Case Digest (G.R. No. 238141)
Facts:
William Cruz y Fernandez and Virgilio Fernandez y Torres v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 238141, July 01, 2019, Supreme Court Second Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners William Cruz y Fernandez and Virgilio Fernandez y Torres (petitioners) sought review of the Court of Appeals' decision affirming their conviction for illegal numbers gambling under RA 9287.
On July 10, 2015, Police Officer 3 Ramon de Guzman (PO3 de Guzman) and Police Officer 2 Joel Sabordo (PO2 Sabordo) conducted surveillance along Mabini Street, Barangay Poblacion, Binmaley, Pangasinan. From a distance of about five meters they observed the two petitioners carrying ball pens, papelitos, and money; they allegedly saw petitioners collecting bets for a numbers game (variously described in the records as "jai-alai" or "jueteng"). The officers asked if the men were employees of Meredien Vista Gaming Corporation (MVGC); when petitioners failed to show authority, the officers arrested them, confiscated the ball pens, papelitos, and money, and brought them to the police station.
Informations dated July 13, 2015 charged petitioners with violating Section 3(d) of RA 9287 (as coordinators/controllers), but the RTC, Branch 69, Lingayen, in a Joint Decision dated September 29, 2015 found both guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(c) (as collectors/agents) and sentenced them to an indeterminate term of eight years and one day to nine years. The RTC upheld the warrantless in flagrante delicto arrest and treated possession of the papelitos and other items as prima facie evidence of participation in jueteng.
Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which in a Decision dated November 29, 2017 affirmed the RTC in toto, accepting the arresting officers' positive testimony that they caught petitioners soliciting bets and there...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the warrantless in flagrante delicto arrest of petitioners lawful under Rule 113, Section 5(a) and controlling jurisprudence?
- If the arrest was unlawful, are the items seized admissible and sufficient to sustain conviction for violation of Section 3(c) of ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)