ADDITIONAL ASSIGNMENT LEGPRO

1. 2021 PNP Revised PNP Operations Manual (Implementation of Warrant)

1.5 Law Enforcement Operations. Include service of warrant of arrest, implementation of
search warrant, enforcement of visitorial powers of the Chiefs of Police, and other anti-
criminality operations.
1.6
CASES
A. BALLOCANAG VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (G.R. NO.
241610, FEB. 1, 2021)

Facts:
 Loreto Tabingo y Ballocanag was charged with violation of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
 On December 6, 2013, police officers implemented a search warrant at Tabingo's residence in
Tayug, Pangasinan.
 During the search, several items were found, including glass tooters, a glass pipe, an improvised
burner, and six opened transparent plastic sachets containing suspected shabu residue.
 Tabingo was arrested and charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs and drug
paraphernalia.

Issue:
The main issues raised in the case are as follows:

1. Whether the police officers failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 8 of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.
2. Whether the police officers failed to issue a detailed receipt of the seized articles to the lawful
occupant, in violation of Section 11.
3. Whether the police officers failed to turn over the seized articles to the court, in violation of
Section 12.
4. Whether the prosecution failed to prove the integrity and identity of the seized items.
5. Whether the conviction of the petitioner is based on tainted evidence.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court granted the petition and acquitted Loreto Tabingo of the charges.

 The Court found that the police officers failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of
Section 8, which requires the presence of the lawful occupant or witnesses during a search.
  The search conducted in Tabingo's residence did not conform to the requirements of the law, as
Tabingo was ordered to stay at the main door while the search in his bedroom was conducted.
 The Court also found that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the seized
items.
 The required witnesses were not present during the apprehension and the physical inventory of
the seized articles was not witnessed by the petitioner or his representative, a representative from
the media, and a representative from the Department of Justice.
 Due to these violations, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove Tabingo's guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio:
The Court's decision was based on the non-compliance of the police officers with the mandatory
provisions of Section 8 and the unjustified deviations from the prescribed chain of custody under Section
21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.

 The Court emphasized the importance of establishing the identity and integrity of seized drugs, as
well as the need to follow proper procedures to ensure the admissibility of evidence.
 The Court held that the exclusion of evidence acquired unlawfully is necessary to enforce the
constitutional privilege against unreasonable searches and seizures.
 Therefore, due to the violations committed by the police officers and the prosecution's failure to
prove Tabingo's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, he was acquitted of the charges.

-------------------------------
B. Article XIII, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution
affirms that, "The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and
overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment
opportunities for all.

3. RULE 114

Bail

Section 1. Bail defined. — Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the
law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance before any court as required
under the conditions hereinafter specified. Bail may be given in the form of corporate surety,
property bond, cash deposit, or recognizance. (1a)

Section 2. Conditions of the bail; requirements. — All kinds of bail are subject to the following
conditions:
 (a) The undertaking shall be effective upon approval, and unless cancelled, shall remain
in force at all stages of the case until promulgation of the judgment of the Regional Trial
Court, irrespective of whether the case was originally filed in or appealed to it;

(b) The accused shall appear before the proper court whenever required by the court of
these Rules;

(c) The failure of the accused to appear at the trial without justification and despite due
notice shall be deemed a waiver of his right to be present thereat. In such case, the trial
may proceed in absentia; and

(d) The bondsman shall surrender the accused to the court for execution of the final
judgment.

The original papers shall state the full name and address of the accused, the amount of the
undertaking and the conditions herein required. Photographs (passport size) taken within the
last six (6) months showing the face, left and right profiles of the accused must be attached to
the bail. (2a)

Section 3. No release or transfer except on court order or bail. — No person under detention by
legal process shall be released or transferred except upon order of the court or when he is
admitted to bail. (3a)

Section 4. Bail, a matter of right; exception. — All persons in custody shall be admitted to bail
as a matter of right, with sufficient sureties, or released on recognize as prescribed by law or
this Rule (a) before or after conviction by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court,
Municipal Trial Court in Cities, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court, and (b) before conviction by the
Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment. (4a)

Section 5. Bail, when discretionary. — Upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense
not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, admission to bail is
discretionary. The application for bail may be filed and acted upon by the trial court despite the
filing of a notice of appeal, provided it has not transmitted the original record to the appellate
court. However, if the decision of the trial court convicting the accused changed the nature of
the offense from non-bailable to bailable, the application for bail can only be filed with and
resolved by the appellate court.

