This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
, case digests, and other nitty gritty facts about being in a law school. "Dura Lex Sed Lex" - The law may be harsh but it is the law; the prolific group of students from CPC College of Law :-) Total Pageviews 37,279 Search My Blog
Welcome to My Nook Feel free to view my law notes and case digests. I usually post my notes here on wee hours and often in the company of a cup/s of coffee as I multi-task (blog, work, Skype, write, edit, research, study, blah, blah, blah . ....) lost in my own virtual world.
I instantly fell in love with law school, finally finding something that matches my thirst for challenge painstaking yet fulfilling. Everyday promises a new learning experience with something to always look forward to as I find my journey in law school unfolds.
Blog Archive ► 2012 (45) ▼ 2011 (112)
► December (29) ► August (10) ► July (1) ► June (14) ► March (5) ► February (21) ▼ January (32) Silverio v CA 195 SCRA 760 (1991) Manotoc v CA 142 SCRA 149 (1986) Marcos v Manglapus 177 SCRA 668 (1989) Pamil v Teleron 86 SCRA 413 (1978) Ebralinag v Division Supt. of Cebu 219 SCRA 256 (... American Bible Society v City of Manila 101 PHIL ... Garces v Estenzo 104 SCRA 510 (1981) Aglipay v Ruiz 64 PHIL 201 (1937) PBM Employees Asso. v PBM 51 SCRA 189 (1973) Luzviminda dela Cruz v CA, et. al. 305 SCRA 303 ... Malaban v Ramento 129 SCRA 359 (1984) Reyes v Bagatsing 125 SCRA 553 (1983) Pita v CA 178 SCRA 362 (1989) Reyes v Bagatsing 125 SCRA 553 (1983) Ayer Production PTY Ltd. V Capulong (1988) US v Bustos 37 PHIL 731 (1909) Miriam College Foundation, Inc. v CA 348 SCRA 265... Iglesia ni Cristo v CA 259 SCRA 529 (1996)
Adiong v Comelec 207 SCRA 712 (1992) People v Deniega 251 SCRA 626 (637) SSS Employee Asso. v CA 175 SCRA 686 (July 28, 198... Victoriano v Elizalde Rope Workers Union 59 SCRA 5... In Re: Edillon 84 SCRA 554 (1978) PBM Employees Asso. v PBM 51 SCRA 189 (1973) Legaspi v CSC 150 SCRA 530 (1987) Luzviminda dela Cruz v CA, et. al. 305 SCRA 303 Borjal v Court of Appeals 301 SCRA 1 January 14,... SSS Employee Asso. v CA 175 SCRA 686 (July 28, 198... Miriam College Foundation, Inc. v CA 348 SCRA 265... Arrests / Searches and Seizures DUE PROCESS OF LAW / EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE FUNDAMENTAL POWER OF THE STATE ► 2010 (7)
Subscribe To This Blog Posts Comments Share It
Visit My Other Blogs Health Matters Now What's On the News With Philippine Law Philippine Law Supreme Court
. imposed in the 1970s by the dictator Ferdinand E.. During that period. Bayan Muna party-list Rep. University of the Philippines Prof. The government is still threshing out how to ..Philippine birth control law takes effect Sydney Morning Herald A controversial birth control law has come into effect in the Philippines after more than a decade of bitter opposition from the influential Catholic church.. political opponents were abducted. Neri Colmenares. tortured and sometimes killed.. Related Articles » Philippine Law Forbids Abductions by Military New York Times The kidnapping of political opponents by the security forces in the Philippines is a legacy of martial law. In this syndicated guest article . Jesus Disini and Julius Matibag of the National Union . Related Articles » Arguments for and against the Philippine Cybercrime Law e27 Editor's note: We earlier featured a news and opinion piece on the Philippine Cybercrime law. SC to hear oral arguments on cyber law Philippine Star The five lawyers are international law expert Harry Roque. Philippine Bar Association legal counsel Rodel Cruz. Jr. Marcos. with women saying the change came as a relief. Related Articles » powered by Followers Follow by Email ... notably online activist Tonyo Cruz' take on the temporary restraining order issued against the Cybercrime Law late in 2012.
