G.R. No.

204894 March 10, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
vs.
NOEL ENOJAS y HINGPIT, ARNOLD GOMEZ y FABREGAS, FERNANDO SANTOS
y DELANTAR, and ROGER JALANDONI y ARI, Appellants.
ABAD, J.:
Facts:
 Appellants were charged with murder in criminal case 06-0854
 PO2 Gregorio and Pangilinan said they spotted a suspiciously parked taxi and
asked the driver, Enojas to come with them to the police station due to
doubts of Enojas’ documents.
 Pangilinan relieved himself during a stop over at a 7-11 and saw two
suspected robbers and a shoot out occurred between them. Pangilinan shot
one dead but the other managed to escape. Pangilinan was also shot and
died
 Gregorio realized that Enojas had fled and thought Enojas was involved in the
attempted robbery. Gregorio and the PO2 Rosarito searched Enojas’ Taxi and
found Enojas’ mobile phone.
 PO3 Cambi monitored the incoming messages and testified that he and PO2
Rosarito posed as Enojas and communicated with the other accused.
 An entrapment operation was held which captured 4 of the accused
 The prosecution presented the transcripts of the mobile phone text messages
between Enojas and some of his co-accused
 The accused opted to file a trial memorandum and pointed out that they were
entitled to an acquittal since they were all illegally arrested and since the
evidence of the text messages were inadmissible, not having been properly
identified
 The RTC convicted all the accused of murder. The CA affirmed the conviction.

Issue:
 WON the evidence presented is enough to warrant a conviction of all the
accused.

Ruling:
 The defense points out that the prosecution failed to present direct evidence
that the accused Enojas, Gomez, Santos, or Jalandoni took part in shooting
PO2 Pangilinan dead. This may be true but the prosecution could prove their
liability by circumstantial evidence that meets the evidentiary standard of
proof beyond reasonable doubt. It has been held that circumstantial evidence
is sufficient for conviction if: 1) there is more than one circumstance; 2) the
facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and 3) the
 combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt.
 As to the admissibility of the text messages, the RTC admitted them in
conformity with the Court’s earlier Resolution applying the Rules on Electronic
Evidence to criminal actions
 Text messages are to be proved by the testimony of a person who was a
party to the same or has personal knowledge of them. Here, PO3 Cambi,
posing as the accused Enojas, exchanged text messages with the other
accused in order to identify and entrap them. As the recipient of those
messages sent from and to the mobile phone in his possession, PO3 Cambi
had personal knowledge of such messages and was competent to testify on
them.
 The accused lament that they were arrested without a valid warrant of
arrest. But, assuming that this was so, it cannot be a ground for acquitting
them of the crime charged but for rejecting any evidence that may have been
taken from them after an unauthorized search as an incident of an unlawful
arrest, a point that is not in issue here.
 At any rate, a crime had been committed—the killing of PO2 Pangilinan—and
the investigating police officers had personal knowledge of facts indicating
that the persons they were to arrest had committed it. The text messages to
and from the mobile phone left at the scene by accused Enojas provided
strong leads on the participation and identities of the accused. Indeed, the
police caught them in an entrapment using this knowledge.

