1) The NBI attempted to arrest two suspects in a murder case based only on eyewitness identification, without an arrest warrant. The UP Chancellor and the suspects' lawyer objected, arguing the arrest would be illegal without a warrant.
2) For a warrantless arrest to be valid, it must fall under specific allowable circumstances and be based on probable cause. The situation did not meet these requirements.
3) In another case, police saw suspects allegedly repackaging drugs through a window. However, the court found the arrest and seizure invalid because the police did not first conduct surveillance to establish probable cause or get a search warrant.
1) The NBI attempted to arrest two suspects in a murder case based only on eyewitness identification, without an arrest warrant. The UP Chancellor and the suspects' lawyer objected, arguing the arrest would be illegal without a warrant.
2) For a warrantless arrest to be valid, it must fall under specific allowable circumstances and be based on probable cause. The situation did not meet these requirements.
3) In another case, police saw suspects allegedly repackaging drugs through a window. However, the court found the arrest and seizure invalid because the police did not first conduct surveillance to establish probable cause or get a search warrant.
1) The NBI attempted to arrest two suspects in a murder case based only on eyewitness identification, without an arrest warrant. The UP Chancellor and the suspects' lawyer objected, arguing the arrest would be illegal without a warrant.
2) For a warrantless arrest to be valid, it must fall under specific allowable circumstances and be based on probable cause. The situation did not meet these requirements.
3) In another case, police saw suspects allegedly repackaging drugs through a window. However, the court found the arrest and seizure invalid because the police did not first conduct surveillance to establish probable cause or get a search warrant.
of guilt of d person accused. Posadas v Ombudsman (341 A reasonable suspicion SCRA 388) therefore must b founded on prob Dizon (NBI Chief of Special Operns cause, coupld w/ good faith on d part Grp) & his men went to UP to of d peace officers making d arrest. attempt to arrest Taparan & Narag on d basis of positive identificatn of 2 2) NO PC to prosecute w/ violn of PD alleged eyewitnesses to d slaying of 1829 Dennis Venturina. Posadas, then Posadas etc. had d right to Chancellor of UP & Atty Villmor object to d arrest of d students, b/c d counsel for d suspects objected on d arrest that wld have been made was ground that d NBI did not have illegal. warrants of arrest w/ them. They promisd, though, that they will deliver Ppl v Bolasa d 2 to d NBI ofc d nxt day. Dizon There was a tip from an informer that filed a complaint against Posadas, a man & a woman were repacking etc to d Special Prosecutor, w/ violn MJ at a house in Valenzuela. The of PD 1829—w/c makes it unlawful police went to d house & peepd thru for anyone to obstruct d d window. They saw d suspects apprehension & prosecutn of crim repacking marijuana. Police arrested offenders. Special Prosecutor couple & confiscated d MJ. TC recommended dismissal. Recomm convicted them. was disapprovd. Whether arrest & S&S were valid Whether attempted arrest cld b validly made w/o warrant Arrest & S&S were INVALID. The sitn Whether Posadas violatd PD 1829 did not fall under any of d categories enumerated for a valid warrantless 1) NO d warrantless arrest would not arrest. have been valid! The officers shld have conducted 1st The sitn did not fall under d a surveillance considering that d categories to w/c one may conduct a identities & address of d suspected valid warrantless arrest. culprits were already ascertaind. Personal knowledge of facts After d surveillance & determining d in warrantless arrests must b based prob cause, they shld have secured on probable cause, w/c means an a search warrant prior to effecting a actual belief or reasonable grounds valid arrest & seizure. of suspicion. The grounds of BOLASA ACQUITTED! suspicion are reasonable when in d absence of actual belief of d Office of Court Administrator v arresting officers, d suspicion that d Pascual person to b arrested is probably Tigas wrote a letter to d Office of d guilty of committing d offense is Court Administrator of d SC charging based on actual facts, i.e. supportd irregularities against Judge Pascual. by circumstances sufficiently strong NBI was orderd to conduct a discreet Nakakainis ang law school! rasm Crim pro rasm
investigatn. NBI found out that Tigas
was a fictitious character. NBI then went to Candido Cruz who believd that d downgrading of his offense by Pascual would b in exchange for P2T. NBI decided to entrap Pascual. Cruz tried to give d money during d gradn. He later went to Pascual’s ofc t give d P2T markd money. NBI found money in Pascual’s possession, and they arrested him. Pascual says that he was outraged when Cruz decidd to bribe him & he screamd for Cruz to leave, w/c Cruz did.
HELD: The only bases for d Report
and Recomm submittd by d Exec judge consists of: d complaint, d answer, d memorandum & d TSN of d hearing of d bribery case of Pascual at d Sandiganbayan. Pascual was not afforded d right to open trial where Pascual can confront d witnesses against him & present evid against him shld b competent & shld b derivd fr direct knowledge. The judiciary to w/c d respondent belongs demands no less. B4 any of its mems cld b faulted, it shld only be after due investigation & aftr presentatn of competent evidence, especially since d charge is penal in character.