Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

Sayo vs.

Chief of Police revealed that he left it at the house of his

Detainee (D) vs. Arresting Authorities (P) associate Neneth [Gaddao], so he led the police team to her
GR L-2128, , May 12, 1948 (80 Phil. 859) house.
The team found the door open and a woman inside the
house. Jun identified her as Neneth, and she was asked
Summary: Two suspects of a robbery were arrested upon a by SPO1 Badua about the marked money as PO3 Manlangit
complaint of another person. looked over her house [he was still outside the house].
Standing by the door, PO3 Manlangit noticed a carton box
Rule of Law: Under the constitution, no person may be under the dining table. One of the box s flaps was open, and
deprived of his liberty except by warrant of arrest or inside it was something wrapped in plastic, and it appeared
commitment issued upon probable cause by a judge after similar to the marijuana earlier sold to him by Jun. His
examination of the complainant and his witness. suspicion aroused, so he entered the house and took hold of
the box. He peeked inside the box and saw 10 bricks of what
Facts: Upon complaint of Bernardino Malinao, charging appeared to be dried marijuana leaves. SPO1 Badua recovered
Melencio Sayo (D) and Joaquin Mostero (D) with having the marked bills from Neneth and they arrested her. The
committed the crime of robbery, Benjamin Dumlao, a bricks were examined and they were found to be dried
policeman of the City of Manila, arrested the Sayo (D) and marijuana leaves.
Mostero (D), and presented a complaint against them with the Florencio Doria and Violeta Gaddao were charged with
fiscal's office of Manila. When the petition for habeas violation of RA 6425 [Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972], Section
corpus was heard, the Sayo (D) and Mostero (D) were still 4 [Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and
detained or under arrest, and the city fiscal had not yet Transportation of Prohibited Drugs] in relation to Section 21
released or filed charges against them with the proper courts [Attempt and Conspiracy]. RTC convicted them.
WON RTC correctly found that the box of marijuana was in
Issues: Is the warrantless arrest valid? plain view, making its warrantless seizure valid. NO
Ruling: No. Under the constitution, no person may be Re: warrantless arrest
deprived of his liberty except by warrant of arrest or Gaddao s warrantless arrest was illegal because she was
commitment issued upon probable cause by a judge after arrested solely on the basis of the alleged identification made
examination of the complainant and his witness. by Doria. Doria did not point to her as his associate in the drug
business, but as the person with whom he left the marked bills.
A peace officer has no power or authority to arrest a person This identification does not necessarily mean that Gaddao
without a warrant upon complaint of the offended party or any conspired with Doria in pushing drugs. If there is no showing
other person, except in those cases expressly authorized by that the person who effected the warrantless arrest had
law. What he or the complainant may do in such case is to file knowledge of facts implicating the person arrested to the
a complaint with the city fiscal or directly with the justice of perpetration of the criminal offense, the arrest is legally
the peace courts in municipalities and other political objectionable.
subdivisions. A fortiori a police officer has no authority to Since the warrantless arrest of Gaddao was illegal, the
arrest and detain a person charged with an offense upon search of her person and home and the subsequent seizure of
complaint of the offended party or other persons even though, the marked bills and marijuana cannot be deemed legal as an
after investigation, he becomes convinced that the accused is incident to her arrest.
guilty of the offense charged. Plain view issue
Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be
in the position to have that view are subject to seizure even
without a search warrant and may be introduced in evidence.
1. The law enforcement officer in search of the evidence
has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a
People v. Doria position from which he can view a particular area
2. The discovery of the evidence in plain view is
People v. Florencio Doria [ Jun ] and Violeta 3. It is immediately apparent to the officer that the item
Gaddao [ Neneth ] he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or
22 Jan 1999 / Puno / Appeal from a Pasig RTC decision otherwise subject to seizure
Search and seizure > Nature, scope and definition > Types > An object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly exposed
Warrantless search and seizure > Plain view doctrine to sight. The difficulty arises when the object is inside a
FACTS closed container. Where the object seized was inside a closed
Members of the PNP Narcotics Command received package, the object itself is not in plain view and therefore
information that one Jun [Doria] was engaged in illegal cannot be seized without a warrant. If the package is such that
drug activities, so they decided to entrap and arrest him in a an experienced observer could infer from its appearance that it
buy-bust operation. He was arrested. They frisked him but did contains the prohibited article, then the article is deemed in
not find the marked bills on him, and upon inquiry, he plain view. It must be immediately apparent to the police that
the items that they observe may be evidence of a crime, Elias Lovedioro was then charged of the crime of murder, and
contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. subsequently found guilty. Lovedioro then appealed the
In his direct examination, PO3 Manlangit said that he was sure decision, contesting the verdict of murder instead of rebellion.
that the contents of the box were marijuana because he himself It was confirmed by the prosecutions principal witness that
checked and marked the said contents. On cross-examination, Lovedioro was a member of the New Peoples Army.
however, he admitted that he merely presumed the contents to
be marijuana because it had the same plastic wrapping as the ISSUES OF THE CASE:
buy-bust marijuana. Each of the ten bricks of marijuana in
the box was individually wrapped in old newspaper and placed Was the RTC correct in holding Lovedioro liable for the crime
inside plastic bags white, pink or blue in color. PO3 of murder, instead of rebellion?
Manlangit himself admitted on cross-examination that the
contents of the box could be items other than marijuana. He - Yes. Because, overt acts and purpose are essential
did not know exactly what the box contained that he had to components of the crime of rebellion, with either of these
ask appellant Gaddao about its contents. It was not elements wanting, the crime of rebellion does not exist.
immediately apparent to PO3 Manlangit that the content of the - Political motive should be established before a person
box was marijuana; hence, it was not in plain view and its charged with a common crime- alleging rebellion in order to
seizure without the requisite search warrant was in violation of lessen the possible imposable penalty- could benefit from the
the law and the Constitution. It was fruit of the poisonous tree laws relatively benign attitude towards political crimes. If no
and should have been excluded and never considered by the political motive is established or proved, the accused should
trial court. be convicted of the common crime and not of rebellion.
The fact that the box containing about 6 kilos of marijuana - In cases of rebellion, motive relates to the act, and mere
was found in Gaddao s house Gaddao does not justify a membership in an organization dedicated to the furtherance of
finding that she herself is guilty of the crime charged. rebellion would not, by and of itself suffice.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, what is - The killing of the victim, as observed by the Solicitor
material is the submission of proof that the sale took place General, offered no contribution to the achievement of the
between the poseur-buyer and the seller and the presentation NPAs subversive aims, in fact, there were no known acts of
of the drug as evidence in court. the victims that can be considered as offending to the NPA.
Prosecution established the fact that in consideration - Evidence shows that Lovedioros allegation of membership
of the P1,600.00 he received, Doria sold and delivered 970 to the N.P.A was conveniently infused to mitigate the penalty
grams of marijuana to PO3 Manlangit, the poseur-buyer imposable upon him.
Prosecution failed to prove that Gaddao conspired
with accused-appellant Doria in the sale of said drug HELD:
GADDAO ACQUITTED decision dated September 14, 1993, sentencing the accused of
Murder is hereby AFFIRMED, in toto

