PEOPLE V. HON.

PERFECTO LAGUIO

G.R. NO. 128587, 16 MARCH 2007

J. GARCIA

FACTS: On May 16, 1996, the police arrested SPO2 Vergel De Dios, Rogelio Anoble
and a certain Aellano for unlawful possession of a drug known as shabu. In the course
of the investigation, Redentor Teck and Joseph Junio were identified as the source of
the drug. The suspected sources of shabu were then apprehended while attempting to
deliver a bag of shabu to the arrested men. They later on disclosed that they were
connected to Lawrence Wang and that they were working for him. Based on the
information obtained, police conducted a surveillance operation at the Maria Orosa
Apartment in Malate, Manila. On 17 May 1996, at about 2:10 a.m.: Lawrence Wang was
seen emerging from the apartment and approaching a parked BMW car. Police officers,
including Captain Margallo and Police Inspector Cielito Coronel, approached Wang,
identified him, and proceeded to frisk him. During the said operation, the officers found
an unlicensed AMT Cal. 9mm pistol, Thirty-two transparent plastic bags containing
shabu, an additional unlicensed DAEWOO Cal. 9mm pistol with an accompanying
loaded magazine, and cash amounting to P650,000.00 were found in Wang’s
possession. Three separate informations were then filed against Wang corresponding to
the offenses he allegedly committed.

Wang filed a Demurrer to Evidence praying for his acquittal and the dismissal of the
charges against him citing lack of a valid arrest and search warrants and the
inadmissibility of the prosecution’s evidence against him. Ruling on the same, Hon.
Laguio granted the said demurrer and acquitted Wang of all charges for lack of
evidence.

ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless arrest and search was invalid

RULING: YES. Under Section 5, Rule 113 of the New Rules of Court, a peace officer
may arrest a person without a warrant: (a) when in his presence, the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) when an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of
facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it, and (c) when the person
to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place
where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while being transferred from
one confinement to another. None of these circumstances were present when the
accused was arrested. The accused was merely walking from the Maria Orosa
Apartment and was about to enter the parked BMW car when the police officers
arrested and frisked him and searched his car. The accused was not committing any
visible offense at the time of his arrest. Neither was there an indication that he was
about to commit a crime or that he had just committed an offense. The unlicensed AMT
Cal.380 9mm Automatic Back-up Pistol that the accused had in his possession was
concealed inside the right front pocket of his pants. And the handgun was bantam and
slim in size that it would not give an outward indication of a concealed gun if placed
inside the pant's side pocket as was done by the accused. The arresting officers had no
information and knowledge that the accused was carrying an unlicensed handgun, nor
did they see him in possession thereof immediately prior to his arrest.
 ARSENIO VERGARA VALDEZ V. PEOPLE

G.R. NO. 170180, 23 NOVEMBER 2007

J. TINGA

FACTS: Arsenio Valdez was charged with violation of Sec. 11 par. 2(2) of RA 9165. He
was apprehended by three barangay tanods in Aringay, La Union. The said tanods
testified that Valdez was executing suspicious behaviour and allegedly attempted to flee
when they approached him. They then detained him without a warrant and brought him
to the house of Barangay Captain Orencio Mercado where they ordered him to open his
bag. Valdez’s bag allegedly contained a pair of denim pants, eighteen pieces of
eggplant and dried marijuana leaves wrapped in newspaper and cellophane. But it was
later on admitted that it was Mercado who opened that bag and not Valdez. Valdez
denied the allegations and testified that he voluntarily opened his bag at a friend’s
house earlier but it was one of the tanod who opened his bag in Mercado’s house where
they found marijuana for the first time. The RTC convicted Valdez of the offense
charged. Valdez argues that the warrantless arrest effected against him by the
barangay tanod was unlawful and that the warrantless search of his bag that followed
was likewise contrary to law.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is a valid warrantless arrest

RULING: NO. Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.—A peace officer or a
private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

It is obvious that based on the testimonies of the arresting barangay tanod, not one of
these circumstances was obtaining at the time petitioner was arrested. By their own
admission, petitioner was not committing an offense at the time he alighted from the
bus, nor did he appear to be then committing an offense.20 The tanod did not have
probable cause either to justify petitioner’s warrantless arrest.

