus delicti.
original] The corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the
drug itself. This means that proof beyond reasonable doubt of
Nowhere in the testimony of PO1 Azardon or in his the identity of the prohibited drug is essential before the
Joint Affidavit with PO1 Dela Cruz does it appear that the accused can be found guilty.[64]
subject items were at all marked. It was only in the letter-
request for laboratory examination that the subject items Regarding the lack of prior coordination with the
were indicated to have been marked with DC&A-1, DC&A-2 PDEA provided in Section 86 of R.A. No. 9165, in People v. Sta.
and DC&A-3. There is no showing, however, as to who made Maria,[65] this Court held that said section was silent as to the
those markings and when they were made. Moreover, those consequences of such failure, and said silence could not be
purported markings were never mentioned when the subject interpreted as a legislative intent to make an arrest without
items were identified by the prosecution witnesses when they the participation of PDEA illegal, nor evidence obtained
took the stand. pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible. Section 86 is explicit
only in saying that the PDEA shall be the lead agency in the
The markings appear to pertain to a group of items, investigation and prosecution of drug-related cases.
that is, empty plastic sachets, rolled and cut aluminium foil, Therefore, other law enforcement bodies still possess
and cut aluminium foil, but do not specifically pertain to any authority to perform similar functions as the PDEA as long as
individual item in each group. Furthermore, it was only in the illegal drugs cases will eventually be transferred to the latter.
Chemistry Report[48] that the precise number of each type of
item was indicated and enumerated. The Court notes that in Let it be stressed that non-compliance with Section
all documents prior to said report, the subject items were 21 of R.A. No. 9165 does not affect the admissibility of the
never accurately quantified but only described as pieces, evidence but only its weight.[66] Thus, had the subject items in
[49]
several pcs,[50] and shabu paraphernallas.[51] Strangely, the this case been admissible, their evidentiary merit and
Chemistry Report indicates that all the subject items had no probative value would be insufficient to warrant conviction.
markings, although each item was reported to have been
marked by P/Insp. Maranion in the course of processing the It may be true that where no ill motive can be
subject items during laboratory examination and testing. attributed to the police officers, the presumption of regularity
[52]
Doubt, therefore, arises as to the identity of the subject in the performance of official duty should prevail. However,
items. It cannot be determined with moral certainty that the such presumption obtains only when there is no deviation
subject items seized from the accused were the same ones from the regular performance of duty. [67] Where the official act
subjected to the laboratory examination and presented in in question is irregular on its face, the presumption of
court. regularity cannot stand.

This Court has acquitted the accused for the failure In this case, the official acts of the law enforcers
and irregularity in the marking of seized items in dangerous were clearly shown and proven to be irregular. When
drugs cases, such as Zarraga v. People,[53]People v. Kimura, challenged by the evidence of a flawed chain of custody, the
[54]
and People v. Laxa.[55] presumption of regularity cannot prevail over the presumption
of innocence of the accused.[68]
Third, the Confiscation Receipt relied upon by the prosecution
and the courts below gives rise to more uncertainty. Instead of This Court once again takes note of the growing
being prepared on the day of the seizure of the items, it was number of acquittals for dangerous drugs cases due to
prepared only three days after. More important, the receipt did the failure of law enforcers to observe the proper arrest,
not even indicate exactly what items were confiscated and search and seizure procedure under the law. [69] Some bona
their quantity. These are basic information that a confiscation fide arrests and seizures in dangerous drugs cases result in
receipt should provide. The only information contained in the the acquittal of the accused because drug enforcement
Confiscation Receipt was the fact of arrest of the accused and operatives compromise the integrity and evidentiary worth of
the general description of the subject items as the sachet of the seized items. It behooves this Court to remind law
suspected Shabu paraphernallas were brought to the PNP enforcement agencies to exert greater effort to apply the
Crime Laboratory. The receipt is made even more dubious by rules and procedures governing the custody, control, and
PO1 Azardons admission in his testimony [56] that he did not handling of seized drugs.
personally prepare the Confiscation Receipt and he did not
know exactly who did so. It is recognized that strict compliance with the legal
prescriptions of R.A. No. 9165 may not always be possible.
Fourth, according to the Certification [57] issued by the Thus, as earlier stated, non-compliance therewith is not
Dagupan Police Station, the subject items were indorsed by necessarily fatal. However, the lapses in procedure must be
PO1 Dela Cruz to Duty Investigator SPO1 Urbano for proper recognized, addressed and explained in terms of their
disposition. These were later turned over by SPO3 Esteban to justifiable grounds, and the integrity and evidentiary value of
P/Insp. Maranion. There is, however, no showing of how and the evidence seized must be shown to have been preserved.
when the subject items were transferred from SPO1 Urbano to [70]

SPO3 Esteban.
On a final note, this Court takes the opportunity to be
Fifth, P/Insp. Maranion appears to be the last person in the instructive on Sec. 11[71] (Possession of Dangerous Drugs) and
chain of custody. No witness testified on how the subject Sec. 15[72] (Use of Dangerous Drugs) of R.A. No. 9165, with
items were kept after they were tested prior to their regard to the charges that are filed by law enforcers. This
presentation in court. This Court has highlighted similar Court notes the practice of law enforcers of filing charges
shortcomings in People v. Cervantes,[58] People v. Garcia, under Sec. 11 in cases where the presence of dangerous drugs
[59]
People v. Sanchez,[60] andMalillin v. People.[61] as basis for possession is only and solely in the form of
residue, being subsumed under the last paragraph of Sec.
More irregularities further darken the cloud as to the 11. Although not incorrect, it would be more in keeping with
guilt of the accused. Contrary to PO1 Azardons the intent of the law to file charges under Sec. 15 instead in
testimony[62] that they were tipped off by a concerned citizen order to rehabilitate first time offenders of drug use, provided
while at the police station, the Letter [63] to the Executive that there is a positive confirmatory test result as required
Director of the DDB states that the apprehending officers were under Sec. 15. The minimum penalty under the last paragraph
tipped off while conducting monitoring/surveillance. Said of Sec. 11 for the possession of residue is imprisonment of
letter also indicates, as does the Confiscation Receipt, that the twelve years and one day, while the penalty under Sec. 15 for
arrest and seizure occurred on September 4, 2006, and first time offenders of drug use is a minimum of six months
not September 2, 2006, as alleged in the Information. It was rehabilitation in a government center. To file charges under
also mentioned in the aforementioned Certification of the Sec. 11 on the basis of residue alone would frustrate the
Dagupan Police and Joint Affidavit of the police officers that a objective of the law to rehabilitate drug users and provide
glass tube suspected to contain shabu residue was also them with an opportunity to recover for a second chance at
life.
 106
In the case at bench, the presence of dangerous The appellant and Siochi pleaded not guilty to the charge on
drugs was only in the form of residue on the drug arraignment. Joint trial on the merits followed.
paraphernalia, and the accused were found positive for use of
dangerous drugs. Granting that the arrest was legal, the The prosecution presented, as its witnesses, Police Inspector
evidence obtained admissible, and the chain of custody intact, (P/Insp.) Aylin Casignia and Police Officer (PO) 3 Elmer Corbe.
the law enforcers should have filed charges under Sec. 15, R.A. The appellant, Siochi and Ruben Forteza took the witness
No. 9165 or for use of dangerous drugs and, if there was no stand for the defense.
residue at all, they should have been charged under Sec. 14 [73]
(Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other The evidence for the prosecution established that on the
Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social evening of August 6, 2002, members of the Metro Manila
Gatherings or Meetings). Sec. 14 provides that the maximum Drugs Enforcement Group, composed of PO3 Corbe, PO3
penalty under Sec. 12[74] (Possession of Possession of Nelson Javier, PO3 Dennis Padpad, PO3 Marcelo Alcancia, Jr.,
Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for together with a female informant, went to the parking area of
Dangerous Drugs) shall be imposed on any person who shall McDonalds, West Avenue to conduct an entrapment operation
possess any equipment, instrument, apparatus and other against a certain alias Nato.4
paraphernalia for dangerous drugs. Under Sec. 12, the
maximum penalty is imprisonment of four years and a fine At around 7:00 p.m., the appellant arrived on board a space
of P50,000.00. In fact, under the same section, the possession wagon driven by Siochi.5 The informant approached the
of such equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia is prima appellant and talked to him inside the vehicle. Afterwards,
facie evidence that the possessor has used a dangerous drug the informant waved at PO3 Corbe.6 When PO3 Corbe was
and shall be presumed to have violated Sec. 15. approaching the appellant, the latter went out of the vehicle
and ran away. PO3 Corbe, PO3 Padpad and PO3 Alcancia
In order to effectively fulfill the intent of the law to chased the appellant; PO3 Corbe was able to grab the
rehabilitate drug users, this Court thus calls on law enforcers appellant, causing the latter to fall on the ground. PO3 Corbe
and prosecutors in dangerous drugs cases to exercise proper recovered a knot-tied transparent plastic bag from the
discretion in filing charges when the presence of dangerous appellants right hand, while PO3 Alcancia seized a gun tucked
drugs is only and solely in the form of residue and the in the appellants waist. The other members of the police
confirmatory test required under Sec. 15 is positive for use of arrested Siochi. Thereafter, the police brought the appellant,
dangerous drugs. In such cases, to afford the accused a Siochi and the seized items to the police station for
chance to be rehabilitated, the filing of charges for or involving investigation.
possession of dangerous drugs should only be done when
another separate quantity of dangerous drugs, other than P/Insp. Casignia, the Forensic Chemical Officer of the Western
mere residue, is found in the possession of the accused as Police District Crime Laboratory, examined the seized items
provided for in Sec. 15. and found them positive for the presence of shabu. 8

