POLICE INVESTIGATION STAGE When arraigned on March 1, 1993, petitioner entered a plea of

not guilty to the offense charged.11 Thereafter, trial on the merits

G.R. No. 187725               January 19, 2011 ensued. In the course of the trial, two varying versions arose.

BENJAMIN JESALVA, Petitioner,  Version of the Prosecution

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are essentially
summarized by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), as
The Facts follows:

On September 11, 1992, the Chief of Police of Sorsogon, In the evening of September 8, 1992, witness Gloria Haboc,
Sorsogon, filed a criminal complaint5 for Frustrated Murder together with the victim Leticia Aldemo, Benjamin Jesalva
against petitioner. Four days thereafter, or on September 15, (petitioner), Elog Ubaldo,12 Jo Montales and Romy Paladin were
1992, the complaint was amended, charging petitioner with the at Nena’s place playing mahjong. A certain Mrs. Encinas and
crime of Murder, as the victim Leticia Aldemo6 (Leticia) died on Atty. Alibanto were also there. At about 10 o’clock that night,
September 14, 1992.7 After conducting a hearing on the bail Gloria’s group left Nena’s place and boarded the Isuzu panel of
application of petitioner, the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of petitioner. With the exception of Jo Montales, the group
Sorsogon, Sorsogon, on December 18, 1992, granted him proceeded to Bistro Christina to eat and drink. While Gloria had
bail.8 On January 11, 1993, the MTC recommended the filing of softdrink, Leticia drank two (2) bottles of beer, and the rest
Murder against petitioner, and then ordered the transmittal of the consumed beer and [F]undador until 11:30 in the evening.
records of the case to the Provincial Prosecutor of Sorsogon.9
After they ate and drank, the group, with the exception of Elog
Thus, petitioner was charged with the crime of Murder in an Ubaldo who flagged down a tricycle, once again boarded
Information10 dated January 26, 1993, which reads: petitioner’s Isuzu panel as it was usually petitioner who drove
them home. The victim Leticia Aldemo was seated at the front
seat. Petitioner dropped Romy Paladin at his house first, followed
That on or about the 9th day of September, 1992 in the by Gloria, who resided some 20 meters away from Leticia’s
Municipality of Sorsogon, Province of Sorsogon, Philippines, and house. While at Gloria’s house, petitioner wanted to drink some
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named more but Gloria told him to defer it until the next day because the
accused, with intent to kill, taking advantage of superior strength, stores were already closed. Gloria then gave Leticia three (3)
with treachery and evident premeditation with the use of motor sticks of barbecue and accompanied her and petitioner at the
vehicle and during night time, did then and there [wilfully], gate. After petitioner and Leticia boarded the Isuzu [panel], the
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, manhandle and use former immediately accelerated his car and went to the direction
personal violence upon [Leticia] Aldemo, inflicting upon the latter of 6th Street instead of towards 7th Street where Leticia’s house
serious and mortal wounds which directly caused her death was situated.
shortly thereafter, to the damage and prejudice of her legal heirs.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

1
At about 12:20 early morning of September 9, 1992, the group of saw with the woman. At this point, Olbes admitted the allegation
SPO1 Edgardo Mendoza (SPO1 Mendoza) of the Sorsogon PNP but professed innocence. He admitted he left the woman in
Mobile Patrol Section chanced upon petitioner’s Isuzu [panel] in Hazelwood where the police found her.
St. Rafael Subdivision in [Our Lady’s Village] OLV, Pangpang,
Sorsogon. The police patrol team approached the vehicle and Eventually, Olbes was investigated by the police and was not
SPO1 Mendoza focused a flashlight at the front portion of the released until the next day. However, because the evidence
vehicle to check what was going on. There, SPO1 Mendoza saw pointed to petitioner as the last person seen with the victim, a
petitioner whom he knew since childhood seated in front of the search for him was conducted. He "surrendered" at one (1)
wheel so he called out his name. Instead of heeding his call, o’clock in the afternoon accompanied by Fiscal Jose Jayona, his
however, petitioner did not respond, immediately started the first cousin.13
engine and sped away toward Sorsogon town proper which is
directly opposite his place of residence which is Ticol, Sorsogon, The prosecution highlighted that, per testimony of Gloria Haboc,
Sorsogon. Leticia disclosed to her that petitioner was courting Leticia.
However, Leticia told petitioner that they should just remain as
At about the same time that night, Noel Olbes, a driver for the friends because she was already married, and that she loved her
MCST Sisters holding office at the Bishop’s Compound in handsome husband.14 Moreover, the prosecution asseverated
Sorsogon, Sorsogon, was also in OLV Pangpang. While he was that, at around 12:20 a.m. of September 9, 1992, while
walking from a certain Lea’s house, he saw a woman naked from conducting patrol in St. Rafael Subdivision, 15 together with other
the waist down and lying on her belly on the highway. Her jeans police officers, Senior Police Officer 1 Edgardo Mendoza (SPO1
and [panty] were beside her. Because it was raining, Olbes pitied Mendoza), by using his flashlight, saw petitioner on board his
her so he carried her and her things to the shed some 10 meters vehicle alone. Upon sight, petitioner immediately started his
away. As he was doing so, a tricycle being driven by Eduardo De vehicle and drove toward the town proper of Sorsogon, which
Vera focused its headlight in his direction. De Vera called out, was directly opposite his residence in Ticol, Sorsogon,
"What is that?" Because he received no response from Noel disregarding SPO1 Mendoza’s calls.16 Lastly, at about 1:00 p.m.
Olbes, he decided to bring his passenger home first and just of September 9, 1992, petitioner, together with his first cousin
come back to check the site later. Fiscal Jose Jayona (Fiscal Jayona), went to the police station,
wherein he voluntarily intimated to SPO4 William Desder (SPO4
Meanwhile, upon reaching the shed, Olbes noticed that the Desder) that Leticia jumped out of his vehicle.17 At about 1:20
woman was bleeding that he even got stained with her blood. p.m. of September 9, 1992, SPO2 Enrique Renoria, together with
Afraid that he might be implicated, he hurriedly left the woman at other police officers, Fiscal Jayona, and petitioner inspected the
Hazelwood such that when De Vera came back, he no longer place, which petitioner identified as the place where he and
found Olbes. De Vera then proceeded to the police station to Leticia sat. They found bloodstains thereat.18
report the incident to [SPO1] Balaoro.
After the prosecution presented twelve (12) witnesses, the
De Vera, SPO1 Balaoro and SPO1 Sincua eventually returned to defense moved for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence. On
comb the area but to no avail. On their way back at about 1:15 February 21, 1994, the defense filed before the RTC, Branch 51,
o’clock (sic) in the morning, they met Lt. Caguia talking with Noel its Demurrer to Evidence,19 which the RTC, Branch 51, denied in
Olbes. De Vera lost no time in identifying him to be the man he its Order20 dated July 8, 1994. On August 11, 1994, the defense

2
filed a Motion21 for Reconsideration of the Order dated July 8, back to the junction and later to the Sorsogon town
1994 and Inhibition of Presiding Judge, which the prosecution proper; upon reaching Barangay Tugos, they saw [Lt.]
opposed. The Presiding Judge of the RTC, Branch 51, voluntarily Caguia talking with a man, whom he (De Vera)
inhibited himself from taking any further action in the recognized as the man with the woman; [Lt.] Caguia
case;22 hence, the case was re-raffled to the RTC, Branch 52. directed the man to go to Police Sub-Station 1; at the
Acting on the pending Motion for Reconsideration of the defense, police Sub-Station 1, he came to know the name of the
the Presiding Judge of the RTC, Branch 52, denied the same and man – Noel Olbes; he saw bloodstains on Olbes’ arms,
set the reception of evidence of the defense.23 hands, face and nose; the police interrogated him about it
and he replied that he just helped the woman.
Version of the Defense
On cross-examination, he admitted that he has known [petitioner]
In his relatively short stint on the witness stand, petitioner denied for a longtime; and he has good relationship with him; [petitioner]
that he killed Leticia. He testified that he did not have any reason was his bondsman in Criminal Case No. 95-3989 for illegal
to kill her, and that he had many reasons why he should not kill possession of firearms and because of this, he is indebted to him
her.24 The prosecution manifested that it would not conduct a and he thus wants to repay his gratitude to [petitioner]; [petitioner]
cross-examination on the person of petitioner as his testimony requested him to be a witness in the case.26
was tantamount to pure denial.25 To prove that there was a
broken chain of circumstantial evidence, the defense presented, Relative to the subsequent events, the CA summarized the
as witness, Eduardo de Vera. The CA narrated: testimonies of SPO1 Eduardo Balaoro and Noel Olbes (Olbes),
as follows:
12. Eduardo de Vera declared that on September 9, 1992
at about 12:30 a.m., he was driving his tricycle en route to 6. SPO1 Eduardo Balaoro essayed that at around 1:00
OLV, Pangpang, Sorsogon; upon reaching the junction of a.m. of September 9, 1992, Eduardo De Vera reported to
the national road or highway, he saw a man and a woman him at the Police Sub-Station 1 that he saw a man, who
three meters from the edge of the road; he stopped his was in squatting position, and a woman, who had blood
tricycle and focused the headlight of his tricycle towards on the upper right breast of her clothes, lean[ing] against
the two; he saw the woman leaning on the left arm of the the man and that after De Vera brought his tricycle
man while the man was on a squatting position; he asked passenger home, he returned to the site but he could not
them "what is that?" and did not get any response; that find the two anymore; upon receiving the report, he
the man was hiding his face and saw little blood on the (SPO1 Balaoro), together with SPO1 Sincua and De
clothes of the woman; he saw the woman with clothes, a Vera, proceeded to the diversion road, at the junction
polo shirt and pants; he decided to bring home his going to the hospital and Pangpang, Sorsogon, Sorsogon
passenger home (sic) first and then returned to the scene to investigate; they searched the place and went to the
but found no one there; he reported the matter to [SPO1] hospital but found nothing; on their way back, at around
Balaoro, who immediately accompanied him to the place; 1:15 [a.m.] they saw Noel Olbes talking with Lt. Caguia at
they searched for the man and woman but they could not Barangay Tugos; De Vera pointed to Olbes as the man
find them; they checked the Sorsogon Provincial Hospital he saw with the woman at the crossing so they brought
but nobody had been brought there; then they proceeded him to Police Sub-Station 1 for investigation; Olbes told

3
them that he saw the woman lying on the side of the road stained with her blood; after seeing the blood, he got
so he tried to lift her up but when he saw the tricycle (De scared and left; he walked towards the Sorsogon town
Vera’s) he became afraid as he might be implicated in the proper and after about forty-five minutes, two policem[e]n
crime so he brought her to Hazelwood, which is five apprehended him and brought him to the police station for
meters away from the highway; at 2:25 a.m. the patrol investigation; while being investigated, he was not
team found Leticia Aldemo, whom they found naked from apprised of his constitutional rights and made to sign the
the waist down; at the garage of Hazelwood; they found police blotter; he was detained as he was a suspect for
the long pants of the victim lying beside her and noted the injuries of the victim; after 7 or 8 hours, he was
that her panty was still on one of her knees; the victim’s released; and he executed a Sworn Statement and
body appeared to have been laid down; they did not find affirmed its contents.27
any blood in the garage except where the victim’s body
was found outside the garage, they saw the other pair of Dr. Antonio Dioneda, Jr.28 and Dr. Wilhelmino Abrantes
shoes of a woman and thick bloodstains; he (SPO1 (Dr. Abrantes) testified on the injuries suffered by Leticia,
Balaoro) brought Olbes to Balogo station and entrusted which eventually caused her death:
him to their investigator.
9. Dr. Antonio Dionedas testified that he encountered on
7. Noel Olbes testified that he is a driver for the MCST September 9, 1992 a patient by the name of Leticia
Sisters who are holding office at the Bishop’s Compound Aldemo, who was in comatose state; she sustained the
in Sorsogon, Sorsogon; that on September 8, 1997, he following injuries (1) severe cerebral contusion; (2) 2.5 cm
went out with his friends Danny, Oca and Ely in punctured wound, occipital area (3) .5 cm punctured
Almendras to drink a bottle of gin; at around 6:30 p.m. he wound, parietal left area[;] (4) multiple contusion
went to downtown Sorsogon and roamed around until hematoma antero lateral aspect deltoid left area[;] (5)
10:30 p.m.; then he went to Bahay Kainan and at about contusion hematoma 3rd upper left arm; (6) contusion
11:00 or 11:30 p.m., he went to Pena Fast Food and took hematoma left elbow[;] (7) abrasion left elbow[;] (8)
a bottle of beer; upon the invitation of Lea, he went inside hematoma, 3rd left thigh[;] (9) abrasion right knee[;] (10)
Pena and drank another bottle of beer; he brought Lea to multiple confluent abrasion right foot[;] (11) contusion
her home at OLV, Pangpang, Sorsogon, Sorsogon; from hematoma right hand[;] (12) abrasion right elbow[;] (13)
Lea’s house, he walked and upon reaching the junction of contusion hematoma right elbow[;] and (14) skull-
OLV, he saw a woman lying on her belly naked from the segmented fracture parietal bone with separation.
waist down; the woman was just uttering guttural sound;
her jeans and panty were just lying beside her; taking pity He explained that the punctured wound in the occipital
on the woman and since it was raining that night, he area (lower back of the skull) was caused by a pebble
carried the woman to a nearby shed in order that she which they recovered from said area; the punctured
would not be run over by motor vehicles; he also took the wound on the parietal left area was caused by a sharp
panty and the jeans to the shed; he noticed that a tricycle object and may have been secondary to a fall on a rough
stopped for a while and focused its headlight on them and surface; the first three findings could also have been
proceeded on its way; when he laid down the woman in caused by the punch made by the perpetrator; the fourth
the shed, he noticed that she was bleeding and he was finding could have been caused by a blunt instrument or a

4
 punch or a strong grip; the fifth and the sixth findings WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused
could have been caused also by some of the above- Benjamin Jesalva alias Ben Sabaw guilty beyond reasonable
mentioned means; the eighth finding could have been doubt of the crime of Homicide penalized under Art. 249 of the
caused by a fall or rubbing on a hard object; the ninth Revised Penal Code and considering that there was no
finding could have been caused by a blunt instrument or a aggravating nor mitigating circumstances attendant thereto and
fist blow while the tenth finding could have been caused taking into consideration the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
by a fall on a rough object and the knee rubbing on a court hereby sentences the accused to suffer the indeterminate
rough object; the eleventh finding could have been due to penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as
a fall or by being dragged; the twelfth finding could be minimum to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion
caused by a blunt instrument or by a fall or by fist blow temporal as maximum and to pay death indemnity of the sum of
and the thirteenth finding could also be caused by a fall or ₱50,000.00 to the legal heirs of the victim, plus ₱42,755.45 for
fist blow. compensatory damages plus ₱50,000.00 by way of moral
damages and ₱10,000.00 as attorney’s fees (People v. Aguiluz,
He stated [that] the victim died despite the operation he March 11, 1992).
performed on her.
SO ORDERED.30
xxxx
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the CA.31
14. Dr. Wilhelmino Abrantes – He explained the different
kinds of injuries sustained by the victim. In addition, he The CA’s Ruling
stated that since there were wounds sustained by the
victim in the dorsum part of the foot and sustained injuries On October 17, 2008, the CA pertinently held, among others, that
on both knees, upper portion of the back of the hand, the petitioner could not point to Olbes as the culprit because, when
victim could have been thrown off while unconscious.29 Eduardo de Vera saw the former holding on to Leticia in a
squatting position, Olbes was in the act of lifting her in order to
The RTC’s Ruling bring her to the nearby shed. The CA opined that, if any misdeed
or omission could be attributed to Olbes, it was his failure to bring
On November 18, 1997, the RTC ruled in favor of the Leticia to a nearby hospital, because his fear of being implicated
prosecution, finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt in the crime clouded his better judgment. Thus:
based on circumstantial evidence, not of the crime of Murder, but
of Homicide. The RTC ratiocinated that, in the absence of any All told, We find that the prosecution’s evidence suffice to sustain
direct evidence or testimonies of eyewitnesses, treachery was not the accused-appellant’s conviction for homicide.
established, and that evident premeditation and abuse of superior
strength were not duly proven. Thus, the RTC disposed of the As to the award of attorney’s fees, We find the award of
case in this wise: ₱10,000.00 by the trial court meritorious, the records reveal that
services of private prosecutor was engaged.

5
Under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, homicide is B) THE COURT OF APPEALS, AS WELL AS THE TRIAL
punishable by reclusion temporal. With the attendant mitigating COURT, SERIOUSLY ERRED IN RULING THAT
circumstance of voluntary surrender of accused-appellant, the STATEMENTS MADE BY PETITIONER IN THE POLICE
penalty reclusion temporal is imposed in its minimum period. STATION WERE ADMISSIBLE AS HE WAS THEN NOT
Accordingly, accused-appellant Benjamin J. Jesalva should suffer UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION DESPITE
the indeterminate penalty of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE ON RECORD THAT HE
DAY of reclusion temporal as maximum and SIX (6) YEARS and WOULD HAVE BEEN DETAINED BY THE POLICE HAD
ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as minimum. HIS FISCAL-COMPANION NOT [TAKEN] HIM UNDER
HIS CUSTODY.35
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon, Sorsogon, Branch 52 dated Petitioner argues that no evidence was ever introduced as to
November 18, 1997 in Criminal Case No. 3243 is AFFIRMED how, when, and where Leticia sustained her injuries. No witness
with MODIFICATION as to the penalty. ever testified as to who was responsible for her injuries. He
refutes the prosecution’s contention that, even if he took the 6th
Accused-appellant Benjamin J. Jesalva is sentenced to serve the Street, the same could still lead to the 7th Street, where Leticia’s
indeterminate penalty of SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of house is located. Petitioner stresses that Olbes should have been
prision mayor, as minimum, to TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE considered as a suspect in this case, considering that he was the
(1) DAY of reclusion temporal, as maximum. last person seen with Leticia when she was still alive. He avers
that the statements he made at the police station are not
SO ORDERED.32 admissible in evidence, considering that he was, technically,
under custodial investigation, and that there was no waiver of his
right to remain silent.36 Moreover, petitioner alleges that the fatal
Undaunted, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration,33 which
injuries sustained by Leticia, per the testimony of Dr. Abrantes,
the CA, however, denied in its Resolution34 dated April 7, 2009 for
are consistent with a fall, thereby suggesting petitioner’s
lack of merit.
innocence. Petitioner claims that the evidence shows that there
was more blood in Hazelwood than in the place where Olbes
Hence, this Petition based on the following grounds: spotted Leticia, thereby suggesting that something worse than
her jumping out of the vehicle might have happened.37
A) THE COURT OF APPEALS AND RTC DECISIONS
CONVICTING PETITIONER OF THE CRIME OF On the other hand, respondent People of the Philippines, through
HOMICIDE BASED ON PURELY CIRCUMSTANTIAL the OSG, argues that only questions of law may be entertained
EVIDENCE WERE BOTH NOT IN ACCORD WITH by this Court, and that we accord great respect to factual findings
ESTABLISHED JURISPRUDENCE REQUIRING THAT of the trial court especially when affirmed by the CA. The OSG
SUCH BE ACTED WITH CAUTION AND THAT ALL THE insists that the CA, affirming the RTC’s ruling, did not err in
ESSENTIAL FACTS MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE convicting petitioner on the basis of circumstantial evidence,
HYPOTHESIS OF GUILT; AND because the particular circumstances enumerated by both the
RTC and the CA satisfactorily meet the requirements of the rules
and of jurisprudence for conviction. Moreover, the OSG claims

6
that the statements made by petitioner before SPO4 Desder, in Indeed, when considered in their totality, the circumstances point
the presence of Fiscal Jayona, were voluntarily given and were to petitioner as the culprit.
not elicited on custodial investigation. Lastly, the OSG counters
that petitioner was not deprived of his rights since he was never Direct evidence of the commission of the crime charged is not the
held for questioning by any police officer upon arriving at the only matrix wherefrom a court may draw its conclusions and
police station and, besides, he was accompanied by his first findings of guilt. There are instances when, although a witness
cousin, Fiscal Jayona.38 may not have actually witnessed the commission of a crime, he
may still be able to positively identify a suspect or accused as the
Our Ruling perpetrator of a crime as when, for instance, the latter is the
person last seen with the victim immediately before and right after
The Petition is bereft of merit. the commission of the crime. This is the type of positive
identification, which forms part of circumstantial evidence. In the
Custodial investigation refers to "any questioning initiated by law absence of direct evidence, the prosecution may resort to
enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody adducing circumstantial evidence to discharge its burden. Crimes
or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant are usually committed in secret and under condition where
way." This presupposes that he is suspected of having committed concealment is highly probable. If direct evidence is insisted upon
a crime and that the investigator is trying to elicit information or a under all circumstances, the guilt of vicious felons who committed
confession from him.39 The rule begins to operate at once, as heinous crimes in secret or in secluded places will be hard, if not
soon as the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an well-nigh impossible, to prove.42
unsolved crime, and direction is aimed upon a particular suspect
who has been taken into custody and to whom the police would Thus, there can be a verdict of conviction based on circumstantial
then direct interrogatory questions which tend to elicit evidence when the circumstances proved form an unbroken chain
incriminating statements.40 The assailed statements herein were which leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion pinpointing the
spontaneously made by petitioner and were not at all elicited accused, to the exclusion of all the others, as the perpetrator of
through questioning. It was established that petitioner, together the crime. However, in order that circumstantial evidence may be
with his cousin Fiscal Jayona, personally went to the police sufficient to convict, the same must comply with these essential
station and voluntarily made the statement that Leticia jumped out requisites, viz.: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the
of his vehicle at around 12:30 a.m. of September 9, 1992.41The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c)
RTC and the CA did not, therefore, err in holding that the the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
constitutional procedure for custodial investigation is not conviction beyond reasonable doubt.43
applicable in the instant case.
We accord respect to the following findings of the CA, affirming
Be that as it may, even without these statements, petitioner could those of the RTC:
still be convicted of the crime of Homicide. The prosecution
established his complicity in the crime through circumstantial After a thorough review of the records of the case, We find that
evidence, which were credible and sufficient, and which led to the the circumstantial evidence proved by the prosecution, when
inescapable conclusion that petitioner committed the said crime. viewed in its entirety, points unerringly to [petitioner] Benjamin
Jesalva as the person responsible for the death of the victim

7
Leticia Aldemo. Truly, the following combination of the town proper, opposite to where he lives. SPO1 Eduardo
circumstances which comprised such evidence forms an Mendoza told Benjamin Jesalva (whom he had known
unbroken chain that points to [petitioner] and no other, as the since his teen-age years) to stop but the latter did not
perpetrator of the crime, to wit: respond or heed his call;

1. [Petitioner] Benjamin Jesalva (who was previously 7. At 12:30 o’clock (sic) of even date, Noel Olbes saw the
courting the victim Leticia Aldemo, and whom the latter body of Leticia Aldemo sprawled on her belly at the
advised to stop as she was already married) together with crossing/junction of OLV, Pangpang Sorsogon, Sorsogon,
Gloria Haboc, and six other individuals left Nena Ables’ naked from the waist down. He lifted her up and brought
house at 10 p.m. of September 8, 1992 after playing the body at Hazelwood, which is about 10 meters away
mahjong thereat. They rode in [petitioner’s] red panel. from the highway.

2. Benjamin Jesalva, Leticia Aldemo, Gloria Haboc and 8. The police found the body of the victim at Hazelwood at
two others proceeded to Bistro Christina. [Petitioner], around 2:15 a.m. of the same day, and brought her to the
together with other two male companions, consumed one Sorsogon Provincial Hospital in comatose condition.
bottle of Fundador, in addition to the three bottles of beer.
At 11:30 p.m., the group left the place. 9. The police proceeded to inform the victim’s sister, who
in turn informed the victim’s husband of the incident.
3. After dropping one male companion at his house,
Benjamin Jesalva, together with Leticia Aldemo, 10. In the morning of September 9, 1992, the police
proceeded to bring Gloria Haboc to her home, which was looked for Benjamin Jesalva to invite him at the police
only twenty meters away from Leticia’s residence. station but was not able to find him.

4. After staying at Gloria Haboc’s house for five minutes, 11. At around 1:00 o’clock p.m. of September 9, 1992,
and denied another drink, Benjamin Jesalva immediately Benjamin Jesalva, together with his first cousin, Asst.
accelerated his vehicle en route to 6th Street instead of Prosecutor Jose Jayona, presented himself at the PNP
the shorter and direct route, the 7th street, where Leticia Sorsogon, Sorsogon headquarters, where he voluntarily
Aldemo’s house is located; stated that the victim Leticia Aldemo was his passenger in
his vehicle at about 12:30 in the early morning of
5. Leticia Aldemo never reached home as testified by her September 9, 1992 at St. Rafael Subdivision but upon
husband Efren Aldemo; reaching the crossing of OLV, Pangpang, Sorsogon,
Sorsogon near the Provincial Hospital, she jumped out of
6. At around 12:20 a.m. of September 9, 1992, the police his vehicle. These declarations were recorded in the
patrolling the St. Ra[f]ael Subdivision saw the red panel police blotter by PO1 Enrique [Renoria] upon the
thereat and when they approached and beamed a instruction of SPO4 William Desder, the PNP Sorsogon
flashlight, they saw Benjamin Jesalva behind the wheel, Chief Investigator.
who suddenly drove away in the direction of Sorsogon

8
 12. At about 1:30 p.m. of the same day, a police team, exonerated if the prosecution fails to meet the quantum of proof
together with [petitioner] and Asst. Prosecutor Jayona, required to overcome the constitutional presumption of
went to St. Ra[f]ael Subdivision to conduct an ocular innocence. We find that the prosecution has met this quantum of
inspection. [Petitioner] pointed to the police the place proof in this case.45
where he and the victim spent their time. The police
photographed what appear[ed] to be bloodstains just two All told, we find no reversible error in the assailed CA decision
meters away from the place pointed by [petitioner]. which would warrant the modification much less the reversal
thereof.
13. Dr. Antonio Dioneda testified that the punctured
wound in the occipital area was caused by a pebble which WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, and the Court of Appeals
he recovered from said area; the punctured wound in the Decision dated October 17, 2008 in CA-G.R. CR No. 22126,
parietal left area was caused by a sharp object and may affirming with modification the decision of the Regional Trial
have been secondary to a fall on a rough surface, the Court, Branch 52, Sorsogon, Sorsogon, in Criminal Case No.
cerebral contusion, the punctured wound in the occipital 3243, is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
and in the parietal area could also be caused by a punch
by the perpetrator. As to the multiple contusion hematoma SO ORDERED.
anterior lateral aspect of the deltoid left area was caused
by a blunt instrument or a punch or a strong grip; the
contusion hematoma on the upper left arm and left elbow
could as well be similarly caused by a blunt instrument or
a punch or a strong grip. As to the abrasion on the right
knee, the same could have been caused by a blunt
instrument or a fist blow. The multiple confluent
abrasion[s] on the right foot could have been caused by a
fall on a rough object. The abrasions on the right elbow
could have been caused by a blunt instrument or by a fall
or by a fist blow. The same is true with the contusion
hematoma found on the victim’s right elbow.44

Petitioner’s mere denial cannot outweigh the circumstantial

evidence clearly establishing his culpability in the crime charged.
It is well-settled that the positive declarations of a prosecution
witness prevail over the bare denials of an accused. The
evidence for the prosecution was found by both the RTC and the
CA to be sufficient and credible, while petitioner’s defense of
denial was weak, self-serving, speculative, and uncorroborated.
Petitioner’s silence as to the matters that occurred during the time
he was alone with Leticia is deafening. An accused can only be

9
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,  Upon arraignment on 10 December 1996, JUANITO entered a
2 

vs. plea of not guilty. Trial on the merits ensued thereafter.

JUANITO BALOLOY, accused-appellant.
Jose Camacho, father of GENELYN and resident of Inasagan,
At the waterfalls of Barangay Inasagan, Aurora, Zamboanga del Purok Mabia, Aurora, Zamboanga del Sur, testified that at about
Sur, on the evening of 3 August 1996, the dead body of an 11- 5:00 p.m. of 3 August 1996, he asked GENELYN to borrow some
year-old girl Genelyn Camacho (hereafter GENELYN) was found. rice from their neighbor Wilfredo Balogbog whose house was
The one who caused its discovery was accused-appellant Juanito about 200 meters away. GENELYN forthwith left, but never
Baloloy (hereafter JUANITO) himself, who claimed that he had returned. Thus, Jose went to the house of Wilfredo, who informed
caught sight of it while he was catching frogs in a nearby creek. him that GENELYN had already left with one ganta of rice. Jose
However, based on his alleged extrajudicial confession, coupled then started to look for GENELYN. Speculating that GENELYN
with circumstantial evidence, the girl’s unfortunate fate was might have taken shelter at the house of their neighbor Olipio
pinned on him. Hence, in this automatic review, he seeks that his Juregue while it was raining, Jose proceeded to Olipio’s house.
alleged confession be disregarded for having been obtained in Unfortunately, Jose did not find GENELYN there. Not losing
violation of his constitutional rights, and that his conviction on hope, Jose proceeded to the house of Ernesto Derio. On his way,
mere circumstantial evidence be set aside. he met Wilfredo, who accompanied him to the house of Ernesto.
GENELYN was not there either. They continued their search for
The information charging JUANITO with the crime of rape with
1  GENELYN, but when it proved to be in vain, the two decided to
homicide reads as follows: go home. 3

That on August 3, 1996 at about 6:30 o’clock in the A few minutes after Jose reached his house, Ernesto and
evening, at Barangay Inasagan, Municipality of Aurora, JUANITO arrived. JUANITO informed Jose that he saw a dead
province of Zamboanga del Sur, Republic of the body at the waterfalls, whose "foot was showing." When asked
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable whose body it was, JUANITO answered that it was GENELYN’s.
Court, the above-named accused, by means of force and Immediately, the three went to the waterfalls where JUANITO
intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and pointed the spot where he saw GENELYN’s body. With the aid of
feloniously have carnal knowledge with one Genelyn his flashlight, Jose went to the spot, and there he saw the dead
Camacho, a minor against the latter’s will and on said body floating face down in the knee-high water. True enough, it
occasion and by reason of the rape, the said Genelyn was GENELYN’s. Jose reported the incident to Barangay Captain
Camacho died as a result of personal violence, inflicted Luzviminda Ceniza. Upon Ceniza’s order, the Bantay
upon her by the accused. Bayan members and some policemen retrieved and brought
GENELYN’s dead body to Jose’s house. 4

Act contrary to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as

amended by R.A. No. 7659. Wilfredo Balogbog corroborated the testimony of Jose that
GENELYN came to his house in the afternoon of 3 August 1996
The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. AZ-CC-96-156. to borrow some rice. GENELYN had with her an umbrella that
afternoon, as it was raining. He learned that GENELYN failed to
reach her home when Jose came to look for her. 5

10
Ernesto Derio, JUANITO’s uncle-in-law, testified that at about wake of GENELYN. Ceniza asked those who were at the wake
6:30 p.m. of 3 August 1996, Jose, together with Wilfredo whether anyone of them owned the rope. JUANITO answered
Balogbog, arrived at his house to look for GENELYN, but they that he owned it. Thereafter Ceniza talked to JUANITO. 9

immediately left when they did not find her. At about 7:30 p.m.,
JUANITO arrived at Ernesto’s house, trembling and apparently Andres Dolero corroborated the testimony of Antonio on the
weak. JUANITO was then bringing a sack and a kerosene lamp. recovery of the black rope and umbrella at the waterfalls where
When Ernesto asked JUANITO where he was going, the latter GENELYN’s body was found. 10

said that he would catch frogs; and then he left. After thirty
minutes, JUANITO returned and told Ernesto that he saw a foot Barangay Captain Ceniza of Inasagan, Aurora, Zamboanga del
of a dead child at the waterfalls. With the disappearance of Sur, testified that at about 8:30 p.m. of 3 August 1996, Jose
GENELYN in mind, Ernesto lost no time to go the house of Jose. Camacho, Ernesto Derio, Porferio Camacho, and JUANITO
JUANITO followed him. There, JUANITO told Jose that he saw a arrived at her house to inform her that JUANITO found
foot of a dead child at the waterfalls. When Jose asked whether it GENELYN’s dead body at the waterfalls. Ceniza forthwith
was GENELYN’s, JUANITO answered in the affirmative. The ordered the members of the Bantay Bayan to retrieve the body of
three then proceeded to the waterfalls, where JUANITO pointed GENELYN, and reported the incident to the police headquarters
the place where he saw the body of GENELYN. Jose immediately of Aurora, Zamboanga del Sur. She specifically named JUANITO
approached the body, and having confirmed that it was as her suspect. She then went home and proceeded to Jose’s
GENELYN’s, he brought it to a dry area. 6
house for GENELYN’s wake. She saw JUANITO at the wake and
noticed that he was very uneasy. 11

Ernesto also testified that on 4 August 1996, he saw Antonio

Camacho hand over a black rope to Barangay Captain Ceniza. Ceniza further revealed that on 4 August 1996, while she was on
The latter asked those present as to who owned the rope. When her way to Jose’s house, Antonio gave her a black rope, which he
JUANITO admitted ownership of the rope, Ceniza brought him reportedly found at the spot where the dead body of GENELYN
away from the crowd to a secluded place and talked to him. 7
was retrieved. Ceniza then asked the people at the wake about
the rope. JUANITO, who was among those present, claimed the
Finally, Ernesto testified that JUANITO previously attempted to rope as his. She brought JUANITO away from the others and
molest his (Ernesto’s) child, an incident that caused a fight asked him why his rope was found at the place where
between him (JUANITO) and his (Ernesto’s) wife. 8
GENELYN’s body was discovered. JUANITO answered: "I have
to claim this as my rope because I can commit sin to God if I will
Antonio Camacho, a cousin of Jose, testified that on 3 August not claim this as mine because this is mine." Ceniza further asked
1996, he was informed by Jose’s brother that GENELYN was JUANITO to tell her everything. JUANITO told Ceniza that his
"drowned." He and the Bantay Bayan members proceeded to the intention was only to frighten GENELYN, not to molest and kill
place of the incident and retrieved the body of GENELYN. At 8:00 her. When GENELYN ran away, he chased her. As to how he
a.m. of the following day he, together with Edgar Sumalpong and raped her, JUANITO told Ceniza that he first inserted his fingers
Andres Dolero, went to the waterfalls to trace the path up to into GENELYN’s vagina and then raped her. Thereafter, he threw
where GENELYN was found. There, they found a black rope and her body into the ravine.
12

an umbrella. They gave the umbrella to Jose’s wife, and the black
rope to Barangay Captain Ceniza, who was then attending the

11
After such confession, Ceniza examined his body and found a 1. 2.5-inch lacerated wound at her left neck, front of the
wound on his right shoulder, as well as abrasions and scratches head;
on other parts of his body. Upon further inquiry, JUANITO told her
that the wound on his shoulder was caused by the bite of 2. 1-inch wound at the right cheek just below the first
GENELYN. Ceniza then turned over JUANITO to a policeman for wound;
his own protection, as the crowd became unruly when she
announced to them that JUANITO was the culprit. JUANITO was 3. multiple contusions on her chest;
forthwith brought to the police headquarters. 13

4. contusion at the right hip; and

Victor Mosqueda, a member of the Philippine National Police
(PNP) stationed at the Aurora Police Station, testified that at
5. fresh lacerations on her vagina at 9 o’clock and 3
about 10:00 p.m. of 4 August 1996 he was at Jose’s house.
o’clock positions.17

Ceniza informed him that JUANITO was the suspect in the killing
of GENELYN, and she turned over to him a black rope which
belonged to JUANITO. He wanted to interrogate JUANITO, but He opined that the fresh lacerations could have been caused by a
Ceniza cautioned him not to proceed with his inquiry because the large object inserted into GENELYN’s vagina, such as a male sex
people around were getting unruly and might hurt JUANITO. organ, a rod, or a piece of wood or metal. 18

Mosqueda immediately brought JUANITO to the police station,

and on that same day, he took the affidavits of the witnesses. The Presiding Judge Celestino V. Dicon of the Municipal Trial Court of
following day, a complaint was filed against JUANITO. 14 Aurora, Zamboanga del Sur, testified that when he arrived in his
office at around 8:30 a.m. of 4 August 1996 several people,
Dr. Arturo Lumacad, Municipal Health Officer of the Aurora Rural including Barangay Captain Ceniza, were already in his
Health Clinic, testified that he examined JUANITO so as to verify courtroom. He learned that they came to swear to their affidavits
the information that JUANITO sustained wounds in his body. His 15  before him. After reading the affidavit of Ceniza, he asked Ceniza
examination of JUANITO revealed the following injuries: whether her statements were true. Ceniza answered in the
affirmative and pointed to JUANITO as the culprit. Judge Dicon
turned to JUANITO and asked him whether the charge against
1. fresh abrasions on the right portion of the cheek;
him was true. JUANITO replied in the dialect: "[N]apanuwayan
ko, sir" ("I was demonized"). While Judge Dicon realized that he
2. multiple abrasions on the right shoulder; should not have asked JUANITO as to the truthfulness of the
allegations against him, he felt justified in doing so because the
3. abrasion on the left shoulder; and latter was not under custodial investigation. Judge Dicon thus
proceeded to ask JUANITO whether he had a daughter as old as
4. abrasions on the left forearm. 16
the victim and whether he was aware of what he had done to
GENELYN. Again, JUANITO responded that he was demonized,
Dr. Lumacad also testified that he examined the dead body of and he spontaneously narrated that after he struck GENELYN’s
GENELYN on 4 August 1996 and found the following injuries: head with a stone he dropped her body into the precipice. 19

12
Lopecino Albano, process server in the court of Judge Dicon, announced to the crowd that JUANITO was the suspect in
corroborated the testimony of the latter as to JUANITO’s GENELYN’s untimely demise. JUANITO was then detained and
admission that he was demonized when he raped and killed investigated at the police station. During his investigation by the
22 

GENELYN. 20
police officers and by Judge Dicon, he was never assisted by a
lawyer.23

The sole witness for the defense was JUANITO, who invoked
denial and alibi. He testified that he was at his mother’s house at In its challenged decision, the trial court found JUANITO guilty
24 

around 6:30 p.m. of 3 August 1996. An hour later, he left for the beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape with homicide. On
creek to catch frogs; and while catching frogs, he saw a foot. He the challenge on the admissibility of the admissions he made to
forthwith headed for Ernesto Derio’s house to ask for help. There, Barangay Captain Ceniza and Judge Dicon, it ruled that they are
he told Ernesto and his wife of what he had seen. Ernesto’s wife not the law enforcement authorities referred to in the
asked JUANITO whether the person was still alive, and JUANITO constitutional provisions on the conduct of custodial investigation.
answered that he was not sure. At this point, Ernesto informed Hence, JUANITO’s confessions made to them are admissible in
him that Jose Camacho was looking for GENELYN. JUANITO evidence. Moreover, no ill-motive could be attributed to both
and Ernesto then proceeded to the house of Jose to inform the Ceniza and Judge Dicon. It also found unsubstantiated
latter of what he, JUANITO, had seen. The three forthwith went to JUANITO’s claim that he was threatened by his fellow inmates to
the creek. There, they found out that the foot was GENELYN’s make the confession before Judge Dicon; and that, even
and that she was already dead. Upon Jose’s request, JUANITO assuming that he was indeed threatened by them, the threat was
and Ernesto informed Jose’s brother about the incident, and they not of the kind contemplated in the Bill of Rights. The threat,
proceeded to the house of Ceniza. Thereafter, they, along with violence or intimidation that invalidates confession must come
the members of the Bantay Bayan, went back to the creek to from the police authorities and not from a civilian. Finally, it ruled
retrieve the body of GENELYN. 21
that JUANITO’s self-serving negative evidence cannot stand
against the prosecution’s positive evidence.
JUANITO further recalled that after the body of GENELYN was
brought to her parent’s house, he helped saw the lumber for her The trial court, thus, convicted JUANITO of rape with homicide
coffin. Thereafter, he went to Ernesto’s house to get the sack and imposed on him the penalty of death. It also ordered him to
containing the seventeen frogs he had caught that night, which he pay the heirs of the victim the amount of P50,000 by way of civil
earlier left at Ernesto’s house. He was shocked to find out that the indemnity. Hence, this automatic review.
rope which he used to tie the sack, as well as all the frogs he
caught, was missing. As it was already dawn, JUANITO left his In his Appellant’s Brief, JUANITO imputes to the trial court the
sack at his mother’s house; then he proceeded to the house of following errors:
Jose to help make the coffin of GENELYN. But, at around 8:00
a.m., policeman Banaag came looking for him. He stopped I
working on GENELYN’s coffin and identified himself. Banaag took
him away from the house of Jose and asked him whether he
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN ADMITTING THE
owned the rope. JUANITO answered in the affirmative. At this
ALLEGED CONFESSION OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT TO
point, policeman Mosqueda came near them and escorted him
and Banaag back to Jose’s house. At Jose’s house, Mosqueda

13
WITNESSES LUZVIMINDA CE[N]IZA AND JUDGE CELESTINO the prosecution. Moreover, he was unable to establish by
DICON AS EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ACCUSED. sufficient evidence that Barangay Captain Ceniza and Judge
Dicon had an ulterior motive to implicate him in the commission of
II the crime.

ON ACCOUNT OF THE INADMISSIBILITY OF THE ACCUSED’S The OSG recommends that the civil indemnity of P50,000
ALLEGED CONFESSION THE COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN awarded by the trial court be increased to P75,000; and that in
CONVICTING THE ACCUSED BASED ON MERE line with current jurisprudence, moral damages in the amount of
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. P50,000 be awarded to the heirs of GENELYN.

Anent the first assigned error, JUANITO maintains that the trial We shall first address the issue of admissibility of JUANITO’s
court violated Section 12(1) of Article III of the Constitution when
25  extrajudicial confession to Barangay Captain Ceniza.
it admitted in evidence his alleged extrajudicial confession to
Barangay Captain Ceniza and Judge Dicon. According to him, the It has been held that the constitutional provision on custodial
two failed to inform him of his constitutional rights before they investigation does not apply to a spontaneous statement, not
took it upon themselves to elicit from him the incriminatory elicited through questioning by the authorities but given in an
information. It is of no moment that Ceniza and Dicon are not ordinary manner whereby the suspect orally admits having
police investigators, for as public officials it was incumbent upon committed the crime. Neither can it apply to admissions or
them to observe the express mandate of the Constitution. While confessions made by a suspect in the commission of a crime
these rights may be waived, the prosecution failed to show that before he is placed under investigation. What the Constitution
he effectively waived his rights through a written waiver executed bars is the compulsory disclosure of incriminating facts or
in the presence of counsel. He concludes that his extrajudicial confessions. The rights under Section 12 of the Constitution are
confession is inadmissible in evidence. guaranteed to preclude the slightest use of coercion by the state
as would lead the accused to admit something false, not to
In his second assigned error, JUANITO asserts that the prevent him from freely and voluntarily telling the truth.
26

prosecution miserably failed to establish with moral certainty his

guilt. He points to the contradicting testimonies of the witnesses In the instant case, after he admitted ownership of the black rope
for the prosecution concerning the retrieved rope owned by him. and was asked by Ceniza to tell her everything, JUANITO
Consequently, with the inadmissibility of his alleged extrajudicial voluntarily narrated to Ceniza that he raped GENELYN and
confession and the apparent contradiction surrounding the thereafter threw her body into the ravine. This narration was a
prosecution’s evidence against him, the trial court should have spontaneous answer, freely and voluntarily given in an ordinary
acquitted him. manner. It was given before he was arrested or placed under
custody for investigation in connection with the commission of the
In the Appellee’s Brief, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) offense.
supports the trial court’s finding that JUANITO is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime as charged. His bare denial and It may be stressed further that Ceniza’s testimony on the facts
alibi cannot overcome the positive assertions of the witnesses for disclosed to her by JUANITO was confirmed by the findings of Dr.

14
Lumacad. GENELYN’s physical resistance and biting of the right actual restraint of the person to be arrested, or by his submission
shoulder of JUANITO were proved by the wound on JUANITO’s to the person making the arrest. 29

right shoulder and scratches on different parts of his body. His

admission that he raped GENELYN was likewise corroborated by At any rate, while it is true that JUANITO’s extrajudicial
the fresh lacerations found in GENELYN’s vagina. confession before Judge Dicon was made without the advice and
assistance of counsel and hence inadmissible in evidence, it
Moreover, JUANITO did not offer any evidence of improper or could however be treated as a verbal admission of the accused,
ulterior motive on the part of Ceniza, which could have compelled which could be established through the testimonies of the
her to testify falsely against him. Where there is no evidence to persons who heard it or who conducted the investigation of the
show a doubtful reason or improper motive why a prosecution accused. 30

witness should testify against the accused or falsely implicate him

in a crime, the said testimony is trustworthy.27
JUANITO’s defense of alibi is futile because of his own admission
that he was at the scene of the crime. Alibi is a defense that
However, there is merit in JUANITO’s claim that his constitutional places an accused at the relevant time of a crime in a place other
rights during custodial investigation were violated by Judge Dicon than the scene involved and so removed therefrom as to render it
when the latter propounded to him incriminating questions without impossible for him to be the guilty party. Likewise, a denial that is
31 

informing him of his constitutional rights. It is settled that at the unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence is a negative
moment the accused voluntarily surrenders to, or is arrested by, and self-serving evidence, which cannot be accorded greater
the police officers, the custodial investigation is deemed to have evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who
started. So, he could not thenceforth be asked about his testify on affirmative matters.
32

complicity in the offense without the assistance of

counsel. Judge Dicon’s claim that no complaint has yet been
28 
Anent the alleged inconsistencies in the details surrounding the
filed and that neither was he conducting a preliminary recovery of the black rope, the same are irrelevant and trite and
investigation deserves scant consideration. The fact remains that do not impair the credibility of the witnesses. Minor
at that time JUANITO was already under the custody of the police inconsistencies and honest lapses strengthen rather than weaken
authorities, who had already taken the statement of the witnesses the credibility of witnesses, as they erase doubts that such
who were then before Judge Dicon for the administration of their testimonies have been coached or rehearsed. What matters is
33 

oaths on their statements. that the testimonies of witnesses agree on the essential fact that
JUANITO was the owner of the black rope and the perpetrator of
While Mosqueda claims that JUANITO was not arrested but was the crime.
rather brought to the police headquarters on 4 August 1996 for
his protection, the records reveal that JUANITO was in fact Even if JUANITO’s confession or admission is disregarded, there
arrested. If indeed JUANITO’s safety was the primordial concern is more than enough evidence to support his conviction. The
of the police authorities, the need to detain and deprive him of his following circumstances constitute an unbroken chain proving
freedom of action would not have been necessary. Arrest is the beyond reasonable doubt that it was JUANITO who raped and
taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound to killed GENELYN:
answer for the commission of an offense, and it is made by an

15
1. At about 5:00 p.m. of 3 August 1996, Jose Camacho 9. Dr. Lumancad’s physical examination of JUANITO
bid his daughter GENELYN to borrow some rice from revealed abrasions, which could have been caused by
their neighbor Wilfredo Balogbog. GENELYN did so as scratches.
told, but failed to return home.
Guilt may be established through circumstantial evidence
2. About 7:30 p.m. of the same day, JUANITO arrived at provided that the following requisites concur: (1) there is more
Ernesto’s house bringing a sack and kerosene lamp, than one circumstance; (2) the inferences are based on proven
trembling and apparently weak. facts; and (3) the combination of all circumstances produces a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the
3. Thirty minutes thereafter, JUANITO returned to accused. All these requisites are present in the case at bar.
34 

Ernesto’s house and told Ernesto that he saw a foot of a

dead child at the waterfalls, without disclosing the identity With JUANITO’s guilt for rape with homicide proven beyond
of the deceased. reasonable doubt, we are constrained to affirm the death
penalty** imposed by the trial court. Article 335 of the Revised
4. When JUANITO and Ernesto were at Jose’s house, the Penal Code, as amended by Section 11 of R.A. No. 7659,
former told Jose that it was GENELYN’s foot he saw at pertinently provides: "When by reason or on occasion of the rape,
the waterfalls. a homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death."

5. GENELYN was found dead at the waterfalls with fresh As to JUANITO’s civil liability, prevailing judicial policy has
lacerations on her vaginal wall at 9 and 3 o’clock authorized the mandatory award of P100,000 as civil
35 

positions. indemnity ex delicto in cases of rape with homicide (broken down

as follows: P50,000 for the death and P50,000 upon the finding of
6. At about 8:00 a.m. of 4 August 1996, Antonio the fact of rape). Thus, if homicide is committed by reason or on
Camacho, Andres Dolero and Edgar Sumalpong occasion of rape, the indemnity in the amount of P100,000 is fully
recovered at the crime site a black rope, which they justified and properly commensurate with the seriousness of the
turned over to Ceniza, who was then at GENELYN’s said special complex crime. Moral damages in the amount of
wake. P50,000 may be additionally awarded to the heirs of the victim
without the need for pleading or proof of the basis thereof; the
fact that they suffered the trauma of mental, physical and
7. When Ceniza asked the people around as to who
psychological sufferings, which constitutes the basis for moral
owned the black rope, JUANITO claimed it as his.
damages under the Civil Code, is too obvious to still require the
recital thereof at the trial.
36

8. When Ceniza examined JUANITO’s body, she saw a

wound on his right shoulder and scratches on different
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
parts of his body.
30, Aurora, Zamboanga Del Sur, in Criminal Case No. AZ-CC-96-
156, finding accused-appellant Juanito Baloloy guilty of the crime
of rape with homicide. SO ORDERED

16
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,  (s) Felipe Ramo
vs.
HON. JUDGE RUBEN AYSON, Presiding over Branch 6, (Printed) F. Ram
Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, Baguio City, and
FELIPE RAMOS, respondents. At the investigation of February 9, 1986, conducted by the PAL
Branch Manager in Baguio City, Edgardo R. Cruz, in the
Nelson Lidua for private respondent. presence of Station Agent Antonio Ocampo, Ticket Freight Clerk
Rodolfo Quitasol, and PALEA Shop Steward Cristeta Domingo,
Felipe Ramos was informed "of the finding of the Audit Team."
Thereafter, his answers in response to questions by Cruz, were
NARVASA, J.: taken down in writing. Ramos' answers were to the effect inter
alia that he had not indeed made disclosure of the tickets
What has given rise to the controversy at bar is the equation by mentioned in the Audit Team's findings, that the proceeds had
the respondent Judge of the right of an individual not to "be been "misused" by him, that although he had planned on paying
compelled to be a witness against himself" accorded by Section back the money, he had been prevented from doing so, "perhaps
20, Article III of the Constitution, with the right of any (by) shame," that he was still willing to settle his obligation, and
person "under investigation for the commission of an offense . . . proferred a "compromise x x to pay on staggered basis, (and) the
to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such amount would be known in the next investigation;" that he desired
right," granted by the same provision. The relevant facts are not the next investigation to be at the same place, "Baguio CTO," and
disputed. that he should be represented therein by "Shop stewardees ITR
Nieves Blanco;" and that he was willing to sign his statement (as
he in fact afterwards did).   How the investigation turned out is not
4

Private respondent Felipe Ramos was a ticket freight clerk of the

dealt with the parties at all; but it would seem that no compromise
Philippine Airlines (PAL), assigned at its Baguio City station. It
agreement was reached much less consummated.
having allegedly come to light that he was involved in
irregularities in the sales of plane tickets,   the PAL management
1

notified him of an investigation to be conducted into the matter of About two (2) months later, an information was filed against
February 9, 1986. That investigation was scheduled in Felipe Ramos charging him with the crime of estafa allegedly
accordance with PAL's Code of Conduct and Discipline, and the committed in Baguio City during the period from March 12, 1986
Collective Bargaining Agreement signed by it with the Philippine to January 29, 1987. In that place and during that time, according
Airlines Employees' Association (PALEA) to which Ramos to the indictment,   he (Ramos) —
5

pertained.2

.. with unfaithfulness and/or abuse of confidence,

On the day before the investigation, February 8,1986, Ramos did then and there willfully ... defraud the
gave to his superiors a handwritten notes   reading as follows:
3 Philippine Airlines, Inc., Baguio Branch, ... in the
following manner, to wit: said accused ... having
been entrusted with and received in trust fare
2-8-86
tickets of passengers for one-way trip and round-
trip in the total amount of P76,700.65, with the

17
 express obligation to remit all the proceeds of the the Branch Manager x x since it does not appear that the accused
sale, account for it and/or to return those was reminded of this constitutional rights to remain silent and to
unsold, ... once in possession thereof and instead have counsel, and that when he waived the same and gave his
of complying with his obligation, with intent to statement, it was with the assistance actually of a counsel." He
defraud, did then and there ... misappropriate, also declared inadmissible "Exhibit K, the handwritten admission
misapply and convert the value of the tickets in made by accused Felipe J. Ramos, given on February 8, 1986 x x
the sum of P76,700.65 and in spite of repeated for the same reason stated in the exclusion of Exhibit 'A' since it
demands, ... failed and refused to make good his does not appear that the accused was assisted by counsel when
obligation, to the damage and prejudice of the he made said admission."
offended party .. .
The private prosecutors filed a motion for reconsideration.   It was
9

On arraignment on this charge, Felipe Ramos entered a plea of denied, by Order dated September 14, 1988.   In justification of
10

"Not Guilty," and trial thereafter ensued. The prosecution of the said Order, respondent Judge invoked this Court's rulings
case was undertaken by lawyers of PAL under the direction and in Morales, Jr. v. Juan Ponce Enrile, et al., 121 SCRA
supervision of the Fiscal. 538, People v. Galit, 135 SCRA 467, People. v. Sison, 142 SCRA
219, and People v. Decierdo, 149 SCRA 496, among others, to
At the close of the people's case, the private prosecutors made a the effect that "in custodial investigations the right to counsel may
written offer of evidence dated June 21, 1988, which included "the
6 be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the
(above mentioned) statement of accused Felipe J. Ramos taken assistance of counsel," and the explicit precept in the present
on February 9, 1986 at PAL Baguio City Ticket Office," which had Constitution that the rights in custodial investigation "cannot be
been marked as Exhibit A, as well as his "handwritten admission waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel." He
x x given on February 8, 1986," also above referred to, which had pointed out that the investigation of Felipe Ramos at the PAL
been marked as Exhibit K. Baguio Station was one "for the offense of allegedly
misappropriating the proceeds of the tickets issued to him' and
The defendant's attorneys filed "Objections/Comments to Plaintiff therefore clearly fell "within the coverage of the constitutional
s Evidence."  Particularly as regards the peoples' Exhibit A, the
7 provisions;" and the fact that Ramos was not detained at the time,
objection was that "said document, which appears to be a or the investigation was administrative in character could not
confession, was taken without the accused being represented by operate to except the case "from the ambit of the constitutional
a lawyer." Exhibit K was objected to "for the same reasons provision cited."
interposed under Exhibits 'A' and 'J.'
These Orders, of August 9, 1988 and September 14, 1988 are
By Order dated August 9, 1988,   the respondent judge admitted
8 now assailed in the petition for certiorari and prohibition at bar,
all the exhibits "as part of the testimony of the witnesses who filed in this Court by the private prosecutors in the name of the
testified in connection therewith and for whatever they are worth," People of the Philippines. By Resolution dated October 26, 1988,
except Exhibits A and K, which it rejected. His Honor declared the Court required Judge Ayson and Felipe Ramos to comment
Exhibit A "inadmissible in evidence, it appearing that it is the on the petition, and directed issuance of a "TEMPORARY
statement of accused Felipe Ramos taken on February 9, 1986 at RESTRAINING ORDER . . . ENJOINING the respondents from
PAL Baguio City Ticket Office, in an investigation conducted by proceeding further with the trial and/or hearing of Criminal Case

18
No. 3488-R (People ... vs. Felipe Ramos), including the issuance 1) the right against self-incrimination — i.e., the
of any order, decision or judgment in the aforesaid case or on any right of a person not to be compelled to be a
matter in relation to the same case, now pending before the witness against himself — set out in the first
Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Br. 6, First Judicial Region." sentence, which is a verbatim reproduction of
The Court also subsequently required the Solicitor General to Section 18, Article III of the 1935 Constitution, and
comment on the petition. The comments of Judge Ayson, Felipe is similar to that accorded by the Fifth Amendment
Ramos, and the Solicitor General have all been filed. The of the American Constitution,   and
12

Solicitor General has made common cause with the petitioner

and prays "that the petition be given due course and thereafter 2) the rights of a person in custodial interrogation,
judgment be rendered setting aside respondent Judge's Orders . . i.e., the rights of every suspect "under
. and ordering him to admit Exhibits 'A' and 'K' of the prosecution." investigation for the commission of an offense."
The Solicitor General has thereby removed whatever impropriety
might have attended the institution of the instant action in the Parenthetically, the 1987 Constitution indicates much more
name of the People of the Philippines by lawyers de parte of the clearly the individuality and disparateness of these rights. It has
offended party in the criminal action in question. placed the rights in separate sections. The right against self-
incrimination, "No person shall be compelled to be a witness
The Court deems that there has been full ventilation of the issue against himself," is now embodied in Section 17, Article III of the
— of whether or not it was grave abuse of discretion for 1987 Constitution. The lights of a person in custodial
respondent Judge to have excluded the People's Exhibits A and interrogation, which have been made more explicit, are now
K. It will now proceed to resolve it. contained in Section 12 of the same Article III. 13

At the core of the controversy is Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Right Against Self-Incrimination
Constitution,   to which respondent Judge has given a
11

construction that is disputed by the People. The section reads as The first right, against self-incrimination, mentioned in Section 20,
follows: Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, is accorded to every person
who gives evidence, whether voluntarily or under compulsion of
SEC. 20. No person shall be compelled to be a subpoena, in any civil, criminal, or administrative
witness against himself Any person under proceeding.   The right is NOT to "be compelled to be a witness
14

investigation for the commission of an offense against himself"

shall have the right to remain silent and to
counsel, and to be informed of such right. No The precept set out in that first sentence has a settled
force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other meaning.   It prescribes an "option of refusal to answer
15

means which vitiates the free will shall be used incriminating questions and not a prohibition of inquiry."   It simply
16

against him. Any confession obtained in violation secures to a witness, whether he be a party or not, the right to
of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence. refue to answer any particular incriminatory question, i.e., one the
answer to which has a tendency to incriminate him for some
It should at once be apparent that there are two (2) rights, or sets crime. However, the right can be claimed only when the specific
of rights, dealt with in the section, namely:

19
question, incriminatory in character, is actually put to the witness. This provision granting explicit rights to persons under
It cannot be claimed at any other time. It does not give a witness investigation for an offense was not in the 1935 Constitution. It is
the right to disregard a subpoena, to decline to appear before the avowedly derived from the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in
court at the time appointed, or to refuse to testify altogether. The Miranda v. Arizona,   a decision described as an "earthquake in
19

witness receiving a subpoena must obey it, appear as required, the world of law enforcement."  20

take the stand, be sworn and answer questions. It is only when a

particular question is addressed to him, the answer to which may Section 20 states that whenever any person is "under
incriminate him for some offense, that he may refuse to answer investigation for the commission of an offense"--
on the strength of the constitutional guaranty.
1) he shall have the right to remain silent and to
That first sentence of Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 counsel, and to be informed of such right,  21

Constitution does not impose on the judge, or other officer

presiding over a trial, hearing or investigation, any affirmative 2) nor force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any
obligation to advise a witness of his right against self- other means which vitiates the free will shall be
incrimination. It is a right that a witness knows or should know, in used against him;   and
22

accordance with the well known axiom that every one is

presumed to know the law, that ignorance of the law excuses no
3) any confession obtained in violation of x x
one. Furthermore, in the very nature of things, neither the judge
(these rights shall be inadmissible in evidence.  23

nor the witness can be expected to know in advance the

character or effect of a question to be put to the latter. 
17

In Miranda, Chief Justice Warren summarized the procedural

safeguards laid down for a person in police custody, "in-custody
The right against self-incrimination is not self- executing or
interrogation" being regarded as the commencement of an
automatically operational. It must be claimed. If not claimed by or
adversary proceeding against the suspect.  24

in behalf of the witness, the protection does not come into play. It
follows that the right may be waived, expressly, or impliedly, as
by a failure to claim it at the appropriate time. 
18 He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right
to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in
a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an
Rights in Custodial Interrogation
attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be
appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.
Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution also treats of a Opportunity to exercise those rights must be afforded to him
second right, or better said, group of rights. These rights apply to throughout the interrogation. After such warnings have been
persons "under investigation for the commission of an offense," given, such opportunity afforded him, the individual may
i.e., "suspects" under investigation by police authorities; and this knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to
is what makes these rights different from that embodied in the answer or make a statement. But unless and until such warnings
first sentence, that against self-incrimination which, as and waivers are demonstrated by the prosecution at the trial, no
aforestated, indiscriminately applies to any person testifying in evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used
any proceeding, civil, criminal, or administrative. against him.