Should the court grant the application, the accused may be allowed to continue on provisional
liberty during the pendency of the appeal under the same bail subject to the consent of the
bondsman.

If the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment exceeding six (6) years, the accused
shall be denied bail, or his bail shall be cancelled upon a showing by the prosecution, with
notice to the accused, of the following or other similar circumstances:

(a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has committed the

crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration;
 (b) That he has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or
violated the conditions of his bail without valid justification;

(c) That he committed the offense while under probation, parole, or conditional pardon;

(d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if released on bail;
or

(e) That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the pendency of
the appeal.

The appellate court may, motu proprio or on motion of any party, review the resolution of the
Regional Trial Court after notice to the adverse party in either case. (5a)

Section 6. Capital offense defined. — A capital offense is an offense which, under the law
existing at the time of its commission and of the application for admission to bail, may be
punished with death. (6a)

Section 7. Capital offense of an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment,

not bailable. — No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong,
regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution. (7a)

Section 8. Burden of proof in bail application. — At the hearing of an application for bail filed by
a person who is in custody for the commission of an offense punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua, or life imprisonment, the prosecution has the burden of showing that evidence of guilt
is strong. The evidence presented during the bail hearing shall be considered automatically
reproduced at the trial, but upon motion of either party, the court may recall any witness for
additional examination unless the latter is dead, outside the Philippines, or otherwise unable to
testify. (8a)

Section 9. Amount of bail; guidelines. — The judge who issued the warrant or granted the
application shall fix a reasonable amount of bail considering primarily, but not limited to, the
following factors:

(a) Financial ability of the accused to give bail;

(b) Nature and circumstances of the offense;

(c) Penalty for the offense charged;

(d) Character and reputation of the accused;

(e) Age and health of the accused;

(f) Weight of the evidence against the accused;

(g) Probability of the accused appearing at the trial;

 (h) Forfeiture of other bail;

(i) The fact that accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and

(j) Pendency of other cases where the accused is on bail.

Excessive bail shall not be required. (9a)

Section 10. Corporate surety. — Any domestic or foreign corporation, licensed as a surety in
accordance with law and currently authorized to act as such, may provide bail by a bond
subscribed jointly by the accused and an officer of the corporation duly authorized by its board
of directors. (10a)

Section 11. Property bond, how posted. — A property bond is an undertaking constituted as lien
on the real property given as security for the amount of the bail. Within ten (10) days after the
approval of the bond, the accused shall cause the annotation of the lien on the certificate of title
on file with the Register of Deeds if the land is registered, or if unregistered, in the Registration
Book on the space provided therefor, in the Registry of Deeds for the province or city where the
land lies, and on the corresponding tax declaration in the office of the provincial, city and
municipal assessor concerned.

Within the same period, the accused shall submit to the court his compliance and his failure to
do so shall be sufficient cause for the cancellation of the property bond and his re-arrest and
detention. (11a)

Section 12. Qualifications of sureties in property bond. — The qualification of sureties in a

property bond shall be as follows:

(a) Each must be a resident owner of real estate within the Philippines;

(b) Where there is only one surety, his real estate must be worth at least the amount of
the undertaking;

(c) If there are two or more sureties, each may justify in an amount less than that
expressed in the undertaking but the aggregate of the justified sums must be equivalent
to the whole amount of bail demanded.

In all cases, every surety must be worth the amount specified in his own undertaking over and
above all just debts, obligations and properties exempt from execution. (12a)

Section 13. Justification of sureties. — Every surety shall justify by affidavit taken before the
judge that he possesses the qualifications prescribed in the preceding section. He shall describe
the property given as security, stating the nature of his title, its encumbrances, the number and
amount of other bails entered into by him and still undischarged, and his other liabilities. The
court may examine the sureties upon oath concerning their sufficiency in such manner as it may
deem proper. No bail shall be approved unless the surety is qualified. (13a)

Section 14. Deposit of cash as bail. — The accused or any person acting in his behalf may
deposit in cash with the nearest collector or internal revenue or provincial, city, or municipal
treasurer the amount of bail fixed by the court, or recommended by the prosecutor who
investigated or filed the case. Upon submission of a proper certificate of deposit and a written
undertaking showing compliance with the requirements of section 2 of this Rule, the accused
shall be discharged from custody. The money deposited shall be considered as bail and applied
to the payment of fine and costs while the excess, if any, shall be returned to the accused or to
whoever made the deposit. (14a)

Section 15. Recognizance. — Whenever allowed by law or these Rules, the court may release a
person in custody to his own recognizance or that of a responsible person. (15a)

Section 16. Bail, when not required; reduced bail or recognizance. — No bail shall be required
when the law or these Rules so provide.

