1. HARVEY VS DEFENSOR SANTIAGO (G.R. No.

82544, June 28, 1988)

FACTS:
Petitioners Andrew Harvey, John Sherman (American) and Adriaan Van Elshout
(Dutch) were among the twenty-two suspected alien pedophiles apprehended by agents
of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation (CID) by virtue of Mission Orders
issued by respondent Commissioner Miriam Defensor Santiago of the CID. Seized during
petitioners apprehension were rolls of photo negatives and photos of the suspected child
prostitutes shown in scandalous poses as well as boys and girls engaged in the sex act.
Deportation proceedings were instituted against petitioners for being undesirable aliens.
Petitioners question the validity of their detention arguing that respondent violated
Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution prohibiting unreasonable searches and
seizures since the CID agents were not clothed with valid Warrants of arrest, search and
seizure as required by the said provision.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Immigration Commissioner violated petitioners’
constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures?
HELD: NO.
One of the constitutional requirements of a valid search warrant or warrant of arrest
is that it must be based upon probable cause. In this case, the arrest of petitioners was
based on probable cause determined after close surveillance for three (3) months during
which period their activities were monitored. The existence of probable cause justified the
arrest and the seizure of the photo negatives, photographs and posters without warrant.
That petitioners were not "caught in the act" does not make their arrest illegal.
Petitioners were found with young boys in their respective rooms, the ones with John
Sherman being naked. Under those circumstances the CID agents had reasonable
grounds to believe that petitioners had committed "pedophilia" defined as "psychosexual
perversion involving children" in which children are the preferred sexual object".
The requirement of probable cause, to be determined by a Judge, does not extend
to deportation proceedings." Deportation proceedings are administrative in character. An
order of deportation is never construed as a punishment. It is preventive, not a penal
process. It need not be conducted strictly in accordance with ordinary Court proceedings.

2. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. IDEL AMINNUDIN y AHNI (G.R. No. 74869, July 6,
1988)
FACTS:
Idel Aminnudin was arrested on June 25, 1984 after disembarking from the M/V
Wilcon 9 at about 8:30 in the evening, in Iloilo City. The PC officers who were in fact
waiting for him simply accosted him, inspected his bag and finding what looked liked
marijuana leaves took him to their headquarters for investigation. The two bundles of
suspect articles were confiscated from him and later taken to the NBI laboratory for
examination. When they were verified as marijuana leaves, an information for violation of
 the Dangerous Drugs Act was filed against him. Aminnudin argued that he was arrested
and searched without warrant, making the marijuana allegedly found in his possession
inadmissible in evidence against him under the Bill of Rights.
It is not disputed, and in fact it is admitted by the PC officers who testified for the
prosecution, that they had no warrant when they arrested Aminnudin and seized the bag
he was carrying. Their only justification was the tip they had earlier received from a reliable
and regular informer who reported to them that Aminnudin was arriving in Iloilo by boat
with marijuana.
ISSUE: WON the arrest and search conducted to Idel Aminnudin was valid?
HELD: NO.
In the case at bar, there was no warrant of arrest or search warrant issued by a
judge after personal determination by him of the existence of probable cause. Contrary to
the averments of the government, the accused-appellant was not caught in flagrante nor
was a crime about to be committed or had just been committed to justify the warrantless
arrest allowed under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.
The present case presented no such urgency. From the conflicting declarations of
the PC witnesses, it is clear that they had at least two days within which they could have
obtained a warrant to arrest and search Aminnudin who was coming to Iloilo on the M/V
Wilcon 9. His name was known. The vehicle was Identified. The date of its arrival was
certain. And from the information they had received, they could have persuaded a judge
that there was probable cause, indeed, to justify the issuance of a warrant. Yet they did
nothing. No effort was made to comply with the law. The Bill of Rights was ignored
altogether because the PC lieutenant who was the head of the arresting team, had
determined on his own authority that a "search warrant was not necessary."
Bernas: “Nor was warrantless search allowed where the officers had the
evidence and every opportunity to obtain a warrant while waiting for an inter-island
boat to arrive.”
3. PEOPLE VS. BURGOS (G.R. No. L-68955, September 4, 1986)
FACTS:
Cesar Masamlok voluntarily surrendered to the authorities at the headquarters of
the Philippine Constabulary (PC). He claimed that that Ruben Burgos and his companions
forcibly recruited him to be part of the NPA. Burgos allegedly threatened him and his family
with a firearm. The following day, a team, headed by PC officer Bioco, found Burgos
plowing his field. They questioned him regarding the firearm he allegedly used to threaten
Masamlok. Burgos denied possession of the firearm. However, Burgos’ wife pointed to
where the gun was hidden, where the gun was indeed found. Accused then admitted
possession of the gun but claimed that it was issued to him by Nestor Jimenez. He also
pointed to the location of subversive documents hidden in a stockpile of cogon.
Ruben Burgos was convicted by the RTC of Illegal Possession of Firearms in
Furtherance of Subversion. The RTC reasoned that Burgos’ arrest without warrant was
justified since the authorities received an urgent report of his involvement in subversive
 activities from a reliable source. The trial court also justified the search as valid since it
was incidental to a lawful arrest.
ISSUE: WON the arrest of Ruben Burgos was lawful?
HELD: NO.