20
The objective is to prohibit "incommunicado interrogation of for the commission of an offense," the statement is not protected.
individuals in a police-dominated atmosphere, resulting in self- Thus, in one case,   where a person went to a police precinct and
29

incriminating statement without full warnings of constitutional before any sort of investigation could be initiated, declared that he
rights." 
25
was giving himself up for the killing of an old woman because she
was threatening to kill him by barang, or witchcraft, this Court
The rights above specified, to repeat, exist only in "custodial ruled that such a statement was admissible, compliance with the
interrogations," or "in-custody interrogation of accused constitutional procedure on custodial interrogation not being
persons."   And, as this Court has already stated, by custodial
26 exigible under the circumstances.
interrogation is meant "questioning initiated by law enforcement
officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise Rights of Defendant in Criminal Case
deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way."   The
27

situation contemplated has also been more precisely described As Regards Giving of Testimony
by this Court."  28

It is pertinent at this point to inquire whether the rights just

.. . After a person is arrested and his custodial discussed, i.e., (1) that against self-incrimination and (2) those
investigation begins a confrontation arises which during custodial interrogation apply to persons under preliminary
at best may be tanned unequal. The detainee is investigation or already charged in court for a crime.
brought to an army camp or police headquarters
and there questioned and "cross-examined" not It seems quite evident that a defendant on trial or under
only by one but as many investigators as may be preliminary investigation is not under custodial interrogation. His
necessary to break down his morale. He finds interrogation by the police, if any there had been would already
himself in strange and unfamiliar surroundings, have been ended at the time of the filing of the criminal case in
and every person he meets he considers hostile court (or the public prosecutors' office). Hence, with respect to a
to him. The investigators are well-trained and defendant in a criminal case already pending in court (or the
seasoned in their work. They employ all the public prosecutor's office), there is no occasion to speak of his
methods and means that experience and study right while under "custodial interrogation" laid down by the second
have taught them to extract the truth, or what may and subsequent sentences of Section 20, Article IV of the 1973
pass for it, out of the detainee. Most detainees are Constitution, for the obvious reason that he is no longer under
unlettered and are not aware of their constitutional "custodial interrogation."
rights. And even if they were, the intimidating and
coercive presence of the officers of the law in
But unquestionably, the accused in court (or undergoing
such an atmosphere overwhelms them into
preliminary investigation before the public prosecutor), in
silence. Section 20 of the Bill of Rights seeks to
common with all other persons, possesses the right against self-
remedy this imbalance.
incrimination set out in the first sentence of Section 20 Article IV
of the 1973 Constitution, i.e., the right to refuse to answer a
Not every statement made to the police by a person involved in specific incriminatory question at the time that it is put to him. 
30

some crime is within the scope of the constitutional protection. If

not made "under custodial interrogation," or "under investigation

21
Additionally, the accused in a criminal case in court has other It must however be made clear that if the defendant in a criminal
rights in the matter of giving testimony or refusing to do so. An action be asked a question which might incriminate him, not for
accused "occupies a different tier of protection from an ordinary the crime with which he is charged, but for some other crime,
witness." Under the Rules of Court, in all criminal prosecutions distinct from that of which he is accused, he may decline to
the defendant is entitled among others- answer that specific question, on the strength of the right against
self-incrimination granted by the first sentence of Section 20,
1) to be exempt from being a witness against himself,   and 2) to
31 Article IV of the 1973 Constitution (now Section 17 of the 1987
testify as witness in his own behalf; but if he offers himself as a Constitution). Thus, assuming that in a prosecution for murder,
witness he may be cross-examined as any other witness; the accused should testify in his behalf, he may not on cross-
however, his neglect or refusal to be a witness shall not in any examination refuse to answer any question on the ground that he
manner prejudice or be used against him.  32 might be implicated in that crime of murder; but he may decline to
answer any particular question which might implicate him for a
The right of the defendant in a criminal case "to be exempt from different and distinct offense, say, estafa.
being a witness against himself' signifies that he cannot be
compelled to testify or produce evidence in the criminal case in In fine, a person suspected of having committed a crime and
which he is the accused, or one of the accused. He cannot be subsequently charged with its commission in court, has the
compelled to do so even by subpoena or other process or order following rights in the matter of his testifying or producing
of the Court. He cannot be required to be a witness either for the evidence, to wit:
prosecution, or for a co-accused, or even for himself.   In other
33

words — unlike an ordinary witness (or a party in a civil action) 1) BEFORE THE CASE IS FILED IN COURT (or
who may be compelled to testify by subpoena, having only the with the public prosecutor, for preliminary
right to refuse to answer a particular incriminatory question at the investigation), but after having been taken into
time it is put to him-the defendant in a criminal action can refuse custody or otherwise deprived of his liberty in
to testify altogether. He can refuse to take the witness stand, be some significant way, and on being interrogated
sworn, answer any question.  And, as the law categorically
34
by the police: the continuing right to remain silent
states, "his neglect or refusal to be a witness shall not in any and to counsel, and to be informed thereof, not to
manner prejudice or be used against him."  35
be subjected to force, violence, threat, intimidation
or any other means which vitiates the free will;
If he should wish to testify in his own behalf, however, he may do and to have evidence obtained in violation of
so. This is his right. But if he does testify, then he "may be cross- these rights rejected; and
examined as any other witness." He may be cross-examined as
to any matters stated in his direct examination, or connected 2) AFTER THE CASE IS FILED IN COURT —  37

therewith .   He may not on cross-examination refuse to answer

36

any question on the ground that the answer that he will give, or a) to refuse to be a witness;
the evidence he will produce, would have a tendency to
incriminate him for the crime with which he is charged.

22
 b) not to have any prejudice February 9, 1986 and agreed that the proceedings should be
whatsoever result to him by such recorded, the record having thereafter been marked during the
refusal; trial of the criminal action subsequently filed against him as
Exhibit A, just as it is obvious that the note (later marked as
c) to testify in his own behalf, Exhibit K) that he sent to his superiors on February 8,1986, the
subject to cross-examination by day before the investigation, offering to compromise his liability in
the prosecution; the alleged irregularities, was a free and even spontaneous act
on his part. They may not be excluded on the ground that the so-
d) WHILE TESTIFYING, to refuse called "Miranda rights" had not been accorded to Ramos.
to answer a specific question
which tends to incriminate him for His Honor adverts to what he perceives to be the "greater danger
some crime other than that for x x (of) the violation of the right of any person against self-
which he is then prosecuted. incrimination when the investigation is conducted by the
complaining parties, complaining companies, or complaining
It should by now be abundantly apparent that respondent Judge employers because being interested parties, unlike the police
has misapprehended the nature and import of the disparate rights agencies who have no propriety or pecuniary interest to protect,
set forth in Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution. He has they may in their over-eagerness or zealousness bear heavily on
taken them as applying to the same juridical situation, equating their hapless suspects, whether employees or not, to give
one with the other. In so doing, he has grossly erred. To be sure, statements under an atmosphere of moral coercion, undue
His Honor sought to substantiate his thesis by arguments he took ascendancy and undue influence." It suffices to draw attention to
to be cogent and logical. The thesis was however so far divorced the specific and peremptory requirement of the law that
from the actual and correct state of the constitutional and legal disciplinary sanctions may not be imposed on any employee by
principles involved as to make application of said thesis to the his employer until and unless the employee has been accorded
case before him tantamount to totally unfounded, whimsical or due process, by which is meant that the latter must be informed
capricious exercise of power. His Orders were thus rendered with of the offenses ascribed to him and afforded adequate time and
grave abuse of discretion. They should be as they are hereby, opportunity to explain his side. The requirement entails the
annulled and set aside. making of statements, oral or written, by the employee under
such administrative investigation in his defense, with opportunity
to solicit the assistance of counsel, or his colleagues and friends.
It is clear from the undisputed facts of this case that Felipe
The employee may, of course, refuse to submit any statement at
Ramos was not in any sense under custodial interrogation, as the
the investigation, that is his privilege. But if he should opt to do
term should be properly understood, prior to and during the
so, in his defense to the accusation against him, it would be
administrative inquiry into the discovered irregularities in ticket
absurd to reject his statements, whether at the administrative
sales in which he appeared to have had a hand. The
investigation, or at a subsequent criminal action brought against
constitutional rights of a person under custodial interrogation
him, because he had not been accorded, prior to his making and
under Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution did not
presenting them, his "Miranda rights" (to silence and to counsel
therefore come into play, were of no relevance to the inquiry. It is
and to be informed thereof, etc.) which, to repeat, are relevant
also clear, too, that Ramos had voluntarily answered questions
only in custodial investigations. Indeed, it is self-evident that the
posed to him on the first day of the administrative investigation,

23
employee's statements, whether called "position paper," THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, 
"answer," etc., are submitted by him precisely so that they may vs.
be admitted and duly considered by the investigating officer or ANTHONY ESCORDIAL, accused-appellant.
committee, in negation or mitigation of his liability.
\These cases are before this Court for review from the
Of course the possibility cannot be discounted that in certain decision, dated February 26, 1999, of the Regional Trial Court,
1 

instances the judge's expressed apprehensions may be realized, Branch 53, Bacolod City, finding accused-appellant Anthony
that violence or intimidation, undue pressure or influence be Escordial guilty of robbery with rape and sentencing him to death
brought to bear on an employee under investigation — or for that and to pay private complainant Michelle Darunday the amounts of
matter, on a person being interrogated by another whom he has P3,650.00 representing the amount taken by him, P50,000.00 as
supposedly offended. In such an event, any admission or moral damages, P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, and the
confession wrung from the person under interrogation would be costs.
inadmissible in evidence, on proof of the vice or defect vitiating
consent, not because of a violation of Section 20, Article IV of the In Criminal Case No. 97-18117, the information against accused-
1973 Constitution, but simply on the general, incontestable appellant charged him with the crime of rape committed as
proposition that involuntary or coerced statements may not in follows:
justice be received against the makers thereof, and really should
not be accorded any evidentiary value at all. That on or about the 27th day of December, 1996, in the
City of Bacolod, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
WHEREFORE, the writ of certiorari is granted annulling and this Honorable Court, the herein accused armed with a
setting aside the Orders of the respondent Judge in Criminal deadly weapon, a knife, by means of force, violence and
Case No. 3488-R, dated August 9, 1988 and September 14, intimidation, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and
1988, and he is hereby ordered to admit in evidence Exhibits "A" feloniously have carnal knowledge of the complainant
and "K" of the prosecution in said Criminal Case No. 3488-R, and Michelle Darunday y Jintula, against the latter's will.
thereafter proceed with the trial and adjudgment thereof. The
temporary restraining order of October 26, 1988 having become All contrary to law and with the aggravating circumstance
functus officio, is now declared of no further force and effect. that the said offense was committed in the dwelling of the
said party during nighttime while [she] was asleep inside
her room.

Act contrary to law. 2

In Criminal Case No. 97-18118, the information charged accused-

appellant with robbery with rape as follows:

That on or about the 27th day of December, 1996, in the

City of Bacolod, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of

24
 this Honorable Court, the said accused, armed with a Living in a boarding house in front of which the jeepney was
deadly weapon, a knife, with intent of gain and by means parked were Michelle Darunday, Erma Blanca, and Ma. Teresa
of violence and intimidation on the person, did, then and Gellaver. They stayed in a bedroom on the ground floor. That
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take from same night, December 27, 1996, Teresa went to sleep at around
Michelle Darunday y Jintula the sums of P3,650.00, 9:30 p.m., while Michelle and Erma watched television for a while
belonging to said offended party and [on] the occasion before going to bed. They slept beside each other on two beds
thereof have carnal knowledge with the complainant placed side by side, with Teresa nearest the wall, Michelle in the
Michelle Darunday y Jintula, against her will, and inside middle, and Erma on the other side.
her room wherein she was temporarily residing as a
boarder. While the three were asleep, Erma was awakened by the
presence of a man. The man had his head covered with a t-shirt
All contrary to law and with aggravating circumstance that to prevent identification and carried a knife about four inches
the said offense was committed inside the dwelling of the long. He warned Erma not to shout or he would kill her. He then
offended party and during nighttime the latter not having asked Erma where her money was, and the latter pointed to the
given provocation for the offense. wall where she had hung the bag which contained her money.
Michelle, who by then was already awake, told Erma to give the
Act contrary to law. 3 man her money so he would leave. Erma gave the man P300.00,
but the latter said to give him all her money. He told Erma that he
When arraigned on February 25, 1997, accused-appellant would look for more money and, if he found more, he would kill
pleaded not guilty to the charges, whereupon the two cases were her. For this reason, Erma gave the rest of her money.
jointly tried. Afterwards, she was told to lie on her side facing the wall. The
man then turned to Michelle and Teresa. Michelle gave him her
money, but Teresa said her money was in the other room.
The prosecution presented eight witnesses, namely, Jason
However, she was not allowed to leave the bedroom. The man
Joniega, Mark Esmeralda, Erma Blanca, Dr. Joy Ann Jocson,
4 

was able to get P500.00 from Erma and P3,100.00 from Michelle.
PO3 Nicolas Tancinco, Leo Asan, Ma. Teresa Gellaver, and
Michelle Darunday. Their testimonies are as follows:
After getting their money, the man gave a t-shirt to Erma to
blindfold Teresa and another to Michelle to blindfold Erma. He
Jason Joniega and Mark Esmeralda testified that at around 8
blindfolded Michelle himself and then began touching her in
o'clock in the evening of December 27, 1996, they and Mark
different parts of her body. He ordered her to take off her t-shirt,
Lucena were playing inside a jeepney parked in front of a
threatening to kill her if she did not do as he commanded. He
boarding house owned by Pacita Aguillon at No. 17 Margarita
5 

then went on top of Michelle and tried to insert his penis into her
Extension, Libertad St., Purok Amelia 2, Barangay 40, Bacolod
vagina. As he had difficulty doing so, he instead inserted his two
City. As one of them hit his head on the rails of the jeepney, the
fingers. He tried once more to insert his penis, but again failed.
boys were told by a man sitting inside the jeepney to go home
The man then rose from the bed and took some soapy water,
lest they would meet an accident. The man was later identified by
which he proceeded to insert into Michelle's vagina. He finally
Jason Joniega and Mark Esmeralda as accused-appellant. 6

succeeded in inserting his penis into Michelle's vagina. Michelle

25
felt great pain and pleaded with the man to stop, but the man paid Mark Esmeralda testified that he was in his bedroom on the
no heed, and only stopped after satisfying his lust. second floor of their house, toying with a flashlight, when he saw
from his bedroom window a man wearing denim shorts coming
Michelle said that although she was blindfolded and could not out of the boarding house. It was around 12:30 in the morning
see, she could feel that the man had no cover on his face when then. The man was nibbling something. Mark saw the man jump
he was raping her. She felt that his chest was rough and had over the fence. After 30 minutes, Mark went down from his room
some scars. When he placed her hands on his nape, she felt that and told his parents what he had seen. His parents then went out
it was also rough. to check what had happened. Mark identified accused-appellant
as the man he saw that night. 8

On the other hand, Erma claimed she was able to see through
her blindfold and that she saw the man's face because of the light Michelle, Erma, and Teresa were so frightened that they were not
coming from the lamp post outside the boarding house. Their able to ask for help until 30 minutes after the man had left. They
bedroom window had panes through which the light filtered in. told their neighbor, Tiyo Anong, that a man had come to the
house and robbed them. They also called up Allan Aguillon, the
After he had finished raping Michelle, the man sat on the bed and son of the owner of the boarding house, who in turn reported the
talked to the three women. He told Michelle that he used to make incident to the police. When the policemen arrived, they asked
catcalls at her and called her a beautiful girl whenever she Michelle to describe the assailant, but she told them that she
passed by his place but Michelle had ignored him. He told them could only identify his voice and his eyes. Accompanied by the
that he was from Hinigaran, but later took back his statement police, the three women looked for the man around the Libertad
when Teresa told him that she was from Binalbagan, which was area, but they did not find him. Michelle, Erma, and Teresa were
near Hinigaran. Michelle then told him that she worked at the City taken to the police station at Bac-Up 6 for investigation. But, at
Engineer's Office and graduated from the Central Mindanao Michelle's request, Erma and Teresa did not tell the others that
University. The man cussed when he learned that Michelle was Michelle had been raped by their attacker.
from Mindanao. As he spoke to Michelle, he leaned over the bed
and mashed the breasts of Erma and Teresa. Upon returning home, Michelle found her aunt and uncle. She
embraced her aunt and told her about her ordeal. Michelle was
After a while, the man told Michelle he wanted to have sex with again taken to the police headquarters, where she was referred to
her again. Michelle pleaded with him, but the man threatened to the Women's Desk to report the rape. They were able to go home
call his companions and said it would be worse for her if his to the house of Michelle's aunt at around 5 to 6 o'clock in the
companions would be the ones to rape her. He ordered Michelle evening.9

to lie on her stomach and then inserted his penis into her anus.
When he was through, he gave Michelle a blanket to cover PO3 Nicolas Tancinco, one of the policemen who responded to
herself and returned to her a pair of earrings which he had taken the report shortly after the commission of the crime, also testified
from her. He then left, but not before warning the women not to for the prosecution. He said that the assailant was described to
report the matter to anyone or he would kill them.
7 him as wearing long hair and having a rough projection on the
back of his neck, small eyes, a slim body, and a brown
complexion. Later on, Michelle Darunday, accompanied by Allan
Aguillon, returned to the police station to report the rape

26
committed against her. Tancinco entered her complaint in the the Pontevedra police to accompany Tancinco and his
police blotter and referred Michelle to the Women's Desk. companions. They found accused-appellant at the basketball
court and "invited" him to go to the police station for questioning. 10

In the morning of December 28, 1996, Tancinco returned to the

boarding house. He found that the intruder was able to gain entry Michelle Darunday remained at the Pontevedra police station.
to the house through the window of the bathroom. He noticed that When accused-appellant was brought there, he saw Michelle and
the room beside those of the three women had been ransacked, blushed. Michelle looked at him and recognized him as the man
with the cabinets opened and the clothes in disarray. who had robbed and raped her on December 27, 1996. Accused-
appellant was asked to take off his t-shirt. Michelle said that she
The following day, on December 29, 1996, Tancinco went around just kept quiet while accused-appellant tried to talk to her.
Margarita Extension and learned about the children playing on However, according to Tancinco, Michelle confirmed to him that
the street around the time the intruder entered the boarding accused-appellant was the man who had attacked her, identifying
house. He was told by Mark Esmeralda and Jason Joniega that him through a rough projection, or a keloid, on the back of his
they saw a man inside the jeepney where they were playing at neck and his voice. At the time of his arrest, accused-appellant
the time of the incident. Tancinco was likewise informed by had a short haircut. He was transferred to the Bacolod police
Esmeralda that the person he saw inside the jeepney was the station for further investigation. Allan Aguillon took a picture of
11 

same person he saw coming out of the boarding house later that accused-appellant (Exh. F) at the Pontevedra police station. 12

night. According to Tancinco, the children said that they could

identify the man if he was shown to them. At around 8 o'clock that At the Bacolod police station, Erma Blanca, Ma. Teresa Gellaver,
evening, Tancinco questioned a certain Tiyo Anong and Ramie Jason Joniega, and Mark Esmeralda were asked whether
about the identity of the suspect. Ramie said that the description accused-appellant was the same person they saw on the night of
of the suspect fitted that of a worker at a café called Coffee Break the incident. They were taken one by one to the jail cell and
Corner, about two houses away from the boarding house. asked to point to the person that they had seen that night. They
picked accused-appellant out of four people who were inside the
Thus, on January 2, 1997, Tancinco and some companions jail cell.
13

proceeded to the Coffee Break Corner and interviewed the

security guard, who told them that a certain Fidel Hinolan owned Michelle Darunday executed an affidavit, dated January 4, 1997,
the café. When interviewed by Tancinco and his companions, identifying accused-appellant as the person who had robbed and
Fidel Hinolan told them that accused-appellant was his helper raped her. She testified that she and her friends had gone to the
14 

and that the latter had gone home on December 27, 1996 to Coffee Break Corner sometime in September or October 1996.
Barangay Miranda, Pontevedra, Negros Occidental. On the way home, she was approached by accused-appellant.
He asked Michelle what her name was, and she gave it to him,
Based on the information furnished by Hinolan, Tancinco and his albeit reluctantly. She usually passed by the said café when going
fellow police officers, Michelle Darunday, Allan Aguillon, and home and accused-appellant would often whistle at her and call
Pacita Aguillon went to Barangay Miranda, Pontevedra, Negros her a beautiful girl. Michelle had simply ignored him and gone on
Occidental at around 10 o'clock in the morning of January 3, 1997 her way. 15

and asked the assistance of the police there to locate accused-

appellant. PO2 Rodolfo Gemarino asked one of his colleagues at

27
Dr. Joy Ann C. Jocson, Medical Officer IV of the Bacolod City 10 times in the case of the victim. Dr. Jocson stated it was
Health Department, examined Michelle Darunday and made the possible the victim agreed to have sexual intercourse voluntarily
following findings and remarks: based on the lack of marks of violence on the latter, although it
was also possible that she was merely forced to have sex
1. Abrasions noted on the right and left Labia Minora and because she was threatened. On re-direct examination, she
on the posterior fourchette. stated it was possible that seminal fluid was not found on the
victim's private parts because the victim was having her monthly
2. New Lacerations noted on the hymenal ring on the period. She said the lacerations on the victim's vagina would
following location 1 o'clock position, 3 o'clock position, result whether the sexual intercourse was voluntary or involuntary
and 9 o'clock position. on the part of the victim.
17

3. Vaginal introitus admits 2 fingers but with pain. Leo Asan, an employee at the City Health Office in Bacolod,
testified that the medical certificate presented by the prosecution,
which was undated, was a faithful reproduction of what was
4. Presently, patient with menstruation.
written by Dr. Joy Ann Jocson on January 3, 1997 in the
logbook.18

In my opinion, the patient would need a urinalysis (since

she complains of pain upon urination) and possible
The defense presented as its witnesses Elias Sombito, Aaron
Medical treatment if necessary, for about 7 to 10 days.
Lavilla, PO2 Rodolfo Gemarino, Ricardo Villaspen, Nestor Dojillo,
And if necessary, psychiatric evaluation & management is
accused-appellant Anthony Escordial, Jerome Jayme, and Lucila
also recommended. 16

Jocame. These witnesses gave a different account of the events

that led to the arrest of accused-appellant. Their version is as
Testifying in court, Dr. Jocson said there was penetration of the follows:
victim's vagina as shown by the fact that the hymenal rim had
lacerations at the 1, 3, and 9 o'clock positions. Since the edges of
Accused-appellant testified that he was employed by Fidel
the lacerations were sharp, she concluded that these lacerations
Hinolan on January 21, 1996. He said he started on August 6,
were less than a week old at the time of the examination.
1996 as a dishwasher and was later made cashier. Accused-
According to Dr. Jocson, these were caused by abrasions due to
appellant said that he went home to Pontevedra, Negros
force or pressure applied on the vaginal area. When asked during
Occidental on December 24, 1996, arriving there at 2 o'clock in
cross-examination whether the victim had abrasions or
the afternoon. Hinolan paid him P500.00, which he gave to his
contusions on her body at the time of her examination, Dr. Jocson
mother as his Christmas gift. He dropped by the house of Aaron
said that she could not remember. She could not remember either
Lavilla. At 5:30 p.m., he returned to Coffee Break Corner in
whether there was sperm in the victim's vagina when she
Bacolod City.
examined the latter. She said that no sperm specimen had been
taken from the victim. She testified that it could not be determined
how many times the victim had previously engaged in sexual In the evening of December 26, 1996, accused-appellant asked
intercourse because this would depend on the elasticity of the permission from Hinolan to go home to Pontevedra to stay there
victim's hymen. She opined, however, that it would be less than until January 1997 as the restaurant would be closed anyway
during this period. Hinolan gave accused-appellant his permission

28
and paid the latter his salary of P600.00 as well as a P200.00 Tancinco and his companions showed their mission order to
bonus. Hence, at 2 o'clock in the afternoon of December 27, Gemarino, they did not show a warrant for accused-appellant's
1996, accused-appellant took the bus home, arriving in Barangay arrest. Nonetheless, Gemarino told PO2 Gella of the Pontevedra
Miranda, Pontevedra, Negros Occidental an hour later. He went police and Ricardo Villaspen, the tanod commander of Barangay
straight home to his mother and gave her P600.00, telling her to Miranda, to help the Bacolod policemen look for accused-
use P400.00 for New Year's Day. 19
appellant. The group left the police station, although Tancinco's
other companions, Michelle Darunday and Pacita Aguillon, stayed
Accused-appellant also saw Elias Sombito, who told him to look
20  in the headquarters.24

for Aaron Lavilla because a cockfight derby was being held that
day in their barangay. Accused-appellant, therefore, looked for The arresting party, composed of Tancinco, PO2 Gella, and
Aaron Lavilla and found him at the basketball court. Aaron's Villaspen, proceeded to the house of accused-appellant in
mother asked accused-appellant to help her bring to the cockpit Barangay Miranda, but the latter was not there. They found
some cases of beer which she planned to sell there. Accused- accused-appellant at the basketball court watching a game. After
appellant obliged. informing him that he was a suspect in a robbery case, the group
invited accused-appellant to go with them to the police
At the cockpit, Elias Sombito asked him to take care of his cocks. headquarters.
Accused-appellant asked Aaron Lavilla to go with him to the
cockpit, but the latter continued playing basketball and only Nestor Dojillo, the barangay captain of Barangay Miranda, was at
proceeded to the cockpit after the game was finished. The derby the police station. He testified that when accused-appellant,
ended at around 9 o'clock in the evening. together with Tancinco and his companions, arrived at the police
station, he (Nestor Dojillo) followed them to the investigating
At about 10 o'clock that night, accused-appellant and Aaron room. Inside the room were Michelle Darunday, three members of
Lavilla went to the latter's house and slept there. The following the Bacolod police, Villaspen, and Gemarino. Gemarino asked
day, December 28, 1996, accused-appellant helped Aaron Michelle if she could identify accused-appellant as her attacker,
Lavilla's mother with the household chores, cutting the grass and but the latter said that she could do so only if she could see a
feeding the cocks. He stayed in Barangay Miranda until January lump on his back. Gemarino told accused-appellant to take off his
3, 1997. Accused-appellant's testimony as to his whereabouts
21  t-shirt. When accused-appellant did as Gemarino ordered,
from December 27, 1996 to January 3, 1997 was corroborated by Michelle looked at his back for identifying marks, while Allan
Elias Sombito and Aaron Lavilla.
22  23 Aguillon took his photograph. Gemarino then asked Michelle
whether accused-appellant was her attacker, but she replied that
As to the circumstances of accused-appellant's arrest, PO2 she was not sure because the attacker was wearing a mask when
Rodolfo Gemarino and Ricardo Villaspen testified that at around she was raped. The Bacolod policemen requested Gemarino to
11 o'clock in the morning of January 3, 1997, three members of allow them to bring accused-appellant to Bacolod City as they still
the Bacolod police, led by PO3 Nicolas Tancinco, went to the had some witnesses who could identify the suspect there.
headquarters of the Pontevedra police to ask for help in locating a Accused-appellant was allowed to go with them after Dojillo and
person named Anthony Escordial, said to be a resident of Gemarino asked the Bacolod policemen not to harm
Barangay Miranda, Pontevedra, Negros Occidental, who was him. Dojillo's testimony was corroborated by the testimonies of
25 

wanted in connection with a case for robbery with rape. Although

29
PO2 Rodolfo Gemarino, Ricardo Villaspen, and accused-
26  27 
At around 12:00 noon of January 6, 1997, Gemarino, Dojillo, and
appellant.28
Villaspen, together with accused-appellant's grandfather, a
certain Inspector Tamayo, and reporters from Bombo Radyo,
Accused-appellant further testified that on the way to Bacolod went to the Bacolod police station to visit accused-appellant.
City, PO3 Tancinco began beating him and hitting him with the They found him tied to a chair. When they entered the cell,
butt of a shotgun to force him to admit liability for the crime. accused-appellant, thinking that they were members of the
Because accused-appellant refused to do so, he was taken by Bacolod police, held up his hands and asked for pity. The visitors
Tancinco and his companions to a lodging house where he was assured accused-appellant that they would not hurt him.
subjected to torture. Accused-appellant was told to take off his Accused-appellant had a limp because his feet were injured. For
clothes and to lie down. PO3 Tancinco and his companions then this reason, Dojillo and his companions asked the Bacolod police
proceeded to hit him with a belt. Afterwards, they covered his to let them take accused-appellant to the hospital for treatment.
mouth and took him to the bathroom. Tancinco put a knife to his Accused-appellant was thus brought to the provincial hospital in
neck, telling him that he would be killed if he refused to admit that Bacolod for x-ray and medical treatment. He was taken back to
he was the culprit. As he continued to deny liability for the crime, the police station thereafter.30

accused-appellant was subjected to further torture. Later on, the

driver entered the room and brought with him a child, whose head Lucila Jocame, Records Officer of the Corazon Locsin
was covered, who was instructed to identify accused-appellant. Montelibano Memorial Regional Hospital (CLMMH), identified in
The child, however, did not react upon seeing accused-appellant, court the medical certificate (Exh. 12) issued by the said hospital,
31 

who was thus brought back to the headquarters where he was showing the injuries sustained by accused-appellant, to wit:
again maltreated. Accused-appellant said that he was left alone in
his cell and tied to a chair. He also said that at around 8 o'clock The last witness presented by the defense was Jerome Jayme,
33 

that evening, two of the complainants arrived and the police told General Manager of Royal Express Transport, Inc., who testified
them to identify accused-appellant as their attacker. But these that the last bus trip from Kabankalan to Bacolod on December
two complainants just kept looking at accused-appellant and even 27, 1996 left at 6 o'clock in the evening. The trip from Kabankalan
asked the policemen if he was the suspect. to Barangay Miranda, Pontevedra, Negros Occidental would take
one hour. On cross-examination, Jayme stated that the said bus
After the two women had left, PO3 Tancinco took accused- would reach Bacolod City by 7:40 to 8:00 p.m. if it left Kabankalan
appellant to a house so that he could be identified by another at 6:00 p.m. His company's buses were not allowed to pick up
complainant. But this complainant likewise said that he was not passengers along the way to Bacolod City because of the
the assailant, as the latter had a heavier build and longer hair. incidence of highway robbery. Jayme identified in court a
Accused-appellant was returned to the police headquarters. certification (Exh. 12-a) he issued which stated that the last bus
trip of their company on December 27, 1996 was at 6:00 p.m. 34

At the headquarters, PO3 Tancinco talked to accused-appellant

and told him that he would help him if accused-appellant On February 26, 1999, the trial court rendered a decision, the
confessed to the crime. But accused-appellant again refused dispositive portion of which stated:
because he said he had not done anything wrong. The police
then began beating him up again. PO3 Tancinco burnt accused- WHEREFORE, it is the well-considered view of this court,
appellant's lips and tongue with a lighted cigarette.
29
after a thorough, painstaking and exhaustive review and

30
 examination of the evidence adduced in this case, that THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THAT THERE WAS
the accused ANTHONY ESCORDIAL y GALES, is NO DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSAILANT EVER MADE
GUILTY, beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime of BY ANYBODY PRIOR TO THE "WARRANTLESS
Robbery with Rape, punished under Art. 294, paragraph 1 ARREST" OF THE ACCUSED. THE AFFIDAVITS OF
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The THE COMPLAINANT AND HER WITNESSES WERE IN
commission of the crime was attended by three FACT DRAFTED, EXECUTED AND SIGNED ONLY
aggravating circumstances of nighttime, that the crime SEVERAL DAYS AFTER THE ACCUSED WAS
was committed in the dwelling of the offended party, and BROUGHT INTO THE CUSTODY OF THE BACOLOD
that craft, fraud and disguise were employed by the POLICE.
accused in the commission of the crime under paragraphs
3, 6, and 14 of Art. 14 of the Revised Penal Code. There 3. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN DISREGARDING
is no mitigating circumstance. Applying Article 63, THE TESTIMONIES OF WITNESSES PO2 RODOLFO
paragraph 1, the accused is hereby sentenced to the GEMARINO (DEP. CHIEF OF POLICE OF
maximum penalty of DEATH. PONTEVEDRA), BRGY. CAPT. NESTOR DOJILLO
(BRGY. CAPT. OF MIRANDA AND THEN MEMBER OF
He is also condemned to pay private complainant the sum THE SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF PONTEVEDRA), AND
of P3,650.00, representing the money taken by the RICARDO VILLASPEN (THEN COMMANDER OF
accused; P50,000.00 as moral damages, P30,000.00 as BARANGAY TANOD IN PONTEVEDRA) TO THE
exemplary damages, and the costs. EFFECT THAT MICHELLE DARUNDAY FAILED TO
IDENTIFY THE ACCUSED DURING THEIR
SO ORDERED. 35 ENCOUNTER IN PONTEVEDRA POLICE STATION.

Hence this appeal. Accused-appellant contends that: 4. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN NOT EXCLUDING
ALL EVIDENCES, TESTIMONIAL AND
1. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN DISREGARDING DOCUMENTARY, OBTAINED BY THE PROSECUTION
THE DEFENSE OF THE ACCUSED TO THE EFFECT DURING THE WARRANTLESS ARREST OF THE
THAT ANTHONY ESCORDIAL CAN NEVER BE THE ACCUSED AND THE LATTER'S SUBJECTION TO
ROBBER-RAPIST WHO RAVISHED MICHELLE CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION WITHOUT LETTING HIM
DARUNDAY ON THAT FATEFUL NIGHT OF KNOW OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS,
DECEMBER 27, 1996, AS THE FORMER (ESCORDIAL) PARTICULARLY HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL OF
DID NOT HAVE THE QUALITIES, CHARACTER AND CHOICE.
EXPERTISE OF THE LATTER (ROBBER-RAPIST).
5. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT
2. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT PROSECUTION WITNESSES WERE ABLE TO
THE DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSAILANT AS POSITIVELY IDENTIFY THE ACCUSED IN A POLICE
DESCRIBED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND HER LINE UP DESPITE THE FACT THAT OF THE PERSONS
WITNESSES FIT WITH THAT OF HEREIN ACCUSED, BEING LINED UP ONLY THE ACCUSED WAS
HANDCUFFED.

31
 6. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE companions had arrested accused-appellant without any warrant
TO THE TESTIMONIES OF PROSECUTION issued by a judge. Art. III, §2 of the Constitution states:
37 

WITNESSES TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY WERE

ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE ASSAILANT BY FACE THAT The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
VERY EVENING OF DECEMBER 27, 1996 AMIDST THE houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
IMPOSSIBILITY OF DOING THE SAME, GIVEN THE searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
DISTANCE, THE INTENSITY OF LIGHT, AND THE purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or
TERRIFYING SITUATION, WHICH ALL OBSCURE, IF warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause
NOT DESTROY, THE CLARITY OF HUMAN MEMORY to be determined personally by the judge after
AND PERCEPTION. examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant
and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
7. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT describing the place to be searched and the persons or
THE DEFENSE FAILED TO SHOW THE IMPOSSIBILITY things to be seized.
OF ACCUSED TO GO TO BACOLOD THAT EVENING
OF DECEMBER 27, 1996, DESPITE OVERWHELMING To implement this provision, Rule 113, §5 of the Revised Rules of
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED, BY SIMPLY RELYING ON Criminal Procedure provides that a peace officer or a private
THE POSSIBILITY OF THE ACCUSED TAKING A person may, without a warrant, arrest a person only under the
CARGO TRUCK FROM PONTEVEDRA TO BACOLOD. following circumstances:

8. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
ACCUSED ANTHONY ESCORDIAL HAD MOTIVE TO committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
COMMIT THE CRIME CHARGED BASED ON A commit an offense;
WRONG PREMISE THAT THE DEFENSE ALLEGEDLY
DID NOT REFUTE THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE (b) When an offense has just been committed and he has
COMPLAINANT THAT ACCUSED ATTEMPTED TO BE probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge
ACQUAINTED WITH THE COMPLAINANT AND of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested
WHISTLED AT THE LATTER SEVERAL TIMES. 36
has committed it; and

The issues raised by accused-appellant concern (1) the alleged (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
violations of his constitutional rights and the consequent escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is
admissibility of the evidence against him and (2) the credibility of serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his
the prosecution witnesses. case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred
from one confinement to another.
I. Alleged Violations of Accused-appellant's Constitutional Rights
The cases at bar do not fall under paragraphs (a) or (c) of the
A. Accused-appellant questions the legality of his arrest without a aforequoted rule. At the time of his arrest, accused-appellant was
warrant. Indeed, PO3 Nicolas Tancinco admitted that he and his watching a game in a basketball court in Barangay Miranda,

32
Pontevedra, Negros Occidental. He was not committing or arrest. He thus waived objection to the legality of his arrest. As
39  40 

attempting to commit a crime when he was arrested by the police this Court has held in another case:
on that day. Nor was he an escaped prisoner whose arrest could
be effected even without a warrant. [The accused] waived objections based on the alleged
irregularity of their arrest, considering that they pleaded
The question is whether these cases fall under paragraph (b) not guilty to the charges against them and participated in
because the police officers had personal knowledge of facts and the trial. Any defect in their arrest must be deemed cured
circumstances that would lead them to believe that accused- when they voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the
appellant had just committed a crime. The phrase "personal court. For the legality of an arrest affects only the
knowledge" in paragraph (b) has been defined in this wise: jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused.
Consequently, if objections based on this ground are
Personal knowledge of facts in arrests without a warrant waived, the fact that the arrest was illegal is not a
under Section 5(b) of Rule 113 must be based upon sufficient cause for setting aside an otherwise valid
"probable cause" which means "an actual belief or judgment rendered after a trial, free from error. The
reasonable grounds of suspicion." The grounds of technicality cannot render subsequent proceedings void
suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of actual and deprive the State of its right to convict the guilty when
belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion that the all the facts on record point to the culpability of the
person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the accused. 41

offense is based on actual facts, i.e., supported by

circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create B. Accused-appellant invokes Art. III, §12(1) of the Constitution
the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. A which provides that "[a]ny person under investigation for the
reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of
probable cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent
peace officer making the arrest.38
counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford
the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These
In these cases, the crime took place on December 27, 1996. But, rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of
accused-appellant was arrested only on January 3, 1997, a week counsel." He contends that he was subjected to custodial
after the occurrence of the crime. As the arresting officers were interrogation without being informed of his right to remain silent
not present when the crime was committed, they could not have and to have independent counsel preferably of his choice. Hence,
"personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances of the he contends, the trial court erred in not excluding evidence
commission of the crime" so as to be justified in the belief that obtained from him during such interrogation for violation of
accused-appellant was guilty of the crime. The arresting officers accused-appellant's rights under this provision. 1âwphi1.nêt

had no reason for not securing a warrant.

While it cannot be denied that accused-appellant was deprived of
However, the records show that accused-appellant pleaded not his right to be informed of his rights to remain silent and to have
guilty to the crimes charged against him during his arraignment competent and independent counsel, he has not shown that, as a
on February 25, 1997 without questioning his warrantless result of his custodial interrogation, the police obtained any
statement from him – whether inculpatory or exculpatory - which

33
was used in evidence against him. The records do not show that formality." We have thus ruled that any identification of an
44 

he had given one or that, in finding him guilty, the trial court relied uncounseled accused made in a police line-up, or in a show-up
on such statement. In fact, accused-appellant testified that at no for that matter, after the start of the custodial investigation is
point, even when subjected to physical torture, did he ever admit inadmissible as evidence against him. 45

committing the crime with which he was charged. In other words,

no uncounseled statement was obtained from accused-appellant Here, accused-appellant was identified by Michelle Darunda in a
which should have been excluded as evidence against him. show-up on January 3, 1997 and by Erma Blanca, Ma. Teresa
Gellaver, Jason Joniega, and Mark Esmeralda in a police line-up
C. Of greater significance is the fact that accused-appellant was on various dates after his arrest. Having been made when
never assisted by counsel, whether of his own choice or provided accused-appellant did not have the assistance of counsel, these
by the police officers, from the time of his arrest in Pontevedra, out-of-court identifications are inadmissible in evidence against
Negros Occidental to the time of his continued detention at the him. Consequently, the testimonies of these witnesses regarding
Bacolod police station. Although accused-appellant made no these identifications should have been held inadmissible for being
statement during this time, this fact remains important insofar as it "the direct result of the illegal lineup 'come at by exploitation of
affects the admissibility of the out-of-court identification of [the primary] illegality.'"46

accused-appellant by the prosecution witnesses, namely,

Michelle Darunday, Erma Blanca, Ma. Teresa Gellaver, Mark Be that as it may, as the defense failed to object immediately
Esmeralda, and Jason Joniega. when these witnesses were presented by the prosecution or
when specific questions regarding this matter were asked of
As a rule, an accused is not entitled to the assistance of counsel them, as required by Rule 132, §36 of the Rules on Evidence,
in a police line-up considering that such is usually not a part of accused-appellant must be deemed to have waived his right to
the custodial inquest. However, the cases at bar are different
42 
object to the admissibility of these testimonies. 47

inasmuch as accused-appellant, having been the focus of

attention by the police after he had been pointed to by a certain Furthermore, the inadmissibility of these out-of-court
Ramie as the possible perpetrator of the crime, was already identifications does not render the in-court identification of
under custodial investigation when these out-of-court accused-appellant inadmissible for being the "fruits of the
identifications were conducted by the police. poisonous tree." This in-court identification was what formed the
48 

basis of the trial court's conviction of accused-appellant. As it was

An out-of-court identification of an accused can be made in not derived or drawn from the illegal arrest of accused-appellant
various ways. In a show-up, the accused alone is brought face to or as a consequence thereof, it is admissible as evidence against
49 

face with the witness for identification, while in a police line-up, him. However, whether or not such prosecution evidence satisfies
the suspect is identified by a witness from a group of persons the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt is another
gathered for that purpose. During custodial investigation, these
43 
matter altogether.
types of identification have been recognized as "critical
confrontations of the accused by the prosecution" which II. Credibility of the Prosecution Witnesses
necessitate the presence of counsel for the accused. This is
because the results of these pre-trial proceedings "might well
settle the accused's fate and reduce the trial itself to a mere

34
Accused-appellant contends that: (1) he does not possess the We think it follows that the proper test to be applied in
character, qualities, and expertise of the assailant who robbed these situations is that quoted in Wong Sun v. United
and raped Michelle Darunday, Erma Blanca, and Ma. Teresa States, 371 US 471, 488, 9 L ed 2d 441, 455, 83 S Ct
Gellaver; (2) the records are bereft of any description of the 407, "'[W]hether, granting establishment of the primary
assailant made by these prosecution witnesses prior to his arrest illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made
as the affidavits of Darunday, Blanca, Joniega, and Esmeralda has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or
were executed only after his arrest; (3) the testimonies of the instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged
defense witnesses, namely, PO2 Rodolfo Gemarino, Barangay of the primary taint.' Maguire, Evidence of Guilt 221
Captain Nestor Dojillo, and Ricardo Villaspen, show that Michelle (1959)." See also Hoffa v United States, 385 US 293,
Darunday failed to identify accused-appellant when the latter was 309, 17 L ed 2d 374, 386, 87 S Ct 408. Application of this
presented to her at the Pontevedra police station; (4) Tancinco's test in the present context requires consideration of
testimony that Michelle Darunday properly identified accused- various factors; for example, the prior opportunity to
appellant at the Pontevedra police station could not be believed observe the alleged criminal act, the existence of any pre-
as the said witness had motive to testify falsely against accused- line-up description and the defendant's actual description,
appellant; (4) the identification of accused-appellant at the any identification prior to lineup of another person, the
Bacolod police station was tainted because only accused- identification by picture of the defendant prior to the
appellant was handcuffed among the persons presented to the lineup, failure to identify the defendant on a prior
prosecution witnesses; and (5) it was highly improbable for the occasion, and the lapse of time between the alleged act
prosecution witnesses to identify the assailant by face and the lineup identification. It is also relevant to consider
considering the distance, the intensity of light, and the those facts which, despite the absence of counsel, are
circumstances at the time of the commission of the crime. disclosed concerning the conduct of the lineup.

A. Jason Joniega and Mark Esmeralda pointed to accused-

50  51 
We now consider whether the testimonies of the prosecution
appellant as the man they saw on the night of December 27, witnesses meet the test as laid down in that case.
1996 and the person they identified inside a jail cell at the
Bacolod police station. Erma Blanca, on the other hand, testified 1. Michelle Darunday testified that her assailant's face was
that she saw through her blindfold accused-appellant raping covered with cloth when he entered the room and that she was
Michelle Darunday. She identified accused-appellant in court as blindfolded when she was raped. She could thus only see the
57 

their assailant and as the man whom she saw inside the jail cell assailant's eyes, which Michelle described
at the Bacolod police station. Ma. Teresa Gellaver and Michelle
52  53 
as chinito (chinky), although she testified that she could also
58 

Darunday identified accused-appellant as the suspect brought

54 
identify his voice. Otherwise, Michelle did not see her attacker.
59 

before them at the Bacolod police station and the Pontevedra Yet, she testified that she immediately recognized accused-
police station, respectively. appellant as the assailant when she saw him at the Pontevedra
police station.
The test is whether or not the prosecution was able to establish
by clear and convincing evidence that the in-court identifications A show-up, such as what was undertaken by the police in the
were based upon observations of the suspect other than the line- identification of accused-appellant by Michelle Darunday, has
up identification. As held in United States v. Wade:
55  56
been held to be an underhanded mode of identification for "being

35
pointedly suggestive, generat[ing] confidence where there was doubt her credibility concerning the identity of accused-appellant.
none, activat[ing] visual imagination, and, all told, subvert[ing] The possibility that her identification of accused-appellant was
their reliability as [an eyewitness]." In these cases, Michelle knew
61 
merely planted in her mind both by the circumstances
that she was going to identify a suspect when she went to surrounding the show-up and her concomitant determination to
Pontevedra. Upon seeing accused-appellant escorted by seek justice cannot be disregarded by this Court.
Tancinco and his colleagues in the Bacolod police, she knew that
he was the suspect she was supposed to identify. When Michelle's identification of accused-appellant is further rendered
accused-appellant was thus shown to her, there could be no dubious by the disparity between her description of her attacker
doubt as to what was expected of her. Further aggravating the and the appearance of accused-appellant. In her affidavit, dated
situation were the reply of the policeman to accused-appellant's January 4, 1997, Michelle described her attacker as follows:
protestations of innocence that he was being held for rape and
Michelle's aunt's obvious assumption of his guilt. Michelle's P      -      Sadtong tinion nga ginahimoslan ikaw sining
immediate conclusion, therefore, that accused-appellant was her suspetsado nakita mo bala ang iya hitsura? (At the time
attacker was understandable. As has been explained: that you were abused by the suspect, did you see what
he looked like?)
Social psychological influences. Various social
psychological factors also increase the danger of S      -      Wala, kay tungod nga may tabon ang akon
suggestibility in a lineup confrontation. Witnesses, like mata, apang matandaan ko guid ang iya tingog, mata,
other people, are motivated by a desire to be correct and ang iya malaka nga biguti, ang structure sang iya lawas,
to avoid looking foolish. By arranging a lineup, the police ang supat sang iya kamot, ang iya bibig, ang madamo
have evidenced their belief that they have caught the nga "kelloid" sa iya lawas kag ang iya baho. (No, because
criminal; witnesses, realizing this, probably will feel foolish I was blindfolded but I can remember his voice, his eyes,
if they cannot identify anyone and therefore may choose his thin mustache, his body structure, the smoothness of
someone despite residual uncertainty. Moreover, the his hands, his mouth, and the numerous keloids on his
need to reduce psychological discomfort often motivates body, and his smell.)63

the victim of a crime to find a likely target for feelings of

hostility.
Michelle's affidavit clearly indicated that she felt the keloids on the
back of her assailant when the latter was raping her. But, when
Finally, witnesses are highly motivated to behave like she testified in court, Michelle admitted that she did not see
those around them. This desire to conform produces an keloids on accused-appellant although she said that his skin was
increased need to identify someone in order to show the rough. This is corroborated by the testimony of PO2 Rodolfo
64 

police that they, too, feel that the criminal is in the lineup, Gemarino who said that he did not see any lump on the back of
and makes the witnesses particularly vulnerable to any accused-appellant when he tried to look for it. In fact, it would
65 

clues conveyed by the police or other witnesses as to appear that accused-appellant had no such markings on his back
whom they suspect of the crime. . . 62
but had only small patches which could not even be readily
seen.66

Coupled with the failure of Michelle to see the face of her

assailant, the apparent suggestiveness of the show-up places in

36
In dismissing the disparity between accused-appellant's Pontevedra police station upon seeing accused-appellant, the
appearance and Michelle's description of her attacker, the trial man who supposedly raped her twice in an ignominious manner,
court dwelt on the apparent roughness of accused-appellant's is contrary to human nature. It may be that she was filled with
72 

skin and the probability that Michelle might have felt only the arch rage so that upon seeing accused-appellant she was unable to
of the spinal cord of her assailant. However, mere speculations
67 
show any emotion. But it is equally possible that, as defense
and probabilities cannot take the place of proof beyond witnesses Gemarino, Villaspen, and Dojillo testified, Michelle did
reasonable doubt required by law to be established by the not immediately recognize accused-appellant as her attacker and
prosecution. Michelle Darunday was a civil engineer in the City
68 
only pointed to him as her assailant upon promptings by the
Engineer's Office in Bacolod City. Considering her educational police and her companions. "[W]here the circumstances shown to
attainment and professional status, it is improbable that she was exist yield two (2) or more inferences, one of which is consistent
mistaken as to what she felt on her attacker's back at the time with the presumption of innocence, while the other or others may
she was raped. A mere protrusion on the back of the neck of the be compatible with the finding of guilt, the court must acquit the
assailant could not possibly have been mistaken for keloids. accused: for the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral
certainty and is insufficient to support a judgment of conviction."
73

Another circumstance casting doubt on the credibility of

Michelle's identification is her lack of reaction upon seeing For the foregoing reasons, we find both the out-of-court and in-
accused-appellant at the Pontevedra police headquarters. court identification of Michelle Darunday to be insufficient to
Defense witnesses PO2 Rodolfo Gemarino, Ricardo
69 
establish accused-appellant as the person who robbed and raped
Villaspen, and Nestor Dojillo testified that Michelle failed to see
70  71 
her and her companions on the night of December 27, 1996.
any identifying marks on accused-appellant and that she showed
hesitation in pinpointing the latter as the culprit. With Gemarino 2. Erma Blanca testified that she saw through her blindfold the
being a policeman, Villaspen a barangay tanod, and Dojillo a assailant when he was raping Michelle Darunday. She identified
barangay captain, these witnesses were all, in one form or accused-appellant in open court as the person whom she saw
another, connected with law enforcement. The prosecution that night. Certain circumstances in these cases lead us to
74 

having failed to ascribe any ill motive on the part of these defense believe, however, that Erma Blanca did not really see the
witnesses, who are without doubt respectable members of the assailant and that her testimony otherwise was a mere
community, their testimonies that Michelle showed no reaction in afterthought. These are:
seeing accused-appellant at the show-up in Pontevedra police
station deserve greater credence than the testimony of Tancinco First, the police blotter, dated December 28, 1996, prepared by
75 

that Michelle confirmed to him that accused-appellant was her PO3 Nicolas Tancinco, referred to an "unknown suspect" who
attacker. The defense evidence established that Tancinco was an allegedly entered the boarding house of Pacita Aguillon and
abusive policeman who had made up his mind as to accused- robbed Ma. Teresa Gellaver and Michelle Darunday. This casts
appellant's guilt and who had no compunction in doing whatever doubt on Erma's credibility because she testified that she had
means necessary, legal or illegal, to ensure his conviction. We known accused-appellant for a long time prior to December 27,
note further that the testimonies of these defense witnesses 1996. During her testimony, Erma claimed that accused-appellant
coincide with Michelle's testimony that she kept quiet when she approached her and Michelle sometime in September or October
saw accused-appellant at the Pontevedra police station on 1996 to ask for the name of the latter. In addition, Erma said she
January 3, 1997. This being so, her reaction to the show-up at the had seen accused-appellant whenever he passed by their

37
boarding house or stayed in her Tiyo Anong's store nearby. It 76 
weak claim on the part of Michelle Darunday. The same may be
would thus seem that Erma was familiar with accused-appellant. said of the testimonies of Jason Joniega and Mark Esmeralda.
But, if she had actually seen him on that night of the robbery, why
did she not report this to the police immediately? Being a victim B. Accused-appellant's testimony that he was at the cockpit in
herself, Erma had every motive to reveal the identity of the robber Barangay Miranda, Pontevedra, Negros Occidental on December
that same night the crime was committed. But she did not do so. 27, 1996 is corroborated by Aaron Lavilla, Elias Sombito, and
80  81 

We are therefore left with the conclusion that the police blotter Nestor Dojillo. Considering the improbabilities and uncertainties
82 

referred to an unknown suspect because the identity of the surrounding the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the
assailant had not been determined at the time the crime was defense of alibi by accused-appellant deserves credence. 83

reported to the police.