WHEREFORE, the August 7, 2009 Decision of the Court of The appellant, for his part, testified that at around 4:00 p.m.
Appeals in CA-G.R. HC-NO. 03269 is REVERSED and SET on August 6, 2002, he called Siochi on the phone, and
ASIDE and another judgment entered ACQUITTING the informed him that the motorbike starter the latter needed was
accused and ordering their immediate release from detention, already available.9 On the same day, Vanessa Paduada called
unless they are confined for any other lawful cause. the appellant, and asked for the directions to McDonalds, West
Avenue.10 At around 6:00 p.m., Siochi and Ruben arrived at
Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Director of the gate of Philam Homes on board a space wagon. The
the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate appellant met them at the subdivision gate, and showed the
implementation. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is starter to Siochi. Thereafter, Vanessa called on the
directed to report to this Court within five days from receipt of appellants cellular phone. The appellant then boarded the
this decision the action he has taken. Copies shall also be vehicle, and told Siochi that he would just talk to a person at
furnished the Director-General, Philippine National Police, and McDonalds.11 When the space wagon arrived at McDonalds,
the Director-General, Philippine Drugs Enforcement Agency, the appellant alighted from the vehicle and proceeded
for their information and guidance. towards the restaurants entrance. Afterwards, Vanessa called
him from inside a parked car. The appellant approached
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Dagupan City, is Vanessa who, for her part, alighted from the car. Vanessa told
directed to turn over the seized items to the Dangerous Drugs the appellant to get inside the cars rear. The appellant did as
Board for destruction in accordance with law. instructed; Vanessa went to the front passenger seat, beside a
male driver.12 Immediately after, the male driver alighted
SO ORDERED. from the vehicle and entered the cars rear. The appellant
went out of the car, but the male driver followed him and
grabbed his hand. The appellant resisted, and wrestled with
the driver along West Avenue. During this commotion, the
SECOND DIVISION appellant heard a gunfire; four (4) persons approached him,
and then tied his hands with a masking tape. 13 The police
G.R. No. 188133, July 07, 2014 placed him on board a pick-up truck, and then brought him to
Bicutan. In Bicutan, the police brought him to the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. OLIVER interrogation room, where they punched him and placed a
RENATO EDAO Y EBDANE, Appellant. plastic on his head.14

DECISION In its joint decision dated April 22, 2004, the RTC found the
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession
BRION, J.: of shabu under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, and
sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment. It
We resolve in this appeal the challenge to the October 16, also ordered him to pay a P500,000.00 fine.
2008 decision1 and the December 23, 2008 resolution 2 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01142. The The RTC, however, acquitted Siochi on the ground of
challenged CA decision affirmed the April 22, 2004 joint reasonable doubt.
decision3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 103,
Quezon City, finding appellant Oliver Renato Edao guilty On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto. The CA
beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11, Article II of found PO3 Corbe to be a credible witness. The CA also found
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous the appellants warrantless arrest to be valid; it explained that
Drugs Act of 2002), and imposing on him the penalty of life the appellants act of running when PO3 Corbe was
imprisonment. The assailed resolution, on the other hand, approaching him reinforced the latters suspicion that
denied the appellants motion for reconsideration. something was amiss.15

BACKGROUND FACTS The CA added that strict compliance with Section 21, Article II
of R.A. No. 9165 was not required as long as the integrity of
The prosecution charged the appellant and Godofredo Siochi the seized item had been ensured. It further held that the
with violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 under police officers were presumed to have regularly performed
two separate Informations, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. Q- their official duties.
02-111200 and Q-02-112104.
Finally, the CA held that the prosecution was able to establish
all the elements of illegal possession of shabu.
 107
The appellant moved to reconsider this decision, but the CA A: They were talking, sir.
denied his motion in its resolution dated December 23, 2008.
Q: They were not exchanging stuff and money, Mr.
In his brief16 and supplemental brief,17 the appellant witness?
essentially alleged that PO3 Corbes testimony was vague
and equivocal;18 it lacked details on how the appellant was A: Not yet, sir.
lured to sell shabu to the informant, and how the entrapment
operation had been planned. The appellant also argued that Q: While talking[,] the female informant call[ed] you, Mr.
his warrantless arrest was illegal since he was not committing Witness?
any crime when the police arrested him. He also claimed that
the police did not mark and photograph the seized items, and A: Yes, sir.22 (emphases ours)
that there was a broken chain of custody over the confiscated
drugs. As testified to by PO3 Corbe himself, the appellant and the
informant were just talking to each other; there was no
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) counters with the exchange of money and drugs when he approached the car.
argument that the testimony of PO3 Corbe was clear and Notably, while it is true that the informant waved at PO3
convincing; the inconsistencies in his court testimony Corbe, the latter admitted that this was not the pre-arranged
pertained only to minor details. It also claimed that the signal to signify that the sale of drugs had been
appellants arrest was valid, and the seized shabu was consummated. PO3 Corbe also admitted on cross-
admissible in evidence. Finally, the OSG maintained that examination that he had no personal knowledge on whether
there was no break in the chain of custody over the seized there was a prohibited drug and gun inside the space wagon
plastic bag containing shabu.19 when he approached it.

THE COURTS RULING That the appellant attempted to run away when PO3 Corbe
approached him is irrelevant and cannot by itself be construed
After due consideration, we resolve to ACQUIT the appellant. as adequate to charge the police officer with personal
knowledge that the appellant had just engaged in, was
Warrantless arrest invalid; seized items inadmissible actually engaging in or was attempting to engage in criminal
activity.
Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure
provides that a peace officer or a private person may, without As the Court explained in People v. Villareal:23
a warrant, arrest a person when, in his presence, the person
to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is Furthermore, appellants act of darting away when PO3 de
attempting to commit an offense. This is known an arrest in Leon approached him should not be construed against him.
flagrante delicto.20 Flight per se is not synonymous with guilt and must not
always be attributed to ones consciousness of guilt. It is not a
For a warrantless arrest of an accused caught in flagrante reliable indicator of guilt without other circumstances, for
delicto to be valid, two requisites must concur: (1) the person even in high crime areas there are many innocent reasons for
to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he flight, including fear of retribution for speaking to officers,
has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to unwillingness to appear as witnesses, and fear of being
commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the wrongfully apprehended as a guilty party. Thus, appellants
presence or within the view of the arresting officer.21 attempt to run away from PO3 de Leon is susceptible of
various explanations; it could easily have meant guilt just as it
In the present case, there was no overt act indicative of a could likewise signify innocence.24
felonious enterprise that could be properly attributed to the
appellant to rouse suspicion in the mind of PO3 Corbe that he In other words, trying to run away when no crime has been
(appellant) had just committed, was actually committing, or overtly committed, and without more, cannot be evidence of
was attempting to commit a crime. In fact, PO3 Corbe guilt.
testified that the appellant and the informant were just
talking with each other when he approached them. For Considering that the appellants warrantless arrest was
clarity and certainty, we reproduce PO3 Corbes court unlawful, the search and seizure that resulted from it was
testimony dated February 21, 2003, thus: likewise illegal. Thus, the alleged plastic bag containing white
crystalline substances seized from him is inadmissible in
ATTY. RENATO SARMIENTO: evidence, having come from an invalid search and seizure.

