Case 1

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR,

A.M. No. MTJ-12-1817

Facts:

Judge Rosabella M. Tormis, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC),
Branch 4, Cebu City, and Mr. Reynaldo S. Teves, Branch Clerk of Court, faced administrative
charges for multiple violations. One of the primary issues was the improper issuance of a
warrant of arrest by Judge Tormis in Criminal Case Nos. 126542R to 49-R (People vs.
Jasmin L. Librando) without informing the accused of the charge against her, which is a
requirement under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. The rule stipulates that an
arrest cannot be made unless the accused fails to appear as required. Judge Tormis issued
the arrest warrant even before the accused was notified to appear or submit her counter-
affidavit, violating the procedural rights of the accused. The Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA) found Judge Tormis guilty of gross ignorance of the law and recommended sanctions
for her actions.

Issue:

Whether or not Judge Rosabella M. Tormis’ actions constituted a failure to adhere to proper
legal procedures for issuing an arrest warrant, thereby infringing on the accused’s rights to
due process

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled that Judge Rosabella M. Tormis’ actions did constitute a
failure to adhere to proper legal procedures for issuing an arrest warrant, thereby
infringing on the accused’s rights to due process. The Court found that by issuing the
warrant of arrest without first notifying the accused, Jasmin L. Librando, of the charges
against her and without requiring her to submit a counter-affidavit, Judge Tormis violated the
Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. This breach of procedural law deprived the accused
of her right to be properly informed and to respond before an arrest warrant could be lawfully
issued. As a result, the Court deemed Judge Tormis guilty of gross ignorance of the law and
dismissed her from service, with all benefits forfeited except accrued leave credits.
Case 2

Tabujara III v. People, G.R. No. 175162, October 29, 2008

Facts:

Daisy Dadivas-Afable filed criminal complaints against Atty. Ernesto A. Tabujara III and
Christine S. Dayrit for Grave Coercion and Trespass to Dwelling. The Municipal Trial Court
(MTC) initially dismissed the complaints for lack of probable cause. However, after a motion
for reconsideration, the MTC reversed its decision and found probable cause based on the
affidavit of a witness, Mauro De Lara. This affidavit, however, was unsworn and not made
before the judge, and De Lara was not personally examined under oath. Despite these
deficiencies, the judge issued warrants of arrest against the petitioners. The petitioners
challenged the issuance of the warrants, arguing that the judge failed to adhere to the legal
requirements for determining probable cause and issuing warrants of arrest.

Issue:

Whether the judge's issuance of a warrant of arrest based on an unsworn affidavit and
without a personal examination of the witness met the legal requisites for the
issuance of a warrant of arrest.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled that the judge’s issuance of the warrants of arrest did not meet the
legal requisites for issuing a warrant of arrest. Pursuant to Section 2, Article III of the 1987
Philippine Constitution, a warrant of arrest can only be issued upon a finding of probable
cause determined personally by the judge after examining under oath the complainant and
the witnesses.

The judge's decision to issue the warrants based solely on an unsworn affidavit, without the
required personal examination of the witness, violated this procedural requirement. As a
result, the Supreme Court found that the warrants of arrest were improperly issued and in
effect ordered their quashal.
Case 3

De Los Santos-Dio v. CA, G.R. No. 178947, June 26, 2013

Facts:

Virginia De Los Santos-Dio, representing H.S. Equities, Ltd. and Westdale Assets, Ltd.,
invested a total of $2.15 million in two projects managed by Timothy J. Desmond, the CEO
of Subic Bay Marine Exploratorium, Inc. (SBMEI). She later discovered that Desmond had
misrepresented SBMEI’s financial situation and improperly used funds from Westdale’s
special account without her consent. Consequently, Dio filed criminal complaints for estafa
against Desmond, accusing him of misappropriation and false pretenses. The City
Prosecutor found probable cause for the charges, but the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
dismissed the cases, stating no probable cause existed. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed
the RTC’s dismissal, leading Dio and the City Prosecutor to elevate the matter to the
Supreme Court.

Issue:

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the RTC’s dismissal of the criminal
cases for lack of probable cause.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC and CA erred in dismissing the criminal cases for
lack of probable cause. The Court held that while a judge has the discretion to dismiss a
case when there is a clear lack of probable cause, this discretion must be exercised
judiciously and only when the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause. In
this case, certain essential facts, such as Desmond's alleged misrepresentations and
improper use of funds, were still in dispute and could not be resolved without a full trial.
Therefore, the RTC's dismissal was improper as it failed to adhere to the correct legal
standards for evaluating probable cause. The Court directed the trial court to proceed with
the arraignment and trial, emphasizing that a judge may dismiss a case immediately only
when the lack of probable cause is unequivocally clear from the evidence presented.

