Chapter 5 – Oct.

22, 2015

1.  People  v.  Ara   of   catching   offenders.   It   is   a   form   of   entrapment   employed   as   an  

  effective   way   of   apprehending   a   criminal   in   the   act   of   commission   of   an  
FACTS:     offense.   In   fact,   one   of   the   situations   covered   by   a   lawful   warrantless  
Three   Informations   charged   accused-­‐appellants   Sangki   Ara,   arrest   under   Section   5(a),   Rule   113   of   the   Rules   of   Court   is   when   a  
Mike  Talib,  and  Jordan  Musa  that  on  or  about  December  20,  2002,  in  the   person   has   committed,   is   actually   committing,   or   is   attempting   to  
City   of   Davao,   the   accused,   without   being   authorized   by   law,   willfully,   commit  an  offense  in  the  presence  of  a  peace  officer  or  private  person.  
unlawfully   and   consciously   possessed,   traded,   transported   and   Probable   cause,   in   warrantless   searches,   must   only   be   based   on  
delivered  shabu  within  100  meters  from  the  school  St.  Peter's  College.   reasonable   ground   of   suspicion   or   belief   that   a   crime   has   been  
Accused-­‐appellants  all  gave  a  "not  guilty"  plea.   committed   or   is   about   to   be   committed.   Probable   cause   was   provided  
A   confidential   informant   (CI)   came   to   the   Heinous   Crime   by   information   gathered   from   the   CI   and   from   accused-­‐appellants  
Investigation   Section   (HCIS)   of   the   Davao   City   Police   Department,   themselves  when  they  instructed  Ayao  to  enter  their  vehicle  and  begin  
reporting   that   three   suspected   drug   pushers   had   contacted   him   for   a   the   transaction.   The   illegal   sale   of   shabu   inside   accused-­‐appellants'  
deal  involving  six  sachets  of  shabu  and  that  he  was  instructed  to  go  that   vehicle  was  afterwards  clearly  established.  Thus,  the  arresting  officers  
same   morning   to   St.   Peter's   College   and   look   for   an   orange   Nissan   were   justified   in   making   the   arrests   as   accused-­‐appellants   had   just  
Sentra   car.   Police   Chief   Inspector   Fulgencio   Pavo,   Sr.   immediately   committed  a  crime  when  Ara  sold  shabu  to  Ayao.  Talib  and  Musa  were  
formed  a  buy-­‐bust  team  who  proceeded  to  the  school  where  PO1  Ayao   also   frisked   for   contraband   as   it   may   be   logically   inferred   that   they  
and  the  CI  waited  by  the  gate.     were  also  part  of  Ara's  drug  activities  inside  the  vehicle.  This  inference  
At  around  8:45  am,  an  orange  Nissan  Sentra  stopped  in  front  of   was  further  strengthened  by  Musa's  attempt  to  drive  the  vehicle  away  
them  and  two  men  approached  the  vehicle.  The  CI  talked  briefly  with  an   and  elude  arrest.  
old  man  in  the  front  seat.  The  old  man,  later  identified  Ara,  asked  Ayao   The   Court   has   ruled   that   presentation   of   the   marked   money   used   is  
if  he  had  the  money  and  the  latter  replied  in  the  positive.  Ara  took  out   not   such   a   requirement.   In   the   prosecution   for   the   sale   of   dangerous  
sachets   with   crystalline   granules   and   handed   them   to   Ayao,   who   gave   drugs,   the   absence   of   marked   money   does   not   create   a   hiatus   in   the  
the  pre-­‐arranged  signal  of  opening  the  car  door.  The  driver  of  the  car,   evidence  for  the  prosecution,  as  long  as  the  sale  of  dangerous  drugs  is  
later  identified  as  Musa,  tried  to  drive  away  but  Ayao  was  able  to  switch   adequately  proved  and  the  drug  subject  of  the  transaction  is  presented  
off   the   car   engine   in   time.   Recovered   from   the   group   were   plastic   before   the   court.   In   the   instant   case,   the   police   officers'   testimonies  
sachets   of   white   crystalline   substance.   The   three   suspects   were   then   adequately   established   the   illegal   sale   of   shabu   and   the   shabu   was  
brought   to   the   HCIS   and   the   seized   items   indorsed   to   the   Philippine   presented   before   the   trial   court.   The   non-­‐presentation   of   the   marked  
National   Police   (PNP)   Crime   Laboratory   for   examination   which   all   money  may,  thus,  be  overlooked  as  a  peripheral  matter.  
tested  positive  for  shabu.   The   elements   of   the   crime   of   illegal   sale   of   drugs   and   illegal  
  possession   of   drugs   were   both   sufficiently   established.   Although   SPO1  
ISSUE:     Furog   was   not   categorical   in   explaining   his   basis   for   apprehending  
1. Whether  the  buy-­‐bust  conducted  was  valid;     Musa,   the   arrest   of   the   latter   must   be   considered   as   part   of   a   legitimate  
2. Whether   the   crimes   of   illegal   sale   and   illegal   possession   of   buy-­‐bust  operation  which  was  consummated.  Musa's  arrest  came  after  
drugs  were  sufficiently  established.   the  pre-­‐arranged  signal  was  given  to  the  back-­‐up  team  and  this  served  
  as   basis   for   the   police   officers   to   apprehend   all   those   in   the   vehicle,  
HELD:     including  Musa.  
 