Q: You and the informant were not able to approach Nato Corpus delicti not proved with moral certainty
because he sense[d] that you are (sic) a policeman?
Even granting, for the sake of argument, that the appellants
PO3 CORBE: warrantless arrest was valid, the latters acquittal is still in
order due to the prosecutions failure to establish the
A: Our informant first approached Renato Edano[,] and evidence of the corpus delicti with moral certainty.
they talked but when he (sic) called me, Renato run
(sic), sir. We stress that [t]he existence of dangerous drugs is a
condition sine qua non for conviction for the illegal sale and
Q: You said tinawag ka[,] who was that that call (sic) you? possession of dangerous drugs, it being the very corpus
delicti of the crimes.25 Thus, the evidence of the corpus
A: Team informant, sir. delicti must be established beyond reasonable doubt.

xxxx In the present case, the various lapses enumerated and

discussed below committed by the police in the handling,
Q: How did she call you? safekeeping and custody over the seized drug tainted the
integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated shabu.
A: She waived (sic) her had (sic), sir.
First, we find it highly unusual and irregular that the police
Q: What was she doing? officers would let the appellant mark the drugs seized from
him, instead of doing the marking themselves. To directly
A: She was talking to Alias Nato[,] sir. quote from the records:

Q: Did you hear what they are talking? (sic) ATTY. SARMIENTO:

A: I was still in the car[.] I was not able to hear[,] sir. Q: This item was not marked at the place allegedly where
you apprehended the suspect at McDonalds, West
Q: How would you know that they are talking, Mr. Avenue, Quezon City, am I correct to say that?
Witness? (sic)
PO3 CORBE:
A: I could see them, sir.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What did you see?
Q: You are also required not only to mark it but to put your
 108
initial to it, my question did you place your initial in This is implemented by Section 21 (a), Article II of
this evidence? (sic) the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No.
9165, which reads:
A: No, sir.
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and
Q: You did not, Mr. Witness? control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the
A: No, sir. same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from
whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
Q: You were also required to put the date of apprehension, representative or counsel, a representative from the media
being the arresting officer, did you put the date in and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public
this evidence, Mr. Witness? official who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the
A: No, sir. physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the
place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest
Q: Why did you not do that, Mr. Witness? police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending
officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
A: What I remembered there is an initial of the accused, seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these
sir. requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall
Q: Who put the initial, Mr. Witness?
not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over
said items[.] [emphasis ours]
A: He was the one, sir.
To be sure, Section 21(a), Article II of the IRR offers some
Q: At your station?
flexibility in complying with the express requirements under
paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, i.e.,"non-
A: Yes, sir. compliance with these requirements under justifiable
grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of
Q: You did not put your initial? the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of
A: No, sir. and custody over said items[.]" This saving clause, however,
applies only where the prosecution recognized the procedural
Q: Why did you not put your initial? lapses and thereafter explained the cited justifiable grounds,
and when the prosecution established that the integrity and
A: I was not able to put sir.26 (emphases ours) evidentiary value of the evidence seized had been
preserved.30
Marking, as used in drug cases, means the placing by the
apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and These conditions were not met in the present case, as the
signature on the item/s seized. Consistency with the "chain prosecution did not even attempt to offer any justification for
of custody" rule requires that the "marking" of the seized its failure to follow the prescribed procedures in the handling
items - to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter and safekeeping of the seized items. We stress that it is the
the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence - prosecution who has the positive duty to establish that
should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended earnest efforts were employed in contacting the
violator (2) immediately upon confiscation.27 The Court representatives enumerated under Section 21[a] of R.A. No.
clarified in People v. Resurreccion28 that marking upon 9165, or that there was a justifiable ground for failing to do
immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the so.31 The Court cannot simply presume what these
nearest police station or office of the apprehending team. justifications are.

Thus, while marking of the seized drugs at the police station is Although the Court has recognized that minor deviations from
permitted, the marking should be done by the police, the procedures under R.A. No. 9165 would not automatically
and not by the accused. The appellants participation in exonerate an accused, we have also declared that when there
the marking procedure should only be as a witness. Why the is gross disregard of the procedural safeguards prescribed in
police failed to do a basic police procedure truly baffles us. the substantive law (R.A. No. 9165), serious uncertainty is
generated about the identity of the seized items that the
We also point out that per the testimony of P/Insp. Casignia, prosecution presented in evidence. This doubt cannot be
the Forensic Chemical Officer, the police forwarded two (2) remedied by simply invoking the presumption of
plastic bags containing white crystalline substances to the regularity in the performance of official duties, for a
crime laboratory for examination one marked with the gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of the
initials OR and the other marked with GS. Both plastic procedural safeguards effectively produces an
bags were used as evidence against the appellant. The irregularity in the performance of official duties.32
records, however, did not indicate who marked the plastic bag
with GS, who witnessed this marking, and when this In sum, we hold that the appellants acquittal is in order since
marking had been made. As with the bag that had been the shabu purportedly seized from him is inadmissible in
marked OR, we express doubts on whether the plastic bag evidence for being the proverbial fruit of the poisonous tree.
containing white crystalline substances marked as GS was Corollarily, the prosecution's failure to comply with Section 21,
the same plastic bag taken from the appellants co-accused, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, and with the chain of custody
Siochi. requirement of this Act, compromised the identity of the item
seized, leading to the failure to adequately prove the corpus
Second, the police did not inventory or photograph the delicti of the crime charged.
seized drugs, whether at the place of confiscation or at the
police station. These omissions were admitted by the WHEREFORE, premises considered, we REVERSE and SET
prosecution during pre-trial.29 ASIDE the October 16, 2008 decision and the December 23,
2008 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No.
The required procedure on the seizure and custody of drugs is 01142. Appellant Oliver Renato Edao y Ebdane is
embodied in Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his
9165, which states: guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered
immediately RELEASED from detention unless he is
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control otherwise legally confined for another cause.
of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the Let a copy of this Decision be sent to the Director of the
same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate
whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her implementation. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is
representative or counsel, a representative from the media directed to report the action he has taken to this Court within
and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public five (5) days from receipt of this Decision.
official who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof[.] [emphases ours] SO ORDERED.
 109
WHEN UNLAWFUL ARREST SHOULD BE RAISED and got something from his right pocket and passed to him a
plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance
FIRST DIVISION suspected to be shabu. Upon receipt he grabbed the accused
and introduced himself as a police officer. He informed the
G.R. No. 201100, February 04, 2015 accused of his constitutional rights and the law he violated
(Sec. 5 of RA 9165). Accused resisted but other policemen
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MHODS rushed to assist him. He kept possession of the evidence from
USMAN Y GOGO, Accused-Appellant. place of arrest and upon arriving in the police station, he
marked the same with the accuseds initials MUG (Exh. B-
DECISION 1). Thereafter, he turned over the stuff to the investigator
Elymar Garcia, who in turn prepared a request for laboratory
PEREZ, J.: examination (Exhibit C) and brought the same together to
the crime laboratory for examination. After lab test, the
Assailed in the present notice of appeal is the Decision 1 dated specimen was found positive for methamphetamine
30 June 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. hydrochloride as borne in the Chemistry Report No. D2858-03
No. 03942, which affirmed in toto the Decision2 dated 13 (Exhibit D). The arresting team executed an Affidavit of
August 2008 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Manila, Branch Apprehension (Exhibits E to E-4) and a Booking Sheet and
23 in Criminal Case No. 03-222096, finding accused-appellant Arrest Report (Exhibit F). Subsequently, the case was
Mhods Usman y Gogo (accused-appellant) guilty beyond referred for inquest proceedings on December 18, 2003
reasonable doubt of illegal sale of shabu under Sec. 5, Article (Exhibit G) for the filing of appropriate proceedings (TSNs
II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R. A. No. 9165) or dated August 30, 2005).
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, sentencing
him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and ordering On cross-examination, witness said that it was the accused
him to pay a fine of P500,000.00. who actually initiated the buy bust operation by offering him
and the confidential informant to buy illegal drugs. After
In an Information dated 22 December 2003, 3 accused- arrest, he did not mark the evidence in the area because the
appellant was charged with violation of Section 5, Art. II of R. accused was resisting and they do not know his name yet.
A. No. 9165, as follows: They also did not prepare an inventory of seized items. On re-
cross, the witness said it was the investigators duty to
prepare the inventory of seized item (TSNs dated February 2,
That on or about December 17, 2003 in the City of Manila,
2006).
Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law to
sell, trade, deliver or give away any dangerous drug, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell zero point PO2 Elymar Garcia next took the witness stand and he
zero six eight (0.068) grams of white crystalline substance corroborated the testimony of PO1 Joel Sta. Maria on material
containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride known as points. He added that he acted merely as security perimeter
shabu, a dangerous drug. and admitted that they did not follow the confidential
informant and the poseur buyer in Isla Puting Bato and just
waited for the arrest of the accused. Thus, he did not see the
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant, assisted by counsel,
conduct of the buy bust operation. The poseur buyer handed
pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.4
the evidence to him at the police station after he marked the
same. He immediately prepared a request for laboratory
During pre-trial, the parties stipulated on the following: (1) the
examination and brought the same and the specimen at the
identity of accused-appellant, (2) the jurisdiction of the court,
crime laboratory (TSNs dated Sept. 27, 2006).
(3) the qualification of the expert witness, and (4) the
genuineness of the documentary evidence submitted by the
The prosecution presented Irene Vidal, Records Custodian of
prosecution.5 Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila. Her tesitmony was
dispensed with after the defense agreed to stipulate on the
As culled from the records, the prosecutions version of the
following material points, to wit: that she is in charge of
facts was a combination of the testimonies of the officers: PO1
safekeeping records and evidence submitted to their office;
Joel Sta. Maria (PO1 Sta. Maria), PO2 Elymar Garcia, Irene
that she has brought with her the two pieces 100 peso
Vidal, and PSI Judycel Macapagal (PSI Macapagal):
marked bills with Serial Nos. BT670067 and EX15103,
respectively (Exhibits I and J), subject matter of this case,
PO1 JOEL STA. MARIA testified in gist as follows: On December and that she has no personal knowledge of the facts and
17, 2003, he was assigned at the Anti Illegal Drugs Special circumstances surrounding the arrest of the accused.
Operations Task Unit of Police Station No. 2. At around 11:00
oclock in the morning of said date, while on duty at PS 2, a
On June 26, 2007, the testimony of PSI Judycel A. Macapagal
male confidential informant came to their office and informed
was stipulated on by the prosecution and the defense
SPO3 Rolando del Rosario, their team leader, of the illegal
specifically the qualification and expertise of the forensic
selling of shabu by a certain Mhods, a muslim at Isla Puting
chemist, the authenticity and due execution of the letter
Bato. He heard them conversing as he was not far from
request for laboratory examination dated December 18, 2003
them. SPO3 del Rosario relayed the information to SAID Chief
(Exh. C) and the Chemistry Report (Exhibit D). The
Nathaniel Capitanea who instructed the former to form a team
defense admitted the existence of small brown envelop
and to conduct a possible buy bust operation against the
(Exhibit B) and the specimen contained thereat which is one
subject. A five-member team was at once formed consisting
heat sealed transparent plastic sachet marked MUG (Exh.
of PO2 Elymar Garcia, SPO3 Rolando del Rosario, PO3 Ricardo
B-1). It was also admitted that the laboratory examination
Manansala, PO1 Erick Barias and the herein witness. They
on the specimen yielded positive result for
agreed that they will buy P200.00 worth of shabu from the
methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drugs; that
subject, who was later identified as the herein accused. SPO3
the Forensic Chemist has brought the documents and
del Rosario prepared the buy bust money consisting of two
specimen to Court. The prosecution in turn admitted that the
P100.00 bills with marking RR. He was designated to act as
Forensic Chemist has no personal knowledge as to the source
poseur buyer so the marked bills were delivered to him by the
of the specimen as well as the person who caused the
team leader, SPO3 del Rosario. They agreed likewise that the
markings on the specimen. 6
witness will immediately arrest the subject if the sale is
consummated. A pre-operation report was also prepared
In defense, accused-appellant claimed that he was a victim of
(Exh. A). Apart from the identity and the location of the
frame-up by the arresting officers, to wit: 7
subject Mhods, the confidential informant described the
former as wearing a skin head hair, well built body, fair
complexion and wearing fatigue either pants or t-shirt. They For his part, accused denied the allegations of the police
left the station at 3:15 p.m. and conveyed to the Isla Puting officers and countered as a defense that he was framed up by
Bato on board an owner type jeep and scooter. He rode in the the arresting officers. He testified that he was, in fact,
owner type jeep with SPO3 del Rosario, PO3 Manansala, and arrested between 2 to 3 PM on December 17, 2003 and not at
the confidential informant arriving in the target place at 3:35 4PM of said day. He was then inside the comfort room in his
p.m., as the jeep cannot passed (sic) through, he and the house when the policemen in civillian clothes entered and
confidential informant rode a side car going to Isla Puting kicked the door of the CR. The policemen ransacked his
Bato, thereafter they alighted from the pedicab and entered a house and took his money which he borrowed from Uphill
small alley where they saw MHODS. Accused approached the which was intended for use in his business. When he got out
Confidential Informant and asked him if he is going to get, of the restroom, he was handcuffed and taken to Police
meaning if he is going to buy shabu. Instead of answering, Station No. 2 where he was forced to admit selling shabu. He
the confidential informant pointed to him who was beside him showed them his identification card to prove that he was
at that time. The herein witness showed the marked money engaged in a legal trade, but the police did not heed his
and the accused took them. Accused turned his back a little pleas. The team leader SPO1 del Rosario demanded
 110
P400,000.00 from him in exchange of his freedom which he under R. A. No. 7438, which claim was raised only during
was not able to give. On cross, he said that he did not know appeal and not before he was arraigned, is deemed waived. 15
the police officers prior to his arrest and therefore there is no
established motive for them to charge him falsely of such a Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that the accused-
grave offense. He admitted that he is not a good subject of appellant was caught in flagrante delicto of selling illegal
extortion. drugs to an undercover police officer in a buy-bust operation.
His arrest, thus, falls within the ambit of Section 5 (a), Rule
Finding the evidence of the prosecution sufficient to establish 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure when an
the guilt of accused-appellant, the RTC rendered a judgment arrest made without warrant is deemed lawful.16
of conviction, viz.:8
In People v. Loks,17 we acknowledged that a buy-bust
WHEREFORE, with all the foregoing facts and conclusions, operation is a legally effective and proven procedure,
accused MHODS USMAN Y GOGO, is hereby found GUILTY of sanctioned by law, for apprehending drug peddlers and
violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 in the distributors. Since accused-appellant was caught by the buy-
manner stated in the Information and is sentenced to suffer bust team in flagrante delicto, his immediate arrest was also
the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of validly made. The accused was caught in the act and had to
P500,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of be apprehended on the spot.
insolvency.
Accused-appellants arrest being valid, we also hold that the
The shabu, subject matter of this case, is hereby forfeited in subsequent warrantless seizure of the illegal drugs from his
favor of the STATE and is ordered turned over to the PDEA for person is equally valid. The legitimate warrantless arrest also
their appropriate destruction pursuant to existing Rules. cloaks the arresting police officer with the authority to validly
search and seize from the offender those that may be used to
Accused-appellant appealed before the CA, assigning the prove the commission of the offense.
following errors:
As to whether accused-appellants guilt was established
I beyond reasonable doubt, we rule in the affirmative.