It was contended that the court erred in admitting the evidence in a violation of his constitutional rights against illegal search and seizure and privacy of communication. the owner opened the package for inspection prior to delivery to the Bureau of Post/Customs and smelled a peculiar odor from the box which prompted him to investigate further and found some dried leaves inside. The lab result showed the samples were that of marijuana leaves. Following standard operating procedure. He took samples and forwarded the content of the shipment to NBI for lab test. NBI took charge of the inventory of the package and an information was filed against the appellant in violation of RA 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act). Thereafter. He was then investigated by the narcotics division of the NBI and was requested to bring the package to their office. . Issue: Whether or not the evidence obtained should be inadmissible to court.Arrests / Searches and Seizures Posted by Evelyn By: Evelyn Chua Bergantinos-De Matias Section 2 – Searches and Seizures People v Marti 193 SCRA57 (1991) “marijuana leaves on the package” Facts: The appellant is sending a package to Switzerland thru the packing and export forwarder business owned by Job Reyes.
and other documents showing all business transactions including disbursement receipts. 42 search warrants against petitioners personally. journals. Document seized from an illegal search warrant is not admissible in court as a fruit of a poisonous tee. they could not be returned. In the absence of government interference. On March 20. Thus the court affirmed that the evidence is deemed admissible to the case and affirmed the decision of the lower court finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. vouchers. The case at bar however has a peculiar character where the evidence was obtained by a private person without the intervention of State authorities. the Constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure cannot be invoked against the State. Tariff and Customs Laws. The Bill of Rights provided by the Constitution is not meant to be invoked against act of private individuals and such restraint is only directed against the government and any of its agencies. There is no probable cause and warrant did not particularly specify the things to be seized. Held: Search warrants issued were violative of the Constitution and the Rules. warehouses and/or residences to search for personal properties “books of accounts. However. correspondence. ledgers. money and other records. . and/or corporations for which they are officers directing peace officers to search the persons of petitioners and premises of their offices. typewriters. 1962. illegal or being general warrants. financial records. receipts. there seized documents. portfolios. ** Stonehill v Diokno 20 SCRA 383 (1967) Facts: Respondents issued. on different dates. Petitioners then were subjected to deportation proceedings and were constrained to question the legality of the searches and seizures as well as the admissibility of those seized as evidence against them.Held: The court held that as a general rule evidence obtained thru illegal and unreasonable search and seizures by law enforcers and other government agencies are inadmissible to court. thus. credit journals. caprice or passion of peace officers. and Revised Penal Code. papers. the SC issued a writ of preliminary injunction and partially lifted the same on June 29. Internal Revenue Code. balance sheets and profit and loss statements and Bobbins(cigarettes)” as the subject of the offense for violations of Central Bank Act. Upon effecting the search in the offices of the aforementioned corporations and on the respective residences of the petitioners. The purpose of the requirement is to avoid placing the sanctity of the domicile and the privacy of communication and correspondence at the mercy of the whims. 1962 with respect to some documents and papers. except if warranted by the circumstances.