To summarize, we find that the prosecution failed to meet the
Second, Erma was not the one who accompanied the Bacolod degree of proof beyond reasonable doubt required in criminal
police when the latter sought accused-appellant in Pontevedra, cases. The acquittal of accused-appellant is thus in order.
Negros Occidental. PO3 Tancinco testified that he took Michelle
Darunday along with his other companions when they went to WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
Pontevedra, Negros Occidental so that she could identify if the 53, Bacolod City, finding accused-appellant guilty of robbery with
suspect was the person who had raped her. But Michelle rape and sentencing him to death, is hereby REVERSED and
admitted that she did not see the face of the assailant. Erma accused-appellant is ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable
Blanca, who claimed she recognized accused-appellant, was not doubt. Accused-appellant is ordered immediately released unless
taken along by the police to Pontevedra, Negros Occidental. Why there are other legal grounds for his continued detention.
not? Why did they bring instead Michelle Darunday?
1âwphi1.nêt

The Director of Prisons is directed to implement this Decision and

Third, the affidavit of Erma Blanca was prepared on January 4,
77 
to report to the Court immediately the action taken hereon within
1997, a day after the arrest of accused-appellant. This delay five (5) days from receipt hereof.
belies Erma's claim that she saw the assailant through her
blindfold on the night of the incident. For the normal reaction of
SO ORDERED.
one who actually witnessed a crime and recognized the offender
is to reveal it to the authorities at the earliest opportunity. In
78 

these cases, the crime took place on December 27, 1996, but
Erma Blanca executed her affidavit only on January 4, 1997,
more than a week after the occurrence of the crime. Delay in
reporting the crime or identifying the perpetrator thereof will not
affect the credibility of the witness if it is sufficiently
explained. But here, no explanation was given by the prosecution
79

why Erma Blanca executed her affidavit one week after the crime
took place and one day after accused-appellant's arrest. The
most likely explanation for such lapse is that Erma Blanca was
used merely to corroborate what would otherwise have been a

38
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, 
vs.
HILARION TEVES y CANTOR, accused-appellant.

DE LEON, JR., J.:

Before us on automatic review is the Decision of the Regional

1 

Trial Court of Binan, Laguna, Branch 25, in Criminal Case No.

9620-B convicting the appellant, Hilarion C. Teves, of the crime of
parricide and sentencing him to suffer the supreme penalty of
death.1âwphi1.nêt

The lifeless body of Teresita Teves y Capuchino was found by a

group of barangay tanods in Barangay Macabling, Santa Rosa,
Laguna in the late evening of August 25, 1996. The body of the
victim bore strangulation marks around the neck and a stab
wound just below the left armpit. During the investigation of the
case, the husband of the victim, herein appellant, Hilarion C.
Teves, was identified as the driver of the passenger jeep that was
allegedly met by the barangay tanods shortly before they
chanced upon the dead body of the victim on that fateful evening
of August 25, 1996. It was also gathered by the police that the
spouses purportedly had misunderstanding prior to the incident.

On December 3, 1996, Hilarion Teves y Cantor was charged with

the crime of parricide defined and penalized under Article 246 of
the Revised Penal, Code, as amended, in an Information that 2 

reads:

That on or about August 25, 1996, in the Municipality of

Santa Rosa, Province of Laguna, Philippines and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused
HILARION TEVES y CANTOR, while conveniently armed
with a deadly weapon, with intent to kill his wife TERESA
CAPUCHINO y TEVES (sic) with whom he was united in
lawful wedlock, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously stab and strangle the said TERESA

39
 CAPUCHINO TEVES with the aforesaid deadly weapon, Dr. Erwin Escal, medico-legal officer, conducted the autopsy on
stabbing the latter on the left side of her chest causing her the body of Teresa Teves upon the request of PO2 Tony
instantaneous death, to the damage and prejudice of her Gangano. Dr, Escal identified in court the Autopsy Report6 which
surviving heirs. shows the following findings:

CONTRARY TO LAW. According to Dr. Escal, the victim could have been strangled
("binigti") with the use of a constricting material which may be a
Upon being arraigned on January 13, 1997, herein appellant, wire, a rope or a nylon cord and that the victim may have been
assisted by his counsel, entered the plea of "Not guilty" to the dead for not less than thirty-six (36) hours when it was brought to
charge as contained in the Information. Thereafter, trial on the him for autopsy examination at 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon on
merits ensued. August 26, 1996.7

It appears from the evidence adduced by the prosecution that on On August 29, 1996 Milagros was invited to the Santa Rosa,
August 25, 1996 at around 10:30 o'clock in the evening four (4) Laguna Police Station by the PNP Provincial Director, Supt.
barangay tanods, namely: Milagros Tayawa, Jerry Pantilla, Angel Arthur Castillo, to identify a certain person and a passenger jeep
Lapitan and Jose Bello, were patrolling on board a barangay in connection with the incident on August 25, 1996. She
patrol vehicle in Barangay Macabling, Santa Rosa, Laguna. remembered the person, who turned out to be the husband of the
Milagros was behind the steering wheel. From the old national victim, herein appellant Hilarion C. Teves, as the driver of the
highway, they entered the NIA road which was an isolated dirt passenger jeep that they met on the NIA road in Barangay
road seldom used by commuters due to its narrow width, There Macabling, Santa Rosa, Laguna shortly before they chanced
were no houses and streetlights along the immediate vicinity as upon the body of a dead woman later identified as Teresa C.
the road was bound by an irrigation canal on one side and a Teves. She recognized the appellant when their respective
stretch of rice field on the other. Subsequently, they met a vehicles momentarily stopped facing each other with their
passenger jeep that was coming from the opposite direction. headlights switched on. She had also seen the appellant while
Milagros had to maneuver backward to accommodate the other the latter was sitting on a bench at the back of " the Santa Rosa,
vehicle.
3 Laguna Police Station when she came to verify the status of the
case on August 27, 1996.
As the patrol vehicle advanced, the barangay tanods saw a body
of a woman lying on the left side of the NIA road. The woman's Milagros likewise recognized the passenger jeep8 as the same
white polo shirt was raised above the chest exposing her right vehicle being driven by the appellant when they met on the NIA
breast and a small wound just below her armpit; while her black road in the late evening of August 25, 1996. Milagros explained
pants were lowered down to her knees. Upon ascertaining that that she instructed her fellow barangay tanods to train their
the woman was dead, Milagros and her companions immediately flashlight on its direction after the passenger jeep speed away
informed their chief before proceeding to the Santa Rosa, Laguna and she read partly the plate number at the back as "DJN 6"
Police Station to report the incident. The police examined the
4  which she wrote on a cigarette foil9 ("palara"). She also noted the
cadaver, and then took the sworn statement5 of Milagros Tayawa distinguishing features of the passenger jeep such as: a) the
on the same evening of August 25, 1996. maroon paint on the bumper; b) the small lights attached to the
bumper; and c) the green reflectorized paints on the bumper.

40
After identifying the appellant and the passenger jeep, Milagros the appellant would not listen and even imputed that his wife had
executed another sworn statement before the police.
10 
a bad character.15

Upon his detention on the same date of August 29, 1996, the On July 20, 1996 Paula Beato Dia learned from Teresa that the
appellant allegedly requested the aunt of the victim, Maria Alulod, couple had finally decided to live separately after conferring with
who was present at the Santa Rosa, Laguna Police Station, to their Tata Felix. On July 30, 1996 Teresa informed Paula that the
send his Tata Enteng (Vicente Alulod) to the police station and to appellant became violent ("nagwala") over her refusal to sell their
bring money for a certain barangay tanod of Barangay Macabling properties. Paula then advised her niece to bring the matter to the
so that his sentence for the commission of the crime would be barangay officials. 16

reduced. Vicente, turned down the request as he noted during

11 

the wake of Teresa that Hilarion was not actually sorry for his The evidence of the defense shows that the appellant stayed in
wife's death although he appeared worried ("balisa"). 12
their house during the day on August 25, 1996. He helped his
wife, Teresa, washed their clothes. In the afternoon, he watched
It also appears that before her untimely demise, Teresa was able basketball game on the television and also helped his children
to confide with an aunt, Paula Beato Dia, that she had a marital with their school assignments. He started to ply the Binan-
problem. Paula counseled her that it was natural for any husband Cabuyao route with his passenger jeep at 6:30 o'clock in the
and wife to have occasional problems. She even suggested to evening, as it was his usual schedule. Before leaving however, he
Teresa to seek the advice of her Tata Felix. 13
told his wife that he would spend the night in the house of his
uncle Caloy in Barangay Tagapo, Santa Rosa,
In July 1996 Teresa approached her uncle, Felix Padua, to seek Laguna. Itappears that the daughter of his uncle Caloy
17 

the, latter's advice concerning her marital problem. Apparently, celebrated her debut which the appellant and his children
her husband, herein appellant Hilarion Teves, proposed that they attended on August 24, 1996. When the party ended, he was
live separately. He also wanted to secure an arrangement requested by the family to help in returning some of the borrowed
regarding the custody of their children and his wife's consent equipment on the following day.
regarding the disposition of their house and lot. Teresa could not
recall any serious reason for her husband's behavior but she Teresa also left the house at about 8:30 o'clock in the evening on
surmised that the appellant resented her comment that his peers the same day allegedly to confer with somebody. She instructed
were all "dalaga" and "binata". Since Felix was busy at that time, her daughter, Leizel, not to lock the door when they go to sleep.
he advised Teresa to visit him on another occasion so that they Leizel saw her mother board a tricycle behind the driver,
could discuss her problem thoroughly. 14
inasmuch as there were already two passengers in its
sidecar. Teresa was also seen by another tricycle driver, a
18 

In the same month of July, Teresa and the appellant went to the certain Edwin Carapatan, at around 9:00 o'clock in the evening
house of Felix Padua in Santa Rosa, Laguna. When asked about while she was on board a tricycle behind the driver which was
their problem, the appellant disclosed that he could no longer put bound for the town proper. Both even greeted each other. 19

up with Teresa's jealousy that often caused him embarrassment

before his friends. Felix tried to explain that it was common Meanwhile due to heavy traffic, the appellant managed to ply his
between any husband and wife to get jealous and that appellant route 2 ½ times only after which he proceeded to the house of his
should realize that his wife simply loved him very much. However, Tiyo Caloy in Barangay Tagapo, Santa Rosa, Laguna. Upon

41
arrival at exactly 8:30 o'clock in the evening, the appellant ate his pictures of him were being taken. Subsequently, Castillo urged
supper. Thereafter, they arranged the things for him to bring the three (3) barangay tanods to take a good look at the appellant
home on the following day. Before going to sleep, the appellant to refresh their memory after which he asked: "Ano sa tingin
joined the family in watching basketball game on the television niyo?" When no response from the tanods was forthcoming,
until the game was over at 10:00 o'clock in the evening. 20
Castillo again asked: "Hindi pa ba ninyo nakikilala yan?" After
putting his hand on the shoulder of Barangay Tanod Milagros
When the appellant arrived home in Barangay Sinalhan, Santa Tayawa, the latter remarked: "Parang kahawig niya." Thereafter,
Rosa, Laguna on August 26, 1996, he was informed by his Col. Castillo ordered the appellant's arrest.
23

youngest child that his wife was not around. According to

appellant, he thought that his wife left early on that day to look for On December 7, 1999, the trial court rendered a Decision, the
a job. He learned that his wife left the house at 8:30 o'clock in the dispositive portion of which reads:
previous evening upon arrival of his second eldest daughter,
Lalaine, from school at 12:00 o'clock noon. 21
WHEREFORE, this court finds accused Hilarion Teves y
Cantor, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
The appellant and his neighbors searched for Teresita in the Parricide, defined and penalized under Article 246 of the
entire afternoon but in vain. At 10:00 o'clock in the evening, he Revised Penal Code, restored in R. A. No. 7659,
heard of talks that a body of a dead woman was found in Imposing Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, and
Barangay Balibago, Santa Rosa, Laguna. He went to Santa there being present the aggravating circumstances the
Rosa, Laguna Police Station together with a certain Lebong Dia herein accused killed his wife (a) during nighttime; (b) in
and was instructed by the police to proceed to Funeraria Lim after an uninhabited place; and (c) with the use of a motor
hearing his description of his wife. At 11:30 in the evening, he vehicle (jeepney), hereby imposes upon him the DEATH
saw the dead body of his " wife at the funeral parlor which he PENALTY and orders him to indemnify the heirs of
brought home after midnight. 22
Teresa Teves the sum of P100,000.00, as moral
damages. .
On August 27, 1996, the appellant went back to the police station
in Santa Rosa, Laguna where he was initially informed by a The Provincial Jail Warden of Santa Rosa, Laguna is hereby
certain police officer Laurel that his wife might be a victim of gang ordered to transfer accused Hilarion Teves y Cantor to the
rape. However, he learned later that he was a suspect in the National Penitentiary, New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City,
killing of his wife when he was investigated by the police. immediately upon receipt hereof.

On August 29, 1996, he returned to the police station in Santa SO ORDERED.

Rosa, Laguna upon being informed that Supt. Arthur Castillo
would investigate the case. Three (3) barangay tanods, namely: Aggrieved by the decision, Hilarion C. Teves appealed to this
Angel Lapitan, Milagros Tayawa and Gerry Pantilla were present Court raising the following assignment of errors:
in the police station. Castillo requested them to identify the
appellant; however, none of the three (3) was able to recognize I
him. The appellant was asked to sit behind the steering wheel of
his passenger jeep and was even ordered to wave his hand while

42
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME OF PRESENCE OF AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
PARRICIDE AS CHARGED IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.
9620-B DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO In his brief, the appellant contends, in essence, that the
24 

PROVE THE MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS IN THE prosecution failed to establish the identity of the perpetrator of the
INFORMATION. crime. Under the factual milieu of the case, Milagros could not
have recognized the vehicle and its driver which she allegedly
II met on August 25, 1996. He also contends that the testimonies of
prosecution witnesses Felix Padua and Paula Beato Dia to the
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE effect that the appellant and his wife had a misunderstanding
ACCUSED GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT were basically anchored on mere suspicion. Moreover, the
DESPITE THE INCOHERENCE, INCREDIBILITY AND alleged implied admission by the appellant of his alleged guilt
INADEQUACY IN WEIGHT AND VALUE OF THE before Maria Alulod, who is an aunt of the victim is incredible as it
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE RELIED UPON. contradicts common human experience. Lastly, the testimony of
Dr. Edwin Escal suggests that several malefactors may be
III responsible for the killing of the victim.

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT The facts of this case clearly show that nobody had actually
THE ACCUSED IS THE PERPETRATOR OF THE witnessed the killing of the victim, Teresita Teves, in the evening
CRIME CHARGED BASED ON THE TESTIMONIES OF of August 25, 1996. To prove its case of parricide against the
MILAGROS TAYAWA AND MARIA ALULOD WHICH appellant, the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence. In
ARE INCREDIBLE BASED ON COMMON order to convict an accused based on circumstantial evidence, it
OBSERVATION AND HUMAN EXPERIENCE. is necessary that: 1) there is more than one circumstance; 2) the
facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and 3)
the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
IV
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. In other words,
25 

circumstantial evidence is sufficient to support a conviction where

THE TRIAL COURT LIKEWISE ERRED IN the multiple circumstances are proven and are consistent with the
INTERPRETING THE EQUIVOCAL TESTIMONY OF DR. hypothesis that the accused is guilty and at the same time
EDWIN ESCAL IN FAVOR OF GUlLT AND AGAINST inconsistent with the hypothesis that the accused is innocent as
THE INNOCENCE OF THE ACCUSED. well as incompatible with every rational hypothesis except that of
guilt on the part of the accused. 26

V
In convicting the appellant of the crime of parricide based on
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE circumstantial evidence, the trial court found that the testimonies
DEFENSE OF ALIBI. of the prosecution witnesses were credible and sufficient. It is
well-settled rule that the trial judge's assessment of the credibility
VI of witnesses' testimonies is accorded great respect on

43
appeal. Appellate courts will generally not disturb the factual
27 
Besides, there is reason to doubt the reliability of the said
findings of the trial courts since the latter are in a better position testimony of Milagros Tayawa. Milagros allegedly recognized the
to weigh conflicting testimonies, having heard the witnesses appellant when their respective vehicles momentarily stopped
themselves and observed their deportment and manner of facing each other while their headlights were switched on. In the
testifying, unless it is found that the trial courts have overlooked ocular inspection conducted during the trial on July 2, 1997, it
certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might was demonstrated that the two (2) vehicles were initially twenty
affect the result of the case.28
and one-half (20 1/2) feet apart when they stopped facing each
other. When the barangay patrol vehicle backed off to
After thorough review, however, we find sufficient basis to warrant accommodate the passenger jeep, the two (2) vehicles were
the reversal of the assailed judgment of conviction. The trial court thirty-six and one-half (36 1/2) feet apart, at which distance the
relied on the identification made by Milagros Tayawa during the trial court made the observation that the man behind the steering
trial of this case in finding that the appellant was the person wheel was not cognizable in broad daylight. 30

driving the passenger jeep that was allegedly met by the four (4)
barangay tanods along the NIA road in Barangay Macabling, If the man on the driver's seat was not cognizable in broad
Santa Rosa, Laguna in the late evening of August 25, 1996 daylight, this court is not convinced that an accurate identification
shortly before they accidentally found the dead body of Teresita of the driver of the passenger jeep, who was allegedly met by the
Teves. We note, however, the irregular manner by which the pre- barangay tanods at around 10:30 o'clock in the evening on
trial identification of the appellant and his passenger jeep during August 25, 1996, can be made even from a distance of twenty
the custodial investigation on August 29, 1996 was made by and one-half (20 1/2) feet by the prosecution witness. It must be
Milagros. At that time, the appellant, who was already a suspect pointed out that the two (2) vehicles were then passing along an
in his wife's murder, was alone inside the investigation room of isolated dirt road where there were no houses and streetlights in
the Santa Rosa, Laguna Police Station and without his counsel. the immediate vicinity. Under the circumstances, clear visibility
He was also ordered by Supt. Castillo to board his passenger was practically improbable, if not impossible, from a distance.
jeep, extend part of his body outside of the vehicle while waving
his hand, as if doing some kind of a re-enactment, to be observed There is more reason to doubt the reliability of the testimony of
by Milagros and two (2) other barangay tanods namely: Jerry Milagros Tayawa upon consideration of the sworn statement that 31 

Pantilla and Angel Lapitan. she gave before the police authorities during the investigation of
this case. Her sworn statement contains a narration of the
We agree with the Solicitor General's observation that the pre- circumstances leading to the discovery of Teresita's dead body.
trial identification in which the prosecution witness was made to Significantly, no mention was made therein that she had seen the
identify the suspect (herein appellant) in a one-on-one driver of the passenger jeep that they allegedly met in the late
confrontation, was pointedly suggestive, generated confidence evening of August 25, 1996 on the NIA road, much less described
where there was none, activated visual imagination and, all told, his face or his other physical features.
subverted the identification of the appellant by the witness. This
method of identification is as tainted as an uncounseled It is absurd to believe that Milagros forgot or the police
confession and thus, falls within the same ambit of the investigators had been so negligent as to overlook this omission
constitutionally entrenched protection. 29
in her affidavit. In the first place, the purpose of the investigation
was to elicit basic information about the killing, such as the

44
identity of the perpetrator thereof. It was only during the custodial his wife. It is well-settled rule that evidence, to be worthy of credit,
investigation on August 29, 1996 that Milagros claimed in her must not only proceed from a credible source but must, in
subsequent affidavit that she had seen the driver of the same
32 
addition, be credible in itself.
35

passenger jeep after the irregular one-on-one confrontation with

the appellant and after unwarranted suggestions had been made The motive that allegedly drove the appellant to kill his wife, as
to the said witness by the police officer. testified by prosecution witnesses Felix Padua and Paula Dia, is
not convincing. Both prosecution witnesses simply stated in
Notably, the prosecution failed to present the testimony of the general terms that the appellant and his wife were having a family
other barangay tanods who were likewise present during the problem out of the latter's jealous attitude and that they decided
incident on August 25, 1996 to corroborate the testimony of to separate. These prosecution witnesses failed to furnish any
Milagros. This is not difficult to understand considering that the specific incident to the effect that Teresita had actually feared for
statements elicited from Angel Lapitan during the investigation of her life or that appellant had become so desperate as to will the
the case run counter to the testimony that she gave during the death of his wife. At the most, their testimonies simply manifest a
trial, to wit: suspicion of appellant's responsibility for the crime. Needless to
state, however, suspicion no matter how strong can not sway
Tanong:       Nakilala ba ninyo ang nagmamaneho at judgment. 36

nakuha ba ninyo ang plaka nito?

On the other hand, the victim's daughter, Leizel Teves, testified
Sagot   :       Hindi namin nakilala ang driver dahil patay that her family was a normal and happy family. Leizel's testimony
ang kanyang ilaw sa loob at ng aming ilawan ang was corroborated by the victim's cousin, Minerva Diaz, who
kanyang likuran ay walang plaka. 33 testified that the Teves family was a harmonious and happy
family. Additionally, Rosita Barreto, a friend of the Teves family
37 

Due to the above statement of Angel Lapitan before the police and a neighbor for over seventeen (17) years, attested that the
investigator, even the testimony of Milagros Tayawa that she relations of the appellant and his wife were generally smooth. 38

recognized the passenger jeep of the appellant as the same

vehicle that they met along the NIA road shortly before having Even if we would assume that the testimonies of the prosecution
accidentally discovered the dead body of the victim, was also witnesses were true, it can not be reasonably inferred therefrom
rendered doubtful. Besides, the passenger jeep of the appellant that the appellant is responsible for killing his wife in the absence
had been impounded at the Santa Rosa, Laguna Police Station of any other circumstance that could link him to the said killing. To
since August 27, 1996 or two (2) days before the pre-trial be sure, motive is not sufficient to support a conviction if there is
identification of the said vehicle.
34 no other reliable evidence from which it may reasonably be
adduced that the accused was the malefactor.39
We also doubt the testimony of Maria Alulod for being contrary to
common human experience. It would be highly unlikely and In view of the foregoing, we cannot sustain the appealed
contrary to common sense for the appellant to admit his guilt judgment of the trial court in the case at bar. The prosecution
before this witness, who is an aunt of the victim, while vehemently miserably failed to establish the circumstantial evidence to prove
denying to the police authorities any participation for the death of its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Consequently, we need not pass upon the merits of his defense

45
of alibi. It is well-entrenched rule in criminal law that the
40 
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, 
conviction of an accused must be based on the strength of the vs.
prosecution's evidence and not on the weakness or absence of DEORITO PORIO y RAPSING, accused-appellant.
evidence of the defense.41

Once again, we hark back to the principle that as long as

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The assailed Decision constitutional safeguards are adequately complied with, a
in Criminal Case No. 9620-B is reversed and set aside. The confession constitutes evidence of the highest order for it is
appellant Hilarion Teves y Cantor is acquitted of the crime of supported by the strong presumption that no person of normal
parricide on the ground of reasonable doubt. Unless convicted for mind will deliberately and knowingly confess to a crime unless
any other crime or detained for some lawful reason, appellant prompted by truth and his conscience. 1

Hilarion Teves y Cantor is ordered released immediately.1âwphi1.nêt

In an Information dated July 10, 1990 filed with the Regional Trial
2 

SO ORDERED. Court, Branch 72, Olangapo City, accused Deorito Porio y

Rapsing was charged with the complex crime of rape with
homicide, committed in the following manner:

"That on or about the twenty-fifth (25th) day of June, 1990, in the

City of Olongapo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design,
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
knowledge of one Riza Cleodoro, an 11 year old girl, and by
3 

reason or on the occasion of the rape, the accused, with intent to

kill, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault
and strangle the said Riza Cleodoro, which caused her death
shortly thereafter.

"CONTRARY TO LAW."

Accused entered a plea of "not guilty." During the hearing, the

4 

prosecution presented Dr. Richard Patilano, Atty. Juanito Atienza,

Pfc. Roosevelt Menor, Cpl. Felipe Francia, and Pat. Marlon Agno
as its witnesses. The defense, on the other hand, offered the sole
testimony of accused Deorito Porio.

The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses reveal that:

46
Shortly before midnight of June 25, 1990, the residents of New Cause of death: Neurogenic Shock and Asphyxia by
Cabalan found the lifeless body of Riza Cleodoro Flores near a Strangulation." (Emphasis ours)
creek at Purok I, Libas, New Cabalan, Olongapo City. She was
11 years old, and was survived by her mother Trinidad Cleodoro. 5
The day after Riza's exanimate body was found, Barangay Purok
Leader Francisco Montes informed Cpl. Felipe Francia of the
The Autopsy Report shows that the cause of Riza's death is
6 
Olangapo Police Department that the accused attempted to rape
strangulation. The genital examination discloses "sexual Riza on three previous occasions. Montes got this information, as
intercourse with a man." The pertinent portions of the said report a Purok Leader, from Trinidad, the victim's mother, who
issued by Dr. Richard Patilano, Medico-Legal Officer of Olongapo confirmed its veracity. 7

City, read:
On January 26, 1990, Montes accompanied the accused to the
"Contusions: 4x1 cm over the left side of the neck; 2x1 cm Olongapo Police Department. Immediately, Pat. Marlon Agno and
over the anterior aspect of the neck; 2x1.5 cm over the left Cpl. Francia conducted a cursory examination of the
side of the inguinal area. accused. The latter readily admitted to them that he raped and
8 

killed Riza and that he was bothered by his conscience. However,

Breast: not yet developed. Pat. Agno and Cpl. Francia did not reduce the accused's
admission in writing.9

Genital Examination:
On January 27, 1990, the accused, together with Montes,
No pubic hair, Labia majora-gaping, Labia Minora –gaping. returned to the Olongapo Police Station. Montes then informed
Feurchetelax with fresh lacerations at the median line, Vestibular Pfc. Roosevelt Menor that the accused admitted having
mucosa, cyanotic with congestion. Hymen and vaginal walls with committed the crime. Thereupon, Pfc. Menor verified from the
fresh lacerations at 1:00 o’clock and 6:00 0’clock accused the truth of such statement. The latter answered
positions. Hymenal orifice, originally annular admitted 2.5 cm positively. Communicating in the Tagalog language, Pfc. Menor
in diameter bottle with marked resistance. Vaginal walls informed the accused of his constitutional rights, among which
congested with bloody materials, scanty. are his rights to remain silent and to have a counsel of his own
choice. Pfc. Menor also cautioned the accused that whatever
statement he will give can be used against him in court. Pfc.
Lungs: Voluminous, soggy, dark red in color. Petechial
Menor repeatedly explained these rights to the accused. He said
hemorrhages present at the subepicardial and subpleural areas.
he understood them. Since the accused could not mention any
lawyer of his own choice, Pfc. Menor requested Atty. Juanito
xxxxxx Atienza to assist him. 10

Conclusion: Atty. Atienza conferred with the accused, informing him of all his
constitutional rights. Atty. Atienza also reminded him of the
11 

Genital Findings are compatible with sexual intercourse with gravity of his crime and advised him of its
a man on or about the alleged date of commission, with consequences. Notwithstanding these warnings, accused,
12 

violence. assisted by Atty. Atienza signed the Pagpapatunay that he was

13 

47
informed of his constitutional rights which he understands; and complainant Trinidad Cleodoro the amount of ₱50,000.00 as
that he is expressly waiving them. Immediately, he made the actual damages; ₱100,000.00 as moral damages; ₱100,000.00
following confession in his Sinumpaang Salaysay: as exemplary damages; and to pay the costs.

xxxxxx SO ORDERED." 17

The prosecution failed to present Purok Leader Montes as a Feeling aggrieved, the accused, now appellant, comes to us
witness because he died during the hearing of this ascribing to the trial court the following errors:
case. Meanwhile, the subpoena upon the victim's mother has
15 

remained unserved as she is no longer residing at her given "I

address.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN ADMITTING
The accused presented a different story during the trial. THE EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION OF THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT IN VIOLATION OF HIS
He testified that in the evening of June 25, 1990, he went home CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO HAVE COMPETENT
after his day's work in a junk shop. His common-law wife Trinidad AND INDEPENDENT COUNSEL PREFERABLY OF HIS
and the victim were nowhere to be found. He searched for them OWN CHOICE.
in the highway. Later on, he found Trinidad holding the lifeless
body of t he victim. They brought her to the barangay authorities, "II
but they were advised to go to the morgue.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT
The accused denied having raped and killed the victim. ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
CONSIDERING THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE
With respect to the execution of his Sinumpaang Salaysay, the EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION.
accused testified that he did not read it. Although a certain Atty.
Atienza was present during the investigation, he did not know the "III
said lawyer, nor did he request him to act as his counsel.
According to him, the police "let" him sign the document. 16
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING
MUCH WEIGHT AND CREDIT TO THE TESTIMONIES
On July 20, 1994, the trial court, rendered a Decision finding the OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES AND IN
accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape with homicide, REJECTING THE EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE.
thus:
"IV
"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, this
Court finds accused Deorito Porio y Rapsing guilty beyond THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING
reasonable doubt of the complex crime of rape with homicide and THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND
sentences him to RECLUSION PERPETUA; to indemnify the

48
 REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE COMPLEX CRIME OF A confession is presumed to be voluntary until the contrary is
RAPE WITH HOMICIDE." 18
proved and the declarant bears the burden of proving that his
confession is involuntary and untrue. Appellant was unable to
21 

Appellant mainly contends that the taking of his Sinumpaang discharge this burden. He failed to present evidence that he was
Salaysay was in violation of his constitutional rights and is, "intimidated or practically forced to execute or
therefore, inadmissible. He claims that he was not assisted by an sign" his Sinumpaang Salaysay.
22 

independent counsel and that he was "intimidated or practically

forced to execute or sign" the same. He likewise maintains that Initially, it must be stressed that appellant was not arrested
the evidence against him is insufficient since all the prosecution by the police authorities. He voluntarily went to the Olongapo
witnesses are mere "witnesses after the fact." Police Station, accompanied by Montes, a Purok Leader, to
whom he previously mentioned having committed the
The Solicitor General maintains that the constitutional mandates crime. There, before Cpl. Francia and Pat. Agno, he admitted
23 

on custodial investigation were complied with, hence, that he raped and killed Riza. With such prior deliberate conduct,
24 

appellant's Sinumpaang Salaysay is admissible. Also, appellant's we are inclined to believe that the subsequent execution of
guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt as his Sinumpaang Salaysay before Pfc. Menor was likewise
his Sinumpaang Salaysay was corroborated by the corpus delicti. voluntary on his part.

The primordial issue in this case is whether appellant's extra- Significantly, this Court has held that where the appellant did not
judicial confession (Sinumpaang Salaysay) was taken in violation present evidence of compulsion or duress or violence on his
of his constitutional rights. person; where he did not institute any criminal or administrative
action against his alleged intimidators for maltreatment; where
Appellant's extra-judicial confession is not constitutionally there appeared to be no marks of violence on his body; and
infirmed. where he did not have himself examined by a reputable physician
to buttress his claim, all these should be considered as factors
indicating voluntariness of a confession. 25

This Court, with its constant tryst with retracting confessants, has
drawn the cardinal requirements for an extra-judicial confession
to be admissible, to wit: 1) the confession must be In the case at bar, no evidence whatsoever was offered by
voluntary; 2) the confession must be made with the assistance of appellant to show that he filed a complaint against the persons
a competent and independent counsel, preferably of the who allegedly intimidated or forced him even if he had the
confessant's choice; 3) the confession must be express; opportunity to do so. Neither did he submit to the trial court a
and 4) the confession must be in writing. Measured against this
19  medical report proving that his body was subjected to violence or
yardstick, we are convinced that appellant's Sinumpaang torture. He even willfully signed a Pagpapatunay that he gave the
Salaysay is admissible. statements freely, without coercion, intimidation, inducement, or
false promises, thus:
I. The confession was made voluntarily. 20

"PAGPAPATUNAY

49
Pagpapatunay po ito na naunawaan ko ang lahat ng nasasaad sa "Sec. 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission
gawing itaas, pinawalang halaga o bisa ko ang mga ito sa of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to
harapan ni Atty. JUANITO C. ATIENZA. Kusa po akong remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel
nagbigay ng kusang salaysay at hindi ako pinilit o tinakot o preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the
pinangakuan ng ano pa man, lahat ng aking sasabihin ay services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights
buong katotohanan lamang. cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of
counsel."
(Sgd.)
DEORITO PORIO The rights to remain silent and to have a competent and
May salaysay " 26
independent counsel may be waived by the accused provided
that the constitutional requirements are complied with. It must
On its face, the Sinumpaang Salaysay has no sign of suspicious appear clearly that the accused was beforehand accorded his
circumstances tending to cast doubt on its integrity. Like in other right to be informed of such rights. In addition, the waiver must be
cases where this Court upheld the admissibility of extra-judicial in writing and in the presence of counsel.
confessions, appellant's narration reflects spontaneity and
coherence which, psychologically, cannot be associated with a Appellant signed the Sinumpaang Salaysay which consists of two
mind to which force and intimidation have been applied. parts. The first part shows that he was informed he has a right to
Appellant's response to each question contains details beyond remain silent and not to give any statement; that he has a right to
what was being asked, thus indicating a mind free from retain a counsel of his choice; and that any statement he gives
exraneous restraints. As can be gleaned from the confession, the can be used against him in court. After being thus informed, he
investigator did not propound questions answerable only by yes said he was willing to give a statement and tell the truth. He even
or no. He gave appellant sufficient latitude to elaborate by simply signed a Pagpapatunay that contains an express waiver of his
saying to him, "Ipagapatuloy mo ang iyong salaysay." constitutional rights in the presence of Atty. Atienza.

All the above facts indicate that appellant executed Notwithstanding such express waiver of his rights, Pfc. Menor still
his Sinumpaang Salaysay freely and voluntarily. To hold requested Atty. Atienza to act as counsel for appellant during the
otherwise is to facilitate the retraction by appellant of his solemnly investigation. He interposed no objection to Atty. Atienza's
made statements at the mere allegations of force, intimidation, assistance, thus:
violence or torture, without any proof whatsoever. Bare
27 

assertions will certainly not suffice to overturn the presumption of It is now too late in the day for appellant to insist that he did not
voluntariness.28
know Atty. Atienza and that the latter was only "picked up" by Pfc.
Menor outside the police station. It must be emphasized that
II. The confession was made with the assistance of a appellant did not object when Atty. Atienza, suggested by the
competent and independent counsel. police, acted as his own counsel. We have consistently ruled that
while the initial choice of the lawyer, in cases where a person
Enshrined in Article III, Section 12 (1) of the 1987 Constitution are under custodial investigation cannot afford the services of the
the rights of the accused during custodial investigation, thus: lawyer, is naturally lodged in the police investigator, the accused
really has the final choice as he may reject the counsel chosen

50
for him and ask for another one. A lawyer provided by the statements that he inserted his penis in the victim's vagina and
investigator is deemed engaged by the accused where the latter that he strangled her to death are express confessions or
never raised any objection against the former's appointment acknowledgement of guilt.
during the course of the investigation, and the accused thereafter
subscribes to the veracity of his statement before the swearing IV. The confession is in writing.
officer. We reiterate that appellant did not interpose any
30 

opposition when Atty. Atienza assisted him. Appellant's Sinumpaang Salayasay is not only in writing, it also
written in the language which appellant speaks and understands.
We find that Atty. Atienza is a competent and independent
counsel. To be considered competent and independent for the In fine, we hold that appellant's Sinumpaang Salaysay adequately
purpose of assisting an accused during a custodial investigation, satisfies the constitutional requirements on pre-interrogation
it is only required for a lawyer to be: advisories. Appellant can no longer extricate himself from its
necessary consequences. While the passage of time could easily
"….willing to fully safeguard the constitutional rights of the bring a change of mind to a retracting confessant, courts, on the
accused, as distinguished from one who would merely be giving a strength of settled principles, cannot undo for the confessant what
routine, peremptory and meaningless recital of the individual’s he had deliberately done in the name of truth. We can not
constitutional rights. In People v. Basay (219 SCRA 404, 418) this overlook the fact that appellant's Sinumpaang Salaysay is replete
Court stressed that an accused’ right to be informed of the right to with details which only a perpetrator of the crime could have
remain silent and to counsel contemplates the transmission of supplied and which could not have been concocted by someone
meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial and who did not take part in its commission. Appellant's statement
perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle."
31
that he raped the victim and then strangled her to death cannot
be taken lightly as it concurs with the findings of Dr. Patilano that
Atty. Atienza testified that he was present and assisted appellant the cause of death is strangulation and that the victim's genitalia
during the time that the latter waived his constitutional rights and shows "sexual intercourse with a man…with violence." This
gave his statement admitting that he committed the crime clearly signifies that appellant's Sinumpaang Salaysay is
charged. As a matter of fact, he asked the investigator to give him corroborated by the corpus delicti.
an opportunity to talk to appellant alone. We quote Atty. Atienza's
testimony, thus: In a criminal prosecution, in order to warrant a conviction, the
State is required to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
III. The confession is explicit and categorical. reasonable doubt. An extra-judicial confession made by an
accused is a sufficient ground for conviction if corroborated
A confession is an acknowledgement in express words, by the by the evidence of the corpus delicti. The existence of
35 

accused in a criminal case, of the truth of the main fact charged, the corpus delicti and the legality of appellant's extra-judicial
or some essential parts thereof. Owing to its very definition, there
33  confession having been duly proven by the State, appellant's
is no such thing as an implied confession. It is always a direct
34  conviction is, therefore, in order. To reiterate, a confession
and positive acknowledgement of guilt. Considering that appellant constitutes evidence of the highest order as long as constitutional
is charged with the complex crime of rape with homicide, his safeguards are adequately complied with, as in this case.

51
The trial court correctly imposed upon appellant the penalty THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, 
of reclusion perpetua. WHEREFORE, the challenged Decision of vs.
the trial court finding appellant guilty of the crime of rape with PABLITO ANDAN y HERNANDEZ @ BOBBY, accused-
homicide is hereby AFFIRMED, subject to the modification that appellant.
the heirs of the victim, Riza Cleodoro Flores, shall be entitled to
the amount of ₱100,000.00 as civil indemnity and ₱50,000.00 as The prosecution established that on February 19, 1994 at about
moral damages. 4:00 P.M., in Concepcion Subdivision, Baliuag, Bulacan,
Marianne Guevarra, twenty years of age and a second-year
SO ORDERED. student at the Fatima School of Nursing, left her home for her
school dormitory in Valenzuela, Metro Manila. She was to
prepare for her final examinations on February 21, 1994.
Marianne wore a striped blouse and faded denim pants and
brought with her two bags containing her school uniforms, some
personal effects and more than P2,000.00 in cash.

Marianne was walking along the subdivision when appellant

invited her inside his house. He used the pretext that the blood
pressure of his wife's grandmother should be taken. Marianne
agreed to take her blood pressure as the old woman was her
distant relative. She did not know that nobody was inside the
house. Appellant then punched her in the abdomen, brought her
to the kitchen and raped her. His lust sated, appellant dragged
the unconscious girl to an old toilet at the back of the house and
left her there until dark. Night came and appellant pulled
Marianne, who was still unconscious, to their backyard. The yard
had a pigpen bordered on one side by a six-foot high concrete
fence. On the other side was a vacant lot. Appellant stood on a
bench beside the pigpen and then lifted and draped the girl's
body over the fence to transfer it to the vacant lot. When the girl
moved, he hit her head with a piece of concrete block. He heard
her moan and hit her again on the face. After silence reigned, he
pulled her body to the other side of the fence, dragged it towards
a shallow portion of the lot and abandoned it.2

At 11:00 A.M. of the following day, February 20, 1994, the body of
Marianne was discovered. She was naked from the chest down
with her brassiere and T-shirt pulled toward her neck. Nearby was
found a panty with a sanitary napkin.

52
The autopsy conducted by Dr. Alberto Bondoc revealed that later identified as belonging to Marianne. Thereafter, photographs
Marianne died of "traumatic injuries" sustained as follows: were taken of appellant and the two other suspects holding the
bags.7

Marianne's gruesome death drew public attention and prompted

Mayor Cornelio Trinidad of Baliuag to form a crack team of police Appellant and the two suspects were brought back to the police
officers to look for the criminal. Searching the place where headquarters. The following day, February 25, a physical
Marianne's body was found, the policemen recovered a broken examination was conducted on the suspects by the Municipal
piece of concrete block stained with what appeared to be blood. Health Officer, Dr. Orpha
They also found a pair of denim pants and a pair of shoes which Patawaran.  Appellant was found to sustain:
8

were identified as Marianne's. 4

HEENT: with multiple scratches on the neck Rt

Appellant's nearby house was also searched by the police who side. Chest and back: with abrasions (scratches
found bloodstains on the wall of the pigpen in the backyard. They at the back). Extremities: freshly-healed wound
interviewed the occupants of the house and learned from along index finger 1.5 cm. in size Lt.
9

Romano Calma, the stepbrother of appellant's wife, that accused-

appellant also lived there but that he, his wife and son left without By this time, people and media representatives were already
a word. Calma surrendered to the police several articles gathered at the police headquarters awaiting the results of the
consisting of pornographic pictures, a pair of wet short pants with investigation. Mayor Trinidad arrived and proceeded to the
some reddish brown stain, a towel also with the stain, and a wet investigation room. Upon seeing the mayor, appellant
T-shirt. The clothes were found in the laundry hamper inside the approached him and whispered a request that they talk privately.
house and allegedly belonged to appellant. 5
The mayor led appellant to the office of the Chief of Police and
there, appellant broke down and said "Mayor, patawarin mo ako! I
The police tried to locate appellant and learned that his parents will tell you the truth. I am the one who killed Marianne." The
live in Barangay Tangos, Baliuag, Bulacan. On February 24 at mayor opened the door of the room to let the public and media
11:00 P.M., a police team led by Mayor Trinidad traced appellant representatives witness the confession. The mayor first asked for
in his parents' house. They took him aboard the patrol jeep and a lawyer to assist appellant but since no lawyer was available he
brought him to the police headquarters where he was ordered the proceedings photographed and videotaped.   In the
10

interrogated. Initially, appellant denied any knowledge of presence of the mayor, the police, representatives of the media
Marianne's death. However, when the police confronted him with and appellant's own wife and son, appellant confessed his guilt.
the concrete block, the victim's clothes and the bloodstains found He disclosed how he killed Marianne and volunteered to show
in the pigpen, appellant relented and said that his neighbors, them the place where he hid her bags. He asked for forgiveness
Gilbert Larin and Reynaldo Dizon, killed Marianne and that he from Larin and Dizon whom he falsely implicated saying he did it
was merely a lookout. He also said that he knew where Larin and because of ill-feelings against them.   He also said that the devil
11

Dizon hid the two bags of Marianne.  Immediately, the police took
6
entered his mind because of the pornographic magazines and
appellant to his house. Larin and Dizon, who were rounded up tabloid he read almost everyday.   After his confession, appellant
12

earlier, were likewise brought there by the police. Appellant went hugged his wife and son and asked the mayor to help
to an old toilet at the back of the house, leaned over a flower pot him.   His confession was captured on videotape and covered by
13

and retrieved from a canal under the pot, two bags which were the media nationwide.  14

53
Appellant was detained at the police headquarters. The next two charged in the Information (Rape with Homicide)
days, February 26 and 27, more newspaper, radio and television and penalized in accordance with R.A. No. 7659
reporters came. Appellant was again interviewed and he affirmed (Death Penalty Law) Sec. 11, Par. 8, classifying
his confession to the mayor and reenacted the crime.  15
this offense as one of the heinous crimes and
hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of
On arraignment, however, appellant entered a plea of "not guilty." DEATH; to indemnify the family of Marianne
He testified that in the afternoon of February 19, 1994 he was at Guevarra the amount of P50,000. 00 for the death
his parent's house in Barangay Tangos attending the birthday of Marianne Guevarra and P71,000.00 as actual
party of his nephew. He, his wife and son went home after 5:00 burial and incidental expenses and P100,000.00
P.M. His wife cooked dinner while he watched their one-year old as moral damages. After automatic review of this
son. They all slept at 8:00 P.M. and woke up the next day at 6:00 case and the decision becomes final and
in the morning. His wife went to Manila to collect some debts executory, the sentence be carried out.
while he and his son went to his parents' house where he helped
his father cement the floor of the house. His wife joined them in SO ORDERED.  18

the afternoon and they stayed there until February 24, 1994 when
he was picked up by the police.  16
This case is before us on automatic review in accordance with
Section 22 of Republic Act No. 7659 amending Article 47 of the
Appellant was brought by the police to a hotel at Bagong Nayon, Revised Penal Code.
Baliuag. In one of the rooms, the policemen covered his face with
a bedsheet and kicked him repeatedly. They coerced him to Appellant contends that:
confess that he raped and killed Marianne. When he refused,
they pushed his head into a toilet bowl and injected something I THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING
into his buttocks. Weakened, appellant confessed to the crime. AND USING AS BASIS OF JUDGMENT OF
Thereafter, appellant was taken to his house where he saw two of CONVICTION THE TESTIMONIES OF THE
his neighbors, Larin and Dizon. He was ordered by the police to POLICE INVESTIGATORS, REPORTERS AND
go to the old toilet at the back of the house and get two bags from THE MAYOR ON THE ALLEGED ADMISSION
under the flower pot. Fearing for his life, appellant did as he was OF THE ACCUSED DURING THE CUSTODIAL
told. 
17
INVESTIGATION, THE ACCUSED NOT BEING
ASSISTED BY COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF
In a decision dated August 4, 1994, the trial court convicted THE CONSTITUTION;
appellant and sentenced him to death pursuant to Republic Act
No. 7659. The trial court also ordered appellant to pay the victim's II THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING
heirs P50,000.00 as death indemnity, P71,000.00 as actual burial THAT THERE WAS RAPE WHEN THERE IS NO
expenses and P100,000.00 as moral damages, thus: EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND TO SUPPORT IT;

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Pablito III THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN MAKING A
Andan y Hernandez alias "Bobby is found guilty FINDING OF CONVICTION WHEN THE
by proof beyond a scintilla of doubt of the crime

54
 EVIDENCE IN ITS TOTALITY SHOWS THAT remain silent; (2) to have competent and independent
THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE counsel preferably of his own choice; and (3) to be
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THE GUILT OF informed of such
THE ACCUSED.  19
rights. These rights cannot be waived except in writing
and in the presence of counsel.   Any confession or
20

The trial court based its decision convicting appellant on the admission obtained in violation of this provision is
testimonies of the three policemen of the investigating team, the inadmissible in evidence against him.   The exclusionary
21

mayor of Baliuag and four news reporters to whom appellant rule is premised on the presumption that the defendant is
gave his extrajudicial oral confessions. It was also based on thrust into an unfamiliar atmosphere and runs through
photographs and video footages of appellant's confessions and menacing police interrogation procedures where the
reenactments of the commission of the crime. potentiality for compulsion physical and psychological, is
forcefully apparent.   The incommunicado character of
22

Accused-appellant assails the admission of the testimonies of the custodial interrogation or investigation also obscures a
policemen, the mayor and the news reporters because they were later judicial determination of what really transpired. 
23

made during custodial investigation without the assistance of

counsel. Section 12, paragraphs (1) and (3) of Article III of the It should be stressed that the rights under Section 12 are
Constitution provides: accorded to "[a]ny person under investigation for the commission
of an offense." An investigation begins when it is no longer a
Sec. 12 (1) Any person under investigation for the general inquiry into an unsolved crime but starts to focus on a
commission of an offense shall have the right to particular person as a suspect, i.e., when the police investigator
be informed of his right to remain silent and to starts interrogating or exacting a confession from the suspect in
have competent and independent counsel connection with an alleged offense.   As intended by the 1971
24

preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot Constitutional Convention, this covers "investigation conducted
afford the services of counsel, he must be by police authorities which will include investigations conducted
provided with one. These rights cannot be waived by the municipal police, the PC and the NBI and such other police
except in writing and in the presence of counsel. agencies in our government."  25

(2) . . . When the police arrested appellant, they were no longer engaged
in a general inquiry about the death of Marianne. Indeed,
appellant was already a prime suspect even before the police
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in
found him at his parents' house. This is clear from the testimony
violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be
of SPO4 Danilo S. Bugay, the police chief investigator of the
inadmissible in evidence against him.
crime, viz:
(4) . . .
COURT How did you come about in concluding
that it was accused who did this act?
Plainly, any person under investigation for the
commission of an offense shall have the right (1) to

55
 WITNESS: First, the place where Marianne was ordered appellant to talk to the mayor. It was appellant himself
last found is at the backyard of the house of the who spontaneously, freely and voluntarily sought the mayor for a
accused. Second, there were blood stains at the private meeting. The mayor did not know that appellant was going
pigpen, and third, when we asked Romano Calma to confess his guilt to him. When appellant talked with the mayor
who were his other companions in the house, he as a confidant and not as a law enforcement officer, his
said that, it was Pablito Andan who cannot be uncounselled confession to him did not violate his constitutional
found at that time and whose whereabouts were rights.   Thus, it has been held that the constitutional procedures
34

unknown, sir. on custodial investigation do not apply to a spontaneous

statement, not elicited through questioning by the authorities, but
Appellant was already under custodial investigation when given in an ordinary manner whereby appellant orally admitted
he confessed to the police. It is admitted that the police having committed the crime.   What the Constitution bars is the
35

failed to inform appellant of his constitutional rights when compulsory disclosure of incriminating facts or confessions. The
he was investigated and interrogated.   His confession is
27 rights under Section 12 are guaranteed to preclude the slightest
therefore inadmissible in evidence. So too were the two use of coercion by the state as would lead the accused to admit
bags recovered from appellant's house. SPO2 Cesar something false, not to prevent him from freely and voluntarily
Canoza, a member of the investigating team testified: telling the truth.   Hence, we hold that appellant's confession to
36

the mayor was correctly admitted by the trial court.