For there to be a valid warrantless arrest, an offense must be committed in the

presence or within the view of the arresting officer. In this case, there was no such
personal knowledge since the arresting officers’ knowledge stemmed solely from
Masamlok’s report and firearm’s location was given by Burgos’ wife. Nor was Burgos in
actual possession of any firearm or subversive document when he was arrested, nor was
he committing any act which could be described as subversive since he was merely
plowing his field.

In arrests without a warrant under Section 6(b), it is not enough that there is
reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a crime. A
crime must in fact or actually have been committed first. That a crime has actually been
committed is an essential precondition. It is not enough to suspect that a crime may have
been committed. The fact of the commission of the offense must be undisputed. The test
of reasonable ground applies only to the identity of the perpetrator, not the crime.

4. UMIL VS. RAMOS (G.R. NO. 81567, Oct 3, 1991)

FACTS:
On 1 February 1988, military agents were dispatched to the St. Agnes Hospital,
Roosevelt Avenue, Quezon City, to verify a confidential information which was received
by their office, about a "sparrow man" (NPA member) who had been admitted to the said
hospital with a gunshot wound. That the wounded man in the said hospital was among the
five (5) male "sparrows" who murdered two (2) Capcom mobile patrols the day before, or
on 31 January 1988 at about 12:00 o'clock noon, before a road hump along Macanining
St., Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. The wounded man's name was listed by the hospital
management as "Ronnie Javellon," twenty-two (22) years old of Block 10, Lot 4, South
City Homes, Biñan, Laguna however it was disclosed later that the true name of the
wounded man was Rolando Dural. In view of this verification, Rolando Dural was
transferred to the Regional Medical Services of the CAPCOM, for security reasons. While
confined thereat, he was positively identified by the eyewitnesses as the one who
murdered the 2 CAPCOM mobile patrols.
ISSUE: WON Rolando the arrest was lawful?
HELD: YES. Rolando Dural was arrested for being a member of the NPA, an outlawed
subversive organization. Subversion being a continuing offense, the arrest without warrant
is justified as it can be said that he was committing as offense when arrested. The crimes
rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and crimes or
offenses committed in furtherance therefore in connection therewith constitute direct
assaults against the state and are in the nature of continuing crimes.
 Nachura: “Accordingly, a rebel may be arrested at any time, with or without warrant,
as he is deemed to be in the act of committing the offence at any time of day or
night.”
5. GO VS. COURT OF APPEALS (G.R. NO. 101837, 11 FEB 1992)
FACTS:
Petitioner, while traveling in the wrong direction on a one-way street, almost had a
collision with another vehicle. Petitioner thereafter got out of his car, shot the driver of the
other vehicle, and drove off. An eyewitness of the incident was able to take down
petitioner’s plate number and reported the same to the police, who subsequently ordered
a manhunt for petitioner. 6 days after the shooting, petitioner presented himself in the
police station, accompanied by 2 lawyers, the police detained him. Subsequently a
criminal charge was brought against him. Petitioner posted bail, the prosecutor filed the
case to the lower court, setting and commencing trial without preliminary investigation.
Prosecutor reasons that the petitioner has waived his right to preliminary
investigation as bail has been posted and that such situation, that petitioner has been
arrested without a warrant lawfully, falls under Section 5, Rule 113 and Section 7, Rule
112 of The 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides for the rules and procedure
pertaining to situations of lawful warrantless arrests.
ISSUE: WON warrantless arrest of petitioner was lawful?
HELD: NO.
The reliance of both petitioner and the Solicitor General upon Umil v. Ramos is, in
the circumstances of this case, misplaced. In Umil v. Ramos, the Court sustained the
legality of the warrantless arrests of petitioners made from one to fourteen days after the
actual commission of the offenses, upon the ground that such offenses constituted
"continuing crimes." Those offenses were subversion, membership in an outlawed
