Abdula vs. Guiani G.R. No.: 118821, February 18, 2000, 326 SCRA 1 FACTS: The case involves a petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the warrant of arrest issued by Judge Japal M. Guiani of Branch 14 of the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City. The petitioners, Mayor Bai Unggie D. Abdula and Odin Abdula, were charged with murder in Criminal Case No. 2376. The murder complaint alleged that the petitioners paid six other individuals for the death of a certain Abdul Dimalen, the former COMELEC Registrar of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. Initially, the Provincial Prosecutor of Maguindanao dismissed the murder charges against the petitioners and five other respondents due to lack of prima facie evidence. However, a separate information for murder was filed against one of the respondents, Kasan Mama. Subsequently, the case was ordered to be returned to the Provincial Prosecutor for further investigation. After additional evidence was presented, the Provincial Prosecutor found a prima
People vs. Acol
GR Nos. 106288-89, May 17 1994
FACTS:
When Percival Tan was driving his jeepney, two men boarded the vehicle in Cubao.
When they crossed Pasay Road, the two wayfarers, together with two other companions, announced a hold-up where the other passengers were divested of their personal belongings, including the jacket of passenger Rene Araneta.
People vs. Acol
After which Percival Tan and his passengers went to Fort Bonifacio to report the crime.
A CAPCOM team was forthwith formed to track down the culprits.
Victim Rene Araneta who went with the responding police officers, upon seeing four persons, one of whom was wearing his stolen jacket, told the police authorities to accost said persons.
Read: People vs. Sucro
After the CAPCOM officers introduced themselves, the four men scampered to different directions but three of them, namely, Tirso Acol, Pio Boses, and Albert Blanco, were apprehended.
People vs. Acol
Tirso Acol and Pio Boses were each found in possession of an unlicensed .38 caliber revolver with bullets.
The line of defense the accused have adopted is one of denial.
Tirso Acol escaped from detention during the trial, thus obviating any review of his conviction, as indeed, even if he had appealed and thereafter escaped, he would be considered as having abandoned his appeal. People vs. Acol
ISSUE:
Whether or not there was a valid arrest, search and seizure.
HELD:
Yes. People vs. Acol
With respect to the so-called warrantless arrest of accused-appellant, we are of the view that the search falls within the purview of Section 5(b) of Rule 113 which serves as an exception to the requisite warrant prior to arrest:
People vs. Acol
Inasmuch as the police team was formed and dispatched to look for the persons responsible for the crime on account of the information related by Percival Tan and Rene Araneta that they had just been robbed.
Read: People vs. Gerente
And since accused-appellant's arrest was lawful, it follows that the search made incidental thereto was valid.
People vs. Acol
Moreover, the unlicensed firearms were found when the police team apprehended the accused for the robbery and not for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition.
The principle imparted by Justice Padilla in Cruz was based on the ruling in Magoncia vs. Palacio that:
GR Nos. 106288-89, May 17 1994
FACTS:
When Percival Tan was driving his jeepney, two men boarded the vehicle in Cubao.
When they crossed Pasay Road, the two wayfarers, together with two other companions, announced a hold-up where the other passengers were divested of their personal belongings, including the jacket of passenger Rene Araneta.
People vs. Acol
After which Percival Tan and his passengers went to Fort Bonifacio to report the crime.
A CAPCOM team was forthwith formed to track down the culprits.
Victim Rene Araneta who went with the responding police officers, upon seeing four persons, one of whom was wearing his stolen jacket, told the police authorities to accost said persons.
Read: People vs. Sucro
After the CAPCOM officers introduced themselves, the four men scampered to different directions but three of them, namely, Tirso Acol, Pio Boses, and Albert Blanco, were apprehended.
People vs. Acol
Tirso Acol and Pio Boses were each found in possession of an unlicensed .38 caliber revolver with bullets.
The line of defense the accused have adopted is one of denial.
Tirso Acol escaped from detention during the trial, thus obviating any review of his conviction, as indeed, even if he had appealed and thereafter escaped, he would be considered as having abandoned his appeal. People vs. Acol
ISSUE:
Whether or not there was a valid arrest, search and seizure.
HELD:
Yes. People vs. Acol
With respect to the so-called warrantless arrest of accused-appellant, we are of the view that the search falls within the purview of Section 5(b) of Rule 113 which serves as an exception to the requisite warrant prior to arrest:
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. – A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it;When an offense has in fact been committed, and the one has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.
People vs. Acol
Inasmuch as the police team was formed and dispatched to look for the persons responsible for the crime on account of the information related by Percival Tan and Rene Araneta that they had just been robbed.
Read: People vs. Gerente
And since accused-appellant's arrest was lawful, it follows that the search made incidental thereto was valid.
People vs. Acol
Moreover, the unlicensed firearms were found when the police team apprehended the accused for the robbery and not for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition.
The principle imparted by Justice Padilla in Cruz was based on the ruling in Magoncia vs. Palacio that:
When, in pursuing an illegal action or in the commission of a criminal offense, the offending police officers should happen to discover a criminal offense being committed by any person, they are not precluded from performing their duties as police officers for the apprehension of the guilty person and the taking of the corpus delicti.READ FULL TEXT