G.R.No. 74869 July 6, 1988
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
IDEL AMINNUDIN y AHNI, defendant-appellant.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Herminio T. Llariza counsel de-officio for defendant-appellant
CRUZ, J.:
Facts:
 Aminnudin was arrested after disembarking the boat by PC officers who were
waiting for him.
 The PC officers inspected his bag and found marijuana leaves which were
confirmed to be such resulting in a filing of an information for the violation of
the Dangerous Drugs Act against Aminnudin
 According to the prosecution, the PC officers had earlier received a tip from
one of their informers three days ago that the accused-appellant was on
board a vessel bound for Iloilo City and was carrying marijuana
 Acting on the tip, they detained him and inspected the bag confirming the
marijuana. This became the basis of the charge filed against Aminnudin
 Aminnudin claimed his bag was confiscated without a search warrant and was
forced to admit he was carrying the marijuana through violence
 Aminnudin also argued that the marijuana he allegedly was carrying was not
properly identified
 He was convicted by the trial court but Aminnudin claimed that he was
arrested and searched without warrant, making the marijuana allegedly found
in his possession inadmissible in evidence against him under the Bill of Rights
 the Solicitor General dismissed Amminudin’s argument stating that the arrest
of Aminnudin was valid because it came under Rule 113, Section 6(b) of the
Rules of Court on warrantless arrests. This made the search also valid as
incidental to a lawful arrest.
Issue:
 Whether or not the marijuana confiscated from Amminudin was admissible in
evidence.
Ruling:
 In the case at bar, there was no warrant of arrest or search warrant issued by
a judge after personal determination by him of the existence of probable
cause. Contrary to the averments of the government, the accused-appellant
was not caught in flagrante nor was a crime about to be committed or had
just been committed to justify the warrantless arrest allowed under Rule 113
of the Rules of Court.
 From the conflicting declarations of the PC witnesses, it is clear that they had
at least two days within which they could have obtained a warrant to arrest
and search Aminnudin who was coming to Iloilo on the M/V Wilcon 9. His
name was known. The vehicle was Identified. The date of its arrival was
certain. And from the information they had received, they could have
persuaded a judge that there was probable cause, indeed, to justify the
issuance of a warrant. Yet they did nothing. No effort was made to comply
with the law. The Bill of Rights was ignored altogether because the PC
lieutenant who was the head of the arresting team, had determined on his
own authority that a "search warrant was not necessary."
 In the case at bar, the accused-appellant was not, at the moment of his
arrest, committing a crime nor was it shown that he was about to do so or
that he had just done so.
 Without the evidence of the marijuana allegedly seized from Aminnudin, the
case of the prosecution must fall. That evidence cannot be admitted, and
should never have been considered by the trial court for the simple fact is
that the marijuana was seized illegally. It is the fruit of the poisonous tree, to
use Justice Holmes' felicitous phrase. The search was not an incident of a
lawful arrest because there was no warrant of arrest and the warrantless
arrest did not come under the exceptions allowed by the Rules of Court.
Hence, the warrantless search was also illegal and the evidence obtained
thereby was inadmissible.
G.R. No. 132577 August 17, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.
HUBERT JEFFREY P. WEBB, respondent.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
Facts:
 Webb is one of the accused in Criminal Case No. 95-404 for Rape with
Homicide entitled "People of the Philippines v. Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, et al."
presently pending
 During the course of the proceedings in the trial court, Webb filed a Motion To
Take Testimony By Oral Deposition in lieu of presenting 5 US residents as
witnesses in court alleging that the said persons may not be compelled by
subpoena to testify since the court had no jurisdiction over them.
 Webb further alleged that the taking of the oral depositions of the
aforementioned individuals whose testimonies are allegedly "material and
indispensable" to establish his innocence of the crime charged is sanctioned
by Section 4, Rule 24 of the Revised Rules of Court
 The prosecution thereafter filed an opposition to the said motion averring
that:
1.] Rule 24, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, has no application in criminal
cases;
2.] Rule 119, Section 4 of the Rules of Court on Criminal Procedure, being a
mode of discovery, only provides for conditional examination of witnesses for
the accused before trial not during trial;
3.] Rule 19, Section 5 of the Rules of Court on Criminal Procedure does not
sanction the conditional examination of witnesses for the accused/defense
outside Philippine Jurisdiction
 the trial court denied the motion of Webb on the ground that the same is not
allowed by Section 4, Rule 24 and Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 119 of the Revised
Rules of Court
 A motion for reconsideration thereto on the grounds that:
1.] The 1997 Rules of Court expressly allows the taking of depositions,
2.] Section 11 of Rule 23 of the 1997 Rules of Court expressly allows the
taking of depositions in foreign countries before a consul general, consul,
vice-consul or consular agent of the Republic of the Philippines, was likewise
denied
 The CA ruled in favor of Webb