organization like the New People's Army, etc. In the instant case, the offense for which
petitioner was arrested was murder, an offense which was obviously commenced and
completed at one definite location in time and space. No one had pretended that the fatal
shooting of Maguan was a "continuing crime."
Petitioner's "arrest" took place six (6) days after the shooting of Maguan. The
"arresting" officers obviously were not present, within the meaning of Section 5(a), at the
time petitioner had allegedly shot Maguan. Neither could the "arrest" effected six (6) days
after the shooting be reasonably regarded as effected "when [the shooting had] in fact just
been committed" within the meaning of Section 5(b). Moreover, none of the "arresting"
officers had any "personal knowledge" of facts indicating that petitioner was the gunman
who had shot Maguan. The information upon which the police acted had been derived
from statements made by alleged eyewitnesses to the shooting — one stated that
petitioner was the gunman; another was able to take down the alleged gunman's car's
plate number which turned out to be registered in petitioner's wife's name. That information
did not, however, constitute "personal knowledge."
It is thus clear to the Court that there was no lawful warrantless arrest of petitioner
within the meaning of Section 5 of Rule 113.
6. PEOPLE VS MENGOTE (G.R. No. 87059, June 22, 1992)
FACTS:
A telephone call was by Western Police district that here were three suspicious-
looking persons at the corner of Juan Luna and North Bay Boulevard in Tondo Manila. A
surveillance team of plainclothesmen was dispatch to the place. They saw two men
“looking from side to side” one of whom is holding his abdomen. They approached these
persons and identified themselves as policemen, whereupon the two tried to run away but
were unable to escape because the other lawmen had surrounded them. The suspects
were then searched. One of them, who turned out to be the accused was found with a .38
caliber Smith and Wesson revolver with six live bullets in the chamber. His companion
had a fan knife. The weapons were taken from them.
Mengote contend that the revolver should not have been admitted in evidence
because of its illegal seizure. No warrant therefor having been previously obtained. Neither
could it have been seized as an incident of a lawful arrest because the arrest was itself
unlawful, having been also effected without a warrant.
The Solicitor General submits that the actual existence of an offense was not
necessary as long as Mengote's acts "created a reasonable suspicion on the part of the
arresting officers and induced in them the belief that an offense had been committed and
that the accused-appellant had committed it."
ISSUE: WON the arrest was valid?
HELD: NO.
The requirements of Section 5, Rule 113 (Arrest without warrant when lawful) have
not been established in the case at bar. At the time of the arrest in question, the accused-
appellant was merely "looking from side to side" and "holding his abdomen," according to
the arresting officers themselves. There was apparently no offense that had just been
committed or was being actually committed or at least being attempted by Mengote in their
presence.
The setting of the arrest made them less so, if at all. It might have been different if
Mengote bad been apprehended at an ungodly hour and in a place where he had no
reason to be, like a darkened alley at 3 o'clock in the morning. But he was arrested at
11:30 in the morning and in a crowded street shortly after alighting from a passenger jeep
with I his companion. He was not skulking in the shadows but walking in the clear light of
day. There was nothing clandestine about his being on that street at that busy hour in the
blaze of the noonday sun.
The prosecution has not shown that at the time of Mengote's arrest an offense had
in fact just been committed and that the arresting officers had personal knowledge of facts
indicating that Mengote had committed it. All they had was hearsay information from the
telephone caller, and about a crime that had yet to be committed. The policemen
themselves testified that they were dispatched to that place only because of the telephone
call from the informer that there were "suspicious-looking" persons in that vicinity who
were about to commit a robbery at North Bay Boulevard. The caller did not explain why
he thought the men looked suspicious nor did he elaborate on the impending crime.