RELEVANT LAWS

AND
JURISPRUDENCE
I. OVERVIEW OF THE CONCEPT OF WARRANTLESS ARREST
II. ILLEGAL ARREST : IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO CASES
III. LEGAL ARREST : IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO CASES
IV. LEGAL WARRANTLESS ARREST : HOT PURSUIT CASES
V. ILLEGAL WARRANTLESS ARREST : HOT PURSUIT CASES
VI. WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND SEIZURE
VII. UPADTES ON DRUGS CASES
VIII. CHAIN OF CUSTODY
IX. PLEA BARGAINING
X. BLOTTER ENTRY
OVERVIEW OF THE CONCEPT OF WARRANTLESS ARREST

Section 5. Arrest Without a warrant; when lawful. - A peace officer or a private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts
indicating 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.

In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested without a warrant shall
be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail, and he shall be proceeded against in
accordance with Rule 112, Section 6.
  TWO REQUISITES:

1. The person to be arrested must execute an

OVERT ACT indicating that he has just
committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit a crime; and
2. Such overt act is DONE IN THE PRESENCE or
WITHIN THE VIEW of the arresting officer.

OVERT ACT – an outward act done in pursuance of the crime and a manifestation of
an intent or design, intending the completion of the crime.
ILLEGAL ARREST
“IN FLAGRANTE
DELICTO”
CASES
PEOPLE V IDEL AMINNUDIN, GR NO. 74869(JUL 6,1988)

FACTS:
The PC officers had received a tip from one of their informers that Idel
Aminnudin was on board a vessel bound for Iloilo City and was carrying
marijuana. The said vessel was to arrive two days after such tip. On the
day of the arrival, the PC officers then waited at the port and upon arrival
of the vessel, they approached him as he descended from the gangplank
after the informer had pointed to him. They immediately frisked him and
inspected the bag he was carrying. It was found to contain three kilos of
what were later analyzed as marijuana leaves by an NBI forensic
examiner.
RULING:
The arrest was illegal.
Warrantless arrest based on a tip is not valid. The police
received the tip two days before the arrest. They had enough
time to get a search warrant. The police arrested the suspect
when he was pointed by the informant while disembarking the
ship. He was doing nothing suspicious or illegal.
No overt act.
 PEOPLE V S. JACK RACHO, G.R.NO.186529 [AUG 3, 2010]
FACTS:
A confidential agent of the police transacted through cellular
phone with Racho for the purchase of shabu. Racho called up the agent and
informed him that he was on board a Genesis bus and would arrive in Baler,
Aurora anytime of the day wearing a red and white striped T-shirt. When Racho
alighted from the bus, the confidential agent pointed to him as the person he
transacted with earlier. Having alighted from the bus, Racho stood near the
highway and waited for a tricycle that would bring him to his final destination. As
Racho was about to board a tricycle, the team approached him and invited him to
the police station on suspicion of carrying shabu. Racho immediately denied the
accusation, but as he pulled out his hands from his pants’ pocket, a white
envelope slipped therefrom which, when opened, yielded a small sachet
containing the suspected drug. He was arrested and brought to the police station.
RULING:
The arrest was illegal.
“Reliable Information" alone is not sufficient to justify
a warrantless arrest.
The rule requires, in addition, that the accused
perform some overt act that would indicate that he has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense
 PEOPLE V S. ARUTA, G.R.NO.120515 [13 APR 1998]
FACTS:

A police officer was tipped off by his informant that a certain "Aling
Rosa" would be arriving from Baguio City the following day with a large
volume of marijuana. Acting on said tip, the police assembled a team and
deployed themselves near the Philippine National Bank (PNB) in
Olongapo City. While thus positioned, a Victory Liner Bus stopped in front
of the PNB building where two females and a man got off. The informant
then pointed to the team members the woman, "Aling Rosa," who was
then carrying a traveling bag. Thereafter, the team approached her and
introduced themselves. When asked about the contents of her bag, she
handed it to the apprehending officers. Upon inspection, the bag was
found to contain dried marijuana leaves
RULING:

The arrest was illegal.

Only a tip with no overt act.
 PEOPLE V S. TUDTUD, G.R.NO.144037 [23 SEP 2003]
FACTS:
In July and August, 1999, the Toril Police Station, Davao City, received a
report from a civilian asset that the neighbors of a certain Noel Tudtud (Tudtud)
were complaining that the latter was responsible for the proliferation of marijuana
in the area. Reacting to the report, the Intelligence Section conducted
surveillance. For five days, they gathered information and learned that Tudtud
was involved in illegal drugs. On August 1, 1999, the civilian asset informed the
police that Tudtud had headed to Cotabato and would be back later that day with
a new stock of marijuana. At around 4:00 p.m. that same day, a team of police
officers posted themselves to await Tudtud’s arrival. At 8:00 p.m., two men
disembarked from a bus and helped each other carry a carton. The police
officers approached the suspects and asked if they could see the contents of the
box which yielded marijuana leaves. They arrested Tudtud and his companion.
RULING:

The arrest was illegal.

No overt act.
No probable cause.
 PEOPLE V S. NUEVAS, G.R.NO.170233 [22 FEB 2007]
FACTS:

The police officers received information that a certain male person, more
or less 5’4" in height, 25 to 30 years old, with a tattoo mark on the upper right
hand, and usually wearing a sando and maong pants, would make a delivery of
marijuana leaves. While conducting stationary surveillance and monitoring of
illegal drug trafficking, they saw the accused who fit the description, carrying a
plastic bag. The police accosted the accused and informed him that they were
police officers. Upon inspection of the plastic bag carried by the accused, the
bag contained marijuana dried leaves and bricks wrapped in a blue cloth. In his
bid to escape charges, the accused disclosed where two other male persons
would make a delivery of marijuana leaves. Upon seeing the two male persons,
later identified as Reynaldo Din and Fernando Inocencio, the police approached
them, introduced themselves as police officers, then inspected the bag they
were carrying. Upon inspection, the contents of the bag turned out to be
marijuana leaves.
RULING:

The arrest against all the suspect was

illegal.
No overt act.
 PEOPLE V S. MOLINA, G.R. No. 133917. February 19, 2001
FACTS:

In the morning of August 8,1996, SPO1 Paguidopon received

an information that Molina will be passing at NHA, Ma-a, Davao City.
He called for assistance at the PNP who then proceed to the house
of SPO1 Paguidopon where they waited for the alleged pusher to
pass by. Later, a “trisikad” carrying Molina passed by. At that
instance, SPO1 Paguidopon pointed to Molina as the pusher. The
police officers then ordered the “trisikad” to stop. SPO1Pamplona
introduced himself as a police officer and asked Molina to open the
bag. Molina replied, “Boss, if possible we will settle this.” SPO1
Pamplona insisted on opening the bag, which revealed dried
marijuana leaves inside. Thereafter, Molina was arrested.
RULING:

Arrest was Illegal.

It was based on reliable information that Molina was
carrying marijuana inside a trisikad despite the absence of any
outward indication of a crime being committed.
No overt acts.
 PEOPLE VS. MALACAT, G.R.NO.123595 [12 DEC 1997]
FACTS:
The police officers were on foot patrol (all of them in uniform) along
Quezon Boulevard, Quiapo, Manila. 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 Quezon Boulevard near the
Mercury Drug Store. These men were acting suspiciously with their eyes
moving very fast.

The police positioned themselves at strategic points and observed

both groups for about thirty minutes. The police officers then approached
one group of men, who then fled in different directions. As the policemen
gave chase, the police caught up with and apprehended Malacat. Upon
searching Malacat, the police found a fragmentation grenade tucked
inside petitioners front waist line. He was then arrested.
RULING:

No crime may be inferred from the fact that the eyes of

the person arrested were “moving fast” and “looking at every
person passing by”.
No overt acts.
Mere suspicions are not sufficient to validate the
warrantless arrest.
 PEOPLE VS. MENGOTE, G.R. NO. 87059 , 22 JUNE 1992
FACTS:
The police received a phone call that suspicious looking
men were at a street corner in Tondo shortly before noon. The
police operatives dispatched to the place saw three (3)men, one
of whom who turned out to be Mengote, was “looking from side
to side clutching his abdomen.” The operatives approached the
3 and introduced themselves as policemen. Two of them
accordingly tried to run away but the attempt was foiled. The
search yielded a revolver in the possession of Mengote and a
fan knife in the pocket of another.
RULING:
The arrest was illegal.
There was no offense which could have been suggested by
the acts of Mengote of looking from side to side while holding his
abdomen. These are certainly not sinister acts. 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 revolver was held inadmissible because the search
was illegal due to illegal arrest.
PEOPLE VS. LAGUIO, JR., G.R. NO. 128587, 16 MARCH 2007
FACTS:

Redentor Teck and Joseph Junio were arrested while they were
about to hand over another bag of shabu to SPO2 De Dios and
company. Questioned, the arrested men told the police officers that
they knew of a scheduled delivery of shabu by their employer
(Lawrence Wang) early the following morning and that he could be
found at a certain apartment building in Malate, Manila. The police
operatives decided to look for Wang to shed light on the illegal drug
activities of his employees and proceeded to the location of the
apartment and placed the same under surveillance.
Continuation….PEOPLE VS. LAGUIO, JR., G.R. NO. 128587, 16 MARCH 2007