The victim's bags were the fruits of appellant's uncounselled
confession to the police. They are tainted evidence, hence also Appellant's confessions to the media were likewise properly
inadmissible.  29 admitted. The confessions were made in response to questions
by news reporters, not by the police or any other investigating
The police detained appellant after his initial confession. The officer. We have held that statements spontaneously made by a
following day, Mayor Trinidad visited the appellant. Appellant suspect to news reporters on a televised interview are deemed
approached the mayor and requested for a private talk. They voluntary an are admissible in evidence.  37

went inside a room and appellant confessed that he alone

committed the crime. He pleaded for forgiveness. Mayor Trinidad The records show that Alex Marcelino, a television reporter for
testified, viz: "Eye to Eye" on Channel 7, interviewed appellant on February 27,
1994. The interview was recorded on video and showed that
Under these circumstances, it cannot be successfully claimed appellant made his confession willingly, openly and publicly in the
that appellant's confession before the mayor is inadmissible. It is presence of his wife, child and other relatives.   Orlan Mauricio, a
38

true that reporter for "Tell the People" on Channel 9 also interviewed
a municipal mayor has "operational supervision and control" over appellant on February 25, 1994. He testified that:
the local
police   and may arguably be deemed a law enforcement officer
32 Clearly, appellant's confessions to the news reporters were given
for purposes of applying Section 12 (1) and (3) of Article III of the free from any undue influence from the police authorities. The
Constitution. However, appellant's confession to the mayor was news reporters acted as news reporters when they interviewed
not made in response to any interrogation by the latter.   In fact,
33 appellant.   They were not acting under the direction and control
44

the mayor did not question appellant at all. No police authority of the police. They were there to check appellant's confession to

56
the mayor. They did not force appellant to grant them an interview Hymen — contracted, tall, thin with fresh
and reenact the commission of the crime.   In fact, they asked his
45
lacerations with clotted blood at 6 and 3 o'clock
permission before interviewing him. They interviewed him on positions corresponding to the walls of the
separate days not once did appellant protest his innocence. clock.  51

Instead, he repeatedly confessed his guilt to them. He even

supplied all the details in the commission of the crime, and Dr. Aguda testified that the lacerations were fresh and
consented to its reenactment. All his confessions to the news that they may have been caused by an object forcibly
reporters were witnessed by his family and other relatives. There inserted into the vagina when the victim was still alive,
was no coercive atmosphere in the interview of appellant by the indicating the possibility of penetration.   His testimony is
52

news reporters. as follows:

We rule that appellant's verbal confessions to the newsmen are We have also ruled in the past that the absence of spermatozoa
not covered by Section 12 (1) and (3) of Article III of the in the vagina does not negate the commission of rape   nor does
54

Constitution. The Bill of Rights does not concern itself with the the lack of complete penetration or rupture of the hymen.   What
55

relation between a private individual and another individual.   It

46
is essential is that there be penetration of the female organ no
governs the relationship between the individual and the State. matter how slight.   Dr. Aguda testified that the fact of penetration
56

The prohibitions therein are primarily addressed to the State and is proved by the lacerations found in the victim's vagina. The
its agents. They confirm that certain rights of the individual exist lacerations were fresh and could not have been caused by any
without need of any governmental grant, rights that may not be injury in the first autopsy.
taken away by government, rights that government has the duty
to protect.   Governmental power is not unlimited and the Bill of
47
Dr. Aguda's finding and the allegation that the victim was raped
Rights lays down these limitations to protect the individual against by appellant are supported by other evidence, real and
aggression and unwarranted interference by any department of testimonial, obtained from an investigation of the witnesses and
government and its agencies.  48
the crime scene, viz:

In his second assigned error, appellant questions the sufficiency (1) The victim, Marianne, was last seen walking along the
of the medical evidence against him. Dr. Alberto Bondoc, a subdivision road near appellant's house;  57

Medical Specialist with the Provincial Health Office, conducted

the first autopsy and found no spermatozoa and no recent
(2) At that time, appellant's wife and her step brother and
physical injuries in the hymen.   Allegedly,
49

grandmother were not in their house;  58

the minimal blood found in her vagina could have been caused by
her menstruation. 50

(3) A bloodstained concrete block was found over the fence of

appellant's house, a meter away from the wall. Bloodstains were
We are unpersuaded. A second autopsy was conducted on
also found on the grass nearby and at the pigpen at the back of
March 1, 1994 by Dr. Dominic L. Aguda, a medico-legal officer of
appellant's house; 59

the National Bureau of Investigation. His findings affirmed the

absence of spermatozoa but revealed that the victim's hymen had
lacerations, thus:

57
(4) The victim sustained bruises and scars indicating that her ARREST
body had been dragged over a flat rough surface.  This supports
60

the thesis that she was thrown over the fence and dragged to DIOSDADO JOSE ALLADO and ROBERTO L.
where her body was found; MENDOZA, petitioners, 
vs.
(5) Appellant's bloodstained clothes and towel were found in the HON. ROBERTO C. DIOKNO,
laundry hamper in his house;
On balance at the fulcrum once again are the intrinsic right of the
(6) The reddish brown stains in the towel and T-shirt of appellant State to prosecute perceived transgressors of the law, which can
were found positive for the presence of blood type "B," the be regulated, and the innate value of human liberty, which can
probable blood type of the victim.   Marianne 's exact blood type
61
hardly be weighed.
was not determined but her parents had type "A" and type
"AB."   The victim's pants had bloodstains which were found to be
62
Some twelve years ago we were confronted with a similar
type "O," appellant's blood type; 63
problem when former Senator Jovito R. Salonga invoked before
this Court his "right to life and liberty guaranteed by the due
(7) Appellant had scratch marks and bruises in his body which he process clause, alleging that no prima facie case has been
failed to explain; 
64
established to warrant the filing of an information for subversion
against him."  We resolved the issue then and sustained him. He
1

(8) For no reason, appellant and his wife left their residence after is now back before us, this time as counsel pleading the cause of
the incident and were later found at his parents' house in petitioners herein who, he claims, are in a situation far worse than
Barangay Tangos, Baliuag, Bulacan;  65
his predicament twelve (12) years ago. He postulates that no
probable cause likewise exists in this case, and what is worse is
In fine, appellant's extrajudicial confessions together with the that no bail is recommended.
other circumstantial evidence justify the conviction of appellant.
This petition gives us an opportunity to revisit the concept and
Appellant 's defense of alibi cannot overcome the prosecution implication of probable cause, the existence of which is
evidence. His alibi cannot even stand the test of physical necessary for the prosecutor to have an accused held for trial and
improbability at the time of the commission of the crime. for a trial judge to issue a warrant for his arrest. It is mandatory
Barangay Tangos is only a few kilometers away from Concepcion therefore that there be probable cause before an information is
Subdivision and can be traversed in less than half an hour.  66
filed and a warrant of arrest issued. Unfortunately, however, at
times a criminal case is filed, a warrant of arrest issued and a
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, person consequently incarcerated on unsubstantiated allegations
Branch 15, Malolos, Bulacan in Criminal Case No. 1109-M-94 is that only feign probable cause.
affirmed and accused-appellant Pablito Andan y Hernandez is
found guilty of the special complex crime of rape with homicide Petitioners Diosdado Jose Allado and Roberto L. Mendoza,
under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659 amending Article 335 alumni of the College of Law, University of the Philippines, are
of the Revised Penal Code. SO ORDERED. partners of the Law Firm of Salonga, Hernandez and Allado. In

58
the practice of their profession, and on the basis of an alleged Street, both in Green Heights Subdivision, Parañaque. The
extrajudicial confession of a security guard, they have been raiders recovered a blue Nissan Pathfinder and assorted firearms
accused of the heinous crime of kidnapping with murder by the and ammunition and placed Santiago and his trusted aide, Efren
Presidential Anti-Crime Commission (PACC) and ordered Madolid, under arrest. Also arrested later that day were Antonio
arrested without bail by respondent judge. and Bato who were found to have in their possession several
firearms and ammunition and Van Twest's Cartier sunglasses.
The focal source of the information against petitioners is the
sworn statement dated 16 September 1993 of Security Guard After evaluating the pieces of evidence gathered by PACC
Escolastico Umbal, a discharge of the Philippine Constabulary, operatives, Sr., Supt. Panfilo Lacson, Chief of PACC Task Force
implicating them as the brains behind the alleged kidnapping and Habagat, referred the case to the Department of Justice for the
slaying of one Eugen Alexander Van Twest, a German institution of criminal proceedings against AFPCIG Agent Roberto
national.   In that extrajudicial confession, Umbal claimed that he
2
Santiago, SPO1 Sergio Antonino, SPO2 Roger Bato, Ex-
and his companions were met by petitioners at Silahis Hotel and policeman Rolando Gamatero, Efren Madolid, and petitioners
in exchange for P2.5M the former undertook to apprehend Van herein, Atty. Diosdado Jose Allado and Atty. Roberto L. Mendoza,
Twest who allegedly had an international warrant of arrest against for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition, carnapping,
him. Thus, on 16 June 1992, after placing him under surveillance kidnapping for ransom with murder, and usurpation of
for nearly a month, Umbal, Ex-policeman Rolando Gamatero, authority.   In his letter to the State Prosecutor dated 17
4

AFPCIG Agent Roberto Santiago and SPO2 Sergio Antonino September 1993, Sr. Supt. Lacson charged that —
abducted Van Twest. They blocked his blue Nissan Pathfinder
under the Alabang overpass and forced him into their car. They Atty. Roberto L. Mendoza and Atty. Allado of
brought him to a "safe house" just behind the New Bilibid Prisons. Salonga, Hernandez and Allado Law Offices . . .
Umbal was tasked to watch over their quarry. After four (4) days, planned and conspired with other suspects to
Gamatero, Santiago and Antonino returned to the "safe house" abduct and kill the German national Alexander
together with petitioners and SPO2 Roger Bato, known to Umbal Van Twest in order to eliminate him after forcing
also as "Batok." SPO2 Bato faked the interrogation of Van Twest, the victim to sign several documents transferring
pretending it was official, and then made him sign certain ownership of several properties amounting to
documents. The following day, Gamatero shot Van Twest in the several million pesos and caused the withdrawal
chest with a baby armalite, after which Antonino stabbed him of P5M deposit from the victim's bank account.
repeatedly, cut off his private part, and later burned his cadaver
into fine ashes using gasoline and rubber tires. Umbal could not Thereafter, Senior State Prosecutor Ferdinand prosecutor
recall the exact date when the incident happened, but he was Ferdinand R. Abesamis issued a subpoena to petitioners
certain it was about a year ago. informing them that a complaint
was filed against them by PACC TF-Habagat, directing them to
A day after Umbal executed his extrajudicial confession, the appear on
operatives of the PACC, armed with a search warrant issued by 30 September 1993 at the Multi-Purpose Hall of the Department
Judge Roberto A. Barrios of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, of Justice and to submit their counter-affidavits. Attached to the
Br. 11,   separately raided the two (2) dwellings of Santiago, one
3
subpoena were copies of the affidavits executed by Umbal and
located at No. 7 Sangley Street, and the other, along Amalingan

59
members of the team who raided the two (2) dwellings of Not having been provided with the requested documents,
Santiago.  5
petitioners nevertheless submitted their respective counter-
affidavits denying the accusations against them. 9

Not satisfied merely with the affidavits attached to the subpoena,

petitioner Mendoza moved for the production of other documents After a preliminary hearing where clarificatory questions were
for examination and copying to enable him to fully prepare for his additionally propounded, the case was deemed submitted for
defense and to submit an intelligible counter- resolution. But before the new panel could resolve the case,
affidavit.   Specifically, petitioner Mendoza was interested in (a)
6
SPO2 Bato filed a manifestation stating that he was reconsidering
the "several documents transferring ownership of several the earlier waiver of his right to file counter- affidavit,   and "in the
10

properties amounting to several million pesos and the withdrawal greater interest of truth, justice and fair play" moved for the
of P5M deposits from the victim's bank account," as stated in the admissions of his counter-affidavit   confessing participation in
11

complaint; (b) the complete records of the PACC's investigation, the abduction and slaying of Van Twest and implicating
including investigations on other suspects and their disposition, petitioners Allado and Mendoza. Sometime in January 1994,
PACC's Order of Battle for 1992 and early 1993; and, (c) such however, before petitioners could refute Bato's counter-affidavit,
other written statements issued in the above-entitled case, and all he moved to suppress it on the ground that it was extracted
other documents intended to be used in this case.   Petitioners
7
through intimidation and duress.
likewise sought the inhibition of the members of the panel of
prosecutors, which was created to conduct the preliminary On 3 February 1994, with the new penal failing to act on the twin
investigation, on the ground that they were members of the legal motions of SPO2 Bato, petitioners heard over the radio that the
staff assigned to PACC and thus could not act with impartiality. panel had issued a resolution finding a prima facie case against
them and that an information had already been filed in court.
In its Order of 11 October 1993,  the new panel of prosecutors
8
Upon verification with the Department of Justice, however,
composed of Senior State Prosecutor Bernelito R. Fernandez as petitioners were informed that the resolution was not yet ready for
Chairman, with Rogelio F. Vista and Purita M. Deynata as release, but later that afternoon they were able to secure a copy
Members, confirmed that the motion for inhibition of the members of the information for kidnapping with murder against them   and 12

of the old panel as well as the appeal to the Secretary of Justice the 15-page undated resolution under the letterhead of PACC,
was resolved on 8 October 1993 resulting in the creation of a new signed by the panel of prosecutors, with the Head of the PACC
panel. Thereafter, the new panel granted the prayer of petitioner Task Force recommending approval thereof.   That same day,
13

Mendoza for the production of additional documents used or the information was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Makati
intended to be used against him. Meanwhile, Task Force and raffled off to Branch 62 presided by respondent Judge
Habagat, in compliance with the order, submitted only copies of Roberto C. Diokno.
the request for verification of the firearms seized from the
accused, the result of the request for verification, and a Philippine On 4 February 1994, respondent judge, in response to
Times Journal article on the case with a marginal note of petitioners' request, gave them until 8 February 1994 to submit
President Fidel V. Ramos addressed to the Chief of the Philippine their opposition to the issuance of a warrant of arrest against all
National Police directing the submission of a report and summary the accused.   On 7 February 1994, petitioners complied with the
14

of actions taken thereon. order of respondent judge.   The following day,

15

8 February 1994, petitioner Allado filed an appeal with the

60
Secretary of Justice seeking review and reversal of the undated On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General argues that
resolution of the panel the determination of probable cause is a function of the judge
of prosecutors,   which appeal was adopted by petitioner
16
who is merely required to personally appreciate certain facts to
Mendoza.   On 17
convince him that the accused probably committed the crime
11 February 1994, petitioner Allado moved to defer the charged.
proceedings before the trial court pending resolution of his appeal
before the Secretary of Justice.   However, on even date,
18
Section 2, Art. III, of the 1987 Constitution, lays down the
respondent judge issued the assailed warrant of arrest against requirements for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, i.e., a
petitioners.   Hence, on 15 February 1994, petitioners filed with
19
warrant of arrest shall issue only upon probable cause to be
us the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for determined personally by the judge after examination under oath
a temporary restraining order. or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce.
On 16 February 1994, we required respondents to comment on
the petition and set the case for hearing on 28 February 1994. As early as 1915, in Buchanan v. Viuda de Esteban,   this Court
23

After the hearing, we issued a temporary restraining order speaking through Associate Justice Sherman Moreland defined
enjoining PACC from enforcing the warrant of arrest and probable cause as "the existence of such facts and
respondent judge from conducting further proceedings on the circumstances as would excite the belief, in a reasonable mind,
case and, instead, to elevate the records to us. Meanwhile, on 27 acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that
February 1994, petitioners voluntarily surrendered at the the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was
Headquarters of the Capital Command (CAPCOM), Philippine prosecuted." This definition is still relevant today as we continue
National Police (PNP), Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, Metro to cite it in recent cases.   Hence, probable cause for an arrest or
24

Manila, and on 29 February 1994, they were released on the for the issuance of a warrant of arrest has been defined as such
basis of our temporary restraining order. facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonable discreet
and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed
Petitioners, in their 335-page petition, inclusive of annexes, by the person sought to be arrested.   And as a protection
25

principally contend that respondent judge acted with grave abuse against false prosecution and arrest, it is the knowledge of facts,
of discretion and in excess of jurisdiction in "whimsically holding actual or apparent, strong enough to justify a reasonable man in
that there is probable cause against petitioners without the belief that he was lawful grounds for arresting the accused.  26

determining the admissibility of the evidence against petitioners

and without even stating the basis of his findings,"   and in
20
Pilapil v. Sandiganbayan   sets a standard for determining the
27

"relying on the Resolution of the Panel and their certification that existence of probable cause. While it appears in that case that we
probable cause exists when the certification is have granted the prosecutor and the trial judge seemingly
flawed."   Petitioners maintain that the records of the preliminary
21
unlimited latitude in determining the existence of absence of
investigation which respondent judge solely relied upon failed to probable cause by affirming the long-standing procedure that they
establish probable cause against them to justify the issuance of can base their findings merely on their personal opinion and
the warrant of arrest. Petitioners likewise assail the prosecutors' reasonable belief, yet, this permissiveness should not be
"clear sign of bias and impartiality (sic)." 
22
interpreted as giving them arbitrary powers and letting them loose
in the determination of the existence of probable cause, a delicate

61
legal question which can result in the harassment and deprivation have painstakingly examined the records and we cannot find any
of liberty of the person sought to be charged or arrested. There support for his conclusion. On the contrary, we discern a number
we said — of reasons why we consider the evidence submitted to be
insufficient for a finding of probable cause against petitioners.
Probable cause is a reasonable ground of
presumption that a matter is, or may be, well The Presidential Anti-Crime Commission relies heavily on the
founded, such a state of facts in the mind of the sworn statement of Security Guard Umbal who supposedly
prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary confessed his participation in the alleged kidnapping and murder
caution and prudence to believe, or entertain an of Van Twest. For one, there is serious doubt on Van Twest's
honest or strong suspicion, that a thing is so. The reported death since the corpus delicti has not been established,
term does not mean "actual and positive cause" nor have his remains been recovered. Umbal claims that Van
nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely Twest was completely burned into ashes with the use of gasoline
based on opinion and reasonable belief. Thus, a and rubber tires from around ten o'clock in the evening to six
finding of probable cause does not require an o'clock the next morning.   This is highly improbable, if not
29

inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to ridiculous. A human body cannot be pulverized into ashes by
procure a conviction. It is enough that it is it simply burning it with the use of gasoline and rubber tires in an
believed that the act or omission complained of open field. Even crematoria use entirely closed incinerators
constitutes the offense charged. Precisely, there where the corpse is subjected to intense heat.  Thereafter, the
30

is a trial for the reception of evidence of the remains undergo a process where the bones are completely
prosecution in support of the charge. ground to dust.

Whether an act was done causing undue injury to In the case of Van Twest, there is not even any insinuation that
the government and whether the same was done earnest efforts were exerted to recover traces of his remains from
with manifest partiality or evident bad faith can the scene of the alleged cremation.   Could it be that the
31

only be made out by proper and sufficient government investigators did to the place of cremation but could
testimony. Necessarily, a conclusion can be not find any? Or could it be that they did not go at all because
arrived at when the case has already proceeded they knew that there would not be any as no burning ever took
on sufficient proof. 
28
place? To allege then that the body of Van Twest was completely
burned to ashes in an open field with the use merely of tires and
Accordingly, before issuing a warrant of arrest, the judge must gasoline is a tale too tall to gulp.
satisfy himself that based on the evidence submitted there is
sufficient proof that a crime has been committed and that the Strangely, if not awkwardly, after Van Twest's reported abduction
person to be arrested is probably guilty thereof. In the Order of on
respondent judge dated 11 February 1994, it is expressly stated 16 June 1992 which culminated in his decimation by cremation,
that "[t]his court after careful evaluation of the evidence on his counsel continued to represent him before judicial and quasi-
record, believes and rules that probable cause exists; and judicial proceedings. Thus on 31 July 1992, his counsel filed in
therefore, a warrant of arrest should be issued." However, we are his behalf a petition for review before this Court, docketed as
unable to see how respondent judge arrived at such ruling. We G.R. Nos. 106253, and on 18 March 1993, a memorandum

62
before the Securities and Exchange Commission in SEC Case Umbal also said that petitioners arrived with Bato and conducted
No. 3896. On a mock interrogation of Van Twest who thereafter signed various
26 November 1993, during the preliminary investigation documents upon being compelled to do so.   During the
38

conducted by the panel of prosecutors, counsel again manifested clarificatory questioning, however, Umbal changed his story and
that "even then and even as of this time, I stated in my counter- said that he was asked to go outside of the "safe house" at the
affidavit that until the matter of death is to be established in the time Van Twest was interrogated and thus did not see if Van
proper proceedings, I shall continue to pursue my duties and Twest indeed signed certain documents. Why Umbal had to be
responsibilities as counsel for Mr. Van Twest."   Hence, even
32
sent out of the "safe house,"
Asst. Solicitor General Estoesta believes that counsel of Van no explanation was offered. Did these documents really exist? Or
Twest doubted the latter's could the
death.   Obviously, counsel himself does not believe that his
33
non-existence of these documents be the reason why PACC was
client is in fact already dead otherwise his obligation to his client not able to comply with the order of the prosecutors to produce
would have ceased except to comply with his duty "to inform the them during the preliminary investigation? And then, what
court promptly of such death . . . and to give the name and happened to the P2.5M that was supposedly offered by
residence of his executor, administrator, guardian or other legal petitioners in exchange for the abduction of Van Twest? These
representative,"   which he did not.
34
and more remain unanswered.

Under the circumstances, we cannot discount petitioners' theory Most perplexing however is that while the whole investigation was
that the supposed death of Van Twest who is reportedly an supposedly triggered off by Umbal's confession of 16 September
international fugitive from justice, a fact substantiated by 1993, the application of the PACC operatives for a search warrant
petitioners and never refuted by PACC, is a likely story to stop the to be served in the
international manhunt for his arrest. In this regard, we are two (2) dwellings of Santiago was filed and granted by the
reminded of the leading case of U.S. v. Samarin   decided ninety-
35
Regional Trial Court of Manila on 15 September 1993, a day
two years ago where this Court ruled that when the supposed before Umbal executed his sworn statement. In support of the
victim is wholly unknown, his body not found, and there is but one application, the PACC agents claimed that Umbal had been in
witness who testifies to the killing, the corpus delicti is not their custody since 10 September 1993. Significantly, although he
sufficiently proved. was said to be already under their custody, Umbal claims he was
never interrogated until 16 September 1993 and only at the
Then, the extrajudicial statement of Umbal suffers from material security barracks of Valle Verde V, Pasig, where he was a
inconsistencies. In his sworn statement, he said that he together security guard. 39

with his cohorts was met by petitioners in Silahis Hotel where

they hatched the plan to abduct Van Twest.   However, during
36
The alleged counter-affidavit of SPO2 Bato, which the panel of
the preliminary investigation, he stated that he was not part of the prosecutors also considered in filing the charges against
actual meeting as he only waited outside in the car for his petitioners, can hardly be credited as its probative value has
companions who supposedly discussed the plan inside Silahis tremendously waned. The records show that the alleged counter-
Hotel. 
37
affidavit, which is self-incriminating, was filed after the panel had
considered the case submitted for resolution. And before
petitioners could refute this counter-affidavit, Bato moved to

63
suppress the same on the ground that it was extracted through the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, may disregard the
duress and intimidation. fiscal's report and require the submission of supporting affidavits
of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion on the
For sure, the credibility of Umbal is badly battered. Certainly, his existence of probable cause.
bare allegations, even if the State invokes its inherent right to
prosecute, are insufficient to justify sending two lawyers to jail, or In People v. Inting,   we emphasized the important features of the
42

anybody for that matter. More importantly, the PACC operatives constitutional mandate: (a) The determination of probable cause
who applied for a warrant to search the dwellings of Santiago is a function of the judge; it is not for the provincial fiscal or
never implicated petitioners. In fact they claimed that according to prosecutor to ascertain. Only the judge and the judge alone
Umbal, it was Santiago, and not petitioners, who masterminded makes this determination; (b) The preliminary inquiry made by a
the whole affair.   While there may be bits of evidence against
40
prosecutor does not bind the judge. It merely assists him in
petitioners' making the determination of probable cause. The judge does not
co-accused, i.e., referring to those seized from the dwellings of have to follow what the prosecutor presents to him. By itself, the
Santiago, these do not in the least prove petitioners' complicity in prosecutor's certification of probable cause is ineffectual. It is the
the crime charged. Based on the evidence thus far submitted report, the affidavits, the transcript of stenographic notes (if any),
there is nothing indeed, much less is there probable cause, to and all other supporting documents behind the prosecutor's
incriminate petitioners. For them to stand trial and be deprived in certification which are material in assisting the judge in his
the meantime of their liberty, however brief, the law appropriately determination of probable cause; and, (c) Judges and
exacts much more to sustain a warrant for their arrest — facts prosecutors alike should distinguish the preliminary inquiry which
and circumstances strong enough in themselves to support the determines probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest
belief that they are guilty of a crime that in fact happened. Quite from the preliminary investigation proper which ascertains
obviously, this has not been met. whether the offender should be held for trial or released. Even if
the two inquiries be conducted in the course of one and the same
Verily, respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in proceeding, there should be no confusion about their objectives.
issuing the warrant for the arrest of petitioners it appearing that The determination of probable cause for the warrant is made by
he did not personally examine the evidence nor did he call for the the judge. The preliminary investigation
complainant and his witnesses in the face of their incredible proper — whether or not there is reasonable ground to believe
accounts. Instead, he merely relied on the certification of the that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and therefore,
prosecutors that probable cause existed. For, otherwise, he whether or not he should be subjected to the expense, rigors and
would have found out that the evidence thus far presented was embarrassment of trial — is a function of the prosecutor.
utterly insufficient to warrant the arrest of petitioners. In this
regard, we restate the procedure we outlined in various cases we In Lim v. Felix,   where we reiterated Soliven v.
43

have already decided. Makasiar and People v. Inting, we said —

In Soliven v. Makasiar,   we said that the judge (a) shall

41
[T]he Judge does not have to personally examine
personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents the complainant and his witnesses. The
submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause Prosecutor can perform the same functions as a
and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or, (b) if on commissioner for the taking of the evidence.

64
 However, there should be a report and necessary But then, it appears in the instant case that the prosecutors have
documents supporting the Fiscal's bare similarly misappropriated, if not abused, their discretion. If they
certification. All these should be before the Judge. really believed that petitioners were probably guilty, they should
have armed themselves with facts and circumstances in support
The extent of the Judge's personal examination of of that belief; for mere belief is not enough. They should have
the report and its annexes depends on the presented sufficient and credible evidence to demonstrate the
circumstances of each case. We cannot existence of probable cause. For the prosecuting officer "is the
determine beforehand how cursory or exhaustive representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a
the Judge's examination should be. The Judge sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as
has to exercise sound discretion for, after all, the compelling as its obligation to govern all; and whose interest,
personal determination is vested in the Judge by therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case,
the Constitution. It can be as brief or as detailed but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and
as the circumstances of each case require. To be very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of
sure, the judge must go beyond the Prosecutor's which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may
certification and investigation report whenever prosecute with earnestness and vigor — indeed, he should do so.
necessary. He should call for the complainant and But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike
witnesses themselves to answer the court's foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods
probing questions when the circumstances of the calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every
case so require. legitimate means to bring about a just one"  46

Clearly, probable cause may not be established simply by In the case at bench, the undue haste in the filing of the
showing that a trial judge subjectively believes that he has good information and the inordinate interest of the government cannot
grounds for his action. Good faith is not enough. If subjective be ignored. From the gathering of evidence until the termination
good faith alone were the test, the constitutional protection would of the preliminary investigation, it appears that the state
be demeaned and the people would be "secure in their persons, prosecutors were overly eager to file the case and secure a
houses, papers and effects" only in the fallible discretion of the warrant for the arrest of the accused without bail and their
judge.  On the contrary, the probable cause test is an objective
44 consequent detention. Umbal's sworn statement is laden with
one, for in order that there be probable cause the facts and inconsistencies and improbabilities. Bato's counter-affidavit was
circumstances must be such as would warrant a belief by a considered without giving petitioners the opportunity to refute the
reasonably discreet and prudent man that the accused is guilty of same. The PACC which gathered the evidence appears to have
the crime which has just been committed.   This, as we said, is
45 had a hand in the determination of probable cause in the
the standard. Hence, if upon the filing of the information in court preliminary inquiry as the undated resolution of the panel not only
the trial judge, after reviewing the information and the documents bears the letterhead of PACC but was also recommended for
attached thereto, finds that no probable cause exists must either approval by the head of the PACC Task Force. Then petitioners
call for the complainant and the witnesses themselves or simply were given the runaround in securing a copy of the resolution and
dismiss the case. There is no reason to hold the accused for trial the information against them.
and further expose him to an open and public accusation of the
crime when no probable cause exists.

65
Indeed, the task of ridding society of criminals and misfits and therefore imperative upon the fiscal or the judge
sending them to jail in the hope that they will in the future reform as the case may be, to relieve the accused from
and be productive members of the community rests both on the the pain of going thru a trial once it is ascertained
judiciousness of judges and the prudence of prosecutors. And, that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a prima
whether it is a preliminary investigation by the prosecutor, which facie case or that no probable cause exists to
ascertains if the respondent should be held for trial, or a form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the
preliminary inquiry by the trial judge which determines if an arrest accused (emphasis supplied).
warrant should issue, the bottomline is that there is a standard in
the determination of the existence of probable cause, i.e., there The facts of this case are fatefully distressing as they showcase
should be facts and circumstances sufficiently strong in the seeming immensity of government power which when
themselves to warrant a prudent and cautious man to believe that unchecked becomes tyrannical and oppressive. Hence the
the accused is guilty of the crime with which he is charged. Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, defines the limits
Judges and prosecutors are not off on a frolic of their own, but beyond which lie unsanctioned state actions. But on occasion, for
rather engaged in a delicate legal duty defined by law and one reason or another, the State transcends this parameter. In
jurisprudence. consequence, individual liberty unnecessarily suffers. The case
before us, if uncurbed, can be illustrative of a dismal trend.
In this instance, Salonga v. Paño   finds application —
47
Needless injury of the sort inflicted by government agents is not
reflective of responsible government. Judges and law enforcers
The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to are not, by reason of their high and prestigious office, relieved of
secure the innocent against hasty, malicious and the common obligation to avoid deliberately inflicting unnecessary
oppressive prosecution, and to protect him from injury.
an open and public accusation of crime, from the
trouble, expense and anxiety of a public trial, and The sovereign power has the inherent right to protect itself and its
also to protect the state from useless and people from vicious acts which endanger the proper
expensive trial (Trocio v. Manta, 118 SCRA administration of justice; hence, the State has every right to
241, citing Hashim v. Boncan, 71 Phil. 216). The prosecute and punish violators of the law. This is essential for its
right to a preliminary investigation is a statutory self- preservation, nay, its very existence. But this does not confer
grant, and to withhold it would be to transgress a license for pointless assaults on its citizens. The right of the
constitutional due process (People v. Oandasa, State to prosecute is not a carte blanche for government agents
25 SCRA 277). However, in order to satisfy the to defy and disregard the rights of its citizens under the
due process clause it is not enough that the Constitution. Confinement, regardless of duration, is too high a
preliminary investigation is conducted in the price to pay for reckless and impulsive prosecution. Hence, even
sense of making sure that the transgressor shall if we apply in this case the "multifactor balancing test" which
not escape with impunity. A preliminary requires the officer to weigh the manner and intensity of the
investigation serves not only for the purposes of interference on the right of the people, the gravity of the crime
the State. More importantly, it is a part of the committed and the circumstances attending the incident, still we
guarantees of freedom and fair play which are cannot see probable cause to order the detention of petitioners. 48

birthrights of all who live in the country. It is

66
The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the people against G.R. No. 171465              June 8, 2007
arbitrary and discriminatory use of political power. This bundle of
rights guarantees the preservation of our natural rights which AAA *, petitioner, 
include personal liberty and security against invasion by the vs.
government or any of its branches or instrumentalities. Certainly, HON. ANTONIO A. CARBONELL, in his capacity as Presiding
in the hierarchy of rights, the Bill of Rights takes precedence over Judge, Branch 27, Regional Trial Court, San Fernando City,
the right of the State to prosecute, and when weighed against La Union and ENGR. JAIME O. ARZADON, respondents.
each other, the scales of justice tilt towards the former. Thus,
relief may be availed of to stop the purported enforcement of This petition for certiorari1 assails the December 16, 20052 Order
criminal law where it is necessary to provide for an orderly of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, San Fernando, La Union
administration of justice, to prevent the use of the strong arm of in Criminal Case No. 6983, dismissing the rape case filed against
the law in an oppressive and vindictive manner, and to afford private respondent Jaime O. Arzadon for lack of probable cause;
adequate protection to constitutional rights. 49
and its February 3, 20063 Order denying petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration.
Perhaps, this case would not have reached this Court if
petitioners were ordinary people submissive to the dictates of Petitioner worked as a secretary at the Arzadon Automotive and
government. They would have been illegally arrested and Car Service Center from February 28, 2001 to August 16, 2001.
detained without bail. Then we would not have the opportunity to On May 27, 2001 at about 6:30 p.m., Arzadon asked her to
rectify the injustice. Fortunately, the victims of injustice are deliver a book to an office located at another building but when
lawyers who are vigilant of their rights, who fight for their liberty she returned to their office, the lights had been turned off and the
and freedom not otherwise available to those who cower in fear gate was closed. Nevertheless, she went inside to get her
and subjection. handbag.

Let this then be a constant reminder to judges, prosecutors and On her way out, she saw Arzadon standing beside a parked van
other government agents tasked with the enforcement of the law holding a pipe. He told her to go near him and upon reaching his
that in the performance of their duties they must act with side, he threatened her with the pipe and forced her to lie on the
circumspection, lest their thoughtless ways, methods and pavement. He removed her pants and underwear, and inserted
practices cause a disservice to their office and maim their his penis into her vagina. She wept and cried out for help but to
countrymen they are sworn to serve and protect. We thus caution no avail because there was nobody else in the premises.
government agents, particularly the law enforcers, to be more
prudent in the prosecution of cases and not to be oblivious of
Petitioner did not report the incident because Arzadon threatened
human rights protected by the fundamental law. While we greatly
to kill her and her family. But when she discovered that she was
applaud their determined efforts to weed society of felons, let not
pregnant as a consequence of the rape, she narrated the incident
their impetuous eagerness violate constitutional precepts which
to her parents. On July 24, 2002, petitioner filed a complaint for
circumscribe the structure of a civilized community.
rape against Arzadon.
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is
GRANTED. SO ORDERED.

67
On September 16, 2002, Assistant City Prosecutor Imelda found no probable cause and directed the withdrawal of the
Cosalan issued a Resolution4 finding probable cause and Information in Criminal Case No. 6415.10
recommending the filing of an information for rape. Arzadon
moved for reconsideration and during the clarificatory hearing Upon motion for reconsideration by petitioner, however, Secretary
held on October 11, 2002, petitioner testified before the of Justice Raul Gonzales reversed the July 9, 2004 Resolution
investigating prosecutor. However, she failed to attend the next and issued another Resolution11 finding that probable cause
hearing hence, the case was provisionally dismissed. exists. Thus, a new Information12 for rape was filed against
Arzadon docketed as Criminal Case No. 6983.
On March 5, 2003, petitioner filed another Affidavit-
Complaint5 with a comprehensive account of the alleged rape Consequently, Arzadon filed an "Urgent Motion for Judicial
incident. The case was assigned to 2nd Assistant Provincial Determination of Probable Cause for the Purpose of Issuing a
Prosecutor Georgina Hidalgo. During the preliminary Warrant of Arrest."13 In an Order dated August 11, 2005,
investigation, petitioner appeared for clarificatory questioning. On respondent Judge Carbonell granted the motion and directed
June 11, 2003, the investigating prosecutor issued a petitioner and her witnesses to take the witness stand.
Resolution6 finding that a prima facie case of rape exists and
recommending the filing of the information. Instead of taking the witness stand, petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration claiming that the documentary evidence
Arzadon moved for reconsideration and requested that a panel of sufficiently established the existence of probable cause. Pending
prosecutors be constituted to review the case. Thus, a panel of resolution thereof, she likewise filed a petition14 with this Court for
prosecutors was created and after the clarificatory questioning, the transfer of venue of Criminal Case No. 6983. The case was
the panel issued on October 13, 2003 a Resolution7 finding docketed as Administrative Matter Manila.
probable cause and denying Arzadon’s motion for
reconsideration. In a Resolution15 dated January 18, 2006, the Court granted
petitioner’s request for transfer of venue. The case was raffled to
An Information8 for rape was filed before the Regional Trial Court, the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 25, and docketed as
Branch 27, San Fernando, La Union on February 6, 2004, Criminal Case No. 06-242289. However, the proceedings have
docketed as Criminal Case No. 6415. Thereafter, Arzadon filed a been suspended pending the resolution of this petition.
"Motion to Hold in Abeyance All Court Proceedings Including the
Issuance of a Warrant of Arrest and to Determine Probable Meanwhile, on December 16, 2005, respondent Judge Carbonell
Cause for the Purpose of Issuing a Warrant of Arrest."9 On March issued the assailed Order dismissing Criminal Case No. 6983 for
18, 2004, respondent Judge Antonio A. Carbonell granted the lack of probable cause. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration
motion and directed petitioner and her witnesses to take the was denied hence, this petition.
witness stand for determination of probable cause.
Petitioner raises the following issues:16
Arzadon also appealed the Resolution of the panel of prosecutors
finding probable cause before the Department of Justice. On July
I
9, 2004, then Acting Secretary of Justice Merceditas Gutierrez

68
RESPONDENT JUDGE ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF as the transcript of stenographic notes which sufficiently
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF OR IN EXCESS OF established the existence of probable cause.
JURISDICTION WHEN IT GRANTED THE MOTION FOR
DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE FILED BY THE Arzadon claims that the petition should be dismissed outright for
PRIVATE RESPONDENT AND THE SUBSEQUENT DENIAL OF being the wrong mode of appeal, it appearing that the issues
THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION raised by petitioner properly fall under an action
for certiorari under Rule 65, and not Rule 45, of the Rules of
II Court.

RESPONDENT JUDGE COMMITTED FURTHER ACTS Respondent Judge Carbonell argues in his Comment17 that the
CONSTITUTING GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION finding of probable cause by the investigating prosecutor is not
AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION binding or obligatory, and that he was justified in requiring
WHEN IT ORDERED THE COMPLAINANT AND WITNESSES petitioner and her witnesses to take the witness stand in order to
TO TAKE THE STAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING determine probable cause.
PROBABLE CAUSE
The issues for resolution are 1) whether the petition should be
III dismissed for being the wrong mode of appeal; and 2) whether
respondent Judge Carbonell acted with grave abuse of discretion
RESPONDENT JUDGE ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF in dismissing Criminal Case No. 6983 for lack of probable cause.
DISCRETION WHEN HE REFUSED TO INHIBIT FROM
FURTHER HANDLING THE CASE DESPITE WHISPERS OF The petition has merit.
DOUBT ON HIS BIAS AND PARTIALITY
A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is distinct from a
IV petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in that the former brings up for
review errors of judgment while the latter concerns errors of
RESPONDENT JUDGE ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
DISCRETION WHEN IT ISSUED THE ORDER OF FEBRUARY excess of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion is not an
3, 2006, DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, allowable ground under Rule 45. However, a petition for review
DESPITE THE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTION OF JANUARY on certiorari under Rule 45 may be considered a petition
18, 2006, GRANTING THE TRANSFER OF VENUE for certiorari under Rule 65 where it is alleged that the
respondents abused their discretion in their questioned actions,
Petitioner contends that the judge is not required to personally as in the instant case.18 While petitioner claims to have brought
examine the complainant and her witnesses in satisfying himself the instant action under Rule 45, the grounds raised herein
of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant involve an alleged grave abuse of discretion on the part of
of arrest. She argues that respondent Judge Carbonell should respondent Judge Carbonell. Accordingly, the Court shall treat
have taken into consideration the documentary evidence as well the same as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

69
However, we must point out the procedural error committed by Record also shows in no unclear terms that in all the scheduled
petitioner in directly filing the instant petition before this Court hearings of the case, the accused had always been present.
instead of the Court of Appeals, thereby violating the principle of A contrario, the private complainant failed to appear during the
judicial hierarchy of courts. It is well-settled that although the last four (4) consecutive settings despite due notice without giving
Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts any explanation, which to the mind of the Court may indicate an
have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, apparent lack of interest in the further prosecution of this case.
mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction, such That failure may even be construed as a confirmation of the
concurrence does not give the petitioner unrestricted freedom of Defense’s contention reflected in the case record, that the only
choice of court forum.19 In this case, however, the gravity of the party interested in this case is the Private prosecutor, prodded by
offense charged and the length of time that has passed since the the accused’s alleged hostile siblings to continue with the case.
filing of the complaint for rape, compel us to resolve the present
controversy in order to avoid further delay.20 WHEREFORE, premises considered, for utter lack of probable
cause, the instant case is hereby ordered DISMISSED.21
We thus proceed to the issue of whether respondent Judge
Carbonell acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing He claims that under Section 2, Article III of the 1987
Criminal Case No. 6983 for lack of probable cause. Constitution, no warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
probable cause "to be determined personally by the judge after
We rule in the affirmative. examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce."
Respondent Judge Carbonell dismissed Criminal Case No. 6983
for lack of probable cause on the ground that petitioner and her However, in the leading case of Soliven v. Makasiar,22 the Court
witnesses failed to comply with his orders to take the witness explained that this constitutional provision does not mandatorily
stand. Thus – require the judge to personally examine the complainant and her
witnesses. Instead, he may opt to personally evaluate the report
In RESUME therefore, as indubitably borne out by the case and supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor or he may
record and considering that the Private Prosecutor, despite disregard the prosecutor’s report and require the submission of
several admonitions contumaciously nay contemptuously refused supporting affidavits of witnesses. Thus:
to comply/obey this Court’s Orders of March 18, 2004, August 11,
2005 and eight (8) other similar Orders issued in open Court that The addition of the word "personally" after the word "determined"
directed the complainant/witnesses to take the witness stand to and the deletion of the grant of authority by the 1973 Constitution
be asked probing/clarificatory questions consonant with cited to issue warrants to "other responsible officers as may be
jurisprudential rulings of the Supreme Court, this Court in the authorized by law," has apparently convinced petitioner Beltran
exercise of its discretion and sound judgment finds and so holds that the Constitution now requires the judge to personally
that NO probable cause was established to warrant the issuance examine the complainant and his witnesses in his determination
of an arrest order and the further prosecution of the instant case. of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest. This is
not an accurate interpretation.

70
What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal True, there are cases where the circumstances may call for the
responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the judge’s personal examination of the complainant and his
existence of probable cause. In satisfying himself of the existence witnesses. But it must be emphasized that such personal
of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the examination is not mandatory and indispensable in the
judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and determination of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of
his witnesses. Following established doctrine and procedure, he arrest. The necessity arises only when there is an utter failure of
shall: (1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting the evidence to show the existence of probable
documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of cause.27 Otherwise, the judge may rely on the report of the
probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of investigating prosecutor, provided that he likewise evaluates the
arrest; or (2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, documentary evidence in support thereof.
he may disregard the fiscal’s report and require the submission of
supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a Indeed, what the law requires as personal determination on the
conclusion as to the existence of probable cause. part of the judge is that he should not rely solely on the report of
the investigating prosecutor. In Okabe v. Gutierrez,28 we stressed
Sound policy dictates this procedure, otherwise judges would by that the judge should consider not only the report of the
unduly laden with the preliminary examination and investigation of investigating prosecutor but also the affidavit and the
criminal complaints instead of concentrating on hearing and documentary evidence of the parties, the counter-affidavit of the
deciding cases filed before their courts.23 accused and his witnesses, as well as the transcript of
stenographic notes taken during the preliminary investigation, if
We reiterated the above ruling in the case of Webb v. De any, submitted to the court by the investigating prosecutor upon
Leon,24 where we held that before issuing warrants of arrest, the filing of the Information.29 If the report, taken together with the
judges merely determine the probability, not the certainty, of guilt supporting evidence, is sufficient to sustain a finding of probable
of an accused. In doing so, judges do not conduct a de cause, it is not compulsory that a personal examination of the
novo hearing to determine the existence of probable cause. They complainant and his witnesses be conducted.
just personally review the initial determination of the prosecutor
finding a probable cause to see if it is supported by substantial In this case, respondent Judge Carbonell dismissed Criminal
evidence.25 Case No. 6983 without taking into consideration the June 11,
2003 Resolution of 2nd Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Georgina
It is well to remember that there is a distinction between the Hidalgo, the October 13, 2003 Resolution of the panel of
preliminary inquiry which determines probable cause for the prosecutors, and the July 1, 2005 Resolution of the Department
issuance of a warrant of arrest and the preliminary investigation of Justice, all of which sustain a finding of probable cause against
proper which ascertains whether the offender should be held for Arzadon. Moreover, he failed to evaluate the evidence in support
trial or be released. The determination of probable cause for thereof. Respondent judge’s finding of lack of probable cause
purposes of issuing the warrant of arrest is made by the judge. was premised only on the complainant’s and her witnesses’
The preliminary investigation proper – whether or not there is absence during the hearing scheduled by the respondent judge
reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the for the judicial determination of probable cause.
offense charged – is the function of the investigating prosecutor.26

71
Petitioner narrated in detail the alleged rape incident both in case. In fact, the records show that she has relentlessly pursued
her Sinumpaang Salaysay30 dated July 24, 2002 and Complaint- the same.
Affidavit31 dated March 5, 2003. She attended several clarificatory
hearings that were conducted in the instant case. The transcript Needless to say, a full-blown trial is to be preferred to ferret out
of stenographic notes32 of the hearing held on October 11, 2002 the truth.35 As it were, the incidents of this case have been
shows that she positively identified Arzadon as her assailant, and pending for almost five years without having even passed the
the specific time and place of the incident. She also claimed that preliminary investigation stage. Suffice to say that the credibility
she bore a child as a result of the rape and, in support of her of petitioner may be tested during the trial where the respective
contentions, presented the child and her birth certificate as allegations and defenses of the complainant and the accused are
evidence. In contrast, Arzadon merely relied on the defense of properly ventilated. It is only then that the truth as to Arzadon’s
alibi which is the weakest of all defenses. innocence or guilt can be determined.

After a careful examination of the records, we find that there is WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Orders of the
sufficient evidence to establish probable cause. The gravamen of Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, San Fernando, La Union dated
rape is the carnal knowledge by the accused of the private December 16, 2005, and February 3, 2006 dismissing Criminal
complainant under any of the circumstances provided in Article Case No. 6983 for lack of probable cause are REVERSED and
335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.33 Petitioner has SET ASIDE, and the Information in the said case is
categorically stated that Arzadon raped her, recounting her ordeal hereby REINSTATED. The Regional Trial Court, Branch 25,
in detail during the preliminary investigations. Taken with the Manila is DIRECTED to take cognizance of the case and let the
other evidence presented before the investigating prosecutors, records thereof be REMANDED to the said court for further
such is sufficient for purposes of establishing probable cause. It is proceedings.
well-settled that a finding of probable cause need not be based
on clear and convincing evidence beyond reasonable doubt. SO ORDERED.
Probable cause is that which engenders a well-founded belief that
a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably
guilty thereof and should be held for trial. It does not require that
the evidence would justify conviction. 34

It is clear therefore that respondent Judge Carbonell gravely

abused his discretion in dismissing Criminal Case No. 6983 for
lack of probable cause on the ground that petitioner and her
witnesses failed to take the witness stand. Considering there is
ample evidence and sufficient basis on record to support a finding
of probable cause, it was unnecessary for him to take the further
step of examining the petitioner and her witnesses. Moreover, he
erred in holding that petitioner’s absences in the scheduled
hearings were indicative of a lack of interest in prosecuting the

72
G.R. No. 113930 March 5, 1996

PAUL G. ROBERTS, JR., RODOLFO C. SALAZAR, LUIS

LORENZO, SR., LUIS LORENZO, JR., AMAURY R.
GUTIERREZ, BAYANI N. FABIC, JOSE YULO, JR., ESTEBAN
B. PALANNUAYAN, and WONG FONG FUI, petitioners, 
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE HON. MAXIMIANO
ASUNCION, in his capacity as the Presiding Judge of the
Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 104, HON.
APOLINARIO G. EXEVEA, HON. HENRICK F. GINGOYON, and
HON. PHILIP A. AGUINALDO, in their capacities as Members
of the Department of Justice "349" Committee, and the CITY
PROSECUTOR OF QUEZON CITY, respondents.

J. ROBERT DELGADO, petitioner-Intervenor.

DAVIDE, JR., J.:p

We are urged in this petition to set aside (a) the decision of the Court of Appeals of 28
September 1993 in CA-G.R. SP No. 31226,1 which dismissed the petition therein on the
ground that it has been "mooted with the release by the Department of Justice of its
decision . . . dismissing petitioners' petition for review"; (b) the resolution of the said court of
9 February 19942 denying the petitioners' motion to reconsider the decision; (c) the order of
17 May 19933 of respondent Judge Maximiano C. Asuncion of Branch 104 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City in Criminal Case No. Q-93-43198 denying petitioners'
motion to suspend proceedings and to hold in abeyance the issuance of the warrants of
arrest and the public prosecutor's motion to defer arraignment; and (d) the resolutions of 23
July 1993 and 3 February 19944 of the Department of Justice (DOJ) dismissing petitioners'
petition for the review of the Joint Resolution of the Assistant City Prosecutor of Quezon
City and denying the motion to reconsider the dismissal, respectively.

The petitioners rely on the following grounds for the grant of the
reliefs prayed for in this petition:

73
 Respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of and also against other officials of PEPSI. The complaints
discretion when he ordered the arrest of the respectively accuse the petitioners and the other PEPSI officials
petitioners without examining the record of the of the following crimes: (a) estafa; (b) violation of R.A. No. 7394,
preliminary investigation and in determining for otherwise known as the Consumer Act of the Philippines; (c)
himself on the basis thereof the existence of violation of E.O. No. 913;  and (d) violation of Act No. 2333,
8

probable cause. entitled "An Act Relative to Untrue, Deceptive and Misleading
Advertisements," as amended by Act No. 3740. 9

II
After appropriate proceedings, the investigating prosecutor,
The Department of Justice "349" Committee acted Ramon M. Gerona, released on 23 March 1993 a Joint
with grave abuse of discretion when it refused to Resolution  where he recommended the filing of an information
10

review the City Prosecutor's Joint Resolution and against the petitioners and others for the violation of Article 318 of
dismissed petitioner's appeal therefrom. the Revised Penal Code and the dismissal of the complaints for
the violation of Article 315, 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code; R.A.
III No. 7394; Act No. 2333, as amended by Act No. 3740; and E.O.
No. 913. The dispositive portion thereof reads as follows:
The Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of
discretion when it upheld the subject order In view of all the foregoing, it is recommended
directing the issuance of the warrants of arrest that:
without assessing for itself whether based on
such records there is probable cause against 1. The attached information be filed against
petitioners. respondents Paul G. Roberts, Jr., Rodolfo C.
Salazar, Rosemarie R. Vera, Luis F. Lorenzo, Sr.,
IV Luis P. Lorenzo, Jr., J. Roberto Delgado, Amaury
R. Gutierrez, Bayani N. Fabic, Jose Yulo, Jr.,
Esteban B. Pacannuayan, Jr., Wong Fong Fui,
The facts on record do not establish prima facie
Quintin J. Gomez, Jr. and Chito V. Gutierrez for
probable cause and Criminal Case No. Q-93-
estafa under Article 318, Revised Penal Code,
43198 should have been dismissed. 5

while the complaint for violation of Article 315,

2(d), Revised Penal Code against same
The antecedents of this petition are not disputed. respondents Juanito R. Ignacio, R. Sobong, R.O.
Sinsuan, M.P. Zarsadias, L.G. Dabao, Jr., R.L.
Several thousand holders  of "349" Pepsi crowns in connection
6
Domingo, N.N. Bacsal, Jesus M. Manalastas,
with the Pepsi Cola Products Phils., Inc.'s (PEPSI's) Number Janette P. Pio de Roda, Joaquin W. Sampaico,
Fever Promotion  filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor of
7
Winefreda O. Madarang, Jack Gravey, Les G.
Quezon City complaints against the petitioner's in their respective Ham, Corazon Pineda, Edward S. Serapio, Alex
capacities as Presidents or Chief Executive Officers, Chairman of O. Caballes, Sandy Sytangco, Jorge W. Drysdale,
the Board, Vice-Chairman of the Board, and Directors of PEPSI, Richard Blossom, Pablo de Borja, Edmundo L.

74
 Tan, Joseph T. Cohen, Delfin Dator, Zosimo B. JOSE YULO, JR., ESTEBAN B. PACANNUAYAN,
San Juan, Joaquin Franco, Primitivo S. Javier, Jr., JR. and WONG FONG FUI, of the crime of
Luisito Guevarra, Asif H. Adil, Eugenio ESTAFA, committed as follows:
Muniosguren, James Ditkoff and Timothy Lane be
dismissed; That in the month of February, 1992, in Quezon
City, Philippines and for sometime prior and
2. The complaints against all respondents for subsequent thereto, the above-named
violation of R.A. 7394 otherwise known as the accused —
Consumer Act of the Philippines and violation of
Act 2333 as amended by Act 3740 and E.O. 913 Paul G. Roberts, Jr. ) being then the Presidents
be also dismissed for insufficiency of evidence,
and Rodolfo G. Salazar ) and Executive Officers

3. I.S. Nos. 92-7833; 92-8710 and 92-P-1065 Luis F. Lorenzo, Sr. ) being then the Chairman
involving Crowns Nos. 173; 401; and 117, 425,
703 and 373, respectively, alleged to be likewise
of the Board of Directors
winning ones be further investigated to afford
respondents a chance to submit their counter-
evidence. 11 Luis P. Lorenzo, Jr. ) being then the Vice

On 6 April 1993, City Prosecutor Candido V. Rivera approved the Chairman of the Board
recommendation with the modification that Rosemarie Vera,
Quintin Gomez, Jr., and Chito Gonzales be excluded from the J. Roberto Delgado )
charge on the ground of insufficiency of evidence.12

Amaury R. Gutierrez ) being then Members of

The information for estafa attached to the Joint Resolution was
approved (on 7 April 1993) by Ismael P. Casabar, Chief of the Bayani N. Fabic ) the Board
Prosecution Division, upon authority of the City Prosecutor of
Quezon City, and was filed with the RTC of Quezon City on 12 Jose Yulo, Jr. )
April 1993. It was docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-93-
43198.  The information reads as follows:
13
Esteban B. Pacannuayan, )

The undersigned 1st Assistant City Prosecutor Jr. and

accuses PAUL G. ROBERTS, JR. RODOLFO C.
SALAZAR, LUIS F. LORENZO, SR., LUIS P. Wong Fong Fui )
LORENZO, JR., J. ROBERTO DELGADO,
AMAURY R. GUTIERREZ, BAYANI N. FABIC,

75
OF THE PEPSI COLA PRODUCTS L-3560-FQ, despite repeated demands made by
PHILIPPINES, INC., CONSPIRING with one the complainants, to their damage and prejudice
another, with intent of gain, by means of deceit, to the extent of the amount of the prizes
fraudulent acts or false pretenses, executed prior respectively due them from their winning "349"
to or simultaneously with the commission of the crowns/caps, together with such amounts they
fraud, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and spent in going to and from the Office of Pepsi to
feloniously defraud the private complainants claim their prizes and such other amounts used in
whose names with their prizes claimed appear in buying Pepsi softdrinks which the complainants
the attached lists marked as Annexes "A" to "A- normally would not have done were it not for the
46"; "B" to "-33"; "C" to "C-281"; "D" to "D-238"; false, fraudulent and deceitful posters of Pepsi
"E" to "E-30" and "F" to "F-244" in the following Cola Products Philippines, Inc.
manner: on the date and in the place
aforementioned, said accused pursuant to their CONTRARY TO LAW.
conspiracy, launched the Pepsi Cola Products
Philippines, Inc. "Number Fever Promotion" from On 14 April 1993, the petitioners filed with the Office of the City
February 17 to May 8, 1992 later extended to May Prosecutor a motion for the reconsideration of the Joint
11-June 12, 1992 and announced and advertised Resolution  alleging therein that (a) there was neither fraud in the
14

in the media that "all holders of crowns and/or Number Fever Promotion nor deviation from or modification of the
caps of Pepsi, Mirinda, Mountain Dew and Seven- promotional rules approved by the Department of Trade and
up bearing the winning 3-digit number will win the Industry (DTI), for from the start of the promotion, it had always
full amount of the prize printed on the been clearly explained to the public that for one to be entitled to
crowns/caps which are marked with a seven-digit the cash prize his crown must bear both the winning number and
security code as a measure against tampering or the correct security code as they appear in the DTI list; (b) the
faking of crowns and each and every number has complainants failed to allege, much less prove with prima
its own unique matching security code", enticing facie evidence, the specific overt criminal acts or omissions
the public to buy Pepsi softdrinks with aforestated purportedly committed by each of the petitioners; (c) the
alluring and attractive advertisements to become compromise agreement entered into by PEPSI is not an
millionaires, and by virtue of such representations admission of guilt; and (d) the evidence establishes that the
made by the accused, the said complainants promo was carried out with utmost good faith and without
bought Pepsi softdrinks, but, the said accused malicious intent.
after their TV announcement on May 25, 1992
that the winning number for the next day was
On 15 April 1993, the petitioners filed with the DOJ a Petition for
"349", in violation of their aforecited mechanics,
Review  wherein, for the same grounds adduced in the
15

refused as they still refuse to redeem/pay the said

aforementioned motion for reconsideration, they prayed that the
Pepsi crowns and/or caps presented to them by
Joint Resolution be reversed and the complaints dismissed. They
the complainants, who, among others, were able
further stated that the approval of the Joint Resolution by the City
to buy Pepsi softdrinks with crowns/caps bearing
Prosecutor was not the result of a careful scrutiny and
number "349" with security codes L-2560-FQ and
independent evaluation of the relevant facts and the applicable

76
law but of the grave threats, intimidation, and actual violence the parties that his court would "be guided by the doctrine laid
which the complainants had inflicted on him and his assistant down by the Supreme Court in the case of Crespo vs. Mogul, 151
prosecutors. SCRA 462 and not by the resolution of the Department of Justice
on the petition for review undertaken by the accused." 21

On that same date, the petitioners filed in Criminal Case No. Q-

93-43198 Motions to Suspend Proceedings and to Hold in On 30 April 1993, Assistant City Prosecutor Tirso M. Gavero filed
Abeyance Issuance of Warrants of Arrest on the ground that they with the trial court a Motion to Defer Arraignment wherein he also
had filed the aforesaid Petition for Review. 16
prayed that "further proceedings be held in abeyance pending
final disposition by the Department of Justice."
22

On 21 April 1993, acting on the Petition for Review, Chief State

Prosecutor Zenon L. de Guia issued a 1st On 4 May 1993, Gavero filed an Amended
Indorsement, 7 directing the City Prosecutor of Quezon City to
1
Information,   accompanied by a corresponding motion   to admit
23 24

inform the DOJ whether the petitioners have already been it. The amendments merely consist in the statement that the
arraigned, and if not, to move in court for the deferment of further complainants therein were only "among others" who were
proceedings in the case and to elevate to the DOJ the entire defrauded by the accused and that the damage or prejudice
records of the case, for the case is being treated as an exception caused amounted "to several billions of pesos, representing the
pursuant to Section 4 of Department Circular No. 7 dated 25 amounts due them from their winning '349' crowns/caps." The
January 1990. trial court admitted the amended information on the same date. 25

On 22 April 1993, Criminal Case No. Q-93-41398 was raffle to Later, the attorneys for the different private complainants filed,
Branch 104 of the RTC of Quezon City. 18
respectively, an Opposition to Motion to Defer Arraignment,  and 26

Objection and Opposition to Motion to Suspend Proceedings and

In the morning of 27 April 1993, private prosecutor Julio to Hold in Abeyance the Issuance of Warrants of Arrest. 7 2

Contreras filed an Ex-Parte Motion for Issuance of Warrants of

Arrest. 
19
On 14 May 1993, the petitioners filed a Memorandum in Support
of their Motion to Suspend Proceedings and to Hold in Abeyance
In the afternoon of that same day, petitioner Paul Roberts, Jr., the Issuance of the Warrants of Arrest. 28

filed a Supplemental Urgent Motion to Hold in Abeyance Issuance

of Warrant of Arrest and to Suspend Proceedings.  He stressed
20
On 17 May 1993, respondent Judge Asuncion issued the
that the DOJ had taken cognizance of the Petition for Review by challenged order (1) denying the petitioners' Motion to Suspend
directing the City Prosecutor to elevate the records of I.S. No. P- Proceedings and to Hold in Abeyance Issuance of Warrants of
4401 and its related cases and asserted that the petition for Arrest and the public prosecutor's Motion to Defer Arraignment
review was an essential part of the petitioners' right to a and (2) directing the issuance of the warrants of arrest "after June
preliminary investigation. 1993" and setting the arraignment on 28 June 1993.  Pertinent
29

portions of the order read as follows:

The next day, respondent Judge Asuncion, Presiding Judge of
Branch 104 of the RTC of Quezon City, issued an order advising

77
In the Motion filed by the accused, it is alleged This case is already pending in this Court for trial.
that on April 15, 1993, they filed a petition for To follow whatever opinion the Secretary of
review seeking the reversal of the resolution of Justice may have on the matter would undermine
City Prosecutor of Quezon City approving the the independence and integrity of this Court. This
filing of the case against the accused, claiming Court is still capable of administering justice.
that:
The Supreme Court in the case of Crespo
1. The resolution constituting [sic] vs. Mogul (SCRA 151, pp. 471-472) stated as
force and duress; follows:

2. There was no fraud or deceit In order therefor to avoid such a

therefore there can be no estafa; situation whereby the opinion of
the Secretary of Justice who
3. No criminal overt acts by reviewed the action of the fiscal
respondents were proved; may be disregarded by the trial
court, the Secretary of Justice
4. Pepsi nor the accused herein should, as far as practicable,
made no admission of guilt before refrain from entertaining a petition
the Department of Trade and for review or appeal from the
Industry; action of the fiscal, when the
complaint or information has
already been filed in Court. The
5. The evidence presented clearly
matter should be left entirely for
showed no malicious intent on the
the determination of the Court.
part of the accused.
WHEREFORE, let warrant of arrest be issued
Trial Prosecutor Tirso M. Gavero in his Motion to
after June 21, 1993, and arraignment be set on
Defer Arraignment averred that there is a pending
June 28, 1993, at 9:30 in the morning.
petition for review with the Department of Justice
filed by the accused and the Office of the City
Prosecutor was directed, among other things, to On 7 June 1993, the petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals a
cause for the deferment of further proceedings special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with application for
pending final disposition of said Petition by the a temporary restraining order,  which was docketed as CA-G.R.
30

Department of Justice. SP No. 31226. They contended therein that respondent Judge
Asuncion had acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with
grave abuse of discretion in issuing the aforementioned order of
The motions filed by the accused and the Trial
17 May 1993 because
Prosecutor are hereby DENIED.