1988. to determine probable cause. subsequently. he filed a "Motion . 1988. by the President. Issues: (1) Whether or Not petitioners were denied due process when informations for libel were filed against them although the finding of the existence of a prima facie case was still under review by the Secretary of Justice and. 1988. if any. the President. to determine probable cause Held: With respect to petitioner Beltran.affidavits. A second motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner Beltran was denied by the Secretary of Justice on April 7. petitioners' contention that they have been denied the administrative remedies available under the law has lost factual support. On March 30. the Secretary of Justice denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration and upheld the resolution of the Undersecretary of Justice sustaining the City Fiscal's finding of a prima facie case against petitioners. affirmed the resolution of the Secretary of Justice on May 2. 1988. With these developments. three principal issues were raised: (1) whether or not petitioners were denied due process when informations for libel were filed against them although the finding of the existence of a prima facie case was still under review by the Secretary of Justice and. (2) Whether or Not the constitutional rights of Beltran were violated when respondent RTC judge issued a warrant for his arrest without personally examining the complainant and the witnesses. ** Soliven v Makasiar 167 SCRA 393 (1988) Facts: In these consolidated cases. the allegation of denial of due process of law in the preliminary investigation is negated by the fact that instead of submitting his counter. The motion for reconsideration was denied by theExecutive Secretary on May 16. On appeal. if any. and (2) whether or not the constitutional rights of Beltran were violated when respondent RTC judge issued a warrant for his arrest without personally examining the complainant and the witnesses. by the President. subsequently. through theExecutive Secretary. Subsequent events have rendered the first issue moot and academic.Petitioners were not the proper party to question the validity and return of those taken from the corporations for which they acted as officers as they are treated as personality different from that of the corporation.
All that is required is that the respondent be given theopportunity to submit counter-affidavits if he is so minded. calls for an interpretation of the constitutional provision on the issuance of warrants of arrest. In satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. a finding of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction cannot be sustained. he may disregard the fiscal's report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause." in effect waiving his right to refute the complaint by filing counteraffidavits. on the basis thereof. with regard to the issuance of the warrants of arrest. houses. raised by petitioner Beltran. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. Following established doctrine and procedure. This is not an accurate interpretation. issue a warrant of arrest. The addition of the word "personally" after the word "determined" and the deletion of the grant of authority by the 1973 Constitution to issue warrants to "other responsible officers as may be authorized by law. 2. Sound policy dictates this procedure. The petitions fail to . The right of the people to be secure in their persons. papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable. The second issue. he shall: (1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and. Due process of law does not require that the respondent in a criminal case actually file hiscounter-affidavits before the preliminary investigation is deemed completed. It has not been shown that respondent judge has deviated from the prescribed procedure." has apparently convinced petitioner Beltran that the Constitution now requires the judge to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses in his determination of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest. Sec. The pertinent provision reads: Art. III. or (2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause.to Declare Proceedings Closed. and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge afterexamination nder oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. Thus. the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. otherwise judges would be unduly laden with the preliminary examination and investigation of criminal complaints instead of concentrating on hearing and deciding cases filed before their courts.
The Order to maintain the status quo contained in the Resolution of the Court en banc dated April 7. Issue: Whether or Not Search Warrant No. Judge Nickarter Ontal. R. 1 is invalid due to the failure of the judge to examine the witness in the form of searching questions and answers. 82585.1 pursuant to the said applications for violation of RA 6425 Dangerous Drugs ACT of 1972. In the course of the search. The warrant authorizes Sgt. Villamor to make an immediate search at any time of the room of Mr. lockers. Held: Search Warrant No. then the presiding judge of RTC of Dumaguete issued Search Warrant No. chief of the PC Narcom Detachment in Dumaguete City filed an "application for search warrant" and "Deposition of witness" against petitioner Nicomedes Silva and Martin Silva. cigarette and joint.231. gravely abused their discretion as to amount to lack of jurisdiction. the Court Resolved to DISMISS the petitions in G.1 is invalid. 82827 and 83979. Judge Ontal is guilty of grave abuse of discretion when he rejected the motion of Antonieta Silva seeking the return of her money. Such warrant states that there is a probable cause to believe that Mr. WON the officers abused their authority in seizing the money of Antonieta Silva. 1988 and reiterated in the Resolution dated April 26. 1988 is LIFTED. Villamor. through their separate acts. finding no grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction on the part of the public respondents. Tama Silva at the residence of his father Comedes Silva and to open aparadors. Such questions are not sufficiently searching to establish probable cause.1 on the ground that 1) it was issued on the sole basis of mimeographed 2) the judge failed to personally examine the complainant and witness by searching questions and answers. cabinets. cartons and containers to look for said illegal drugs. The questions were already mimeographed and all the witness had to do was fill in their answers on the blanks provided. the officers seized money belonging to Antonieta Silva in the amount of P1. Hence.40. The questions asked were leading as they are answerable by mere yes or no.establish that public respondents. Nos. . ** Silva v Presiding Judge 203 SCRA 140 (1991) Facts: Sgt. Petitioner filed a motion to quash Search Warrant No. Tama Silva has the possession and control of marijuana dried leaves. WHEREFORE. the writs of certiorari and prohibition prayed for cannot issue.