WHEREFORE, the petitions are GRANTED, and the trial court is directed to proceed with
the arraignment of the accused and the trial of the case.
Case 4
People v. Ng Yik bun, et al., G.R. NO. 180452, January 10, 2010

Facts:

On August 24, 2000, Task Force Aduana police officers, acting on a tip about a shipment of
illegal drugs, positioned themselves near a warehouse in Barangay Bignay II, Sariaya,
Quezon. The officers observed six men, who appeared to be Chinese nationals, loading
bags into a van. The bags were suspected to contain methamphetamine hydrochloride,
commonly known as shabu.

As the police approached, one of the suspects, Chua Shilou Hwan, admitted that the bags
contained shabu and identified Raymond Tan as the group's leader. This admission and the
officers' direct observation led them to conduct a warrantless arrest of the suspects. Upon
searching the bags, the police confirmed that they contained a large quantity of shabu,
leading to charges against the suspects for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.

Issue:

Whether the warrantless arrest of the accused was lawful under the circumstances of
an in flagrante delicto arrest.

Ruling:

Yes. According to the Supreme Court, the warrantless arrest of the accused was lawful. The
Court held that the arrest fell under the exception provided by Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which allows warrantless arrests when the person is
caught in flagrante delicto, or in the act of committing a crime.

The police officers observed the accused loading bags containing a white crystalline
substance (later confirmed as shabu) into a van, and the admission by Chua Shilou Hwan
further justified the warrantless arrest. The Court emphasized that the law allows warrantless
arrests when a crime is being committed in the officer's presence or within their view, making
the arrest valid under the circumstances.
Case 5
People v. Racho, G.R. No. 186529, August 3, 2010
Facts
On May 19, 2003, a confidential agent of the police transacted through cellular phone with
the appellant for the purchase of shabu. Police authorities immediately formed a team
composed of member of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), the Intelligence
group of the Philippine Army and the local police force to apprehend the appellant.4
On May 20, 2003, at 11:00 a.m., appellant called up the agent and informed him that he was
on board a Genesis bus and would arrive in Baler, Aurora, anytime of the day wearing a red
and white striped T-shirt. When appellant alighted from the bus, the confidential agent
pointed to him as the person he transacted with earlier.
As the appellant was about to board a tricycle, the team approached him and invited him to
the police station on suspicion of carrying shabu. Appellant immediately denied the
accusation, but as he pulled out his hands from his pants’ pocket, a white envelope slipped
therefrom which, when opened, yielded a small sachet containing the suspected drug.
The team then brought the appellant to the police station for investigation. The field test and
laboratory examinations on the contents of the confiscated sachet yielded positive results for
methamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as "Shabu".

Issue
Whether or not the arrest is legal and the subsequent warrantless search is valid

Ruling
The appellant can no longer question the validity of the arrest.
Records show that appellant never objected to the irregularity of his arrest before his
arraignment.
Considering this lapse, coupled with his active participation in the trial of the case, we must
abide with jurisprudence which dictates that 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 have attended his arrest. The legality of the arrest
affects only the jurisdiction of the court over his person.
Clearly, what prompted the police to apprehend appellant, even without a warrant, was the
tip given by the informant. "Reliable information" alone is not sufficient to justify a
warrantless arrest. The rule requires, in addition, that the accused perform some overt act
that would indicate that he has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
an offense.
Appellant herein was not committing a crime in the presence of the police officers. Neither
did the arresting officers have personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be
arrested had committed, was committing, or about to commit an offense.
Case 6

People v. Alunday, G.R. No. 181546, September 3, 2008

Facts:

Ricardo Alunday was charged with violating Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6425, known as
the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, and Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866 for
possessing a firearm without a permit. The charges arose when a police contingent
conducted a raid at a marijuana plantation in Mount Churyon, Sadanga, Mountain Province,
on August 3, 2000. The police, acting on intelligence reports, found Alunday cutting and
gathering marijuana plants. He was arrested without a warrant, and during the arrest, police
also found an unlicensed M16 rifle and dried marijuana leaves in a nearby hut. Alunday
claimed he was at the plantation to haul lumber and denied knowledge of the marijuana
plants or the rifle.