1. Yes.     2. Yes.  
Owing   to   the   special   circumstances   surrounding   the   drug   For   the   successful   prosecution   of   the   illegal   sale   of   shabu,   the  
trade,  a  buy-­‐bust  operation  has  long  been  held  as  a  legitimate  method   following   elements   must   be   established:   (1)   the   identity   of   the   buyer  
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – DEAN VALLENTE 1
 
 Chapter 5 – Oct. 22, 2015

and  the  seller,  the  object  of  the  sale,  and  the  consideration;  and  (2)  the   Ramirez  grabbed  him,  forcibly  took  the  key  of  his  Toyota  Lite  Ace  van,  
delivery   of   the   thing   sold   and   its   payment.   What   is   material   is   the   proof   barged  into  the  vehicle,  and  conducted  a  search  without  warrant.  The  
that   the   transaction   or   sale   actually   took   place,   coupled   with   the   police  seized  a  licensed  gunshot  but  Abelita  was  able  to  present  the  
presentation   in   court   of   the   corpus   delicti   as   evidence.19   All   these  
shotgun’s  license  to  the  police.  Ramirez  still  continued  searching  until  
requisites  were  met  by  the  prosecution.  
The   sole   defense   witness   Ara   could   only   proffer   the   weak   he  produced  a  .45  caliber  pistol  which  he  allegedly  found  inside  the  
defenses   of   denial   and   alibi,   expressing   surprise   at   having   Talib   in   his   vehicle.    
car  and  claimed  he  was  framed  and  that  the  shabu  confiscated  from  him  
was   planted.   According   to   the   trial   court,   however,   Ara's   lying   on   the     Doria  and  Ramirez  arrested  Abelita  and  detained  him  without  
witness  stand  "was  so  intense  as  he  tried  very  hard  in  vain  to  win  the   any  appropriate  charge  at  the  PNP  special  detention  cell.    
Court's   sympathy."   Given   the   prosecution's   evidence,   the   presumption  
of   regularity   in   the   performance   of   official   duties   has   not   been   Doria’s  version:  
overturned  because  the  defense  failed  to  present  clear  and  convincing  
evidence  that  the  police  officers  did  not  properly  perform  their  duty  or     Doria  contends  that  his  office  received  a  telephone  call  from  
that  they  were  inspired  by  an  improper  motive.   Rosa  Sia’s  relative  about  a  shooting  incident  in  Barangay  Nursery.  He  
  dispatched  a  team  headed  by  Ramirez  to  investigate  the  incident.  
  Ramirez  reported  that  a  certain  William  Sia  was  wounded  while  
 
Abelita,  who  was  implicated  in  the  incident,  and  his  wife  just  left  the  
 
