People Vs. Asis, G.R. No.

142531

Facts:

Danilo Asis and Formento y Saricon both deaf-mute were accused for the crime of robbery with
homicide against Yu Hing Guan a.k.a Roy Ching with a bladed instrument on the different parts
of the body taking cash/ money in the amount of P20,000.00; one (1) wristwatch' one (1) gold
necklace; and undetermined items; or all in the total amount of P20,000.00 more or less. The
victim sustained mortal stab wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death.

Both of the accused were friends of the victim. Asis was said to have owed the victim P3,000.
SPO2 Pablo Ileto of WPD Homicide Section tried to locate the whereabouts of appellant Gilbert
Formento in connection with the death of Yu Hing Guan a.k.a. Roy Ching. Diana Yu, the sister of
the victim saw Gilbert Formento in a delivery truck and she pointed him to them. Thereafter,
they invited Gilbert Formento to their office at the WPD Homicide Section. But before going to
the WPD station, they first brought Gilbert Formento to his house. Upon reaching the house,
Diana Yu asked from the wife of the suspect for the stolen money. However, they could not
understand each other, so the wife gave Diana Yu the bag of Gilbert Formento where Diana Yu
noticed the pair of shorts which belonged to the victim. PO2 Ileto noticed what appear to be
blood stains on the pair of shorts. Upon arriving at the scene of the crime to conduct the
investigation, they saw the victim lying prostrate on the ground, barefooted, and clad only in
brief.

During investigation (February 10, 1998), SPO1 Balatbat noticed that there was a bloodstain in
Asis T-shirt. During the presentation of prosecution, witness Dr. Olga Bausa, they stipulated that
the bloodstains found in the white t-shirt with a lettering of Collorrific and in the short pants
were human blood.

When arraigned on 9 July 1998, both accused pleaded not guilty. Found to be deaf-mutes, they
were assisted, not only by a counsel de oficio, but also by an interpreter from the Calvary Baptist
Church. The prosecution presented 9 witnesses. Although none of them had actually seen the
crime committed, strong and substantial circumstantial evidence including the recovery of blood-
stained clothing from both accused definitely proved that Asis and Saricon committed the crime.
Both the accused do not question the legality of their arrest, as they made no objection thereto
before the arraignment, but they objected to the introduction of the bloodstained pair of shorts
allegedly recovered from the bag of Formento. They argued that the search was illegally done,
making the obtainment of the pair of shorts illegal and taints them as inadmissible.

The prosecution, on the other hand, contends that it was Formento's wife who voluntarily
surrendered the bag that contained the bloodstained trousers of the victim, and thus claims that
her act constituted a valid consent to the search without a warrant.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused Formento Saricon, a deaf-mute, has waived his constitutional right
against unreasonable searches and seizures with regards to the blood-stained shorts recovered
from his bag and used as circumstantial evidence?

Ruling:

No, Formento Saricon did not waive his constitutional right against unreasonable searches and
seizures.

The said right is a personal one. It cannot be waived by anyone except the person whose rights
are invaded or who is expressly authorized to do so on his or her behalf. In the present case, the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses show that at the time the bloodstained pair of shorts was
recovered, Formento, together with his wife and mother, was present. Being the very subject of
the search, necessarily, Formento himself should have given consent. Since he was physically
present, the waiver could not have come from any other person.

The case of Lopez vs. Commissioner of Customs, which validated a waiver of a warrantless
search, when a woman thought to be the wife of the accused but who later turned out to be a
manicurist surrendered to the police the papers belonging to the appellant, does not apply as
the accused therein was not present when the search was made. Further, to constitute a valid
waiver, the following must be shown: first, the right exists; second, the person involved had
knowledge, actual or constructive, of the existence of such a right; and third, the person had an
actual intention to relinquish the right. Herein, Formento could not have consented to a
warrantless search when, in the first place, he did not understand what was happening at that
moment. There was no interpreter to assist him a deaf-mute during the arrest, search and
seizure. The point in the case Pasion vda. De Garcia v. Locsin, i.e. as the constitutional guaranty
is not dependent upon any affirmative act of the citizen, the courts do not place the citizen in the
position of either contesting an officers authority by force, or waiving his constitutional rights;
but instead they hold that a peaceful submission to a search or seizure is not a consent or an
invitation thereto, but is merely a demonstration of regard for the supremacy of the law,
becomes even more pronounced in the present case, in which Formento is a deaf-mute, and there
was no interpreter to explain to him what was happening. His seeming acquiescence to the search
without a warrant may be attributed to plain and simple confusion and ignorance.