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THE In a catena of cases, this Court laid down the essential
WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND SUBSEQUENT ARREST AS elements to be duly established for a successful prosecution
ILLEGAL. of offenses involving the illegal sale of dangerous or
prohibited drugs, like shabu, under Section 5, Article II of R.A.
II No. 9165, to wit: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller,
the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THE delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. Briefly, the
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS RIGHTS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt
7438 (AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF PERSON of the marked money by the seller successfully consummate
ARRESTED, DETAINED OR UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION the buy-bust transaction. What is material, therefore, is the
AS WELL AS THE DUTIES OF THE ARRESTING, DETAINING AND proof that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the
INVESTIGATING OFFICERS, AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR presentation in court of the corpus delicti.19
VIOLATIONS THEREOF) WERE VIOLATED.
The concurrence of said elements can be gleaned from the
III testimony of PO1 Sta. Maria:

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE x x x

ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY DESPITE NON-COMPLIANCE x
WITH SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 AND ITS
IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS. 9 Q When the confidential informant saw Mhods Usman,
what happened next?
After a thorough review of the records, the CA affirmed in
toto the RTC Decision. The appellate court ruled that accused- A He was approached by Mhods Usman and asked if we
appellants arrest was valid because he was caught in are going to get.
flagrante delicto selling dangerous drugs, that all the
elements of illegal sale of regulated or prohibited drugs are Q At the time that Mhods Usman approached the
present in the case at bar, that there was substantial confidential informant and asked him kung kukuha,
compliance with the legal requirements on the handling of the where were you then?
seized item, and that there was no proof to support accused-
appelllants allegation of frame-up. Thus, the CA held: A I stood beside the confidential informant.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated Q When Mhods Usman uttered the word (sic) kung
August 13, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court, National Capital kukuha, what did you understand those words (sic)?
Judicial Region, Branch 23, Manila, is hereby AFFIRMED in
toto.10 A This is the term used in buying shabu maam.