Issue:
 WON the trial judge gravely abused her discretion in denying the motion to
take testimony by oral depositions in the United States which would be used
in the criminal case before her Court.
Ruling:
 this Court finds that the public respondent gravely abused her discretion in
denying the motion to take the deposition of the witnesses for petitioner.
While petitioner had invoked Rule 23, Section 1 of the Rule of Court, which is
found under the general classification of the Civil Procedure, it does not
prevent its application to the other proceedings, provided the same is not
contrary to the specific rules provided therein
 The denial of petitioner's right to present his witnesses, who are residing
abroad, based on a very Shaky technical ground, is tantamount to depriving
him of his constitutional right to due process
 Petitioner, however, is not without any remedy and he correctly sought to
secure the testimonies of his witness through the process of taking their
depositions pending the trial of Criminal Case No. 95-404 in the court below
under Rule 23 of the Rules of Court. In any event the prosecution would have
the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses for Webb since they will be
given the opportunity to cross-examine the deponents as in accordance with
Section 3 to 18 of Rule 132
 Furthermore, no prejudice would be suffered in the taking of the depositions
of petitioner's US-based witness(es). On the other hand, a denial of the same
would be prejudicial to petitioner-accused since he would be denied an
opportunity to completely present his evidence, which strikes at the very core
of the due process guarantee of the Constitution
(2nd ruling??)
 It needs to be stressed that the only reason of Webb for seeking the
deposition of the foreign witnesses is "to foreclose any objection and/or
rejection of, as the case may be, the admissibility of Defense Exhibits "218"
and "219"." This issue has, however, long been rendered moot and academic
by the admission of the aforementioned documentary exhibits by the trial
court
 A careful examination of Exhibits "218" and "219" readily shows that these
are of the same species of documents which have been previously introduced
and admitted into evidence by the trial court in its order dated July 18, 1997
which We noted in Webb, et al. v. People of the Philippines, et al. wherein We
pointed out, among others, "[t]hat respondent judge reversed this erroneous
ruling and already admitted these 132 pieces of evidence after finding that
"the defects in (their) admissibility have been cured though the introduction
of additional evidence during the trial on the merits
 Needless to state, the trial court cannot be faulted with lack of caution in
denying respondent's motion considering that under the prevailing facts of
the case, respondent had more than ample opportunity to adduce evidence in
his defense. Certainly, a party can not feign denial of due process where he
had the opportunity to present his side
 It is pointed out that the defense has already presented at least fifty-seven
(57) witnesses and four hundred sixty-four (464) documentary exhibits, many
of them of the exact nature as those to be produced or testified to by the
proposed foreign deponents.
 Under the circumstances, we sustain the proposition that the trial judge
commits no grave abuse of discretion if she decide that the evidence on the
matter sought to be proved in the United States could not possibly add
anything substantial to the defense evidence involved.
 There is no showing or allegation that the American public officers and the
bicycle store owner can identify respondent Hubert Webb as the very person
mentioned in the public and private documents. Neither is it shown in this
petition that they know, of their own personal knowledge, a person whom
they can identify as the respondent-accused who was actually present in the
United States and not in the Philippines on the specified dates.
G.R. Nos. 138874-75 January 31, 2006
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
vs.
FRANCISCO JUAN LARRAÑAGA alias "PACO;" JOSMAN AZNAR; ROWEN
ADLAWAN alias "WESLEY;" ALBERT CAÑO alias "ALLAN PAHAK;" ARIEL
BALANSAG; DAVIDSON VALIENTE RUSIA alias 'TISOY TAGALOG;" JAMES
ANTHONY UY alias "WANGWANG;" and JAMES ANDREW UY alias
"MM," Appellants.
PER CURIAM:
Facts:
 The Uy brothers, et. al. were convicted for the crimes of
(a) special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with
homicide and rape; and
(b) simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention
 James Anthony Uy was a minor at the time the crime was committed
 3 justices of the court maintains that the death penalty is unconstitutional,
but they submit to the ruling of the majority that the law is constitutional and
the death penalty can be lawfully imposed in the case at bar.
Issue:

Ruling: