PEOPLE V.

DORIA marijuana and the marked bills were likewise made without a
search warrant. It is claimed, however, that the warrants were not
FACTS: necessary because the arrest was made in "hot pursuit" and the
1. Members of the PNP Narcotics Command received information that search was an incident to her lawful arrest.
one “ Jun” [Doria] was engaged in illegal drug activities, so they 2. Accused-appellant Gaddao was not caught red-handed during the
decided to entrap and arrest him in a buy-bust operation. He was buy-bust operation to give ground for her arrest under Section 5 (a)
arrested. of Rule 113. She was not committing any crime. Contrary to the
2. They frisked him but did not find the marked bills on him, and upon finding of the trial court, there was no occasion at all for appellant
inquiry, he revealed that he left it at the house of his Gaddao to flee from the policemen to justify her arrest in "hot
associate “ Neneth ” [Gaddao], so he led the police team to her pursuit.” In fact, she was going about her daily chores when the
house. policemen pounced on her.
3. The team found the door open and a woman inside the 3. Nor can it be “Personal Knowledge” of facts since must be based
house. “ Jun” identified her as “Neneth, ” and she was asked by upon "probable cause" which means an "actual belief or reasonable
SPO1 Badua about the marked money as PO3 Manlangit looked grounds of suspicion. The grounds of suspicion are reasonable
over her house [he was still outside the house]. Standing by the when, in the absence of actual belief of the arresting officers, the
door, PO3 Manlangit noticed a carton box under the dining table. suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of
One of the box’ s flaps was open, and inside it was something committing the offense, is based on actual facts, i.e., supported by
wrapped in plastic, and it appeared similar to the marijuana earlier circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the
sold to him by “ Jun. ” His suspicion aroused, so he entered the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested.
house and took hold of the box. He peeked inside the box and saw a. In this case, Gaddao was arrested solely on the basis of the
10 bricks of what appeared to be dried marijuana leaves. SPO1 alleged identification made by her co-accused.
Badua recovered the marked bills from “ Neneth ” and they arrested b. Doria did not point to appellant Gaddao as his associate in
her. The bricks were examined and they were found to be dried the drug business, but as person with whom he left the
marijuana leaves. marked bills.
4. It turned out that Jun was Florencio Doria and Neneth was Violeta c. This conclusion does not lead to the belief that she is
Gaddao pushing drugs.
5. Florencio Doria and Violeta Gaddao were charged with violation of 4. Since the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant Gaddao was
RA 6425 [Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972], Section 4 [Sale, illegal, it follows that the search of her person and home and the
Administration, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of subsequent seizure of the marked bills and marijuana cannot be
Prohibited Drugs] in relation to Section 21 [Attempt and deemed legal as an incident to her arrest. Plain view doctrine
doesn’t apply.
Conspiracy]. RTC convicted them.
DISPOSITIVE: ACQUIT
ISSUE: WON warrantless arrest of accused-appellant Gaddao, the search of
her person and house, and the admissibility of the pieces of evidence
obtained therefrom are valid?

