LEOVIGILDO U. MANTARING, complainant, vs. JUDGE MANUEL A. ROMAN, JR.

, RTC, Branch 42, Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro; and JUDGE IRENEO B. MOLATO, MTC, Bongabon, Oriental Mindoro, respondents. [A.M. No. RTJ-93-964. February 28, 1996] SECOND DIVISION; Mendoza, J.: Facts: On the application by a police officer, respondent judge issued a search warrant which resulted in the seizure from a certain Joel Gamo of a home-made gun, a hand grenade, five live ammunitions for Cal. 38 and three live ammunitions for 12 gauge shotgun; a complaint for Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition was filed against Gamo in which the herein complainant Leovigildo, Sr. and his son, Leovigildo, Jr., were included and that finding that the house in which the firearms and ammunition had been found was owned by complainant and his son, respondent judge concluded that there was probable cause to believe that complainant and his son were guilty of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition and accordingly ordered their arrest. Respondent judge claims that he inhibited himself from the case after he was ordered by the Executive Judge, RTC, Branch 41, Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro. Complainant contends that as the search warrant was issued only against Gamo and Mantaring, Jr. it was wrong for respondent judge to find probable cause against him on the theory that, as owners of the house in which the firearms and ammunitions were found, they had constructive possession of the same. Issue: Whether or not there was valid basis for issuance of the warrant of arrest Ruling: No. The issuance of a search warrant and of a warrant of arrest requires the showing of probabilities as to different facts. In the case of search warrants, the determination is based on the finding that (1) the articles to be seized are connected to a criminal activity and (2) they are found in the place to be searched. It is not necessary that a particular person be implicated. On the other hand, in arrest cases, the determination of probable cause is based on a finding that a crime has been committed and that the person to be arrested has committed it. It is now settled that in issuing warrants of arrest in preliminary investigations, the investigating judge must: (a) have examined in writing and under oath the complainant and his witnesses by searching questions and answers; (b) be satisfied that probable cause exists; and (c) that there is a need to place the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. In this case the respondent judge ordered the issuance of warrant of arrest solely on his finding of probable cause, totally omitting to consider the third requirement that there must be a need to place the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.

ARTHUR DEL ROSARIO and ALEXANDER DEL ROSARIO, petitioners, vs. HELLENOR D. DONATO, JR. and RAFAEL V. GONZAGA, respondents. G.R. No. 180595, March 5, 2010 SECOND DIVISION; Abad, J.: Facts: Philip Morris Products, Inc wrote the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), requesting assistance in curtailing the proliferation of fake Marlboro cigarettes. After doing surveillance work in that city, respondent Hellenor Donato, Jr., the NBI agent assigned to the case, succeeded in confirming the storage and sale of such fake cigarettes at the house that belonged to petitioner Alexander del Rosario. Donato applied for a search warrant to search the subject premises. But it took a week later for the RTC to hear the application and issue the search warrant. Despite delay, NBI proceeded to implement the warrant. Their search yielded no fake Marlboro cigarettes. Subsequently, petitioners Del Rosarios filed a complaint for P50 million in damages against respondents NBI agents Donato and Gonzaga and two others before the RTC Respondents NBI agents answered the complaint with a motion to dismiss on the grounds of: a) the failure of the complaint to state a cause of action; b) forum shopping; and c) the NBI agents immunity from suit, they being sued as such agents. The RTC denied the motion. The NBI agents filed a motion for reconsideration but the RTC denied the same. Special civil action for certiorari was filed by the NBI which the CA granted. Issue: Whether or not the NBI agents unlawfully obtained a search warrant against the Del Rosarios.