When Wang came out of the apartment and walked towards a parked
BMW car, two other police officers approached him, introduced themselves
to him as police officers, asked his name and, upon hearing that he was
Lawrence Wang, immediately frisked him and asked him to open the back
compartment of the BMW car. When frisked, there was found inside the
front right pocket of Wang and confiscated from him an unlicensed pistols
loaded with ammunitions. At the same time, the other members of the
operatives searched the BMW car and found inside it were the following
items: (a) 32 transparent plastic bags containing shabu; (b) cash in the
amount of P650,000.00; (c) one electronic and one mechanical scales; and
(d) an unlicensed Daewoo 9mm Pistol with magazine. Then and there,
Wang resisted the warrantless arrest and search.
RULING:

The facts and circumstances surrounding the case did not

manifest any suspicious behavior on the part of Wang.
He was merely walking from the Apartment and was about to
enter the parked BMW car when the police officers arrested and frisked
him and searched his car. He was not committing any visible offense at
the time of his arrest. Neither was there an indication that he was about
to commit a crime or that he had just committed an offense.
Therefore, there can be no valid warrantless arrest in flagrante
delicto.
WELL SETTLED :

“Reliable information" alone, absent any

overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise in
the presence and within the view of the
arresting officers, is not sufficient to constitute
probable cause that would justify an in
flagrante delicto arrest.
 PEOPLE vs LUZ, G.R. No. 197788, February 29, 2012
Fact:
On March 10, 2003 at around 3:00 o’clock in the morning, PO2 Alteza saw the Rodel Luz, who
was coming from the direction of Panganiban Drive and going to Diversion Road, Naga City, driving a
motorcycle without a helmet; that this prompted him to flag down the Luz for violating a municipal ordinance
which requires all motorcycle drivers to wear helmet while driving said motor vehicle. He invited Luz to come
inside their sub-station since the place where he flagged down the accused is almost in front of the said sub-
station. While he and SPO1 Brillante were issuing a citation ticket for violation of municipal ordinance, he
noticed that Luz was uneasy and kept on getting something from his jacket. He was alerted and so, he told
Luz to take out the contents of the pocket of his jacket as the latter may have a weapon inside it; that the
Luz obliged and slowly put out the contents of the pocket of his jacket which was a nickel-like tin or metal
container about two (2) to three (3) inches in size, including two (2) cellphones, one (1) pair of scissors and
one (1) Swiss knife; that upon seeing the said container, he asked the Luz to open it; that after the accused
opened the container, he noticed a cartoon cover and something beneath it; and that upon his instruction,
the accused spilled out the contents of the container on the table which turned out to be four (4) plastic
sachets, the two (2) of which were empty while the other two (2) contained suspected shabu.
RULING:
Luz was not lawfully arrested. When he was flagged down for committing a
traffic violation, he was not, ipso facto and solely for this reason, arrested.

It appears that, according to City Ordinance No. 98-012, which was violated
by Luz, the failure to wear a crash helmet while riding a motorcycle is penalized by
a fine only. Under the Rules of Court, a warrant of arrest need not be issued if the
information or charge was filed for an offense penalized by a fine only. It may be
stated as a corollary that neither can a warrantless arrest be made for such an
offense.
There being no valid arrest, the warrantless search that resulted from it was
likewise illegal.
LEGAL ARREST
“IN FLAGRANTE
DELICTO”
CASES
 PEOPLE VS. BATI, G.R. No. 87429 August 27, 1990
 The police received a tip that there would be a transaction involving the
buying and selling of marijuana which would take place on that same
day so they immediately proceeded to the vicinity where the alleged
transaction would take place. When the police reached the place where
the alleged transaction would take place and while positioned at a
street corner, they saw Regalado Bati and Warner Marquez by the side
of the street about forty to fifty meters away from them. They saw
Marquez giving something to Bati, who, thereafter, handed a wrapped
object to Marquez who then inserted the object inside the front of his
pants while Bati, on his part, placed the thing given to him inside his
pocket.
Cont. PEOPLE VS. BATI, G.R. No. 87429 August 27, 1990

 When the transaction was completed, Bati and Marquez parted ways.
The police officers, in their jeepney, followed Marquez who was riding a
bicycle. They were able to catch up with him (Marquez) and was
questioned by them and, at first, Marquez denied having received
anything from Bati. However, upon being asked about what he had
inside the front of his pants, he brought out an object wrapped in
newspaper. Stripped of the wrappings, the object turned out to be a
pink plastic bag containing marijuana. Marquez then told the police
officers that he had bought marijuana for P190.00 from Bati.
Whereupon Marquez was arrested on the spot and was made to board
the police jeep.
Cont. PEOPLE VS. BATI, G.R. No. 87429 August 27, 1990

 The police officers on board the jeep, immediately gave chase

and caught up with Bati. They went down the vehicle and
confronted Bati who admitted to the police officers present that
he sold the marijuana to Marquez for P190,00. Bati then was
likewise arrested and made to board the police jeep. The
money in the amount of P190.00 in Bati's possession was
confiscated. Both Bati and Marquez were brought to the Police
station where, again, they admitted they were in the buying and
selling of the confiscated marijuana
RULING:
The arrest was valid as the requirements for a warrantless arrest
were complied with.
The police officers had personal knowledge of the actual
commission of the crime viz: They were eyewitnesses to the illegal
exchange of marijuana and P190.00 between Marquez and Bati who
were caught in flagrante delicto.
The subsequent arrest of Marquez and accused were made under
the principle of "hot pursuit". The recovery of the marijuana from
Marquez and the P190.00 from accused by the said police officers were
not violative of their constitutional rights since Marquez and Bati
voluntarily surrendered them to the police officers.
PEOPLE VS. TANGLIBEN, G.R. No. L-63630, April 6, 1990
Fact:
Patrolmen Quevedo and Punzalan together with Barangay
Tanod Sacdalan were conducting surveillance mission ON A TIP
given by informer that some persons will transport illegal drugs.
At around 9:30 PM, they noticed a person carrying a red
travelling bag who was acting suspiciously. After pointed out by
an informer, the police officers confronted him and ordered to
open the bag. He refused but agreed later when they identified
themselves. The bag contained marijuana.
RULING:

The arrest was valid.

This case presented urgency.
It was held that when faced with on-the-spot
information, the police officers had to act quickly and there
was no time to secure a search warrant
PEOPLE VS. MALMSTEDT, G.R. No. 91107, 19 June 1991
Fact:
NARCOM had set up a temporary checkpoint for the
purpose of checking all vehicles coming from the
Cordillera Region. The order to establish a checkpoint
was prompted by persistent reports that vehicles coming
from Sagada were transporting marijuana and other
prohibited drugs. And an information also was received
about a Caucasian travelling from Sagada to Baguio City
was carrying with him a prohibited drug.
Continuation…PEOPLE VS. MALMSTEDT, G.R. No. 91107, 19 June 1991

The bus where Malmstedt was riding stopped. Police agents

boarded the bus and announced that they were members of the
NARCOM and that they would conduct an inspection. During the
inspection one of the NARCOM agent noticed a bulge on Malmastedt
waist. Suspecting the bulge on his waist to be a gun, the officer asked
for his passport and other identification papers. When accused failed to
comply, the officer required him to bring out whatever it was that was
bulging on his waist. And it turned out to be a pouched bag and when
Malmstedt opened the same bag the officer noticed four suspicious
looking objects wrapped in brown packing tape. It contained hashish, a
derivative of marijuana.
Continuation…PEOPLE VS. MALMSTEDT, G.R. No. 91107, 19 June 1991

Thereafter, the Malmstedt was invited outside the bus for

questioning. But before he alighted from the bus Malmstedt
stopped to get two travelling bags. The officer inspects the bag.
It was only after the officers had opened the bags that the
accused finally presented his passport. The two bags contained
a stuffed toy each, upon inspection the stuff toy contained also
hashish.
RULING:
Arrest was valid. A crime was actually being
committed by Malmstedt and he was caught in flagrante
delicto
There was sufficient probable cause for the officers
to believe that Malmstedt was then and there committing a
crime.