HELD:
1. The prosecution admits that appellant Gaddao was arrested without
a warrant of arrest and the search and seizure of the box of
ROBERTS V CA himself that probable cause indeed exists for the purpose of
issuing the corresponding warrants of arrest.
FACTS:
1. A Joint resolution was released after the investigations of ISSUE: WON Judge Asuncion committed grave abuse of discretion in
Prosecutors which recommended the filing of an information ordering the issuance of warrant of arrests without examining the records of
against petitioners for violation of Art 318 of RPC. the preliminary investigation.
2. An information for estafa was filed against the President (Roberts)
and Board of Directors of Pepsi Cola. HELD:
3. Private complaints alleged that Pepsi launched a Number Fever 1. following established doctrine and procedure, he shall: (1)
Promotion and announced in all medias that all holders of crowns personally evaluate the report and supporting documents submitted
and or caps of Pepsi, Miranda, Mountain Dew, and 7up bearing the by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and, on the
3 digit number with different security codes to prevent from basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or (2) if on the basis thereof
tampering, will win the full amount of prize enticing the public to he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscals report and
buy Pepsi products. require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid
4. But the said accused after their TV announcement that the winning him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause.
number was 349, failed to give the prize to complainants who were 2. It must be emphasized that judges must not rely solely on the
able to buy pepsi with the number 349. (These are two report or resolution of the fiscal (now prosecutor); they must
complainants who have the same numbered crown with different evaluate the report and the supporting documents
security code in the crown so as to be a measure against tampering a. This requirement of evaluation not only of the report or
or faking of crowns). certification of the fiscal but also of the supporting
5. Petitioners filed with the Office of the city prosecutor a motion for documents was further explained in People vs. Inting]  where
reconsideration of the Joint resolution alleging that (a) there was this Court specified what the documents may consist
fraud since it had always been clear that to be entitled to the prize it of, viz.,  the affidavits, the transcripts of stenographic notes
must have the correct security code; (b) failed to prove prima facie (if any), and all other supporting documents behind the
evidence of specific over criminal acts; (c) compromise agreement is Prosecutors certification which are material in assisting the
not an admission of guilt. Judge to make his  determination of probable cause.
6. Petitioners filed with the DOJ petition for review the same grounds. 3. In this case, nothing accompanied the information upon its filing.
7. Case was raffled to RTC Quezon and Prosecutor filed an Ex parte Only a copy of the joint resolution was forwarded to the trial court.
motion for Issuance of Warrants of Arrest while accused filed to No other supporting documents were attached.
hold in Abeyance issuance of warrant of arrest since the DOJ had 4. Judge did not have the records or evidence supporting the
take cognizance of the petition for review. prosecutors finding of probable cause. And strangely enough, he
8. RTC Judge Asuncion issued warrant of arrest and denied the made no specific finding of probable cause; he merely directed the
motions of petitioners citing the case of Crespo v Mogul that the Sec issuance of warrants of arrest after June 21, 1993. It may, however,
of Justice should refrain from entertaining a petition for review be argued that the directive presupposes a finding of probable
when the information has already been filed. cause. But then compliance with a constitutional requirement for
9. Petitioners filed certiorari in CA contending that there was no the protection of individual liberty cannot be left to presupposition,
probable cause to hold them criminally liable. Petitioners claim that conjecture, or even convincing logic.
Judge Asuncion has no basis to determine probable cause.
a. CA ruled that that the Joint Resolution was sufficient in itself DISPOSITVE: Judge auncion is directed to cease and desist. Warrants set
to have been relied upon by respondent Judge in convincing aside
 PEOPLE V JOSELITO DEL ROSARIO knowledge  of facts indicating that the person to be arrested had
committed it.
FACTS: a. Hence, there must be a large measure of immediacy  between
1. Alonzo stopped his tricycle by the side of a drug store. 1 and a half meter the time the offense was committed and the time of the arrest,
from him was the tricycle of Joseltio. Alonzo saw 2 men grappling for the and if there was an appreciable lapse of time between the
possession of the bag of the woman. One of the 2 men shot the woman in arrest and the commission of the crime, a warrant of arrest
the head. must be secured.
2. The bag taken by the man was brought to the tryc of the accused where b. In this case, the arrest came a day after the consummation of
someone inside received the bag and the armed man sat behind Joselito. the crime and not immediately after.
Joselito then sped away. 4. Aside from the sense of immediacy, it is also mandatory that the person
3. Joselito’s version: he was hired for to drive a certain Boy Santos to a cockpit making the arrest must have personal knowledge  of certain facts
however, Boy asked him to go to a drug store and there, Jun alighted from indicating that the person to be taken into custody has committed the
the tryc and accosted the woman. Joselito tried to ask for help but Boy, who crime.
stayed in the tryc, threatened him. And that if he ever informed the police, a. The arresting officer officers had no personal knowledge of facts
they would harm his family. since they were not present and were not actual eyewitnesses
4. Joselito, Jun, Boy Santos, and Dodong were charged with special complex to the crim, and they became aware of his identity as the driver
crime of Robeery with Homicide for having robbed Virginia, a 66-year old only during custodial investigation
businesswoman, of 200,000 in cash and jewelry and on occasion thereof 5. However the conspicuous illegality of del Rosario's arrest cannot affect
shot and killed her. the jurisdiction of the courta quo  because even in instances not allowed
5. Court a quo found Joselito guilty as charged and sentenced him to death. by law, a warrantless arrest is not a jurisdictional defect and any
objection thereto is waived when the person arrested submits to
ISSUE: WON Joselito’s arrest was unlawful since there was no warrant arraignment without any objection, as in this case.
thereof? 6. Del Rosario’s defense of irresistible force was proven clearly since he
was threatened and a gun was directly pointed at him. In other wors, he
HELD: was just an instrument acting involuntarily against his will.
1. It must be recalled that del Rosario was arrested during the police raid at
the place of Jun Marquez. A day after the incident. DISPOSITIVE: ACQUITTED.
2. In People vs Sucro we held that 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 on the basis of Sec. 5, par. (a), Rule 113, since the offense is
deemed committed in his presence or within his view. In essence, Sec. 5,
par. (a), Rule 113, requires that the accused be caught in flagrante
delicto  or caught immediately after the consummation of the act. 
a. The arrest of del Rosario is obviously outside the purview of the
aforequoted rule since he was arrested on the day following the
commission of the robbery with homicide.
3. On the other had, Sec 5 par. (b) Rule 113 necessitates two requirements
before a warrantless arrest can be effected: (1) an offense has just  been
committed; and (2) the person making the arrest has personal
DE LOS SANTOS DIO V CAGUIOA 2. While a judge’s determination of probable cause is generally
confined to the limited purpose of issuing arrest warrants, Sec
FACTS: 5 Rule 112 states that a judge may immediately dismiss a case
1. Dios, the majority stockholder of the HS equities invested if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable
$1.150M to SBMEI for the construction of an Ocean Park. cause.
2. Dio claimed that Desmond(CEO of SBMEI) had a capital of a. However it must be done in clear cut cases when the
5.5M inclusive of the value of animals. evidence on record plainly fails to establish probable
3. Dio invested again in SBMEI for the construction of Miracle cause.
Beach but this time as representative of Westdale Company. 3. In this case, it cannot be said that the absence of the elements
4. Dio found out that SBMEI actually had no capacity to deliver of the crime estafa had already been established.
on its guarantees and as of 2001 it was incurring losses
5. Dio filed two criminal complaints for estafa through false
pretenses and with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence
through misappropriation on conversion against Desmond.
6. After the preliminary investigation, the city prosecutor issued
a resolution finding a probable cause against desmond:
a. That Desmond persuaded Dio with false statements.
b. That there were misrepresentations.
7. Desmond filed a motion for judicial determination.
8. RTC: no probable cause and that there was no personal
assurance from Desmond which is an element of estafa
through false pretenses.
9. CA: Upheld the ruling of RTC.

ISSUE: WON CA erred in finding no grave abuse of discretion on the

HELD:
1. Determination of probable cause may be either executive or
judicial.
a. Executive is made by the public prosecutor during
preliminary investigation where he is given broad
discretion to determine whether probable cause exists.
b. Judicial is made by the Judge to ascertain whether a
warrant of arrest should be issued.