78
 I. RESPONDENT JUDGE FAILED TO EXAMINE that the Joint Resolution "was sufficient in itself to have been
THE RECORD OF PRELIMINARY relied upon by respondent Judge in convincing himself that
INVESTIGATION BEFORE ORDERING THE probable cause indeed exists for the purpose of issuing the
ARREST OF PETITIONERS. corresponding warrants of arrest"; and that the "mere silence of
the records or the absence of any express declaration" in the
II. THERE IS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO HOLD questioned order as to the basis of such finding does not give rise
PETITIONERS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR to an adverse inference, for the respondent Judge enjoys in his
ESTAFA, OTHER DECEITS, OR ANY OTHER favor the presumption of regularity in the performance of his
OFFENSE. official duty. The Court of Appeals then issued a
resolution  denying the application for a writ of preliminary
34

III. THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW SHOULD injunction.

HAVE BEEN SUSPENDED TO AWAIT THE
SECRETARY OF JUSTICE'S RESOLUTION OF On 8 June 1993, the petitioners filed a motion to reconsider  the
35

PETITIONERS' APPEAL, AND aforesaid resolution. The Court of Appeals required the
respondents therein to comment on the said motion. 36

IV. THERE IS NO OTHER PLAIN, SPEEDY AND

ADEQUATE REMEDY IN THE ORDINARY On 3 August 1993, the counsel for the private complainants filed
COURSE OF LAW. in CA-G.R. SP No. 31226 a Manifestation  7informing the court
3

that the petitioners' petition for review filed with the DOJ was
On 15 June 1993, the Court of Appeals issued a temporary dismissed in a resolution dated 23 July 1993. A copy   of the
38

restraining order to maintain the status quo.  In view thereof;

31 resolution was attached to the Manifestation.
respondent Judge Asuncion issued an order on 28 June
1993  postponing indefinitely the arraignment of the petitioners
32 On 21 September 1993, the public respondents filed in CA-G.R.
which was earlier scheduled on that date. SP No. 31226 a motion to dismiss the petition  on the ground that
39

it has become moot and academic in view of the dismissal by the

On 28 June 1993, the Court of Appeals heard the petitioners' DOJ of the petitioners' petition to review the Joint Resolution. The
application for a writ of preliminary injunction, granted the motion dismissal by the DOJ is founded on the following exposition:
for leave to intervene filed by J. Roberto Delgado, and directed
the Branch Clerk of Court of the RTC of Quezon City to elevate You questioned the said order of the RTC before
the original records of Criminal Case No. 4-93-43198. 33 the Court of Appeals and prayed for the issuance
of a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the
Upon receipt of the original records of the criminal case, the Court Trial Judge from issuing any warrant of arrest and
of Appeals found that a copy of the Joint Resolution had in fact from proceeding with the arraignment of the
been forwarded to, and received by, the trial court on 22 April accused. The appellate court in a resolution dated
1993, which fact belied the petitioners' claim that the respondent July 1, 1993, denied your petition.
Judge had not the slightest basis at all for determining probable
cause when he ordered the issuance of warrants of arrest. It ruled

79
 In view of the said developments, it would be an In its resolution of 3 February 1994, the DOJ, through its "349"
exercise in futility to continue reviewing the instant Committee, denied the motion and stated: "The instant petition is
cases for any further action on the part of the different from the other petitions resolved by this Department in
Department would depend on the sound similar cases from
discretion of the Trial Court. The denial by the the provinces. In the latter petitions, the complaints against herein
said court of the motion to defer arraignment filed respondents [sic]  were dismissed inasmuch as the informations
42

at our instance was clearly an exercise of its have not yet been filed or even if already filed in court, the
discretion. With the issuance of the order dated proceedings have been suspended by the courts to await the
May 17, 1993, Trial Court was in effect sending a outcome of the appeal pending with this Department." 43

signal to this Department that "the determination

of the case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and The petitioners likewise filed a motion to reconsider  the
44

competence." The rule is that ". . . once a aforesaid Court of Appeals' decision, which the said court denied
complaint or information is filed in Court, any in its resolution   of 9 February 1994. Hence, the instant petition.
45

disposition of the case as to dismissal or the

conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the The First Division of this Court denied due course to this petition
sound discretion of the Court. Although the fiscal in its resolution of 19 September 1994. 46

retains the direction and control of the prosecution

of criminal cases even while the case is already in
On 7 October 1994, the petitioners filed a motion for the
Court, he cannot impose his opinion on the trial
reconsideration   7 of the aforesaid resolution. Acting thereon, the
4

court. The court is the best and sole judge on

First Division required the respondents to comment thereon.
what to do with the case before it. . . ." (Crespo
vs. Mogul, 151 SCRA 462). 40

Later, the petitioners filed a supplemental motion for

reconsideration  and a motion to refer this case to the Court en
48

On 28 September 1993, the Court of Appeals promulgated a

banc.   In its resolution of 14 November 1994,  the First Division
49 50

decision   dismissing the petition because it had been "mooted

41

granted the latter motion and required the respondents to

with the release by the Department of Justice of its decision . . .
comment on the supplemental motion for reconsideration.
dismissing petitioners' petition for review by inerrantly upholding
the criminal court's exclusive and unsupplantable authority to
control the entire course of the case brought against petitioners, In the resolution of 24 November 1994, the Court en
reiterating with approval the dictum laid down in the 'Crespo' banc accepted the referral.
case."
On 10 October 1995, after deliberating on the motion for
The petitioners filed a motion to reconsider the DOJ's dismissal of reconsideration and the subsequent pleadings in relation thereto,
the petition citing therein its resolutions in other similar cases the Court en banc granted the motion for reconsideration;
which were favorable to the petitioners and adverse to other reconsidered and set aside the resolution of 19 September 1994;
"349" Pepsi crowns holders. and reinstated the petition. It then considered the case submitted
for decision, "since the parties have exhaustively discussed the
issues in their pleadings, the original records of Criminal Case

80
No. Q-93-43198 and of CA-G.R. SP No. 31226 had been arrest, and (b) in ultimately dismissing the petition
elevated to this Court, and both the petitioners and the Office of on the ground of mootness since the DOJ had
the Solicitor General pray, in effect, that this Court resolve the dismissed the petition for review.
issue of probable cause on the basis thereof."
5. Whether this Court may determine in this
The pleadings of the parties suggest for this Court's resolution the proceedings the existence of probable cause
following key issues: either for the issuance of warrants of arrest
against the petitioners or for their prosecution for
1. Whether public respondent Judge Asuncion the crime of estafa.
committed grave abuse of discretion in denying,
on the basis of Crespo vs. Mogul, the motions to We resolve the first four issues in the affirmative and the fifth, in
suspend proceedings and hold in abeyance the the negative.
issuance of warrants of arrest and to defer
arraignment until after the petition for review filed I.
with the DOJ shall have been resolved.
There is nothing in Crespo vs. Mogul  which bars the DOJ from
51

2. Whether public respondent Judge Asuncion taking cognizance of an appeal, by way 'of a petition for review,
committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering by an accused in a criminal case from an unfavorable ruling of the
the issuance of warrants of arrest without investigating prosecutor. It merely advised the DOJ to, "as far as
examining the records of the preliminary practicable, refrain from entertaining a petition for review or
investigation. appeal from the action of the fiscal, when the complaint or
information has already been filed in Court." More specifically, it
3. Whether the DOJ, through its "349" Committee, stated:
gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the
petition for review on the following bases: (a) the In order therefore to avoid such a situation
resolution of public respondent Court of Appeals whereby the opinion of the Secretary of Justice
denying the application for a writ of preliminary who reviewed the action of the fiscal may be
injunction and (b) of public respondent Asuncion's disregarded by the trial court, the Secretary of
denial of the abovementioned motions. Justice should, as far as practicable, refrain from
entertaining a petition for review or appeal from
4. Whether public respondent Court of Appeals the action of the fiscal, when the complaint or
committed grave abuse of discretion (a) in information has already been filed in Court. The
denying the motion for a writ of preliminary matter should, be left entirely for the
injunction solely on the ground that public determination of the Court. 52

respondent Asuncion had already before him the

Joint Resolution of the investigating prosecutor In Marcelo vs. Court of Appeals,  this Court explicitly declared:
53

when he ordered the issuance of the warrants of

81
 Nothing in the said ruling forecloses the power or appealable cases and Section 4 on the non-appealable cases
authority of the Secretary of Justice to review and the exceptions thereto.
resolutions of his subordinates in criminal cases.
The Secretary of Justice is only enjoined to refrain There is nothing in Department Order No. 223 which would
as far as practicable from entertaining a petition warrant a recall of the previous action of the DOJ giving due
for review or appeal from the action of the course to the petitioners' petition for review. But whether the DOJ
prosecutor once a complaint or information is filed would affirm or reverse the challenged Joint Resolution is still a
in court. In any case, the grant of a motion to matter of guesswork. Accordingly, it was premature for
dismiss, which the prosecution may file after the respondent Judge Asuncion to deny the motions to suspend
Secretary of Justice reverses an appealed proceedings and to defer arraignment on the following grounds:
resolution, is subject to the discretion of the court.
This case is already pending in this Court for trial.
Crespo could not have intended otherwise without doing violence To follow whatever opinion the Secretary of
to, or repealing, the last paragraph of Section 4, Rule 112 of the Justice may have on the matter would undermine
Rules of Court  which recognizes the authority of the Secretary of
54
the independence and integrity of this Court. This
Justice to reverse the resolution of the provincial or city Court is still capable of administering justice.
prosecutor or chief state prosecutor upon petition by a proper
party. The real and ultimate test of the independence and integrity of his
court is not the filing of the aforementioned motions at that stage
Pursuant to the said provision, the Secretary of Justice had of the proceedings but the filing of a motion to dismiss or to
promulgated the rules on appeals from resolutions in preliminary withdraw the information on the basis of a resolution of the
investigation. At the time the petitioners filed their petition for the petition for review reversing the Joint Resolution of the
review of the Joint Resolution of the investigating prosecutor, the investigating prosecutor. Before that time, the following
governing rule was Circular No. 7, dated 25 January 1990. pronouncement in Crespo did not yet truly become relevant or
Section 2 thereof provided that only resolutions dismissing a applicable:
criminal complaint may be appealed to the Secretary of Justice.
Its Section 4,  however, provided an exception, thus allowing,
55
The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a
upon a showing of manifest error or grave abuse of discretion, complaint or information is filed in Court any
appeals from resolutions finding probable cause, provided that disposition of the case as its dismissal or the
the accused has not been arraigned. conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the
sound discretion of the court. Although the fiscal
The DOJ gave due course to the petitioners' petition for review as retains the direction and control of the prosecution
an exception pursuant to Section 4 of Circular No. 7. of criminal cases even while the case is already in
court he cannot impose his opinion on the trial
Meanwhile, the DOJ promulgated on 30 June 1993 Department court. The court is the best and sole judge on
Order No. 223  which superseded Circular No. 7. This Order,
56
what to do with the case before it. The
however, retained the provisions of Section 1 of the Circular on determination of the case is within its exclusive
jurisdiction and competence. A motion to dismiss

82
 the case filed by the fiscal should be addressed to rubber stamp in violation of the ruling
the Court who has the option to grant or deny the in Crespo vs. Mogul.
same. It does not matter if this is done before or
after the arraignment of the accused or that the II.
motion was filed after a reinvestigation or upon
instructions of the Secretary of Justice who Section 2, Article III of the present Constitution provides that no
reviewed the records of the investigation. 75
search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
However, once a motion to dismiss or withdraw the examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
information is filed the trial judge may grant or deny it, not witnesses he may produce.
out of subservience to the Secretary of Justice, but in
faithful exercise of judicial prerogative. This Court Under existing laws, warrants of arrest may be issued (1) by the
pertinently stated so in Martinez vs. Court of Appeals: 58
Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs) except those in the National
Capital Region, Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs), and Municipal
Whether to approve or disapprove the stand taken Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs) in cases falling within their exclusive
by the prosecution is not the exercise of discretion original jurisdiction;  in cases covered by the rule on summary
59

required in cases like this. The trial judge must procedure where the accused fails to appear when required;  and 60

himself be convinced that there was indeed no in cases filed with them which are cognizable by the Regional
sufficient evidence against the accused, and this Trial Courts (RTCs);  and (2) by the Metropolitan Trial Courts in
61

conclusion can be arrived at only after an the National Capital Region (MeTCs-NCR) and the RTCs in
assessment of the evidence in the possession of cases filed with them after appropriate preliminary investigations
the prosecution. What was imperatively required conducted by officers authorized to do so other than judges of
was the trial judge's own assessment of such MeTCs, MTCs and MCTCs. 62

evidence, it not being sufficient for the valid and

proper exercise of judicial discretion merely to As to the first, a warrant can issue only if the judge is satisfied
accept the prosecution's word for its supposed after an examination in writing and under oath of the complainant
insufficiency. and the witnesses, in the form of searching questions and
answers, that a probable cause exists and that there is a
As aptly observed the Office of the Solicitor necessity of placing the respondent under immediate custody in
General, in failing to make an independent finding order not to frustrate the ends of justice.
of the merits of the case and merely anchoring the
dismissal on the revised position of the As to the second, this Court held in Soliven vs. Makasiar   that
63

prosecution, the trial judge relinquished the the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant
discretion he was duty bound to exercise. In and the witnesses, but
effect, it was the prosecution, through the
Department of Justice which decided what to do
[f]ollowing established doctrine and procedure, he
and not the court which was reduced to a mere
shall: (1) personally evaluate the report and

83
 supporting documents submitted by the fiscal further explained in People vs. Inting,  where this Court specified
65

regarding the existence of probable cause and, on what the documents may consist of, viz., "the affidavits, the
the basis thereof; issue a warrant of arrest; or (2) transcripts of stenographic notes (if any), and all other supporting
if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, documents behind the Prosecutor's certification which are
he may disregard the fiscal's report and require material in assisting the Judge to make his determination" of
the submission of supporting affidavits of probable cause. Thus:
witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as
to the existence of probable cause. 64
We emphasize the important features of the
constitutional mandate that ". . . no search warrant
Sound policy supports this procedure, "otherwise judges or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
would be unduly laden with the preliminary examination probable cause to be determined personally by
and investigation of criminal complaints instead of the judge . . ." (Article III, Section 2, Constitution).
concentrating on hearing and deciding cases filed before
their courts." It must be emphasized that judges must not First, the determination of probable cause is a
rely solely on the report or resolution of the fiscal (now function of the Judge. It is not for the Provincial
prosecutor); they must evaluate the report and the Fiscal or Prosecutor nor the Election Supervisor
supporting document. In this sense, the aforementioned to ascertain. Only the Judge and the Judge alone
requirement has modified paragraph 4(a) of Circular No. makes this determination.
12 issued by this Court on 30 June 1987 prescribing the
Guidelines on Issuance of Warrants of Arrest under Second, the preliminary inquiry made by a
Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, which Prosecutor does not bind the Judge. It merely
provided in part as follows: assists him to make the determination of probable
cause. The Judge does not have to follow what
4. In satisfying himself of the existence of a the Prosecutor presents to him. By itself, the
probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of Prosecutor's certification of probable cause is
arrest, the judge, following established doctrine ineffectual. It is the report, the affidavits, the
and procedure, may either: transcripts of stenographic notes (if any), and all
other supporting documents behind the
(a) Rely upon the fiscal's Prosecutor's certification which are material in
certification of the existence of assisting the Judge to make his determination.
probable cause whether or not the
case is cognizable only by the In adverting to a statement in People vs. Delgado  that the judge
66

Regional Trial Court and on the may rely on the resolution of the Commission on Elections
basis thereof, issue a warrant of (COMELEC) to file the information by the same token that it may
arrest. . . . rely on the certification made by the prosecutor who conducted
the preliminary investigation in the issuance of the warrant of
This requirement of evaluation not only of the report or arrest, this Court stressed in Lim vs. Felix 7 that
6

certification of the fiscal but also of the supporting documents was

84
 Reliance on the COMELEC resolution or the witnesses themselves to answer the court's
Prosecutor's certification presupposes that the probing questions when the circumstances of the
records of either the COMELEC or the Prosecutor case so require.
have been submitted to the Judge and he relies
on the certification or resolution because the This Court then set aside for being null and void the
records of the investigation sustain the challenged order of respondent Judge Felix directing the
recommendation. The warrant issues not on the issuance of the warrants of arrest against petitioners
strength of the certification standing alone but Lim, et al., solely on the basis of the prosecutor's
because of the records which sustain it. certification in the informations that there existed probable
cause "without having before him any other basis for his
And noting that judges still suffer from the inertia of personal determination of the existence of a probable
decisions and practice under the 1935 and 1973 cause."
Constitutions, this Court found it necessary to restate the
rule "in greater detail and hopefully clearer terms." It then In Allado vs. Diokno,  this Court also ruled that "before
68

proceeded to do so, thus: issuing a warrant of arrest, the judge must satisfy himself
that based on the evidence submitted there is sufficient
We reiterate the ruling in Soliven vs. Makasiar that proof that a crime has been committed and that the
the Judge does not have to personally examine person to be arrested is probably guilty thereof."
the complainant and his witnesses. The
Prosecutor can perform the same functions as a In the recent case of Webb vs. De Leon,  this Court rejected the
69

commissioner for the taking of the evidence. thesis of the petitioners of absence of probable cause and
However, there should be a report and necessary sustained the investigating panel's and the respondent Judge's
documents supporting the Fiscal's bare findings of probable cause. After quoting extensively from Soliven
certification. All of these should be before the vs. Makasiar,  this Court explicitly pointed out:
70

Judge.
Clearly then, the Constitution, the Rules of Court,
The extent of the Judge's personal examination of and our case law repudiate the submission of
the report and its annexes depends on the petitioners that respondent judges should have
circumstances of each case. We cannot conducted "searching examination of witnesses"
determine beforehand how cursory or exhaustive before issuing warrants of arrest against them.
the Judge's examination should be. The Judge They also reject petitioners' contention that a
has to exercise sound discretion for, after all, the judge must first issue an order of arrest before
personal determination is vested in the Judge by issuing a warrant of arrest. There is no law or rule
the Constitution. It can be as brief as or detailed requiring the issuance of an Order of Arrest prior
as the circumstances of each case require. To be to a warrant of arrest.
sure, the Judge must go beyond the Prosecutor's
certification and investigation report whenever
necessary. He should call for the complainant and

85
 In the case at bar, the DOJ Panel submitted to the Unfortunately, in Criminal Case No. Q-93-43198, nothing
trial court its 26-page report, the two (2) sworn accompanied the information upon its filing on 12 April 1993 with
statements of Alfaro and the sworn statements of the trial court. As found by the Court of Appeals in its resolution of
Carlos Cristobal and Lolita Birrer as well as the 1 July 1993, a copy of the Joint Resolution was forwarded to, and
counter-affidavits of the petitioners. Apparently, received by, the trial court only on 22 April 1993. And as revealed
the painstaking recital and analysis of the parties' by the certification  of Branch Clerk of Court Gibson Araula, Jr.,
71

evidence made in the DOJ Panel Report satisfied no affidavits of the witnesses, transcripts of stenographic notes of
both judges that there is probable cause to issue the proceedings during the preliminary investigation, or other
warrants of arrest against petitioners. Again, we documents submitted in the course thereof were found in the
stress that before issuing warrants of arrest, records of Criminal Case No. Q-93-43198 as of 19 May 1993.
judges merely determine personally the Clearly, when respondent Judge Asuncion issued the assailed
probability, not the certainty of the guilt of an order of 17 May 1993 directing, among other things, the issuance
accused. In doing so, judges do not conduct a de of warrants of arrest, he had only the information, amended
novo hearing to determine the existence of information, and Joint Resolution as bases thereof. He did not
probable cause. They just personally review the have the records or evidence supporting the prosecutor's finding
initial determination of the prosecutor finding a of probable cause. And strangely enough, he made no specific
probable cause to see if it is supported by finding of probable cause; he merely directed the issuance of
substantial evidence. The sufficiency of the review warrants of arrest "after June 21, 1993." It may, however, be
process cannot be measured by merely counting argued that the directive presupposes a finding of probable
minutes and hours. The fact that it took the cause. But then compliance with a constitutional requirement for
respondent judges a few hours to review and the protection of individual liberty cannot be left to presupposition,
affirm the probable cause determination of the conjecture, or even convincing logic.
DOJ Panel does not mean they made no personal
evaluation of the evidence attached to the records III.
of the case. (emphasis supplied)
As earlier stated, per its 1st Indorsement of 21 April 1993, the
The teachings then of Soliven, Inting, Lim, Allado, DOJ gave due course to the petitioners' petition for review
and Webb reject the proposition that the investigating pursuant to the exception provided for in Section 4 of Circular No.
prosecutor's certification in an information or his resolution which 7, and directed the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City to
is made the basis for the filing of the information, or both, would forward to the Department the records of the cases and to file in
suffice in the judicial determination of probable cause for the court a motion for the deferment of the proceedings. At the time it
issuance of a warrant of arrest. In Webb, this Court assumed that issued the indorsement, the DOJ already knew that the
since the respondent Judges had before them not only the 26- information had been filed in court, for which reason it directed
page resolution of the investigating panel but also the affidavits of the City Prosecutor to inform the Department whether the
the prosecution witnesses and even the counter-affidavits of the accused have already been arraigned and if not yet arraigned, to
respondents, they (judges) made personal evaluation of the move to defer further proceedings. It must have been fully aware
evidence attached to the records of the case. that, pursuant to Crespo vs. Mogul, a motion to dismiss a case
filed by the prosecution either as a consequence of a

86
reinvestigation or upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice might have been correct. However, the petition likewise involved
after a review of the records of the investigation is addressed to the issue of whether respondent Judge Asuncion gravely abused
the trial court, which has the option to grant or to deny it. Also, it his discretion in ordering the issuance of warrants of arrest
must have been still fresh in its mind that a few months back it despite want of basis. The DOJ's dismissal of the petition for
had dismissed for lack of probable cause other similar complaints review did not render moot and academic the latter issue.
of holders of "349" Pepsi crowns.  Thus, its decision to give due
72

course to the petition must have been prompted by nothing less In denying in its resolution of 1 July 1993 the petitioners'
than an honest conviction that a review of the Joint Resolution application for a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain
was necessary in the highest interest of justice in the light of the respondent Judge Asuncion from issuing warrants of arrest, the
special circumstances of the case. That decision was permissible Court of Appeals justified its action in this wise:
within the "as far as practicable" criterion in Crespo.
The Joint Resolution was sufficient in itself to
Hence, the DOJ committed grave abuse of discretion when it have been relied upon by respondent judge in
executed on 23 July 1993 a unilateral volte-face, which was even convincing himself that probable cause indeed
unprovoked by a formal pleading to accomplish the same end, by exists for the purpose of issuing the
dismissing the petition for review. It dismissed the petition simply corresponding warrants of arrest. The mere
because it thought that a review of the Joint Resolution would be silence of the records or the absence of any
an exercise in futility in that any further action on the part of the express declaration in the questioned Order of
Department would depend on the sound discretion of the trial May 17, 1993 as to where the respondent Judge
court, and that the latter's denial of the motion to defer based his finding of probable cause does not give
arraignment filed at the instance of the DOJ was clearly an rise to any adverse inference on his part. The fact
exercise of that discretion or was, in effect, a signal to the remains that the Joint Resolution was at
Department that the determination of the case is within the court's respondent Judge's disposal at the time he issued
exclusive jurisdiction and competence. This infirmity becomes the Order for the issuance of the warrants of
more pronounced because the reason adduced by the arrest. After all, respondent Judge enjoys in his
respondent Judge for his denial of the motions to suspend favor the presumption of regularity in the
proceedings and hold in abeyance issuance of warrants of arrest performance of official actuations. And this
and to defer arraignment finds, as yet, no support in Crespo. presumption prevails until it is overcome by clear
and convincing evidence to the contrary. Every
IV. reasonable intendment will be made in support of
the presumption, and in case of doubt as to an
If the only issue before the Court of Appeals were the denial of officer's act being lawful or unlawful it should be
the petitioners' Motion to Suspend Proceedings and to Hold in construed to be lawful. (31 C.J.S., 808-810. See
Abeyance Issuance of Warrants of Arrest and the public also Mahilum, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, 17
prosecutor's Motion to Defer Arraignment, which were both based SCRA 482; People vs. Cortez, 21 SCRA 1228;
on the pendency before the DOJ of the petition for the review of Government of the P.I. vs. Galarosa, 36 Phil.
the Joint Resolution, the dismissal of CA-G.R. SP No. 31226 on 338).
the basis of the dismissal by the DOJ of the petition for review

87
We are unable to agree with this disquisition, for it merely In criminal prosecutions, the determination of probable cause
assumes at least two things: (1) that respondent Judge Asuncion may either be an executive or a judicial prerogative. In People
had read and relied on the Joint Resolution and (2) he was vs. Inting,  this Court aptly stated:
73

convinced that probable cause exists for the issuance of the

warrants of arrest against the petitioners. Nothing in the records And third, Judges and Prosecutors alike should
provides reasonable basis for these assumptions. In his assailed distinguish the preliminary inquiry which
order, the respondent Judge made no mention of the Joint determines probable cause for the issuance of a
Resolution, which was attached to the records of Criminal Case warrant of arrest from a preliminary investigation
No. Q-93-43198 on 22 April 1993. Neither did he state that he proper which ascertains whether the offender
found probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest. And, should be held for trial or released. Even if the two
for an undivinable reason, he directed the issuance of warrants of inquiries are conducted in the course of one and
arrest only "after June 21, 1993." If he did read the Joint the same proceeding, there should be no
Resolution and, in so reading, found probable cause, there was confusion about the objectives. The determination
absolutely no reason at all to delay for more than one month the of probable cause for the warrant of arrest is
issuance of warrants of arrest. The most probable explanation for made by the Judge. The preliminary investigation
such delay could be that the respondent Judge had actually proper — whether or not there is reasonable
wanted to wait for a little while for the DOJ to resolve the petition ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the
for review. offense charged and, therefore, whether or not he
should be subjected to the expense, rigors and
It is, nevertheless, contended in the dissenting opinion of Mr. embarrassment of
Justice Reynato S. Puno that whatever doubts may have lingered trial — is the function of the Prosecutor.
on the issue of probable cause was dissolved when no less than
the Court of Appeals sustained the finding of probable cause ....
made by the respondent Judge after an evaluation of the Joint
Resolution. We are not persuaded with that opinion. It is We reiterate that preliminary investigation should
anchored on erroneous premises. In its 1 July 1993 resolution, be distinguished as to whether it is an
the Court of Appeals does not at all state that it either sustained investigation for the determination of a sufficient
respondent Judge Asuncion's finding of probable cause, or found ground for the filing of the information or it is an
by itself probable cause. As discussed above, it merely presumed investigation for the determination of a probable
that Judge Asuncion might have read the Joint Resolution and cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. The
found probable cause from a reading thereof. Then too, that first kind of preliminary investigation is executive
statement in the dissenting opinion erroneously assumes that the in nature. It is part of the prosecution's job. The
Joint Resolution can validly serve as sufficient basis for second kind of preliminary investigation which is
determining probable cause. As stated above, it is not. more properly called preliminary examination is
judicial in nature and is lodged with the judge. . . .
V.
Ordinarily, the determination of probable cause is not lodged with
this Court. Its duty in an appropriate case is confined to the issue

88
of whether the executive or judicial determination, as the case arrest in Criminal Case No. Q-93-43298. For, as earlier stated,
may be, of probable cause was done without or in excess of the respondent Judge did not, in fact, find that probable cause
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to want of exists, and if he did he did not have the basis therefor as
jurisdiction. This is consistent with the general rule that criminal mandated by Soliven, Inting, Lim, Allado, and even Webb.
prosecutions may not be restrained or stayed by injunction, Moreover, the records of the preliminary investigation in Criminal
preliminary or final. There are, however, exceptions to this rule. Case No. Q-93-43198 are not with this Court. They were
Among the exceptions are enumerated in Brocka vs. Enrile  as 74
forwarded by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City to
follows: the DOJ in compliance with the latter's 1st Indorsement of 21
April 1993. The trial court and the DOJ must be required to
In these exceptional cases, this Court may ultimately perform their duty.
resolve the existence or non-existence of probable cause
by examining the records of the preliminary investigation, WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED and the following
as it did in Salonga vs. Paño,  Allado, and Webb.
75
are hereby SET ASIDE:

There can be no doubt that, in light of the several thousand (a) Decision of 28 September 1993 and
private complainants in Criminal Case No. Q-93-43198 and Resolution of 9 February 1994 of respondent
several thousands more in different parts of the country who are Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 31226;
similarly situated as the former for being holders of "349" Pepsi
crowns, any affirmative holding of probable cause in the said (b) The Resolutions of the "349" Committee of the
case may cause or provoke, as justly feared by the petitioners, Department of Justice of 23 July 1993 dismissing
the filing of several thousand cases in various courts throughout the petitioners' petition for review and of 3
the country. Inevitably, the petitioners would be exposed to the February 1994 denying the motion to reconsider
harassments of warrants of arrest issued by such courts and to the dismissal; and
huge expenditures for premiums on bailbonds and for travels
from one court to another throughout the length and breadth of (c) The Order of respondent Judge Maximiano C.
the archipelago for their arraignments and trials in such cases. Asuncion of 17 May 1993 in Criminal Case No. Q-
Worse, the filing of these staggering number of cases would 93-43198.
necessarily affect the trial calendar of our overburdened judges
and take much of their attention, time, and energy, which they
The Department of Justice is DIRECTED to resolve on the merits,
could devote to other equally, if not more, important cases. Such
within sixty (60) days from notice of this decision, the petitioners'
a frightful scenario would seriously affect the orderly
petition for the review of the Joint Resolution of Investigating
administration of justice, or cause oppression or multiplicity of
Prosecutor Ramon Gerona and thereafter to file the appropriate
actions — a situation already long conceded by this Court to be
motion or pleading in Criminal Case No. Q-93-43198, which
an exception to the general rule that criminal prosecutions may
respondent Judge Asuncion shall then resolve in light of Crespo
not be restrained or stayed by injunction. 76

vs. Mogul, Soliven vs. Makasiar, People vs. Inting, Lim

vs. Felix,Allado vs. Diokno, and Webb vs. De Leon.
We shall not, however, reevaluate the evidence to determine if
indeed there is probable cause for the issuance of warrants of

89
In the meantime, respondent Judge Asuncion is DIRECTED to G.R. No. 71782 April 14, 1988
cease and desist from further proceeding with Criminal Case No.
Q-93-43198 and to defer the issuances of warrants of arrest HADJI IBRAHIM SOLAY PANGANDAMAN, MAGAMBAAN
against the petitioners. PANGANDAMAN, MACARIAN PANGANDAMAN, MAMINTAL
PANGANDAMAN, PACALUNDO PANGANDAMAN,
No pronouncement as to costs. MANGORAMAS PANGANDAMAN, MACADAOB P.
PANGORANGAN KILATUN PANGANDAMAN, MARIO
PANGANDAMAN, MACABIDAR PANGANDAMAN, PUYAT P.
ROMAMPAT, SANTORANI P. DIMAPENGEN, NASSER P.
DIMAPENGEN and DIAMA OPAO petitioners, 
vs.
DIMAPORO T. CASAR, AS MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL
JUDGE OF POONABAYABAO, TAMPARAN AND MASIU,
LANAO DEL SUR and THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.

NARVASA, J.:

The petitioners ask this Court:

1) to annul the warrant for their arrest issued by respondent

Judge Dimaporo T. Casar of the Municipal Circuit Court of Masiu,
Lanao del Sur, in Criminal Case No. 1748 entitled People vs.
Hadji Ibrahim Solay Pangandaman et al.;

2) to prohibit the Judge from taking further cognizance of said

Criminal Case No. 1748; and

3) to compel the Judge to forward the entire record of Criminal

Case No. 1748 to the Provincial Fiscal of Lanao del Sur for
proper disposition.  1

Their plea is essentially grounded on the claim that the warrant

for their arrest was issued by the respondent Judge without a
proper preliminary investigation.   The Solicitor General agrees
2

90
and recommends that their petition be granted and the warrant of An "ex-parte" motion for reconsideration was filed on August 14,
arrest voided.  3
1985 by Atty. Batuampar (joined by Atty. Pama L. Muti), seeking
recall of the warrant of arrest and subsequent holding of a
On July 27, 1985, a shooting incident occurred in Pantao, Masiu, "thorough investigation" on the ground that the Judge's initial
Lanao del Sur, which left at least five persons dead and two investigation had been "hasty and manifestly haphazard" with "no
others wounded. What in fact transpired is still unclear. According searching questions" having been propounded.   The respondent
11

to one version, armed men had attacked a residence in Pantao, Judge denied the motion for "lack of basis;"  hence the present
12

Masiu, with both attackers and defenders suffering petition.

casualties.   Another version has it that a group that was on its
4

way to another place, Lalabuan, also in Masiu, had been While they concede the authority of the respondent Judge to
ambushed. 5
conduct a preliminary investigation of the offenses involved,
which are cognizable by Regional Trial Courts, the petitioners and
On the following day, Atty. Mangurun Batuampar, claiming to the Solicitor General argue that the Judge in the case at bar failed
represent the widow of one of the victims, filed a letter-complaint to conduct the investigation in accordance with the procedure
with the Provincial Fiscal at Marawi City, asking for a "full blast prescribed in Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court ;   and
13

preliminary investigation" of the incident.  The letter adverted to

6 that that failure constituted a denial to petitioners of due process
the possibility of innocent persons being implicated by the parties which nullified the proceedings leading to the issuance of the
involved on both sides — none of whom was, however, identified warrant for the petitioners' arrest.   It is further contended that
14

— and promised that supporting affidavits would shortly be filed. August 10, 1985 was a Saturday during which "Municipal Trial
Immediately the Provincial Fiscal addressed a "1st indorsement" Courts are open from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. only, ..." and "... it
to the respondent Judge, transmitting Atty. Batuampar's letter and would hardly have been possible for respondent Judge to
requesting that "all cases that may be filed relative .. (to the determine the existence of probable cause against sixty- four (64)
incident) that happened in the afternoon of July 27, 1985," be persons whose participations were of varying nature and degree
forwarded to his office, which "has first taken cognizance of said in a matter of hours and issue the warrant of arrest in the same
cases."  7 day;"   and that there was undue haste and an omission to ask
15

searching questions by the Judge who relied "mainly on the

No case relative to the incident was, however, presented to the supporting affidavits which were obviously prepared already when
respondent Judge until Saturday, August 10, 1985, when a presented to him by an enlisted PC personnel as investigator."  16

criminal complaint for multiple murder was filed before him by

P.C. Sgt. Jose L. Laruan, which was docketed as Case No. The petitioners further assert that the respondent Judge
1748.   On that same day, the respondent Judge "examined
8 conducted the preliminary investigation of the charges "... in total
personally all (three) witnesses (brought by the sergeant) under disregard of the Provincial Fiscal ..." who, as said respondent well
oath thru .. (his) closed and direct supervision," reducing to knew, had already taken cognizance of the matter twelve (12)
writing the questions to the witnesses and the latter's days earlier and was poised to conduct his own investigation of
answers.   Thereafter the Judge "approved the complaint and
9 the same;   and that issuance of a warrant of arrest against fifty
17

issued the corresponding warrant of arrest" against the fourteen (50) "John Does" transgressed the Constitutional provision
(14) petitioners (who were named by the witnesses) and fifty (50) requiring that such warrants should particularly describe the
"John Does."  10 persons or things to be seized.18

91
There can be no debate about the proposition that in conducting and that he does not intend to undertake the second phase. In
a pre investigation of any crime cognizable by the Regional Trial this situation, it cannot be said that he has failed to observe the
Courts, a judge of an inferior court (other than in Metro-Manila or prescribed procedure. What has happened is simply that after
the chartered cities, where no authority to conduct preliminary receiving the complaint and examining the complainant's
investigation is vested in such officials) must observe the witnesses, and having come to believe, on the basis thereof, that
procedure prescribed in Section 3 of Rule 112, 1985 Rules on the offenses charged had been committed, the respondent Judge
Criminal Procedure. And although not specifically so declared, issued the warrant now complained of against the fourteen (14)
the procedure mandated by the Rule actually consists of two respondents (now petitioners) named and Identified by the
phases or stages. witnesses as the perpetrators of the killings and injuries, as well
as against 50 "John Does."
The first phase consists of an ex-parte inquiry into the sufficiency
of the complaint and the affidavits and other documents offered in The real question, therefore, is whether or not the respondent
support thereof. And it ends with the determination by the Judge Judge had the power to issue the warrant of arrest without
either: (1) that there is no ground to continue with the inquiry, in completing the entire prescribed procedure for preliminary
which case he dismisses the complaint and transmits the order of investigation. Stated otherwise, is completion of the procedure
dismissal, together with the records of the case, to the provincial laid down in Section 3 of Rule 112 a condition sine qua non for
fiscal; or (2) that the complaint and the supporting documents the issuance of a warrant of arrest?
show sufficient cause to continue with the inquiry and this ushers
in the second phase. There is no requirement that the entire procedure for preliminary
investigation must be completed before a warrant of arrest may
This second phase is designed to give the respondent notice of be issued. What the Rule   provides is that no complaint or
20

the complaint, access to the complainant's evidence and an information for an offense cognizable by the Regional Trial Court
opportunity to submit counter-affidavits and supporting may be filed without completing that procedure. But nowhere is it
documents. At this stage also, the Judge may conduct a hearing provided that the procedure must be completed before a warrant
and propound to the parties and their witnesses questions on of arrest may issue. Indeed, it is the contrary that is true. The
matters that, in his view, need to be clarified. The second phase present Section 6 of the same Rule 112 clearly authorizes the
concludes with the Judge rendering his resolution, either for municipal trial court to order the respondent's arrest even before
dismissal of the complaint or holding the respondent for trial, opening the second phase of the investigation if said court is
which shall be transmitted, together with the record, to the satisfied that a probable cause exists and there is a necessity to
provincial fiscal for appropriate action. place the respondent under immediate custody in order not to
frustrate the ends of justice.
The procedure above described must be followed before the
complaint or information is filed in the Regional Trial Court. Sec. 6. When warrant of arrest may issue.-
Failure to do so will result in a denial of due process. 
19

xxx xxx xxx

Here, no information has as yet been filed with the Regional Trial
Court. There is no pretense that the preliminary investigation has
been completed, insofar as the respondent Judge is concerned,

92
 (b) By the Municipal Trial Court. If the municipal so, the issuance of a warrant of arrest. And it
trial judge conducting the preliminary investigation should not be forgotten that a preliminary
is satisfied after an examination in writing and investigation has two stages: First, a preliminary
under oath of the complainant and his witnesses examination of the complainant and his witnesses
in the form of searching question and answers, prior to the arrest of the accused; and, second,
that a probable cause exists and that there is a the reading to the accused after his arrest of the
necessity of placing the respondent under complaint or information filed against him, and his
immediate custody in order not to frustrate the being informed of the substance of the evidence
ends of justice, he shag issue a warrant of against him, after which he is allowed to present
arrest. 
21
evidence in his favor, if he so desires. Probable
cause, in regard to the first stage of preliminary
This was equally true under the former rules, where the first investigation, depends on the discretion of the
phase of the investigation was expressly denominated judge or magistrate empowered to issue the
"preliminary examination" to distinguish it from the second phase, warrant of arrest. It suffices that facts are
or preliminary investigation proper. Thus, the former Section 6 of presented to him to convince him, not that a
Rule 112 provided: person has committed the crime, but that there is
probable cause to believe that such person
SEC. 6. Warrant of arrest, when issued. — If the committed the crime charged. The proceeding is
judge be satisfied from the preliminary e petition generally ex parte unless the defendant desires to
conducted by him or by the investigating officer be present and while under the old Rules the
that the offense complained of has been Justice of the Peace or investigating officer must
committed and that there is reasonable ground to take the testimony of the complainant and the
believe that the accused has committed it, he latter's witnesses under oath, only the testimony
must issue a warrant or order for his arrest. of the complainant shall be in writing and only an
abstract of the testimony of the other is required.
Regarding preliminary investigation, it has thus
In Mayuga vs. Maravilla,   this Court found occasion to dwell in
22

been ruled that 'the occasion is not for the full and
some detail on the process of preliminary investigation and,
exhaustive display of the parties' evidence; it is for
incidentally, to affirm the power of a justice of the peace or
the presentation of such evidence only as may
municipal judge conducting a preliminary investigation to order
engender well-grounded belief that an offense has
the arrest of the accused after the first stage (preliminary
been committed and that the accused is probably
examination), saying:
guilty thereof. ... 
23

Appellant should bear in mind that

The rule on arrest after preliminary examination has, of course,
a preliminary investigation such as was conducted
been modified somewhat since the occurrence of the facts upon
by the Justice of the Peace has for its purpose
which Mayuga was decided, but not to abrogate the authority of
only the determination of whether a crime has
the investigating judge to order such arrest, and only to prescribe
been committed and whether there is probable
the requirement that before he may do so, he must examine the
cause to believe the accused guilty thereof, and if

93
witnesses to the complaint, the examination to be under oath and 1:00 p.m., in addition to not making any persuasive showing that
reduced to writing in the form of searching questions and such proceedings could not have been completed within that
answers. This modification was introduced by Republic Act 3838, time-frame. For all that appears, said respondent could have put
approved June 22, 1963, amending Section 87 of the Judiciary off the 1:00 p.m. adjournment until he had finished interrogating
Act of 1948, and the "searching questions and answers" the witnesses to his satisfaction. And there is really nothing
requirement is incorporated in the present Section 6 of Rule 112 unusual in completing within a three-hour period the questioning
already quoted. of three witnesses in a preliminary examination to determine the
existence of probable cause.
The argument, therefore, must be rejected that the respondent
Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the warrant The record which, lacking proof to the contrary, must be accepted
of arrest against petitioners without first completing the as an accurate chronicle of the questioned proceedings,
preliminary investigation in accordance with the prescribed shows prima facie that the respondent Judge had personally
procedure. The rule is and has always been that such issuance examined the witnesses to the complaint, and a consideration of
need only await a finding of probable cause, not the completion of the latter's sworn answers to his questions satisfies this Court
the entire procedure of preliminary investigation . that the finding of probable cause against the petitioners was
neither arbitrary nor unfounded.
Also without appreciable merit is petitioners' other argument that
there was scarcely time to determine probable cause against The three witnesses to the complaint, Misandoning Monasprang,
sixty-four persons (the fourteen petitioners and fifty "Does") within a student, Lawandato Ripors, an engineering graduate, and
a matter of hours on a Saturday when municipal trial courts are Sanny Monib a farmer gave mutually corroborative accounts of
open only from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. That argument founders the incident. Under separate questioning, they declared that they
upon the respondent Judge's positive affirmations that he had were members of a party that was passing by Pantao on its way
personally and closely examined under oath the three witnesses to Lalabuan from Talaguian, all in Masiu, Lanao del Sur, at about
to the complaint   and that he had issued the warrant of arrest
24
10:00 a.m. on July 27, 1985, when they were ambushed and fired
"believing that the offense thus filed had been upon by an armed group which included the petitioners and about
committed."   Nothing in the record before this Court belies or
25
fifty other unidentified persons; that five of the party had been
discredits those affirmations which have, besides, the benefit of killed and two (the witnesses Lawandato Ripors and Sanny
the legal presumption that official duty has been regularly Monib) wounded; that even after they had killed their victims, the
performed.   The contention that the witnesses to the complaint
26
ambushers had continued to fire at the dead bodies; that the
had merely sworn before the respondent Judge to statements witnesses managed to escape their attackers and return to
prepared beforehand and submitted by a military Talaguian, where they informed their relatives about what had
investigator   must, in view of the foregoing considerations and
27
happened, and thence went to the municipal hall in Masiu to
for lack of any support in the record, be dismissed as mere report to the authorities; that the dead victims were recovered
speculation. only late in the afternoon of that day because the authorities
could not "penetrate" the area and the ambushers refused to
The same argument also unwarrantedly assumes that the release the bodies; and that the ambush was an offshoot of a
respondent Judge limited the proceedings on preliminary grudge between the families of the ambushers and those of the
examination to the usual Saturday office hours of 8:00 a.m. to victims. 
28

94
The witnesses named and Identified the dead victims as Cadar its judgment for his in the matter of what questions to put to the
Monasprang, Macacrao Guiling Macrang Hadji Alawi, Alicman witnesses during the preliminary examination.
Ripors and Malabato Diator. All of them also Identified by name
each of the fourteen petitioners as members of the ambush Upon the facts and the law, therefore, the warrant of arrest in
group. The respondent Judge can hardly be faulted for finding question validly issued against the petitioners, such issuance
enough cause to hold the petitioners named in the statements of having been ordered after proceedings, to which no irregularity
three eyewitnesses to killings perpetrated in broad daylight. has been shown to attach, in which the respondent Judge found
sufficient cause to commit the petitioners to answer for the crime
In Luna vs. Plaza,   this Court ruled that the term "searching
29
complained of.
questions and answers" means —
Insofar, however, as said warrant is issued against fifty (50) "John
...only, taking into consideration the purpose of Does" not one of whom the witnesses to the complaint could or
the preliminary examination which is to determine would Identify, it is of the nature of a general warrant, one of a
"whether there is a reasonable ground to believe class of writs long proscribed as unconstitutional and once
that an offense has been committed and the anathematized as "totally subversive of the liberty of the
accused is probably guilty thereof so that a subject."   Clearly violative of the constitutional injunction that
30

warrant of arrest may be issued and the accused warrants of arrest should particularly describe the person or
held for trial," such questions as have tendency to persons to be seized,  the warrant must, as regards its
31

show the commission of a crime and the unidentified subjects, be voided.

perpetuator thereof. What would be searching
questions would depend on what is sought to be The fact that the Provincial Fiscal may have announced his
inquired into, such as: the nature of the offense, intention of investigating the incident himself did not, in the view
the date, time, and place of its commission, the of the Court, legally inhibit the respondent Judge from conducting
possible motives for its commission; the subject, his own inquiry into the matter if, as is made to appear here, it
his age, education, status, financial and social was regularly brought before him and no formal complaint was
circumstances, his attitude toward the filed before the Fiscal. Courtesy may have dictated that in those
investigation, social attitudes, opportunities to circumstances he leave the investigation to the Fiscal and simply
commit the offense; the victim, his age, status, endorse to the latter the complaint filed with him; duty did not, and
family responsibilities, financial and social if he nonetheless chose to conduct his own investigation, nothing
circumstances, characteristics, etc. The points in the rules states or implies that he could not do so.
that are the subject of inquiry may differ from case
to case. The questions, therefore must to a great Be that as it may, since the action and final resolution of the
degree depend upon the Judge making the respondent Judge after completing the second stage of the
investigation. ... preliminary investigation are subject to review by the Provincial
Fiscal, practical considerations of expediency and the avoidance
Upon this authority, and considering what has already been of duplication of work dictate that the latter official be permitted to
stated above, this Court is not prepared to question the propriety take over the investigation even in its present stage.
of the respondent Judge's finding of probable cause or substitute

95
WHEREFORE, the warrant complained of is upheld and declared G.R. No. 133917       February 19, 2001
valid insofar as it orders the arrest of the petitioners. Said warrant
is voided to the extent that it is issued against fifty (50) "John PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, 
Does." The respondent Judge is directed to forward to the vs.
Provincial Fiscal of Lanao del Sur the record of the preliminary NASARIO MOLINA y MANAMA @ "BOBONG" and
investigation of the complaint in Criminal Case No. 1728 of his GREGORIO MULA y MALAGURA @ "BOBOY", accused-
court for further appropriate action. Without pronouncement as to appellants.
costs.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
SO ORDERED.
To sanction disrespect and disregard for the Constitution in the
name of protecting the society from lawbreakers is to make the
government itself lawless and to subvert those values upon which
our ultimate freedom and liberty depend.1

For automatic review is the Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court

of Davao City, Branch 17, in Criminal Case No. 37,264-96, finding
accused-appellants Nasario Molina y Manamat alias "Bobong"
and Gregorio Mula y Malagura alias "Boboy," guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violation of Section 8,3 of the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972 (Republic Act No. 6425), as amended by
Republic Act No. 7659,4 and sentencing them to suffer the
supreme penalty of death.

The information against accused-appellants reads:

That on or about August 8, 1996, in the City of Davao,

Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, in conspiracy with each
other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously was found in their possession 946.9 grants of
dried marijuana which are prohibited.

CONTRARY TO LAW.5

Upon arraignment on September 4, 1996, accused-appellants

pleaded not guilty to the accusation against them.6Trial ensued,

96
wherein the prosecution presented Police Superintendent Eriel The police officers then ordered the "trisikad" to stop. At that
Mallorca, SPO1 Leonardo Y. Pamplona, Jr., and SPO1 Marino S. point, accused-appellant Mula who was holding a black bag
Paguidopon, Jr. as witnesses. handed the same to accused-appellant Molina. Subsequently,
SPO1 Pamplona introduced himself as a police officer and asked
The antecedent facts are as follows: accused-appellant Molina to open the bag.13 Molina
replied, "Boss, if possible we will settle this."14 SPO1 Pamplona
Sometime in June 1996, SPO1 Marino Paguidopon, then a insisted on opening the bag, which revealed dried marijuana
member of the Philippine National Police detailed at Precinct No. leaves inside. Thereafter; accused-appellants Mula and Molina
3, Matina, Davao City, received an information regarding the were handcuffed by the police officers.15
presence of an alleged marijuana pusher in Davao City.7 The first
time he came to see the said marijuana pusher in person was On December 6, 1996, accused-appellants, through counsel,
during the first week of July 1996. SPO1 Paguidopon was then jointly filed a Demurrer to Evidence, contending that the
with his informer when a motorcycle passed by. His informer marijuana allegedly seized from them is inadmissible as evidence
pointed to the motorcycle driver, accused-appellant Mula, as the for having been obtained in violation of their constitutional right
pusher. As to accused-appellant Molina, SPO1 Paguidopon had against unreasonable searches and seizures.16 The demurrer was
no occasion to see him before the arrest. Moreover, the names denied by the trial court.17 A motion for reconsideration was filed
and addresses of the accused- appellants came to the knowledge by accused-appellants, but this was likewise denied. Accused-
of SPO1 Paguidopon only after they were arrested.8 appellants waived presentation of evidence and opted to file a
joint memorandum.
At about 7:30 in the morning of August 8, 1996, SPO1
Paguidopon received an information that the alleged pusher will On April 25, 1997, the trial court rendered the assailed
be passing at NHA, Ma- a, Davao City any time that decision,18 the decretal portion of which reads:
morning.9 Consequently, at around 8:00 A.M. of the same day, he
called for assistance at the PNP, Precinct No. 3, Matina, Davao WHEREFORE, finding the evidence of the prosecution
City, which immediately dispatched the team of SPO4 Dionisio alone without any evidence from both accused who
Cloribel (team leader), SPO2 Paguidopon (brother of SPO1 waived presentation of their own evidence through their
Marino Paguidopon), and SPO1 Pamplona, to proceed to the counsels, more than sufficient to prove the guilt of both
house of SPO1 Marino Paguidopon where they would wait for the accused of the offense charged beyond reasonable
alleged pusher to pass by.10 doubt, pursuant to Sec. 20, sub. par. 5 of Republic Act
7659, accused NASARIO MOLINA and GREGORIO
At around 9:30 in the morning of August 8, 1996, while the team MULA, are sentenced to suffer a SUPREME PENALTY
were positioned in the house of SPO1 Paguidopon, a "trisikad" OF DEATH through lethal injection under Republic Act
carrying the accused-appellants passed by. At that instance, 8176, to be effected and implemented as therein provided
SPO1 Paguidopon pointed to the accused-appellants as the for by law, in relation to Sec. 24 of Rep. Act 7659.
pushers. Thereupon, the team boarded their, vehicle and
overtook the "trisikad."11 SPO1 Paguidopon was left in his house, The Branch Clerk of Court of this court, is ordered to
thirty meters from where the accused-appellants were accosted.12 immediately elevate the entire records of this case with
the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court, Manila, for the

97
 automatic review of their case by the Supreme Court and The fundamental law of the land mandates that searches and
its appropriate action as the case may be. seizures be carried out in a reasonable fashion, that is, by virtue
or on the strength of a search warrant predicated upon the
SO ORDERED.19 existence of a probable cause. The pertinent provision of the
Constitution provides:
Pursuant to Article 47 of the Revised penal Code and Rule 122,
Section 10 of the Rules of Court, the case was elevated to this SEC. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their
Court on automatic review. Accused-appellants contend: persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature
I. and for any 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
THAT THE MARIJUANA IS IN ADMISSIBLE IN
after examination under oath or affirmation of the
EVIDENCE FOR HAVING BEEN SEIZED IN VIOLATION
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
OF APPELLANTS' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
particularly describing the place to be searched and the
AGAINST UNREASONABLE, SEARCHES AND
persons or things to be seized.21
SEIZURES;
Complementary to the foregoing provision is the exclusionary rule
II.
enshrined under Article III, Section 3, paragraph 2, which bolsters
and solidifies the protection against unreasonable searches and
THAT ASSUMING IT IS ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE, seizures.22 Thus:
THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT OTHERWISE PROVED
THEIR GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT; AND
Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding
section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
III. proceeding.

THAT, FINALLY, ASSUMING THEIR GUILT HAS BEEN Without this rule, the right to privacy would be a form of words,
PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, THE valueless and undeserving of mention in a perpetual charter of
IMPOSABLE PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF SEC. 8 OF inestimable human liberties; so too, without this rule, the freedom
RA No. 7659 (sic), IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY from state invasions of privacy would be so ephemeral and so
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE, IS LIFE neatly severed from its conceptual nexus with the freedom from
IMPRISONMENT, NOT DEATH.20 all brutish means of coercing evidence as not to merit this Court's
high regard as a freedom implicit in the concept of ordered
The Solicitor General filed a Manifestation and MO1ion (In Lieu of liberty.23
Brief), wherein he prayed for the acquittal of both accused-
appellants. The foregoing constitutional proscription, however, is not without
exceptions. Search and seizure may be made without a warrant

98
and the evidence obtained therefrom may be admissible in the In People v. Chua Ho San,29 the Court held that in cases of in
following instances: (1) search incident to a lawful arrest; (2) flagrante delicto arrests, a peace officer or a private person may,
search of a moving motor vehicle; (3) search in violation of without a warrant, arrest a person when, in his presence, the
customs laws; (4) seizure of evidence in plain view; (5) when the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches attempting to commit an offense. The arresting officer, therefore,
and seizures;24 and (6) stop and frisk situations (Terry search).25 must have personal knowledge of such fact or, as recent case
law adverts to, personal knowledge of facts or circumstances
The first exception (search incidental to a lawful arrest) includes a convincingly indicative or constitutive of probable cause. As
valid warrantless search and seizure pursuant to an equally valid discussed in People v. Doria,30 probable cause means an actual
warrantless arrest which must precede the search. In this belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion. The grounds of
instance, the law requires that there be first a lawful arrest before suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of actual belief of
a search can be made --- the process cannot be reversed.26 As a the arresting officers, the suspicion that the person to be arrested
rule, an arrest is considered legitimate if effected with .a valid is probably guilty of committing the offense, is based on actual
warrant of arrest. The Rules of Court, however, recognizes facts, i.e., supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in
permissible warrantless arrests. Thus, a peace officer or a private themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to
person may, without warrant, arrest a person: (a) when, in his be arrested. A reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded
presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually on probable cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense (arrest in peace officers making the arrest.
flagrante delicto); (b) when an offense has just been committed
and he has probable cause to believe based on personal As applied to in flagrante delicto arrests, it is settled that "reliable
knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be information" alone, absent any overt act indicative of a felonious
arrested has committed it (arrest effected in hot pursuit); and (c) enterprise in the presence and within the view of the arresting
when the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped officers, are not sufficient to constitute probable cause that would
from a penal establishment or a place where he is serving final justify an in flagrante delicto arrest. Thus, in People v.
judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or Aminnudin,31 it was held that "the accused-appellant was not, at
has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to the moment of his arrest, committing a crime nor was it shown
another ( arrest of escaped prisoners ).27 that he was about to do so or that he had just done so. What he
was doing was descending the gangplank of the MN Wilcon 9
In the case at bar, the court a quo anchored its judgment of and there was no outward indication that called for his arrest. To
conviction on a finding that the warrantless arrest of accused- all appearances, he was like any of the other passengers
appellants, and the subsequent search conducted by the peace innocently disembarking from the vessel. It was only when the
officers, are valid because accused-appellants were caught in informer pointed to him as the carrier of the marijuana that he
flagrante delicto in possession of prohibited drugs.28 This brings suddenly became suspect and so subject to apprehension."
us to the issue of whether or not the warrantless arrest, search
and seizure in the present case fall within the recognized Likewise, in People v. Mengote,32 the Court did not consider
exceptions to the warrant requirement. "eyes... darting from side to side :.. [while] holding ... [one's]
abdomen", in a crowded street at 11:30 in the morning, as overt
acts and circumstances sufficient to arouse suspicion and

99
indicative of probable cause. According to the Court, "[b]y no waistline" of petitioner, and from all indications as to the
stretch of the imagination could it have been inferred from these distance between Yu and petitioner, any telltale bulge,
acts that an offense had just been committed, or was actually assuming that petitioner was indeed hiding a grenade,
being committed or was at least being attempted in [the arresting could not have been visible to Yu.37
officers'] presence." So also, in People v. Encinada,33 the Court
ruled that no probable cause is gleanable from the act of riding Clearly, to constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, two
a motorela while holding two plastic baby chairs. 1âwphi1.nêt
requisites must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must
execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is
Then, too, in Malacat v. Court of Appeals,34 the trial court actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2)
concluded that petitioner was attempting to commit a crime as he such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the
was "`standing at the comer of Plaza Miranda and Quezon arresting officer.38
Boulevard' with his eyes 'moving very fast' and 'looking at every
person that come (sic) nearer (sic) to them.'"35 In declaring the In the case at bar, accused-appellants manifested no outward
warrantless arrest therein illegal, the Court said: indication that would justify their arrest. In holding a bag on board
a trisikad, accused-appellants could not be said to be committing,
Here, there could have been no valid in flagrante attempting to commit or have committed a crime. It matters not
delicto ... arrest preceding the search in light of the lack of that accused-appellant Molina responded "Boss, if possible we
personal knowledge on the part of V u, the arresting will settle this" to the request of SPO1 Pamplona to open the bag.
officer, or an overt physical act, on the part of petitioner, Such response which allegedly reinforced the "suspicion" of the
indicating that a crime had just been committed, was arresting officers that accused-appellants were committing a
being committed or was going to be committed.36 crime, is an equivocal statement which standing alone will not
constitute probable cause to effect an inflagrante delicto arrest.
It went on to state that – Note that were it not for SPO1 Marino Paguidopon (who did not
participate in the arrest but merely pointed accused-appellants to
Second, there was nothing in petitioner's behavior or the arresting officers), accused-appellants could not be the
conduct which could have reasonably elicited even mere subject of any suspicion, reasonable or otherwise.
suspicion other than that his eyes were "moving very fast"
- an observation which leaves us incredulous since Yu While SPO1 Paguidopon claimed that he and his informer
and his teammates were nowhere near petitioner and it conducted a surveillance of accused-appellant Mula, SPO1
was already 6:30 p.m., thus presumably dusk. Petitioner Paguidopon, however, admitted that he only learned Mula's name
and his companions were merely standing at the comer and address after the arrest. What is more, it is doubtful if SPO1
and were not creating any commotion or trouble... Paguidopon indeed recognized accused-appellant Mula. It is
worthy to note that, before the arrest, he was able to see Mula in
Third, there was at all no ground, probable or otherwise, person only once, pinpointed to him by his informer while they
to believe that petitioner was armed with a deadly were on the side of the road. These circumstances could not
weapon. None was visible to Yu, for as he admitted, the have afforded SPO1 Paguidopon a closer look at accused-
alleged grenade was "discovered" "inside the front appellant Mula, considering that the latter was then driving a
motorcycle when, SPO1 Paguidopon caught a glimpse of him.