Note: The search was conducted in a moving vehicle and no time was
available to obtain a warrant.
PEOPLE VS. ZASPA, [G.R. No. 136396. September 21, 2000]
Fact:
At about 2:00 AM of 29 April 1994, COP of Davao Oriental,
received a tip from a police informer that Zaspa and a
companion were bringing dried marijuana leaves bound for Mati.
The police chief promptly organized and dispatched to the area
a team composed of SPO2 Carasca (the team leader), PO1
Rafael and SPO1 Travelegio. The group immediately proceeded
to Crossing Banhawan, arriving thereat at about 5:00AM. There,
the team saw Zaspa and his companion standing by the side of
the road with a big black "loalde" bag in front of them.
Continuation….PEOPLE VS. ZASPA, [G.R. No. 136396. September 21, 2000]

Just as SPO2 Carasca and PO1 Rafael, who were both in

uniform, proceeded to approach the two men, Zaspa tried to flee.
He was intercepted by the policemen. Zaspa claimed that the
contents of the bag did not belong to them. When the bag was
opened, Zaspa told the policemen that the dried marijuana leaves
were owned by one Bito Mangandan. Zaspa and his companion,
who turned out to be Julius Galvan, were arrested and brought to
the Tarragona police station for investigation.
RULING:
Peace officers may pursue and arrest without a warrant any person under
circumstances reasonably tending to show that such person has committed or is
about to commit any crime or breach of the peace.
The facts and circumstances leading to the arrest of the accused at 5:00
AM, would show that the arresting officers have proper and justifiable reasons to
arrest the two (2) suspects. First, they received a confidential information from a
police informer that a certain Rolando Zaspa with a companion were bringing dried
marijuana leaves bound for Mati. Second, when the police arrived at the crime
scene, the two (2) suspects were suspiciously at the side of the road with a big
black bag in front of them. Third, there were no other people in sight and it is
therefore safe to conclude that the bag containing the contraband belonged to no
one else but the suspects. Lastly, when the police officers were approaching,
Zaspa attempted to escape.
PEOPLE VS. BAUTISTA, [G.R. No. 102618. October 12, 1993.]
Fact:
The Tagaytay police apprehended a certain Renato Litada and received a tip from
him that somebody was selling "shabu“ at Bgy Mendez. The police conducted
surveillance at the area and further learned from Litada that Gaudencio Bautista, was
selling shabu in that area and that he was then in the house of Rosalinda Gatpandan.
Upon being so informed, the police station commander, advised his men to form a team
to conduct a buy-bust operation at Mendez Crossing. Patrolmen Tirso Petil and Rolly
Gatpandan act as poseur-buyers. At that time, the station commander was unaware that
Pat. Rolly Gatpandan was related to the woman Rosalina Gatpandan. The pair, with two
P100.00 bills of marked money in their possession, walked towards the house while the
rest of the group remained a short distance away. The two were in civilian clothes and
carried short firearms underneath their shirts. Rolly Gatpandan with his companion
walked to the house of Rosalina Gatpandan, who happened to be his second cousin.
Rosalina opened the door and allowed them to enter.
Continuation….PEOPLE VS. BAUTISTA

Tirso Petil remained standing by the door while Rolly Gatpandan entered the house by
himself. Rolly proceeded to the receiving sala where Gaudencio Bautista was. He
approached the said Bautista and asked the latter if he has shabu. Bautista said "yes" and
the price is P200.00 per foil. Rolly then purchased one foil of the drug for P200.00 from
him. From Tirso’s vantage point, he saw Rolly hand over to Bautista the marked money.
Thereafter, the Bautista got the shabu wrapped in foil from the waist of his red short pants
and handed it to Rolly.

After the transaction, the two policemen went out of the house and met with the rest of the
group who were just outside waiting. Tirso informed the station commander that he was
able to buy the shabu from Bautista. The group then immediately entered the same house
and arrested the Bautista. The station commander searched the body of Bautista and
retrieved from him the marked money, seven (7) other pieces of aluminum foil and a film
box both containing shabu.
RULING:

The arrest was valid. The police had actual knowledge on the
crime committed.
The station commander got his information directly from his own
men, and he saw for himself the presence of the purchased drug and the
culprit from whom the prohibited drug was purchased. To say that he is
now required to secure a warrant to arrest the perpetrator of the crime is
to unduly limit the power of the police in enforcing the laws of the land.
To require search warrants during the on-the-spot apprehensions of drug
pushers would make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to contain the
crimes committed by these persons
 PEOPLE VS. CATAN, G.R. No. 92928, 21 January 1992
Fact:
Two (2) members of the buy-bust team, acting as poseur-buyer,
bought marijuana from the Catan inside his house while the other
members positioned themselves outside. After receiving the marijuana,
the poseur-buyers immediately went out of the house and gave a pre-
arranged signal to their waiting companions. The other team members
them rushed inside the house and arrested the accused. Immediately
after, the team conducted a search of the premises which yielded
several kilos of marijuana. In this appeal, the accused asserted that he
was illegally arrested and that the search of his premises was likewise
illegal
RULING:
The arrest was valid.
The accused was arrested in flagrante delicto in the act of
selling and delivering marijuana to the poseur-buyers.
The subsequent search of his house which immediately
followed yielding other incriminating evidence, and which
became the basis of his conviction for possession of a prohibited
drug, was a search contemporaneously made and as an incident
to a valid warrantless arrest in the immediate vicinity where the
arrest was made.
 PEOPLE VS. ANITA CLAUDIO, G.R. No. 72564 April 15, 1988
Fact:
Anita was carrying a woven buri-like plastic bag which appeared to
contain camote tops, boarded a bus bound for the province. Instead of
placing the bag by her side, which is the usual practice of a traveler, she
placed the same on the back seat where a trained anti-narcotic agent
was seated. Since the act of Anita was unusual for a traveler, the
suspicion of the agent was aroused. Feeling that something was
unusual, the agent inserted his finger inside the bag where he felt
another plastic bag in the bottom from which emanated the smell of
marijuana. Right after she got off the bus, the agent arrested Anita.
RULING:

The arrest was valid.

The police had personal knowledge based on probable

cause to effect an arrest.
.
 PEOPLE VS. MASPIL ,G.R. No. 85177, 20 AUG 1990
Fact:
Confidential reports from informers were received by the
police that two persons would be transporting a large quantity of
marijuana from Benguet to Baguio City. Checkpoint was set-up. A
couple of hours, after midnight, a jeepney was flagged down in
the checkpoint. On board were the persons indentified by the
informers who was in the checkpoint. Tin cans and sacks inside
the jeepney were searched and found positive for marijuana. The
policemen then placed the two accused under arrest.
RULING:

The arrest was valid.

The accused were caught in flagrante delicto since

they were transporting the prohibited drugs at the time of
their arrest. A crime was actually being committed.
.
Compared to Amminudin Case

In Amminudin, the police knew the identity of the accused,

his criminal plan or activities, the boat he would be boarding and
sufficient time to obtain a SW.

In Maspil, police had no exact description of the vehicle,

and no idea of the time of arrival. And the jeepney is different
from a boat where the former may easily deviate from its route.
No time to obtain a SW.
 TWO REQUISITES:

1. The person to be arrested HAS JUST

COMMITTED an offense.
2. The arresting officer or person has probable
cause to believe based on that the person to
be arrested has committed it.
* HAS JUST BEEN COMMITTED:
- Elements of Immediacy
1. Time of the offense
2. Time of the arrest

* PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF FACTS BASED ON

PROBABLE CAUSE.
- An actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion.
- The grounds are reasonable when the suspicion that
the person to be arrested is probably guilty of
committing the offense based on actual facts.
LEGAL ARREST
“HOT PURSUIT”
CASES
 ABELITA VS DORIA, G.R. No. 170672, 14 AUG 2009
Fact:
The police received a phone call about a shooting incident,
a team was dispatched to investigate. The investigation disclosed
that a victim was wounded and the witnesses tagged the Abelita
as the one involved and he has just left the crime scene. After
tracking down Abelita, he was invited to the police station but he
sped off prompting the police to give chase. He was arrested. The
suspect alleged that the police arrested him based on information
only and the police had no personal knowledge
RULING:
The arrest was valid on ground of hot pursuit.
The suspects’ act of trying to get away, coupled with
the incident report which they investigated, is enough to
raise a reasonable suspicion on the part of the police to
the existence of probable cause.
A reasonable suspicion, therefore, must be founded
on probable cause, coupled with good faith on the
arresting officers.
 PEOPLE VS ACOL, G.R. Nos. 106288-89 May 17, 1994
Fact:
Two robbers divested the passengers of a jeepney of their
belongings including the jacket of one passenger. The passengers
immediately sought the help of police officers which formed a team to
track down the suspects. One of the passengers who went with the
responding police, saw one of the robbers casually walking wearing his
jacket. After the police officers introduced themselves, the four men
scampered to different directions but three of them, namely, Tirso Acol,
Pio Boses, and Albert Blanco, were apprehended. Tirso Acol and Pio
Boses were each found in possession of an unlicensed .38 caliber
revolver with bullets.
RULING:
The warrantless arrest of the accused was sustained by the
Court as well within the hot pursuit exception.
When an offense has in fact just been committed, and one
has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be
arrested has committed it; 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. And since Acol’s
arrest was lawful, it follows that the search made incidental thereto
was valid.
 PEOPLE VS EVARISTO, G.R. No. 93828, Dec 11, 1992
FACT:
Policemen were on routine patrol duty and suddenly, they heard successive bursts of gunfire in
the vicinity. Proceeding to the approximate source of the same, they came upon one Barequiel Rosillo
who was firing a gun into the air. Seeing the patrol, Rosillo ran to the nearby house of Evaristo
prompting the lawmen to pursue him. Upon approaching the immediate perimeter of the house,
specifically a cement pavement or porch leading to the same, the patrol chanced upon the slightly
inebriated, Evaristo and Carillo. Inquiring as to the whereabouts of Rosillo, the police patrol members
were told that he had already escaped through a window of the house. Sgt. Vallarta immediately
observed a noticeable bulge around the waist of Carillo who, upon being frisked, admitted the same
to be a .38 revolver. After ascertaining that Carillo was neither a member of the military nor had a valid
license to possess the said firearm, the gun was confiscated and Carillo invited for questioning. As the
patrol was still in pursuit of Rosillo, Sgt. Romeroso sought Evaristo's permission to scour through the
house, which was granted. In the sala, he found, not Rosillo, but a number of firearms and
paraphernalia supposedly used in the repair and manufacture of firearms, all of which, thereafter,
became the basis for the indictment against Evaristo.
RULING:
There was a valid arrest and search.
An offense is committed in the presence or within the view of an
officer, within the meaning of the rule authorizing an arrest without a
warrant, when the officer sees the offense, although at a distance, or
HEARS THE DISTURBANCES CREATED THEREBY AND PROCEEDS
AT ONCE TO THE SCENE THEREOF.
Visual observation along with the earlier report of gunfire, as well
as the peace officer's professional instincts, are more than sufficient to
pass the test of the HOT PURSUIT. Consequently, under the facts, the
firearm taken from Carillo can be said to have been seized incidental to a
lawful and valid arrest.
.
The seizure of evidence was in plain view.

