Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 58 views

    Villamiel - Legwrit Finals

    Uploaded by

    Henry Villamiel
    Manago appeals the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming his conviction for violating the Dangerous Drugs Act. Manago argues that his warrantless arrest was invalid as it did not satisfy the requirements of a legal arrest under hot pursuit. Additionally, Manago asserts that the shabu obtained from his person after the arrest should have been inadmissible in evidence, as it was the result of an unlawful arrest and search. This petition raises questions regarding whether the warrantless arrest was valid under the hot pursuit exception, and whether the shabu seized is admissible evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Villamiel - Legwrit Finals

    Uploaded by

    Henry Villamiel
    58 views5 pages
    Manago appeals the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming his conviction for violating the Dangerous Drugs Act. Manago argues that his warrantless arrest was invalid as it did not satisfy the requirements of a legal arrest under hot pursuit. Additionally, Manago asserts that the shabu obtained from his person after the arrest should have been inadmissible in evidence, as it was the result of an unlawful arrest and search. This petition raises questions regarding whether the warrantless arrest was valid under the hot pursuit exception, and whether the shabu seized is admissible evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Original Title

    VILLAMIEL - LEGWRIT FINALS

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Manago appeals the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming his conviction for violating the Dangerous Drugs Act. Manago argues that his warrantless arrest was invalid as it did not satisfy the requirements of a legal arrest under hot pursuit. Additionally, Manago asserts that the shabu obtained from his person after the arrest should have been inadmissible in evidence, as it was the result of an unlawful arrest and search. This petition raises questions regarding whether the warrantless arrest was valid under the hot pursuit exception, and whether the shabu seized is admissible evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    58 views5 pages

    Villamiel - Legwrit Finals

    Uploaded by

    Henry Villamiel
    Manago appeals the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming his conviction for violating the Dangerous Drugs Act. Manago argues that his warrantless arrest was invalid as it did not satisfy the requirements of a legal arrest under hot pursuit. Additionally, Manago asserts that the shabu obtained from his person after the arrest should have been inadmissible in evidence, as it was the result of an unlawful arrest and search. This petition raises questions regarding whether the warrantless arrest was valid under the hot pursuit exception, and whether the shabu seized is admissible evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 5

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

    SUPREME COURT
    MANILA

    FIRST DIVISION

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES


    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    G.R. No. 212340
    -versus- For: Review of the
    CA decision for
    GERRJAN MANAGO y ACUT The Violation of
    Accused-Appellant. RA 9165
    x———————————————-x

    PETITION FOR REVIEW

    ACCUSED-APPELLANT, Gerrjan Manago y Acut (hereinafter


    “Manago”) by undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court most
    respectfully submit and present this memorandum in the above-titled case and
    aver that:

    THE PARTIES

    1. Plaintiff-Appellee, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

    -versus-

    2. Acused-Appellant, GERRJAN MANAGO Y ACUT.

    STATEMENT OF MATERIAL DATES

    1. On May 20, 2013, Manago received a copy of the adverse decision of the
    Court of Appeals (hereinafter “CA”) in CA-G.R. CEB-CR No. 01342, to
    which the accused-appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration in
    compliance with the reglementary period.

    2. On November 6, 2013, the CA rendered its Resolution denying the Motion


    for Reconsideration and affirming its Decision on May 20, 2013.

    3. On December 13, 2013, Manago filed a Notice of Appeal assailing the


    Decision of the CA as well as its Resolution which affirmed the Decision
    of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, dated March 23, 2009. Manago is
    filing this petition within the required period.

    STATEMENT OF MATERIAL AVERMENTS

    This case revolves around the denial of the appellate court of the
    Manago’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court of Appeals’ Decision,
    finding the same guilty of violating Section 11, Art. 2 of RA 9165. This
    decision is being assailed by Manago as it is bereft of legal basis, for the arrest

    1
    was not in accordance with the doctrine of hot pursuit and the subsequent
    seizure of the shabu was made after an unlawful arrest and is therefore
    inadmissible. Hence, this petition for review under Rule 45 is filed, as the case
    involves pure questions of law.