Accused-appellant is now before the Court, re-pleading the Q What is the answer of the confidential informant when
arguments he raised before the CA. In particular, accused- asked by Mhods Usman?
appellant claims that his warrantless arrest was illegal; 11 that
he was not apprised of his rights under Sections 2 and 3 of R. A I was pointed to and said HIM.
A. No. 7438;12 and that there were serious lapses in the
procedure mandated by R. A. No. 9165 in the handling of the Q So when you were pointed to by the confidential
seized shabu, as well as non-compliance with the chain of informant, what was the reaction of Mhods Usman?
custody rule, resulting in the prosecutions failure to properly
identify the shabu offered in court as the same drugs seized A I showed him the marked money and he took it.
from accused-appellant.13
Q Once he took the money, what did he do next?
We dismiss the appeal.
A He turned slightly and get (sic) something from his
To begin with, we hold that accused-appellant can no longer pocket and he passed the plastic sachet containing
question the legality of his arrest. In People v. Vasquez,14 we undetermined amount of white crystalline substance
reiterated the rule that any objection, defect or irregularity suspected to be shabu.
attending an arrest must be made before the accused enters
his plea on arraignment, and having failed to move for the Q What portion of the pocket of Mhods Usman did he take
quashal of the Information before arraignment, accused- the plastic sachet?
appellant is now estopped from questioning the legality of his
arrest. Moreover, any irregularity was cured upon his A Right pocket, maam.
voluntary submission to the RTCs jurisdiction.
Q After the plastic sachet was handed to you by Usman
In the same vein, the claim of accused-appellant that he was what did you do next?
not apprised of the rights of a person taken into custody
 111
A When he passed to me the plastic sachet containing The Implementing Rules and Regulations of R. A. No. 9165 on
undetermined amount of white crystalline substance, I the handling and disposition of seized dangerous drugs states:
immediately grabbed him and introduced myself as
police officer. Provided, further, that non-compliance with these
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the
Q After you grabbed him and introduced yourself as police integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
officer, what did you tell him? properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall
not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over
A I informed him of his constitutional rights and his said items. 24 (Italics, emphasis and underscoring omitted)
possible violation. 20
In the case at bar, after the sale was consummated, PO1 Sta.
x x x Maria retained possession of the seized sachet until he was
x able to properly mark it, then turned it over to PO2 Garcia who
prepared the request for laboratory examination and brought
Verily, all the elements for a conviction of illegal sale of the same to the crime laboratory, where PSI Macapagal later
dangerous or prohibited drugs were proven by the on confirmed that the substance was methamphetamine
prosecution: PO1 Sta. Maria proved that a buy-bust operation hydrochloride or shabu. The same sachet was positively
actually took place, and that on such an occasion, accused- identified by PO1 Sta. Maria in open court to be the same item
appellant was apprehended delivering a plastic sachet he confiscated from accused-appellant.
containing white crystalline substance to him, the poseur-
buyer, in exchange of P200.00. PO1 Sta. Maria retained As to the fact that PO1 Sta. Maria was able to mark the seized
possession of the seized substance until he was able to mark sachet only at the police station, in People v. Loks,25 we held
it in the police station with accused-appellants initials that the marking of the seized substance immediately upon
(MUG), then turned it over to PO2 Garcia who prepared the arrival at the police station qualified as a compliance with the
request for laboratory examination and brought the same to marking requirement. Such can also be said here in light of
the crime laboratory, where PSI Macapagal later on confirmed the fact that the reason why PO1 Sta. Maria was unable to
that the substance was methamphetamine hydrochloride immediately mark the seized sachet was due to accused-
or shabu. In open court, PO1 Sta. Maria positively identified appellants resistance to arrest and, as at that time, he did not
accused-appellant as the one who sold him the plastic sachet know accused-appellants name yet.
containing white crystalline substance, and he was also able
to identify said sachet as the same object sold to him by It is apropos to reiterate here that where there is no showing
accused-appellant because of the initials (MUG) inscribed that the trial court overlooked or misinterpreted some
therein. material facts or that it gravely abused its discretion, the
Court will not disturb the trial courts assessment of the facts
Accused-appellant raises the claim that no inventory was and the credibility of the witnesses since the RTC was in a
prepared, nor was a photograph taken of the small plastic better position to assess and weigh the evidence presented
sachet allegedly recovered from him, and that, moreover, during trial. Settled too is the rule that the factual findings of
there was no representative from the media and the the appellate court sustaining those of the trial court are
Department of Justice, nor any elected public official who binding on this Court, unless there is a clear showing that
signed the copies of the inventory.21 such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness or
palpable error.26 In the case at bar, we see no justification for
Indeed, as we held in People v. Torres,22 equally important in overturning the findings of fact of the RTC and CA.
every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous or prohibited
drugs is the presentation of evidence of the seized drug as Lastly, as to accused-appellants claim of frame-up, suffice it
the corpus delicti. The identity of the prohibited drug must be to say that in People v. Bartolome,27 we held that the fact that
proved with moral certainty. It must also be established with frame-up and extortion could be easily concocted renders
the same degree of certitude that the substance bought or such defenses hard to believe. Thus, although drug-related
seized during the buy-bust operation is the same item offered violators have commonly tendered such defenses to fend off
in court as exhibit. In this regard, paragraph 1, Section 21, or refute valid prosecutions of their drug-related violations,
Article II of R. A. No. 9165 (the chain of custody rule) provides the Court has required that such defenses, to be credited at
for safeguards for the protection of the identity and integrity all, must be established with clear and convincing evidence.
of dangerous drugs seized, to wit:
In the case at bar, accused-appellant failed to ascribe, much
SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, less prove, any ill will or improper motive on the part of the
and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of apprehending police officers. The accused-appellant admitted
Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential that he does not know said police officers prior to his arrest,
Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory and that he is not aware of any established motive for them to
Equipment. The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of charge him falsely of a grave offense. Moreover, accused-
all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, appellant acknowledged that he is not a good subject for
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as extortion. Thus, in the absence of any evidence of ill will or
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so improper motive, none is presumed to exist.
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition
in the following manner: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present appeal
is DISMISSED.
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control
of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, SO ORDERED.
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence
of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
counsel, a representative from the media and the Department SECOND DIVISION
of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a
copy thereof.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No.
However, this Court has, in many cases, held that while the 186529
chain of custody should ideally be perfect, in reality it is not, Appellee,
as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken
chain. The most important factor is the preservation of the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as they Promulgated:
will be used to determine the guilt or innocence of the - versus -
accused. Hence, the prosecutions failure to submit in
evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the seized
JACK RACHO y RAQUERO,
drugs as required under Article 21 of R. A. No. 9165, will not
August 3, 2010
render the accuseds arrest illegal or the items seized from
Appellant.
him inadmissible.23
DECISION
The chain of custody is not established solely by compliance
with the prescribed physical inventory and photographing of
the seized drugs in the presence of the enumerated persons. NACHURA, J.:
 112
On appeal is the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision [1] dated May circumstances of his arrest, he explained that the police
22, 2008 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00425 affirming the Regional officers, through their van, blocked the tricycle he was riding
Trial Court[2] (RTC) Joint Decision[3] dated July 8, 2004 finding in; forced him to alight; brought him to Sea Breeze Lodge;
appellant Jack Racho y Raquero guilty beyond reasonable stripped his clothes and underwear; then brought him to the
doubt of Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) police station for investigation.[9]
No. 9165.
On July 8, 2004, the RTC rendered a Joint
The case stemmed from the following facts: Judgment[10] convicting appellant of Violation of Section 5,
Article II, R.A. 9165 and sentencing him to suffer the penalty
On May 19, 2003, a confidential agent of the police transacted of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00; but
through cellular phone with appellant for the purchase acquitted him of the charge of Violation of Section 11, Article
of shabu. The agent later reported the transaction to the II, R.A. 9165. On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision. [11]
police authorities who immediately formed a team composed
of member of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency Hence, the present appeal.
(PDEA), the Intelligence group of the Philippine Army and the
local police force to apprehend the appellant.[4] The agent In his brief,[12] appellant attacks the credibility of the
gave the police appellants name, together with his physical witnesses for the prosecution. He likewise avers that the
description. He also assured them that appellant would arrive prosecution failed to establish the identity of the confiscated
in Baler, Aurora the following day. drug because of the teams failure to mark the specimen
immediately after seizure. In his supplemental brief, appellant
On May 20, 2003, at 11:00 a.m., appellant called up assails, for the first time, the legality of his arrest and the
the agent and informed him that he was on board a Genesis validity of the subsequent warrantless search. He questions
bus and would arrive in Baler, Aurora, anytime of the day the admissibility of the confiscated sachet on the ground that
wearing a red and white striped T-shirt. The team members it was the fruit of the poisonous tree.
then posted themselves along the national highway in Baler,
Aurora. At around 3:00 p.m. of the same day, a Genesis bus The appeal is meritorious.
arrived in Baler. When appellant alighted from the bus, the
confidential agent pointed to him as the person he transacted We have repeatedly held that the trial courts evaluation of the
with earlier. Having alighted from the bus, appellant stood credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is entitled to
near the highway and waited for a tricycle that would bring great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. However,
him to his final destination. As appellant was about to board a this is not a hard and fast rule. We have reviewed such factual
tricycle, the team approached him and invited him to the findings when there is a showing that the trial judge
police station on suspicion of carrying shabu. Appellant overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or
immediately denied the accusation, but as he pulled out his circumstance of weight and substance that would have
hands from his pants pocket, a white envelope slipped affected the case.[13]
therefrom which, when opened, yielded a small sachet
containing the suspected drug.[5] Appellant focuses his appeal on the validity of his arrest and
the search and seizure of the sachet of shabu and,
The team then brought appellant to the police station for consequently, the admissibility of the sachet. It is noteworthy
investigation. The confiscated specimen was turned over to that although the circumstances of his arrest were briefly
Police Inspector Rogelio Sarenas De Vera who marked it with discussed by the RTC, the validity of the arrest and search and
his initials and with appellants name. The field test and the admissibility of the evidence against appellant were not
laboratory examinations on the contents of the confiscated squarely raised by the latter and thus, were not ruled upon by
sachet yielded positive results for methamphetamine the trial and appellate courts.
hydrochloride.[6]
It is well-settled that an appeal in a criminal case
Appellant was charged in two separate Informations, one for opens the whole case for review. This Court is clothed with
violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165, for transporting or ample authority to review matters, even those not raised on
delivering; and the second, of Section 11 of the same law for appeal, if we find them necessary in arriving at a just
possessing, dangerous drugs, the accusatory portions of disposition of the case. Every circumstance in favor of the
which read: accused shall be considered. This is in keeping with the
constitutional mandate that every accused shall be presumed
That at about 3:00 oclock (sic) in the innocent unless his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
[14]
afternoon on May 20, 2003 in Baler, Aurora
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable After a thorough review of the records of the case and for
Court, the said accused, did then and there, reasons that will be discussed below, we find that appellant
unlawfully, feloniously and willfully have in can no longer question the validity of his arrest, but the
his possession five point zero one (5.01) [or sachet of shabu seized from him during the warrantless
4.54] grams of Methamphetamine search is inadmissible in evidence against him.
Hydrochloride commonly known as Shabu, a
regulated drug without any permit or license The records show that appellant never objected to
the irregularity of his arrest before his arraignment. In fact,
from the proper authorities to possess the
this is the first time that he raises the issue. Considering this
same. lapse, coupled with his active participation in the trial of the
case, we must abide with jurisprudence which dictates that
CONTRARY TO LAW.[7] appellant, having voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of
the trial court, is deemed to have waived his right to question
the validity of his arrest, thus curing whatever defect may
That at about 3:00 oclock (sic) in have attended his arrest. The legality of the arrest affects only
the afternoon on May 20, 2003 in Baler, the jurisdiction of the court over his person. Appellants
Aurora, the said accused did then and there, warrantless arrest therefore cannot, in itself, be the basis of
his acquittal. [15]
unlawfully, feloniously and willfully
transporting or delivering dangerous drug of
As to the admissibility of the seized drug in evidence,
5.01 [or 4.54] grams of shabu without any it is necessary for us to ascertain whether or not the search
permit or license from the proper authorities which yielded the alleged contraband was lawful. [16]
to transport the same.
The 1987 Constitution states that a search and
consequent seizure must be carried out with a judicial
CONTRARY TO LAW.[8] warrant; otherwise, it becomes unreasonable and any
evidence obtained therefrom shall be inadmissible for any
During the arraignment, appellant pleaded Not Guilty to both purpose in any proceeding.[17] Said proscription, however,
charges. admits of exceptions, namely:

At the trial, appellant denied liability and claimed that he went 1. Warrantless search incidental to a
to Baler, Aurora to visit his brother to inform him about their lawful arrest;
ailing father. He maintained that the charges against him were
false and that no shabu was taken from him. As to the 2. Search of evidence in plain view;
 113
3. Search of a moving vehicle; (PNB) in Olongapo City. While thus positioned, a Victory Liner
Bus stopped in front of the PNB building where two females
4. Consented warrantless search; and a man got off. The informant then pointed to the team
members the woman, Aling Rosa, who was then carrying a
5. Customs search; traveling bag. Thereafter, the team approached her and
introduced themselves. When asked about the contents of her
6. Stop and Frisk; and bag, she handed it to the apprehending officers. Upon
inspection, the bag was found to contain dried marijuana
7. Exigent and emergency leaves.[28]
circumstances.[18]
The facts in People v. Tudtud show that in July and August,
What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable 1999, the Toril Police Station, Davao City, received a report
warrantless search or seizure is purely a judicial question, from a civilian asset that the neighbors of a certain Noel
determinable from the uniqueness of the circumstances Tudtud (Tudtud) were complaining that the latter was
involved, including the purpose of the search or seizure, the responsible for the proliferation of marijuana in the area.
presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in which Reacting to the report, the Intelligence Section conducted
the search and seizure was made, the place or thing surveillance. For five days, they gathered information and
searched, and the character of the articles procured. [19] learned that Tudtud was involved in illegal drugs. On August 1,
1999, the civilian asset informed the police that Tudtud had
The RTC concluded that appellant was caught in flagrante headed to Cotabato and would be back later that day with a
delicto, declaring that he was caught in the act of actually new stock of marijuana. At around 4:00 p.m. that same day, a
committing a crime or attempting to commit a crime in the team of police officers posted themselves to await Tudtuds
presence of the apprehending officers as he arrived in Baler, arrival. At 8:00 p.m., two men disembarked from a bus and
Aurora bringing with him a sachet of shabu.[20] Consequently, helped each other carry a carton. The police officers
the warrantless search was considered valid as it was deemed approached the suspects and asked if they could see the
an incident to the lawful arrest. contents of the box which yielded marijuana leaves. [29]