People vs Hernandez
Wednesday, April 9, 2014 People vs Hernandez
Case of People of the Philippines vs. Elias Lovedioro y Castro G.R. No. L-6025
G.R.No. 112235 29November1995 (People vs. Lovedioro 250 May 30, 1964
SCRA 389)
Case of People of the Philippines vs. Elias Lovedioro y Facts:
G.R.No. 112235 29November1995 (People vs. Lovedioro This is the appeal prosecuted by the defendants from the
250 SCRA 389) judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of Manila,
Hon. Agustin P. Montesa, presiding, in its Criminal Case No.
15841, People vs. Amado V. Hernandez, et al., and Criminal
Rebellion -- Art.134 of the Revised Penal Code Case No. 15479, People vs. Bayani Espiritu, et al. In Criminal
Case No. 15841 (G.R. No. L-6026) the charge is for Rebellion
FACTS OF THE CASE: with Multiple Murder, Arsons and Robberies. The appellants
are Amado V. Hernandez, Juan J. Cruz, Genaro de la Cruz,
Elias Lovedioro with 3 other companions fatally shot SPO3 Amado Racanday, Fermin Rodillas and Julian Lumanog;
Jesus Lucilo while Lucilo was walking along Burgos St. away Aquilino Bunsol, Adriano Samson and Andres Baisa, Jr. were
from Daraga, Albay Public Market. The victim died on the among those sentenced in the judgment appealed from, but
same day from massive blood loss. On November 6, 1992, they have withdrawn their appeal. In Criminal Case No. 15479
(G.R. No. L-6026) the charge is for rebellion with murders, Communist does not yet advocate the seizing of the reins of
arsons and kidnappings. The accused are Bayani Espiritu Government by it. As a theorist the Communist is not yet
Teopista Valerio and Andres Balsa, Jr.; they all appealed but actually considered as engaging in the criminal field subject to
Andres Balsa, Jr. withdrew his appeal. punishment. Only when the Communist advocates action and
actual uprising, war or otherwise, does he become guilty of
A joint trial of both cases was held, after which the court conspiracy to commit rebellion.
rendered the decision subject of the present appeals.
Legal considerations on the Appeal of the defendant-
Issue: appellants