Richard Sherman was found with two naked boys inside his room. 52 and Jonh Sherman 72. While Van Den Elshout in the “after Mission Report” read that two children of ages 14 and 16 has been under his care and subjects confirmed being live-in for sometime now. Seized during the petitioner’s apprehension were rolls of photo negatives and photos of suspected child prostitutes shown in scandalous poses as well as boys and girls engaged in sex. personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers. 58. *** Sec 4 Rule 126 Rules of Court Examination of the complainant. Posters and other literature advertising the child prostitutes were also found. 1 is declared null and void.. Petitioners are the following: American nationals Andrew Harvey. Morano v Vivo 20 SCRA 562 (1967) ** Harvey v Santiago 162 SCRA 840 (1988) Facts: This is a petition for Habeas Corpus. Search Warrant No. The warrant did not indicate the seizure of money but only for marijuana leaves.The officers who implemented the search warrant clearly abused their authority when they seized the money of Antonieta Silva.etc. in writing and under oath the complainant and any witness he may produce the facts personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn statements together with their affidavits. Dutch Citizen Adriaan Van Den Elshout. All reside at Pagsanjan Laguna respondent Commissioner Miriam Defensor Santiago issued Mission Orders to the Commission of Immigration and Deportation (CID) to apprehended petitioners at their residences. record -the judge before issuing the warrant. . cigarettes. The “Operation Report” read that Andrew Harvey was found together with two young boys.
1. moral. (3) Whether or Not the writ of Habeas Corpus may be granted to petitioners. Issues: (1) Whether or Not the Commissioner has the power to arrest and detain petitioners pending determination of existence of probable cause. (2) Whether or Not there was unreasonable searches and seizures by CID agents. The court heard the case on oral argument on 20 April 1988. In view of the foregoing. spiritual and social well being of the youth. Trial by the Board of Special Inquiry III commenced the same date. The rule that search and seizures must be supported by a valid warrant of arrest is not an absolute rule. The articles were seized as an incident to a lawful arrest.) Search is incidental to the arrest. deportation proceedings were instituted against aliens for being undesirable aliens under Sec. Laguna. 45 and 46 of Immigration Act and sec69 of RevisedAdministrative Code.Petitioners were among the 22 suspected alien pedophiles.) Seizure of evidence in plain view.69 of Revised Administrative Code. another charged not for pedophile but working with NO VISA. it violates the declared policy of the state to promote and protect the physical. the 3 petitioners chose to face deportation proceedings. On 4 March1988. therefore the articles are admissible evidences (Rule 126. Petition for bail was filed 11March 1988 but was not granted by the Commissioner of Immigration. Held: While pedophilia is not a crime under the Revised Penal Code. Section12 of Rules on Criminal Procedure). 4 April1988 Petitioners filed a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. . One released for lack of evidence. 2. There are at least three exceptions to this rule. Warrants of Arrest were issued 7March1988 against petitioners for violation of Sec37. They were apprehended 17 February1988 after close surveillance for 3 month of the CID in Pagsanjan. 3. The arrest of petitioners was based on the probable cause determined after close surveillance of 3 months. The existence of probable cause justified the arrest and seizure of articles linked to the offense.) Search in a moving vehicle. 17 of the arrested aliens opted for self-deportation. the search done was incidental to the arrest.