Objects inadvertently falling in the plain view of an officer who has

the right to be in the position to have that view, are subject to seizure and
may be introduced in evidence.

It is clear that the search for firearms was not Romerosa's purpose
in entering the house, thereby rendering his discovery of the subject
firearms as inadvertent and even accidental
 PEOPLE VS TONOG, G.R. No. 94533, Feb 2, 1992
Fact:
Dumaguete City Police Station received a report that a lifeless body was found
who was later identified as Efren Flores. Based from the investigation, a motorcab stopped
near the place where the deceased was found. It was also revealed that Ignacio Tonog, Jr.
was the one who was responsible for his death and that prior to the incident, there were
grudges between the two. That afternoon, without warrant, police officers went to Bacong,
Negros Oriental, and upon being invited for questioning, voluntarily went with the law
enforcers unaccompanied by a counsel. While they were on their way to the police station,
it was noticed that there were blood stains the the accused’s pants and when asked about
it, he said that it was from a pig. He was then requested to take off his pants for
examination. At the station, he confessed his guilt but was not recorded. After a month, the
pants and the knife found were brought to the Cebu crime lab and found that the blood was
the same as the victim.
RULING:

The arrest was held valid. The police in effecting the arrest
had personal knowledge of facts gathered by him personally in
the course of his investigation.
The personal knowledge of the police CONSISTS of :
1. the dead body,
2. positive identification by the informer/witness, and
3. the stain on the pants.
 PEOPLE VS GERENTE, G.R. No. 93828, Dec 11, 1992
Fact:
The policemen arrested Gerente only some three (3) hours
after Gerente and his companions had killed Blace. They saw
Blace dead in the hospital and when they inspected the scene of
the crime, they found the instruments of death: a piece of wood
and a concrete hollow block which the killers had used to
bludgeon him to death. The eye-witness, Edna Edwina Reyes,
reported the happening to the policemen and pinpointed her
neighbor, Gerente, as one of the killers.
RULING:
The arrest was valid under the hot pursuit exception.

Under those circumstances, since the policemen had

personal knowledge of the violent death of Blace and of facts
indicating that Gerente and two others had killed him, they could
lawfully arrest Gerente without a warrant. If they had postponed
his arrest until they could obtain a warrant, he would have fled
the law as his two companions did
 ILLEGAL
“HOT PURSUIT”
CASES
PEOPLE VS MANAGO, G.R. No. 212340, August 17, 2016
Fact:
PO3 Din was waiting to get a haircut at Jonas Borces Beauty Parlor when two (2) persons
entered and declared a hold-up. PO3 Din identified himself as a police officer and exchanged gun
shots with the two suspects. After the shootout, one of the suspects boarded a motorcycle, while
the other boarded a red Toyota Corolla. The plate numbers of the vehicles were noted by PO3
Din.
After the incident, Barangay Tanod Cano informed PO3 Din that the robbery suspects
were last seen in Barangay Del Rio Pit-os. Thus, (S/Insp. Ylanan conducted an investigation in the
said barangay, and discovered that before the robbery incident, Manago told Cano that three
persons - namely, Rico Lumampas, Arvin Cadastra, and Allan Sordiano - are his employees in his
roasted chicken business, and they were to stay in Manago's house. Further, upon verification of
the getaway vehicles with the Land Transportation Office, the police officers found out that the
motorcycle was registered in Manago's name, while the red Toyota Corolla was registered in the
name of Zest-O Corporation, where Manago worked as a District Sales Manager.
Continuation….PEOPLE VS MANAGO, G.R. No. 212340, August 17, 2016

With all the foregoing information at hand, the police officers conducted a "hot
pursuit" operation one (1) day after the robbery incident, by setting up a
checkpoint. The red Toyota Corolla, then being driven by Manago, passed through
the checkpoint, prompting the police officers to stop the vehicle. The police officers
then ordered Manago to disembark, and thereafter, conducted a thorough search of
the vehicle. As the search produced no contraband, the police officers then frisked
Manago, resulting in the discovery of one (1) plastic sachet containing a white
crystalline substance suspected to be methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu
RULING:
One of the recognized exceptions to the need of a warrant before
a search may be effected is a search incidental to a lawful arrest. In this
instance, the law requires that there first be a lawful arrest before a
search can be made — the process cannot be reversed
In warrantless arrests made pursuant to Section 5 (b), it is
essential that the element of personal knowledge must be coupled
with the element of immediacy; otherwise, the arrest may be nullified,
and resultantly, the items yielded through the search incidental thereto
will be rendered inadmissible in consonance with the exclusionary rule of
the 1987 Constitution.
 Element of personal knowledge was present - given that PO3
Din actually saw the robbery incident and even engaged the armed
robbers in a shootout - the required element of immediacy was
not met. This is because, at the time the police officers effected the
warrantless arrest upon Manago's person, investigation and
verification proceedings were already conducted, which
consequently yielded sufficient information on the suspects of the
robbery incident. As the Court sees it, the information the police
officers had gathered therefrom would have been enough for them to
secure the necessary warrants against the robbery suspects.
However, they opted to conduct a "hot pursuit" operation which -
considering the lack of immediacy - unfortunately failed to meet the
legal requirements therefor. Thus, there being no valid warrantless
arrest under the "hot pursuit" doctrine, the CA erred in ruling that
Manago was lawfully arrested.
 Escapee Exception

3. Arrest of escapee – prisoner who

escaped form penal establishment while
serving final judgment or temprarily confined
in police station while the case is pending
(Sec. 5, Rule 113, Criminal Procedure).
 Other Exceptions

4. Arrest of accused on bail about to depart

from the Philippines (Sec. 23, Rule 113)

5. Arrest of a person lawfully arrested but

escaped/rescued.
WARRANTLESS
SEARCH AND
SEIZURE
1) Warrantless search incidental to a lawful
arrest;
2) Seizure in plain view
3) Search of a moving vehicle
4) Consented warrantless search
5) Customs search
6) Stop and Frisk or Terry searches
7) Exigent and emergency circumstances
8) Search of vessel and aircraft; and
9) Inspection of buildings and other premises for
the enforcement of fire, sanitary and building
regulations ( Valeroso v. CA, 2009)
 Search incidental to a LAWFUL ARREST

A person lawfully arrested may be searched for:

1) dangerous weapons, or
2) anything which may have been used, or
3) constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a
search warrant

Sec 13, Rule 126, Criminal Procedure

 The arrest is lawful first, then
search. If the arrest is unlawful , the
search becomes unlawful.
Parameters of a search incident to a lawful arrest

Permissible areas:

1. within the suspect’s reach, or

2. within his area of immediate control,
3. any property associated with the suspect’s body like clothing,
jewelry, watches and others attached to the person in
permanent or semi-permanent capacity may be searched.
(United States v. Robinson; Gustafson v. Florida)
 Valeroso vs CA, GR No. 164815, 3 Sep 2009

When the person arrested was brought out of the

room with his hands tied, a cabinet which is locked could
no longer be considered as part of “an area within his
immediate control” because there was no way for him to
take any weapon or to destroy any evidence that could be
used against him.
 Espano v. CA, 288 SCA 558
Police officers arrested the accused in flagrante
delicto selling marijuana in a street corner. The search of
his person yielded two cellophane bag of marijuana.
When asked if he had more, he admitted he had
marijuana in his house. The policeman went to the house
and conducted a search which yielded ten more
marijuana.
RULING:
1) The articles seized from the accused during his arrest was
valid under the doctrine of search made incidental to a lawful
arrest.