100
With respect to accused-appellant Molina, SPO1 Paguidopon ship or while he rode the motorela. No act or fact demonstrating a
admitted that he had never seen him before the arrest. felonious enterprise could be ascribed to appellant under such
bare circumstances."40
This belies the claim of SPO1 Pamplona that he knew the name
of accused-appellants even before the arrest, to wit – Moreover, it could not be said that accused-appellants waived
their right against unreasonable searches and seizure. Implied
"Q-       When you said that certain Mula handed a black acquiescence to the search, if there was any, could not have
bag to another person and how did you know that it was been more than mere passive conformity given under intimidating
Mula who handed the black bag to another person? or coercive circumstances and is thus considered no consent at
all within the purview of the constitutional guarantee.41
A-       Because I have already information from
Paguidopon, regarding Mula and Molina, when they pass Withal, the Court holds that the arrest of accused-appellants does
by through the street near the residence of Paguidopon. not fall under the exceptions allowed by the rules. Hence, the
He told that the one who is big one that is Gregorio Mula search conducted on their person was likewise illegal.
and the thin one is Nazario Molina"39 Consequently, the marijuana seized by the peace officers could
not be admitted as evidence against accused-appellants, and the
The aforecited testimony of SPO1 Pamplona, therefore, is entirely Court is thus, left with no choice but to find in favor of accused-
baseless SPO1 Pamplona could not have learned the name of appellants.
accused-appellants from SPO1 Paguipodon because Paguipodon
himself, who allegedly conducted the surveillance, was not even While the Court strongly supports the campaign of the
aware of accused-appellants' name and address prior to the government against drug addiction and commends the efforts of
arrest. our law-enforcement officers towards this drive, all efforts for the
achievement of a drug-free society must not encroach on the
Evidently, SPO1 Paguidopon, who acted as informer of the fundamental rights and liberties of individuals as guaranteed in
arresting officers, more so the arresting officers themselves, the Bill of Rights, which protection extends even to the basest of
could not have been certain of accused-appellants' identity, and criminals.
were, from all indications, merely fishing for evidence at the time
of the arrest. WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Davao
City, Branch 17, in Criminal Case No. 37, 264-96,
Compared to People v. Encinada, the arresting officer in the said is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. For lack of evidence to establish
case knew appellant Encinada even before the arrest because of their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, accused-appellants Nasario
the latter's illegal gambling activities, thus, lending at least a Molina y Manamat alias "Bobong" and Gregorio Mula y
semblance of validity on the arrest effected by the peace officers. Malagura alias "Boboy", are ACQUITTED and
Nevertheless, the Court declared in said case that the ordered RELEASED from confinement unless they are validly
warrantless arrest and the consequent search were illegal, detained for other offenses. No costs.
holding that "[t]he prosecution's evidence did not show any
suspicious behavior when the appellant disembarked from the SO ORDERED.

101
G.R. No. 177570               January 19, 2011 Police Officer III Wilfredo Masanggue testified that at about 6:00
a.m., of September 29, 1999, he and SPO1 Anthony Blanco were
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,  instructed by their superior, Chief Inspector Romulo Sapitula to
vs. proceed at the corner of Juan Luna and Raxabago Sts., Tondo,
NELIDA DEQUINA Y DIMAPANAN, JOSELITO JUNDOC Y Manila, where, according to the report given by the informant,
JAPITANA & NORA JINGABO Y CRUZ, Accused-Appellants. three persons – a male and two female[s] would be coming from
Baguio City to deliver unknown quantity of marijuana. In no time,
DECISION they arrived at the designated place and parked their mobile
patrol car along Juan Luna Street, facing the northern direction
just near the corner of Raxabago Street.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
At around 9:00 a.m., they noticed a taxi cab coming from Yuseco
Accused-appellants Nelida D. Dequina (Dequina), Joselito J.
St. heading towards the direction of the pier. At a certain point
Jundoc (Jundoc), and Nora C. Jingabo (Jingabo) were charged
along Raxabago Street, about a hundred meters away from the
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 27, with
position of their patrol car the taxi stopped. From it emerged three
Violations of Section 4, in relation to Section 21, paragraphs (e-l),
passengers – a man and two women – each one of them carrying
(f), (m), and (o) of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the
a black travelling bag. As the trio fitted the descriptions given to
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by Republic Act No.
them by Inspector Sapitula, they intently watched and monitored
7659. The accusatory portion of the Amended Information reads:
their movements.
That on or about September 29, 1999, in the City of Manila,
About one or two minutes later, as the trio started walking
Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confed erating
towards the western portion of Raxabago St., they drove and
together and helping one another, not being authorized by law to
trailed them. As the patrol car got closer behind them, [Dequina]
sell, deliver, transport or give away to another any prohibited
noticed its presence. She started walking in a more hurried pace
drug, did and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell, or offer
("parang walkathon") as if she wanted to run away ("parang
for sale, deliver or transport marijuana dried flowering tops with
patakbo"). SPO1 Blanco alighted from the car and chased
total weight of thirty two thousand nine hundred ninety five
[Dequina] while PO3 Masanggue, who was behind the wheels
(32,995) grams which is a prohibited drug.1
also alighted and restrained [Jundoc] and [Jingabo]. While thus
trying to get away, [Dequina] dropped the bag she was carrying.
The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 99-177383. Upon As a result, the zipper of the bag gave way. Bundles of dried
arraignment, all accused-appellants entered a plea of not guilty.2 leaves wrapped in transparent plastic bags case into view.
Suspecting the stuffs to be marijuana, they further inspected the
The prosecution presented four witnesses: Police Officer (PO) 3 other two bags in the possession of [Jingabo] and [Jundoc] and
Wilfredo Masanggue (Masanggue), Senior Police Officer (SPO) 1 found out that they had the same contents. They boarded the
Anthony Blanco (Blanco), PO3 Eduardo Pama (Pama), and three accused, along with their bags in their patrol car and
Forensic Chemist George de Lara (De Lara). The RTC proceeded to the hospital for physical examination before
summarized the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses as bringing them to their headquarters. While in transit, [Dequina]
follows:

102
pleaded to them to allow her to make a call but they did not heed At the WPD Headquarters, United Nations Avenue, Manila, the
the request as the car was still in motion. three accused were turned over to the Office of the District Anti-
Narcotics Unit where they were investigated by PO3 Wilfredo
At the western Police District Headquarters at United Nations Pama. It was there where the other two bags confiscated from
Avenue, they turned over the three accused together with the [Jingabo] and [Jundoc] were re-opened and confirmed to contain
bags to PO3 Eduardo Pama, a police investigator of the district marijuana.
Anti-Narcotics Unit for investigation. During the investigation, it
was discovered that each of the three black travelling bags In the course of his cross-examination, SPO1 Blanco admitted
confiscated from the three accused contained eleven bricks of that the three of them – Inspector Sapitula, PO3 Masanggue and
marijuana. In connection with the incident, he and SPO1 Blanco himself, along with the three accused, were photographed, at
executed the Joint Affidavit of Apprehension dated September 30, what appeared to be a "sari-sari" store as their background. The
1999 (Exhs, "A" and submarkings). same appeared in the clipping of "Tonight" September 20, 1999
issue.
SPO1 Anthony Blanco testified that in the early morning of
September 29, 1999, together with PO3 Wilfredo Masanggue, he PO3 Eduardo Pama, an investigator from the District Anti-
was dispatched by their superior to the corner of Juan Luna and Narcotics Unit of the WPD was the one who investigated the
Raxabago Sts., Tondo, Manila, where it was reported that case. He placed the corresponding markings on the packs of
shipment of marijuana would take place. They were further marijuana confiscated from the three accused after the same
informed that the drug couriers were composed of a man and two were turned over to him by SPO1 Blanco and PO3 Masanggue.
women and that each of them were carrying a travelling bag. He marked the bag recovered from [Dequina] "NDD" and the
contents thereof "NDD-1" to "NDD-11". He marked the bag taken
After they arrived at the designated area, they parked their from [Jundoc] "JJJ" and the contents thereof " JJJ-1" to "JJJ-11".
vehicle along Juan Luna near Raxabago Street. Then they Finally, he marked the bag recovered from [Jingabo] "NCJ" and
waited. Suddenly, they noticed the arrival of a taxicab from where the contents thereof "NCJ-1" to "NCJ-11". In connection with his
three persons – a man and two women – alighted. Each of them investigation, he prepared the Booking Sheet and Arrest Reports
was carrying a bag. The trio fitted the descriptions given to them. of the three accused (Exhs. "F". "G" and "H") as well as the
As the suspects walked away, they drove and trailed them. As Referral Letter to the City Prosecutor’s Office (Exh. "I").
they got close behind them, accused Nelida Dequina noticed the Afterwards, he brought the three bags of suspected marijuana
presence of the mobile car. She dropped the black bag she was together with the letter-request to the National Bureau of
carrying and the same was unzipped. The contents thereof Investigation [(NBI)] Chemistry Division, for the laboratory
consisting of dried marijuana leaves wrapped in transparent examinations. The same were received thereat on September 29,
plastic bags came into view. They arrested the three suspects 1999 at 10:12 in the evening. The following day, September 30,
later identified as the accused herein and boarded them into their 1999, at 10:38 p.m., certifications, corresponding to each and
car. While on board the vehicle, [Dequina] and [Jundoc] every set of items recovered from the three accused were
confessed that the contents of the other two bags confiscated released to PO3 Pama.
from them were also marijuana.
George De Lara, Forensic Chemist, Forensic Chemistry Division,
NBI, Manila testified that he conducted the laboratory

103
examinations of the subject specimens based on the letter- college. While in the third year of her Accountancy course, she
request from DANU Police Superintendent Miguel de Mayo encountered severe financial difficulties. She stopped schooling
Laurel (Exh. "B" and submarkings). From the black bag (Exh. "K") and worked instead. Soon, she had a relationship with a man with
allegedly recovered from [Dequina], he counted a total of eleven whom she begot a child. The relationship did not last. Not long
bricks of dried leaves suspected to be marijuana which had a after, she had a relationship with another man. This time she
total weight of 10,915.0 grams. The results of the chemical, begot her second child named Samantha.
microscopic and chromatographic examinations he conducted
show that the said specimens were positive for the presence of In May 1999, while the Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU) members were
chemical found only in marijuana. having a parade in Iloilo City, she met a certain Salvacion
Peñaredondo, a member of the group. She calls her Sally. Sally
With regard to the bag allegedly confiscated from [Jundoc] (Exh. convinced her to join the movement. Since she used to watch
"O"), witness counted eleven bricks of dried leaves believed to be similar group activities while in college, she manifested her desire
marijuana. The specimens had a total weight of 11,010.0 grams. to join the movement by nodding her head. From then on, Sally
When subjected to be same type of laboratory examinations, the frequently visited her at home. For a living, she was engaged in
specimens yielded positive result for marijuana, a prohibited drug. selling ready-to-wear dresses, frozen meat and relief goods which
Sally supplied to her.
Anent the bag (Exh. "R") with masking tape having the mark
"DDM-99-110" allegedly recovered from [Jingabo], witness also On September 27, 1999, Sally told her that the movement had
found eleven bricks of dried flowering tops suspected to be decided to send her to a mission which would determine if she
marijuana which when weighed yielded a total weight of 11,070.0 was really qualified to join the group. She was advised to bring
grams. The results of similar types of examinations conducted alone two friends, preferably a woman and a gay. As at time Sally
confirmed the specimens to be marijuana. saw them in her company, she chose Nora Jingabo and Joselito
Jundoc to be her companions. Sally did not elaborate the real
He prepared separate certifications for the results of the nature of such mission. She did not press to know more about the
examinations he conducted on the specimens contained in three venture either. Before they parted that day, Sally instructed her to
separate bags allegedly confiscated from accused Dequina, fetch her two friends and meet her (Sally) early in the morning of
Jundoc and Jingabo (Exhs. "C", "D" and "E", respectively). He the following day, September 28, 1999 near the entrance of the
also prepared NBI Forensic Chemistry Division Report No. DDM- Gaisano Mall, the largest department store in Iloilo. She dropped
99-108 dated October 1, 1999 (Exh. "L" and submarkings).3 by the public market and told Nora and Joselito about the plan to
meet Sally the following morning.
For the defense, only the accused-appellants took the witness
stand. The RTC recapitulated the testimonies of the accused- As agreed upon, they met Sally at the designated place and time.
appellants, thus: Sally secretly told her that the three of them would be going to
Manila for a still undisclosed mission. She was briefed that the
Accused Nelida Dequina testified that she became an orphan at a three of them will temporarily stay in the house of her [Dequina]
tender age. With the help of her aunt, she was able to pursue her relative in Manila. She was further instructed that they will go to
studies. She was a consistent scholar from elementary until the Philippine Rabbit Terminal in Avenida where they will be met
by members of their group who will also monitor their movements.

104
Afterwards, they will proceed to Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga They arrived in Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga at about 12:30 a.m.
where they will pick-up some bags. Thereat, somebody will meet of September 29, 1999. While they were having their snacks, a
and give them instructions. From Dau, they will return to Manila. couple went near and instructed them to cross the road and take
They will alight at the first ShoeMart Department Store which they the bags from the three men whom they saw for the first time.
will see along the way. A waiting tricycle would bring them to a The couple also handed over to them bus tickets. They were
store where they could buy carton boxes for their bags. Finally, a instructed to board vehicles bound for Pasay and alight at the first
taxicab will fetch and bring them all the way to the pier. Shoemart (SM) Department Store that they will see along the
way. They took the bags from the three men without even
[Dequina] received ₱3,000.00 from Sally for their expenses and bothering to know the contents thereof. However, she noticed that
plane tickets for the three of them from Sally. However, she the bags were very heavy.
noticed that instead of their true names, the tickets were in the
names of other persons. Her plane ticket was in the name of As they boarded the Pasay bound bus, the conductor took the
Sarah Ganje. That of [Jundoc] and [Jingabo] were in the names bags from them and loaded the same in compartment section of
of Rowenal Palma and Mary Grace Papa, respectively. Nervous, the vehicle. With the assistance of the bus conductor, they
she thought of backing out at the last minute but Sally assured alighted at SM North Edsa. They transferred to a waiting tricycle,
her that she had nothing to worry about. Sally culminated by as per instruction given by Sally. The tricycle dropped them at a
saying that something will happen to her child if ever she backed "sari-sari" store where they bought carton boxes where they
out from the plan. placed two of the three bags. From there, the driver lead them to
a waiting taxi where they loaded all their baggages. She and Nora
Because of the threat, [Dequina] went on with the plan. Enroute occupied the back seat while Joselito sat beside the driver. She
to the Iloilo airport, [Jundoc] and [Jingabo] expressed their instructed the driver to take them to the pier for Iloilo bound ships.
anxieties about the venture but she calmed them down and
assured them that she will take care of everything. As they entered the pier premises, a mobile patrol car came from
nowhere and blocked their path. Two police officers emerged and
From the Manila Domestic Airport, they proceeded to her aunt’s ordered them to alight. Then, upon the policemen’s order, the
place at Pitogo St., Guadalupe, Makati City where they rested driver opened the taxi’s trunk where the three bags were loaded.
after taking their meal. At around 2:00 p.m., her aunt woke her up The police officers forcibly opened one of the three bags where
and told her that the two vehicles – an owner-type jepney and a they saw something wrapped in jute bags and plastic bags. It was
passenger jepney with unfamiliar faces on board were lurking in learned that the contents of the bags were marijuana.
their vicinity for quite sometime.
They were all herded into the mobile car. While on board the
At around 5:00 p.m., they left the place on board a taxi to the mobile car, the police officers asked them if they had money.
Philippine Rabbit Terminal at Avenida, Rizal. While waiting for When the policemen learned that they did not have money, they
their schedule, two men approached and handed to her bus were brought to a "sari-sari" store where a police officer named
tickets. The same men nosed out to them the vehicle where they Sapitula was waiting. Sapitula asked them questions. At one
were supposed to board. She was further reminded by the men point, Sapitula slapped her. They were made to line up and
that members of the movement will also be on board. Sapitula summoned some press reporters who photographed
them

105
They were brought to the Ospital ng Maynila. While being From the Ninoy Aquino Domestic Airport, they proceeded to the
examined, she confided to a nurse that she was manhandled by house of [Dequina’s] aunt in Guadalupe, Makati City. In the
Sapitula. They were brought to the office of the District Anti- afternoon, their host noticed the presence of unfamiliar vehicles.
Narcotics Unit where corresponding charges were filed against Some of these vehicles were even parked right in front of the
them. house. Unmindful about it, they left Guadalupe at around 6:00
p.m. and proceeded to a Philippine Rabbit Bus Terminal. Thereat,
She insisted that the incident took place near the pier and not at two male persons approached [Dequina] and handed to her bus
the corner of Raxabago and Juan Luna Sts., Tondo, Manila. tickets. They were pointed to the particular vehicle where they
Were if not for the threat that something will happen to her were to board.
daughter, she could not followed (sic) the orders of Sally.
They reached Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga between 12:30 and
The combined testimony of accused Nora Jingabo and Joselito 1:00 a.m. of September 29, 1999. While they were having their
Jundoc established the following facts. snacks, a couple approached [Dequina] and they had a talk.
Thereafter, the couple motioned them to three male persons,
On September 27, 1999, while [Jundoc] and [Jingabo] were each carrying a bag, at the opposite side of the road. Upon
tending to their fish stall in Iloilo Public Market, [Dequina], their [Dequina’s] instruction, they took the bags from the three men.
friend, came and invited them to meet her, for a still undisclosed Then, they waited for their ride back to Manila.
reason, at the ground floor of the Gaisano Mall, early in the
morning of the following day, September 28, 1999. As agreed As they boarded the bus, the conductor loaded their bags inside
upon, they met at the designated place and time. Not long the compartment. They alighted at SM EDSA at around 6:00 a.m.
thereafter, Sally joined them. They knew Sally to be [Dequina’s] of September 29, 1999. They boarded a waiting tricycle. When
supplier of RTW’s and other merchandise. For a while, [Dequina] they reached a certain store, the trike driver bought carton boxes
and Sally excused themselves and proceeded to the first floor of where they loaded two of the three bags. Thereafter, the tricycle
the mall where they talked privately. Soon after Sally left, driver pointed [Dequina] to a waiting taxi where they boarded
[Jingabo] and [Jundoc] asked [Dequina] what they talked about. along with their baggages.
Instead of answering, [Dequina] asked if they are willing to go
with her to Manila in order to get something. While a little bit As they entered the pier premises, a police officer on board a
surprised, [Jingabo] and [Jundoc] readily agreed as they had mobile patrol car ordered them to stop. They were ordered to
never been in the city before. [Dequina] handed to them their alight and the police officers ordered the driver to open the taxi’s
plane tickets. They were told that the same were given by Sally. compartment. One of the police officers took a knife from his
However, they noticed that the plane tickets were not in their pocket and slashed one of the bags. Then, the policemen told
names but in the names of other persons. When they called the them that what they had in their bags were marijuana. The police
attention of [Dequina] about it, the latter simply replied "Anyway officers ordered them to board the mobile car while the bags were
that is free". [Jingabo] noticed anxiety got the better of Nelida at loaded inside the compartment of the same car.
that time. Nevertheless, the three of them enplaned for Manila at
around 7:45 a.m. of September 28, 1999. They were brought to a "sari-sari" store where a certain Chief
Sapitula, whom they later knew to be the police officers’ superior,
was waiting. Sapitula interrogated [Dequina] and at one point, he

106
slapped her. Sapitula summoned press people who took their I
photographs. Thereafter, they were brought to the "Hospital ng
Bayan" and finally, to the police precinct were they were charged The court a quo erred in finding the accused-appellants guilty
accordingly.4 beyond reasonable doubt for illegal transport of marijuana.

The parties dispensed with the testimony of Prose M. Arreola, a II

representative of Air Philippines, since they were willing to
stipulate on the existence of the passenger manifest, on which The court a quo gravely erred in admitting in evidence the seized
appeared the accused-appellants’ assumed names, as well as items from the accused-appellants despite the fact that they were
the accused-appellants’ plane tickets for the flight from Iloilo to seized in violation of their constitutional rights against illegal
Manila on September 28, 1999 at 7:00 a.m. search and seizure.8

The RTC, in a Decision dated October 30, 2000, found the In its Decision9 dated August 16, 2006, the appellate court
accused-appellants guilty as charged. The dispositive portion of affirmed accused-appellants’ conviction. It decreed:
said decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED, the Decision of the
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the judgment is hereby Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, in Manila, in Criminal Case No.
rendered finding accused NELIDA DEQUINA y DIMAPANAN, 99-177393, finding accused-appellants NELIDA DEQUINA y
JOSELITO JUNDOC y JAPITANA and NORA JINGABO y CRUZ DIMAPANAN, JOSELITO JUNDOC y JAPITANA and NORA
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal transport JINGABO y CRUZ guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegally
marijuana and sentencing each of them to suffer the penalty of transporting 32[,]995 grams of marijuana is hereby AFFIRMED.10
reclusion perpetua. Each of them is ordered to pay a fine of
₱500,000.00.5
Hence, accused-appellants appealed to this Court.
The accused-appellants filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the
In our Resolution dated July 4, 2007, we required the parties to
foregoing decision, but the RTC denied the same in its Order
file their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desire, within
dated December 27, 2000.
30 days from notice. Both parties manifested that they no longer
intend to file any supplemental brief considering that they have
Accused-appellants then filed a notice of appeal on January 25, already raised all the issues and arguments in their original briefs.
2001. Thus, the records of Criminal Case No. 99-177383 were
forwarded to this Court. Pursuant to our decision in People v.
We find no merit in the present appeal.
Mateo,6 however, we referred the case to the Court of
Appeals,7 where it was docketed as CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No.
01431. The accused-appellants were charged with and convicted of the
offense of illegal transport of marijuana, defined and penalized
under Section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as
Accused-appellants made the following assignment of errors in
amended, which provides:
their brief:

107
SEC. 4. Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and to great respect and accorded the highest consideration by the
Transportation of Prohibited Drugs. — The penalty of reclusion appellate court. Since credibility is a matter that is peculiarly
perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand within the province of the trial judge, who had the first hand
pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person opportunity to watch and observe the demeanor and behavior of
who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, administer, deliver, give witnesses both for the prosecution and the defense at the time of
away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any their testimony,11 we have no reason to disregard the findings of
prohibited drug, or shall act as a broker in any of such the lower court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
transactions.
In this case, Chief Inspector Sapitula, in the early morning of
Accused-appellants assail their conviction, asserting that their September 29, 1999, received a tip that a huge amount of
arrests were illegal.  They were not doing anything illegal that
1âwphi1 marijuana would be transported from Baguio City to the Manila
would have justified their warrantless arrest, much less a pier, which will then be loaded on vessels bound for Iloilo. Acting
warrantless search of their persons and belongings. A search on the information he received, Chief Inspector Sapitula
made without a warrant cannot be justified as an incident of arrest dispatched PO3 Masanggue and SPO1 Blanco to the corner of
unless the arrest itself was lawful. Accused-appellants insist that Raxabago and Juan Luna Streets, where they were supposed to
the description of the persons who were transporting marijuana watch out for two females and one male. PO3 Masanggue and
relayed by the Chief of Police to the apprehending officers, PO3 SPO1 Blanco posted their mobile patrol car near said corner.
Masanggue and SPO1 Blanco, was so general that it could not From where they were at, PO3 Masanggue and SPO1 Blanco
be sufficient ground for the apprehension of accused-appellants. spotted three persons, two females and one male – who turned
out to be accused-appellants – alighting from a taxi at the corner
The People counters that accused-appellants’ arrests were lawful of Raxabago and Juan Luna Streets, each carrying a traveling
as they were then actually committing a crime. Since accused- bag. PO3 Masanggue and SPO1 Blanco then followed accused-
appellants were lawfully arrested, the resulting warrantless appellants until one of them, Dequina, dropped her traveling bag.
search of their persons and belongings was also valid. In The traveling bag fell open and inside, PO3 Masanggue and
addition, accused-appellants did not refute that they were indeed SPO1 Blanco saw dried leaves in transparent plastic bags. It was
transporting prohibited drugs when they were arrested and, only then that the two police officers apprehended accused-
instead, alleged as defenses that Dequina acted under the appellants and their persons and belongings searched.
impulse of uncontrollable fear, and Jundoc and Jingabo were
merely accommodating a trusted childhood friend. As PO3 Masanggue testified:

After a thorough review of the records, we find that the judgment Q Now, on September 29, 1999 at around 6:00 o’clock in the
of the RTC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, was supported morning will you please tell us where you were?
by the evidence on record. The People was able to discharge the
burden of proving the accused-appellants’ guilt beyond A I reported to Headquarters Office for INSS briefing and
reasonable doubt. information.

Well-settled is the rule that the findings of the trial court on the
issue of credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled

108
The positive and categorical testimony of PO3 Masanggue, Nevertheless, the constitutional proscription against warrantless
corroborated by SPO1 Blanco, deserves weight and credence in searches and seizures admits of certain legal and judicial
light of the presumption of regularity accorded to the performance exceptions, as follows: (1) warrantless search incidental to a
of their official duties as police officers, and the lack of motive on lawful arrest recognized under Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules
their part to falsely testify against accused-appellants. of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence; (2) seizure of evidence
in plain view; (3) search of a moving vehicle; (4) consented
To discredit PO3 Masanggue and SPO1 Blanco, accused- warrantless search; (5) customs search; (6) stop and frisk; and
appellants claimed that they were blocked by the police officers at (7) exigent and emergency circumstances.15
the pier and not at the corner of Juan Luna and Raxabago
Streets; and that PO3 Masanggue and SPO1 Blanco did not On the other hand, Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court
mention in their testimonies passing by a sari-sari store to meet provides that a lawful arrest without a warrant may be made by a
up with Chief Inspector Sapitula and presenting accused- peace officer or a private person under the following
appellants to the media. These details, however, are immaterial, circumstances:
not really departing significantly from the police officers’ version of
the events surrounding accused-appellants’ arrest and search, (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
which yielded the marijuana they were transporting. At any rate, committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
certain parts of the testimonies of PO3 Masanggue and SPO1 commit an offense;
Blanco were corroborated by the accused-appellants themselves
(i.e., that the police officers, prior to bringing accused-appellants (b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has
to the police headquarters, first brought accused-appellants to the probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge
Ospital ng Maynila for medical examination), PO3 Pama (i.e., that of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested
each of the three traveling bags turned over to him by PO3 has committed it; and
Masanggue and SPO1 Blanco contained 11 bricks of marijuana),
and NBI Forensic Chemist De Lara (i.e., that the dried leaves
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
marked and turned over to him by PO3 Pama tested positive for
escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is
marijuana).
serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his
case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred
There is no question that the warrantless arrest of accused- from one confinement to another.
appellants and the warrantless seizure of the marijuana were
valid and legal.
"Transport" as used under the Dangerous Drugs Act is defined to
mean "to carry or convey from one place to another."16 The
Settled is the rule that no arrest, search or seizure can be made evidence in this case shows that at the time of their arrest,
without a valid warrant issued by a competent judicial authority. accused-appellants were caught in flagrante carrying/transporting
The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure dried marijuana leaves in their traveling bags. PO3 Masanggue
in their persons, houses, papers and effects against and SPO1 Blanco need not even open Dequina’s traveling bag to
unreasonable searches and seizures.13 It further decrees that any determine its content because when the latter noticed the police
evidence obtained in violation of said right shall be inadmissible officers’ presence, she walked briskly away and in her hurry,
for any purpose in any proceeding.14

109
accidentally dropped her traveling bag, causing the zipper to must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity for the
open and exposed the dried marijuana bricks therein. Since a accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat.19 Here,
crime was then actually being committed by the accused- Dequina’s version of events that culminated with her and Jundoc
appellants, their warrantless arrest was legally justified, and the and Jingabo’s arrests on September 29, 1999 is implausible.
following warrantless search of their traveling bags was allowable Equally far-fetched is Jundoc and Jingabo’s assertion of blind
as incidental to their lawful arrest. trust in Dequina and total ignorance of the transportation of
marijuana. We agree with the Court of Appeals when it observed
Besides, accused-appellants did not raise any protest when they, that:
together with their bags containing marijuana, were brought to the
police station for investigation and subsequent prosecution. In While [Dequina] wants us to believe that she acted under
People v. Fernandez,17 we ruled that: compulsion and that a certain Sally called all the shots, she
nevertheless admitted that their accommodations when they
When one voluntarily submits to a search or consents to have it reached Manila was with her aunt in Guadalupe. On cross
made of his person or premises, he is precluded from later examination, she said that it was she who told Sally that they
complaining thereof. x x x. The right to be secure from were going to stay with her aunt. More importantly, the alleged
unreasonable search may, like every right, be waived and such threat on her daughter was unclear. At one point in her testimony,
waiver may be made either expressly or impliedly.18 she claimed that her daughter was to be under the custody of
Sally while she was away. However, during the trial her lawyer
In order to exonerate herself from criminal liability, Dequina manifested that her daughter was in fact in Manila and in the
contends that she transported the marijuana under the court room attending the hearing.  Moreover, accused-appellants
1âwphi1

compulsion of an irresistible fear. Jundoc and Jingabo, on the themselves picture a very precise and elaborate scheme in the
other hand, claim that they went along to accommodate Dequina, transport of the huge shipment of marijuana. With this, it is simply
a trusted childhood friend. contrary to human experience that the people behind the
shipment would entrust the same to an unknowing and uncertain
person such as [Dequina] and her two stooges, unless they
We are unconvinced.
themselves were in on it. Furthermore, the scheme or transport of
the marijuana shipment was so exact that [Jundoc] and [Jingabo]
A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, only had enough time to rest in the house of [Dequina’s] aunt in
like one who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of Guadalupe – from the time they arrived in Manila in the morning
equal or greater injury, is exempt from criminal liability because to the time they had to go to provincial bus station in the
he does not act with freedom. Actus me invito factus non est afternoon, negating their purported desire to see Manila. Clearly,
meus actus. An act done by me against my will is not my act. The the defense’ story is riddled with holes.20
force contemplated must be so formidable as to reduce the actor
to a mere instrument who acts not only without will but against his
Conspiracy can be inferred from and proven by acts of the
will. The duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present,
accused themselves when said acts point to a joint purpose and
imminent and impending, and of such nature as to induce a well-
design, concerted action, and community of interests. Although
grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act
the same degree of proof required for establishing the crime is
be done. A threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion
required to support a finding of the presence of conspiracy, it

110
need not be proven by direct evidence. Conspiracy may be G.R. No. 176077               August 31, 2011
deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was
perpetrated.21 Thus, as found by the RTC, conspiracy by and ABRAHAM MICLAT, JR. y CERBO, Petitioner, 
among accused-appellants was present in this case, as it may be vs.
inferred from the following acts of accused-appellants: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

This was shown when by their account, the three accused left The factual and procedural antecedents are as follows:
Iloilo together, stayed in Manila for a while, left for Dau,
Mabalacat, Pampanga and returned to Manila thereafter. They In an Information2 dated November 11, 2002, petitioner Abraham
were together when the apprehending police officers pounced on C. Miclat, Jr. was charged for Violation of Section 11, Article II of
them near the pier premises on their way back to Iloilo, each of RA No. 9165, the accusatory portion of which reads:
them carrying a travelling bag which contained marijuana. x x x.22
That on or about the 08th day of November 2002, in Caloocan
With the enactment and effectivity of Republic Act No. 7659,23 the City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
penalty imposable upon violators of Section 4 of the Dangerous Court, the above-named accused, without the authority of law, did
Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, is reclusion perpetua to death then and there willfully and feloniously have in his possession,
and a fine ranging from Five Hundred Thousand Pesos custody and control [Methamphetamine] Hydrochloride (SHABu)
(₱500,000.00) to Ten Million Pesos (₱10,000,000.00) if the weighing 0.24 gram, knowing the same to be a dangerous drug
marijuana involved weighs 750 grams or more. The quantity of under the provisions of the above-cited law.
marijuana involved in this case weighs 32,995 grams, hence, the
applicable penalty is reclusion perpetua to death. Since the
CONTRARY TO LAW. (Emphasis supplied.)3
imposable penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties, the
rules for the application of indivisible penalties under Article
6324 of the Revised Penal Code should be applied. As there is Upon arraignment, petitioner, with the assistance of counsel
neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstance in the pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Consequently, trial on the
commission of the crime, the RTC correctly imposed the lesser merits ensued.
penalty of reclusion perpetua. Finally, considering that the penalty
imposed is the indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua, the To establish its case, the prosecution presented Police Inspector
Indeterminate Sentence Law could not be applied.25 Jessie Abadilla Dela Rosa (P/Insp Dela Rosa), Forensic
Chemical Officer of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision Laboratory, NPD-CLO, Caloocan City Police Station and Police
dated August 16, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.- Officer 3 Rodrigo Antonio (PO3 Antonio) of the Caloocan Police
H.C. No. 01431, which affirmed the Decision dated October 30, Station – Drug Enforcement Unit. The testimony of the police
2000 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 27, in Criminal investigator, PO3 Fernando Moran (PO3 Moran), was dispensed
Case No. 99-177383, finding accused-appellants guilty of the with after petitioner’s counsel admitted the facts offered for
crime of illegal transport of marijuana and sentencing them to stipulation by the prosecution.
reclusion perpetua, and to pay a fine of ₱500,000.00 each, is
hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.

111
On the other hand, the defense presented the petitioner as its proceeded to the target area to verify the said informant and/or
sole witness. The testimonies of Abraham Miclat, Sr. and Ma. memorandum.
Concepcion Miclat, the father and sister, respectively, of the
petitioner was dispensed with after the prosecution agreed that When the group of SPO4 Palting arrived at Palmera Spring II,
their testimonies were corroborative in nature. Caloocan City at around 3:50 o’clock that same afternoon, they
were [at] once led by their informant to the house of one Alias
Evidence for the Prosecution "Abe." PO3 Antonio then positioned himself at the perimeter of
the house, while the rest of the members of the group deployed
First to testify for the prosecution was P/Insp. Jessie Abadilla themselves nearby. Thru a small opening in the curtain-covered
Dela Rosa, Forensic Chemical Officer of the PNP Crime window, PO3 Antonio peeped inside and there at a distance of
Laboratory, NPD-CLO, Caloocan City Police Station who, on the 1½ meters, he saw "Abe" arranging several pieces of small
witness stand, affirmed his own findings in Physical Science plastic sachets which he believed to be containing shabu. Slowly,
Report No. D-1222-02 (Exhs. "D," "D-1," and "D-2") that per said operative inched his way in by gently pushing the door as
qualitative examination conducted on the specimen submitted, well as the plywood covering the same. Upon gaining entrance,
the white crystalline substance weighing 0.05 gram, 0.06 gram, PO3 Antonio forthwith introduced himself as a police officer while
0.07 gram, and 0.06 gram then contained inside four (4) separate "Abe," on the other hand, after being informed of such authority,
pieces of small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets (Exhs. "D- voluntarily handed over to the former the four (4) pieces of small
4" to "D-7") gave positive result to the test for plastic sachets the latter was earlier sorting out. PO3 Antonio
Methylamphetamine (sic) Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. immediately placed the suspect under arrest and brought him and
the four (4) pieces of plastic sachets containing white crystalline
Also, thru the testimony of PO3 Rodrigo Antonio of the Caloocan substance to their headquarters and turned them over to PO3
Police Station-Drug Enforcement Unit, Samson Road, Caloocan Fernando Moran for proper disposition. The suspect was
City, the prosecution further endeavored to establish the identified as Abraham Miclat y Cerbo a.k.a "ABE," 19 years old,
following: single, jobless and a resident of Maginhawa Village, Palmera
Spring II, Bagumbong, Caloocan City.4
At about 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon of November 8, 2002,
P/Insp. Jose Valencia of the Caloocan City Police Station-SDEU Evidence for the Defense
called upon his subordinates after the (sic) receiving an
INFOREP Memo from Camp Crame relative to the illicit and On the other hand, the [petitioner] has a different version of the
down-right drug-trading activities being undertaken along incident completely opposed to the theory of the prosecution. On
Palmera Spring II, Bagumbong, Caloocan City involving Abe the witness stand, he alleged that at about 4:00 o’clock in the
Miclat, Wily alias "Bokbok" and one Mic or Jojo (Exhs. "E," "E-1," afternoon of November 8, 2002, while he, together with his sister
and (sic) "E-3," and "E-4"). Immediately, P/Insp. Valencia formed and father, were at the upper level of their house watching the
a surveillance team headed by SPO4 Ernesto Palting and is television soap "Cindy," they suddenly heard a commotion
composed of five (5) more operatives from the Drug Enforcement downstairs prompting the three (3) of them to go down. There
Unit, namely: PO3 Pagsolingan, PO2 Modina, PO2 De Ocampo, already inside were several male individuals in civilian clothes
and herein witness PO3 Antonio. After a short briefing at their who introduced themselves as raiding police operatives from the
station, the team boarded a rented passenger jeepney and SDEU out to effect his (Abe) arrest for alleged drug pushing.

112
[Petitioner] and his father tried to plead his case to these officers, Aggrieved, petitioner sought recourse before the CA, which
but to no avail. Instead, one of the operatives even kicked appeal was later docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 28846.
[petitioner] at the back when he tried to resist the arrest.
Immediately, [petitioner] was handcuffed and together with his On October 13, 2006, the CA rendered a Decision8 affirming in
father, they were boarded inside the police vehicle. That on their toto the decision of the RTC, the dispositive portion of which
way to the Bagong Silang Police Station, PO3 Pagsolingan reads:
showed to [petitioner] a small piece of plastic sachet containing
white crystalline substances allegedly recovered by the raiding WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the appeal is hereby
police team from their house. At around 9:00 o’clock in the DISMISSED and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED in toto. Costs
evening, [petitioner] was transferred to the Sangandaan against the accused-appellant.
Headquarters where he was finally detained. That upon
[petitioner’s] transfer and detention at the said headquarters, his
SO ORDERED. (Emphasis supplied.)9
father was ordered to go home.5
In affirming the RTC, the CA ratiocinated that contrary to the
On July 28, 2004, the RTC, after finding that the prosecution has
contention of the petitioner, the evidence presented by the
established all the elements of the offense charged, rendered a
prosecution were all admissible against him. Moreover, it was
Decision6 convicting petitioner of Violation of Section 11, Article II
established that he was informed of his constitutional rights at the
of RA No. 9165, the dispositive portion of which reads:
time of his arrest. Hence, the CA opined that the prosecution has
proven beyond reasonable doubt all of the elements necessary
WHEREFORE, from the facts established, the Court finds the for the conviction of the petitioner for the offense of illegal
accused ABRAHAM MICLAT Y CERBO "GUILTY" beyond possession of dangerous drugs.
reasonable doubt of the crime of possession of a dangerous
drugs (sic) defined and penalized under the provision of Section
Hence, the petition raising the following errors:
11, sub-paragraph No. (3), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and
hereby imposes upon him an indeterminate penalty of six (6)
years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment, in 1. whether or not a police surveillance team sent to
view of the absence of aggravating circumstances. The Court determine the veracity of a camp crame memorandum of
likewise orders the accused to pay the amount of Three Hundred shabu trading activity at caloocan city, which converted
Thousand Pesos (Php300,000.00) as fine. their mission from surveillance to a raiding team, can
validly make an arrest and search without a valid warrant
having been first obtained from a court of competent
Let the 0.24 gram of shabu subject matter of this case be
jurisdiction.
confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government and to be
turned over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for proper
disposition. 2. whether or not peeping thRough a curtain-covered
window is within the meaning of "plain view doctrine" for a
warrantless seizure to be lawful.
SO ORDERED. (Emphasis supplied.)7

113
 3. whether or not the belief of po3 antonio that the four (4) Petitioner also contends that the chain of custody of the alleged
pieces of plaStic sachets allegedly being arranged by illegal drugs was highly questionable, considering that the plastic
petitioner contained shabu justified his entry into the sachets were not marked at the place of the arrest and no
house and arrest petitioner without any warrant. acknowledgment receipt was issued for the said evidence.

4. whether or not arranging four (4) pieces of plaStic Finally, petitioner claims that the arresting officer did not inform
sachets constitute as a crime within the meaning of him of his constitutional rights at any time during or after his
section 5 (3), rule 113 of the rules of court. arrest and even during his detention. Hence, for this infraction,
the arresting officer should be punished accordingly.
5. whether or not petitioner was properly appraised (SIC)
of his constitutional rights to be informed of the cause and The petition is bereft of merit.
nature of his arrest and right to be assisted by counsel
during the period of his arrest and continued detention. At the outset, it is apparent that petitioner raised no objection to
the irregularity of his arrest before his arraignment. Considering
6. whether or not the conviction by the lower court of the this and his active participation in the trial of the case,
petitioner, as affirmed by the honorable court of appeals, jurisprudence dictates that petitioner is deemed to have submitted
on the basis of an illegal search and arrest, is correct.10 to the jurisdiction of the trial court, thereby curing any defect in his
arrest.11 An accused is estopped from assailing any irregularity of
Simply stated, petitioner is assailing the legality of his arrest and his arrest if he fails to raise this issue or to move for the quashal
the subsequent seizure of the arresting officer of the suspected of the information against him on this ground before arraignment.
sachets of dangerous drugs from him. Petitioner insists that he Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure by
was just watching television with his father and sister when police which the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the
operatives suddenly barged into their home and arrested him for accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the
illegal possession of shabu. objection is deemed waived.12

Petitioner also posits that being seen in the act of arranging In the present case, at the time of petitioner’s arraignment, there
several plastic sachets inside their house by one of the arresting was no objection raised as to the irregularity of his arrest.
officers who was peeping through a window is not sufficient Thereafter, he actively participated in the proceedings before the
reason for the police authorities to enter his house without a valid trial court. In effect, he is deemed to have waived any perceived
search warrant and/or warrant of arrest. Arguing that the act of defect in his arrest and effectively submitted himself to the
arranging several plastic sachets by and in itself is not a crime jurisdiction of the court trying his case. At any rate, the illegal
per se, petitioner maintains that the entry of the police arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside a
surveillance team into his house was illegal, and no amount of valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial
incriminating evidence will take the place of a validly issued free from error. It will not even negate the validity of the conviction
search warrant. Moreover, peeping through a curtain-covered of the accused.13
window cannot be contemplated as within the meaning of the
plain view doctrine, rendering the warrantless arrest unlawful.

114
True, the Bill of Rights under the present Constitution provides in on the date of the arrest, agents of the Station Drug Enforcement
part: Unit (SDEU) of the Caloocan City Police Station were conducting
a surveillance operation in the area of Palmera Spring II to verify
SEC. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, the reported drug-related activities of several individuals, which
houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and included the petitioner. During the operation, PO3 Antonio,
seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be through petitioner’s window, saw petitioner arranging several
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue plastic sachets containing what appears to be shabu in the living
except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the room of their home. The plastic sachets and its suspicious
judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the contents were plainly exposed to the view of PO3 Antonio, who
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly was only about one and one-half meters from where petitioner
describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to was seated. PO3 Antonio then inched his way in the house by
be seized. gently pushing the door. Upon gaining entrance, the operative
introduced himself as a police officer. After which, petitioner
However, a settled exception to the right guaranteed by the voluntarily handed over to PO3 Antonio the small plastic sachets.
above-stated provision is that of an arrest made during the PO3 Antonio then placed petitioner under arrest and, contrary to
commission of a crime, which does not require a previously petitioner’s contention, PO3 Antonio informed him of his
issued warrant. Such warrantless arrest is considered reasonable constitutional rights.16 PO3 Antonio then took the petitioner and
and valid under Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on the four (4) pieces of plastic sachets to their headquarters and
Criminal Procedure, to wit: turned them over to PO3 Moran. Thereafter, the evidence were
marked "AMC 1-4," the initials of the name of the petitioner. The
heat-sealed transparent sachets containing white crystalline
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.  a peace office of a
substance were submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory for drug
private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
examination, which later yielded positive results for the presence
of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug under RA
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has No. 9165.
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense;14
Considering the circumstances immediately prior to and
surrounding the arrest of the petitioner, petitioner was clearly
For the exception in Section 5 (a), Rule 113 to operate, this Court arrested in flagrante delicto as he was then committing a crime,
has ruled that two (2) elements must be present: (1) the person to violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, within the view of the
be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just arresting officer.
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a
crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the
As to the admissibility of the seized drugs in evidence, it too falls
view of the arresting officer.15
within the established exceptions.
In the instant case, contrary to petitioner’s contention, he was
Verily, no less than the 1987 Constitution mandates that a search
caught in flagrante delicto and the police authorities effectively
and consequent seizure must be carried out with a judicial
made a valid warrantless arrest. The established facts reveal that
warrant; otherwise, it becomes unreasonable, and any evidence

115
obtained therefrom shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any The "plain view" doctrine applies when the following requisites
proceeding.17 The right against warrantless searches and seizure, concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the
however, is subject to legal and judicial exceptions, namely: evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a
position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest; discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is
immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes
2. Search of evidence in "plain view"; may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject
to seizure. The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an
initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can
3. Search of a moving vehicle;
particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion,
he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating
4. Consented warrantless search; the accused. The object must be open to eye and hand and its
discovery inadvertent. (Emphasis supplied.)20
5. Customs search;
It is clear, therefore, that an object is in plain view if the object
6. Stop and Frisk; and itself is plainly exposed to sight. Since petitioner’s arrest is among
the exceptions to the rule requiring a warrant before effecting an
7. Exigent and emergency circumstances.18 arrest and the evidence seized from the petitioner was the result
of a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest, which
What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable warrantless incidentally was in plain view of the arresting officer, the results of
search or seizure is purely a judicial question, determinable from the ensuing search and seizure were admissible in evidence to
the uniqueness of the circumstances involved, including the prove petitioner’s guilt of the offense charged.
purpose of the search or seizure, the presence or absence of
probable cause, the manner in which the search and seizure was As to petitioner’s contention that the police failed to comply with
made, the place or thing searched, and the character of the the proper procedure in the transfer of custody of the seized
articles procured.19 evidence thereby casting serious doubt on its seizure, this too
deserves scant consideration.
It is to be noted that petitioner was caught in the act of arranging
the heat-sealed plastic sachets in plain sight of PO3 Antonio and Section 21, paragraphs 1 and 2, Article II of RA No. 9165
he voluntarily surrendered them to him upon learning that he is a provides:
police officer. The seizure made by PO3 Antonio of the four
plastic sachets from the petitioner was not only incidental to a Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized,
lawful arrest, but it also falls within the purview of the "plain view" and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of
doctrine. Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory
Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to Equipment. - The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all
be in a position to have that view are subject to seizure even dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled
without a search warrant and may be introduced in evidence. precursors and essential chemicals, as well as

116
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in such seizures of and custody over said items.
the following manner:
x x x x.21
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of
the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, From the foregoing, it is clear that the failure of the law enforcers
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of to comply strictly with the rule is not fatal. It does not render
the accused or the person/s from whom such items were petitioner’s arrest illegal nor the evidence adduced against him
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a inadmissible.22 What is essential is "the preservation of the
representative from the media and the Department of Justice integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the
(DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; innocence of the accused."23

(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of Here, the requirements of the law were substantially complied
dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled with and the integrity of the drugs seized from the petitioner was
precursors and essential chemicals, as well as preserved. More importantly, an unbroken chain of custody of the
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same prohibited drugs taken from the petitioner was sufficiently
shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a established. The factual antecedents of the case reveal that the
qualitative and quantitative examination; petitioner voluntarily surrendered the plastic sachets to PO3
Antonio when he was arrested. Together with petitioner, the
x x x x. evidence seized from him were immediately brought to the police
station and upon arriving thereat, were turned over to PO3
Corolarilly, the implementing provision of Section 21 (a), Article II Moran, the investigating officer. There the evidence was marked.
of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA No. The turn-over of the subject sachets and the person of the
9165, provides: petitioner were then entered in the official blotter. Thereafter, the
Chief of the SDEU, Police Senior Inspector Jose Ramirez
(a) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of Valencia, endorsed the evidence for laboratory examination to the
the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, National Police District PNP Crime Laboratory. The evidence was
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of delivered by PO3 Moran and received by Police Inspector Jessie
the accused or the person/s from whom such items were Dela Rosa.24 After a qualitative examination of the contents of the
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a four (4) plastic sachets by the latter, the same tested positive for
representative from the media and the Department of Justice methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.25
(DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: An unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs had, therefore,
Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements been established by the prosecution from the arresting officer, to
under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the the investigating officer, and finally to the forensic chemist. There
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by is no doubt that the items seized from the petitioner at his
residence were also the same items marked by the investigating

117
officer, sent to the Crime Laboratory, and later on tested positive factual findings that petitioner committed the crime charged
for methamphetamine hydrochloride. against him.

