HOT PURSUIT EXCEPTION Edna Edwina Reyes testified that at

about 7:00 a.m. of April 30, 1990,

appellant Gabriel Gerente, together with
People v. Gerente (219 SCRA 756) Fredo Echigoren and Totoy Echigoren,
started drinking liquor and smoking
This is an appeal from the decision of marijuana in the house of the appellant
the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, which is about six (6) meters away from
Metro Manila, Branch 172, which found the house of the prosecution witness
the appellant guilty of Violation of who was in her house on that day. She
Section 8 of Republic Act 6425 overheard the three men talking about
(Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) and their intention to kill Clarito Blace. She
sentenced him to suffer the penalty of testified that she heard Fredo Echigoren
imprisonment for a term of twelve (12) saying, "Gabriel, papatayin natin si
years and one (1) day, as minimum, to Clarito Blace," and Totoy Echigoren
twenty (20) years, as maximum; and allegedly seconded Fredo's suggestion
also found him guilty of Murder for which saying: "Papatayin natin 'yan mamaya."
crime he was sentenced to suffer the Appellant allegedly agreed: "Sigue,
penalty of reclusion perpetua. papatayin natin mamaya."

FACTS: Fredo and Totoy Echigoren and Gerente

carried out their plan to kill Clarito Blace
"That on or about the 30th day of April, at about 2:00 p.m. of the same day. The
1990, in the municipality of Valenzuela, prosecution witness, Edna Edwina
Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the Reyes, testified that she witnessed the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the killing. Fredo Echigoren struck the first
above-named accused together with two blow against Clarito Blace, followed by
(2) others who are still at large and Totoy Echigoren and Gabriel Gerente
against whom the preliminary who hit him twice with a piece of wood in
investigation has not yet been the head and when he fell, Totoy
terminated by the Office of the Provincial Echigoren dropped a hollow block on
Prosecutor of Bulacan, conspiring, the victim's head. Thereafter, the three
confederating together and mutually men dragged Blace to a place behind
helping one another, armed with a piece the house of Gerente.
of wood and hallow (sic) block and with
intent to kill one Clarito B. Blace, did At about 4:00 p.m. of the same day,
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and Patrolman Jaime Urrutia of the
feloniously, with evident premeditation Valenzuela Police Station received a
and treachery, attack, assault and hit report from the Palo Police Detachment
with the said piece of wood and hollow about a mauling incident. He went to the
block the said Clarito B. Blace, hitting Valenzuela District Hospital where the
the latter on the different parts of his victim was brought. He was informed by
body, thereby inflicting serious physical the hospital officials that the victim died
injuries which directly caused the death on arrival. The cause of death was
of the said victim." massive fracture of the skull caused by
a hard and heavy object. Right away,
Patrolman Urrutia, together with Police
Corporal Romeo Lima and Patrolman In this appeal of the appellant, the
Alex Umali, proceeded to Paseo de Blas following errors are ascribed to the trial
where the mauling incident took place. court:
There they found a piece of wood with
blood stains, a hollow block and two 1. the court a quo gravely erred in
roaches of marijuana. They were admitting the marijuana leaves adduced
informed by the prosecution witness, in evidence by the prosecution; and
Edna Edwina Reyes, that she saw the
killing and she pointed to Gabriel 2. the court a quo gravely erred in
Gerente as one of the three men who convicting the accused-appellant of the
killed Clarito. crimes charged despite the absence of
evidence required to prove his guilt
The policemen proceeded to the house beyond reasonable doubt.
of the appellant who was then sleeping.
They told him to come out of the house ISSUE:
and they introduced themselves as
policemen. Patrolman Urrutia frisked Whether the Personal Knowledge of the
appellant and found a coin purse in his policeman of the crime committed by the
pocket which contained dried leaves accused is justified and valid in arresting
wrapped in cigarette foil. The dried the latter without securing an arrest and
leaves were sent to the National Bureau search warrant.
of Investigation for examination. The
Forensic Chemist found them to be HELD: YES.
marijuana.
Paragraphs (a) and (b), Section 5,
Only the appellant, Gabriel Gerente, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of
was apprehended by the police. The Court provide:
other suspects, Fredo and Totoy
Echigoren, are still at large. 'SECTION 5. Arrest without warrant;
when lawful. — A peace officer or a
On May 2, 1990, two separate private person may, without a warrant,
informations were filed by Assistant arrest a person:
Provincial Prosecutor Benjamin Caraig
against him for Violation of Section 8, "(a) When, in his presence, the person
Art. II, of R.A. 6425, and for Murder. to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit
When arraigned on May 16, 1990, the an offense;"
appellant pleaded not guilty to both
charges. A joint trial of the two cases "(b) When an offense has in fact just
was held. On September 24, 1990, the been committed, and he has personal
trial court rendered a decision convicting knowledge of facts indicating that the
him of Violation of Section 8 of R.A. person to be arrested has committed it; .
6425 and of Murder. . .'