Whether or not the defendants-appelants are liable for the All the other defendants were found guilty as accomplices in
crime of conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion or the crime of rebellion as charged in the information and were
insurrection under Art. 136 of the RPC? each sentenced to suffer the penalty of 10 years and one day of
prision mayor, with the accessories provided by law, and to
Held: pay their proportionate share of the costs.

The court found defendants-appellants Hernandez, member of Legal Considerations Before proceeding to consider the
the Communist Party of the Philippines, President of the appeals of the other defendants, it is believed useful if not
Congress of Labor Organizations (CLO), had close necessary to lay dawn the circumstances or facts that may be
connections with the Secretariat of the Communist Party and determinative of their criminal responsibility or the existence
held continuous communications with its leaders and its or nature thereof. To begin with, as We have exhaustively
members, and others, guilty as principal of the crime charged discussed in relation to the appeal of Hernandez, we do not
against him and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of believe that mere membership in the Communist Party or in
reclusion perpetua with the accessories provided by law, and the CLO renders the member liable, either of rebellion or of
to pay the proportionate amount of the costs. conspiracy to commit rebellion, because mere membership
and nothing more merely implies advocacy of abstract theory
In the testimonies shown in court, it further appears that Taruc or principle without any action being induced thereby; and that
and other CPP leaders used to send notes to appellant such advocacy becomes criminal only if it is coupled with
Hernandez, who in turn issued press releases for which he action or advocacy of action, namely, actual rebellion or
found space in the local papers. His acts in this respect belong conspiracy to commit rebellion, or acts conducive thereto or
to the category of propaganda, to which he appears to have evincing the same. On the other hand, membership in the
limited his actions as a Communist. HMB (Hukbalahap) implies participation in an actual uprising
or rebellion to secure, as the Huks pretend, the liberation of
However, in their appeal, defendants-appellants Amado V. the peasants and laboring class from thraldom. By
Hernandez, Juan J. Cruz, Amado Racanday and Genaro de la membership in the HMB, one already advocates uprising and
Cruz are absolved from the charges contained in the the use of force, and by such membership he agrees or
information, with their proportionate share of the costs de conspires that force be used to secure the ends of the party.
oficio. Such membership, therefore, even if there is nothing more,
But other defendants-appellants, namely, Julian Lumanog and renders the member guilty of conspiracy to commit rebellion
Fermin Rodillas, Bayani Espiritu and Teopista Valerio were punishable by law.
found guilty of the crime of conspiracy to commit rebellion, as
defined and punished in Article 136 of the Revised Penal
Code, and each and everyone of them is hereby sentenced to
suffer imprisonment for five years, four months and twenty-
one days of prision correccional, and to pay a fine of
P5,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency
and to pay their proportional share of the costs.
Juan Ponce Enrile vs Jaime Salazar
Advocacy of Communism put into Action November 6, 2010
The advocacy of Communism or Communistic theory and 186 SCRA 217 Political Law Separation of Powers SC
principle is not to be considered as a criminal act of Cannot Change Law
conspiracy unless transformed or converted into an advocacy Statutory Construction The Court Can Only Interpret Laws
of action. In the very nature of things, mere advocacy of a
theory or principle is insufficient unless the communist Criminal Law Complex Crimes Compound Crimes
advocates action, immediate and positive, the actual Rebellion Absorbs Common Crimes
agreement to start an uprising or rebellion or an agreement Remedial Law Criminal Procedure Bail; When available
forged to use force and violence in an uprising of the working
class to overthrow constituted authority and seize the reins of Constitutional Law Warrant of Arrest Judge Should
Government itself. Unless action is actually advocated or Personally Determine Probable Cause
intended or contemplated, the Communist is a mere theorist, In February 1990, Senator Juan Ponce Enrile was arrested for
merely holding belief in the supremacy of the proletariat a the crime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated
murder. The warrant of arrest was issued by Judge Jaime not, or could not have, so complied; nor does that single
Salazar. Said crime arose from the failed coup attempts against circumstance suffice to overcome the legal presumption that
then president Corazon Aquino. There was no bail set for official duty has been regularly performed.
Enrile due to the seriousness of the crime charged against him.
Enrile was then brought to Camp Karingal. Enrile later filed a
petition for habeas corpus questioning his detention and
alleging that the crime being charged against him is
nonexistent. He insists that there is no such crime as rebellion
with murder and multiple frustrated murder. Enrile
invoked the ruling in the landmark case of People vs
Hernandez where it was ruled that rebellion cannot be
complexed with common crimes such as murder; as such, the
proper crime that should have been charged against him
is simple rebellion which is bailable.
Enrile also questioned the regularity of the issuance of the
warrant of arrest against him. He claimed that it only took People vs Umali
Judge Salazar one hour and twenty minutes (from the raffling People vs Umali