    STATEMENT OF FACTS AND ERRORS OF LAW

    1. The facts of the case are not in dispute. At around 9:30 in the evening of
    March 15, 2007, PO3 Antonio Din (hereinafter “PO3 Din”) was in line for
    a haircut at Jonas Borces Parlor when two (2) persons entered and declared
    a hold-up. With PO3 Din identifying himself as a police officer, there was
    an exchange of gun shots. Both suspects fled using a motorcycle, and a red
    Toyota Corolla. Fortunately, the plate numbers of the vehicles were noted
    by PO3 Din.

    2. Eventually, the suspects were identified as Rico Lumampas, Arvin


    Cadastra, and Allan Sordiano, who were employees of Manago in his
    roasted chicken business.

    3. The Land Transportation Office (hereinafter “LTO”) was able to verify the
    plate numbers, which lead to the discovery of the police that both the
    motorcycle and the car was used in a robbery.

    4. On March 16, 2007, a hot pursuit operation was conducted following a


    report that a red Toyota Corolla was being driven by Manago. A
    checkpoint was set up in Sitio Panagdait by the police officers.

    5. At 9:30 p.m., a red Toyota Corolla passed through the checkpoint. PO3
    Din positively identified the vehicle as the one he saw during the encounter
    in the salon.

    6. Upon the order of the police to Manago to disembark, a thorough search


    commenced. The search produced no contraband, and consequently,
    Manago was frisked. A plastic sachet of shabu was obtained, which was
    tested in the PNP Crime Laboratory and was found positive of such
    dangerous drug content.

    7. As defense, Manago claims that he was confronted by the police officers


    in his office and was brought to the headquarters, to which he was
    eventually charged in the Cebu City Prosecutor’s Office with possession
    of shabu after an interrogation regarding the alleged robbery.

    8. The RTC in its Decision dated March 23, 2009 found Manago guilty of
    reasonable doubt of possession of shabu and imposed the corresponding
    penalty. The warrantless arrest of Manago was likewise declared valid.
    The accused moved for a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied,
    and hence sought an appeal to the CA.

    9. CA rendered its decision and affirming the RTC decision, and allowing
    Manago to post bail. A Motion for Reconsideration was submitted but was
    likewise denied, which led to the issuance of the CA of a resolution
    affirming the RTC ruling as well. Hence, this petition.

    2
    QUESTIONS OF LAW PRESENTED

    Appellant Manago presents the following questions of law:

    1. Whether or not the warrantless arrest was valid and within the exceptions
    provided by law as provided by Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court;

    2. Whether or not the shabu obtained from the search and seizure conducted
    upon Manago in the checkpoint after the arrest is admissible in evidence,
    and enough to render the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

    DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS

    I. THE WARRANTLESS ARREST WAS


    INVALID FOR NOT BEING MADE IN
    HOT PURSUIT

    A. THERE WAS AMPLE TIME TO


    APPLY AND SECURE A WARRANT
    OF ARREST

    The accused, through counsel, respectfully submit that the arrest


    conducted in the present case is not within the ambit of the exception in Rule
    113 Section 5(b), as it is not made in hot pursuit. Since there was no
    immediacy from the first encounter to to the arrest, there is a considerable
    amount of time where the police officer could have secured a warrant.

    The Constitution affords protection to the accused as far as it provides


    him with his right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects,
    against unreasonable searches and seizures.1 However just like every general
    rule, there will always be exceptions, which according to Rule 113, Section
    5(b) of the Rules Court, are as follows:

    Sec. 5. Arrest without a warrant; when lawful – A peace officer


    or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
    xxx
    (b) When an offense has just been committed and he has
    probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of
    facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has
    committed it; and
    xxx

    In other words, an arrest may be made in hot pursuit. Unfortunately, the


    present case does not fall squarely within such exception. In the recitation of
    facts, it is evident that there was a lapse of about twenty-four (24) hours from
    the encounter at the salon, and the arrest made when the car of Manago passed
    through the checkpoint.