For conviction of illegal possession of a prohibited drug to lie, the Against the overwhelming evidence of the prosecution, petitioner
following elements must be established: (1) the accused was in merely denied the accusations against him and raised the
possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or defense of frame-up. The defense of denial and frame-up has
regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor, for it can easily
(3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in
possession of the drug.26 Based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. In order to
prosecution, the above elements were duly established in the prosper, the defense of denial and frame-up must be proved with
present case. Mere possession of a regulated drug per strong and convincing evidence.30
se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus
possidendi sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory As to the penalty, while We sustain the amount of fine, the
explanation of such possession – the onus probandi is shifted to indeterminate sentence imposed should, however, be modified.
the accused, to explain the absence of knowledge or animus
possidendi.27 Section 11, Article II, RA No. 9165, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, provides:
It is a settled rule that in cases involving violations of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. – The penalty of life
prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred
presumed to have performed their duties in a regular thousand pesos (₱500,000.00) to Ten million pesos
manner.28 Although not constrained to blindly accept the findings (₱10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless
of fact of trial courts, appellate courts can rest assured that such authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the
facts were gathered from witnesses who presented their following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
statements live and in person in open court. In cases where
conflicting sets of facts are presented, the trial courts are in the
x x x x.
best position to recognize and distinguish spontaneous
declaration from rehearsed spiel, straightforward assertion from a
stuttering claim, definite statement from tentative disclosure, and Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing
to a certain degree, truth from untruth.29 quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:

In the present case, there is no compelling reason to reverse the x x x x.

findings of fact of the trial court. No evidence exist that shows any
apparent inconsistencies in the narration of the prosecution (3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty
witnesses of the events which transpired and led to the arrest of (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand
petitioner. After a careful evaluation of the records, We find no pesos (₱300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos
error was committed by the RTC and the CA to disregard their (₱400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than
five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine

118
hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, G.R. No. 174774               August 31, 2011
methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu", or other dangerous
drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy," PMA, TMA, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, 
LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly-introduced vs.
drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value ROLANDO S. DELOS REYES, alias "Botong," and
or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic RAYMUNDO G. REYES, alias "Mac-Mac," Accused-Appellants.
requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of
marijuana.31 DECISION

From the foregoing, illegal possession of less than five (5) grams LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu is penalized
with imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty
On appeal is the Decision1 dated July 12, 2006 of the Court of
(20) years and a fine ranging from Three Hundred Thousand
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01733, which affirmed with
Pesos (₱300,000.00) to Four Hundred Thousand Pesos
modification the Decision2 dated September 23, 2003 of Branch
(₱400,000.00). The evidence adduced by the prosecution
214 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City in
established beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner had in his
Criminal Case No. MC-00-2375-D. The Court of Appeals found
possession 0.24 gram of shabu, or less than five (5) grams of the
accused-appellants Rolando S. delos Reyes and Raymundo G.
dangerous drug, without any legal authority.
Reyes (Reyes) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of
Section 21 of Article IV, in relation to Section 16 of Article III, of
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum period of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs
the imposable penalty shall not fall below the minimum period set Act of 1972, and imposing upon them the penalty of reclusion
by the law; the maximum period shall not exceed the maximum perpetua.
period allowed under the law; hence, the imposable penalty
should be within the range of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
The following antecedent facts are culled from the records:
fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months.
On February 17, 2000, accused-appellants Rolando S. delos
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The
Reyes and Raymundo G. Reyes, Emmanuel de Claro, and Mary
Decision dated October 13, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
Jane Lantion-Tom (Lantion-Tom) were all arrested for illegal
G.R. CR No. 28846 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
possession, sale, delivery, distribution, and/or transportation of
Petitioner is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate sentence
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a regulated drug commonly
of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and
known as shabu. The Office of the City Prosecutor of
eight (8) months.
Mandaluyong City, in its Resolution dated March 3, 2000, found
probable cause to indict accused-appellants, together with
SO ORDERED. Emmanuel de Claro, for violation of Republic Act No. 6425, and
resolved to continue the preliminary investigation in so far as
Lantion-Tom was concerned. The criminal information against

119
accused-appellants and Emmanuel de Claro, filed with the RTC, reinvestigation (except accused-appellant Reyes who did not
reads: participate in the proceedings), which it summarized as follows:

The undersigned 2nd Asst. City Prosecutor accuses ROLANDO In their Joint Affidavit of Arrest, the arresting officers, members of
DELOS REYES y SANTOS @ BOTONG, RAYMUNDO REYES y the Intelligence and Investigation of the Regional Mobile Group
GUINZON @ MAC-MAC and EMMANUEL DE CLARO y (RMG) of the National Capital Region Police Office (NCRPO)
ENRIQUEZ @ COCOY of the crime of VIOLATION OF SEC. 21 claims that on 17 February 2000 a confidential informant called
ART. IV IN REL. TO SEC. 16 ART. III OF R.A. 6425 AS up relative to a narcotics drug deal to commence at the vicinity of
AMENDED, committed in the manner herein narrated as follows: the parking area of Shangrila Plaza Hotel, Mandaluyong City; that
they were dispatched to verify the reports and conduct police
That on or about the 17th day of February, 2000, in the City of operations; that about 2:00 p.m. after meeting with the
Mandaluyong, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this confidential agent, they strategically positioned themselves at the
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being lawfully vicinity parking area of said hotel; that about 10:00 p.m.,
authorized to possess any regulated drug, conspiring and accused/respondent Reyes a.k.a. Mac-Mac, on board a white
confederating together and mutually helping and aiding one Toyota Corolla, and accused/respondent [Rolando] delos Reyes,
another, commit to sell, deliver, distribute and/or transport a a.k.a. "Botong," on board a red Toyota Corolla, arrived with
carton of ten (10) heat-sealed transparent plastic bags containing accused/respondent Reyes subsequently proceeding inside
white crystalline substance with the following grams, to wit: 99.2, Whistletop Bar and Restaurant, and accused/respondent
94.9, 99.6, 93.5, 98.3, 99.5, 99.6, 99.5, 98.4 and 98.4 grams or a [Rolando] delos Reyes calling accused/respondent [Emmanuel]
total of 980.9 grams, which substance when submitted for drug de Claro through his cellular phone; that accused/respondent
examination, were found positive to the test for [Rolando] delos Reyes and [Emmanuel] de Claro then proceeded
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly known as "shabu," to the latter’s parked Mazda car where respondent Lantion-Tom
a regulated drug, without the corresponding license and was waiting; from the parked car, a box in transparent plastic bag
prescription.3 was taken, which accused/respondent [Emmanuel] de Claro
handed-over to accused/respondent [Rolando] delos Reyes;
On March 7, 2000, accused-appellant Rolando delos Reyes, accused/respondent [Rolando] delos Reyes in turn handed the
Emmanuel de Claro, and Lantion-Tom, insisting on their box in a plastic bag to accused/respondent Reyes; that the
innocence, moved for a reinvestigation of their case before the arresting officers accosted the accused/respondents who
RTC, which said trial court granted in an Order4dated March 15, according to the arresting officers admitted having in their
2000. possession illegal drugs; that the recovered items containing ten
(10) pcs. of heat sealed transparent plastic bags of white
crystalline substance with a total weight of 980.9 grams turned
After the reinvestigation, the Office of the City Prosecutor issued
positive to the test for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or
a Resolution dated April 3, 2000, recommending that the RTC
shabu, a regulated drug.
proceed with the indictment of accused-appellant Reyes and
Emmanuel de Claro, and dismiss the charges against accused-
appellant Rolando delos Reyes and Lantion-Tom. The Office of In his "Sinumpaang Kontra-Salaysay," accused/respondent
the City Prosecutor considered the different versions of events [Rolando] delos Reyes claims that on 17 February 2000, he went
presented by the parties during the preliminary investigation and to Buenas Market, Manggahan, Pasig City, together with a

120
neighbor, one Marlon David, to talk to Raymundo Reyes who was alamin kung ang nasabing insidente ay coordinated dito sa
to pay his indebtedness; that while looking for a parking space, himpilan o tanggapan ng Barangay."
several men with firearms suddenly appeared, with one shouting,
"buksan mo ang pintuan ng sasakyan at kung hindi babasagin ko (Sgd) Virginia delos Reyes
ito"; that he and Marlon David were forced out of their vehicle with Nagpapahayag"
one of the armed men bringing out a plastic shopping bag of
Shoe Mart, asking where the said bag allegedly containing The blotter was apparently made after Marlon David informed
"shabu" came from; that accused/respondent [Rolando] delos Mrs. [Virginia] Delos Reyes of the incident upon his release on 18
Reyes answered "hindi ko alam," that he and Marlon David were February 2000. Another witness, one Joel Navarro, claims having
blindfolded when forcibly taken to the group’s vehicle and seen the actual incident confirming the events as narrated to by
continuously asked who the source of the shabu was, with accused/respondent [Rolando] delos Reyes and Marlon David.
respondent/accused [Rolando] delos Reyes replying, "hindi ko
alam at wala akong kinalaman diyan;" that Marlon David was
Accused/respondent [Emmanuel] de Claro and his common law
separated from accused/respondent [Rolando] delos Reyes and
wife, respondent Lantion-Tom, submitted their separate Counter-
later released on 18 February 2000; that when
Affidavits jointly denying the charges and claiming that they were
accused/respondent [Rolando] delos Reyes’ blindfold was
at the Whistlestop Bar and Restaurant to talk to respondent
removed, he found himself at Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan,
Lantion-Tom’s accountant Ms. Daisy Milan regarding the Mayor’s
Taguig, Metro Manila.
Permit, Business Location Clearance issued by the Office of the
Barangay Captain, insurance documents, BIR Certificate of
xxxx Registration of her business; that they were with
accused/respondent [Emmanuel] de Claro’s brother, Roberto and
To confirm respondent/accused [Rolando] delos Reyes’ claim, a friend, James, with the two remaining outside the restaurant;
that he was arrested in Brgy. Manggahan, Pasig City, and not in that respondent Lantion-Tom went to accompany Ms. Milan, while
the vicinity of Whistletop Bar and Restaurant in Mandaluyong accused/respondent [Emmanuel] de Claro was left inside; that
City, respondent/accused [Emmanuel] de Claro’s spouse after Ms. Milan left, respondent Lantion-Tom was suddenly
submitted a certified true xerox copy of barangay blotter of surrounded by men who introduced themselves as police officers
Barangay Manggahan, Pasig City, reflecting the entry on 19 and were arresting them for being the source of "shabu" in a drug
February 2000 made by Mrs. Delos Reyes, on the incident deal; that all of them, accused/respondent [Emmanuel] de Claro,
reported to by Marlon David thus: Roberto and James were likewise arrested and continuously
questioned on their complicity in the drug deal; that they were
"BLOTTER" taken to Camp Bagong Diwa, Taguig, Metro Manila and
subjected to further investigation; that Roberto and James were
"Dumulog po rito sa himpilan ng Punong Barangay si Gng. released the following day. Both respondents maintain that the
Virginia Delos Reyes, upang ipagbigay alam ang pagkawala ng allegations of the arresting officers as to the circumstances on the
kanyang asawa na si Mr. Rolando delos Reyes, nuong petsa 17 alleged "drug deal" leading to their arrest are unfounded and
ng Pebrero taong dalawang libo (2000) na ayon sa batang purely fabricated.
pamangkin na si Marlon David, ay hinuli ng mga hindi kilalang
lalaki sa Buenas Market, Manggahan, Pasig City nais niyang

121
During the preliminary investigation proceedings on 21 March The prosecution presented in evidence the testimonies of Police
2000, the arresting officers manifested that they are going to Officer (PO) 3 Virgilio Santiago,9 Senior Police Officer (SPO) 1
submit reply-affidavit on 29 March 2000. However, no such reply- Eraldo Lectura,10 PO3 Angel Yumul,11 and SPO1 Benjamin
affidavit was submitted.5 David,12 members of the Regional Mobile Group (RMG) of the
Philippine National Police (PNP) National Capital Regional Police
The Office of the City Prosecutor pointed out that the arresting Office (NCRPO) who apprehended and/or investigated the case
police officers failed to refute accused-appellant Rolando delos against accused-appellants, Emmanuel de Claro, and Lantion-
Reyes’ counter-allegation that he was not arrested at Shangri-La Tom; and P/Insp. Benjamin Cruto, Jr.13 (Cruto), the forensic
Plaza in Mandaluyong City, but he was illegally arrested without chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory.
warrant at Buenas Market in Cainta, Rizal, as corroborated by
Marlon David and Joel Navarro (Navarro) in their respective PO3 Santiago was one of the police officers who arrested
sworn statements (Sinumpaang Salaysay) dated March 14, 2000. Emmanuel de Claro and Lantion-Tom on February 17. 2000. He
The Office of the City Prosecutor also observed that Lantion-Tom testified that at around 10:30 a.m., their operation chief, Major
was "merely in the company of the other respondents without Arnold Aguilar, received information from a confidential informant
performing any overt act showing her to be part of the illicit regarding an illegal drug deal that would take place between
transaction" and her drug test revealed negative results. On the Botong and Mac-Mac at the parking lot of Shangri-La Plaza in
other hand, it considered the conflicting claims of Emmanuel de Madaluyong City. Botong and Mac-Mac were identified during the
Claro (i.e., that he was illegally arrested and that the drug deal investigation as accused-appellants Rolando delos Reyes and
was a mere fabrication) and the arresting officers (i.e., that Reyes, respectively.
Emmanuel de Claro was the seller/pusher in the drug deal and
the shabu was seized from his vehicle) would be best ventilated As narrated by PO3 Santiago, a team to bust the illegal drug deal
during the trial on the merits. was organized by Major Aguilar, composed of PO3 Santiago
himself, SPO1 Lectura, and PO3 Yumul, along with PO3 Elmer
In accordance with the foregoing resolution, the prosecution filed Corbe, PO3 Marcelo Arcancia, Jr., PO3 Randy Fuentes, PO3
with the RTC a motion with leave of court to admit amended Dennis Padpad, and PO3 Edwin dela Cruz. At around 1:00 p.m.
information. of the same day, the police team was dispatched, using four
vehicles, to the location of the drug deal and upon arrival, they
In its Order6 dated April 4, 2000, the RTC denied the waited for the confidential informant to arrive. When the
prosecution’s motion. Contrary to the finding of the Office of the confidential informant arrived at around 3:30 p.m., he told the
City Prosecutor, the RTC adjudged that probable cause exists not police team that the drug deal would possibly take place between
only against accused-appellant Reyes and Emmanuel de Claro, 6:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m., and that the suspects would utilize a
but accused-appellant Rolando delos Reyes as well. red Toyota Corolla with plate number TRP-868 and a white
Toyota Corolla with plate number ULF-706. The police team then
Accused-appellants were arraigned on May 23, 2000,7 while positioned their cars strategically in such a way that they could
Emmanuel de Claro was arraigned on July 12, 2000.8All three see the vehicles coming from St. Francis Street and EDSA.
pleaded not guilty. After the pre-trial conference, trial ensued.
PO3 Santiago further recounted that at around 10:00 p.m., the
suspected vehicles arrived, both stopping along the driveway of

122
Shangri-La Plaza. The drivers of the vehicles alighted and talked even see Botong hand over such plastic bag to Mac-Mac. From
to each other. The confidential informant recognized the driver of PO3 Santiago’s position, he could not conclude that the suspects
the white Toyota car as Mac-Mac and the driver of the red Toyota were committing an illegal drug deal as he had no prior
car as Botong. After a few minutes, Botong made a call on his knowledge of the contents of the plastic bag, and that he and the
cellular phone and then proceeded inside Whistle Stop other arresting officers just relied on the information relayed by
Restaurant, leaving Mac-Mac behind. Inside the restaurant, the confidential informant. Also, the police team did not recover
Botong talked to another person, who was identified during the any money from the arrested suspects. The confidential informant
investigation as Emmanuel de Claro alias Cocoy. PO3 Santiago merely informed the police the following morning that the money
was about three to five meters away. Thereafter, Botong and for the illegal drugs was already deposited in the bank. The
Cocoy went out of the restaurant and approached a car parked police, however, failed to make further queries from the
right outside. The person at the back seat of the car, later on confidential informant about the bank.
identified as Lantion-Tom, handed to Cocoy a white plastic bag
containing a box. Cocoy gave the bag to Botong, who, in turn, SPO1 Lectura related that their office received a telephone call
handed the same bag to Mac-Mac. In the meantime, Cocoy went from a confidential informant about an illegal drug deal involving
back inside the restaurant. Cocoy, Botong, and Mac-Mac in the vicinity of Shangri-La Plaza
in Mandaluyong City on February 17, 2000. SPO1 Lectura was
PO3 Santiago related that their team leader "sensed" that the designated as the leader of the team that will bust said illegal
drug deal had already been consummated, so the police team drug deal. After the briefing, SPO1 Lectura’s team proceeded to
immediately effected the arrest of the suspected drug dealers. the subject location.
PO3 Santiago and PO3 Yumul arrested Cocoy and Lantion-Tom,
while SPO1 Lectura and the remaining police team members The confidential informant arrived and met SPO1 Lectura’s team
arrested Botong and Mac-Mac. The plastic bag containing the at around 3:30 p.m. SPO1 Lectura conducted a short briefing
box was seized from Mac-Mac. The arrested suspects were then positioned his team strategically within the vicinity. The
brought to the police office for investigation. The plastic bag, the confidential informant told the police team that the drug deal
box, and the 10 heat-sealed sachets of white crystalline would take place between 6:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. At around
substance inside the box, were marked for identification and 10:00 p.m., the confidential informant identified the suspected
physical examination at the police office. drug dealers Botong and Mac-Mac, who were arriving in two cars.
After conversing for a moment with Mac-Mac, Botong went inside
According to PO3 Santiago, the physical examination of the Whistle Stop Restaurant to talk to Cocoy. Botong and Cocoy then
contents of each of the 10 heat-sealed sachets yielded positive went outside the restaurant and approached another car. Cocoy
test results for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. PO3 took a white plastic bag from the car, which he handed to Botong.
Santiago then signed a Joint Affidavit of Arrest dated February Thereafter, Cocoy went back inside the restaurant, while
18, 2000 together with the other arresting police officers, namely, "[Botong] proceeded to his car near [Mac-Mac]." SPO1 Lectura
SPO1 Lectura, PO3 Corbe, PO3 Arcancia, PO3 Fuentes, and was positioned at the other lane of the road, approximately 10 to
PO3 Nelson Gene Javier. 15 meters away from the suspects. At that moment, SPO1
Lectura "sensed" that the drug deal had been consummated, so
On cross-examination, PO3 Santiago admitted that he did not he decided to already arrest the suspects. SPO1 Lectura arrested
actually see what was inside the plastic bag and that he did not Mac-Mac, from whom he seized the white plastic bag. PO3

123
Yumul and PO3 Padpad arrested Botong; and PO3 Santiago PO3 Fuentes, PO3 Dela Cruz, and their confidential informant
apprehended Cocoy. The police team brought the arrested were in another car also parked along the driveway of Shangri-La
suspects to the police office for investigation. Plaza. PO3 Santiago, PO3 Arcancia, and PO3 Corbe were in the
car stationed in front of Whistle Stop Restaurant. PO3 Yumul
SPO1 Lectura submitted to SPO1 David the white plastic bag could not recall where the other members of the team were
containing a box with 10 heat-sealed plastic sachets inside. In located.
front of SPO1 Lectura, SPO1 David marked the said articles with
his initials. After physical and chemical examinations revealed At around 10:00 p.m., the suspects Botong and Mac-Mac arrived
that the contents of the sachets were shabu, SPO1 Lectura in separate cars, stopping in front of Shangri-La Plaza. Botong
signed the Joint Affidavit of Arrest dated February 18, 2000. and Mac-Mac alighted from their cars and talked to each other. At
that time, PO3 Yumul was about five meters away from the two
During cross-examination, SPO1 Lectura initially denied that suspects. Moments later, Botong called someone on his cellular
Marlon David was with Botong when the latter was arrested, but phone, and then went inside Whistle Stop Restaurant, leaving
he later admitted that the police also arrested Marlon David. Mac-Mac behind. PO3 Yumul followed Botong inside the
Marlon David was brought to Camp Bagong Diwa, Taguig, restaurant and saw the latter talking to Cocoy. PO3 Yumul though
together with the other arrested suspects, for "verification," and did not hear the conversation between Botong and Cocoy.
was released the following day. SPO1 Lectura also admitted that Afterwards, Botong and Cocoy went out of the restaurant and
during the preliminary investigation, he and PO3 Corbe, PO3 approached a parked car. From his position about three meters
Arcancia, and PO3 Javier, answered that it was PO3 Santiago away, PO3 Yumul saw the passenger at the back seat of the car,
who seized the shabu from Mac-Mac; but SPO1 Lectura Lantion-Tom, opening the window and handing over "a white
explained that what the investigating prosecutor actually asked plastic bag with carton inside" to Cocoy, who, in turn, gave the
during preliminary investigation was who saw where the shabu plastic bag to Botong. Cocoy then returned inside the restaurant
came from and that he signed the minutes of the preliminary and "[Botong] went back to [Mac-Mac]." PO3 Yumul followed
investigation without reading the same. SPO1 Lectura maintained Cocoy inside the restaurant. A few minutes later, PO3 Santiago
that it was he who recovered the shabu from Mac-Mac. Lastly, also went inside the restaurant informing PO3 Yumul that they
SPO1 Lectura acknowledged that his team heavily relied on the would be arresting Cocoy, and that Botong and Mac-Mac were
information given by the confidential informant in identifying the already arrested outside the restaurant. PO3 Santiago, assisted
suspects in the illegal drug deal, who were eventually arrested. by PO3 Yumul, approached Cocoy and arrested him. The police
team proceeded to the police office with all the arrested suspects
PO3 Yumul substantially narrated the same version of events as for further investigation. PO3 Yumul, however, failed to join the
that of PO3 Santiago and SPO1 Lectura. On February 17, 2000, other arresting officers in signing the Joint Affidavit of Arrest
he was assigned at the Intelligence Investigation Division of the dated February 18, 2000.
RMG based in Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, Taguig. He was with
SPO1 Lectura, PO3 Santiago, PO3 Fuentes, PO3 Padpad, and SPO1 David was an investigator at the Intelligence and
several other police officers at the vicinity of Shangri-La Plaza in Investigation Section of the RMG at Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan,
Mandaluyong City, conducting surveillance operation regarding Taguig, assigned to the instant case following the arrests of
the tipped-off illegal drug deal. He was with SPO1 Lectura and accused-appellants, Emmanuel de Claro and Lantion-Tom. He
PO3 Padpad in the car parked in front of Shangri-La Plaza, while

124
also referred the case for inquest to the Office of the City Physical Sciences Report No. D-097-2000 dated February 18,
Prosecutor. 2000 which revealed that the contents of the 10 heat-sealed
plastic sachets positively tested for methamphetamine
SPO1 David testified that on February 17, 2000, he received from hydrochloride;19 and the Letter (Referral of the case to the Office
SPO1 Lectura a plastic bag containing a box with 10 heat-sealed of the City Prosecutor)20 dated February 18, 2000. The RTC
sachets of suspected shabu inside. SPO1 Lectura told SPO1 admitted all the aforementioned evidence for the prosecution in
David that the articles were seized from the suspected drug its Order21 dated March 1, 2001.
dealers. SPO1 David marked his initials "BSD" on the confiscated
articles, then prepared a request to the PNP Crime Laboratory for The defense, on the other hand, presented the testimonies of
examination of the specimens. SPO1 David disclosed that he Marlon David,22 accused-appellant Rolando delos
prepared the Affidavit of Arrest of the arresting officers. Reyes,23 Emmanuel de Claro,24 Roberto de Claro,25 and Mary
Jane Lantion-Tom.26 Accused-appellant Reyes did not testify.
The last witness for the prosecution was P/Insp. Cruto of the PNP
Crime Laboratory. P/Insp. Cruto was the forensic chemist who Marlon David was 17 years old and a fourth year high school
conducted the physical, chemical, and confirmatory examinations student of Rizal High School in Pasig City. He recalled that on
of the contents of the 10 heat-sealed plastic sachets submitted by February 17, 2000, at about 1:00 p.m., he accompanied accused-
the RMG-NCRPO on February 18, 2000. appellant Rolando delos Reyes, whom he referred to as Kuya
Botong, to the Buenas Market in Cainta, Rizal, to collect some
P/Insp. Cruto conducted the physical examination by weighing money.
the contents of each sachet, revealing that two sachets weighed
99.6 grams each; two sachets, 99.5 grams each; one sachet, While accused-appellant Rolando delos Reyes and Marlon David
99.2 grams; two sachets, 98.4 grams each; one sachet, 98.3 were inside their car at the parking area of said market, another
grams; one sachet, 94.9 grams; and one sachet, 93.5 grams. car suddenly arrived, from which an armed male passenger
P/Insp. Cruto then took a representative sample from each plastic alighted and approached them. Four other armed men followed
sachet and proceeded with his chemical and confirmatory and poked their guns at accused-appellant Rolando delos Reyes
examinations. The contents of the 10 heat-sealed plastic sachets and Marlon David. The armed men, in civilian attire, were carrying
all tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise an SM plastic shopping bag and questioned accused-appellant
known as shabu. P/Insp. Cruto recorded the result of the Rolando delos Reyes if he knew the owner of said plastic bag.
examinations in his Physical Sciences Report No. D-097-2000.14 Accused-appellant Rolando delos Reyes denied any knowledge
about the plastic bag. Marlon David was also asked and he
The prosecution submitted the following object and documentary answered that he knew nothing about the plastic bag.
evidence: the Joint Affidavit of Arrest15 dated February 18, 2000
signed by SPO1 Lectura, PO3 Santiago, PO3 Corbe, PO3 Thereafter, the armed men, who later introduced themselves as
Arcancia, PO3 Dela Cruz and PO3 Javier; the Sketch prepared in police officers, pulled accused-appellant Rolando delos Reyes
open court by SPO1 Lectura;16 the 10 heat-sealed plastic sachets from the driver seat of the latter’s car, transferred him and Marlon
recovered from the possession of accused-appellants;17 the PNP- David to the back seat of said car, and blindfolded both of them.
RMG Request for Laboratory Examination of the contents of the Two of the armed men sat in the front seats of the car, while one
10 heat-sealed plastic sachets;18 the PNP Crime Laboratory of them sat at the back, beside accused-appellant Rolando delos

125
Reyes and Marlon David. The armed men drove the car around Accused-appellant Rolando delos Reyes denied the accusation of
(paikot-ikot). The armed men then separated accused-appellant the police that he was selling or delivering shabu to anyone. He
Rolando delos Reyes from Marlon David. They ordered Marlon asserted that he was not arrested at Whistle Stop restaurant in
David to alight from the car and transfer to another vehicle. While Mandaluyong City, rather, he was illegally arrested at Buenas
in the other car, the armed men boxed and mauled Marlon David Market in Cainta, Rizal. Accused-appellant Reyes or Mac-Mac
to force him to admit to be the source of the plastic bag. Each was his friend who owed him money. He and accused-appellant
question was accompanied with one punch. Marlon David Reyes agreed to meet at Buenas Market for the settlement of the
remained blindfolded until they arrived at the police camp in latter’s loan, but the meeting did not take place because the
Bicutan, Taguig, where he again saw accused-appellant Rolando armed men arrived. He further claimed that he only met
delos Reyes. Marlon David was released the following morning, Emmanuel de Claro at Camp Bagong Diwa in Bicutan, Taguig.
leaving accused-appellant Rolando delos Reyes behind at the He never knew Emmanuel de Claro before that time, and he
police camp. Marlon David went home and told Virginia delos found out the latter’s name only when they were already detained
Reyes, the wife of accused-appellant Rolando delos Reyes, at the Mandaluyong City Jail.
about the incident.
Emmanuel de Claro or Cocoy testified that on February 17, 2000
Marlon David, during his cross examination, denied knowing any at around 10:00 a.m., he was at the Department of Trade and
person with the name Mac-Mac. Marlon David additionally Industry in Buendia, Makati City, with his common-law wife Mary
relayed that he was told by accused-appellant Rolando delos Jane Lantion-Tom to follow up their application for business
Reyes that the latter was likewise mauled by the armed men. permit. At around 1:00 p.m., they had lunch at Glorietta.
Emmanuel de Claro was no longer feeling well so he and Lantion-
Accused-appellant Rolando delos Reyes or Botong gave a similar Tom passed by the house of his brother Roberto de Claro to
account of the incident that took place at 1:00 p.m. on February request the latter to drive for them. James, Roberto de Claro’s
17, 2000, while he and Marlon David were at the Buenas Market friend, also went with them.
in Cainta, Rizal. Their car was surrounded by four armed men.
The armed men poked their guns at him and Marlon David, The vehicle driven by Emmanuel de Claro was a rented car
shouting at them to open the car doors. He lowered the car because his own car was in the auto shop. Emmanuel de Claro,
window and the armed men opened the car door. The armed men Lantion-Tom, Roberto de Claro, and James first went to Las
forced him and Marlon David to get down from the front seats of Piñas City to check on Emmanuel de Claro’s car at the auto shop.
the car and to transfer to the back seat, blindfolded them, and From there, they proceeded to Libertad in Pasay City and ate
asked them who were the owners of the SM plastic bag. After dinner at the Duty Free Philippines. Afterwards, the group made
they left Buenas Market, he noticed that they were just driving their way to Mandaluyong City where Lantion-Tom had a
around. The car stopped only when Marlon David was taken out scheduled appointment with Daisy Milan (Milan), her accountant.
and transferred to another car. It was already late in the evening Emmanuel de Claro and Lantion-Tom met Milan at Whistle Stop
when the car finally stopped. He then realized, after his blindfold Restaurant located at Shangri-La Plaza in Mandaluyong City.
had been removed, that he was at Camp Bagong Diwa in Milan and Lantion-Tom discussed matters pertaining to the
Bicutan, Taguig. business permit. Emmanuel de Claro stepped outside the
restaurant for a moment to smoke a cigarette, then, returned
inside to wait for the meeting between Lantion-Tom and Milan to

126
finish. After their meeting, Lantion-Tom walked Milan outside the Free Philippines. They next drove to Whistle Stop Restaurant at
restaurant, while Emmanuel de Claro waited for Lantion-Tom Shangri-La Plaza in Mandaluyong City to meet "Ms. Milan." Only
inside. Emmanuel de Claro and Lantion-Tom went inside the restaurant.
Roberto de Claro and James stayed in the car.
Three male persons suddenly approached Emmanuel de Claro
and introduced themselves as police officers. They warned Two hours later, Roberto de Claro saw Lantion-Tom and "Ms.
Emmanuel de Claro not to make a scene and just go with them Milan" walking towards them. As the two women were
peacefully. Emmanuel de Claro obeyed. He was brought outside approaching, armed men suddenly appeared, surrounded their
the restaurant and was forced to get into a waiting car. For about car, and pointed guns at them. Roberto de Claro got terrified. It
three hours inside the car, he was punched, handcuffed, was as if an armed robbery ("hold-up") was taking place. The
blindfolded, and told to bow down his head. He was likewise armed men knocked at the car window. Out of fear, Roberto de
being forced to admit something about the shabu, but he denied Claro opened the window, then the door of the car. Roberto de
knowing anything about it. He heard from the radio inside the car Claro, James, and Lantion-Tom were made to sit at the back seat
that the police officers were waiting for another car. After three of the car. Two of the armed men sat on the front seats of the car,
hours of traveling, the car finally stopped and when his blindfold while one sat at the back with Roberto de Claro, James, and
was removed, he learned that they were already at Camp Bagong Lantion-Tom. The armed men introduced themselves as police
Diwa in Bicutan, Taguig. officers.

Emmanuel de Claro was placed in one room where he stayed for Inside the car, the police officers mauled (siniko, sinuntok sa ulo)
almost an hour, until he was called into another room where he Roberto de Claro, James, and Lantion-Tom, all the while ordering
met his co-accused for the first time. He later saw Lantion-Tom at them to keep their heads bowed down. The police officers drove
the office of one of the police officers. They were interrogated by the car for two hours, stopping at a gas station for about five
the police and being forced to admit that the drugs being shown minutes. At this moment, Roberto de Claro was able to raise his
to them belonged to them. They asked for a lawyer but their plea head but was immediately told to bow down his head again.
was ignored. The police told Emmanuel de Claro and Lantion- Roberto de Claro also heard from the police officers’ radio that
Tom that somebody should be held responsible for the shabu so they were still waiting for somebody. They travelled again for
they were made to choose whether both of them or only one of quite a long time and stopped in a dark place. The police officers
them would be charged. Emmanuel de Claro was compelled to took Roberto de Claro’s wallet containing ₱7,000.00 cash. Early
choose the latter option. in the following morning, they arrived at the police station where
Roberto de Claro saw his brother Emmanuel de Claro once more.
Roberto de Claro corroborated Emmanuel de Claro’s testimony. They stayed in one room until Roberto de Claro and James were
On February 17, 2000, Roberto de Claro was at home playing released by the police the next day.
video games when his brother Emmanuel de Claro and the
latter’s wife, Lantion-Tom, arrived and requested him to drive their When Lantion-Tom was called to testify, the prosecution and the
car because Emmanuel was not feeling well. James, Roberto de defense agreed to consider her Counter Affidavit dated March 23,
Claro’s friend, rode with them. They first went to Las Piñas City to 2000 and Supplemental Affidavit dated March 29, 2000 as her
check on Emmanuel de Claro’s car at the auto shop, then they direct examination.
proceeded to Libertad, Pasay City, where they had dinner at Duty

127
On cross-examination, Lantion-Tom confirmed that she was No. 6425, as amended, they are hereby sentenced to suffer the
among those arrested on February 17, 2000 at the vicinity of penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of ₱20,000.00
Shangri-La Plaza in Mandaluyong City for her alleged each and the costs of suit.
involvement in an illegal drug deal. At the time of the arrest, she
was with Emmanuel de Claro, Roberto de Claro, and James. She Further, all the methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) taken
was also brought to Camp Bagong Diwa in Taguig where she and seized from the accused during the aforesaid operation are
was interrogated without a lawyer. She was shown a box forfeited and confiscated in favor of the government shall be
containing shabu which she had never seen before. Lantion-Tom turned over to the PDEA pursuant to law for proper disposal
insisted that she was in Mandaluyong City to meet her without delay.37
accountant, Milan, regarding her application for a business
permit. Lantion-Tom pointed out that the charge against her was Emmanuel de Claro filed his notice of appeal38 on October 23,
eventually dismissed. 2003. Accused-appellants Roberto delos Reyes and Reyes each
filed his notice of appeal39 on October 29, 2003 and December
The documentary evidence for the defense consisted of 30, 2003, respectively.
Emmanuel de Claro’s Counter Affidavit dated March 23,
2000,27 Lantion-Tom’s Counter Affidavit dated March 23, Emmanuel de Claro, however, subsequently moved to withdraw
2000,28 Emmanuel de Claro and Lantion-Tom’s Supplemental his notice of appeal,40 instead, filing before the RTC an Omnibus
Affidavit dated March 29, 2000,29 Roberto de Claro’s Witness Motion for Reconsideration and to Re-Open Proceedings
Affidavit dated March 29, 2000,30Marlon David’s Sinumpaang Pursuant [to] Section 24, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court41 on
Salaysay dated March 14, 2000,31 Virginia delos Reyes’ October 30, 2003, and a Supplemental Motion for
Sinumpaang Salaysay dated March 14, 2000,32 Navarro’s Reconsideration42 on November 3, 2003. Emmanuel de Claro
Sinumpaang Salaysay dated March 14, 2000,33 accused- asked the RTC to review its judgment of conviction based on the
appellant Rolando delos Reyes’ Sinumpaang Kontra Salaysay following grounds:
dated March 14, 2000,34 and a Barangay Blotter dated February
19, 2000 by Virginia delos Reyes.35 The RTC admitted all these
I. THE HONORABLE COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
documentary evidence for the defense in its Order36 dated
RULING THAT THE ACCUSED DEFENSE OF FRAME-
September 13, 2002.
UP IS A MERE ALIBI AND HAS THUS ERRED IN
ADOPTING THE THEORY OF THE PROSECUTION
In its Decision dated September 23, 2003, the RTC found THAT ALL THE THREE (3) ACCUSED WERE PICKED-
accused-appellants and Emmanuel de Claro guilty beyond UP AT THE VICINITY OF EDSA SHANGRI-LA PLAZA
reasonable doubt of the crime charged, and decreed: HOTEL.

WHEREFORE, the prosecution having successfully proved the II. THAT THE HONORABLE COURT GRAVELY ERRED
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for unlawfully IN RULING THAT THE WARRANTLESS ARREST WAS
possessing/selling, delivering, transporting and distributing LAWFUL SINCE THE ACCUSED WERE CAUGHT IN
methamphetamine hydrochloride otherwise known as shabu, a FLAGRANTE DELICTO.
regulated drug, without lawful authority in violation of Sections 15
and 16 of Article III in relation to Section 21 of Article IV of R.A.

128
 III. THE HONORABLE COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN In its Order44 dated November 11, 2003, the RTC granted
FINDING THAT THERE WAS CONSPIRACY AMONG Emmanuel de Claro’s motion to withdraw his notice of appeal and
THE THREE (3) ACCUSED IN THE ALLEGED required the prosecution to comment to his motions for
COMMISSION OF THE CRIME OF UNLAWFUL SALE, reconsideration.
DELIVERY AND TRANSPORTATION OF THE
PROHIBITED DRUG. The prosecution filed its Comment/Opposition45 on December 19,
2003, objecting to Emmanuel de Claro’s motions for
IV. THE HONORABLE COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN reconsideration and maintaining that its police-witnesses’
FINDING BOTH ACCUSED GUILTY BEYOND categorical, consistent, and straight-forward testimonies were
REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED IN sufficient to convict Emmanuel de Claro.
THE INFORMATION ON THE BASIS MAINLY OF A
DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTION OF LACK OF IMPROPER In a complete turnabout from its previous findings and conclusion,
MOTIVE ON THE PART OF THE POLICE OFFICERS. the RTC, in its Order46 dated January 12, 2004, acquitted
Emmanuel de Claro of the crime charged. The RTC explicitly
V. THAT THE HONORABLE COURT GRAVELY ERRED admitted that it erred in giving full faith and credit to the
IN ITS FAILURE TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT testimonies of prosecution witnesses SPO1 Lectura, PO3
ACCUSED EMMANUEL DE CLARO WAS NOT Santiago, and PO3 Yumul, and in entirely rejecting the alibi of the
AFFORDED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS DURING defense. Thus, the RTC disposed:
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION.43
WHEREFORE, the motion of accused-movant Emmanuel De
Emmanuel de Claro principally contended that the accusation that Claro is hereby GRANTED and a new one entered, ACQUITTING
he was engaging in an illegal drug deal, levied against him by him of the crime charged. Consequently, his immediate release
prosecution witnesses SPO1 Lectura, PO3 Santiago, and PO3 from detention is hereby ordered unless he is detained for other
Yumul was suspicious, if not incredible. Emmanuel de Claro cause or causes.47
pointed out that although these police officers testified that
Lantion-Tom, from the car, handed to him the plastic bag Nevertheless, in view of the pending notices of appeal of
containing the box with sachets of shabu, the prosecution still accused-appellants, the RTC forwarded the complete records of
dropped the criminal charges against Lantion-Tom. Emmanuel de the case to us on March 29, 2004, and we gave due course to the
Claro also strongly argued that the prosecution failed to contradict said appeals in our Resolution48 dated June 21, 2004.
his well-supported alibi that he, his wife, and his brother went to
Shangri-La Plaza in Mandaluyong City to meet his wife’s Accused-appellant Rolando delos Reyes filed his Appellant’s
accountant, so they could attend to several documents pertaining Brief49 on September 15, 2004, while accused-appellant Reyes
to a business permit. Emmanuel de Claro further insisted that the filed his Appellant’s Brief50 on November 26, 2004. Pursuant to
RTC should have highly regarded accused-appellant Rolando our pronouncement in People v. Mateo,51 we transferred the case
delos Reyes’ testimony which directly contradicted the police to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and
officers’ statements. disposition.52 Accordingly, the plaintiff-appellee, represented by

129
the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed before the Accused-appellant Reyes cited these errors in his Appellant’s
appellate court its Consolidated Brief53 on January 21, 2005. Brief:

The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated July 12, 2006, I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THE
sustained the conviction of accused-appellants, and merely WARRANTLESS ARREST OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT
modified the penalty imposed upon them, from life imprisonment RAYMUNDO REYES AS UNLAWFUL.
to reclusion perpetua. According to the appellate court, the police
officers’ testimonies deserve credence than accused-appellants’ II. ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE WARRANTLESS
defenses of denial and alibi, there being no evidence to rebut the ARREST WAS VALID, ACCUSED-APPELLANT
presumption that the police officers regularly performed their RAYMUNDO REYES CANNOT BE CONVICTED FOR
official duties. VIOLATION OF R.A. 6425.57

The case was then elevated to us for final review. In our Accused-appellants essentially assert that the charge of illegal
Resolution54 dated January 31, 2007, we required the parties to drug deal lodged against them by the police is a complete
submit their supplemental briefs. Plaintiff-appellee and accused- fabrication and frame-up. Accused-appellants called attention to
appellants Rolando delos Reyes and Reyes filed their the material inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence. PO3
manifestations55 on March 14, 2007, April 10, 2007, and April 13, Santiago testified during direct examination that accused-
2007, respectively, opting to stand by the briefs they had already appellant Rolando delos Reyes handed the "plastic bag with box
filed before the Court of Appeals. inside" to accused-appellant Reyes, but he admitted during cross-
examination that he did not see such transfer. The prosecution
In his Appellant’s Brief, accused-appellant Rolando delos Reyes was unable to present any evidence to prove the source of the
assigned the following errors of the RTC: plastic bag containing the box with sachets of shabu, and the
money paid as consideration for the illegal drugs. The
I. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FAILING TO prosecution likewise failed to rebut accused-appellant Rolando
RESOLVE THE CONTRADICTORY TESTIMONY AS TO delos Reyes’ straightforward, coherent, and truthful narration,
THE PLACE OF THE ARREST IN FAVOR OF THE corroborated by Marlon David, that he was illegally arrested at
ACCUSED. Buenas Market in Cainta, Rizal, and not at Shangri-la Plaza in
Mandaluyong City.
II. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING [THE]
TESTIMONIES OF PO3 VIRGILIO SANTIAGO Accused-appellants additionally argued that even the
CREDIBLE. prosecution’s version of the arrests of the suspects and seizure of
the shabu shows that the same were effected in violation of
III. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FAILING TO accused-appellants’ fundamental rights. The arrests were
APPRECIATE THE PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE executed without any warrant or any of the exceptional
WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY CATEGORIZE[D] AS WEAK circumstances to justify a warrantless arrest. The suspects,
WHEN THE COURT A QUO GRANTED BAIL TO THE including accused-appellants, were arrested without warrants
ACCUSED.56 based on a mere tip from a confidential informant and not
because of any apparent criminal activity. A tip does not

130
constitute probable cause for a warrantless arrest or search and Plaintiff-appellee avers that the inconsistencies in the police
seizure incidental thereto. Thus, the shabu allegedly seized from officers’ statements, as pointed out by accused-appellants, are
accused-appellants is inadmissible in evidence. trivial and do not affect the weight of their testimonies; while
accused-appellants’ defenses of denial and frame-up could be
Plaintiff-appellee, on the other hand, stand by the convictions of easily concocted and, thus, should be looked upon with disfavor.
accused-appellants, maintaining that: Moreover, there is no need for proof of consideration for the
illegal drug deal, since consideration is not an element of the
I. THE POSITIVE AND CREDIBLE TESTIMONIES OF crime charged.
THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES HAVE
ESTABLISHED THE GUILT OF APPELLANTS BEYOND Plaintiff-appellee avows that accused-appellants were caught
REASONABLE DOUBT. while in the commission of a crime or in flagrante delicto, which
justifies their warrantless arrests under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of
II. THE WARRANTLESS ARREST CONDUCTED BY the Rules of Court. Accused-appellants were arrested while in
THE POLICE IS VALID SINCE IT FALLS SQUARELY possession and in the act of distributing, without legal authority, a
UNDER RULE 113, SECTION 5(A) OF THE REVISED total of 980.9 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or
RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. shabu, on the night of February 17, 2000 at the parking area of
Shangri-La Plaza in Mandaluyong City. In addition, in the
absence of satisfactory proof to the contrary, the warrantless
III. THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE
arrests executed by the police officers enjoy the presumption that
PROSECUTION MORE THAN SUFFICE TO CONVICT
"official duty has been regularly performed."
APPELLANTS OF THE CRIME CHARGED.
We grant the appeal and reverse the assailed decision of the
IV. CONSPIRACY ATTENDED THE COMMISSION OF
Court of Appeals.
THE OFFENSE.
At the outset, we observe that the prosecutors and the RTC both
V. MERE DENIAL AND "HULIDAP," WITHOUT MORE,
displayed uncertainty as to the facts surrounding accused-
CANNOT EXCULPATE APPELLANTS FROM CRIMINAL
appellants’ arrest on the night of February 17, 2000.
LIABILITY.
The Office of the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City, after
VI. THE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN THE
preliminary investigation and reinvestigation, recommended that
PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTY UNDER
the RTC drop accused-appellant Rolando delos Reyes and
SECTION 3(M) OF RULE 131 OF THE REVISED RULES
Lantion-Tom from the criminal charge. The RTC only partially
OF COURT HAD NOT BEEN OVERCOME BY
adopted the recommendations of the Office of the City
DEFENSE EVIDENCE.
Prosecutor: dropping the criminal charge against Lantion-Tom,
but still finding probable cause against accused-appellant
VII. CONCLUSION OF THE TRIAL JUDGE REGARDING Rolando delos Reyes.59
THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES COMMANDS
GREAT RESPECT AND CONSIDERATION.58

131
Even after trial, the RTC wavered in its findings and conclusion. prosecution be considered, this court has decided to revisit the
In its Decision60 dated September 23, 2003, the RTC initially evidence put forward by the prosecution through the crucible of a
convicted accused-appellants and Emmanuel de Claro, but acting severe testing by taking a more than casual consideration of
on Emmanuel de Claro’s motions for reconsideration, said trial every circumstance of the case.
court, in its Order61 dated January 12, 2004, totally reversed itself
and acquitted Emmanuel de Claro. This time, the RTC gave more It is noted that the testimony given by the witnesses for the
weight to the evidence presented by the defense. prosecution and that of the defense are diametrically opposed to
each other. While this court had already made its conclusion that
The Court of Appeals, on appeal, refused to consider the the testimonies of prosecution witnesses PO3 Santiago, SPO1
subsequent acquittal of Emmanuel de Claro by the RTC. Instead, Lectura and PO3 Yumul are given full faith and credit and reject
the appellate court upheld the earlier ruling of the RTC giving the frame-up and alibi story of the accused-movant [Emmanuel
absolute credence to the testimonies of the prosecution de Claro], nonetheless, upon reassessment of the same it
witnesses and convicted accused-appellants of the crime appears that the court erred.
charged. Despite the varying judgments of the RTC, the Court of
Appeals speciously ratiocinated in its assailed decision that In sum, the conveniently dovetailing accounts of the prosecution
"when the issue involves the credibility of a witness, the trial eyewitnesses, all of them police officers, with regard to the
court’s assessment is entitled to great weight."62 material facts of how the crime was allegedly committed
engenders doubt as to their credibility. Firstly, the court noted that
Guided by the settled rule that "where the inculpatory facts admit these police officers gave identical testimonies of the events that
of several interpretations, one consistent with accused's happened from the moment they arrived at 2 o’clock in the
innocence and another with his guilt, the evidence thus adduced afternoon until the arrest of the accused at 10:30 o’clock in the
fail[ed] to meet the test of moral certainty,"63 we find that the evening at the EDSA Shangri-La premises. This uniform account
findings and conclusion of the RTC in its subsequent given by these witnesses cannot but generate the suspicion that
Order64 dated January 12, 2004 (in which it acquitted Emmanuel the material circumstances testified to by them were integral parts
de Claro) is more in keeping with the evidence on record in this of a well thought-out and prefabricated story. Because of the
case. It bears to stress that the very same evidence were close camaraderie of these witnesses who belong to the same
presented against Emmanuel de Claro and accused-appellants; if police force it is not difficult for them to make the same story.
the evidence is insufficient to convict the former, then it is also Furthermore, their testimonies are so general which shows only
insufficient to convict the latter. too clearly that they testified uniformly only as to material facts
but have not given the particulars and the details having relation
Indeed, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses SPO1 Lectura, with the principal facts. While they testified that they were at
PO3 Santiago, and PO3 Yumul are unreliable and suspiciously Shangri-La from 2 in the afternoon to 10 in the evening, they were
fabricated. In its Order dated January 12, 2004, the RTC correctly not able to tell the court how their group positioned strategically at
observed that: the premises without being noticed by their target. They could not
also gave (sic) an explanation how their confidential informant
Viewed vis-à-vis the peculiar factual milieu of this case, not to say was able to obtain information regarding the drug deal that was
the insistence by the accused-movant [Emmanuel de Claro] that supposed to take place on that date involving several
a reevaluation or reassessment of the evidence by the personalities. Except for their bare allegation that they have that

132
information regarding the drug deal they were not able to present failed to rebut. Specifically, accused-appellant Rolando delos
any proof of such report, say, entry in their logbook of such Reyes testified that he was illegally arrested without warrant at
confidential report and a spot report. Even their operation is not Buenas Market, Cainta, Rizal, not at Shangri-La Plaza in
recorded as no documentary evidence was presented. Worth Mandaluyong City; and that he and Marlon David were coerced to
remembering in this regard is People v. Alviar, 59 SCRA 136, incriminate themselves for possession of shabu. His claims were
where it is said that: . . . "[i]t often happens with fabricated stories corroborated by Marlon David’s testimony and Navarro’s
that minute particulars have not been thought of." It has also Sinumpaang Salaysay dated March 14, 2000. Also, Emmanuel
been said that "an honest witness, who has sufficient memory to de Claro, Lantion-Tom, and Roberto de Claro consistently
state one fact, and that fact a material one, cannot be safely testified that they were at Shangri-La Plaza to meet Milan,
relied upon as such weakness of memory not only leaves the Lantion-Tom’s accountant, regarding documents for a business
case incomplete, but throws doubt upon the accuracy of the permit (photocopies of the said documents were presented during
statements made. Such a witness may be honest, but his trial); and that they were illegally arrested without warrant and
testimony is not reliable."65 (Emphasis supplied.) forced to admit criminal liability for possession of shabu. These
pieces of evidence are overwhelmingly adequate to overthrow the
There are also material inconsistencies between the police- presumption of regularity in the performance by the arresting
witnesses’ sworn statements following accused-appellants’ arrest police officers of their official duties and raise reasonable doubt in
and their testimonies before the RTC. The police officers attested accused-appellants’ favor.
in their Joint Affidavit of Arrest dated February 18, 2000 that
"upon sensing suspicious transactions being undertaken thereat, Furthermore, even assuming that the prosecution’s version of the
team leader thru hand signaled immediately accosted the events that took place on the night of February 17, 2000 were
suspects and introduced themselves as ‘Police Officers’ and after true, it still failed to establish probable cause to justify the in
that, subject persons deliberately admitted that they have in their flagrante delicto arrests of accused-appellants and search of
possession illegal drugs and thereafter showed the same to the accused-appellants’ persons, incidental to their arrests, resulting
herein undersigned arresting officers thus they were placed under in the seizure of the shabu in accused-appellants’ possession.
arrest."66 Yet, during trial before the RTC, the police officers
uniformly testified that they brought accused-appellants, Section 2, Article III of the Constitution provides:
Emmanuel de Claro and Lantion-Tom to the police office after
arresting the four suspects in flagrante delicto, without mention at Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
all of the suspects’ purported admission. houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
We also consider the fact that Lantion-Tom was never charged inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
with any criminal involvement even when, according to the except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the
prosecution’s version of events, she was the first person to judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
deliver the shabu. This seriously dents the prosecution’s complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
sequence of events on the night of February 17, 2000. describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to
be seized.
In contrast, accused-appellants presented clear and convincing
evidence in support of their defenses, which the prosecution

133
Complementary to the above provision is the exclusionary rule from a penal establishment or a place where he is serving final
enshrined in Section 3, paragraph 2 of Article III of the judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or
Constitution, which solidifies the protection against unreasonable has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to
searches and seizures, thus: another (arrest of escaped prisoners).68

Section 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence In People v. Molina,69 we cited several cases involving in flagrante
shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when delicto arrests preceding the search and seizure that were held
public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law. illegal, to wit:

(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding In People v. Chua Ho San, the Court held that in cases of in
section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. flagrante delicto arrests, a peace officer or a private person may,
(Emphases supplied.) without a warrant, arrest a person when, in his presence, the
person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
The foregoing constitutional proscription is not without attempting to commit an offense. The arresting officer, therefore,
exceptions. Search and seizure may be made without a warrant must have personal knowledge of such fact or, as recent case
and the evidence obtained therefrom may be admissible in the law adverts to, personal knowledge of facts or circumstances
following instances: (1) search incident to a lawful arrest; (2) convincingly indicative or constitutive of probable cause. As
search of a moving motor vehicle; (3) search in violation of discussed in People v. Doria, probable cause means an actual
customs laws; (4) seizure of evidence in plain view; (5) when the belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion. The grounds of
accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of actual belief of
and seizures; and (6) stop and frisk situations.67 the arresting officers, the suspicion that the person to be arrested
is probably guilty of committing the offense, is based on actual
The first exception (search incidental to a lawful arrest) includes a facts, i.e., supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in
valid warrantless search and seizure pursuant to an equally valid themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to
warrantless arrest which must precede the search. In this be arrested. A reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded
instance, the law requires that there be first a lawful arrest before on probable cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the
a search can be made — the process cannot be reversed. As a peace officers making the arrest.
rule, an arrest is considered legitimate if effected with a valid
warrant of arrest. The Rules of Court, however, recognizes As applied to in flagrante delicto arrests, it is settled that "reliable
permissible warrantless arrests. Thus, a peace officer or a private information" alone, absent any overt act indicative of a felonious
person may, without warrant, arrest a person: (a) when, in his enterprise in the presence and within the view of the arresting
presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually officers, are not sufficient to constitute probable cause that would
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense (arrest in justify an in flagrante delicto arrest. Thus, in People v. Aminnudin,
flagrante delicto); (b) when an offense has just been committed it was held that "the accused-appellant was not, at the moment of
and he has probable cause to believe based on personal his arrest, committing a crime nor was it shown that he was about
knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be to do so or that he had just done so. What he was doing was
arrested has committed it (arrest effected in hot pursuit); and (c) descending the gangplank of the M/V Wilcon 9 and there was no
when the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped outward indication that called for his arrest. To all appearances,

134
he was like any of the other passengers innocently disembarking presumably dusk. Petitioner and his companions were merely
from the vessel. It was only when the informer pointed to him as standing at the corner and were not creating any commotion or
the carrier of the marijuana that he suddenly became suspect and trouble . . .
so subject to apprehension."
Third, there was at all no ground, probable or otherwise, to
Likewise, in People v. Mengote, the Court did not consider "eyes . believe that petitioner was armed with a deadly weapon. None
. . darting from side to side . . . [while] holding . . . [one's] was visible to Yu, for as he admitted, the alleged grenade was
abdomen," in a crowded street at 11:30 in the morning, as overt "discovered" "inside the front waistline" of petitioner, and from all
acts and circumstances sufficient to arouse suspicion and indications as to the distance between Yu and petitioner, any
indicative of probable cause. According to the Court, "[b]y no telltale bulge, assuming that petitioner was indeed hiding a
stretch of the imagination could it have been inferred from these grenade, could not have been visible to Yu.
acts that an offense had just been committed, or was actually
being committed, or was at least being attempted in [the arresting Clearly, to constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, two
officers'] presence." So also, in People v. Encinada, the Court requisites must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must
ruled that no probable cause is gleanable from the act of riding execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is
a motorela while holding two plastic baby chairs. 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
Then, too, in Malacat v. Court of Appeals, the trial court arresting officer.70 (Emphases supplied.)
concluded that petitioner was attempting to commit a crime as he
was "'standing at the corner of Plaza Miranda and Quezon Similar to the above-cited cases in Molina, there is a dearth of
Boulevard' with his eyes 'moving very fast' and 'looking at every evidence in this case to justify the in flagrante delicto arrests of
person that come (sic) nearer (sic) to them."' In declaring the accused-appellants and search of their persons incidental to the
warrantless arrest therein illegal, the Court said: arrests.

Here, there could have been no valid in flagrante delicto ... arrest A close examination of the testimonies of SPO1 Lectura, PO3
preceding the search in light of the lack of personal knowledge on Santiago, and PO3 Yumul reveal that they simply relied on the
the part of Yu, the arresting officer, or an overt physical act, on information provided by their confidential informant that an illegal
the part of petitioner, indicating that a crime had just been drug deal was to take place on the night of February 17, 2000 at
committed, was being committed or was going to be committed. Shangri-la Plaza in Mandaluyong City. Without any other
independent information, and by simply seeing the suspects pass
It went on to state that — from one to another a white plastic bag with a box or carton
inside, the police team was already able to conclude that the box
Second, there was nothing in petitioner's behavior or conduct contained shabu and "sensed" that an illegal drug deal took
which could have reasonably elicited even mere suspicion other place.
than that his eyes were "moving very fast" — an observation
which leaves us incredulous since Yu and his teammates were SPO1 Lectura testified on direct examination as follows:xxx
nowhere near petitioner and it was already 6:30 p.m., thus

135
Evident from the foregoing excerpts that the police officers items were therefore not marked at the place where they were
arrested accused-appellants and searched the latter’s persons taken. In People v. Casimiro, we struck down with disbelief the
without a warrant after seeing Rolando delos Reyes and reliability of the identity of the confiscated items since they were
Emmanuel de Claro momentarily conversing in the restaurant, not marked at the place where they were seized, thus:
and witnessing the white plastic bag with a box or carton inside
being passed from Lantion-Tom to Emmanuel de Claro, to The narcotics field test, which initially identified the seized item
accused-appellant Rolando delos Reyes, and finally, to accused- as marijuana, was likewise not conducted at the scene of the
appellant Reyes. These circumstances, however, hardly crime, but only at the narcotics office. There is thus reasonable
constitute overt acts "indicative of a felonious enterprise." SPO1 doubt as to whether the item allegedly seized from accused-
Lectura, PO3 Santiago, and PO3 Yumul had no prior knowledge appellant is the same brick of marijuana marked by the policemen
of the suspects’ identities, and they completely relied on their in their headquarters and given by them to the crime
confidential informant to actually identify the suspects. None of laboratory.75 (Emphases supplied.) 1avvphi1

the police officers actually saw what was inside that box. There is
also no evidence that the confidential informant himself knew that In the instant case, SPO1 Lectura, PO3 Santiago, and PO3
the box contained shabu. No effort at all was taken to confirm that Yumul uniformly testified before the RTC that they brought the
the arrested suspects actually knew that the box or carton inside arrested suspects to the police office for investigation. SPO1
the white plastic bag, seized from their possession, contained Lectura and PO3 Santiago were vague as to how they
shabu. The police officers were unable to establish a cogent fact ascertained as shabu the contents of the box inside the white
or circumstance that would have reasonably invited their plastic bag, immediately after seizing the same from accused-
attention, as officers of the law, to suspect that accused- appellant Reyes and before proceeding to the police office; while
appellants, Emmanuel de Claro, and Lantion-Tom "has just PO3 Yumul explicitly testified on cross-examination76 that he saw
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit" a the shabu for the first time at the police office. At any rate, all
crime, particularly, an illegal drug deal. three police officers recounted that the shabu was marked by
SPO1 Benjamin David only at the police office.
Finally, from their own account of the events, the police officers
had compromised the integrity of the shabu purportedly seized Without valid justification for the in flagrante delicto arrests of
from accused-appellants. accused-appellants, the search of accused-appellants’ persons
incidental to said arrests, and the eventual seizure of the shabu
In People v. Sy Chua,74 we questioned whether the shabu seized from accused-appellants’ possession, are also considered
from the accused was the same one presented at the trial unlawful and, thus, the seized shabu is excluded in evidence as
because of the failure of the police to mark the drugs at the place fruit of a poisonous tree. Without the corpus delicti for the crime
where it was taken, to wit: charged, then the acquittal of accused-appellants is inevitable.

Furthermore, we entertain doubts whether the items allegedly As we aptly held in People v. Sy Chua77 :
seized from accused-appellant were the very same items
presented at the trial of this case. The record shows that the initial All told, the absence of ill-motive on the part of the arresting team
field test where the items seized were identified as shabu, was cannot simply validate, much more cure, the illegality of the arrest
only conducted at the PNP headquarters of Angeles City. The

136
and consequent warrantless search of accused-appellant. Neither G.R. No. 186529               August 3, 2010
can the presumption of regularity of performance of function be
invoked by an officer in aid of the process when he undertakes to PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, 
justify an encroachment of rights secured by the Constitution. In vs.
People v. Nubla, we clearly stated that: JACK RACHO y RAQUERO, Appellant.

The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty On May 19, 2003, a confidential agent of the police transacted
cannot be used as basis for affirming accused-appellant's through cellular phone with appellant for the purchase of shabu.
conviction because, first, the presumption is precisely just that — The agent later reported the transaction to the police authorities
a mere presumption. Once challenged by evidence, as in this who immediately formed a team composed of member of the
case, . . . [it] cannot be regarded as binding truth. Second, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), the Intelligence
presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions group of the Philippine Army and the local police force to
cannot preponderate over the presumption of innocence that apprehend the appellant.4 The agent gave the police appellant’s
prevails if not overthrown by proof beyond reasonable doubt. name, together with his physical description. He also assured
them that appellant would arrive in Baler, Aurora the following
xxxx day.

The government's drive against illegal drugs needs the support of On May 20, 2003, at 11:00 a.m., appellant called up the agent
every citizen. But it should not undermine the fundamental rights and informed him that he was on board a Genesis bus and would
of every citizen as enshrined in the Constitution. The arrive in Baler, Aurora, anytime of the day wearing a red and
constitutional guarantee against warrantless arrests and white striped T-shirt. The team members then posted themselves
unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be so carelessly along the national highway in Baler, Aurora. At around 3:00 p.m.
disregarded as overzealous police officers are sometimes wont to of the same day, a Genesis bus arrived in Baler. When appellant
do. Fealty to the constitution and the rights it guarantees should alighted from the bus, the confidential agent pointed to him as the
be paramount in their minds, otherwise their good intentions will person he transacted with earlier. Having alighted from the bus,
remain as such simply because they have blundered. The appellant stood near the highway and waited for a tricycle that
criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. would bring him to his final destination. As appellant was about to
Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to board a tricycle, the team approached him and invited him to the
observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its police station on suspicion of carrying shabu. Appellant
own existence.78 immediately denied the accusation, but as he pulled out his
hands from his pants’ pocket, a white envelope slipped therefrom
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated July 12, 2006 of the Court of which, when opened, yielded a small sachet containing the
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01733 is hereby REVERSED suspected drug.5
and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellants Rolando delos Reyes and
Raymundo Reyes are ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable The team then brought appellant to the police station for
doubt and they are ORDERED. SO ORDERED. investigation. The confiscated specimen was turned over to
Police Inspector Rogelio Sarenas De Vera who marked it with his
initials and with appellant’s name. The field test and laboratory

137
examinations on the contents of the confiscated sachet yielded underwear; then brought him to the police station for
positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride.6 investigation.9

Appellant was charged in two separate Informations, one for On July 8, 2004, the RTC rendered a Joint Judgment10 convicting
violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165, for transporting or delivering; appellant of Violation of Section 5, Article II, R.A. 9165 and
and the second, of Section 11 of the same law for possessing, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to
dangerous drugs, the accusatory portions of which read: pay a fine of ₱500,000.00; but acquitted him of the charge of
Violation of Section 11, Article II, R.A. 9165. On appeal, the CA
"That at about 3:00 o’clock (sic) in the afternoon on May 20, 2003 affirmed the RTC decision.11
in Baler, Aurora and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the said accused, did then and there, unlawfully, Hence, the present appeal.
feloniously and willfully have in his possession five point zero one
(5.01) [or 4.54] grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride In his brief,12 appellant attacks the credibility of the witnesses for
commonly known as "Shabu", a regulated drug without any the prosecution. He likewise avers that the prosecution failed to
permit or license from the proper authorities to possess the same. establish the identity of the confiscated drug because of the
team’s failure to mark the specimen immediately after seizure. In
CONTRARY TO LAW."7 his supplemental brief, appellant assails, for the first time, the
legality of his arrest and the validity of the subsequent
"That at about 3:00 o’clock (sic) in the afternoon on May 20, 2003 warrantless search. He questions the admissibility of the
in Baler, Aurora, the said accused did then and there, unlawfully, confiscated sachet on the ground that it was the fruit of the
feloniously and willfully transporting or delivering dangerous drug poisonous tree.
of 5.01 [or 4.54] grams of shabu without any permit or license
from the proper authorities to transport the same. The appeal is meritorious.