2) The warrantless search of the house of the accused which

yielded marijuana became unlawful since the police officers
were not armed with a search warrant at the time. Moreover, the
house of the accused was beyond his reach and immediate
control.
SEARCHES OF MOVING VEHICLES
It is justified because “it is not practicable to secure a warrant –
the vehicle can be quickly moved out of a locality or jurisdiction in which
the warrant must be sought.
Extensive search is valid as long as the officers conducting the
search have reasonable or probable cause to believe prior to the search
that they would find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a
crime, in the vehicle to be searched.
 People v Tuazon, [G.R. NO. 175783]Sep 3, 2007
FACTS:
The Antipolo City Police Station received through telephone a confidential information
that a Gemini car bearing plate number PFC 411 would deliver an unspecified amount of
shabu in Marville Subd, Antipolo City. Acting on said tip, a team of policemen was
dispacthed to the area to conduct a surveillance. They saw the said Gemini car and
immediately flagged it down. The driver of the car pulled to a stop and opened a window of
said vehicle giving the policemen the opportunity to identify themselves as members of the
Antipolo City Police Station. It was then that PO1 Padlan saw a gun tucked on Tuazon’s
waist. PO1 Padlan inquired about the gun and he allegedly replied it did not belong to him
nor could he produce any pertinent document relating to said firearm. This prompted PO3
Bueno to order him to get down from the car. As soon as appellant stepped down from the
vehicle, PO3 Bueno saw five plastic sachets on the driver's seat, the contents of which
appellant allegedly admitted to be shabu. Appellant was thereafter immediately brought to
the police station.
RULING:
The police had probable cause to effect the warrantless search of the Gemini
car driven by appellant. A confidential informer tipped them off that said car was going
to deliver shabu at Marville Subdivision. Pursuing said lead, the Antipolo City police
sent a team to Marville Subdivision to monitor said vehicle. The information provided
by the informer turned out to be correct as, indeed, the Gemini car was spotted in the
place where it was said to be bringing shabu. When they stopped the car, they saw a
gun tucked in appellant's waist. Tuazon did not have any document to support his
possession of said firearm which all the more strengthened the police's suspicion.
After he was told to step out of the car, they found on the driver's seat plastic sachets
containing white powdery substance. These circumstances, taken together, are
sufficient to establish probable cause for the warrantless search of the Gemini car
and the eventual admission into evidence of the plastic packets against Tuazon.
Plain View
Permits an officer lawfully present in a place, to seize
an illegal object without a warrant. Founded on common
sense because to require a police to have a warrant when
he has seen or observed an illegal object might endanger
himself or the public.
“ whatever a person knowingly exposes to the public
view, even in their home or office, IS NOT PRIVATE”
Elements:
1. Legal position to view the particular area;
2. The discovery of the evidence is inadvertent;
3. The object or evidence’ illegality is apparent.
 The police were investigating a reported homicide. The police
looked into the car of the accused and from the window they saw
a pillowcase, backseat and a briefcase, all covered with blood.
The police secured a warrant to search the car. In the course of
enforcing the warrant, they saw inside the car a blood soaked
sock and a floormat. They took the things. The accused assailed
the validity if the taking of the items as have been illegally taken
since they were not mentioned in the affidavit supporting the
application for the warrant. The Court ruled that the seizure was
constitutional. The item seized were in plain view found during a
search by a warrant.[Cady v Dombrowski]
 The plain view doctrine has been applied where a
police officer is not searching for evidence against
the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes
across an incriminating object.
 People v Nuevas,516 SCRA 563, Feb 22, 2007

Where the object seized was inside a closed

package, the object itself is not in plain view and
therefore cannot be seized without a warrant. If the
package is such that an experienced observer could
infer from its appearance that it contains the
prohibited article, then the article is deemed in plain
view .
Consented Warrantless Search
To have a “valid waiver”, there must be:

1. The right exists –

2. The person has knowledge of the right.

A person who consented to be searched without knowing that he had

the right to refuse cannot give a valid waiver. Therefore, prior to the search,
the police must inform the person of such right.
3. The person had the intention to waive the right

A person who consented to be searched due to the intimidating

presence of the police did not actually have intention to waive his right.
Therefore, the police must show that the person was not
intimidated by their presence.
Sum up:

To have a “valid waiver”, there must be:

1. The the right exists
2. The person has knowledge of the right
3. The person has intention to waive the right.
CUSTOM SEARCH

A person entering our country together with things and

belongings, may be subjected to a warrantless search by the
custom authorities as an exception to the rule.
Custom authorities may even enter and inspect the
warehouses where good are stored for enforcement of custom
laws.
Terry Searches or Stop and Frisk Rule

In 1963, Officer Martin McFadden was in his usual beat in Cleveland,

a place he had covered for 30 years. He saw two unknown men later
identified as Terry and Chilton. They appeared to be engaged in robbery.
McFadden asked their identities. They just mumbled an answer and did not
get a clear audible response. He patted down the outer garment of Terry
and felt a gun in his pocket and removed the same. A gun was also
recovered from Chilton. They were arrested.
Terry contended that the search was illegal because no probable
cause exist.
Terry Searches or Stop and Frisk Rule

The court held that the acts of McFadden were

acts which a reasonably prudent man would have done in
believing that Terry was armed and that he presented a
threat to the officer’s safety while he was investigating his
suspicious behavior.
Terry doctrine is of two parts:

1. stop, and
2. frisk.
A valid “stop” requires reasonable belief that a crime has happened
or is about to happen.
The frisk is made after the stop must be done because of a
reasonable belief that the person stopped is in possession of a weapon
that will pose a danger to the police and others. Mere pat down outside
the person’s outer garment and not unreasonably intrusive.
 Stop and Frisk is not considered arrest, hence, custodial
investigation does not yet set in.

Terry searches do not justify every stop. There must be

reasonable belief. (police officer’s experience and
surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person
detained has weapons concealed about him)
 Esquillo v. People, GR No. 182010, 25 Aug 2010

The police conducted surveillance. PO1 Cruz saw the

suspect placing a plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance into her cigarette case. Given his training as a police,
it was instinctive on his part to be drawn to curiosity and
approach her. The suspect reacted by attempting to flee after he
introduced himself a police officer. She was caught and
searched and found in possession of drugs. The search was
valid under Terry Searches doctrines.
Procedure:

1. Stop a suspect on the street due to reasonable belief;

2. Introduce himself;
3. Interrogate him, restrain, if necessary, and
4. Pat outer clothing for weapons and other illegal
objects.
CHECK POINTS

Stop and Search without warrant at military or police

checkpoints have been declared valid so long as it is
required by the exigencies of public order and conducted
in the least intrusive manner to motorist.
Emergency and Exigent Circumstances

A SW could be validly dispense with in cases of

exigent and emergency situation, and the police officers
have reasonable grounds to believe that a crime is being
committed, and they have no opportunity to apply for a SW
from the court because the latter were closed or any valid
reasons.
DRUGS CASES
Causes of delayed or dismissed drugs
cases:
1. absence of police witnesses,
2. death of public prosecutors and public
attorneys,
3. weak evidence of the prosecution in
relation to the rules on chain of
custody and inventory of seized
drugs and paraphernalia.
Chain of custody – the duly
1. recorded
2. authorized movement and custody of seized drugs or controlled
chemicals [ or any evidence] from
a. the time of seizure to
b. receipt in the forensic laboratory for safekeeping to
c. presentation in court for destruction.

(RA 9165)
It includes the:

1. Identity,
2. signature of the person who held custody including
3. the date and time when transfer of custody was made and
4. the final disposition.
Importance

It proves that the evidence collected at the crime

scene is the same evidence that is being presented in a
court of law.
 Republic of the Philippines
National Police Commission
Philippine National Police
Albay Police Provincial Office
TIWI MUNICIPAL POLICE STATION
Barlin St. BrgyTigbi, Tiwi, Albay
Email add: tiwimps_ro5@yahoo.com; Tel.Nr.: 052-2845343

CHAIN OF CUSTODY FORM

Name of Suspects/s: _____________________________________________________
Time, Date and Place of Occurrence: ________________________________________
Nature of Offense: ______________________________________________________
Seizing Officer: _________________________________________________________
Description of Evidence/s: _________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Turned Date/Time Office Unit Received By Date/Time Office Unit
Over By (Signature over
(Signature over Printed Name)
Printed Name)
Revised PNP Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operations and
Investigation
 Handling and Custody and Disposition of DRUG and
NON-DRUG Evidence (Sec. 2-6)

During handling, custody and disposition of evidence, provisions of

Section 21, RA 9165 and its IRR as amended by RA 10640 shall be
strictly observed. ( Sec. 2.33)
1. Photographs of the pieces of evidence must be taken
upon discovery without moving or altering its position in the
place where it was situated.

2. The process of recording the inventory and the weighing of

dangerous drugs, must also be photographed, xxx, in the
presence of persons required, as provided under Section 21,
Art II, RA 9165. (Sec. 2.34)
Mandatory witnesses:
a) Suspect or his rep or counsel
b) Elected public official;
c) Any rep from NPS or media ( R.A. 10460)
- who shall affix their signatures and given copies of the
inventory.
3. The seizing officer must mark the evidence with his initials
indicating therein the date, time and place where the evidence
was found and seized.

The seizing officer shall secure and preserve the evidence

in a suitable evidence bag or in an appropriate container for
further laboratory examination. (Sec. 2.35)
4. For seized or recovered drugs by virtue of a SW,
the inventory must be conducted in the place of the
search,

5. For warrantless seizures like buy-bust, inventory

and taking of photo shall be done at the nearest
police station or office of the apprehending team.
6. Procedures during the inventory not properly
observed, the police must make justification in writing
to prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
items are not tainted.

Let us discuss a very important case : People vs.