Recent jurisprudence holds that in searches incident In People v. Nuevas, the police officers received information
to a lawful arrest, the arrest must precede the search; that a certain male person, more or less 54 in height, 25 to 30
generally, the process cannot be reversed. Nevertheless, a years old, with a tattoo mark on the upper right hand, and
search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can usually wearing a sando and maong pants, would make a
precede the arrest if the police have probable cause to make delivery of marijuana leaves. While conducting stationary
the arrest at the outset of the search. [21] Thus, given the surveillance and monitoring of illegal drug trafficking, they
factual milieu of the case, we have to determine whether the saw the accused who fit the description, carrying a plastic
police officers had probable cause to arrest appellant. bag. The police accosted the accused and informed him that
Although probable cause eludes exact and concrete definition, they were police officers. Upon inspection of the plastic bag
it ordinarily signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion carried by the accused, the bag contained marijuana dried
supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves leaves and bricks wrapped in a blue cloth. In his bid to escape
to warrant a cautious man to believe that the person accused charges, the accused disclosed where two other male persons
is guilty of the offense with which he is charged. [22] would make a delivery of marijuana leaves. Upon seeing the
two male persons, later identified as Reynaldo Din and
The determination of the existence or absence of Fernando Inocencio, the police approached them, introduced
probable cause necessitates a reexamination of the themselves as police officers, then inspected the bag they
established facts. On May 19, 2003, a confidential agent of were carrying. Upon inspection, the contents of the bag
the police transacted through cellular phone with appellant for turned out to be marijuana leaves.[30]
the purchase of shabu. The agent reported the transaction to
the police authorities who immediately formed a team to In all of these cases, we refused to validate the warrantless
apprehend the appellant. On May 20, 2003, at 11:00 a.m., search precisely because there was no adequate probable
appellant called up the agent with the information that he was cause. We required the showing of some overt act indicative
on board a Genesis bus and would arrive in Baler, Aurora of the criminal design.
anytime of the day wearing a red and white striped T-shirt.
The team members posted themselves along the national As in the above cases, appellant herein was not committing a
highway in Baler, Aurora, and at around 3:00 p.m. of the same crime in the presence of the police officers. Neither did the
day, a Genesis bus arrived in Baler. When appellant alighted arresting officers have personal knowledge of facts indicating
from the bus, the confidential agent pointed to him as the that the person to be arrested had committed, was
person he transacted with, and when the latter was about to committing, or about to commit an offense. At the time of the
board a tricycle, the team approached him and invited him to arrest, appellant had just alighted from the Gemini bus and
the police station as he was suspected of carrying shabu. was waiting for a tricycle. Appellant was not acting in any
When he pulled out his hands from his pants pocket, a white suspicious manner that would engender a reasonable ground
envelope slipped therefrom which, when opened, yielded a for the police officers to suspect and conclude that he was
small sachet containing the suspected drug. [23] The team then committing or intending to commit a crime. Were it not for the
brought appellant to the police station for investigation and information given by the informant, appellant would not have
the confiscated specimen was marked in the presence of been apprehended and no search would have been made, and
appellant. The field test and laboratory examinations on the consequently, the sachet of shabu would not have been
contents of the confiscated sachet yielded positive results for confiscated.
methamphetamine hydrochloride.
We are not unaware of another set of jurisprudence that
Clearly, what prompted the police to apprehend appellant, deems reliable information sufficient to justify a search
even without a warrant, was the tip given by the informant incident to a lawful warrantless arrest. As cited in People v.
that appellant would arrive in Tudtud, these include People v. Maspil, Jr.,[31] People v.
Baler, Auroracarrying shabu. This circumstance gives rise to Bagista,[32] People v. Balingan,[33] People v. Lising,[34] People v.
another question: whether that information, by itself, is Montilla,[35] People v. Valdez,[36] and People v. Gonzales.[37] In
sufficient probable cause to effect a valid warrantless arrest. these cases, the Court sustained the validity of the
warrantless searches notwithstanding the absence of overt
The long standing rule in this jurisdiction is that acts or suspicious circumstances that would indicate that the
reliable information alone is not sufficient to justify a accused had committed, was actually committing, or
warrantless arrest. The rule requires, in addition, that the attempting to commit a crime. But as aptly observed by the
accused perform some overt act that would indicate that he Court, except in Valdez and Gonzales,they were covered by
has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to the other exceptions to the rule against warrantless searches.
[38]
commit an offense.[24] We find no cogent reason to depart
from this well-established doctrine.
Neither were the arresting officers impelled by any urgency
The instant case is similar to People v. Aruta, that would allow them to do away with the requisite warrant.
[25]
People v. Tudtud,[26] and People v. Nuevas.[27] As testified to by Police Officer 1 Aurelio Iniwan, a member of
the arresting team, their office received the tipped
In People v. Aruta, a police officer was tipped off by his information on May 19, 2003. They likewise learned from the
informant that a certain Aling Rosa would be arriving informant not only the appellants physical description but also
from Baguio City the following day with a large volume of his name. Although it was not certain that appellant would
marijuana. Acting on said tip, the police assembled a team arrive on the same day (May 19), there was an assurance that
and deployed themselves near the Philippine National Bank
 114
he would be there the following day (May 20). Clearly, the The prosecution evidence shows that at around 4:45 a.m. of
police had ample opportunity to apply for a warrant.[39] February 11, 2004, PO1 Gregorio Recio, PO1 Laurence
Cabutihan, P/Insp. Eric Ibon, PO1 Rodelio Rania, and two
Obviously, this is an instance of seizure of the fruit of the civilian operatives on board a patrol car and a tricycle were
poisonous tree, hence, the confiscated item is inadmissible in conducting a police visibility patrol on David Street, Pasay
evidence consonant with Article III, Section 3(2) of the 1987 City, when they saw two unidentified men rush out of house
Constitution, any evidence obtained in violation of this or the number 107-C and immediately boarded a jeep.
preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding. Suspecting that a crime had been committed, the police
officers approached the house from where the men came and
Without the confiscated shabu, appellants conviction cannot peeked through the partially opened door. PO1 Recio and PO1
be sustained based on the remaining evidence. Thus, an Cabutihan saw accused Antiquera holding an improvised
acquittal is warranted, despite the waiver of appellant of his tooter and a pink lighter. Beside him was his live-in partner,
right to question the illegality of his arrest by entering a plea Cruz, who was holding an aluminum foil and an improvised
and his active participation in the trial of the case. As earlier burner. They sat facing each other at the living room. This
mentioned, the legality of an arrest affects only the prompted the police officers to enter the house, introduce
jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused. A themselves, and arrest Antiquera and Cruz.4
waiver of an illegal, warrantless arrest does not carry with it a
waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an While inspecting the immediate surroundings, PO1 Cabutihan
illegal warrantless arrest.[40] saw a wooden jewelry box atop a table. It contained an
improvised burner, wok, scissors, 10 small transparent plastic
One final note. As clearly stated in People v. Nuevas,[41] sachets with traces of white crystalline substance, improvised
scoop, and seven unused strips of aluminum foil. The police
x x x In the final analysis, we in the officers confiscated all these and brought Antiquera and Cruz
administration of justice would have no right to the Drug Enforcement Unit of the Philippine National Police
to expect ordinary people to be law-abiding in Pasay City for further investigation and testing.5
if we do not insist on the full protection of
their rights. Some lawmen, prosecutors and A forensic chemical officer examined the confiscated drug
judges may still tend to gloss over an illegal paraphernalia and found them positive for traces of
search and seizure as long as the law methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.6
enforcers show the alleged evidence of the
crime regardless of the methods by which Accused Antiquera gave a different story. He said that on the
they were obtained. This kind of attitude date and time in question, he and Cruz were asleep in their
condones law-breaking in the name of law house when he was roused by knocking on the door. When he
enforcement. Ironically, it only fosters the went to open it, three armed police officers forced themselves
more rapid breakdown of our system of into the house. One of them shoved him and said, Dyan ka
justice, and the eventual denigration of lang, pusher ka. He was handcuffed and someone instructed
society. While this Court appreciates and two of the officers to go to his room. The police later brought
encourages the efforts of law enforcers to accused Antiquera and Cruz to the police station and there
uphold the law and to preserve the peace informed them of the charges against them. They were shown
and security of society, we nevertheless a box that the police said had been recovered from his house. 7
admonish them to act with deliberate care
and within the parameters set by the On July 30, 2004 the RTC rendered a Decision 8 that found
Constitution and the law. Truly, the end accused Antiquera and Cruz guilty of the crime charged and
never justifies the means.[42] sentenced them to a prison term ranging from six months and
one day to two years and four months, and to pay a fine of
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court of P10,000.00 each and the costs of the suit.
Appeals Decision dated May 22, 2008 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No.
00425 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant Jack Raquero The RTC said that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable
Racho is ACQUITTED for insufficiency of evidence. doubt that the police caught accused Antiquera and Cruz in
the act of using shabu and having drug paraphernalia in their
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed possession. Since no ill motive could be attributed to PO1
to cause the immediate release of appellant, unless the latter Recio and PO1 Cabutihan, the court accorded full faith and
is being lawfully held for another cause; and to inform the credit to their testimony and rejected the self-serving claim of
Court of the date of his release, or the reasons for his Antiquera.
confinement, within ten (10) days from notice.
The trial court gave no weight to accused Antiqueras claim of
No costs. illegal arrest, given PO1 Recio and PO1 Cabutihans credible
testimony that, prior to their arrest, they saw Antiquera and
SO ORDERED. Cruz in a pot session at their living room and in possession of
drug paraphernalia. The police officers were thus justified in
arresting the two without a warrant pursuant to Section 5,
Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.9
EFFECT OF WAIVER
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) rendered a Decision 10 on
THIRD DIVISION September 21, 2007 affirming in full the decision of the trial
court. The accused moved for reconsideration but the CA
G.R. No. 180661, December 11, 2013 denied it.11 The accused is now before this Court seeking
acquittal.
GEORGE ANTIQUERA Y CODES, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. The Issue Presented

DECISION The issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred in finding
accused Antiquera guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal
ABAD, J.: possession of drug paraphernalia based on the evidence of
the police officers that they saw him and Cruz in the act of
This case is about a supposed warrantless arrest and a possessing drug paraphernalia.
subsequent search prompted by the police officers chance
sighting through an ajar door of the accused engaged in pot Ruling of the Court
session.
The prosecutions theory, upheld by both the RTC and the CA,
The Facts and the Case is that it was a case of valid warrantless arrest in that the
police officers saw accused Antiquera and Cruz through the
On January 13, 2004 the second Assistant City Prosecutor of door of their house, in the act of having a pot session. That
Pasay City charged the accused George Codes Antiquera * and valid warrantless arrest gave the officers the right as well to
Corazon Olivenza Cruz with illegal possession of paraphernalia search the living room for objects relating to the crime and
for dangerous drugs1 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of thus seize the paraphernalia they found there.
Pasay City in Criminal Case 04-0100-CFM. 2 Since the accused
Cruz jumped bail, the court tried her in absentia.3 The prosecution contends that, since the seized paraphernalia
tested positive for shabu, they were no doubt used for
 115
smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or A Yes, Your Honor.15 (Emphasis supplied)
introducing dangerous drug into the body in violation of
Section 12 of Republic Act 9165. That the accused tested Clearly, no crime was plainly exposed to the view of the
negative for shabu, said the prosecution, had no bearing on arresting officers that authorized the arrest of accused
the crime charged which was for illegal possession of drug Antiquera without warrant under the above-mentioned rule.
paraphernalia, not for illegal use of dangerous drugs. The Considering that his arrest was illegal, the search and seizure
prosecution added that even assuming that the arrest of the that resulted from it was likewise illegal. 16 Consequently, the
accused was irregular, he is already considered to have various drug paraphernalia that the police officers allegedly
waived his right to question the validity of his arrest when he found in the house and seized are inadmissible, having
voluntarily submitted himself to the courts jurisdiction by proceeded from an invalid search and seizure. Since the
entering a plea of not guilty.12 confiscated drug paraphernalia is the very corpus delicti of
the crime charged, the Court has no choice but to acquit the
Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure accused.17
provides that a peace officer or a private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person when, in his presence, the One final note. The failure of the accused to object to the
person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, irregularity of his arrest by itself is not enough to sustain his
or is attempting to commit an offense. This is an arrest in conviction. A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not
flagrante delicto.13 The overt act constituting the crime is carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized
done in the presence or within the view of the arresting during the illegal warrantless arrest.
officer.14
WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the
But the circumstances here do not make out a case of arrest Decision dated September 21, 2007 and Resolution dated
made in flagrante delicto. November 16, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR
28937 and ACQUITS the accused George Antiquera y Codes
1. The police officers claim that they were alerted when they of the crime of which he is charged for lack of evidence
saw two unidentified men suddenly rush out of 107 David sufficient to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The
Street, Pasay City. Since they suspected that a crime had been Court further ORDERS the cancellation and release of the bail
committed, the natural thing for them to do was to give chase bond he posted for his provisional liberty.
to the jeep that the two fleeing men boarded, given that the
officers were in a patrol car and a tricycle. Running after the SO ORDERED.
fleeing suspects was the more urgent task but the officers
instead gave priority to the house even when they heard no
cry for help from it.
FIRST DIVISION
2. Admittedly, the police officers did not notice anything amiss
going on in the house from the street where they stood. G.R. No. 199042, November 17, 2014
Indeed, even as they peeked through its partially opened
door, they saw no activity that warranted their entering it. DANILO VILLANUEVA Y ALCARAZ, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE
Thus, PO1 Cabutihan testified: OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