Ruling: NO. A judicially ordered search that fails to yield the described illicit article does not of itself render the courts order "unlawful." The Del Rosarios did not allege that respondents NBI agents violated their right by fabricating testimonies to convince the RTC of Angeles City to issue the search warrant. Their allegation that the NBI agents used an unlawfully obtained search warrant is a mere conclusion of law. While a motion to dismiss assumes as true the facts alleged in the complaint, such admission does not extend to conclusions of law. Statements of mere conclusions of law expose the complaint to a motion to dismiss on ground of failure to state a cause of action. Further, the allegation that the search warrant in this case was served in a malicious manner is also not sufficient. Allegations of bad faith, malice, and other related words without ultimate facts to support the same are mere conclusions of law.

ENRIQUE V. VIUDEZ II, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and HON. BASILIO R. GABO, JR., in his capacity as the Presiding Judge of Branch 11, RTC, Malolos. Bulacan, respondents. G.R. No. 152889, June 5, 2009 THIRD DIVISION; Peralta, J.:

Facts: A complaint for the alleged murder of Honorato Galvez and his driver was filed by the PNP with the Office of the Prov. Prosecutor. Upon finding of the probable cause to indict the petitioner and the others for the crime of murder, the prosecutors filed two information for murder with the RTC which issued warrant of arrest on the same day. The petitioner filed a motion to suspend proceedings and to suspend the implementation of the warrant of arrest. The RTC denied the motion stating that there was no way for it to recall the warrant of arrest in the absence of any compelling reason and that the jurisdiction over the person had not yet been acquired by it. Hence, the petitioner had no personality to file any pleading in court relative to the case until he was arrested or voluntarily surrendered. A motion for reconsideration was filed but the same was denied. Petitioner filed with the CA petition for certiorari which was dismissed. Issue: Whether or not a pending resolution for review filed with the Secretary of Justice concerning probable cause will suspend the proceedings including the implementation of warrant of arrest. Ruling: NO. The function of the judge to issue a warrant of arrest upon the determination of probable cause is exclusive; thus, the consequent implementation of a warrant of arrest cannot be deferred pending the resolution of a petition for review by the Secretary of Justice as to the finding of probable cause, a function that is executive in nature. To defer the implementation of the warrant of arrest would be an encroachment on the exclusive prerogative of the judge. Nowhere in the said provision does it state that the court must hold the proceedings in abeyance. Therefore, the discretion of the court whether or not to suspend the proceedings or the implementation of the warrant of arrest, upon the motion of the appellant or the trial prosecutor, remains unhindered. This is in consonance with the earlier ruling of this Court that once a complaint or information is filed in court, any disposition of the case as to its dismissal, or the conviction or acquittal of the accused, rests on the sound discretion of the said court, as it is the best and sole judge of what to do with the case before it.

STEPHEN SY y TIBAGONG, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE PHILIPPINES, respondent. G.R. No. 182178 August 15, 2011 THIRD DIVISION; Peralta, J.:

OF

THE

Facts: Petitioner was allegedly seen by the police officers holding dangerous drugs and proceeded immediately with the warrantless arrest. The trial court convicted him of illegal possession of dangerous drug. Petitioner appealed with the CA but the CA affirmed the decision of the trial court. Issue: Whether or not the honorable court of appeals erred in holding that petitioners warrantless arrest was valid.

Ruling: Yes. Sufficient evidence supports that the warrantless arrest of petitioner was effected under Section 5 (a), or the arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto. The police officers witnessed petitioner flicking a transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance in plain view. Arousing their suspicion that the sachet contains shabu, the arresting officers immediately approached petitioner, introduced themselves as police officers and effected the arrest. After laboratory examination, the white crystalline substance placed inside the plastic sachet was found positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a regulated drug. Under these circumstances, petitioner was clearly arrested in flagrante delicto as he was then committing a crime, violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, within the view of the police officers. At the time of his arrest, the police officers were actively performing their duties, since they were following up a tip that there was an illegal drug trade being conducted in the area. This fact, coupled with the overt acts of petitioner, formed sufficient basis on the part of the police officers to believe that a crime was actually being committed. Thus, petitioners case falls within the exception to the rule requiring a warrant before effecting an arrest. Consequently, the results of the ensuing search and seizure were admissible in evidence to prove petitioners guilt of the offense charged.