A fair hearing must also be conducted with assistance of a counsel if desired. Tayabas. With said warrant. ordering the search of the Alvarez’s house at any time of the day or night. It a police measure against the undesirable aliens whose continued presence in the country is found to be injurious to the public good and tranquility of the people. It is a fundamental rule that habeas corpus will not be granted when confinement is or has become legal. In his oath at the end of the affidavit. the seizure of the books and documents and the immediate delivery thereof to him to be disposed of in accordance with the law. What is essential is that there should be a specific charge against the alien intended to be arrested and deported. on said date. the power to deport aliens is an act of the State and done under the authority of the sovereign power. documents. the deportation charges and the hearing presently conducted by the Board of Special Inquiry made their detention legal. Narciso Alvarez kept in his house in Infanta. receipts. of the Department of Justice. it need not be conducted strictly in accordance with ordinary Court proceedings. chits and other papers used by him in connection with his activities as a moneylender.m. charging usurious rates of interest in violation of the law. Upon the affidavit the judge. Furthermore. ** Alvarez v CFI 64 PHIL 33 (1937) Facts: On 3 June 1936. of 4 June 1936. Section 37 (a) provides that aliens shall be arrested and deported upon warrant of the Commissioner ofImmigration and Deportation after a determination by the Board of Commissioners of the existence of a ground for deportation against them. although such confinement was illegal at the beginning. Deportation proceedings are administrative in character and never construed as a punishment but a preventive measure. Therefore. an affidavit alleging that according to reliable information. several agents of the Anti-Usury Board entered Alvarez’s store and residence at 7:00 p. issued the warrant which is the subject matter of the petition. Lastly. lists. the chief of the secret service of the Anti-Usury Board.The filing of the petitioners for bail is considered as a waiver of any irregularity attending their arrest and estops them from questioning its validity. He did not swear to the truth of his statements upon his own knowledge of the facts but upon the information received by him from a reliable person. books. presented to Judge Eduardo Gutierrez David then presiding over the Court of First Instance of Tayabas. and seized and took possession of the following articles: internal revenue licenses . The deportation charges instituted by the Commissioner ofImmigration are in accordance with Sec37 (a) of the PhilippineImmigration Act of 1940 in relation to sec69 of the RevisedAdministrative code. the chief of the secret service stated that his answers to the questions were correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
and praying that said warrant be cancelled. filed a motion praying that the order of the 8th of said month be set aside and that the AntiUsury Board be authorized to retain the articles seized for a period of 30 days for the necessary investigation. 14 bundles of invoices and other papers. herein. On 10 June. As the articles had not been brought immediately to the judge who issued the search warrant. and praying that he be granted said period of 60 days. 9 order books. why all the articles seized appearing in the inventory should not be returned to Alvarez. the court issued an order holding: that the search warrant was obtained and issued in accordance with the law. be ordered immediately to deposit all the seized articles in the office of the clerk of court and that said agent be declared guilty of contempt for having disobeyed the order of the court. said official again filed another motion alleging that he needed 60 days to examine the documents and papers seized. should not be cancelled. 34. On October 10.for the years 1933 to 1936. the attorney for the petitioner filed a petition alleging that the search warrant issued was illegal and that it had not yet been returned to date together with the proceedings taken in connection therewith. 1 ledger. that the agent who seized them be declared guilty of contempt of court. The assistant chief of the AntiUsury Board of the Department of Justice filed a motion praying. The search for and seizure of said articles were made with the opposition of Alvarez who stated his protest below the inventories on the ground that the agents seized even the originals of the documents. Alvarez. 1 bundle of stubs of purchases of copra. 48 stubs of purchases of copra. that an order be issued directing the return of all the articles seized to Alvarez. that the articles seized be ordered retained for the purpose of conducting an investigation of the violation of the Anti-Usury Law committed by Alvarez. be exonerated. 2 memorandums. 2 packages of correspondence. Alvarez. 25-27. 36-43 and 45. that it had been duly complied with and. 2 inventories. 5. 10. representing the Anti-Usury Board. 2 cashbooks. the court granted him the period of 60 days to investigate said 19 documents. 2 bundles of bills of lading. 2 contracts. 