Romy M. Lim, G.R. 231989, Sept. 4, 2018.
 PEOPLE vs LIM
G.R. NO. 231989, SEP 4, 2018
FACTS:
On October 19, 2010 at 8:00 PM, IOI Orellan and his
teammates were directed by their Regional Director to gather
for a buy-bust operation based on report of the confidential
informants that a certain ROMY has been engaged in the sale of
prohibited drugs. IO2 Orcales, IO1 Orellan and IO1 Carin were
assigned as the team leader, the arresting officer/back-
up/evidence custodian, and the poseur-buyer, respectively.
 PEOPLE vs LIM
G.R. NO. 231989, SEP 4, 2018

The team arrived in the target area at 10:00 PM, the

confidential informant introduced IO1 Carin as a shabu
buyer, and they were let inside the house by Gorres and
Lim told Gorres to get shabu inside the bedroom. AfteR
he came out, he handed a small medicine box to Lim, who
then took one piece of heat-sealed transparent plastic of
shabu and gave it to IO1 Carin, and the latter paid him with
the buy-bust money.
 IO1 Carin executed a missed call to IO1 Orellan
and the latter and the rest of the team members
immediately rushed to Lim’s house. They declare
that they were PDEA Agents and informed Lim and
Gorres of their arrest for selling dangerous drug.
They were ordered to put their hands on their heads
and to squat on the floor and IO1 Orellan recited the
Miranda rights to them. Thereafter, IO1 Orellan
conducted a body search on both.
 IO1 Orellan took into custody the P500.00 bill, the
plastic box with the plastic sachet of white substance
and a disposable lighter. IO1 Carin turned-over to him
the plastic sachet that she bought from Lim. While in
the house, IO1 Orellan marked the two plastic sachets.
Despite exerting efforts to secure the attendance of
the representative from the media and barangay
officials, nobody arrived to witness the inventory-
taking, because it was raining hard and becoming dark
already.
 The buy-bust team brought Lim and Gorres to the PDEA
Regional Office, with IO1 Orellan in possession of the seized
items. Upon arrival, they booked the two accused and
prepared the letters requesting for the laboratory
examination on the drug evidence and for the drug test on the
arrested suspects, as well as the documents for filing the case.
Likewise, IO1 Orellan made the Inventory Receipt of the
confiscated items. It was not signed by Lim and Gorres. Also,
there was no signature of an elected public official and the
representatives of the DOJ and the media as witnesses.
Pictures of both accused and the evidence seized were taken.
RTC Ruling
Lim was found guilty for Illegal Possession and Sale
of Shabu
Gores was acquitted for lack of sufficient evidence
linking him as a conspirator.

CA Ruling
Affirmed the RTC Decision.
 ISSUE
Whether or not the buy-bust team
followed the procedure mandated in
Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165?
SC Ruling:
The judgment of conviction is
reversed and set aside, and Lim is
acquitted based on reasonable
doubt.
 The reason given by IO1 Orellan for not complying
Sec. 21 was not enough to justify their non-compliance.
They also failed to show that at least they attempted to
comply Sec. 21 but to no avail. They could not also
explain how their lives were put at risk considering their
number (10) versus the two accused.
 Section 21 (1), Article II of R.A. 9165 states:
Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered
Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals, Instrument/ Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment.
The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant
sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as
well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated,
seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs
shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and
photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom
such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel,
a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any
elected public official who shall required to sign the copies of the inventory and
be given a copy thereof.
Supplementing the above-quoted provision, Section 21(a) of the
IRR of R.A. 9165 mandates:

a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and

control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in
the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such
items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative
or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department
of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof;
 Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph
shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is
served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest
office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is
practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided,
further, that non-compliance with these requirements
under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not
render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over
said items.
 Under Section 21 of RA No. 9165

Mandatory Witnesses are:

a. Accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
counsel,
b. A representative from the media
c. A representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ)
d. Any elected public official
On July 15, 2014, RA. 10640 was approved to amend RA 9165. Among other
modifications, it essentially incorporated the saving clause contained in
the IRR, thus:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals,
instruments/ paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory
of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or
seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official
and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media
who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a
copy thereof:
Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph
shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant
is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest
office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is
practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided,
finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under
justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not
render void and invalid such seizures and custody over
said items.
 Under R.A. No. 10640 amending
R.A. No. 9165
Mandatory Witnesses are:
1) Accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative
or counsel,
2) An elected public official; and
3) A representative of the National Prosecution Service
OR the Media
Instances when Immediate physical inventory and photograph of
the confiscated items at the place may be excused:

When the safety and security of the apprehending officers

and the witnesses required by law or of the items seized are
threatened by immediate extreme danger such as retaliatory
action of those who have resources and capability to amount a
counter assault.
[In the present case (People v Lim), there was no
immediate extreme danger]
 Instances when the absence of the three witnesses to the
physical inventory and photograph of the illegal drugs seized are
justified:

1) Their attendance was impossible because the place of

arrest was a remote area;
2) Their safety during the inventory and photograph of the
seized drugs was threatened by an immediate
retaliatory action of the accused or any persons/acting
for and in his/her behalf;
3) The elected official themselves were involved in the
punishable acts sought to be apprehended;
Instances when the absence of the three witnesses to the physical
inventory and photograph of the illegal drugs seized are justified:

4) Ernest Efforts to secure the presence of a NPS or media

representative and an elected official within the period
required under Article 125 of the RPC prove futile through
no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of
being charged with arbitrary detention; and
5) Time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations,
which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented
the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the
required witnesses even before the offenders could escape
 The Supreme Court, in order to weed out early on the from the court’s
already congested docket any poorly built-up drug-related cases, enforced the
following as MANDATORY POLICY:

1. In the sworn affidavit, the apprehending/seizing officer officers must

state their compliance with the requirements of Sec. 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165,
as amended, and its IRR;

2. In case of non-observance of the provision , the apprehending/seizing

officers must state the justification or explanation therefor as well as the steps
they have taken in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized/confiscated items.
 3. If there is no justification or explanation expressly declared in
the sworn statements , the investigating fiscal must not immediately
file the case before the court. Instead, he or she must refer the case
for further preliminary investigation in order to determine the (non)
existence of probable cause.

4. If the investigating fiscal filed the case despite such absence,

the court may exercise its discretion to either refuse to issue a
commitment order (or warrant of arrest) or dismiss the case outright
for lack of probable cause in accordance with Sec. 5, Rule 112, Rules
of Court.
Continuation…..Handling and Custody and Disposition of DRUG and
NON-DRUG Evidence (Sec. 2-6)

7. Containers, packaging, equipment, etc., suspected

of containing trace amounts of drugs including
controlled precursors and essential chemicals will be
considered drug evidence and shall be submitted for
analysis. (Sec 2.37)
8. In every negation operation, a “seizing officer” shall be designated
responsible for the inventory and initial custody of all drug and non-
drug evidence during the anti-drug operations.

These will later be turned over to the investigation officer or

any member of the apprehending team, as the case maybe, or to
the Crime Laboratory for laboratory examination and proper
disposition. (Annex “GG”- Chain of Custody Form) (Sec. 2.38)
9. Digital evidence such as computers, laptops,
cellphones, CDs, flash drives and other forms of
storage peripherals found at the crime scene during the
conduct of operation shall be referred to ACG for
Forensic Digital Examination. (Sec. 2.39)
10) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon
confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources
of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to
the PNP Crime Laboratory for laboratory examination
and proper disposition.
 Link Diagram of Chain of Custody

1st link – Seizure of illegal drugs; ( Seizing Officer)

2nd Link – Turn-over of the seized drugs or CPECS to Investigator;
3rd Link – Turn-over of the investigator to PDEA or PNP Crime Lab;
4th Link – Submission of the seized items to the Court
 B. NON-DRUG EVIDENCE
1. All non-drug evidence shall be photographed, inventoried and properly
marked as required under Sec. 21, RA 9165 like:
a. Buy- bust money
b. Motor vehicles – sticker to be attached containing info like name of
suspect, date, place and time of arrest, arresting unit and arresting
officers.
c. Firearms, ammo, explosives, deadly weapons – must be tagged,
d. Smaller pcs of evidence – info like quality, quantity and place where it
was seized placed inside a bag.
e. Digital evidence- computers, laptops etc. for digital forensic
examination .
2. After the operation, the IOC shall prepare a detailed
report including photo of all non- drug evidence.
3. For seized motor vehicles, a technical inspection and
inventory report (TIIR) shall be prepared by the
seizing officer/IOC immediately after the seizure, in
the presence of the occupant, if possible, with his
signature affixed on the report.
4. All non-drug evidence shall be turned over to the
evidence custodian.
1. First Case – Cerillo was arrested after a
guard at Manila City Jail found him in
possession of a plastic sachet containing shabu.
JO1 Joy Arga brought Cerillo to the duty
investigator’s office where the evidence was
marked.

The court said the jail officer did not include who
was present during the confiscation and how the
substance was handled from the place of arrest
to the jail investigation unit where the evidence
was turned over unmarked.
2. Second Case - Lazaro was arrested in a
buy-bust operation on Blumentritt Street in
Manila on Nov. 27, 2009, according to SPO1
Mauro Castro Cruz. In his defense, Lazaro
said the police came to his house looking for
his nephew. He was brought to the police
station and when he couldn’t point to his
nephew’s whereabouts, he was slapped with
the drugs charges.

The court said evidence must be marked

immediately after confiscation in the
presence of the accused, a representative
from the media, the Department of Justice or
an elected official, which the police failed to
comply with.
 3RD Case - Navarro was arrested in
Binondo, Manila, on Oct. 15, 2011, during
a police surveillance operation in the
area. He was passing by when policemen
stopped him and found in his possession
a plastic sachet allegedly containing
shabu. PO2 Michael Carabeo said they
proceeded to the District Anti-Illegal
Drugs office where the evidence was
marked.
The court noted that the evidence was
not marked at the site of arrest and
there was no clear proof that it was
handed directly to the forensic chemist
who examined it at the crime
laboratory.
The CA affirmed the decision of
the lower court which said that
the prosecution failed to establish
all links in the chain of custody of
evidence seized from the suspects
in a buy-bust operation conducted
last Sept. 19, 2008 inside the posh
Ayala-Alabang Village, which was
fatal to the case.
Recent Drug Cases
ACQUITTAL
Recent Cases – ACQUITTAL:

People v. Lumaya, G.R. No. 231983, March 7, 2018

There was discrepancy in the number of sachets
shown in the photographs taken and the number of
sachets for which the accused, as per the subject of
Informations and inventory report, were herein
charged.
Recent Cases – ACQUITTAL:

People v. Ano, G.R. No. 230070, March 14, 2018

Absence of the required witnesses, namely, the
representatives from the media and the DOJ.
No explanation was proffered by the
prosecution to justify the procedural lapse.
Unjustified gaps in the chain of custody.
Recent Cases – ACQUITTAL:

People v. Crispo, G.R. No. 230065, March 14, 2018

Absence of the mandatory witness of
representatives from either the DOJ and the media
during the inventory of the seized items
Recent Cases – ACQUITTAL:

Ramos v People , G.R. No. 227336, February 26, 2018

No inventory and photographs of the seized
items because the apprehending team did not bother
to conduct the same.
Recent Cases – ACQUITTAL:

People v Bugtong, G.R. No.220451, February 26, 2018

Both SPO1 Puasan and P/Supt Baldevieso claimed
to have placed the markings “AB” on the sachet. The
records did not indicate that there were two “AB”
markings on the specimen.
There was a missing link in the chain of custody.
Recent Cases – ACQUITTAL:

People v De Guzman, G.R. No.219955, February 5, 2018

Failure to disclose the identity of the person who
had custody of the seized items after its turn-over by
SPO1 Delos Reyes; the identity of the person who
truned opver the items to Forensic Chemist Dascil,
and the identity of the person who had custody
thereof after they were examined by the FC and
before they were presented in court.
Recent Cases – ACQUITTAL:

People v Velasco, GR No. 219184, Feb 21, 2018

The procedure in Sec 21 were undeniably not
followed. No markings, no photography, or no
inventory of the seized item immediately upon
confiscation. No mandatory witnesses. Worse, they did
not offer explanations for their non-compliance
Recent Cases – ACQUITTAL:

People v Dumagay, GR No. 216753, Feb 7, 2018

No testimonies or stipulations were made on the
details of the seized vials from the police stations to the
drime lab, and the turnover and submission of the same
from the crime lab to the court. Hence, there are gaps in
the chain of custody that create doubt as to whether the
corpus delicti of the crime has been properly preserved.
Recent Cases – ACQUITTAL:

People v Jugo, GR No. 231792, Jan 29, 2018

There are substantial gaps in the chain of custody which
were unjustified, thereby putting into question the identity,
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.
The preparation of the inventory, i.e. confiscation
receipt, and taking of photographs were not done in the
presence of the mandatory witnesses.
Recent Cases – ACQUITTAL:

People v Ramirez, GR No. 225690, Jan 17, 2018

Breaks in the chain of custody when IO1 Bautista
confiscated the sachets without marking them at the place of
apprehension; and he was transporting them to Quezon City,
thus casting serious doubt upon the value of the said links to
prove corpus delicti.
Recent Cases – ACQUITTAL:

People v Que, GR No. 212994, Jan 31, 2018

The marking of the sachets of shabu supposedly obtained from
accused was conducted at a police station without the accused or
any persons representing him, around. There was not even a third
person, mandatory witnesses as required by Sec (1).
Failed to account the intervening period between the supposed
handover of the sachet from the accused to PO3 Lim, to the marking
of the sachets by SPO4 Tubo. Failed to identify measures taken
during the transit from the target area to the police station.
Recent Cases – CONVICTION:
Recent Cases – CONVICTION:
People v Pambid, Jan. 26, 2011
The chain of custody was established:
1. PO2 Collado marked the sachet with his initial “MBC”;
2. The request for laboratory exam of the sachet with marking MBC
was signed by PCSUPT. Wong;
3. The request and the marked item was received by the PNP Crime
Laboratory;
4. Chemistry Report No. D-1007-03 confirmed that the marked item
was shabu;
5. The marked items were offered in evidence as Exhibits B-1 and B-2.
CONVICTION:
People v Araneta, GR No. 191064, Oct. 20. 2010
Effect of non-compliance of Sec 21
Non-compliance of Section 21 does not make the arrest illegal or make the
evidence inadmissible as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence
is preserved.
The chain of custody is still established:
1. PO2 Monte marked the seized sachet with ERF 2-23006 USING THE INITIAL OF
THE ACCUSED;
2. The request for the marked item was signed by Pamor;
3.The request and the marked item was received by the Crime Lab;
4.Chemistry report No. D-161-06 confirmed that it was shabu;
5. The marked item was offered in evidence as Exhibit K.
CONVICTION:
People v. Rosialda, GR No. 188330, Aug 25, 2010
Failure to take pictures of the drugs in the presence of the accused or
his rep or counsel
The court said that what is important is that the integrity
of the evidence is preserved. The fact that the sachet was
immediately marked by PO1 Panis which such marking remaining
until the plastic sachet was presented in court persuasively proves
not only identity of the shabu but more importantly it is the
same item seized from the buy-bust operation. Its
evidentiary value were duly preserved.
Recent Cases – CONVICTION:

People v Campomanes, GR NO. 187741, 8 AUG 2010

Integrity of the evidence remains intact
Alleged lapses in the safekeeping of the shabu affecting their integrity and
credibility
PO1 Mapula seized the sachet and the marked money and marked them
in the presence of Campomanes and other accused. They were brought to the
station where they were turned-over to the investigator together with the
sachet for request for laboratory examination. The sachet was submitted by
PO1 Mapula where it was received by the Crime Lab in evidence and found
shabu under Chemistry Report No. D-522-2003E
Plea Bargaining
Framework
in Drugs cases
 WHAT IS PLEA BARGAINING?

It is the disposition of criminal charges by agreement

among the 1. accused, 2. offended party (PNP in victimless
crimes) and 3. prosecution and approved by the court.
It is encouraged because it leads to prompt and final
disposition of most criminal cases. It shortens the time
of trial.
Basis: Sec. 2, Rule 116, Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure

At arraignment [during trial], the accused, with the consent

of the offended party and the prosecutor, may be allowed by
the trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense which is
necessarily included in the offense charged.

No amendment of the complaint or information is necessary.

ELEMENTS OF PLEA BARGAINING:

1. Consent of:
a. Accused
b. Offended party (PNP in case of victimless crimes)
b. Prosecutor.
2. The lesser offense subject of PB must be included in the offense
charged.
3. Approval of the court.
When is an offense necessarily included in the offense
charged?
* When some of the essential elements of the former, as alleged
in the complaint or information, constitute the latter. ( Sec. 5, Rule 120,
RRCP)

Example: Accused attempted to defraud the government by

presenting false entry of declaration but the offense was not
consummated. He was charged under Sec 3(e), RA 3019 (Anti Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act).
 Held: He cannot be convicted for violation of Sec. 3
(e), RA 3019 because it does not have attempted stage.
But he was convicted of attempted estafa through
falsification since this is also included in the offense
charged. (Pecho vs Sandiganbayan)
SC A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC Re: Revised Guidelines
for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases
Sec. 8 (d)(i) :

i.Plea Bargaining except in drug cases- If the accused desires to enter a plea
of guilty to a lesser offense, plea bargaining shall immediately proceed,
provided the private offended party in private crimes, or the arresting
officer in victimless crimes, is present to give his/her consent with the
conformity of the public prosecutor to the plea bargaining.