CONTRARY TO LAW."8 We have repeatedly held that the trial court’s evaluation of the
credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is entitled to great
During the arraignment, appellant pleaded "Not Guilty" to both respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. However, this is not a
charges. hard and fast rule. We have reviewed such factual findings when
there is a showing that the trial judge overlooked, misunderstood,
At the trial, appellant denied liability and claimed that he went to or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance
Baler, Aurora to visit his brother to inform him about their ailing that would have affected the case.13
father. He maintained that the charges against him were false
and that no shabu was taken from him. As to the circumstances Appellant focuses his appeal on the validity of his arrest and the
of his arrest, he explained that the police officers, through their search and seizure of the sachet of shabu and, consequently, the
van, blocked the tricycle he was riding in; forced him to alight; admissibility of the sachet. It is noteworthy that although the
brought him to Sea Breeze Lodge; stripped his clothes and circumstances of his arrest were briefly discussed by the RTC,
the validity of the arrest and search and the admissibility of the

138
evidence against appellant were not squarely raised by the latter shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.17 Said
and thus, were not ruled upon by the trial and appellate courts. proscription, however, admits of exceptions, namely:

It is well-settled that an appeal in a criminal case opens the whole 1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;
case for review.  This Court is clothed with ample authority to
1avvphi1

review matters, even those not raised on appeal, if we find them 2. Search of evidence in "plain view;"
necessary in arriving at a just disposition of the case. Every
circumstance in favor of the accused shall be considered. This is 3. Search of a moving vehicle;
in keeping with the constitutional mandate that every accused
shall be presumed innocent unless his guilt is proven beyond
4. Consented warrantless search;
reasonable doubt.14
5. Customs search;
After a thorough review of the records of the case and for reasons
that will be discussed below, we find that appellant can no longer
question the validity of his arrest, but the sachet of shabu seized 6. Stop and Frisk; and
from him during the warrantless search is inadmissible in
evidence against him. 7. Exigent and emergency circumstances.18

The records show that appellant never objected to the irregularity What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable warrantless
of his arrest before his arraignment. In fact, this is the first time search or seizure is purely a judicial question, determinable from
that he raises the issue. Considering this lapse, coupled with his the uniqueness of the circumstances involved, including the
active participation in the trial of the case, we must abide with purpose of the search or seizure, the presence or absence of
jurisprudence which dictates that appellant, having voluntarily probable cause, the manner in which the search and seizure was
submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court, is deemed to have made, the place or thing searched, and the character of the
waived his right to question the validity of his arrest, thus curing articles procured.19
whatever defect may have attended his arrest. The legality of the
arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over his person. The RTC concluded that appellant was caught in flagrante
Appellant’s warrantless arrest therefore cannot, in itself, be the delicto, declaring that he was caught in the act of actually
basis of his acquittal. 15 committing a crime or attempting to commit a crime in the
presence of the apprehending officers as he arrived in Baler,
As to the admissibility of the seized drug in evidence, it is Aurora bringing with him a sachet of shabu.20 Consequently, the
necessary for us to ascertain whether or not the search which warrantless search was considered valid as it was deemed an
yielded the alleged contraband was lawful.16 incident to the lawful arrest.

The 1987 Constitution states that a search and consequent Recent jurisprudence holds that in searches incident to a lawful
seizure must be carried out with a judicial warrant; otherwise, it arrest, the arrest must precede the search; generally, the process
becomes unreasonable and any evidence obtained therefrom cannot be reversed. Nevertheless, a search substantially
contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest if the

139
police have probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the information, by itself, is sufficient probable cause to effect a valid
search.21 Thus, given the factual milieu of the case, we have to warrantless arrest.
determine whether the police officers had probable cause to
arrest appellant. Although probable cause eludes exact and The long standing rule in this jurisdiction is that "reliable
concrete definition, it ordinarily signifies a reasonable ground of information" alone is not sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest.
suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in The rule requires, in addition, that the accused perform some
themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that the person overt act that would indicate that he has committed, is actually
accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged.22 committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.24 We find no
cogent reason to depart from this well-established doctrine.
The determination of the existence or absence of probable cause
necessitates a reexamination of the established facts. On May The instant case is similar to People v. Aruta,25 People v.
19, 2003, a confidential agent of the police transacted through Tudtud,26 and People v. Nuevas.27
cellular phone with appellant for the purchase of shabu. The
agent reported the transaction to the police authorities who In People v. Aruta, a police officer was tipped off by his informant
immediately formed a team to apprehend the appellant. On May that a certain "Aling Rosa" would be arriving from Baguio City the
20, 2003, at 11:00 a.m., appellant called up the agent with the following day with a large volume of marijuana. Acting on said tip,
information that he was on board a Genesis bus and would arrive the police assembled a team and deployed themselves near the
in Baler, Aurora anytime of the day wearing a red and white Philippine National Bank (PNB) in Olongapo City. While thus
striped T-shirt. The team members posted themselves along the positioned, a Victory Liner Bus stopped in front of the PNB
national highway in Baler, Aurora, and at around 3:00 p.m. of the building where two females and a man got off. The informant then
same day, a Genesis bus arrived in Baler. When appellant pointed to the team members the woman, "Aling Rosa," who was
alighted from the bus, the confidential agent pointed to him as the then carrying a traveling bag. Thereafter, the team approached
person he transacted with, and when the latter was about to her and introduced themselves. When asked about the contents
board a tricycle, the team approached him and invited him to the of her bag, she handed it to the apprehending officers. Upon
police station as he was suspected of carrying shabu. When he inspection, the bag was found to contain dried marijuana leaves.28
pulled out his hands from his pants’ pocket, a white envelope
slipped therefrom which, when opened, yielded a small sachet
The facts in People v. Tudtud show that in July and August, 1999,
containing the suspected drug.23 The team then brought appellant
the Toril Police Station, Davao City, received a report from a
to the police station for investigation and the confiscated
civilian asset that the neighbors of a certain Noel Tudtud (Tudtud)
specimen was marked in the presence of appellant. The field test
were complaining that the latter was responsible for the
and laboratory examinations on the contents of the confiscated
proliferation of marijuana in the area. Reacting to the report, the
sachet yielded positive results for methamphetamine
Intelligence Section conducted surveillance. For five days, they
hydrochloride.
gathered information and learned that Tudtud was involved in
illegal drugs. On August 1, 1999, the civilian asset informed the
Clearly, what prompted the police to apprehend appellant, even police that Tudtud had headed to Cotabato and would be back
without a warrant, was the tip given by the informant that later that day with a new stock of marijuana. At around 4:00 p.m.
appellant would arrive in Baler, Aurora carrying shabu. This that same day, a team of police officers posted themselves to
circumstance gives rise to another question: whether that await Tudtud’s arrival. At 8:00 p.m., two men disembarked from a

140
bus and helped each other carry a carton. The police officers search would have been made, and consequently, the sachet of
approached the suspects and asked if they could see the shabu would not have been confiscated.
contents of the box which yielded marijuana leaves.29
We are not unaware of another set of jurisprudence that deems
In People v. Nuevas, the police officers received information that "reliable information" sufficient to justify a search incident to a
a certain male person, more or less 5’4" in height, 25 to 30 years lawful warrantless arrest. As cited in People v. Tudtud, these
old, with a tattoo mark on the upper right hand, and usually include People v.
wearing a sando and maong pants, would make a delivery of
marijuana leaves. While conducting stationary surveillance and Maspil, Jr.,31 People v. Bagista,32 People v. Balingan,33 People v.
monitoring of illegal drug trafficking, they saw the accused who fit Lising,34 People v. Montilla,35 People v. Valdez,36and People v.
the description, carrying a plastic bag. The police accosted the Gonzales.37 In these cases, the Court sustained the validity of the
accused and informed him that they were police officers. Upon warrantless searches notwithstanding the absence of overt acts
inspection of the plastic bag carried by the accused, the bag or suspicious circumstances that would indicate that the accused
contained marijuana dried leaves and bricks wrapped in a blue had committed, was actually committing, or attempting to commit
cloth. In his bid to escape charges, the accused disclosed where a crime. But as aptly observed by the Court, except in Valdez and
two other male persons would make a delivery of marijuana Gonzales, they were covered by the other exceptions to the rule
leaves. Upon seeing the two male persons, later identified as against warrantless searches.38
Reynaldo Din and Fernando Inocencio, the police approached
them, introduced themselves as police officers, then inspected Neither were the arresting officers impelled by any urgency that
the bag they were carrying. Upon inspection, the contents of the would allow them to do away with the requisite warrant. As
bag turned out to be marijuana leaves.30 testified to by Police Officer 1 Aurelio Iniwan, a member of the
arresting team, their office received the "tipped information" on
In all of these cases, we refused to validate the warrantless May 19, 2003. They likewise learned from the informant not only
search precisely because there was no adequate probable cause. the appellant’s physical description but also his name. Although it
We required the showing of some overt act indicative of the was not certain that appellant would arrive on the same day (May
criminal design. 19), there was an assurance that he would be there the following
day (May 20). Clearly, the police had ample opportunity to apply
As in the above cases, appellant herein was not committing a for a warrant.39
crime in the presence of the police officers. Neither did the
arresting officers have personal knowledge of facts indicating that Obviously, this is an instance of seizure of the "fruit of the
the person to be arrested had committed, was committing, or poisonous tree," hence, the confiscated item is inadmissible in
about to commit an offense. At the time of the arrest, appellant evidence consonant with Article III, Section 3(2) of the 1987
had just alighted from the Gemini bus and was waiting for a Constitution, "any evidence obtained in violation of this or the
tricycle. Appellant was not acting in any suspicious manner that preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
would engender a reasonable ground for the police officers to proceeding."
suspect and conclude that he was committing or intending to
commit a crime. Were it not for the information given by the
informant, appellant would not have been apprehended and no

141
Without the confiscated shabu, appellant’s conviction cannot be G.R. No. 120915 April 3, 1998
sustained based on the remaining evidence. Thus, an acquittal is
warranted, despite the waiver of appellant of his right to question THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, 
the illegality of his arrest by entering a plea and his active vs.
participation in the trial of the case. As earlier mentioned, the ROSA ARUTA y MENGUIN, accused-appellant.
legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over
the person of the accused. A waiver of an illegal, warrantless
arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of
evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest.40
ROMERO, J.:
One final note. As clearly stated in People v. Nuevas,41
With the pervasive proliferation of illegal drugs and its pernicious
x x x In the final analysis, we in the administration of justice would effects on our society, our law enforcers tend at times to
have no right to expect ordinary people to be law-abiding if we do overreach themselves in apprehending drug offenders to the
not insist on the full protection of their rights. Some lawmen, extent of failing to observe well-entrenched constitutional
prosecutors and judges may still tend to gloss over an illegal guarantees against illegal searches and arrests. Consequently,
search and seizure as long as the law enforcers show the alleged drug offenders manage to evade the clutches of the law on mere
evidence of the crime regardless of the methods by which they technicalities.
were obtained. This kind of attitude condones law-breaking in the
name of law enforcement. Ironically, it only fosters the more rapid
breakdown of our system of justice, and the eventual denigration Accused-appellant Rosa Aruta y Menguin was arrested and
of society. While this Court appreciates and encourages the charged with violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No.
efforts of law enforcers to uphold the law and to preserve the 6425 or the Dangerous Drugs Act. The information reads:
peace and security of society, we nevertheless admonish them to
act with deliberate care and within the parameters set by the That on or about the fourteenth (14th) day of December,
Constitution and the law. Truly, the end never justifies the 1988, in the City of Olongapo, Philippines, and within the
means.42 jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, without being lawfully authorized, did then and
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court of Appeals there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly engage in
Decision dated May 22, 2008 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00425 is transporting approximately eight (8) kilos and five
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant Jack Raquero Racho is hundred (500) grams of dried marijuana packed in plastic
ACQUITTED for insufficiency of evidence. bag marked "Cash Katutak" placed in a traveling bag,
which are prohibited drugs.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to cause the
immediate release of appellant, unless the latter is being lawfully Upon arraignment, she pleaded "not guilty." After trial on the
held for another cause; and to inform the Court of the date of his merits, the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City convicted and
release, or the reasons for his confinement, within ten (10) days sentenced her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to
from notice.SO ORDERED. pay a fine of twenty thousand (P20,000.00) pesos. 1

142
The prosecution substantially relied on the testimonies of P/Lt. which Lt. Domingo affixed his signature. Accused-appellant was
Ernesto Abello, Officer-in-Charge of the Narcotics Command then brought to the NARCOM office for investigation where a
(NARCOM) of Olongapo City and P/Lt. Jose Domingo. Based on Receipt of Property Seized was prepared for the confiscated
their testimonies, the court a quo found the following: marijuana leaves.

On December 13, 1988, P/Lt. Abello was tipped off by his Upon examination of the seized marijuana specimen at the
informant, known only as Benjie, that a certain "Aling Rosa" PC/INP Crime Laboratory, Camp Olivas, Pampanga, P/Maj.
would be arriving from Baguio City the following day, December Marlene Salangad, a Forensic Chemist, prepared a Technical
14, 1988, with a large volume of marijuana. Acting on said tip, Report stating that said specimen yielded positive results for
P/Lt. Abello assembled a team composed of P/Lt. Jose Domingo, marijuana, a prohibited drug.
Sgt. Angel Sudiacal, Sgt. Oscar Imperial, Sgt. Danilo Santiago
and Sgt. Efren Quirubin. After the presentation of the testimonies of the arresting officers
and of the above technical report, the prosecution rested its case.
Said team proceeded to West Bajac-Bajac, Olongapo City at
around 4:00 in the afternoon of December 14, 1988 and deployed Instead of presenting its evidence, the defense filed a "Demurrer
themselves near the Philippine National Bank (PNB) building to Evidence" alleging the illegality of the search and seizure of the
along Rizal Avenue and the Caltex gasoline station. Dividing items thereby violating accused-appellant's constitutional right
themselves into two groups, one group, made up of P/Lt. Abello, against unreasonable search and seizure as well as their
P/Lt. Domingo and the informant posted themselves near the inadmissibility in evidence.
PNB building while the other group waited near the Caltex
gasoline station. The said "Demurrer to Evidence" was, however, denied without
the trial court ruling on the alleged illegality of the search and
While thus positioned, a Victory Liner Bus with body number 474 seizure and the inadmissibility in evidence of the items seized to
and the letters BGO printed on its front and back bumpers avoid pre-judgment. Instead, the trial court continued to hear the
stopped in front of the PNB building at around 6:30 in the evening case.
of the same day from where two females and a male got off. It
was at this stage that the informant pointed out to the team "Aling In view of said denial, accused-appellant testified on her behalf.
Rosa" who was then carrying a traveling bag. As expected, her version of the incident differed from that of the
prosecution. She claimed that immediately prior to her arrest, she
Having ascertained that accused-appellant was "Aling Rosa," the had just come from Choice Theater where she watched the movie
team approached her and introduced themselves as NARCOM "Balweg." While about to cross the road, an old woman asked her
agents. When P/Lt. Abello asked "Aling Rosa" about the contents help in carrying a shoulder bag. In the middle of the road, Lt.
of her bag, the latter handed it to the former. Abello and Lt. Domingo arrested her and asked her to go with
them to the NARCOM Office.
Upon inspection, the bag was found to contain dried marijuana
leaves packed in a plastic bag marked "Cash Katutak." The team During investigation at said office, she disclaimed any knowledge
confiscated the bag together with the Victory Liner bus ticket to as to the identity of the woman and averred that the old woman

143
was nowhere to be found after she was arrested. Moreover, she 3. The trial court erred in not finding that the warrantless
added that no search warrant was shown to her by the arresting search resulting to the arrest of accused-appellant
officers. violated the latter's constitutional rights.

After the prosecution made a formal offer of evidence, the 4. The trial court erred in not holding that although the
defense filed a "Comment and/or Objection to Prosecution's defense of denial is weak yet the evidence of the
Formal Offer of Evidence" contesting the admissibility of the items prosecution is even weaker.
seized as they were allegedly a product of an unreasonable
search and seizure. These submissions are impressed with merit.

Not convinced with her version of the incident, the Regional Trial In People v. Ramos,  this Court held that a search may be
3

Court of Olongapo City convicted accused-appellant of conducted by law enforcers only on the strength of a search
transporting eight (8) kilos and five hundred (500) grams of warrant validly issued by a judge as provided in Article III, Section
marijuana from Baguio City to Olongapo City in violation of 2 of the Constitution which provides:
Section 4, Article 11 of R.A. No. 6425, as amended, otherwise
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 and sentenced her to Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their
life imprisonment and to pay a fine of twenty thousand persons, houses, papers, and effects against
(P20,000.00) pesos without subsidiary imprisonment in case of unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature
insolvency.2
and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
In this appeal, accused-appellant submits the following: probable cause to be determined personally by the judge
after examination under oath or affirmation of the
1. The trial court erred in holding that the NARCOM complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
agents could not apply for a warrant for the search of a particularly describing the place to be searched and the
bus or a passenger who boarded a bus because one of persons or things to be seized.
the requirements for applying a search warrant is that the
place to be searched must be specifically designated and This constitutional guarantee is not a blanket prohibition against
described. all searches and seizures as it operates only against
"unreasonable" searches and seizures. The plain import of the
2. The trial court erred in holding or assuming that if a language of the Constitution, which in one sentence prohibits
search warrant was applied for by the NARCOM agents, unreasonable searches and seizures and at the same time
still no court would issue a search warrant for the reason prescribes the requisites for a valid warrant, is that searches and
that the same would be considered a general search seizures are normally unreasonable unless authorized by a
warrant which may be quashed. validly issued search warrant or warrant of arrest. Thus, the
fundamental protection accorded by the search and seizure
clause is that between person and police must stand the

144
protective authority of a magistrate clothed with power to issue or 2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view," the elements of
refuse to issue search warrants or warrants of arrest.4
which are:

Further, articles which are the product of unreasonable searches (a) a prior valid intrusion based on the
and seizures are inadmissible as evidence pursuant to the valid warrantless arrest in which the police
doctrine pronounced in Stonehill v. Diokno.  This exclusionary
5
are legally present in the pursuit of their
rule was later enshrined in Article III, Section 3(2) of the official duties;
Constitution, thus:
(b) the evidence was inadvertently
Sec. 3(2). Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the discovered by the police who had the right
preceding section shall be inadmissible in evidence for to be where they are;
any purpose in any proceeding.
(c) the evidence must be immediately
From the foregoing, it can be said that the State cannot simply apparent, and
intrude indiscriminately into the houses, papers, effects, and most
importantly, on the person of an individual. The constitutional (d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of
provision guaranteed an impenetrable shield against evidence without further search;
unreasonable searches and seizures. As such, it protects the
privacy and sanctity of the person himself against unlawful arrests 3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the
and other forms of restraint.
6
government, the vehicle's inherent mobility reduces
expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public
Therewithal, the right of a person to be secured against any thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion
unreasonable seizure of his body and any deprivation of his amounting to probable cause that the occupant
liberty is a most basic and fundamental one. A statute, rule or committed a criminal activity;
situation which allows exceptions to the requirement of a warrant
of arrest or search warrant must perforce be strictly construed 4. Consented warrantless search;
and their application limited only to cases specifically provided or
allowed by law. To do otherwise is an infringement upon personal
5. Customs search; 9

liberty and would set back a right so basic and deserving of full
protection and vindication yet often violated. 7

6. Stop and Frisk;  and

10

The following cases are specifically provided or allowed by law:

7. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances. 11

1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful

arrest recognized under Section 12, Rule 126 of the The above exceptions, however, should not become unbridled
Rules of Court  and by prevailing jurisprudence;
8 licenses for law enforcement officers to trample upon the
constitutionally guaranteed and more fundamental right of
persons against unreasonable search and seizures. The essential

145
requisite of probable cause must still be satisfied before a In People v. Tangliben,  acting on information supplied by
14

warrantless search and seizure can be lawfully conducted. informers, police officers conducted a surveillance at the Victory
Liner Terminal compound in San Fernando, Pampanga against
Although probable cause eludes exact and concrete definition, it persons who may commit misdemeanors and also on those who
generally signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by may be engaging in the traffic of dangerous drugs. At 9:30 in the
circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a evening, the policemen noticed a person carrying a red traveling
cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty of the bag who was acting suspiciously. They confronted him and
offense with which he is charged. It likewise refers to the requested him to open his bag but he refused. He acceded later
existence of such facts and circumstances which could lead a on when the policemen identified themselves. Inside the bag
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense were marijuana leaves wrapped in a plastic wrapper. The police
has been committed and that the item(s), article(s) or object(s) officers only knew of the activities of Tangliben on the night of his
sought in connection with said offense or subject to seizure and arrest.
destruction by law is in the place to be searched.12

In instant case, the apprehending officers already had prior

It ought to be emphasized that in determining probable cause, the knowledge from their informant regarding Aruta's alleged
average man weighs facts and circumstances without resorting to activities. In Tangliben policemen were confronted with an on-the-
the calibrations of our rules of evidence of which his knowledge is spot tip. Moreover, the policemen knew that the Victory Liner
technically nil. Rather, he relies on the calculus of common sense compound is being used by drug traffickers as their "business
which all reasonable men have in abundance. The same address". More significantly, Tangliben was acting suspiciously.
quantum of evidence is required in determining probable cause His actuations and surrounding circumstances led the policemen
relative to search. Before a search warrant can be issued, it must to reasonably suspect that Tangliben is committing a crime. In
be shown by substantial evidence that the items sought are in instant case, there is no single indication that Aruta was acting
fact seizable by virtue of being connected with criminal activity, suspiciously.
and that the items will be found in the place to be searched. 13

In People v. Malmstedt,  the Narcom agents received reports that

15

In searches and seizures effected without a warrant, it is vehicles coming from Sagada were transporting marijuana. They
necessary for probable cause to be present. Absent any probable likewise received information that a Caucasian coming from
cause, the article(s) seized could not be admitted and used as Sagada had prohibited drugs on his person. There was no
evidence against the person arrested. Probable cause, in these reasonable time to obtain a search warrant, especially since the
cases, must only be based on reasonable ground of suspicion or identity of the suspect could not be readily ascertained.
belief that a crime has been committed or is about to be His actuations also aroused the suspicion of the officers
committed. conducting the operation. The Court held that in light of such
circumstances, to deprive the agents of the ability and facility to
In our jurisprudence, there are instances where information has act promptly, including a search without a warrant, would be to
become a sufficient probable cause to effect a warrantless search sanction impotence and ineffectiveness in law enforcement, to
and seizure. the detriment of society.

146
Note, however, the glaring differences of Malmstedt to the instant In all the abovecited cases, there was information received which
case. In present case, the police officers had reasonable time became the bases for conducting the warrantless search.
within which to secure a search warrant. Second, Aruta's identity Furthermore, additional factors and circumstances were present
was priorly ascertained. Third, Aruta was not acting suspiciously. which, when taken together with the information, constituted
Fourth, Malmstedt was searched aboard a moving vehicle, a probable causes which justified the warrantless searches and
legally accepted exception to the warrant requirement. Aruta, on seizures in each of the cases.
the other hand, was searched while about to cross a street.
In the instant case, the determination of the absence or existence
In People v. Bagista,  the NARCOM officers had probable cause
16
of probable cause necessitates a reexamination of the facts. The
to stop and search all vehicles coming from the north to Acop, following have been established: (1) In the morning of December
Tublay, Benguet in view of the confidential information they 13, 1988, the law enforcement officers received information from
received from their regular informant that a woman having the an informant named "Benjie" that a certain "Aling Rosa" would be
same appearance as that of accused-appellant would be bringing leaving for Baguio City on December 14, 1988 and would be back
marijuana from up north. They likewise had probable cause to in the afternoon of the same day carrying with her a large volume
search accused-appellant's belongings since she fitted the of marijuana; (2) At 6:30 in the evening of December 14, 1988,
description given by the NARCOM informant. Since there was a accused-appellant alighted from a Victory Liner Bus carrying a
valid warrantless search by the NARCOM agents, any evidence traveling bag even as the informant pointed her out to the law
obtained in the course of said search is admissible against enforcement officers; (3) The law enforcement officers
accused-appellant. Again, this case differs from Aruta as this approached her and introduced themselves as NARCOM agents;
involves a search of a moving vehicle plus the fact that the police (4) When asked by Lt. Abello about the contents of her traveling
officers erected a checkpoint. Both are exceptions to the bag, she gave the same to him; (5) When they opened the same,
requirements of a search warrant. they found dried marijuana leaves; (6) Accused-appellant was
then brought to the NARCOM office for investigation.
In Manalili v. Court of Appeals and People,  the policemen
17

conducted a surveillance in an area of the Kalookan Cemetery This case is similar to People v. Aminnudin where the police
based on information that drug addicts were roaming therein. received information two days before the arrival of Aminnudin that
Upon reaching the place, they chancedupon a man in front of the the latter would be arriving from Iloilo on board the M/V Wilcon 9.
cemetery who appeared to be "high" on drugs. He was observed His name was known, the vehicle was identified and the date of
to have reddish eyes and to be walking in a swaying manner. arrival was certain. From the information they had received, the
Moreover, he appeared to be trying to avoid the policemen. When police could have persuaded a judge that there was probable
approached and asked what he was holding in his hands, he tried cause, indeed, to justify the issuance of a warrant. Instead of
to resist. When he showed his wallet, it contained marijuana. The securing a warrant first, they proceeded to apprehend Aminnudin.
Court held that the policemen had sufficient reason to accost When the case was brought before this Court, the arrest was held
accused-appellant to determine if he was actually "high" on drugs to be illegal; hence any item seized from Aminnudin could not be
due to his suspicious actuations, coupled with the fact that based used against him.
on information, this area was a haven for drug addicts.
Another recent case is People v. Encinada where the police
likewise received confidential information the day before at 4:00

147
in the afternoon from their informant that Encinada would be appellant were it not for the furtive finger of the informant
bringing in marijuana from Cebu City on board M/V Sweet Pearl because, as clearly illustrated by the evidence on record, there
at 7:00 in the morning of the following day. This intelligence was no reason whatsoever for them to suspect that accused-
information regarding the culprit's identity, the particular crime he appellant was committing a crime, except for the pointing finger of
allegedly committed and his exact whereabouts could have been the informant. This the Court could neither sanction nor tolerate
a basis of probable cause for the lawmen to secure a warrant. as it is a clear violation of the constitutional guarantee against
This Court held that in accordance with Administrative Circular unreasonable search and seizure. Neither was there any
No. 13 and Circular No. 19, series of 1987, the lawmen could semblance of any compliance with the rigid requirements of
have applied for a warrant even after court hours. The failure or probable cause and warrantless arrests.
neglect to secure one cannot serve as an excuse for violating
Encinada's constitutional right. Consequently, there was no legal basis for the NARCOM agents
to effect a warrantless search of accused-appellant's bag, there
In the instant case, the NARCOM agents were admittedly not being no probable cause and the accused-appellant not having
armed with a warrant of arrest. To legitimize the warrantless been lawfully arrested. Stated otherwise, the arrest being
search and seizure of accused-appellant's bag, accused- incipiently illegal, it logically follows that the subsequent search
appellant must have been validly arrested under Section 5 of was similarly illegal, it being not incidental to a lawful arrest. The
Rule 113 which provides inter alia: constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and
seizure must perforce operate in favor of accused-appellant. As
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace such, the articles seized could not be used as evidence against
officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a accused-appellant for these are "fruits of a poisoned tree" and,
person: therefore, must be rejected, pursuant to Article III, Sec. 3(2) of the
Constitution.
(a) When in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to Emphasis is to be laid on the fact that the law requires that the
commit an offense; search be incidental to a lawful arrest, in order that the search
itself may likewise be considered legal. Therefore, it is beyond
x x x           x x x          x x x cavil that a lawful arrest must precede the search of a person and
his belongings. Where a search is first undertaken, and an arrest
effected based on evidence produced by the search, both such
Accused-appellant Aruta cannot be said to be committing a crime.
search and arrest would be unlawful, for being contrary to law. 18

Neither was she about to commit one nor had she just committed
a crime. Accused-appellant was merely crossing the street and
was not acting in any manner that would engender a reasonable As previously discussed, the case in point is People
ground for the NARCOM agents to suspect and conclude that she v. Aminnudin  where, this Court observed that:
19

was committing a crime. It was only when the informant pointed

to accused-appellant and identified her to the agents as the . . . accused-appellant was not, at the moment of his
carrier of the marijuana that she was singled out as the suspect. arrest, committing a crime nor was it shown that he was
The NARCOM agents would not have apprehended accused- about to do so or that he had just done so. What he was
doing was descending the gangplank of the M/V Wilcon 9

148
 and there was no outward indication that called for his paucity of probable cause that would sufficiently provoke a
arrest. To all appearances, he was like any of the other suspicion that accused-appellant was committing a crime.
passengers innocently disembarking from the vessel. It
was only when the informer pointed to him as the carrier The warrantless search and seizure could not likewise be
of the marijuana that he suddenly became suspect and so categorized under exigent and emergency circumstances, as
subject to apprehension. It was the furtive finger that applied in People v. De 
triggered his arrest. The identification by the informer was Gracia.  In said case, there were intelligence reports that the
22

the probable cause as determined by the officers (and not building was being used as headquarters by the RAM during
a judge) that authorized them to pounce upon Aminnudin a coup d' etat. A surveillance team was fired at by a group of
and immediately arrest him. armed men coming out of the building and the occupants of said
building refused to open the door despite repeated requests.
In the absence of probable cause to effect a valid and legal There were large quantities of explosives and ammunitions inside
warrantless arrest, the search and seizure of accused-appellant's the building. Nearby courts were closed and general chaos and
bag would also not be justified as seizure of evidence in "plain disorder prevailed. The existing circumstances sufficiently
view" under the second exception. The marijuana was obviously showed that a crime was being committed. In short, there was
not immediately apparent as shown by the fact that the NARCOM probable cause to effect a warrantless search of the building. The
agents still had to request accused-appellant to open the bag to same could not be said in the instant case.
ascertain its contents.
The only other exception that could possibly legitimize the
Neither would the search and seizure of accused-appellant's bag warrantless search and seizure would be consent given by the
be justified as a search of a moving vehicle. There was no accused-appellant to the warrantless search as to amount to a
moving vehicle to speak of in the instant case as accused- waiver of her constitutional right. The Solicitor General argues
appellant was apprehended several minutes after alighting from that accused-appellant voluntarily submitted herself to search and
the Victory Liner bus. In fact, she was accosted in the middle of inspection citing People v.Malasugui  where this Court ruled:
23

the street and not while inside the vehicle.

When one voluntarily submits to a search or consents to
People v. Solayao,  applied the stop and frisk principle which has
20
have it made on his person or premises, he is precluded
been adopted in Posadas v. Court of Appeals. In said case,
21
from complaining later thereof. (Cooley, Constitutional
Solayao attempted to flee when he and his companions were Limitations, 8th ed., [V]ol. I, p. 631.) The right to be
accosted by government agents. In the instant case, there was no secure from unreasonable search may, like every right,
observable manifestation that could have aroused the suspicion be waived and such waiver may be made either expressly
of the NARCOM agents as to cause them to "stop and frisk" or impliedly.
accused-appellant. To reiterate, accused-appellant was merely
crossing the street when apprehended. Unlike in the In support of said argument, the Solicitor General cited the
abovementioned cases, accused-appellant never attempted to testimony of Lt. Abello, thus:
flee from the NARCOM agents when the latter identified
themselves as such. Clearly, this is another indication of the

149
 Q When this informant by the name instant case is similar to People v. Encinada,  where this Court
26

of alias Benjie pointed to Aling Rosa, what held:

happened after that?
[T]he Republic's counsel avers that appellant voluntarily
A We followed her and introduced handed the chairs containing the package of marijuana to
ourselves as NARCOM agents and the arresting officer and thus effectively waived his right
confronted her with our informant and against the warrantless search. This he gleaned from
asked her what she was carrying and if we Bolonia's testimony.
can see the bag she was carrying.
Q: After Roel Encinada alighted from the
Q What was her reaction? motor tricycle, what happened next?

A She gave her bag to me. A: I requested to him to see his chairs that
he carried.
Q So what happened after she gave the
bag to you? Q: Are you referring to the two plastic
chairs?
A I opened it and found out plastic bags of
marijuana inside. 24
A: Yes, sir.

This Court cannot agree with the Solicitor General's contention Q: By the way, when Roel Encinada
for the Malasugui case is inapplicable to the instant case. In said agreed to allow you to examine the two
case, there was probable cause for the warrantless arrest thereby chairs that he carried, what did you do
making the warrantless search effected immediately thereafter next?
equally lawful.  On the contrary, the most essential element of
25

probable cause, as expounded above in detail, is wanting in the A: I examined the chairs and I noticed that
instant case making the warrantless arrest unjustified and illegal. something inside in between the two
Accordingly, the search which accompanied the warrantless chairs.
arrest was likewise unjustified and illegal. Thus, all the articles
seized from the accused-appellant could not be used as evidence We are not convinced. While in principle we agree that consent
against her. will validate an otherwise illegal search, we believe that appellant
— based on the transcript quoted above — did not voluntarily
Aside from the inapplicability of the abovecited case, the act of consent to Bolonia's search of his belongings. Appellant's silence
herein accused-appellant in handing over her bag to the should not be lightly taken as consent to such search. The
NARCOM agents could not be construed as voluntary submission implied acquiescence to the search, if there was any, could not
or an implied acquiescence to the unreasonable search. The have been more than mere passive conformity given under
intimidating or coercive circumstances and is thus considered no

150
consent at all within the purview of the constitutional guarantee. constitutional rights; but instead they hold
Furthermore, considering that the search was conducted that a peaceful submission to a search or
irregularly, i.e., without a warrant, we cannot appreciate consent seizure is not a consent or an invitation
based merely on the presumption of regularity of the performance thereto, but is merely a demonstration of
of duty." (Emphasis supplied) regard for the supremacy of the law.
(Citation omitted).
Thus, accused-appellant's lack of objection to the search is not
tantamount to a waiver of her constitutional rights or a voluntary We apply the rule that: "courts indulge every reasonable
submission to the warrantless search. As this Court held presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional
in People v. Barros:27
rights and that we do not presume acquiescence in the
loss of fundamental rights."  (Emphasis supplied)
28

. . . [T]he accused is not to be presumed to have waived

the unlawful search conducted on the occasion of his To repeat, to constitute a waiver, there should be an actual
warrantless arrest "simply because he failed to object" — intention to relinquish the right. As clearly illustrated in People
v. Omaweng,  where prosecution witness Joseph Layong
29

. . . To constitute a waiver, it must appear testified thus:

first that the right exists; secondly, that the
person involved had knowledge, actual or In the above-mentioned case, accused was not subjected to any
constructive, of the existence of such search which may be stigmatized as a violation of his
right; and lastly, that said person had an Constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
actual intention to relinquish the right If one had been made, this Court would be the first to condemn it
(Pasion Vda. de Garcia v. Locsin, 65 Phil. "as the protection of the citizen and the maintenance of his
698). The fact that the accused failed to constitutional rights is one of the highest duties and privileges of
object to the entry into his house does not the Court." He willingly gave prior consent to the search and
amount to a permission to make a search voluntarily agreed to have it conducted on his vehicle and
therein (Magoncia v. Palacio, 80 Phil. traveling bag, which is not the case with Aruta.
770). As pointed out by Justice Laurel in
the case of Pasion Vda. de Garcia In an attempt to further justify the warrantless search, the Solicitor
v. Locsin (supra): General next argues that the police officers would have
encountered difficulty in securing a search warrant as it could be
x x x           x x x          x x x secured only if accused-appellant's name was known, the vehicle
identified and the date of its arrival certain, as in
. . . As the constitutional guaranty is not the Aminnudin case where the arresting officers had forty-eight
dependent upon any affirmative act of the hours within which to act.
citizen, the courts do not place the citizen
in the position of either contesting an This argument is untenable.
officer's authority by force, or waiving his

151
Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution provides: While it may be argued that by entering a plea during arraignment
and by actively participating in the trial, accused-appellant may be
. . . [N]o search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue deemed to have waived objections to the illegality of the
except upon probable cause to be determined by the warrantless search and to the inadmissibility of the evidence
judge, or such other responsible officer as may be obtained thereby, the same may not apply in the instant case for
authorized by law, after examination under oath or the following reasons:
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the place to be 1. The waiver would only apply to objections pertaining to the
searched and the persons or things to be seized. illegality of the arrest as her plea of "not guilty" and participation
(Emphasis supplied) in the trial are indications of her voluntary submission to the
court's jurisdiction.  The plea and active participation in the trial
32

Search warrants to be valid must particularly describe the place would not cure the illegality of the search and transform the
to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. The inadmissible evidence into objects of proof. The waiver simply
purpose of this rule is to limit the things to be seized to those and does not extend this far.
only those, particularly described in the warrant so as to leave the
officers of the law with no discretion regarding what articles they 2. Granting that evidence obtained through a warrantless search
shall seize to the end that unreasonable searches and seizures becomes admissible upon failure to object thereto during the trial
may not be made. 30
of the case, records show that accused-appellant filed a
Demurrer to Evidence and objected and opposed the
Had the NARCOM agents only applied for a search warrant, they prosecution's Formal Offer of Evidence.
could have secured one without too much difficulty, contrary to
the assertions of the Solicitor General. The person intended to be It is apropos to quote the case of People v. Barros,  which stated:
33

searched has been particularized and the thing to be seized

specified. The time was also sufficiently ascertained to be in the It might be supposed that the non-admissibility of
afternoon of December 14, 1988. "Aling Rosa" turned out to be evidence secured through an invalid warrantless arrest or
accused-appellant and the thing to be seized was marijuana. The a warrantless search and seizure may be waived by an
vehicle was identified to be a Victory Liner bus. In fact, the accused person. The a priori argument is that the
NARCOM agents purposely positioned themselves near the spot invalidity of an unjustified warrantless arrest, or an arrest
where Victory Liner buses normally unload their passengers. effected with a defective warrant of arrest may be waived
Assuming that the NARCOM agents failed to particularize the by applying for and posting of bail for provisional liberty,
vehicle, this would not in any way hinder them from securing a so as to estop an accused from questioning the legality or
search warrant. The above particulars would have already constitutionality of his detention or the failure to accord
sufficed. In any case, this Court has held that the police should him a preliminary investigation. We do not believe,
particularly describe the place to be searched and the person or however, that waiver of the latter necessarily constitutes,
things to be seized, wherever and whenever it is or carries with it, waiver of the former — an argument that
feasible.  (Emphasis supplied)
31
the Solicitor General appears to be making
impliedly. Waiver of the non-admissibility of the "fruits" of
an invalid warrantless arrest and of a warrantless search

152
 and seizure is not casually to be presumed, if the the power to search and seize may at times be necessary to the
constitutional right against unlawful searches and public welfare, still it may be exercised and the law enforced
seizures is to retain its vitality for the protection of our without transgressing the constitutional rights of the citizens, for
people. In the case at bar, defense counsel had expressly the enforcement of no statute is of sufficient importance to justify
objected on constitutional grounds to the admission of the indifference to the basic principles of government. 36

carton box and the four (4) kilos of marijuana when these
were formally offered in evidence by the prosecution. We Those who are supposed to enforce the law are not justified in
consider that appellant's objection to the admission of disregarding the rights of the individual in the name of order.
such evidence was made clearly and seasonably and Order is too high a price to pay for the loss of liberty. As Justice
that, under the circumstances, no intent to waive his Holmes declared: "I think it is less evil that some criminals escape
rights under the premises can be reasonably inferred from than that the government should play an ignoble part." It is simply
his conduct before or during the trial. (Emphasis not allowed in free society to violate a law to enforce another,
supplied). especially if the law violated is the Constitution itself.
37

In fine, there was really no excuse for the NARCOM agents not to WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the
procure a search warrant considering that they had more than Regional Trial Court, Branch 73, Olongapo City, is hereby
twenty-four hours to do so. Obviously, this is again an instance of REVERSED and SET ASIDE. For lack of evidence to establish
seizure of the "fruit of the poisonous tree," hence illegal and her guilt beyond reasonable doubt, accused-appellant ROSA
inadmissible subsequently in evidence. ARUTA Y MENGUIN is hereby ACQUITTED and ordered
RELEASED from confinement unless she is being held for some
The exclusion of such evidence is the only practical means of other legal grounds. No costs.
enforcing the constitutional injunction against unreasonable
searches and seizure. The non-exclusionary rule is contrary to SO ORDERED.
the letter and spirit of the prohibition against unreasonable
searches and seizures. 34

While conceding that the officer making the unlawful search and
seizure may be held criminally and civilly liable, the Stonehill case
observed that most jurisdictions have realized that the
exclusionary rule is "the only practical means of enforcing the
constitutional injunction" against abuse. This approach is based
on the justification made by Judge Learned Hand that "only in
case the prosecution which itself controls the seizing officials,
knows that it cannot profit by their wrong, will the wrong be
repressed." 35

Unreasonable searches and seizures are the menace against

which the constitutional guarantees afford full protection. While

153
G.R. No. 205926               July 22, 2015 Methamphetamine Hydrochloride commonly known as "shabu", a
dangerous drug.
ALVIN COMERCIANTE y GONZALES, Petitioner, 
vs. CONTRARY TO LA W.  6

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

According to the prosecution, at around 10 o'clock in the evening
DECISION of July 30, 2003, Agent Eduardo Radan (Agent Radan) of the
NARCOTICS group and P03 Bienvy Calag II (P03 Calag) were
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: aboard a motorcycle, patrolling the area while on their way to visit
a friend at Private Road, Barangay Hulo, Mandaluyong City.
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari  are the
1 Cruising at a speed of 30 kilometers per hour along Private Road,
Decision   dated October 20, 2011 and the Resolution  dated
2 3 they spotted, at a distance of about 10 meters, two (2) men - later
February 19, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR identified as Comerciante and a certain Erick Dasilla   (Dasilla) -
7

No. 32813, which affirmed in toto the Judgment  dated July 28,
4 standing and showing "improper and unpleasant movements,"
2009 of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, Branch with one of them handing plastic sachets to the other. Thinking
213 (RTC) in Crim. Case No. MC-03-7242-D convicting petitioner that the sachets may contain shabu, they immediately stopped
Alvin Comerciante y Gonzales (Comerciante) of the crime of and approached Comerciante and Dasilla At a distance of around
illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs defined and penalized five (5) meters, P03 Calag introduced himself as a police officer,
under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) arrested Comerciante and Dasilla, and confiscated two (2) plastic
9165,   otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
5 sachets containing white crystalline substance from them. A
Act of 2002. laboratory examination later confirmed that said sachets
contained methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.  8

The Facts
After the prosecution rested its case, Dasilla filed a demurrer to
evidence, which was granted by the RTC, thus his acquittal.
On July 31, 2003, an Information was filed before the RTC
However, due to Comerciante's failure to file his own demurrer to
charging Comerciante of violation of Section 11, Article II of RA
evidence, the RTC considered his right to do so waived and
9165, to wit:
ordered him to present his evidence. 9

That on or about the 30th day of July 2003, in the City of

In his defense, Comerciante averred that P03 Calag was looking
Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this
for a certain "Barok", who was a notorious drug pusher in the
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not having been
area, when suddenly, he and Dasilla, who were just standing in
lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drugs, did then and
front of a jeepney along Private Road, were arrested and taken to
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and knowingly have in
a police station. There, the police officers claimed to have
his possession, custody and control Two (2) heat-sealed
confiscated illegal drugs from them and were asked money in
transparent plastic sachet (sic) each containing 0.15 gram (sic)
exchange for their release. When they failed to accede to the
and 0.28 gram (sic) of white crystalline substance with a total of
demand, they were brought to another police station to undergo
0.43 grams which was found positive to the test for

154
inquest proceedings, and thereafter, were charged with illegal Dissatisfied, Comerciante moved for reconsideration   which was,
16

possession of dangerous drugs.  10

however, denied in a Resolution   dated February 19, 2013.
17

Hence, this petition. 

18

The RTC Ruling

The Issue before the Court
In. a Judgment   dated July 28, 2009, the RTC found
11

Comerciante guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of The core issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA
Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, and accordingly, sentenced him correctly affirmed Comerciante's conviction for violation of
to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for twelve (12) years and Section 11, Article II of RA 9165.
one (1) day to twenty (20) years, and ordered him to pay a fine in
the amount of ₱300,000.00. 12
In his petition, Comerciante essentially contends that P03 Carag
did not effect a valid warrantless arrest on him. Consequently, the
The R TC found that P03 Calag conducted a valid warrantless evidence gathered as a result of such illegal warrantless arrest,
arrest on Comerciante, which yielded two (2) plastic sachets i.e., the plastic sachets containing shabu should be rendered
containing shabu. In this relation, the R TC opined that there was inadmissible, necessarily resulting in his acquittal. 
19

probable cause to justify the warrantless arrest, considering that

P03 Calag saw, in plain view, that Comerciante was carrying the On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General, on behalf of
said sachets when he decided to approach and apprehend the respondent People of the Philippines, maintains that
latter. Further, the RTC found that absent any proof of intent that Comerciante's warrantless arrest was validly made pursuant to
P03 Calag was impelled by any malicious motive, he must be the "stop and frisk" rule, especially considering that he was
presumed to have properly performed his duty when he arrested caught in flagrante delicto in possession of illegal drugs.  20

Comerciante. 13

The Court's Ruling

Aggrieved, Comerciante appealed to the CA.
The petition is meritorious.
The CA Ruling
Section 2, Article III   of the Constitution mandates that a search
21

In a Decision   dated October 20, 2011 the CA affirmed

14
and seizure must be carried out through or on the strength of a
Comerciante's conviction. It held that P03 Calag had probable judicial warrant predicated upon the existence of probable cause;
cause to effect the warrantless arrest of Comerciante, given that in the absence of such warrant, such search and seizure
the latter was committing a crime in flagrante delicto; and that he becomes, as a general rule, "unreasonable" within the meaning of
personally saw the latter exchanging plastic sachets with Dasilla. said constitutional provision. To protect people from
According to the CA, this was enough to draw a reasonable unreasonable searches and seizures, Section 3 (2), Article III   of22

suspicion that those sachets might be shabu, and thus, P03 the Constitution provides an exclusionary rule which instructs that
Calag had every reason to inquire on the matter right then and evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of such
there.
15
unreasonable searches and seizures are deemed tainted and
should be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous

155
tree. In other words, evidence obtained from unreasonable The aforementioned provision provides three (3) instances when
searches and seizures shall be inadmissible in evidence for any a warrantless arrest may be lawfully effected: (a) arrest of a
purpose in any proceeding.  23
suspect in flagrante delicto; (b) arrest of a suspect where, based
on personal knowledge of the arresting officer, there is probable
The exclusionary rule is not, however, an absolute and rigid cause that said suspect was the perpetrator of a crime which had
proscription. One of the recognized exceptions established by just been committed; ( c) arrest of a prisoner who has escaped
jurisprudence is a search incident to a lawful arrest.   In this
24 from custody serving final judgment or temporarily confined
instance, the law requires that there first be a lawful arrest before during the pendency of his case or has escaped while being
a search can be made - the process cannot be transferred from one confinement to another.  26

reversed.   Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal

25

Procedure lays down the rules on lawful warrantless arrests, as For a warrantless arrest under Section 5 (a) to operate, two (2)
follows: elements must concur, namely: (a) the person to be arrested
must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed,
SEC.5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A peace officer or a is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and ( b)
private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the
arresting officer.   On the other hand, Section 5 (b) requires for its
27

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has application that at the time of the arrest, an offense had in fact
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to just been committed and the arresting officer had personal
commit an offense; knowledge of facts indicating that the accused had committed it. 28

(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has In both instances, the officer's personal knowledge of the fact of
probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge the commission of an offense is absolutely required. Under
of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested Section 5 (a), the officer himself witnesses the crime; while in
has committed it; and Section (b), he knows for a fact that a crime has just been
committed.  29

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has

escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is A judicious review of the factual milieu of the instant case reveals
serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his that there could have been no lawful warrantless arrest made on
case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred Comerciante. P03 Calag himself admitted that he was aboard a
from one confinement to another. motorcycle cruising at a speed of around 30 kilometers per hour
when he saw Comerciante and Dasilla standing around and
showing "improper and unpleasant movements," with one of them
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person
handing plastic sachets to the other. On the basis of the
arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the
foregoing, he decided to effect an arrest. P03 Calag's testimony
nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in
on direct examination is revelatory:
accordance with Section 7 of Rule 112.
Pros. Silao:

156
Q: Now on July 30, 2003 around 10:00 o'clock in the evening, A: About thirty (30) kilometers per hour, ma'am.
kindly tell the court where were you?
Q: And who was driving the motorcycle?
A: We were then conducting our patrol on a motorbike ma' am.
A: Eduardo Radan, ma'am.
xxxx
Q: When you spotted them as if handing something to each other,
Q: And who were with you while you were patrolling? what did you do?

A: Eduardo Radan, Ma' am. A: We stopped ma'am.

Q: And who is this Eduardo Radan? Q: And how far were you from them when you stopped, more or
less?
A: He is an agent of the Narcotics Group, ma'am.
A: We passed by them for a short distance before we stopped
Q: While you were along Private Road, Hulo, Mandaluyong City, ma'am.
what unusual incident that happened if any?
Q: And after you passed by them and you said you stopped, what
A: We spotted somebody who was then as if handing a plastic was the reaction of these two male persons?
sachet to someone.
A: They were surprised, ma'am.
xxxx
xxxx
Q: Now how far were you when you saw this incident from these
two male persons you already identified? Q: And what was their reaction when you said you introduced
yourself as police officer?
A: About ten (10) meters away ma'am.
A: They were surprised.
Q: What were their positions in relation to you when you saw
them in that particular act? Q: When you say "nabigla" what was their reaction that made you
say that they were surprised?
A: They were quite facing me then.
A: They were stunned.
0: What was the speed of your motorcycle when you were
traversing this Private Road, Hulo, Mandaluyong City? Q: After they were stunned, what did you do next, police officer?

157
A: I arrested them, ma' am. I invited them. On the basis of such testimony, the Court finds it highly
implausible that P03 Calag, even assuming that he has perfect
Q: What did you say to them? How did you invite them? In short, vision, would be able to identify with reasonable accuracy -
napakasimple Lang ng tanong ko sa yo eh. Did you say especially from a distance of around 10 meters, and while aboard
anything? a motorcycle cruising at a speed of 30 kilometers per hour -
miniscule amounts of white crystalline substance inside two (2)
Court: very small plastic sachets held by Comerciante. The Court also
notes that no other overt act could be properly attributed to
Comerciante as to rouse suspicion in the mind of P03 Calag that
Mr. Witness, stop making unnecessary movements, just listens.
the former had just committed, was committing, or was about to
commit a crime. Verily, the acts of standing around with a
Pros. Silao: Are you fit to testify? May sakit ka ba o wala? companion and handing over something to the latter cannot in
Witness: Wala po. any way be considered criminal acts. In fact, even if Comerciante
and his companion were showing "improper and unpleasant
Pros. Silao: Eh, bakit di ka makapagsalita? movements" as put by P03 Calag, the same would not have been
sufficient in order to effect a lawful warrantless arrest under
Court: You keep touching your eyes. Just relax. Answer the Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
question, ano sinabi mo sa kanila? Procedure.   That his reasonable suspicion bolstered by (a) the
31

fact that he had seen his fellow officers arrest persons in

Pros. Silao: Are you fit to testify? Wala ka bang sakit? possession of shabu; and (b) his trainings and seminars on illegal
drugs when he was still assigned in the province are insufficient
Witness: Wala po. to create a conclusion that what he purportedly saw in
Comerciante was indeed shabu.  32

xxxx
Neither has the prosecution established that the rigorous
Q: From what portion of his body, I am referring to Alvin conditions set forth in Section 5 (b), Rule 113, have been
Comerciante did you recover the plastic sachet? complied with, i.e., that an offense had in fact just been
committed and the arresting officer had personal knowledge of
facts indicating that the accused had committed it. As already
A: From his hand ma'am. discussed, the factual backdrop of the instant case failed to show
that P03 Calag had personal knowledge that a crime had been
Q: Left or right hand? indisputably committed by Comerciante. Verily, it is not enough
that the arresting officer had reasonable ground to believe that
Pros. Silao: You cannot recall? Hindi mo matandaan. Sabihin mo the accused had just committed a crime; a crime must, in fact,
Kung Hindi mo matandaan, no problem. Kaliwa, kanan or you have been committed first, which does not obtain in this case.  33

cannot recall? 30

In this relation, the Court finds respondent's assertion that there

(Emphases and underscoring supplied) was a valid "stop and frisk" search made on Comerciante

158
untenable. In People v. Cogaed,   the Court had an opportunity to
34
sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to
exhaustively explain "stop and frisk" searches: believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which
he is charged.
"Stop and frisk" searches (sometimes referred to as Terry
searches) are necessary for law enforcement.  That is, law
1a\^/phi1 Malacat v. Court of Appeals clarifies the requirement further. It
enforcers should be given the legal arsenal to prevent the does not have to be probable cause, but it cannot be mere
commission of offenses. However, this should be balanced with suspicion. It has to be a genuine reason to serve the purposes of
the need to protect the privacy of citizens in accordance with the "stop and frisk" exception:
Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.
Other notable points of Terry are that while probable cause is not
The balance lies in the concept of "suspiciousness" present required to conduct a "stop and frisk," it nevertheless holds that
where the police officer finds himself or herself in. This may be mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a "stop and frisk." A
undoubtedly based on the experience of the police officer. genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officer's
Experienced police officers have personal experience dealing experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that
with criminals and criminal behavior. Hence, they should have the the person detained has weapons concealed about him.
ability to discern - based on facts that they themselves observe -
whether an individual is acting in a suspicious manner. Clearly, a In his dissent for Esquillo v. People, Justice Bersamin reminds us
basic criterion would be that the police officer, with his or her that police officers must not rely on a single suspicious
personal knowledge, must observe the facts leading to the circumstance. There should be "presence of more than one
suspicion of an illicit act. seemingly innocent activity, which, taken together, warranted a
reasonable inference of criminal activity." The Constitution
xxxx prohibits "umeasonable searches and seizures." Certainly,
reliance on only one suspicious circumstance or none at all will
Normally, "stop and frisk" searches do not give the law enforcer not result in a reasonable search. [35]] (Emphases and
an opportunity to confer with a judge to determine probable underscoring supplied)
cause. In Posadas v. Court of Appeals, one of the earliest cases
adopting the "stop and frisk" doctrine in Philippine jurisprudence, In this case, the Court reiterates that Comerciante' s acts of
this court approximated the suspicious circumstances as standing around with a companion and handing over something
probable cause: to the latter do not constitute criminal acts.  These circumstances
1âwphi1

are not enough to create a reasonable inference of criminal

The probable cause is that when the petitioner acted suspiciously activity which would constitute a "genuine reason" for P03 Calag
and attempted to flee with the buri bag there was a probable to conduct a "stop and frisk" search on the former. In this light,
cause that he was concealing something illegal in the bag and it the "stop and frisk" search made on Comerciante should be
was the right and duty of the police officers to inspect the same. deemed unlawful.

For warrantless searches, probable cause was defined as "a In sum, there was neither a valid warrantless arrest nor a valid
reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances "stop and frisk" search made on Comerciante. As such, the shabu

159
purportedly seized from him is rendered inadmissible in evidence
for being the proverbial fruit of the poisonous tree. Since the
confiscated shabu is the very corpus delicti of the crime charged,
Comerciante must necessarily be acquitted and exonerated from
all criminal liability.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, 'the

Decision dated October 20, 2011 and the Resolution dated
February 19, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No.
32813 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly,
petitioner Alvin Comerciante y Gonzales is hereby ACQUITTED
of the crime of violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No.
9165. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to
cause his immediate release, unless he is being lawfully held for
any other reason.

SO ORDERED.

160