The policemen arrested Gerente only

some three (3) hours after Gerente
and his companions had killed Blace. The search conducted on Gerente's
They saw Blace dead in the hospital and person was likewise lawful because it
when they inspected the scene of the was made as an incident to a valid
crime, they found the instruments of arrest. This is in accordance with
death: a piece of wood and a concrete Section 12, Rule 126 of the Revised
hollow block which the killers had used Rules of Court which provides:
to bludgeon him to death. The eye-
witness, Edna Edwina Reyes, reported "SECTION 12. Search incident to lawful
the happening to the policemen and arrest. — A person lawfully arrested
pinpointed her neighbor, Gerente, as may be searched for dangerous
one of the killers. Under those weapons or anything which may be
circumstances, since the policemen had used as proof of the commission of an
personal knowledge of the violent death offense, without a search warrant."
of Blace and of facts indicating that
Gerente and two others had killed him, The frisk and search of appellant's
they could lawfully arrest Gerente person upon his arrest was a
without a warrant. If they had postponed permissible precautionary measure of
his arrest until they could obtain a arresting officers to protect themselves,
warrant, he would have fled the law as for the person who is about to be
his two companions did. arrested may be armed and might attack
them unless he is first disarmed.
The appellant contends that the trial
court erred in admitting the marijuana There is no merit in appellant's
leaves as evidence in violation of his allegation that the trial court erred in
constitutional right not to be subjected to convicting him of having conspired and
illegal search and seizure, for the dried cooperated with Fredo and Totoy
marijuana leaves were seized from him Echigoren to kill Blace despite the
in the course of a warrantless arrest by testimony of Dr. Valentin Bernales that
the police officers. We do not agree. the fracture on the back of the victim's
skull could have been inflicted by one
The search of appellant's person and person only.
the seizure of the marijuana leaves in
his possession were valid because they What Dr. Bernales stated was a mere
were incident to a lawful warrantless possibility that only one person dropped
arrest. the concrete hollow block on the head of
the victim, smashing it. That
In Umil vs. Ramos, "To hold that no circumstance, even if true, does not
criminal can, in any case, be arrested absolve the other two co-conspirators in
and searched for the evidence and the murder of Blace for when there is a
tokens of his crime without a warrant, conspiracy to commit a crime, the act of
would be to leave society, to a large one conspirator is the act of all. The
extent, at the mercy of the shrewdest, conspiracy was proven by the
the most expert, and the most depraved eyewitness-testimony of Edna Edwina
of criminals, facilitating their escape in Reyes, that she overheard the appellant
many instances." and his companions conspire to kill
Blace, that acting in concert, they
attacked their victim with a piece of
wood and a hollow block and caused his
death.

"When there is no evidence indicating

that the principal witness for the
prosecution was moved by improper IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO
motive, the presumption is that he was
not so moved and his testimony is People vs Tangliben 184 SCRA 220
entitled to full faith and credit" (People G.R. No. L-63630 April 6, 1990
vs. Belibet, 199 SCRA 587, 588).
Hence, the trial court did not err in giving This is an appeal from the decision of
full credit to Edna Reyes' testimony. the Regional Trial Court, Branch 41,
Third Judicial Region at San Fernando,
Appellant's failure to escape (because Pampanga, Branch 41, finding appellant
he was very drunk) is no indicium of his Medel Tangliben y Bernardino guilty
innocence. beyond reasonable doubt of violating
Section 4, Article II of Republic Act 6425
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 as
is hereby AFFIRMED, with amended) and sentencing him to life
modification of the civil indemnity imprisonment, to pay a fine of P20,000
awarded to the heirs of the victim, and to pay the costs.
Clarito Blace, which is hereby
increased to P50,000.00. FACTS:

That on or about the 2nd day of March,

People v. Villareal (2013) 1982, in the municipality of San
Fernando, Province of Pampanga,
Pestilos v. Generoso (2014) Philippines, accused MEDEL
TANGLIBEN y BERNARDINO, knowing
Comerciante v. People (2015) fully well that Marijuana is a prohibited
drug, did then and there willfully,
People v. Del Rosario (305 SCRA 740) unlawfully and feloniously have his
possession, control and custody one (1)
People v. Cendana (190 SCRA 538) bag of dried marijuana leaves with an
approximate weight of one (1) kilo and
Rolito Go v. CA (206 SCRA 138) to transport (sic) the same to Olongapo
City, without authority of law to do so.
Posadas v. Ombudsman (341 SCRA
388) The prosecution's evidence:

Abelita v. Doria (596 SCRA 220) In the late evening of March 2, 1982,
Patrolmen Silverio Quevedo and Romeo
People v. Acol (232 SCRA 406) L. Punzalan of the San Fernando Police
Station, together with Barangay Tanod
Macario Sacdalan, were conducting
surveillance mission at the Victory Liner Antipolo, Rizal; that he is engaged in the
Terminal compound located at San business of selling poultry medicine and
Fernando, Pampanga; that the feeds, including chicks, and used to
surveillance was aimed not only against conduct his business at Taytay, Rizal;
persons who may commit that he goes to Subic at times in
misdemeanors at the said place but also connection with his business and
on persons who may be engaging in the whenever he is in Subic, he used to buy
traffic of dangerous drugs based on C-rations from one Nena Ballon and
informations supplied by informers. dispose the same in Manila; that he
never left his residence at Antipolo,
It was around 9:30 in the evening that Rizal, on March 2, 1982; that on March
said Patrolmen noticed a person caring 3, 1982, he went to Subic to collect a
a traveling bag who was acting balance of P100.00 from a customer
suspiciously and they confronted him; thereat and to buy C-rations; that he
that the person was requested by was able to meet Nena Ballon at 6:00
Patrolmen Quevedo and Punzalan to o'clock in the evening and he stayed in
open the red traveling bag but the Nena's house up to 8:00 o'clock
person refused, only to accede later on because he had a drinking spree with
when the patrolmen identified Nena's son; that he tried to catch the
themselves; that found inside the bag 8:00 o'clock trip to Manila from
were marijuana leaves wrapped in a Olongapo City but he failed and was
plastic wrapper and weighing one kilo, able to take the bus only by 9:00 o'clock
more or less. that evening that it was a Victory Liner
Bus that he rode and because he was
Thereafter, the person was asked of his tipsy, he did not notice that the bus was
name and the reason why he was at the only bound for San Fernando,
said place and he gave his name as Pampanga; that upon alighting at the
Medel Tangliben and explained that he Victory Liner Compound at San
was waiting for a ride to Olongapo City Fernando, Pampanga he crossed the
to deliver the marijuana leaves; that the street to wait for a bus going to Manila;
accused was taken to the police that while thus waiting for a bus, a man
headquarters at San Fernando, whom he came to know later as Pat.
Pampanga, for further investigation; and Punzalan, approached him and asked
that Pat. Silverio Quevedo submitted to him if he has any residence certificate;
his Station Commander his that when he took out his wallet, Pat.
Investigator's Report. Punzalan got the wallet and took all the
money inside the wallet amounting to
Only the accused testified in his P545.00; that Pat. Punzalan told him
defense. His testimony is narrated by that he'll be taken to the municipal
the trial court as follows: building for verification as he may be an
NPA member; that at the municipal
The accused declared that he got building, he saw a policeman, identified
married on October 25, 1981 and his by him later as Pat. Silverio Quevedo,
wife begot a child on June 10, 1982; that sleeping but was awakened when he
he was formerly employed in the poultry arrived that Pat. Quevedo took him
farm of his uncle Alejandro Caluma in upstairs and told him to take out
everything from his pocket saying that search incident to a lawful arrest.
the prisoners inside the jail may get the Thus, Section 12 of Rule 126 of the
same from him; that inside his pocket 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure
was a fifty-peso bill and Pat. Quevedo provides:
took the same, telling him that it shall be
returned to him but that it was never Section 12. Search incident to a lawful
returned to him; that he was thereafter arrest. A person lawfully arrested may
placed under detention and somebody be searched for dangerous weapons or
told him that he is being charged with anything which may be used as proof of
possession of marijuana and if he would the commission of an offense, without a
like to be bailed out, somebody is willing search warrant.
to help him; and, that when he was
visited by his wife, he told his wife that Meanwhile, Rule 113, Sec. 5(a)
Patrolman Silverio Quevedo took away provides:
all his money but he told his wife not to
complain anymore as it would be . . . A peace officer or a private person
useless. may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

Appellant, through counsel de oficio (a) When, in his presence, the person to
Atty. Enrique Chan, raised the lone be arrested has committed, is actually
assignment of error in his appeal that committing, or is attempting to commit
the court a quo erred in convicting the an offense.
accused-appellant and finding him guilty
of the crime charged on insufficient and Accused was caught in flagrante,
doubtful evidence. since he was carrying marijuana at
the time of his arrest. This case
However, before this Court had the therefore falls squarely within the
chance to act on appeal, counsel de exception. The warrantless search was
oficio Atty. Enrique Chan died. incident to a lawful arrest and is
Thereafter, this court appointed a new consequently valid.
counsel de oficio, Atty. Katz Tierra as
the new counsel to file her appellant's The case before us presented urgency.
brief. Although the trial court's decision did not
mention it, the transcript of stenographic
ISSUE: notes reveals that there was an informer
who pointed to the accused-appellant as
Whether or not the marijuana allegedly carrying marijuana. Faced with such on-
seized from the accused was a product the-spot information, the police officers
of an unlawful search without a warrant had to act quickly. There was not
and is therefore inadmissible in enough time to secure a search warrant.
evidence. To require search warrants during on-
the-spot apprehensions of drug pushers,
HELD: No. illegal possessors of firearms, jueteng
collectors, smugglers of contraband
One of the exceptions to the general goods, robbers, etc. would make it
rule requiring a search warrant is a extremely difficult, if not impossible to
contain the crimes with which these cannot prevail vis-a-vis the positive
persons are associated. testimonies given by the prosecution
witnesses.
Lastly, the appellant claims that the
evidence upon which he was Moreover, the appellant's having
convicted was insufficient and jumped bail is akin to flight which, as
doubtful and that the prosecution correctly observed by the lower court, is
failed to prove his guilt. an added circumstance tending to
establish his guilt.
In attacking the sufficiency of evidence,
the appellant avers that the informer Note:
should have been presented before the
lower court. We discard this argument Jump bail is a slang term for the act of
as a futile attempt to revive an posting a bail bond in a criminal case
already settled issue. This Court has and then failing to appear in court as
ruled in several cases that non- scheduled, therefore forfeiting the bail
presentation of the informer, where his bond. Jumping bail refers to failing to
testimony would be merely appear in court with the intention of
corroborative or cumulative, is not fatal avoiding prosecution, sentencing or
to the prosecution's case. going to jail.

As to doubtfulness of evidence, well-

settled is the rule that findings of the trial
court on the issue of credibility of
witnesses and their testimonies are People vs Collado 2014
entitled to great respect and accorded
the highest consideration by the People vs Edaño 2014
appellate court. Since credibility is a
matter that is peculiarly within the People vs Endaya 2014
province of the trial judge, who had first
hand opportunity to watch and observe People vs Chi Chan Liu 2015
the demeanor and behavior of
witnesses both for the prosecution and Comerciante vs People 2015
the defense at the time of their
testimony. People vs Villareal 2013

Likewise, the appellant chose to limit People vs Almodiel

his defense to his own testimony. He
could have availed himself through People vs Rebotazo 2013
compulsory court processes of
several witnesses to buttress his People vs Andaya 2014
defense. Since not one other witness
was presented nor was any People vs Marcelo 2014
justification for the non-appearance
given, the inadequacy of his lone and Antiquera vs People 2013
uncorroborated testimony remains. It
People vs Aminnudin 1988

People vs Molina

Malacat vs CA 283 SCRA 159

People vs Mengote 210 SCRA 174

People vs Laguio Jr. 518 SCRA 393

People vs Binad Sy Chua 444 Phil 757

People vs Claudio 160 SCRA 646

People vs Del Rosario 305 SCRA 740

People vs Maspil 188 SCRA 751

Umil vs Ramos 202 SCRA 251

Garcia-Padilla vs Enrile 121 SCRA

472