2.  Abelita  v.  Doria  G.R.  No.  170672   place  of  the  incident.  Doria  looked  for  Abelita  and  when  he  found  
August  14,  2009   Abelita,  he  informed  him  of  the  incident  report,  and  requested  that  
Rule  113,  Section  5:  Lawful  warrantless  arrest   Abelita  go  with  him  to  the  police  headquarters  as  Abelita  was  
reportedly  involved  in  the  incident.  Abelita  agreed  but  suddenly  sped  
FACTS:     up  his  car  and  went  home.  The  police  chased  after  Abelita  and  caught  
up  with  him  as  Abelita  was  about  to  run  to  his  house.    
Judge  Felimon  Abelita  III  (Abelita)  filed  a  complaint  for  
Damages  under  Art.  32  (4)  and  (9)  of  the  Civil  Code  against  P/Supt.   The  police  saw  a  gun  in  the  front  seat  of  the  vehicle  beside  the  
German  B.  Doria  (Doria)  and  SPO3  Cesar  Ramirez  (Ramirez).     driver’s  seat  as  Abelita  opened  the  door.  They  also  saw  a  shotgun  at  
the  back  of  the  driver’s  seat.  Thus,  they  confiscated  the  firearms  and  
Abelita’s  version:   arrested  Abelita.  Doria  alleged  that  his  men  also  arrested  other  persons  
who  were  identified  to  be  with  Abelita  during  the  shooting  incident.  
  Abelita  alleges  that  on  March  24,  1996  at  around  12nn,  he  and  
his  wife  were  on  the  way  home  to  Bagumbayan,  Masbate  when  Doria   Abelita  was  charged  with  illegal  possession  of  firearms  and  
and  Ramirez  with  10  other  unidentified  police  officers  requested  the   frustrated  murder.  An  administrative  case  was  also  filed  against  
spouses  to  proceed  to  the  Provincial  PNP  Headquarters  at  Camp  Boni   Abelita.    
Serrano,  Masbate.  Abelita  found  the  request  suspicious  and  told  Doria  
and  Ramirez  that  he  would  proceed  to  the  PNP  after  he  had  brought  his    
wife  home.  However,  when  Abelita  parked  his  car  in  front  of  his  house,  
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – DEAN VALLENTE 2
 
 Chapter 5 – Oct. 22, 2015

The  RTC  dismissed  Abelita’s  complaint  and  found  that  Abelita   A  reasonable  suspicion,  therefore,  must  be  founded  on  
was  indeed  at  the  scene  of  the  shooting  incident  in  Barangay  Nursery.  It   probable  cause,  coupled  with  good  faith  on  the  part  of  the  peace  
also  ruled  that  the  police  officers  who  conducted  the  search  were  of  the   officers  making  the  arrest.  
belief  based  on  reasonable  grounds  that  Abelita  was  involved  in  the  
incident  and  that  the  firearm  used  in  the  commission  of  the  offense  was   Moreover,  Section  5  of  Rule  113  does  not  require  the  arresting  
in  Abelita’s  possession.  The  RTC  held  that  Abelita’s  warrantless  arrest   officers  to  personally  witness  the  commission  of  the  offense  with  their  
and  the  warrantless  seizure  of  the  firearms  were  valid  and  legal,  and   own  eyes.    
that  Abelita’s  defense  of  frame-­‐up  was  weak  and  insufficient  to  
In  this  case,  Doria  received  a  report  about  the  alleged  shooting  
overthrow  the  positive  testimonies  of  the  police.    
incident.  Ramirez  investigated  the  report  and  learned  from  witnesses  