Issue:

Whether or not the arrest of Ricardo Alunday without a warrant was lawful under Section
5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, which pertains to an arrest made when a person is
caught in the act of committing a crime.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled that the warrantless arrest of Ricardo Alunday was lawful. Under
Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, a peace officer may arrest a person without a
warrant if the person is caught in flagrante delicto, meaning caught in the act of committing a
crime. In this case, Alunday was seen by police officers cutting and gathering marijuana
plants, which constituted an offense committed in their presence. The arrest was thus
justified as an in flagrante delicto arrest. The Court held that objections to the legality of an
arrest must be raised before arraignment; otherwise, such objections are deemed waived.
Since Alunday failed to raise the issue before his arraignment and actively participated in the
trial, he effectively waived his right to contest the warrantless arrest. The conviction for
violating the Dangerous Drugs Act was affirmed, as the evidence of his illegal activities was
deemed admissible and credible.
Case 7
People v. Jose Rayray Areola, 241 SCRA 1

The case is about the legal conditions and authority under which a warrantless arrest
can be made by a police officer, particularly when the arrest is made outside the
officer's assigned jurisdiction.

Facts:

Jose Rayray Areola was arrested without a warrant after offering to sell 2.9452 grams of
marijuana to a stranger, who turned out to be Lt. Ramon Ancheta, the Chief Administrative
Officer of the Regional Integrated National Police (INP) Command in Baguio City. This event
took place in San Fernando, La Union, where Lt. Ancheta was off-duty but witnessed the act
firsthand. Upon being approached by Areola, who showed him the marijuana, Lt. Ancheta
immediately identified himself as a police officer and arrested Areola on the spot. Areola was
then taken to the local police station for booking. He contested the legality of his arrest,
arguing that Lt. Ancheta had no authority to arrest him because Ancheta was assigned to a
different jurisdiction (Baguio City).

Issue:

Whether the arrest of Jose Rayray Areola without a warrant was lawful given that it
was conducted by a police officer outside his jurisdiction, and whether such an arrest
falls under the permissible instances of a warrantless arrest as defined by law.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled that the warrantless arrest of Jose Rayray Areola was lawful. The
Court emphasized that under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure, a warrantless arrest is permissible when a person is caught in flagrante delicto,
or in the act of committing a crime. In this case, Lt. Ancheta directly witnessed Areola
committing the offense of selling marijuana. The fact that Lt. Ancheta was outside his official
jurisdiction did not invalidate the arrest, as the authority to conduct a warrantless arrest
under such circumstances extends beyond territorial limits. The Court highlighted that a
police officer’s duty to enforce the law and maintain peace and order is not restricted to their
assigned area, especially when witnessing a crime being committed. Thus, the arrest was
valid under the law, and the evidence obtained was admissible
Case 8
People v. Roberto Velasco, G.R. No. 190318, November 27, 2013

The case is about the proper procedure for raising objections to the legality of an
arrest and the consequences of failing to do so before a plea is entered.

Facts:

Roberto Velasco was charged with three counts of rape and one count of acts of
lasciviousness against his stepdaughter, "Lisa," who was a minor at the time. Velasco was
arrested without a warrant following a complaint filed by Lisa's mother after Lisa confided
about the repeated sexual abuses.

Velasco was taken into custody and subsequently detained. During his detention, Velasco
was not immediately informed of his rights, as required under Republic Act No. 7438, which
outlines the rights of persons arrested, detained, or under custodial investigation.

Despite these procedural lapses, Velasco did not object to his warrantless arrest before or
during his arraignment. He pleaded not guilty and fully participated in the trial by cross-
examining witnesses and presenting his defense. It was only after his conviction that
Velasco raised the issue of the legality of his arrest and the alleged procedural violations.

Issue:

Whether Velasco waived his right to object to the irregularity of his warrantless arrest
by failing to raise the issue before entering a plea and actively participating in the
trial.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled that Velasco waived his right to contest the irregularity of his arrest
by not objecting to it before arraignment. The Court emphasized that under procedural rules
and established jurisprudence, any objection to the legality of an arrest must be made before
the accused enters a plea. Since Velasco actively participated in his trial without raising the
issue of his warrantless arrest, he effectively waived any irregularity regarding his arrest. The
Court further noted that even if there were defects in the arrest procedure, these do not
affect the jurisdiction of the court oßver the case once the trial has commenced and
evidence has been presented. The conviction was based on substantial evidence and proper
conduct of the trial, which cannot be nullified by an argument about an initially unlawful
arrest