When a person has been in custody for a period equal to or more than the possible maximum
imprisonment prescribe for the offense charged, he shall be released immediately, without
prejudice to the continuation of the trial or the proceedings on appeal. If the maximum penalty to
which the accused may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after thirty (30) days of
preventive imprisonment.

A person in custody for a period equal to or more than the minimum of the principal penalty
prescribed for the offense charged, without application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law or
any modifying circumstance, shall be released on a reduced bail or on his own recognizance, at
the discretion of the court. (16a)

Section 17. Bail, where filed. — (a) Bail in the amount fixed may be filed with the court where
the case is pending, or in the absence or unavailability of the judge thereof, with any regional
trial judge, metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge, or municipal circuit trial judge in the
province, city, or municipality. If the accused is arrested in a province, city, or municipality other
than where the case is pending, bail may also be filed with any regional trial court of said place,
or if no judge thereof is available, with any metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge, or
municipal circuit trial judge therein.

(b) Where the grant of bail is a matter of discretion, or the accused seeks to be released
on recognizance, the application may only be filed in the court where the case is
pending, whether on preliminary investigation, trial, or on appeal.

(c) Any person in custody who is not yet charged in court may apply for bail with any
court in the province, city, or municipality where he is held. (17a)

Section 18. Notice of application to prosecutor. — In the application for bail under section 8 of
this Rule, the court must give reasonable notice of the hearing to the prosecutor or require him
to submit his recommendation. (18a)

Section 19. Release on bail. — The accused must be discharged upon approval of the bail by
the judge with whom it was filed in accordance with section 17 of this Rule.

Whenever bail is filed with a court other than where the case is pending, the judge who
accepted the bail shall forward it, together with the order of release and other supporting
papers, to the court where the case is pending, which may, for good reason, require a different
one to be filed. (19a)
Section 20. Increase or reduction of bail. — After the accused is admitted to bail, the court may,
upon good cause, either increase or reduce its amount. When increased, the accused may be
committed to custody if he does not give bail in the increased amount within a reasonable
period. An accused held to answer a criminal charge, who is released without bail upon filing of
the complaint or information, may, at any subsequent stage of the proceedings and whenever a
strong showing of guilt appears to the court, be required to give bail in the amount fixed, or in
lieu thereof, committed to custody. (20a)

Section 21. Forfeiture of bond. — When the presence of the accused is required by the court or
these Rules, his bondsmen shall be notified to produce him before the court on a given date and
time. If the accused fails to appear in person as required, his bail shall be declared forfeited and
the bondsmen given thirty (30) days within which to produce their principal and to show cause
why no judgment should be rendered against them for the amount of their bail. Within the said
period, the bondsmen must:

(a) produce the body of their principal or give the reason for his non-production; and

(b) explain why the accused did not appear before the court when first required to do so.

Failing in these two requisites, a judgment shall be rendered against the bondsmen, jointly and
severally, for the amount of the bail. The court shall not reduce or otherwise mitigate the liability
of the bondsmen, unless the accused has been surrendered or is acquitted. (21a)

Section 22. Cancellation of bail. — Upon application of the bondsmen, with due notice to the
prosecutor, the bail may be cancelled upon surrender of the accused or proof of his death.

The bail shall be deemed automatically cancelled upon acquittal of the accused, dismissal of the
case, or execution of the judgment of conviction.

In all instances, the cancellation shall be without prejudice to any liability on the bond. (22a)

Section 23. Arrest of accused out on bail. — For the purpose of surrendering the accused, the
bondsmen may arrest him or, upon written authority endorsed on a certified copy of the
undertaking, cause him to be arrested by a police officer or any other person of suitable age and
discretion.