In the case of Estipona vs Lobrigo, drug cases are now subject of

plea bargaining and declared Sec. 23, RA 9165 as unconstitutional.
Basis:
A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC dated April 10, 2018
 Offense charged Acceptable Plea Bargain Remarks

Sec. 11, par. 3 Penalty Section12 Penalty Drug

Dependency
test is required.
Possession of Dangerous 12 years & 1 day to Possession of 6 months and If accused
Drugs (Where shabu, opium, 20 years and fine Equipment, 1 day to 4 admits drug use
morphine, heroin, cocaine is ranging from Instrument and years and fine or fail the drug
less than 5 grams) P300,000 to other from P10,000 test, he shall
P400,000 paraphernalia for to P50,000 undergo
[ 0.01 to 4.99 grams] Dangerous Drugs rehabilitation for
not less than 6
months
creditable to the
penalty.
Offense charged Acceptable Plea Remarks
Bargain
If found negative, he will
be released on time
served, otherwise, he will
serve the sentence in jail
minus counselling period
 Offense charged Acceptable Plea Bargain Remarks

Sec. 11, par. 3 Penalty Sec. 12 Penalty Drug test is

required. If
12 years & 1 day Possession of 6 months and accused admits
Possession of Dangerous to 20 years and Equipment, 1 day to 4 drug use or fail
Drugs (Where quantity of fine ranging from Instrument, years and the drug test,
marijuana is less than 300 P300,000 to Apparatus, and fine from he shall
grams) P400,000 other paraphernal- P10,000 to undergo
lia P50,000 rehabilitation for
[0.01 to 299.99 grams] not less than 6
months
creditable to the
penalty.
Offense charged Acceptable Plea Bargain Remarks

If found negative, he will

be released on time
served, otherwise, he will
serve the sentence in jail
minus counselling period
 Offense charged Acceptable Plea Bargain Remarks

Sec. 11, par. 2 Penalty Sec. 11, par. 3 Penalty

Possession of Dangerous Drugs 20 years to life Possession of 12 years and

( Where quantity of shabu, opium, imprison-ment Dangerous Drugs 1 day to 20
morphine, heroin, cocaine is 5 and fine from years and
grams or more but not P400,000 to fine from
exceeding 10 grams) P500,000 300,000 to
P400,000
[5 grams to 99grams]

10 grams and above No plea

bargaining
allowed
 Offense charged Acceptable Plea Bargain Remarks

Sec. 11, par. 2 Penalty Sec. 11, par. 3 Penalty

Possession of Dangerous 20 years to life 12 years and

Drugs ( Where quantity of imprison-ment Possession of 1 day to 20
marijuana is 300 grams or and fine from Dangerous years and
more but not exceeding 500 P400,000 to Drugs fine from
grams) P500,000 300,000 to
P400,000
[300grams to 499grams]

500 grams and above No plea

bargaining
allowed
 Offense charged Acceptable Plea Bargain Remarks

Sec. 12 Penalty Sec. 15 Penalty

Possession of Equipment, 6 months and 1 Use of 6 months If accused

Apparatus and Other Drug day to 4 years Dangerous Drugs treatment and admits drug use
Paraphernalia and fine from rehabilitation or found
10,000 to positive after
P50,000 drug test

Undergo If accused is
counselling found negative
program in in drug test
rehab center
 Offense charged Acceptable Plea Bargain Remarks

Sec. 14 Penalty Sec. 15 Penalty

Possession of Equipment, 4 years and Use of 6 months If accused

Apparatus and Other Drug fine of Dangerous treatment and admits drug
Paraphernalia During Parties, P50,000 Drugs rehabilitation use or found
Social Gatherings or positive after
Meetings drug test

Undergo If accused is
counselling found negative
program in rehab in drug test
center
 Offense charged Acceptable Plea Bargain Remarks
Sec. 5. Penalty Section 12 Penalty

Sale, Trading etc.. of Life Imprisonment to Possession of 6 months and 1 If the maximum
Dangerous Drugs (For Death and Fine from Equipment, day to 4 years penalty is already
Shabu only 0.01 gram to P500,000 to Instrument, and Fine from served, drug test
.99 grams) P10,000,000 Apparatus and 10,000 to shall be required.
other paraphernalia P50,000

If accused admits He shall undergo

drug use or treatment and rehab
found positive for not less than 6
after drug test months creditable to
his penalty, if still
unserved.
Offense charged Acceptable Plea Bargain Remarks

If accused is Released on time

found negative served, otherwise,
for drug use he will serve his
sentence in jail
minus period for
counselling and
rehabilitation.
Offense charged Acceptable Plea Bargain Remarks

If the accused
applies for probation
other than for illegal
drug trafficking or
pushing under Sec
5 in relation to Sec.
24, the law on
probation shall
apply.
 Offense charged Acceptable Plea Bargain Remarks
Sec. 5. Penalty Section 12 Penalty

Sale, Trading etc.. of Life Imprisonment to Possession of 6 months and 1 If the maximum
Dangerous Drugs Death and Fine from Equipment, day to 4 years penalty is already
(Marijuana only not P500,000 to Instrument, and and Fine from served, drug test
exceeding 10 grams) P10,000,000 other paraphernalia 10,000 to shall be required.
P50,000
[0.01gram to .99 grams]
If accused admits He shall undergo
drug use or treatment and rehab
found positive for not less than 6
after drug test months creditable to
his penalty, if still
unserved.
Offense charged Acceptable Plea Bargain Remarks

10 grams of No plea
marijuana only bargaining
and above
What is the policy of the PNP in plea bargaining of all cases including
drug cases?

DIDM Investigative Directive 2018- 20

Paragraph 4 (a) – The giving of consent to PB shall not be considered

bungling of a case since the case is not dismissal but conviction to a lesser
offense.

Who is the arresting officer ? He is the personnel who executed the affidavit
of arrest.
 Before attending arraignment, the AO shall must clearance from the
COP, provincial officer xxx. He cannot give consent without asking clearance
from the foregoing.

Before clearance is given, consultation with the handling prosecutor

must be made to determine the propriety of the PB. His opinion is afforded
with great weight unless there are compelling reasons to disagree with him.
PNP legal officers must also be consulted.

The chief of police must make a certification to be signed by the

prosecutor proving that consultation was made.
 ISSUES ON POLICE BLOTTER
Last July 12, 2018, Hon. Cesar V. Sarmiento,
Representative, Lone District of Catanduanes/
Chairman, Committee on Transportation, wrote
a letter address to RD, PRO5 re: Investigation of
a Road Crash Accident in Virac, Catanduanes on
July 1, 2018.
ISSUE:
Alleged alteration of Police
Blotter Entry, which circulated in
various social media platforms and
accounts. Correction fluid was applied
to a major portion of the report and
some details were written on top of it.
 POLICE BLOTTER
A record of daily events occurring within the
territory/jurisdiction of a given police unit or
command. It contains material details concerning
the event for legal and statistical purposes. This
police blotter is an informational record book that
is utilized for evidentiary or referral purposes.
 REPORT CONTENT
 The entry in the Police Blotter should answer the
following cardinal elements of a police report:
1.Who
2.What
3.When
4.Where
5.Why
6. How; and
7.Disposition of the case.
In answering the 5 W’s and 1H and the case disposition, all such
material details about the event, including :
1. Names of the suspect/s ;
2. Names of the victim/s,;
3. Names of the witness/es, if any;
4. The nature of the action or offense ;
5. Possible motive;
6. The place the date and time of occurrence;
7. Significant circumstances that aggravate or mitigate the event or the
crime should be entered along with the identity of the officer to whom
the case is assigned (officer-in-case); and
8. The status of the case.
 INCIDENTS ENTERED IN THE
POLICE BLOTTER
1. Violations of laws and ordinances reported and/or discovered;
2. All calls in which any member of the PNP is dispatched and/or
takes official action;
3. All fire alarms, reports and information received by the stations;
4. Movement of prisoners with corresponding notations on the
authority for such movements;
5. Cases of missing and/or found persons, animals and property;
INCIDENTS ENTERED IN THE POLICE BLOTTER

6. Vehicular and other types of accidents which require police

action;
7. All personal injuries, bodies found, and suicides;
8. Damage to property;
9. All cases in which a police member is involved;
10. All arrest and returns made; and
11. Miscellaneous cases, general and special orders, violations of
rules and regulation, and any other reportable incident that the
sub-station/ station commander or higher authority desires to be
recorded.
 Procedure in Making Entries

 All entries in the police blotter shall be handwritten in a clear,

concise and simple manner but answering as fast as practicable
the 5Ws and 1H. Clarity should not be sacrificed for brevity.
 Only facts, not opinions are entered in the blotter
 No erasures shall be made on the entries. Corrections are made
by drawing one horizontal line over such word or phrases and the
actual entry initiated by the police officer making the correction.
 A ballpen or pen with blue, black or blue black ink is used for
making the entries.
 Procedure in Making Entries

 Misrepresentation in the blotter or any attempt to suppress any

information therein is punishable criminally and administratively.
 The entries must be legibly written long hand and consecutively
numbered.
 Every page of the blotter shall be consecutively or chronologically filled-up.
No line or space shall be left blank between any entries.
 Any development of a case to be reflected in the blotter should be a new
entry at the time and day it was reported. A reference to the previous
entry number of the case shall, however, be made.
 In every shift, the Duty Sergeant, under the Supervision of the Duty Officer
or Complaint Desk Officer, shall make the actual entries in the blotter and
at the end of his tour of duty, both the Duty Sergeant and Duty/Complaint
Desk Officer shall sign the blotter.
Entry Date Time Incident/Events Disposition
No

2574 Aug. 3, 1:00 For record purposes: The case is

2014 AM Mrs. Ana Villablanca, 24 years old, married, and resident referred to the
of Brgy 8, Legazpi City personally reported to this office investigator for
and alleged that on or about 8:00 o’clock in the evening disposition.
of Aug. 2, 2014, while he was walking along the market
near SM mall, located at Centro Poblacion, Naga City, an Hot pursuit is
unidentified man grabbed her bag and ran away towards being conducted
the direction of the Terminal. Allegedly, her bag led by SPO1 Allan
contained money amounting to P200,000.00 and other Trinidad.
personal belongings. He described the man as medium
built, dark complexion, long hair and wearing black
manong pants and sleeveless yellow shirt.
2575 Aug. 3, 2:00 For record purposes: Suspect under the
2014 AM Team led by SPO1 Allan Trinidad returned station with custody of this
one apprehended suspect identified as station for
( details 5 Ws and 1H) disposition.
THANK YOU and GOOD DAY