For the exception in Section 5(a), Rule 113 to operate, this Court has ruled that two (2)
elements must be present: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act
indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the
arresting officer.21 Here, petitioner’s act of looking around after getting off the bus was
but natural as he was finding his way to his destination. That he purportedly attempted
to run away as the tanod approached him is irrelevant and cannot by itself be construed
as adequate to charge the tanod with personal knowledge that petitioner had just
engaged in, was actually engaging in or was attempting to engage in criminal activity.
More importantly, petitioner testified that he did not run away but in fact spoke with the
barangay tanod when they approached him.
 PEOPLE V. NAZARENO VILLAREAL Y LUALHATI

G.R. NO. 201363, 18 MARCH 2013

J. PERLAS-BERNABE

FACTS: PO3 De Leon was driving his motorcycle on his way home along 5th Avenue,
he saw Villareal from a distance of about 8 to 10 meters, holding and scrutinizing in his
hand a plastic sachet of shabu. Villareal tried to escape but was quickly apprehended.
PO3 de Leon brought appellant to the 9th Avenue Police Station to fix his handcuffs,
and then they proceeded to the SAID-SOU office where PO3 de Leon marked the
seized plastic sachet with "RZL/NV 12-25-06," representing his and appellant’s initials
and the date of the arrest. PO3 De Leon turned over the marked evidence for to the
PNP Crime Lab where it was found out that the plastic sachet contained dangerous
drug. Villareal was then charged with a violation of Section 11 of RA 9165. The RTC
convected Villareal of the crime charged which was affirmed by the CA. The present
petition challenges the validity of the warrantless arrest.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is a valid warrantless arrest under Section 5(a), Rule 113

RULING: NO. For the warrantless arrest under paragraph (a) of Section 5 to operate,
two elements must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act
indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the
arresting officer. On the other hand, paragraph (b) of Section 5 requires for its
application that at the time of the arrest, an offense had in fact just been committed and
the arresting officer had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the appellant had
committed it. In both instances, the officer’s personal knowledge of the fact of the
commission of an offense is absolutely required. Under paragraph (a), the officer
himself witnesses the crime while under paragraph (b), he knows for a fact that a crime
has just been committed. The Court finds it inconceivable how PO3 de Leon, even with
his presumably perfect vision, would be able to identify with reasonable accuracy, from
a distance of about 8 to 10 meters and while simultaneously driving a motorcycle, a
negligible and minuscule amount of powdery substance (0.03 gram) inside the plastic
sachet allegedly held by appellant. That he had previously effected numerous arrests,
all involving shabu, is insufficient to create a conclusion that what he purportedly saw in
appellant’s hands was indeed shabu.
 ONGCOMA HADJI HOMAR V. PEOPLE

G.R. NO. 182534, 2 SEPTEMBER 2015

J. BRION

FACTS: Homar was charged for violation of Section 11 of RA 9165 for having been
caught in possession of shabu. PO1 Tan testified that he, together with other civilian
agent, was ordered by his chief to go to the South Wing, Roxas Boulevard where they
saw Homar crossing a “No Jaywalking” portion. They accosted him, directing him to
cross at a designated pedestrian area. During this encounter, the petitioner was
observed picking something from the ground, which prompted Tangcoy to frisk him. A
knife was recovered during the frisk, which led to a more thorough search, eventually
uncovering a heat-sealed plastic sachet containing approximately 0.03 grams of shabu.
Homar testified that he was going home and crossing the overpass after selling imitation
sunglasses when he was stopped and frisked by the group of PO1 Tan despite his
refusal. They poked a gun at him, accused him of being a holdupper, and forced him to
go with them. They also confiscated the kitchen knife, which he carried to cut cords. He
was likewise investigated for alleged possession of shabu and detained for one day.
The RTC convicted Homar which the CA affirmed.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is a valid warrantless arrest

RULING: NO. In the present case, the respondent alleged that the petitioner’s
warrantless arrest was due to his commission of jaywalking in flagrante delicto and in
the presence of Tan and Tangcoy. To constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, two
requisites must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act
indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence of or within the view of the
arresting officer. The respondent failed to specifically identify the area where the
petitioner allegedly crossed. Thus, Tan merely stated that the petitioner "crossed the
street of Roxas Boulevard, in a place not designated for crossing." Aside from this
conclusion, the respondent failed to prove that the portion of Roxas Boulevard where
the petitioner crossed was indeed a "no jaywalking" area. The petitioner was also not
charged of jaywalking. These are pieces of evidence that could have supported the
conclusion that indeed the petitioner was committing a crime of jaywalking and
therefore, the subsequent arrest and search on his person was valid. Unfortunately, the
prosecution failed to prove this in the present case.
 JOEY PESTILOS V. MORENO GENEROSO AND PEOPLE

