PEOPLE V CA

G.R. No. 126005. January 21, 1999

PRINCIPLE: The judge is not tasked to review in detail the evidence submitted during the
preliminary investigation; it is sufficient that the judge should personally evaluate the report and
supporting documents submitted by the prosecution in determining probable cause.

FACTS:
On August 30, 1993, Rosalinda Dy, according to the petition, was shot at pointblank range by
private respondent Jonathan Cerbo in the presence and at the office of his father, private
respondent Billy Cerbo at Purok 9, Poblacion, Nabunturan, Davao, eyewitness Elsa B. Gumban
executed an affidavit positively identifying private respondent Jonathan Cerbo as the assailant.
On September 20, 1993, private respondents Jonathan Cerbo executed a counter-affidavit
interposing the defense that the shooting was accidental. After [an] information for murder was
filed against Jonathan Cerbo, petitioner Alynn Plezette Dy, daughter of the victim Rosalinda Dy,
executed an affidavit-complaint charging private respondent Billy Cerbo of conspiracy in the
killing.
Prosecutor Lumangtad recommended the filing of an amended information including Billy Cerbo
as one of the accused in the murder case. Private respondent Billy Cerbo then filed a motion to
quash warrant of arrest arguing that the same was issued without probable cause. Respondent
Judge issued the first assailed order dismissing the case against Billy Cerbo and recalling the
warrant for his arrest.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the judge had made a correct ascertainment of the existence of probable cause.

RULLING:
Yes. The determination of probable cause during a preliminary investigation is a function that
belongs to the public prosecutor. It is an executive function, the correctness of the exercise of
which is a matter that the trial court itself does not and may not be compelled to pass upon.
The determination of probable cause to hold a person for trial must be distinguished from the
determination of probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest, which is judicial function. The
judicial determination of probable cause in the issuance of arrest warrants has been emphasized
in numerous cases.
Verily, a judge cannot be compelled to issue a warrant of arrest if he or she deems that there is
no probable cause for doing so. Corollary to this principle, the judge should not override the
public prosecutors determination of probable cause to hold an accused for trial, on the ground
that the evidence presented to substantiate the issuance of an arrest warrant insufficient, as in the
present case.
As a general rule, if the information is valid on its face and there is no showing of manifest error,
grave abuse of discretion or prejudice on the part of the public prosecutor, courts should not
dismiss it for want of evidence, because evidentiary matters should be presented and heard
during the trial. The functions and duties of both the trial court and the public prosecutor in the
proper scheme of things in our criminal justice system should be clearly understood.
SALAZAR V ACHACOSO
183 SCRA 145 March 1900

PRINCIPLE: Only a judge may validly issue a warrant. The Constitution grants the authority to
issue a warrant of arrest or a search warrant only to a judge upon fulfillment of certain basic
constitutional requirements

FACTS:
Rosalie Tesoro of Pasay City in a sworn statement filed with the POEA, charged petitioner with
illegal recruitment. Public respondent Atty. Ferdinand Marquez sent petitioner a telegram
directing him to appear to the POEA regarding the complaint against him. On the same day, after
knowing that petitioner had no license to operate a recruitment agency, public respondent
Administrator Tomas Achacoso issued a Closure and Seizure Order No. 1205 to petitioner.
It stated that there will a seizure of the documents and paraphernalia being used or intended to be
used as the means of committing illegal recruitment, it having verified that petitioner has— (1)
No valid license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment to recruit and
deploy workers for overseas employment; (2) Committed/are committing acts prohibited under
Article 34 of the New Labor Code in relation to Article 38 of the same code. A team was then
tasked to implement the said Order. The group, accompanied by mediamen and Mandaluyong
policemen, went to petitioner’s residence. They served the order to a certain Mrs. For a Salazar,
who let them in.
The team confiscated assorted costumes. Petitioner filed with POEA a letter requesting for the
return of the seized properties, because she was not given prior notice and hearing. The said
Order violated due process. She also alleged that it violated sec 2 of the Bill of Rights, and the
properties were confiscated against her will and were done with unreasonable force and
intimidation.