An accused released on bail may be re-arrested without the necessity of a warrant if he

attempts to depart from the Philippines without permission of the court where the case is
pending. (23a)

Section 24. No bail after final judgment; exception. — No bail shall be allowed after the
judgment of conviction has become final. If before such finality, the accused has applies for
probation, he may be allowed temporary liberty under his bail. When no bail was filed or the
accused is incapable of filing one, the court may allow his release on recognizance to the
custody of a responsible member of the community. In no case shall bail be allowed after the
accused has commenced to serve sentence. (24a)

Section 25. Court supervision of detainees. — The court shall exercise supervision over all
persons in custody for the purpose of eliminating unnecessary detention. The executive judges
of the Regional Trial Courts shall conduct monthly personal inspections of provincial, city, and
municipal jails and their prisoners within their respective jurisdictions. They shall ascertain the
number of detainees, inquire on their proper accommodation and health and examine the
condition of the jail facilities. They shall order the segregation of sexes and of minors from
adults, ensure the observance of the right of detainees to confer privately with counsel, and
strive to eliminate conditions inimical to the detainees.

In cities and municipalities to be specified by the Supreme Court, the municipal trial judges or
municipal circuit trial judges shall conduct monthly personal inspections of the municipal jails in
their respective municipalities and submit a report to the executive judge of the Regional Trial
Court having jurisdiction therein.

A monthly report of such visitation shall be submitted by the executive judges to the Court
Administrator which shall state the total number of detainees, the names of those held for more
than thirty (30) days, the duration of detention, the crime charged, the status of the case, the
cause for detention, and other pertinent information. (25a)

Section 26. Bail not a bar to objections on illegal arrest, lack of or irregular preliminary
investigation. — An application for or admission to bail shall not bar the accused from
challenging the validity of his arrest or the legality of the warrant issued therefor, or from
assailing the regularity or questioning the absence of a preliminary investigation of the charge
against him, provided that he raises them before entering his plea. The court shall resolve the
matter as early as practicable but not later than the start of the trial of the case. (n)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPINES VS. NOVO TANES Y BELMONTE

G.R. No. 240596. April 3, 2019
FACTS:
On April 6, 2011, an information was filed against herein respondent Tanes for violating Section
5, Article II of RA 9165, selling of prohibited drugs. A buy bust operation was conducted on
December 14, 2010 wherein Tanes sold 0.0296 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride to a
poseur buyer. Afterwards an inventory was made where the three witnesses from the media,
Department of Justice, and an elected official was made to sign the inventory sheet.
Respondent posted bail and was granted by the trial court on the basis that the evidence of his
guilt is not strong, hence, this petition.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the presence of the three witnesses need to be at the actual buy bust
operation and not only during the inventory.
2. Whether Tanes have the right to bail.
HELD:
1. Yes.
In this regard, Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165 lays down the following procedure to be
followed in order to maintain the integrity of the confiscated drugs used as evidence: (1) the
seized items must be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation;
(2) the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the accused
or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, (c) a representative from the
media, and (d) a representative from the DOJ, all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of
the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
The phrase “immediately after seizure and confiscation” means that the physical inventory and
photographing of the drugs were intended by the law to be made immediately after, or at the
place of apprehension. It is only when the same is not practicable that the Implementing Rules
and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. 9165 allow the inventory and photographing to be done as soon as
the buy-bust team reaches the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending
officer/team. In this connection, this also means that the three required witnesses should
already be physically present at the time of the conduct of the physical inventory of the seized
items which, as mentioned, must be immediately done at the place of seizure and confiscation –
a requirement that can easily be complied with by the buy-bust team considering that the buy-
bust operation is, by its nature, a planned activity.
In the present case, it appears that the buy-bust team committed several procedural lapses
concerning the chain of custody of the seized drug. In particular, the RTC and the CA found that:

CASES UNDER RULE 114

A. Juan Ponce Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan ( 3rd division ) and People of the Philippines

Facts:
Year 2014, Sen. Enrile was charged with plunder before the Sandiganbayan for their alleged involvement
in the diversion and misuse of appropriation under the PDAF. When his warrant was issued, Sen. Enrile
voluntarily surrendered to the CIDG and was later confined and detained at the PNP General Hospital, he
then filed a motion to fix bail where he argued that:

1. He should be allowed to post bail as a matter of right;

2. Although charged with plunder his penalty would only be reclusion temporal considering that
there are two mitigating circumstances, his voluntary surrender and that he is already at the
age of 90;
3. That he is not a flight risk and his medical condition must be seriously considered.
The Sandiganbayan however, denied his motion on the grounds that:

1. He is charged with a capital offense;

2. That it is premature for the Court to fix the amount of his bail because the prosecution have
not yet presented its evidences.
Sen. Enrile then filed a certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Issue:
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction for denying his motion to fix bail?