4 stubs. promissory notes and stubs of used checks of the Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC). 504 chits. 1 receipt book belonging to Luis Fernandez. 2 journals. Siongco. and prays that all the articles in question be returned to him. 4 check stubs. and to present an inventory duly verified by oath of all the articles seized. On September 10. Issue: Whether the search warrant issued by the court is illegal because it has been based upon the affidavit of agent Almeda in whose oath he declared that he had no personal knowledge of the facts . 30-31 . asks that the search warrant as well as the order authorizing the agents of the Anti-Usury Board to retain the articles seized. together with the proceedings taken by him. within the unextendible period of 2 days from the date of notice of said order. through his attorney. On said date the court issued an order directing Siongco to deposit all the articles seized within 24 hours from the receipt of notice thereof and giving him a period of 5 days within which to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt of court. be declared illegal and set aside. 3 bankbooks. In an order of October 16. and that agent Siongco did not commit any contempt of court and must. On June 25. 23. many documents and loan contracts with security and promissory notes. for the reasons stated therein. 16. Attorney Arsenio Rodriguez. filed a motion on 8 June 1936. 1 bundle of credit receipts. which are designated on pages 1 to 4 of the inventory by Nos. consequently. or any other agent. and that charges be filed against him for abuse of authority. therefore. and ordering the chief of the Anti-Usury Board in Manila to show cause. 4 notebooks. if any. the court issued an order requiring agent Siongco forthwith to file the search warrant and the affidavit in the court. On July 2. praying that the agent Emilio L.
paragraph 3. Inasmuch as the affidavit of the agent was insufficient because his knowledge of the facts was not personal but merely hearsay. because the purpose thereof is to convince the committing magistrate. Therefore. Neither the Constitution nor General Orders 58 provides that it is of imperative necessity to take the depositions of the witnesses to be presented by the applicant or complainant in addition to the affidavit of the latter. and it is sometimes defined as an outward pledge given by the person taking it that his attestation or promise is made under an immediate sense of his responsibility to God. an oath includes any form of attestation by which a party signifies that he is bound in conscience to perform an act faithfully and truthfully. Held: Section 1. Thus the warrant issued is likewise illegal because it was based only on the affidavit of the agent who had no personal knowledge of the facts. The purpose of both in requiring the presentation of depositions is nothing more than to satisfy the committing magistrate of the existence of probable cause. it is sufficient if the judge is satisfied that there exists probable cause. of the existence of probable cause. the judge may dispense with that of other witnesses. The affidavit. the affidavit of one or more witnesses having a personal knowledge of the facts is necessary. of Article III of the Constitution and Section 97 of General Orders 58 require that there be not only probable cause before the issuance of a search warrant but that the search warrant must be based upon an application supported by oath of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce. It is admitted that the judge who issued the search warrant in this case.which were to serve as a basis for the issuance of the warrant but that he had knowledge thereof through mere information secured from a person whom he considered reliable. if the affidavit of the applicant or complainant is sufficient. is insufficient and fatally defective by reason of the manner in which the oath was made. which served as the exclusive basis of the search warrant. not the individual making the affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant. it is the practice in this jurisdiction to attach the affidavit of at least the applicant or complainant to the application. Further. When the affidavit of the applicant or complainant contains sufficient facts within his personal and direct knowledge. documents and other papers are illegal. ** Mata v Bayona 128 SCRA 388 (1984) . when the applicant’s knowledge of the facts is mere hearsay. The oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses. In its broadest sense. The true test of sufficiency of an affidavit to warrant issuance of a search warrant is whether it has been drawn in such a manner that perjury could be charged thereon and affiant be held liable for damages caused. relied exclusively upon the affidavit made by agent Almeda and that he did not require nor take the deposition of any other witness. and therefore. the search warrant and the subsequent seizure of the books. and that it is illegal as it was not supported by other affidavits aside from that made by the applicant. it is the duty of the judge to require the affidavit of one or more witnesses for the purpose of determining the existence of probable cause to warrant the issuance of the search warrant.