ISSUE:
Whether or Not the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (or the Secretary of Labor)
can validly issue warrants of search and seizure (or arrest) under Article 38 of the Labor Code

HELD:
Under the new Constitution, “. . . no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the
place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized”.
Mayors and prosecuting officers cannot issue warrants of seizure or arrest. The Closure and
Seizure Order was based on Article 38 of the Labor Code. The Supreme Court held, “We
reiterate that the Secretary of Labor, not being a judge, may no longer issue search or arrest
warrants. Hence, the authorities must go through the judicial process.
To that extent, we declare Article 38, paragraph (c), of the Labor Code, unconstitutional and of
no force and effect… The power of the President to order the arrest of aliens for deportation is,
obviously, exceptional. It (the power to order arrests) cannot be made to extend to other cases,
like the one at bar. Under the Constitution, it is the sole domain of the courts.” Furthermore, the
search and seizure order was in the nature of a general warrant. The court held that the warrant is
null and void, because it must identify specifically the things to be seized.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Article 38, paragraph (c) of the Labor Code is
declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL and null and void. The respondents are ORDERED to return
all materials seized as a result of the implementation of Search and Seizure Order No. 1205.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BOLASA

G.R. No. 125754 December 22, 1999

PRINCIPLE: An arrest is lawful even in the absence of a warrant: (a) when the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is about to commit an offense in his presence;
(b) when an offense has in fact been committed and he has reasonable ground to believe that the
person to be arrested has committed it; and, (c) when the person to be arrested is a prisoner who
has escaped from a penal establishment or 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

FACTS:

An anonymous caller tipped off PO3 Dante Salonga and PO3 Albert Carizon in the early evening of 11
September 1995that a man and a woman were repacking prohibited drugs at a certain house in Sta. Brigida St.,
Karuhatan, Valenzuela, MetroManila. PO3 Salonga and PO3 Carizon together with SPO1 Fernando Arenas
immediately proceeded to the house of thesuspects and parked their car some three hundred (300) meters away.
They walked towards their quarry's lair accompanied thistime by their unnamed informer. When they reached the
house they "peeped (inside) through a small window and x x x sawone man and a woman
repacking suspected marijuana."

They entered the house and introduced themselves as police officersto the occupants and thereupon confiscated the
tea bags and some drug paraphernalia. They arrested the two (2) who turnedout to be the accused Zenaida Bolasa
y Nakoboan and Roberto delos Reyes. Subsequent examination of the tea bags by NBI Forensic Chemist Rubie
Calalo confirmed the suspicion that the tea bags contained marijuana. . Both the accused howeverdenied on the
witness stand ownership over the confiscated tea bags and drug implements.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the seizure and subsequent arrest were valid.

HELD:

Yes. The Court held that the tea bags containing marijuana were not seized in plain view or inadvertently
discovered. There was no valid intrusion and the accused were illegally arrested. The police officers intentionally
peeped first through the window before they saw and ascertained the activities of accused inside the room. Further,
the Court contended that the apprehending officers should have conducted first a surveillance considering that the
identities and address of the suspected culprits were already ascertained. After conducting the surveillance and
determining the existence of probable cause for arresting accused, they should have secured a search warrant prior
to effecting a valid arrest and seizure.

An arrest is lawful even in the absence of a warrant: (a) when the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is about to commit an offense in his presence; (b) when an
offense has in fact been committed and he has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be
arrested has committed it; and, (c) when the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped
from a penal establishment or 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.

The Court stated that the arrest being illegal ab initio, the accompanying search was likewise illegal. Every
evidence thus obtained during the illegal search cannot be used against accused. The Court held that the State
cannot in a cavalier fashion intrude into the persons of its citizens as well as into their houses, papers and effects.
The constitutional provision protects the privacy and sanctity of the person himself against unlawful arrests and
other forms of restraint.