Abelita  filed  a  Motion  for  Reconsideration  which  was  naturally   that  Abelita  was  involved  in  the  incident.  They  were  able  to  track  down  
denied;  thus,  this  case.     Abelita,  but  when  invited  to  the  police  headquarters  to  shed  light  on  the  
incident,  Abelita  initially  agreed  then  sped  up  his  vehicle,  prompting  the  
ISSUES:     police  authorities  to  give  chase.  Abelita’s  act  of  trying  to  get  away,  
coupled  with  the  incident  report  which  they  investigated,  is  enough  to  
1.
W/N  the  warrantless  arrest  and  warrantless  search  and   raise  a  reasonable  suspicion  on  the  part  of  the  police  authorities  
seizure  were  illegal  under  Section  5  Rule  113  of  the  1985  Rules  
as  to  the  existence  of  probable  cause.  
on  Criminal  Procedure    
2. W/N  Doria  and  Ramirez  are  civilly  liable  for  damages  under  
Furthermore,  the  seizure  of  the  firearms  was  justified  under  
Art.  32  (4)  and  (9)  of  the  CC    
  the  plain  view  doctrine.  
HELD/RATIO:    
Under  the  plain  view  doctrine,  objects  falling  in  the  plain  view  
1. NO,  the  warrantless  arrest  and  the  warrantless  search  and   of  an  officer  who  has  a  right  to  be  in  the  position  to  have  that  view  are  
seizure  were  lawful.     subject  to  seizure  and  may  be  presented  as  evidence.  The  plain  view  
For  the  warrantless  arrest  under  Rule  113  to  be  valid,  two   doctrine  applies  when  the  following  requisites  concur:  (1)  the  law  
requisites  must  concur:  (1)  the  offender  has  just  committed  an  offense;   enforcement  officer  in  search  of  the  evidence  has  a  prior  justification  
and  (2)  the  arresting  peace  officer  or  has  personal  knowledge  of  facts   for  an  intrusion  or  is  in  a  position  from  which  he  can  view  a  particular  
indicating  that  the  person  to  be  arrested  has  committed  it.  Personal   area;  (2)  the  discovery  of  the  evidence  in  plain  view  is  inadvertent;  and  
knowledge  of  facts  must  be  based  on  probable  cause,  which  means   (3)  it  is  immediately  apparent  to  the  officer  that  the  item  he  observes  
an  actual  belief  or  reasonable  grounds  of  suspicion.  The  grounds   may  be  evidence  of  a  crime,  contraband  or  otherwise  subject  to  seizure.  
of  suspicion  are  reasonable  when,  in  the  absence  of  actual  belief  of  
the  arresting  officers,  the  suspicion  that  the  person  to  be  arrested   In  this  case,  the  police  authorities  were  in  the  area  because  that  
is  probably  guilty  of  committing  the  offense  is  based  on  actual   was  where  they  caught  up  with  Abelita  after  the  chase.  They  saw  the  
facts,  i.e.,  supported  by  circumstances  sufficiently  strong  in   firearms  inside  the  vehicle  when  Abelita  opened  the  door.  Since  a  
themselves  to  create  the  probable  cause  of  guilt  of  the  person  to  be   shooting  incident  just  took  place  and  it  was  reported  that  Abelita  was  
arrested.   involved  in  the  incident,  it  was  apparent  to  the  police  officers  that  the  
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – DEAN VALLENTE 3
 