of the case to him) to issue the warrant. Enrile claimed that G.R. No. L-5803
such period is so short that it was impossible for the judge to November 29, 1954
have been able to examine the voluminous record of the case
from the prosecutions office that being, the constitutional Facts:
provision that a judge may only issue a warrant of arrest after
personally determining the existence of probable cause has not The complex crime of which appellants Narciso Umali, et. al
been complied with. were found guilty was said to have been committed during the
raid staged in the town of Tiaong, Quezon, between 8:00 and
For the prosecution, the Solicitor General argued that 9:00 in the evening of November 14, 1951, by armed men.
the Hernandez ruling should be abandoned and that it should The raid took place resulting in the burning down and
be ruled that rebellion cannot absorb more serious crimes like complete destruction of the house of Mayor Marcial Punzalan
murder. including its content valued at P24,023; the house of Valentin
ISSUES: Robles valued at P10,000, and the house of one Mortega, the
death of Patrolman Domingo Pisigan and civilians Vicente
1. Whether or not the Hernandez ruling should be abandoned. Soriano and Leocadio Untalan, and the wounding of
2. Whether or not Judge Salazar personally determined Patrolman Pedro Lacorte and five civilians.
probable cause in the case at bar.
During and after the burning of the houses, some of the raiders
HELD: engaged in looting, robbing one house and two Chinese stores;
1. No, the said case is still good law. The Supreme Court also and that the raiders were finally dispersed and driven from the
noted that there was actually a previous law (P.D. 942) which town by the Philippine Army soldiers stationed in the town led
sought to abandon the Hernandez doctrine. The said law by Captain Alzate.
provided that graver crimes may not be complexed with
rebellion. However, President Corazon Aquino repealed said Issue:
law (by virtue of the power granted to her by the 1986
Freedom Constitution). That being, the Hernandez doctrine, Whether or not the accused-appellants are liable of the charges
which reflects the rebellion law under the Revised Penal Code, against them of complex crime of rebellion with multiple
still stands. The courts cannot change this because courts can murder, frustrated murder, arson and robbery?
only interpret laws. Only Congress can change the rebellion
law (which the SC suggested in order to strengthen the Held:
rebellion law). But as it stands, Enrile is correct, there is no
such crime as rebellion with murder. Common crimes such as Yes. The appellants were guilty of sedition, multiple murder,
murder are absorbed. He can only be charged with rebellion arson, frustrated murder and physical injuries. For the crime of
which is bailable. sedition each of the appellants is sentenced to 5 years of
prision correctional and to pay a fine of P4,000; for each of the
2. Yes. There is nothing irregular on the fact that Judge Salazar three murders, each of the appellants is sentenced to life
only took an hour and twenty minutes to issue the warrant imprisonment and to indemnify the heirs of each victim in the
from the time the case was raffled to him despite the fact that sum of P6,000; and for the arson, for which we impose the
the prosecution transmitted quite a voluminous record from maximum penalty provided in Article 321, paragraph 1, of the
the preliminary investigation it conducted. It is sufficient Revised Penal Code, for the reason that the raiders in setting
that the judge follows established procedure by personally fire to the buildings, particularly the house of Punzalan they
evaluating the report and the supporting documents submitted knew that it was then occupied by one or more persons,
by the prosecutor. Just because Judge Salazar had what some because they even and actually saw an old lady, the mother of
might consider only a relatively brief period within which to Punzalan, at the window, and in view of the aggravating
comply with that duty, gives no reason to assume that he had circumstances of nighttime, each of the appellants is sentenced
to reclusion perpetua and to pay the indemnities mentioned in
the decision of the lower court. It shall be understood,
however, the pursuant to the provisions of Article 70 of the Held: Yes. Dealing with the ordinance, specifically, Sec. 1119,
Revised Penal Code the duration of all penalties shall not said section provides for two constructions: (1) the Mayor of
exceed 40 years. In view of the heavy penalties already the City of Manila is vested with unregulated discretion to
imposed and their long duration, the court finds it unnecessary grant or refuse, to grant permit for the holding of a lawful
to fix and impose the prison sentences corresponding to assembly or meeting, parade, or procession in the streets and
frustrated murder and physical injuries; however, the sums other public places of the City of Manila; (2) The right of the
awarded the victims (Lacorte, Ortega, Anselo, Rivano, Garcia Mayor is subject to reasonable discretion to determine or
and Lector), by the court below will stand. With these specify the streets or public places to be used with the view to
modifications, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, prevent confusion by overlapping, to secure convenient use of
with costs. the streets and public places by others, and to provide
adequate and proper policing to minimize the risk of disorder.
The court favored the second construction. First construction
tantamount to authorizing the Mayor to prohibit the use of the
streets. Under our democratic system of government no such
unlimited power may be validly granted to any officer of the
government, except perhaps in cases of national emergency.

Primicias v Fugoso 80 PHIL 71 (1948)

Facts: An action was instituted by the petitioner for the refusal The Mayors first defense is untenable. Fear of serious injury
of the respondent to issue a permit to them to hold a public cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly.
meeting in Plaza Miranda for redress of grievances to the It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of
government. The reason alleged by the respondent in his irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech there
defense for refusing the permit is, "that there is a reasonable must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result
ground to believe, basing upon previous utterances and upon if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to
the fact that passions, specially on the part of the losing believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must
groups, remains bitter and high, that similar speeches will be be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is
delivered tending to undermine the faith and confidence of the a serious one. The fact that speech is likely to result in some
people in their government, and in the duly constituted violence or in destruction of property is not enough to justify
authorities, which might threaten breaches of the peace and a its suppression. There must be the probability of serious injury
disruption of public order." Giving emphasis as well to the to the state.
delegated police power to local government. Stating as well
Revised Ordinances of 1927 prohibiting as an offense against
public peace, and penalizes as a misdemeanor, "any act, in any
public place, meeting, or procession, tending to disturb the
peace or excite a riot; or collect with other persons in a body
or crowd for any unlawful purpose; or disturb or disquiet any
congregation engaged in any lawful assembly." Included
herein is Sec. 1119, Free use of Public Place.

Issue: Whether or Not the freedom of speech was violated.