Ruling:
Yes, the Supreme Court held that the Sandiganbayan arbitrarily ignored the objective of bail and
unwarrantedly disregarded Sen. Enrile’s fragile health and advanced age. Bail is a matter right and is
safeguarded by the constitution, its purpose is to ensure the personal appearance of the accused during
trial or whenever the court requires and at the same time recognizing the guarantee of due process which
is the presumption of his innocence until proven guilty. The Supreme Court further explained that Bail for
the provisional liberty of the accused, regardless of the crime charged should be allowed independently of
the merits charged, provided his continued incarceration is injurious to his health and endanger his life.
Hence, the Sandiganbayan failed to observe that if Sen. Enrile be granted the right to bail it will enable
him to have his medical condition be properly addressed and attended, which will then enable him to
attend trial therefore achieving the true purpose of bail.
B. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPINES VS. NOVO TANES Y BELMONTE

G.R. No. 240596. April 3, 2019

FACTS:
On April 6, 2011, an information was filed against herein respondent Tanes for violating Section 5,
Article II of RA 9165, selling of prohibited drugs. A buy bust operation was conducted on December 14,
2010 wherein Tanes sold 0.0296 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride to a poseur buyer. Afterwards
an inventory was made where the three witnesses from the media, Department of Justice, and an
elected official was made to sign the inventory sheet. Respondent posted bail and was granted
by the trial court on the basis that the evidence of his guilt is not strong, hence, this petition.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the presence of the three witnesses need to be at the actual buy bust
operation and not only during the inventory.
2. Whether Tanes have the right to bail.

HELD:
1. Yes.
In this regard, Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165 lays down the following procedure to be
followed in order to maintain the integrity of the confiscated drugs used as evidence:
(1) the seized items must be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation.
(2) the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of

(a) the accused or his/her representative or counsel,

(b) an elected public official,
(c) a representative from the media, and (
d) a representative from the DOJ,

all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. The phrase
“immediately after seizure and confiscation” means that the physical inventory and photographing of the
drugs were intended by the law to be made immediately after, or at the place of apprehension. It is only
when the same is not practicable that the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. 9165 allow
the inventory and photographing to be done as soon as the buy-bust team reaches the nearest police
station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team. In this connection, this also means
that the three required witnesses should already be physically present at the time of the conduct of the
physical inventory of the seized items which, as mentioned, must be immediately done at the place of
seizure and confiscation –
a requirement that can easily be complied with by the buy-bust team considering that the buy- bust
operation is, by its nature, a planned activity. In the present case, it appears that the buy-bust team
committed several procedural lapses concerning the chain of custody of the seized drug. In particular, the
RTC and the CA found that:

(1) there was no representative from the DOJ present during the buy-bust operation and the inventory;
(2) the two other witnesses (i.e., the media representative and the elected public official) were not present
during the apprehension and seizure of the illegal drug but were merely called to sign the inventory sheet;
and (
3) no photograph was presented showing the Inventory of the seized shabu in the presence of Tanes and
the witnesses. These lapses in the chain of custody created doubt as to the identity and integrity of the
seized drug. Consequently,
the evidence as to Tanes’ guilt cannot be characterized as strong.

2. Yes.
The right to bail is recognized in the Bill of Rights, as stated in Section 13, Article III of the
Constitution:
SEC. 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when
evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on
recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be
required. In this regard, Rule 114 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:
SEC. 7. Capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, not bailable.
– No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage
of the criminal prosecution. Thus, before conviction, bail is a matter of right when the offense charged is
punishable by any penalty lower than reclusion perpetua. Bail becomes a matter of discretion if the
offense charged is punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment that is, bail will be
denied if the evidence of guilt is strong.To determine whether evidence of guilt of the accused is strong,
the conduct of bail hearings is required where the prosecution has the burden of proof, subject to the right
of the defences to cross-examine witnesses and introduce evidence in rebuttal. The court is to conduct
only a summary hearing, consistent with the purpose of merely determining the weight of evidence for
purposes of bail.