    It is evident that PO3 Din himself already was aware of the need for a
    warrant. His utter disregard of the ample time he could have utilized renders

    1
    PHIL. CONST. art. III § 2.

    3
    the arrest as invalid. There are several cases2 decided by the Supreme Court
    to which the warrantless arrests were declared illegal because officials
    conducting the same had every opportunity to secure a warrant but did not.3

    In summary, the large disparity of time between the first confrontation


    and the second one, is the very indication that PO3 Din’s arrest of Manago is
    invalid.

    B. THE ELEMENTS OF RULE 113,


    SECTION 5(B) ARE NOT SATISFIED

    The accused, through counsel, submit that there is no compliance in any


    element under Rule 113, Section 5(b), which consequently yields to such
    exception not being applicable to this case.

    It was provided for in the case of Pestilos v. Generoso that the elemnets under
    Rule 113, Section 5(b) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure are: (1) an
    offense has just been committed; and (2) the arresting officer has probable
    cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that
    the person to be arrested has committed it.4

    With the qualifier of the word “just” in the first element, it is


    emphasized that the offense should not only have been “committed” but also
    should have been “just committed.”5 The principle of immediacy is present
    and must be observed to afford such arrest to be valid. In this case, the arrest
    was made after the car passed through the checkpoint, which occurred twenty-
    four (24) hours after the incident in the salon. Such arrest was preceded by the
    discovery of shabu in the pocket of the accused, which shall likewise be
    admissible as discussed in the following submission.

    With the first element not satisfied, there shall be no valid claim that
    the case is qualified under such exception as provided for in the Rules of
    Court.6

    II. THERE IS AN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE


    OF GUILT OF MANAGO BEYOND
    REASONABLE DOUBT

    A. THE SHABU OBTAINED FROM THE


    SEIZURE IS INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE

    With the various safeguards laid down in the Constitution for the
    protection of the rights of the accused, 7 the counsel for the accused submits
    that the shabu obtained in the checkpoint is inadmissible in evidence.

    2
    Veroy v. Layague, 210 SCRA 97, 106 (1992); People v. Cendena, 190 SCRA 538, 543 (1990); Rolito v.
    CA, 206 SCRA 138, 150 (1992).
    3
    People v. Del Rosario, 305 SCRA 740, 760 (1999).
    4
    Pestilos v. Generoso, 739 SCRA 337, 362 (2014).
    5
    Id. at 361.
    6
    REVISED RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, Rule 113, § 5(b).
    7
    Phil. Const. art. III, § 3.

    4
    With the premise that such arrest is invalid, the seizure of the shabu
    shall be rendered inadmissible in evidence, for being unreasonable as it is a
    clear violation of the rights of afforded to the accused.8 This is emphasized by
    the Supreme Court in jurisprudence. As such, the shabu shall be considered
    as the fruit of a poisonous tree, and with it being inadmissible, it shall not be
    used for any purpose in any proceeding.9

    The ignorance of this precious constitutional right and the rendering of


    guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite the inadmissibility of the evidence
    presented is tantamount to a violation of Manago’s right against unreasonable
    searches and seizures.

    B. THE INADMISSIBILITY OF THE


    SHABU RENDERS MANAGO NOT
    GUILTY OF THE VIOLATION

    In the present case, it is evident that the conviction of Manago was


    grounded on the shabu obtained during the inspection conducted when his car
    passed through the checkpoint. Now that such evidence is inadmissible, and
    it being the lone evidence purporting to the decisions of the lower courts
    supporting his conviction, the accused through counsel submits that there is
    no solid proof to sustain the same.

    Manago shall not be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt as there is


    no evidence supporting it. Should the decision be rendered against his favor,
    not only will such be bereft of legal basis, but also in violation of his
    constitutional right as an accused.

    PRAYER

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is humbly prayed of this


    Honorable Court that the Decision dated May 20, 2013 of the Court of
    Appeals be VACATED and a new one be rendered to ACQUIT Gerrjan
    Manago y Acut of the crime charged.

    Other just and equitable reliefs under the foregoing are likewise being prayed
    for.

    Makati City for the City of Manila, Philippines. June 15, 2017.

    ENRIQUE L. VILLAMIEL
    Counsel for Plaintiff
    Makati City

    8
    Comerciante v. People, 763 SCRA 587
    9
    Phil. Const. art. III, § 3.

    You might also like