 Chapter 5 – Oct. 22, 2015

firearms  may  be  evidence  of  a  crime.  Hence,  they  were  justified  in   walked  along  the  hospital  gate  near  the  emergency  room  and  entered  
seizing  the  firearms.   the  hospital.  Alonzo  examined  the  VHS  box  then  took  off  his  cap  to  
signal  the  buy-­‐bust  team.  The  buy-­‐bust  team  immediately  proceeded  to  
  the  scene  and  arrested  Agojo.  The  team  also  recovered  P10T  of  the  buy-­‐
bust  money,  a  .45  caliber  pistol  containing  7  bullets,  and  a  Panasonic  
2. No,  Doria  and  Ramirez  are  not  civilly  liable.     cellphone  in  the  car.    
Since  it  was  established  that  both  the  warrantless  arrest  and    
the  warrantless  search  and  seizure  are  lawful,  Doria  and  Ramirez  were   The  examination  revealed  that  the  sachets  contained  
methamphetamine  hydrochloride  with  a  total  weight  of  206.32  grams.    
presumed  to  be  performing  their  duties  in  accordance  with  law.  Hence,  
 
Doria  and  Ramirez  should  not  be  held  civilly  liable  for  their  actions.   Agojo  presented  a  different  version  of  facts,  in  support  of  the  defences  
of  denial  and  frame  up.  He  maintained  that  he  was  at  the  hospital  at  
Wherefore,  the  petition  is  denied  and  the  Quezon  City  RTC’s  decision  is   that  time  to  settle  the  bills  for  his  wife’s  hospitalisation,  when  he  was  
affirmed.   arrested.  He  averred  that  he  was  made  to  board  the  police  vehicle  and  
was  brought  to  the  police  headquarters  in  Batangas.    
Prepared  by:  Aira  Marie  M.  Andal    
The  RTC  found  Agojo  guilty  beyond  reasonable  doubt  of  the  drug  
  charges  but  acquitted  him  from  the  charge  of  illegal  possession  of  
  firearms.  The  case  was  brought  on  automatic  review  before  the  
3.  People  vs.  Agojo   Supreme  Court  since  he  was  sentenced  to  death  by  the  trial  court.  The  
G.R.  No.  181318   Supreme  Court  on  the  other  hand,  transferred  the  case  to  the  appellate  
April  16,  2009   court  for  intermediate  review.  The  appellate  court  affirmed  his  
  conviction  but  modified  the  sentence  to  reclusion  perpetua  in  view  of  
FACTS:   the  law  subsequently  passed,  prohibiting  the  imposition  of  the  death  
  penalty.  Hence  this  petition.  
Rodolfo  Alonzo,  a  civilian  informant,  reported  the  trug  trading  activities    
of  one  German  Agojo  to  Police  Chief  Inspector  Ablang.  Alonzo  narrated   ISSUE:  Whether  the  Agogo’s  guilt  was  proven  beyond  reasonable  
that  Agojo  agreed  to  sell  him  200  grams  of  shabby  for  P70T  on  50%   doubt.  
cash  and  50%  credit  cases.  With  this  information,  Ablang  formed  a    
team  to  conduct  a  buy-­‐bust  operation.   HELD/RATIO:  
   
On  the  day  of  the  buy-­‐bust,  the  team  proceeded  to  Mercado  Hospital,   YES.  The  records  clearly  show  that  the  prosecution  proved  beyond  
where  the  transaction  was  agreed  to  take  place.  Bland  entrusted  Alonzo   reasonable  doubt  that  Agojo  sold  shabby  to  the  poseur  buyer.  The  
with  P71T  each  marked  “JUA”  and  instructed  him  to  remove  his  hat  to   testimony  of  Alonzo  on  the  sale  of  illegal  drugs  and  the  identification  of  
signal  the  teak  that  the  sale  had  been  consummated.   Agojo  as  the  seller  is  clear  and  straightforward.  This  testimony  was  also  
  corroborated  by  the  members  of  the  buy-­‐bust  team,  testifying  that  they  
Agojo  arrived  at  around  11:30AM  aboard  a  white  Mitsubishi  Lancer   saw  Agojo  hand  Alonzo  the  VHS  tape  containing  the  shabby  despite  
with  plate  number  DRW.  Agojo  then  approached  Alonzo  to  ask  if  the   only  partial  payment  of  the  shabu.  
latter  had  the  money.  Alonzo  handed  Agojo  the  marked  money  and    
Agojo  took  a  VHS  box  from  his  car  and  handed  it  to  Alonzo.  They  then  
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – DEAN VALLENTE 4
 
 Chapter 5 – Oct. 22, 2015

The  Court  has  repeatedly  emphasised  that  the  defense  of  frame-­‐up  is  
viewed  with  disfavour,  since  the  defense  is  easily  concocted  and  is  a  
common  ploy  of  the  accused.  Clear  and  convincing  evidence  of  frame-­‐
up  must  be  shown  for  such  defense  to  be  given  merit.    
 
Although  Agojo  was  not  arrested  being  in  flagrante  delicto,  the  arrest  
was  still  validly  executed  pursuant  to  Section  5,  paragraph  (b)  of  Rule  
113  of  the  Rules  of  Court  which  states  that  an  arrest  without  warrant  is  
lawful  when  an  offence  has  in  fact  been  committed  and  the  peace  
officer  has  knowledge  of  facts  indicating  that  the  person  to  be  
arrested  has  committed  it.    
 
Furthermore  it  was  ruled  that  the  inconsistencies  in  the  serial  numbers  
of  the  marked  money,  as  well  as  the  fact  that  only  a  fraction  of  the  
money  was  recovered  cannot  serve  to  exonerate  the  accused  because  
its  absence  does  not  create  a  hiatus  in  the  evidence  provided  by  the  
prosecution  to  adequately  prove  the  sale.  Moreover,  the  question  raised  
as  to  the  fact  that  it  is  incredulous  for  a  person  selling  shabu  to  accept  
payment  by  instalment  for  a  contraband  is  likewise  unavailing.  So  long  
as  truth  is  corroborated  by  evidence,  the  Court  is  bound  by  the  facts.  
 
The  appeal  is  dismissed.    
 
 

 
 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – DEAN VALLENTE 5