Govs.

CourtofAppeals
FACTS:OnJuly21991,EldonMaguanwasallegedlyshottodeathbyaccused,Rolito
Go,duetoatrafficaltercationwhenpetitionerscarandthevictimscarnearlybumped
eachother.TheSecurityGuardoftheCravingsBakeShopsawthewholeincidentand
pointhereinpetitionerasthegunman,whichhepositivelyidentifiedwhenquestionedby
theauthorities.Beingconvincedofthesuspectsidentity,thepolicelaunchedamanhunt
operationthatcausedpetitionertopresenthimselfbeforetheSanJuanPoliceStationto
verifythesaidissue;hewasthendetainedbythepolice.
ISSUE:Whetherornothereinpetitionersarrestvalid?
RULING:TherelianceofbothpetitionerandtheSolicitorGeneraluponUmilv.Ramos
is,inthecircumstancesofthiscase,misplaced.Intheinstantcase,theoffenseforwhich
petitionerwasarrestedwasmurder,anoffensewhichwasobviouslycommencedand
completedatonedefinitelocationintimeandspace.Noonehadpretendedthatthefatal
shootingofMaguanwasa"continuingcrime.".....noneofthe"arresting"officershadany
"personalknowledge"offactsindicatingthatpetitionerwasthegunmanwhohadshot
Maguan.Theinformationuponwhichthepoliceactedhadbeenderivedfromstatements
madebyallegedeyewitnessestotheshootingonestatedthatpetitionerwasthe
gunman;anotherwasabletotakedowntheallegedgunman'scar'splatenumberwhich
turnedouttoberegisteredinpetitioner'swife'sname.Thatinformationdidnot,however,
constitute"personalknowledge."

Posadas vs. Court of Appeals

FACTS: While Pat.. Ungab and Umpar were conducting a surveillance along
Magallanes Street, Davao City, they spotted petitioner carrying a "buri" bag and they
noticed him to be acting suspiciously. They approached the petitioner and identified
themselves as members of the INP. Petitioner attempted to flee but his attempt to
get away was thwarted by the two notwithstanding his resistance. They then
checked the "buri" bag of the petitioner where they found one (1) caliber .38
revolver, two (2) rounds of live ammunition for a .38 caliber gun, a smoke (tear gas)
grenade, and two (2) live ammunitions for a .22 caliber gun. The petitioner was
asked to show the necessary license or authority to possess the firearms and
ammunitions but failed to do so.
ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless arrest and search was valid.
HELD: An arrest without a warrant may be effected by a peace officer or private
person, among others, when in his presence the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; or when
an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of the
facts indicating that the person arrested has committed it. Contrary to the argument
of the Solicitor General that when the two policemen approached the petitioner, he
was actually committing or had just committed the offense of illegal possession of
firearms and ammunitions in the presence of the police officers and consequently
the search and seizure of the contraband was incidental to the lawful arrest in
accordance with Section 12, Rule 126 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure; At
the time the peace officers in this case identified themselves and apprehended the
petitioner as he attempted to flee they did not know that he had committed, or was
actually committing the offense of illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions.
They just suspected that he was hiding something in the buri bag. They did not know
what its contents were. The said circumstances did not justify an arrest without
warrant.

Peoplevs.Mengote
FACTS:Information was given about three suspicious looking persons. A
surveillance team was then deployed. Upon seeing that the men were
looking side-by-side and one holding his abdomen, the policemen
approached the group and the latter tried to run away. The suspects were then
searched wherein a handgun and fan knife was seized. It was found later on that
the handgun was part of those stolen from a house wherein a robbery was
staged.

ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless search and arrest was illegal.

HELD:A person may not be stopped and frisked in broad daylight on a busy
street on mere unexplained suspicion. Rule 113 sec.5 of the Rules of Court,
provides arrest without warrant lawful when: (a) the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense, (b) when the offense in fact has just been
committed, and he has personal knowledge of the facts indicating the
person arrested has committed it and (c) the person to be arrested
has escaped from a penal establishment or a 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.

