Remedial Law: Criminal Procedure: Arrest

Manangan v. CFI
- Petitioner counsel for himself was charged in CFI with violation of RPC (Execution of Deeds by Intimidation). On the same date an order of arrest was released.
- He then filed a petition for CPM with TRO assailing the jurisdiction of the lower court. However the same was dismissed for non-payment of legal fees.
- During prelim invest. he did not show up and disappeared for 1 year.
- When he surfaced an alias writ was issued. And he challenged this Alias Writ. He contested the Alias writ in CFI but the latter said that the said warrant of arrest was still in force after the lapsed of time.
SC: Contrary to petitioner's pretensions, the Alias Warrant of Arrest is valid. Petitioner had evaded arrest by disappearing from the jurisdiction of respondent Court. Neither is there any indication in the records that the property bond, filed by petitioner-accused in the Municipal Circuit Court of San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur, had been accepted by respondent Court and petitioner discharged on the basis thereof. The Alias Warrant is not "stale or functus officio," as alleged. Unlike a warrant, which is valid for only ten (10) days from date (Rule 126, Sec. 9), a Warrant of Arrest remains valid until arrest is effected or the Warrant lifted. Respondent Court, therefore, cannot be faulted with grave abuse of discretion for holding that said Warrant is in full force and effect.

People v. Ayangao
- Policemen received an information that a woman would be traveling with marijuana from Maountain Province to Pampanga.
- The informant went with them in the place pointed and he personally identified the woman. They approached the woman. The policemen noticed a protruding marijuana leaves from the sacks of sweet potatoes.
- The policemen identified themselves and asked the woman to put out the contents of the sack. The sack contains sweet potato with a bricklike substance packed with a masking tape. In plain view of the policemen it was identified to be marijuana. She was arrested and was convicted in the trial court.
- She argued that the marijuana is inadmissible since the warrantless search is invalid, not having been pursuant to lawful arrest.
SC: The Court finds that the arrest was lawful as appellant was actually committing a crime when she was arrested — transporting marijuana, are act prohibited by law. Since a lawful arrest was made, the resulting warrantless search on appellant was also valid as the legitimate warrantless arrest authorized the arresting police officers to validly search and seize from the offender.
This Court has already ruled that tipped information is sufficient probable cause to effect a warrantless search. Although the apprehending officers received the tip two weeks prior to the arrest, they could not be faulted for not applying for a search warrant inasmuch as the exact date of appellant’s arrival was not known by the informant. AFFIRMED.

People v. Aminudin (Inadmissible Evidence; Invalid Search)
- Aminudin was arrested shortly after disembarking from a ship. His bag was inspected which contained marijuana.
- The prosecution had earlier an information that a marijuana would be transported in Iloilo. Acting on the tip, they waited till evening when the ship embarked. They informant pointed on Aminudin followed by the arrest and search.
- Aminudin disclaimed of the marijuana. He also invoked that he was arbitrary arrested and was searched without warrant. He was convicted by the trial court.
- In this court he pleaded to reverse the ruling on the ground that the evidence against him was inadmissible.
SC: Tip they received from the informant was alleged to be 2 days prior the arrest. The present case presented no such urgency. From the conflicting declarations of the PC witnesses, it is clear that they had at least two days within which they could have obtained a warrant to arrest and search Aminnudin who was coming to Iloilo on the M/V Wilcon 9. His name was known. The vehicle was Identified. The date of its arrival was certain. And from the information they had received, they could have persuaded a judge that there was probable cause, indeed, to justify the issuance of a warrant. Yet they did nothing. No effort was made to comply with the law. The Bill of Rights was ignored altogether because the PC lieutenant who was the head of the arresting team, had determined on his own authority that a "search warrant was not necessary.
In the case at bar, the accused-appellant was not, at the moment of his arrest, committing a crime nor was it shown that he was 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 and there was no outward indication that called for his arrest. To all appearances, he was like any of the other passengers innocently disembarking from the vessel. It was only when the informer pointed to him as the carrier of the marijuana that he suddenly became suspect and so subject to apprehension. This is not inflagrante delicto. ACQUITTED.

People v. Tangliben
- Policemen were having surveillance within the Victory Liner premises. During that time, they saw someone (Tangliben) carrying a bag who is acting suspiciously. He was approached and asked for the content of the bag. The accused refuses at first but when the policemen identified themselves he acceded. The bag contained marijuana.
- The trial court convicted him of violation of RA 6425. The defense set up was that the evidence presented should be inadmissible for having it obtained unlawfully without warrant.
SC: One of the exception in the general rule requiring search warrant is search incidental to a lawful arrest. Accused was caught in flagrante, since he was carrying marijuana at the time of his arrest. This case therefore falls squarely within the exception. The warrantless search was incident to a lawful arrest and is consequently valid. In contrast with Aminudin, this instance presents urgency. Faced with such on-the-spot information, the police officers had to act quickly. There was not enough time to secure a search warrant. We cannot therefore apply the ruling in Aminnudin to the case at bar. To require search warrants during on-the-spot apprehensions of drug pushers, illegal possessors of firearms, jueteng collectors, smugglers of contraband goods, robbers, etc. would make it extremely difficult, if not impossible to contain the crimes with which these persons are associated. AFFIRMED.

People v. Montilla
- Montilla was apprehended by two policemen upon the information of an informant that the former would be carrying a bag of marijuana. He was apprehended in a waiting shed.
- He contends that the marijuana was a product of unlawful warrantless search therefore inadmissible; that the officers had the opportunity to procure search warrant.
SC: Evidence secured on the occasion of such an unreasonable search and seizure is tainted and should be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree. In the language of the fundamental law, it shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. This exclusionary rule is not, however, an absolute and rigid proscription. Thus, (1) customs searches; (2) searches of moving vehicles, (3) seizure of evidence in plain view; (4) consented searches; (5) searches incidental to a lawful arrest; and (6) "stop and frisk" measures have been invariably recognized as the traditional exceptions.
What happened is that when the authorities approached Montilla and ask to open the bag he voluntarily did.
Here, there were sufficient facts antecedent to the search and seizure that, at the point prior to the search, were already constitutive of probable cause, and which by themselves could properly create in the minds of the officers a well grounded and reasonable belief that appellant was in the act of violating the law. AFFIRMED.

People v. Malmsteadf
- A checkpoint was set up in the area after an information was came to the knowledge of authorities that a Caucasian will be traveling with prohibited drugs from Sagada.
- The bus Malmsteadf was reading was stopped informing that they would conduct an inspection. Accused was the sole Caucasian in the bus.
- One of them saw a bulge in Malmsteadf pocket. They asked for his passport. When he failed to such, he was required to have the bulge taken out which turned out to be a hashish. Also found was a teddybear with hashish and a bag.
- During the trial he pleaded not guilty and invoked the illegality of the search. The trial court found him guilty under RA 6425.
- He is now invoking that the evidence obtained were inadmissible for having obtained illegally.
SC: The search was pursuant to a lawful arrest. Accused was searched and arrested while transporting prohibited drugs (hashish). A crime was actually being committed by the accused and he was caught in flagrante delicto. Thus, the search made upon his personal effects falls squarely under paragraph (1) of the foregoing provisions of law, which allow a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest. There was a probable cause on the part of the arresting officer that a crime is actually committing. There the was a suspicion since an information of such crime is already relied and from the fact that he was not able to present his passport would make the authorities conclude of such crime. AFFIRMED.

People v. Lo Ho Wing
- Lo and another one was charged under Dangerous Drugs Act for transporting shabu. The trial court convicted them.
- The facts are the accused were from China and on their way home, they were apprehended by authorities and were to be searched. The authorities found shabu inside the tin cans which are supposed to contain tea. The trial court in convicting them said that the search and seizure was valid.
SC: The appellant contends that the authorities could have procured a warrant search. As correctly averred by appellee, that search and seizure must be supported by a valid warrant is not an absolute rule. There are at least three (3) well-recognized exceptions thereto. As set forth in the case of Manipon, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, these are: [1] a search incidental to an arrest, [2] a search of a moving vehicle, and [3] seizure of evidence in plain view (emphasis supplied). The circumstances of the case clearly show that the search in question was made as regards a moving vehicle. Therefore, a valid warrant was not necessary to effect the search on appellant and his co-accused. , We cite with approval the averment of the Solicitor General, as contained in the appellee's brief, that the rules governing search and seizure have over the years been steadily liberalized whenever a moving vehicle is the object of the search on the basis of practicality. This is so considering that before a warrant could be obtained, the place, things and persons to be searched must be described to the satisfaction of the issuing judge—a requirement which borders on the impossible in the case of smuggling effected by the use of a moving vehicle that can transport contraband from one place to another with impunity. AFFIRMED.

Manalili v. CA
- The Anti-Narcotic Unit was having a surveillance upon the information that drug addicts were roaming around the Kaloocan cemetery. When they lighted their car they chanced upon a person (manalili) high on drugs; he has reddish eyes, and to be walking in swaying manner. When he was approached, he was asked what he was holding. He resisted but gave up. The authorities asked what’s inside the wallet which found to be a residue of marijuana.
- He was brought to the Unit.
- The appellant proposed a different version of the arrest. The trial court convicted Manalili. It was affirmed by CA.
SC: The appellant contests the admissibility of the evidence presented since it is a by-product of illegal search. The SC said that such was akin to stop-and-frisk searched. The recent case of People vs. Lacerna enumerated five recognized exceptions to the rule against warrantless search and seizure, viz.: "(1) search incidental to a lawful arrest, (2) search of moving vehicles, (3) seizure in plain view, (4) customs search, and (5) waiver by the accused themselves of their right against unreasonable search and seizure. The evidence presented was admissible since it was obtained after a valid warrantless arrest. DENIED.

Ilagan v. Enrile
- Ilagan was arrested based on the mission order issued by Defense Minister Enrile.
- One of the visiting lawyers was also arrested. Therefore this petition for habeas corpus was filed. They contend that the arrest is violative of right; such that it cannot be made by Mission Order. Respondent said that the habeas corpus is suspended and the arrest was made thru PDA issued by the President.
- During the hearing they were granted a release order however even the following day, they were still in the custody of the authorities. They filed an urgent motion however such was opposed by respondent saying that the crime of rebellion has already been filed against them and a warrant of arrest is now to be served.
- They contend before this court that the suspension of habeas corpus is unconstitutional since it is violative of the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizure.
SC: In case of illegal arrest or lack of preliminary investigation, the remedy is not habeas corpus but motion to quash the warrant arrest, or ask for preliminary investigation.
The question as to where among the three in Sec 5 Rule 113 the arrest was made is within the determination of the trial court.
The Court pronounces that since there is already a charge against them with rebellion in the RTC and an arrest warrant is available, the petition for habeas corpus is moot and academic.

Umil v. Ramos
- This is a consolidated motion for reconsideration filed by different petitioners assailing the order of the Court holding the validity of their arrest without warrant.
- They are contending that they were illegally imprisoned. The SC in determining if there is illegal detention, looked at the validity of the arrest.
SC: Contention without merit. Dural (Dural Case) was arrested because he is a member of the NPA. The crime is a continuing one. He was identified to have shot 2 CAPCOM policemen in a patrol car. The arrest made to Umil was anchored in Sec 5 b. of Rule 113 (Hot pusuit arrest) because he just committed the offense and the arresting officer has the personal knowledge of the crime committed.
In Umil case, the arrest is considered pursuant to Sec 5 a and b of Rule 113. the confidential information that the hospital management had furnished the law authorities is sufficient ground for the arrest of a NPA who had an encounter with the law enforcers.
In other cases, the arrest is legal after they were searched pursuant to a search warrant and was found to possess illegal firearms therefore they were caught in flagrante delicto.
In Espiritu case, he was arrested upon the information of the arresting officer based from reliable sources that he uttered word inciting to sedition during a press lunch.
In Nazareno case, the Court upheld the validity of the arrest without warrant even though the arrest was made 14 days after the commission of the crime. It is held that the arrest is valid since it was only after 14 days that the arresting officer came to have knowledge that there is probable cause of the offense committed by Nazareno. DENIED.