The bloodstained pair of shorts was a piece of evidence seized on the occasion of an unlawful
search and seizure. Thus, it is tainted and should thus be excluded for being the proverbial fruit
of the poisonous tree. In the language of the fundamental law, it shall be inadmissible in evidence
for any purpose in any proceeding. Lastly, as to evidence vis-a-is the case in its totality,
circumstantial evidence that merely arouses suspicions or gives room for conjecture is not
sufficient to convict. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction only if: (1) There is
more than one circumstance; (2) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(3) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt.

It must do more than just raise the possibility, or even the probability, of guilt. It must engender
moral certainty. Otherwise, the constitutional presumption of innocence prevails, and the accused
deserves acquittal.

DOCTRINE:
 Umil vs Ramos, 187 SCRA 11

Important points prior to the facts:

As a general rule, no peace officer or person has the power or authority to arrest without a
warrant of arrest, except in those cases express authorized by law. The law expressly allowing
arrests without warrant is found in Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court which states the
grounds upon which a valid arrest, without warrant, can be conducted.

In the present cases, the focus is understandably on Section 5, paragraphs (a) and (b) of the said
Rule 113, which read:

Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private

person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to he 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 arrest has committed it.

Facts:

This is a consolidated case in separate motions.

On 1 February 1988, the Regional Intelligence Operations Unit of the Capital Command (RIOU-
CAPCOM) received confidential information about a member of the NPA Sparrow Unit
(liquidation squad) being treated for a gunshot wound at the St. Agnes Hospital in Roosevelt
Avenue, Quezon City. Upon verification, it was found that the wounded person, who was listed
in the hospital records as Ronnie Javelon, is actually Rolando Dural, a member of the NPA
liquidation squad, responsible for the killing of 2 CAPCOM soldiers the day before, or on 31
January 1988, in Macanining Street, Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City.

While confined thereat, or on 4 February 1988, Dural was positively identified by eyewitnesses
as the gunman who went on top of the hood of the CAPCOM mobile patrol car, and fired at the 2
CAPCOM soldiers seated inside the car. He was thus charged with Double Murder with Assault
Upon Agents of Persons in Authority.
Meanwhile, on 6 February 1988, a petition for habeas corpus was filed with the Supreme Court
on behalf of Roberto Umil, Rolando Dural, and Renato Villanueva. The Court issued the writ of
habeas corpus on 9 February 1988 and Fidel V. Ramos, Maj. Gen. Renato de Villa, Brig. Gen.
Ramon Montano, and Brig. Gen. Alexander Aguirre filed a Return of the Writ on 12 February
1988. Thereafter, the parties were heard on 15 February 1988. On 26 February 1988, however,
Umil and Villanueva posted bail before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City where charges for
violation of the Anti-Subversion Act had been filed against them, and they were accordingly
released.

In the case of Wilfredo Buenaobra, the same admitted that he was an NPA courier.
In the case of Amelia Roque, subversive documents and live ammunition were found at the time
of her arrest, and she admitted to owning such documents.
As regards Domingo Anonuevo & Ramon Casiple, agents frisked them and found subversive
documents & loaded guns without permits.
With regard to Vicky Ocaya, she arrived at a house subject to a search warrant. Ammunition &
subversive documents were found in her car.
In the Nazareno case, Narciso Nazareno was identified by Ramil Regala as the latters companion
in killing Romulo Bunye II.

Issue:

Whether or not Dural can be validly arrested without any warrant of arrest for the crime of
rebellion.

Held:

Yes, Dural may be validly arrested without any warrant of arrest for the crime of rebellion.

It clearly appears that he was not arrested while in the act of shooting the 2 CAPCOM soldiers
nor was he arrested just after the commission of the said offense for his arrest came a day after
the said shooting incident. Seemingly, his arrest without warrant is unjustified. However, Dural
was arrested for being a member of the New Peoples Army (NPA), an outlawed subversive
organization. Subversion being a continuing offense, the arrest of Rolando Dural without warrant
is justified as it can be said that he was committing an offense when arrested. The crimes of
rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and crimes or offenses
committed in furtherance thereof or in connection therewith constitute direct assaults against the
State and are in the nature of continuing crimes. The arrest of persons involved in the rebellion
whether as its fighting armed elements, or for committing non-violent acts but in furtherance of
the rebellion, is more an act of capturing them in the course of an armed conflict, to quell the
rebellion, than for the purpose of immediately prosecuting them in court for a statutory offense.
The arrest, therefore, need not follow the usual procedure in the prosecution of offenses which
requires the determination by a judge of the existence of probable cause before the issuance of a
judicial warrant of arrest and the granting of bail if the offense is bailable. Obviously, the
absence of a judicial warrant is no legal impediment to arresting or capturing persons committing
overt acts of violence against government forces, or any other milder acts but equally in
pursuance of the rebellious movement. The arrest or capture is thus impelled by the exigencies of
the situation that involves the very survival of society and its government and duly constituted
authorities.

DOCTRINE:

Rebellion is a continuing offense. Accordingly, a rebel may be arrested anytime, with or without
a warrant, as he is deemed to be in the act of committing the offense at any time of the day or
night.

People vs. Sucro, 195 SCRA 388

Facts:

Roy Fulgencio was instructed by P/Lt. Vicente Seraspi, Jr. (Station Commander of the INP) to
monitor the activities of appellant Edison Sucro, because of information gathered by Seraspi that
Sucro was selling marijuana.

Pat. Fulgencio saw appellant enter the chapel, taking something which turned out later to be
marijuana from the compartment of a cart found inside the chapel, and then return to the street
where he handed the same to a buyer, Aldie Borromeo. After a while appellant went back to the
chapel and again came out with marijuana which he gave to a group of persons. Pat. Fulgencio
called up Seraspi to report that a third buyer later Identified as Ronnie Macabante, was
transacting with appellant.

At that point, the team of P/Lt. Seraspi proceeded to the area and while the police officers were
at the Youth Hostel at Maagma St., Pat. Fulgencio told P/Lt. Seraspi to intercept Macabante and
appellant.

Upon seeing the police, Macabante threw something to the ground which turned out to be a tea
bag of marijuana.

When confronted, Macabante readily admitted that he bought the same from Sucro. The police
team was able to overtake and arrest appellant and recovered 19 sticks and 4 teabags of
marijuana from the cart inside the chapel and another teabag from Macabante.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the arrest without warrant of the accused is lawful and consequently.

2. Whether or not the evidence resulting from such arrest is admissible.

RULING:
 1. Yes, the arrest without warrant of the accused is lawful. According to Section 5, Rule 113
of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, one of the instances of a lawful arrest without a
warrant is when: (a) When in the presence of a police officer or a private person, the
person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
an offense; and (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;

In the given set of facts, Fulgencio saw Sucro talk to some persons, go inside the chapel,
and return to them and exchange some things. As such the act of selling of the drugs was
done in the presence of the said officer. As for the second instance of a valid warantless
arrest, the fact that Macabante, when intercepted by the police, was caught throwing the
marijuana stick and when confronted, readily admitted that he bought the same from
accused-appellant clearly indicates that Sucro had just sold the marijuana stick to
Macabante, and therefore, had just committed an illegal act of which the police officers
had personal knowledge. Given that the arrest complied with the requisites provided by
the Rules of Court for the instances of a valid arrest without a warrant, the arrest in the
given case is therefore valid.

2. Yes the evidence resulting from the arrest is admissible. The requisite that for a search to
be valid there must be a corresponding warrant is not absolute. Among the exceptions
granted by law is a search incidental to a lawful arrest under Sec. 12, Rule 126 of the
Rules on Criminal Procedure, which provides that a person lawfully arrested may be
searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the
commission of an offense, without a search warrant. Given that the arrest in this case is
valid considering its compliance with the requirements of a warrantless arrest, the fruits
obtained from such lawful arrest are therefore admissible in evidence.

DOCTRINE:

When a police officer sees the offense, although at a distance, or hears the disturbances created
thereby, and proceeds at once to the scene thereof, he may effect an arrest without a warrant. The
offense is deemed committed in the presence of or within the view of the officer.
 People vs Recepcion, G.R. No. 141943

Facts:

On July 28, 1999, eight persons allegedly conspired to kill and actually killed 5 customers of
Sabungan Fastfood & Videoke. A waitress in said bar testified as to the incident and identified
the accused as the persons responsible. Another witness who worked as a waitress in a restaurant
across the scene of the crime testified and identified the same offenders.

After the shooting, the accused boarded a jeepney owned by Ruben Labjata and made him drive
to Tarlac where they freed the driver and boarded a tricycle driven by Conrado Marquez. Both
drivers positively identified the perpetrators. Around lunchtime on 29 July 1999, after the police
invited the jeepney driver and the tricycle driver for questioning, the area was cordoned off. The
group, along with FO1 Felipe dela Cruz, surrendered after several calls by the police.

Taken into custody were Felipe dela Cruz, Joemari delos Reyes, Audie Dona, Alfredo Baracas,
Eduardo Palacpac, Bernardo Ranara, Robert Alfonso, and Dominador Recepcion; Diosdado
Recepcion (died during the course of the criminal proceedings), then a special agent of the
Narcotics Command, was intercepted at the national highway of Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija, on board
a tricycle. At the police station, Labjata identified his passengers, namely, Audie Dona, Alfredo
Baracas, Diosdado Recepcion, Bernardo Ranara, Eduardo Palacpac, Dominador Recepcion,
Joemari delos Reyes and Robert Alfonso.

The accused were charged with multiple murder, violation of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No.
1866, and robbery in band in three separate accusatory Informations. The indictees, when
arraigned, pled "not guilty" to all the charges and interposed alibi as a defense. According to
Dominador Recepcion, he was, at the time of the reported shooting incident, fast asleep at
Cainta, Rizal, where he was a construction worker. His co-workers were Eduardo Palacpac and
Robert Alfonso. On the evening of 27 July 1999, the trio went to Pansi, Paniqui, Tarlac, to help
Dominador Recepcions nephew, Joemari delos Reyes, find a job. It was after 1pm when Joemari
brought them to the house of his cousin FO1 Felipe dela Cruz.
Felipe dela Cruz stated that on 28 July 1999, about one oclock in the afternoon, his father fetched
him from a cousins house. When he arrived home, he was met by Joemari delos Reyes along
with the latter companions, namely, Eduardo Palacpac, Robert Alfonso, and Dominador
Recepcion. In the evening of the same day, about eight oclock, he invited his visitors to join him
in attending a wake just a few meters away, and they stayed there until dawn. The following
morning of 29 July 1999, policemen arrived and cordoned his house. He was arrested together
with Joemari delos Reyes, Audie Dona and Alfredo Baracas. During a series of questioning at the
Caloocan Police Station, dela Cruz insisted that he was attending a wake at the time the shooting
incident occurred in Caloocan City.

Audie Dona said that on 28 July 1999, he and his friend Alfredo Baracas, went to Pansi, Ramos,
Tarlac, to visit his cousin Joemari delos Reyes and to get some fresh fish and vegetables. When
he did not find Joemari at his house, he and Baracas proceeded to the place of dela Cruz where
they were invited to join the group of Felipe dela Cruz, Joemari delos Reyes, Eduardo Palacpac,
and Dominador Recepcion in a drinking spree. Dona and Baracas stayed until nine oclock in the
evening when they repaired to the house of Joemari to spend the night. On 29 July 1999, he and
Baracas went back to see dela Cruz but found Joemari still sleeping. The two dozed off while
waiting for Joemari to wake up until they all found themselves surrounded by the police.

The court found the several accused guilty of multiple murder but acquitted them in the charge of
illegal possession of firearm and robbery in band because of insufficiency of evidence.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the arrest made without a warrant was valid

RULING:

Yes, the arrest made without a warrant was valid. The arrest of appellants has been made in "hot
pursuit," an exception from the rule that warrantless arrests are illegal. In any event, appellants
can no longer assail the illegality of their arrest since such a claim has not been brought up
before or during the arraignment. The failure to timely move for the quashal of the Information
on this basis operates as a waiver of the right to question the supposed irregularity of the arrest.
The trial court, however, correctly appreciated conspiracy. The presence of conspiracy could be
revealed by the acts done before, during and after the commission of the crime that made evident
a joint purpose, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments.21 The several acts of appellants
during and after the shooting rampage disclosed a unison of objectives. Not one tried to stop the
other in the perpetration of the crime. All were clearly in it together, performing specific acts
with such closeness and coordination as would unmistakably show a common scheme.

The Court affirmed the conviction of the accused as guilty. Appellants Dominador Recepcion,
Audie Dona, Alfredo Baracas, Eduardo Palacpac, Bernardo Ranara, Joemari delos Reyes and
Robert Alfonso are all hereby found guilty of homicide. However, appellant Felipe dela Cruz is
aquitted for insufficiency of evidence.

DOCTRINE:

Hot pursuit. The arrest of the accused inside his house following hot pursuit of the person who
committed the offense in flagrante was held valid.
People vs Rodrigueza, 205 SCRA 791