G.R. NO. 182601, 10 NOVEMBER 2014

J. BRION

FACTS: On February 20, 2005, at approximately 3:15am, an altercation ensued on

Kasiyahan Street, Barangay Holy Spirit, Quezon City between Pestilos et.al. and Atty.
Generoso, wherein the latter suffered evident physical injuries. Atty. Generoso
immediately contacted the Central Police District, Station 6. Acting on the complaint, the
officers arrived less than one hour after the alleged altercation and observed that Atty.
Generoso had sustained multiple injuries; the victim positively identified the petitioners
as those responsible. Following the identification, the police officers “invited” the
petitioners to the police station for investigation. At the inquest proceeding, the City
Prosecutor of Quezon City found that the petitioners stabbed Atty. Generoso with a
bladed weapon. In an information, the petitioners were indicted for attempted murder.
Petioners then filed an urgent Motion for Regular Preliminary Investigation on the
ground that they had not been lawfully arrested. They alleged that no valid warrantless
arrest took place since the police officers had no personal knowledge that they were the
perpetrators of the crime. They also claimed that they were just "invited" to the police
station rendering the inquest improper. Both the RTC and the CA denied said motion.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners were validly arrested without a warrant

RULING: YES. The elements under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure are: first, an offense has just been committed; and second, the
arresting officer has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it. The arresting officers
went to the scene of the crime upon the complaint of Atty. Generoso of his alleged
mauling; the police officers responded to the scene of the crime less than one (1) hour
after the alleged mauling; the alleged crime transpired in a community where Atty.
Generoso and the petitioners reside; Atty. Generoso positively identified the petitioners
as those responsible for his mauling and, notably, the petitioners85 and Atty. Generoso
lived almost in the same neighborhood; more importantly, when the petitioners were
confronted by the arresting officers, they did not deny their participation in the incident
with Atty. Generoso, although they narrated a different version of what transpired.87

With these facts and circumstances that the police officers gathered and which they
have personally observed less than one hour from the time that they have arrived at the
scene of the crime until the time of the arrest of the petitioners, we deem it reasonable
to conclude that the police officers had personal knowledge of facts or circumstances
justifying the petitioners' warrantless arrests.
 ROGER POSADAS, ET.AL. V. HON. OMBUDSMAN

G.R. NO. 131492, 29 SEPTEMBER 2000

J. MENDOZA

FACTS: On December 8, 1994, Dennis Venturina, a member of Sigma Rho at the

University of the Phiippines was killed in a rumble between his fraternity and another
fraternity. In a letter dated December 11, 1994, Roger Posadas, then Chancellor of U.P.
Diliman in Quezon City, asked the Director of the NBI for assistance in determining the
persons responsible for the crime. On December 12, then NBI went to UP on the basis
of the supposed positive identification of two alleged eyewitnesses, Leandro Lachica
and Cesar Mangrobang, Jr., attempted to arrest Francis Carlo Taparan and Raymundo
Narag, officers/members of the Scintilla Juris Fraternity, as suspects in the killing of
Venturina. Petitioners objected on the ground that the NBI did not have warrants of
arrest with them. Criminal charges were filed against the two student suspects. Dizon
then filed a complaint against the petitioner for violation of PD 1829 or obstruction of
justice.

ISSUE: Whether or not the attempted arrest of the student suspects by the NBI could
be validly made without a warrant under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the ROC.

