Soliven vs Judge Makasiar

Facts: - there are three principal issues raised in this case: 1 st whether or not petitioners were denied due process when information
for libel were filed against them although the finding of the existence of a prima facie case was still under review by the Secretary of
Justice and the President; 2nd is related to our topic: whether or not the constitutional rights of Beltran were violated when respondent
RTC judge issued a warrant for his arrest without personally examining the complainant and the witnesses to determine probable
cause; and 3rd whether or not the President of the Philippines may initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners through the filing
of a complaint-affidavit.

Issue: whether or not the constitutional rights of Beltran were violated when respondent RTC judge issued a warrant for his arrest
without personally examining the complainant and the witnesses to determine probable cause

Ruling: - The second issue, raised by petitioner Beltran is that the addition of the word "personally" after the word "determined" and
the deletion of the grant of authority by the 1973 Constitution to issue warrants to "other responsible officers as may be authorized by
law," has convinced petitioner Beltran that the Constitution requires the judge to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses
in his determination of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest.

- The interpretation of Beltran is inaccurate. In determining the probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the
judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses.

- Instead, the judge shall: (1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding
the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or (2) if he finds no probable cause, he may
disregard the fiscal's report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to
the existence of probable cause.

- In 1987, the Supreme Court adopted Circular No. 12, setting down guidelines for the issuance of warrants of arrest.

- Respondent judge has not been deviated from the prescribed procedure. Thus, with regard to the issuance of the warrants of
arrest, a finding of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction cannot be sustained. The petition was
dismissed.
Reyes vs People

Facts: - Reyes was charged with Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs.

-He possesses and have in her custody and control 0.04 gram of white crystalline substance contained in one transparent
plastic sachet which was found to be positive of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, which is a dangerous drug.

-around eight o'clock in the evening, a group of police officers including PO1 Jefferson Monteras was patrolling the diversion
road of Barangay Looc when two teenagers approached and informed them that a woman with long hair and a dragon tattoo on her left
arm had just bought shabu in Barangay Mambog.

-Then Reyes, who matched the said description and smelled like liquor, passed by the police officers.

- The police latter asked if she bought shabu and ordered her to bring it out. Reyes answered, "Di ba bawal kayong
magkapkap ng babae?" and turned her back, pulled something out from her breast area and held a small plastic sachet.

- PO1 Monteras immediately confiscated the sachet and brought it to the police station.

- it was confirmed that the substance inside the sachet was tested positive for 0.04 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride
or shabu.

- Reyes denied the charges, according to Reyes, a man approached and asked if she knew a certain person. After answering
in the negative, she rode the jeepney until it was blocked by two civilian men in motorcycles whom she identified to be one PO1
Dimacali.

-Dimacali ordered her to bring out the shabu which she denied having. She was then brought to the police station where the
police officers extracted from her the amount of P35,000.00 in exchange for her freedom. But since she failed to give the money, the
police officers took her to Taytay for inquest proceedings.

-RTC found Reyes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of 0.11 gram of shabu. RTC ruled that the prosecution
was able to prove that Reyes was validly arrested and found to be in possession of shabu, which she voluntarily surrendered to the
police officers upon her arrest. It was also observed that the chain of custody of the seized item was sufficiently established through the
testimony of PO1 Monteras, which was not ill-motivated.

-CA affirmed Reyes's conviction for the crime charged. It held that the search made on Reyes's person yielding the sachet
of shabu was valid because she was caught in flagrante delicto in its possession and was legally arrested. However, it corrected the
quantity of shabu to 0.04 gram.

Issue: whether or not there was a valid warrantless arrest

Ruling: None. In this case, there is no valid warrantless arrest that took place as Reyes did not do anything as to provoke suspicion in
the minds of the arresting officers that she had just committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime when she was just
passing by. Under the law, there are three instances when warrantless arrests may be lawfully effected: (a) an arrest of a suspect in
flagrante delicto; (b) an arrest of a suspect where, based on personal knowledge of the arresting officer, there is probable cause that
said suspect was the perpetrator of a crime which had just been committed; and (c) an arrest of a prisoner who has escaped from
custody serving final judgment or temporarily confined during the pendency of his case or has escaped while being transferred from
one confinement to another. The validity of warrantless arrest requires compliance with the overt act test, showing that the accused
exhibit an overt act within the view of the police officers suggesting that she was in possession of illegal drugs at the time she was
apprehended. Absent any overt act showing the commission of a crime, the warrantless arrest is rendered invalid. PO1 Monteras
himself admitted that Reyes passed by them without acting suspiciously or doing anything wrong, except that she smelled of liquor.
Therefore, the Court finds that no lawful arrest was made on Reyes.
Go vs CA

Facts: -Eldon Maguan was driving his car along Wilson St., San Juan, heading towards P. Guevarra St. Petitioner entered a one-way
street and started travelling in the "wrong" direction. At the corner of the Sts., petitioner's and Maguan's cars nearly bumped each other.
Petitioner got out from his car, walked over and shot Maguan inside his car. Petitioner then boarded his car and left the scene.

-A security guard at a nearby restaurant was able to take down petitioner's car plate number. The police arrived shortly at the
scene of the shooting and retrieved an empty shell and one round of live ammunition for a 9 mm caliber pistol. Verification at the Land
Transportation Office showed that the car was registered to one Elsa Ang Go.

-the police launched a manhunt for petitioner.

-petitioner presented himself before the San Juan Police Station to verify news reports that he was being hunted by the police.
He was accompanied by two lawyers.

-An eyewitness to the shooting, positively identified petitioner as the gunman. That same day, the police promptly filed a
complaint for frustrated homicide against petitioner.

-Prosecutor informed petitioner, in the presence of his lawyers, that he could avail himself of his right to preliminary
investigation but that he must first sign a waiver of the provisions. However, petitioner refused to execute such waivers.

-while the complaint was still with the Prosecutor, and before an information could be filed in court, the victim, Eldon Maguan,
died of his gunshot wounds.

-the Prosecutor, instead of filing an information for frustrated homicide, filed an information for murder .

-the Prosecutor certified that no preliminary investigation had been conducted because the accused did not execute and sign a
waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.

-counsel for petitioner filed an omnibus motion for immediate release and proper preliminary investigation, alleging that the
warrantless arrest of petitioner was unlawful and that no preliminary investigation had been conducted before the information was filed.

- The Solicitor General argues that petitioner had been validly arrested without warrant. Since petitioner's identity as the
gunman who had shot Maguan had been sufficiently established by police work, petitioner was validly arrested six days later at the San
Juan Police Station.

-petitioner argues that he was not lawfully arrested without warrant because he went to the police station six days after the
shooting which he had allegedly perpetrated. petitioner argues that the crime had not been "just committed" at the time that he was
arrested and none of the police officers who arrested him had been an eyewitness to the shooting of Maguan and accordingly none had
the "personal knowledge" required for the lawfulness of a warrantees arrest.

Issue: whether or not a lawful warrantless arrest had been effected by the San Juan Police in respect of petitioner Go

Ruling: No. It is clear to the Court that there was no lawful warrantless arrest of petitioner. Under the law, 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.

Also, the provisions are not applicable. Indeed, petitioner was not arrested at all. When he walked into San Juan Police
Station, accompanied by two (2) lawyers, he in fact placed himself at the disposal of the police authorities. He did not state that he was
"surrendering" himself, to avoid the implication he was admitting that he was guilty of a crime.

When the police filed a complaint for frustrated homicide with the Prosecutor, the latter should have immediately scheduled a
preliminary investigation to determine whether there was probable cause for charging petitioner in court for the killing of Eldon Maguan.
However, the Prosecutor proceed under the erroneous belief. This was substantive error, for petitioner was entitled to a preliminary
investigation and that right should have been accorded him without any conditions. Petitioner is entitled to be released immediately
subject only to his appearing at the preliminary investigation.