(2) New Rule

PEOPLE v. MOLINA
Case Brief. SPO1 Paguidopon received
information regarding the presence of an
alleged marijuana pusher in Davao. He
subsequently conducted surveillance of the
accused where his informer pinpointed to him
accused-appellant Mula.
Months later,
Paguidopon received information that the
alleged pusher will be passing by Davao. He
and other officers waited at his house for the
alleged pusher to pass by. Paguidopon pointed
to the trisikad carrying the accused-appellants.
The arresting officers thereupon pursued the
trisikad and asked accused-appellant Molina to
open the bag he was carrying, to which he
responded, Boss if possible we will settle this.
Officer insisted on opening the bag, which
revealed the marijuana leaves inside. Accusedappellants were convicted and sentenced to
death. On automatic review, SC held that the
accuseds acts do not constitute probable
cause that would justify an in flagrante delicto
arrest. Consequently
Doctrine. To constitute a valid in flagrante
delicto arrest, two requisites must concur: (1)
the person to be arrested must execute an
overt act indicating that he has just committed,
is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done
in the presence or within the view of the
arresting officer
PEOPLE v. BINAD CHUA
PEOPLE v. JAYSON
Case Brief. Wenceslao Jayson shot and killed
one Nelson Jordan while he was working as a
bouncer in a nightclub. He was subsequently
pointed out to policemen by eyewitnesses and
searched by them. He was found to possess a .
38 caliber revolver with 4 live bullets and 1
empty shell. He presented to the policemen a
memorandum receipt and mission order
covering the firearm, however, there were
restrictions listed. Jayson was charged with
homicide and later, illegal possession of firearm
by the RTC. His penalty was later increased by
the CA to reclusion perpetua.
Doctrine In the case at bar there was a
shooting. The policemen summoned to the
scene of the crime found the victim. Accused
appellant was pointed to them as the assailant

only moments after the shooting. In fact

accused appellant had not gone very far (only
ten meters away from the IhawIhaw),
although he was then fleeing. The arresting
officers thus acted on the basis of personal
knowledge of the death of the victim and of
facts indicating that accused appellant was the
assailant

Rule 113, Sec. 5 (b) (Hot pursuit) Arrest

without warrant; when lawful. A peace
officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person:
(b) When an offense has just been
committed, and he has probable cause to
believe based on personal knowledge of facts
or circumstances that the person to be
arrested has committed it
PESTILLOS v. GENEROSO
Case Brief. An altercation between petitioners
and respondent occurred. The respondent
called the police while petitioners went to the
barangay hall to file a complaint. The police
arrived and the respondent pointed at the
petitioners as the perpetrators. The petitioners
and respondent were brought to the police
station. The respondent filed charges for
frustrated murder, while the petitioners filed
charges for slight physical injuries. The
petitioners were subjected to an inquest
proceeding and was found to have stabbed the
respondent with a bladed weapon. The
petitioners were indicted for attempted murder.
The petitioners filed an Urgent Motion for
Regular Preliminary Investigation but were
denied by the RTC. The petitioners challenged
the RTC decision and brought it to the CA but
were also denied. SC affirmed CA decision.
Doctrine. The elements under Section 5(b),
Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure are:
1) an offense has just been committed and
2) the arresting officer has probable cause
to believe based on personal knowledge of
facts or circumstances that the person to be
arrested has committed it
GO v. CA
Case Brief. Go was charged with the murder
of Maguan. However, Go contends that the the
warrantless arrest was not lawful. SC ruled that
the warrantless arrest was not lawful for failing
to meet the requirements in Rule 113 Sec 5

Doctrine. RULE 113 Sec. 5

Arrest without
warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a
private person may, without warrant, arrest a
person:
(a)
When, in his presence, the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense;
(b)
When an offense has in fact just been
committed, and he has personal knowledge of
facts indicating that the person to be arrested
has committed it; and
(c)
When the person to be arrested is a
prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final
judgment or temporarily confined while his
case is pending, or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another..
CADUA v. CA
PEOPLE v. DORIA, supra
LARRANAGA v. CA
Case Brief. Larranaga is charged with
kidnapping but argues he was denied his right
to preliminary investigation and should be
released pending such investigation. SC rules
that while he should have his right to
preliminary investigation, he cannot be

released on that ground..

Doctrine. The absence of a preliminary
investigation will not justify petitioners release
because such defect did not nullify the
information and the warrant of arrest against
him.[The relevant lesson under our syllabus is
the section 5 portion under issue #1]
PEOPLE v. TUDTUD
Case Brief. Upon a report given by an
informant, policemen from the Toril Police
Station gathered information on the activities
of Tudtud suspecting that he is responsible for
the proliferation of marijuana in the area.
Tudtud and Bolong were arrested after the
police discovered marijuana leaves in their
baggage when they alighted a bus. The RTC
found them guilty but the SC reversed the
court below on the ground that it cannot be
considered as valid warrantless arrest
Doctrine. . Search of evidence in plain view.
The elements are:
(a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid
warrantless arrest in which the police are
legally present in the pursuit of their official
duties
(b)
the
evidence
was
inadvertently
discovered by the police who have the right to
be where they are
(c) the evidence must be immediate apparent
(d) plain view justified mere seizure of
evidence without further search