RULING: NO. The NBI agents in the case at bar tried to arrest Narag and Taparan four
days after the commission of the crime. They had no personal knowledge of any fact
which might indicate that the two students were probably guilty of the crime. What they
had were the supposed positive identification of two alleged eyewitnesses, which is
insufficient to justify the arrest without a warrant by the NBI. "Personal knowledge" of
facts in arrests without a warrant under Section 5 (b) of Rule 113 must be based upon
"probable cause" which means an "actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion."
The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of actual belief of the
arresting officers, the suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of
committing the offense is based on actual facts, i.e., supported by circumstances
sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be
arrested. Indeed, at the time Dennis Venturina was killed, these agents were nowhere
near the scene of the crime. When respondent Dizon and his men attempted to arrest
Taparan and Narag, the latter were not committing a crime nor were they doing
anything that would create the suspicion that they were doing anything illegal.
 JEFFREY MIGUEL Y REMEGIO V. PEOPLE

G.R. NO. 227038, 31 JULY 2017

J. PERLAS-BERNABE

FACTS: Miguel was charged of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. It was alleged
that at around 12:45 in the morning of May 24, 2010, Bahoyo, a Bantay Bayan
operative, responded to a report regarding a man allegedly exposing his private parts at
Kaong Street. Fellow Bantay Bayan Operative Velasquez went to the said street and
saw a visibly intoxicated man. The operatives questioned Miguel about his residence
When he confirmed he resided in Kaong Street, identification was requested. Upon
failure to produce an ID, petitioner’s pockets were emptied, revealing a cigarette pack
and two pieces of rolled paper containing dried marijuana leaves. The recovered items
were seized and the petitioner was taken to the police station where SPO3 Rafael
Castillo inventoried, marked, photographed, and submitted the items for qualitative
examination. Both the RTC and the CA found the accused guilty of the crime charged.
Miguel argues that the search and arrest made on him were illegal and, thus, the
marijuana purportedly seized from him is inadmissible in evidence.

ISSUE: Whether or not the arrest is illegal.

RULING: NO. In warrantless arrests made pursuant to Section 5 (a), Rule 113, two (2)
elements must concur, namely: (a) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act
indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
a crime; and (b) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the
arresting officer. On the other hand, Section 5 (b), Rule 113 requires for its application
that at the time of the arrest, an offense had in fact just been committed and the
arresting officer had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the accused had
committed it.

The Court is inclined to believe that at around past 12 o'clock in the early morning of
May 24, 2010, petitioner went out to the street to urinate when the Bantay
Bayan operatives chanced upon him. The latter then approached and questioned
petitioner, and thereafter, went on to search his person, which purportedly yielded the
marijuana seized from him. Verily, the prosecution's claim that petitioner was showing
off his private parts was belied by the aforesaid testimonies. Clearly, these
circumstances do not justify the conduct of an in jlagrante delicto arrest, considering
that there was no overt act constituting a crime committed by petitioner in the presence
or within the view of the arresting officer. Neither do these circumstances necessitate
a "hot pursuit" warrantless arrest as the arresting Bantay Bayan operatives do not have
any personal knowledge of facts that petitioner had just committed an offense.
 PEOPLE V. JOSE RAYRAY Y AREOLA

G.R. NO. 90628, 1 FEBRUARY 1995

J. BELLOSILLO

FACTS: Ramon Ancheta was at the Friendly Shop located at Ortega St., San
Fernando, La Union, when Jose Rayray approached him offering to sell marijuana. In
an effort to demonstrate his offer, the accused produced marijuana wrapped in a
komiks, along with marijuana fruiting tops and a marijuana cigarette. Lt. Ancheta
immediately identified himself as a police officer and arrested Jose Rayray. Accused-
appellant denied allegations and said that he was just framed-up. He further alleged
that his arrest was illegal because P/Lt. Ancheta had no authority to arrest persons in
San Fernando, La Union, being then assigned at the Regional INP Command in Baguio
City.

ISSUE: Whether or not the arrest was invalid

RULING: NO. We cannot yield to appellant's view that just because Lt. Ancheta was
assigned in Baguio City he could not arrest persons caught in the act of committing a
crime in some other place, especially so where he was the intended victim. A policeman
cannot callously set aside his essential duty of apprehending criminal offenders and of
keeping peace and order on the shallow excuse that he is not in his place of
assignment. His responsibility to protect the public by apprehending violators of the law,
especially one caught in flagrante delicto is not limited by territorial constraints. It follows
him wherever he goes. Moreover, Sec. 5, par. (a), Rule 113, of the Revised Rules on
Criminal Procedure authorities a warrantless arrest, otherwise called a citizen's arrest,
"when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing,
or is attempting to commit an offense." Thus, although officially assigned in Baguio City,
Lt. Ancheta's act of arresting accused-appellant (after the latter offered to sell him
marijuana in San Fernando, La Union) is justified not only by his duty as a law enforcer
but also by Sec. 5 of Rule 113, which authorizes instances of warrantless or citizens'
arrests.
 DIOSDADO MALLARI V. CA

G.R. NO. 110569, 9 DECEMBER 1996

J. FRANCISCO

FACTS: Pat. Manipon and Pfc. Esguerra received reliable information that Diosdado
Mallari, who had a standing warrant of arrest for murder, was seen at Sitio 14, Sta. Rita,
Capas, Tarlac. Upon receipt of such information, the police officers, with personal
knowledge of the existence of a standing warrant of arrest against Mallari, proceeded to
the address and thereafter arrested Mallari. During the search, a homemade gun and
one M-16 live ammunition were discovered on Mallari. Mallari was charged with the
crime of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. The RTC found the accused
guilty of the crimes charged and the CA affirmed the same. The CA upheld the validity
of the search stating that it was preceded by a lawful arrest. Mallari argues that the
arrest was invalid because there was no existing warrant against him.

ISSUE: Whether or not the arrest was valid

RULING: YES. This is a case of an arrest effected by the police authorities without
having the warrant in their possession at that precise moment. Under Section 7, Rule
113, When making an arrest by virtue of a warrant the officer shall inform the person to
be arrested of the cause of the arrest and the fact that a warrant has been issued for his
arrest, except when he flees or forcibly resists before the officer has opportunity so to
inform him or when the giving of such information will imperil the arrest. The officer need
not have the warrant in his at the time of the arrest but after the arrest, if the person
arrested so requires, the warrant shall be shown to him as soon as practicable."Thus,
appellant's arrest being lawful, the search and seizure made incidental thereto is
likewise valid, albeit conducted without a warrant.
 LENIZA REYES Y CAPISTRANO V. PEOPLE

G.R. NO. 229380, 06 JUNE 2018

J. PERLAS-BERNABE

FACTS: Reyes was charged with the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. It
was alleged that at around 8 in the evening of November 6, 2012, a group of police
officers were informed that a woman with long hair and a dragon tattoo on her left arm
had just bought shabu. After a few minutes, a woman, later identified to be Reyes, who
matched the said description and smelled like liquor passed by the police officers. The
latter asked if she bought shabu and ordered her to bring it out. Reyes answered, "Di ba
bawal kayong magkapkap ng babae?" and at that point, turned her back, pulled
something out from her breast area and held a small plastic sachet on her right hand.
PO1 Monteras promptly confiscated the sachet, marked it as “LRC-1”, and secured the
evidence through an inventory and photography session in the presence of Barangay
Captain Manolito Angeles before turning over the item for forensic examination, which
confirmed it contained 0.04 gram of shabu. The RTC, citing the valid arrest and
established chain of custody through the testimony of PO1 Monteras, convicted Reyes
for illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The CA affirmed such conviction. Reyes
argues that no valid warrantless arrest took place as she did not do anything as to rouse
suspicion in the minds of the arresting officers that she had just committed, was
committing, or was about to commit a crime when she was just passing by.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is a valid warrantless arrest.

RULING: NO. In warrantless arrests made pursuant to Section 5 (a), Rule 113, two (2)
elements must concur, namely: (a) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act
indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
a crime; and (b) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the
arresting officer. On the other hand, Section 5 (b), Rule 113 requires for its application
that at the time of the arrest, an offense had in fact just been committed and the
arresting officer had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the accused had
committed it. In both instances, the officer's personal knowledge of the fact of the
commission of an offense is essential. PO1 Monteras himself admitted that Reyes
passed by them without acting suspiciously or doing anything wrong, except that she
smelled of liquor.38 As no other overt act could be properly attributed to Reyes as to
rouse suspicion in the mind of PO1 Monteras that she had just committed, was
committing, or was about to commit a crime, the arrest is bereft of any legal basis. As
case law demonstrates, the act of walking while reeking of liquor per se cannot be
considered a criminal act.39

Neither has the prosecution established the conditions set forth in Section 5 (b), Rule
113, particularly, that the arresting officer had personal knowledge of any fact or
circumstance indicating that the accused had just committed a crime.