Malacat vs. Court of Appeals

Facts: On 27 August 1990, at about 6:30 p.m., allegedly in response to bomb
threats reported seven days earlier, Rodolfo Yu of the Western Police District,
Metropolitan Police Force of the Integrated National Police, Police Station No.
3, Quiapo, Manila, was on foot patrol with three other police officers (all of
them in uniform) along Quezon Boulevard, Quiapo, Manila, near the Mercury
Drug store at Plaza Miranda. They chanced upon two groups of Muslim-looking
men, with each group, comprised of three to four men, posted at opposite

sides of the corner of stop and frisk, where a warrant and seizure can be
effected without necessarily being preceded by an arrest and whose object is
either to maintain the status quo momentarily while the police officer seeks to
obtain more information; and that the seizure of the grenade from Malacat
was incidental to a lawful arrest.
Issue: Whether the search made on Malacat is valid, pursuant to the exception
of stop and frisk.
HELD: The general rule as regards arrests, searches and seizures is that a
warrant is needed in order to validly effect the same. The Constitutional
prohibition against unreasonable arrests, searches and seizures refers to those
effected without a validly issued warrant, subject to certain exceptions.These
twotypesofwarrantlesssearchesdifferintermsoftherequisitequantumofproofbefore
theymaybevalidlyeffectedandintheirallowablescope.Inasearchincidentalto
alawfularrest,astheprecedentarrestdeterminesthevalidityofthe
incidentalsearch,thelegalityofthearrestisquestionedinalarge
majorityofthesecases,e.g., whetheranarrestwasmerelyusedasa
pretextforconductingasearch.Inthisinstance,thelaw requiresthat
therefirstbealawfularrestbeforeasearchcanbemadetheprocess
cannotbereversed.

Peoplevs.Amminudin
FACTS:TheNARCOMagentsinIloiloCityreceivedareportthatavesselcomingfrom
MindanaohasMr.Amminudincarryingwithhimmarijuana.So,the
NARCOMagentswaitedattheportforthe vesseltoarrive.Sotheywere
lookingforthepassengerandthentheysawamanwhichfitthe description
ofthesuspect.Theyfriskedhimandwhenthemaletawasopened,itcontainedprohibited
drugs.Subsequently,themanwasarrested.

Issue: Whether or not search of defendants bag is legal.

Held: The search was illegal. Defendant was not caught in flagrante
delicto, which could allow warrantless arrest or search. At the moment
of his arrest, he was not committing a crime. Nor was he about to do
so or had just done so. To all appearances, he was like any of the
other passengers innocently disembarking from the vessel. The said
marijuana therefore could not be appreciated as evidence against the
defendant, and furthermore he is acquitted of the crime as charged.

ThePeopleofthePhilippinesvsMikaelMalmstedt
TheSwedishNationalwithHashishCase
Facts:M i k a e l M a l m s t e d t , a S w e d i s h n a t i o n a l , w a s f o u n d , v i a a
r o u t i n e N A R C O M i n s p e c t i o n a t K i l o m e t e r 1 4 , A c o p , T u b l a y
M o u n t a i n P r o v i n c e , c a r r y i n g H a s h i s h , a d e r i v a t i v e o f

Marijuana.RTCLaTrinidadfoundhimguiltyfor
v i o l a t i o n o f t h e DangerousDrugsAct.Theaccusedfiledapetitiontothe
SupremeCourtforthereversalofthedecisionarguingthatthesearchandthearrestmade
wasillegalbecausetherewasnosearchwarrant.
Issue:Whetherornotthedecisionofthetrialcourtshouldbereversed(or
affirmed)becausetheaccusedarguesthatthesearchandarrestwasmadewithouta
warrant.
Held:TheRTCdecisionisaffirmed.Theconstitutionstatesthatapeaceofficerora
privatepersonmayarrestapersonw i t h o u t a w a r r a n t w h e n i n h i s p r e s e n c e
t h e p e r s o n t o b e a r r e s t e d h a s c o m m i t t e d , i s actuallycommitting,oris
attemptingtocommitanoffense.Theoffensewasrecognizedwiththewarrantlesssearch
conductedbyNARCOMpromptedbyprobablecause:(1)ther e c e i p t o f
informationbyNARCOMthataCaucasiancomingfrom
S a g a d a h a d prohibiteddrugsinhispossessionand(2)failureofthe
accusedtoimmediatelypresenthispassport.