THE COURT: DECISION

Q By the way, Mr. Cabutihan, when you followed your SERENO, C.J.:
companion towards the open door, how was the door
open? Was it totally open, or was it partially open? We resolve the Petition1 filed by Danilo Villanueva y Alcaraz
from the Decision2 dated 4 May 2011 and Resolution 3 dated
A It was partially open Your Honor. 18 October 2011 issued by the Fourteenth Division of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. C.R. No. 32582.chanrobleslaw
Q By how much, 1/3, 1/2? Only by less than one (1) foot?
THE ANTECEDENT FACTS
A More or less 4 to 6 inches, Your Honor.
Petitioner Danilo Villanueva was charged with violation of
Q So how were you able to know, to see the interior of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or The
the house if the door was only open by 6 inches? Or Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The
did you have to push the door? Information4 reads:

A We pushed the door, Your Honor. That on or about the 15th day of June 2004 in Caloocan City,
Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
xxx Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by
law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
Q Were you allowed to just go towards the door of the house, have in his possession, custody and control
push its door and peeped inside it, as a police officer? METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (Shabu) weighing 0.63
gram knowing the same to [be a] dangerous drug under the
A Kasi po naghinala po kami baka may provisions of the above-cited law.

Q Are you not allowed to Are you not required to get a CONTRARY TO LAW.
search warrant before you can search the interior of the
house? On 15 July 2004, the accused, duly assisted by counsel de
oficio, pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.
A Yes, Your Honor.
PROSECUTION'S VERSION
Q What do you mean by yes? Would you first obtain a search
warrant before searching the interior of the house? Four witnesses testified for the prosecution: (1) Police Senior
Inspector (PSI) Albert Arturo, (2) Police Officer (PO) 3 Jonathan
A Yes, Your Honor. Coralde, (3) PO2 Reynante Mananghaya, and (4) Senior Police
Officer 1 (SPOl) Antonio Asiones.6 Their testimonies reveal
Q So why did you not a [sic] secure a search warrant first that a Complaint was filed by Brian Resco against Daniio
before you tried to investigate the house, considering your Villanueva for allegedly shooting the former along C-3 Road,
admission that you suspected that there was something Navotas City. After recording the incident in the police blotter,
wrong inside the house? PO3 Jonathan Coralde, SPO3 Enrique de Jesus, SPO2 Henry
Martin and SPOl Anthony Asiones, together with Resco,
A Because we saw them that they were engaged in pot proceeded to the house of Villanueva. They informed
session, Your Honor. Villanueva about the Complaint lodged against him. They
invited him to the police station. There, he was subjected to a
Q But before you saw them, you just had to push the body search and, in the process, a plastic sachet of shabu was
door wide open to peep through its opening recovered from the left pocket of his pants. PO3 Coralde
because you did not know what was happening marked the sachet with the initial "DAV 06-15-04", and PO2
inside? Reynante Mananghaya brought it to the National Police
 116
District Scene of the Crime Operatives (NPD-SOCO) for Accused-appellant was arrested without a warrant. Section 5,
examination.7 Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, lays
down the basic rules on lawful warrantless arrests either by a
DEFENSE'S VERSION peace officer or a private person, as follows:

The accused testified that at the time of the incident, he was Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A peace officer
at home watching TV when PO3 Coralde, along with three or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
others, invited him to go with them to the police station.
Informed that he had been identified as responsible for (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
shooting Resco, the accused was then frisked and detained at committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
the police station.8 an offense;

RULING OF THE RTC (b) When an offense has just been committed and he has
probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 127 of Caloocan City, in facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has
its Decision9 dated 6 April 2009, convicted petitioner of the committed it; and
offense charged. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is
rendered declaring accused DANILO VILLANUEVA y serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his
ALCARAZ, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from
offense of Violation of Section 11, Article II, R.A. 9165. one confinement to another.
Henceforth, this Court hereby sentences him to suffer
an imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day The circumstances that transpired between accused-appellant
as the minimum to seventeen (17) years and eight (8) and the arresting officer show none of the above that would
months as the maximum and to pay the fine of Three make the warrantless arrest lawful. Nevertheless, records
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00). reveal that accused-appellant never objected to the
irregularity of his arrest before his arraignment. He pleaded
The drugs subject matter of this case is ordered confiscated not guilty upon arraignment. He actively participated in the
and forfeited in favor of the government to be dealt with in trial of the case. Thus, he is considered as one who had
accordance with the law. properly and voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction
of the trial court and waived his right to question the validity
SO ORDERED.10 of his arrest.

The CA reviewed the appeal, which hinged on one The warrantless search conducted is not among those
issue, viz:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary allowed by law.

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING AS A waiver of an illegal arrest, however, is not a waiver of an
ILLEGAL THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S WARRANTLESS ARREST illegal search.18 Records have established that both the arrest
AND SEARCH.11 and the search were made without a warrant. While the
accused has already waived his right to contest the legality of
RULING OF THE CA his arrest, he is not deemed to have equally waived his right
to contest the legality of the search.
On 4 May 2011, the CA affirmed the ruling of the lower court:
Jurisprudence is replete with pronouncements on when a
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision dated April 6, 2009 of warrantless search can be conducted. These searches include:
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 127, Caloocan City in Criminal (1) search of a moving vehicle; (2) seizure in plain view; (3)
Case No. 70854 finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond customs search; (4) waiver or consented search; (5) stop-and-
reasonable doubt is hereby AFFIRMED. frisk situation; (6) search incidental to a lawful arrest and (7)
exigent and emergency circumstance.
SO ORDERED.12
The search made was not among the enumerated instances.
On 27 May 2011, petitioner filed a Motion for Certainly, it was not of a moving vehicle, a customs search, or
Reconsideration,13 which the CA denied in a Resolution14 a search incidental to a lawful arrest. There could not have
dated 18 October 2011. been a seizure in plain view as the seized item was allegedly
found inside the left pocket of accused-appellant's pants.
Hence, the instant Petition, which revolves around the Neither was it a stop-and-frisk situation. While this type may
following lone issue: seemingly fall under the consented search exception, we
reiterate that "[c]onsent to a search is not to be lightly
inferred, but shown by clear and convincing evidence.20
WHETHER THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
AFFIRMING THE PETITIONER'S CONVICTION FOR VIOLATION OF
SECTION 11 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 DESPITE THE Consent must also be voluntary in order to validate an
ILLEGALITY OF THE ARREST AND THE LAPSES ON THE PART OF otherwise illegal search; that is, the consent must be
THE POLICE OFFICERS IN THE HANDLING OF THE unequivocal, specific, intelligently given, and uncontaminated
CONFISCATED DRUG.15 by any duress or coercion.21 In this case, petitioner was
merely "ordered" to take out the contents of his pocket. The
testimony of the police officer on the matter is clear:
Petitioner claims that his arrest does not fall within the
purview of valid warrantless arrests, since it took place on the
day of the alleged shooting incident. Hence, to "invite" him to Q: And what did you do when you frisked a small plastic
the precinct without any warrant of arrest was illegal. The sachet?
evidence obtained is, consequently, inadmissible.
A: When I felt something inside his pocket, I ordered him to
16
The Office of the Solicitor General filed its Comment stating bring out the thing which I felt.
that the shabu confiscated from petitioner was admissible in
evidence against him; that the search conducted on him was Q: And what did Danilo Villanueva do when you instructed him
valid; and that he cannot raise the issue regarding the to bring out the contents of his pocket?
apprehending officers' non-compliance with Section 21, Article
II of R.A. 9165 for the first time on appeal. A: He took out the contents of his pocket and I saw the plastic
containing shabu.22
OUR RULING
The evidence obtained is not admissible.
We find the instant appeal meritorious.
Having been obtained through an unlawful search, the seized
Accused-appellant is estopped from questioning the item is thus inadmissible in evidence against accused-
legality of his arrest. appellant. Obviously, this is an instance of seizure of the "fruit
of the poisonous tree." Hence, the confiscated item is
inadmissible in evidence consonant with Article III, Section
3(2) of the 1987 Constitution: "Any evidence obtained in
violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible
 117
for any purpose in any proceeding."23 Without the seized item, WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision
therefore, the conviction of accused-appellant cannot be dated 4 May 2011 and Resolution dated 18 October 2011
sustained. This being the case, we see no more reason to issued by the Fourteenth Division of the Court of Appeals in
discuss the alleged lapses of the officers in the handling of the CA-G.R. C.R. No. 32582 are SET ASIDE. Petitioner is
confiscated drug. hereby ACQUITTED.

As a final word, we reiterate that "[wjhile this Court SO ORDERED.

appreciates and encourages the efforts of law enforcers to
uphold the law and to preserve the peace and security of
society, we nevertheless admonish them to act with
deliberate care and within the parameters set by the
Constitution and the law. Truly, the end never justifies the
means."