Such written deposition is necessary in order that the Judge may be able to properly determine the existence or nonexistence of the probable cause. Issue: Whether the judge must before issuing the warrant personally examine on oath or affirmation the complainant and any witnesses he may produce and take their depositions in writing. with the petition for certiorari. and attach them to the record. Mayote. stating that the court has made a thorough investigation and examination under oath of Bernardo U. took and arranged bets on the Jai Alai game by “selling illegal tickets known as ‘Masiao tickets’ without any authority from the Philippine Jai Alai & Amusement Corporation or from the government authorities concerned.” Mata claimed that during the hearing of the case. so that he had to inquire from the City Fiscal its whereabouts. and to which inquiry Judge Josephine K. The motion was denied by the Judge on 1 March 1979. Mata’s motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid order having been denied. members of the Intelligence Section of 352nd PC Co. Bayona. to hold liable for perjury the person giving it if it will be found later that his declarations are false./Police District II INP. therefore. The Rules provide that the judge must before issuing the warrant personally examine on oath or affirmation the complainant and any witnesses he may produce and take their depositions in writing. presiding Jufe of the City Court of Ormoc replied. in addition to any affidavits presented to him. or in any proceedings on the matter. he discovered that nowhere from the records of the said case could be found the search warrant and other pertinent papers connected to the issuance of the same. praying. . and attach them to the record. that in fact the court made a certification to that effect. and that the fact that documents relating to the search warrant were not attached immediately to the record of the criminal case is of no moment. More emphatic and detailed is the implementing rule of the constitutional injunction. in addition to any affidavits presented to him. This led Mata to file a motion to quash and annul the search warrant and for the return of the articles seized. “it is with the court”. We. rendering the search warrant invalid. hold that the search warrant is tainted with illegality by the failure of the Judge to conform with the essential requisites of taking the depositions in writing and attaching them to the record. and that all the articles confiscated under such warrant as inadmissible as evidence in the case. among others. considering that the rule does not specify when these documents are to be attached to the records. The Judge then handed the records to the Fiscal who attached them to the records. the information against him alleging that Soriano Mata offered. he came to the Supreme Court.Facts: Soriano Mata was accused under Presidential Decree (PD) 810. that the Court declare the search warrant to be invalid for its alleged failure to comply with the requisites of the Constitution and the Rules of Court. Section 4 of Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court. Held: Under the Constitution “no search warrant shall issue but upon probable cause to be determined by the Judge or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce”. citing and invoking. among others. Goles and Reynaldo T. Mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are thus not sufficient. The examining Judge has to take depositions in writing of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce and to attach them to the record. as amended by PD 1306.
pars. ROC.22 caliber pistol with 3 live ammunition. The Court finds that the persons detained have not been illegally arrested nor arbitrarily deprived of their constitutional right to liberty and that the circumstances attending these cases do not warrant their release on HC.. Wherefore the decision is reversed and the accused is acquitted. Issue: Whether or Not the seizure of the firearms was proper. An arrest w/o a warrant. ** Umil v Ramos 187 SCRA 311 (1990) As for cases of rebellion. Sec 2 art. the case of Umil vs. 5. (a) and (b) of Rule 113. viz. with or without a warrant. particularly methamphetamine or shabu. III of the constitution specifically provides that a search warrant must particularly describe the things to be seized. The seizure of the firearms was unconstitutional. Ramos (187 SCRA 311). as amended is justified when the person arrested is caught in flagrante delicto. its paraphernalia’s and of a . a rebel may be arrested at any time. After the issuance of the search warrant. In herein case. PER CURIAM These are 8 petitions for habeas corpus (HC) filed bef. . under Sec.** People v Del Rosario 234 SCRA 246 (1994) Facts: Accused was charged and convicted by the trial court of illegal possession of firearms and illegal possession and sale of drugs. clearly states that since rebellion is a continuing offense. an entrapment was planned that led to the arrest of del Rosario and to the seizure of the shabu. the Court. or when an offense has just been committed and the person making the arrest has personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the person arrested has committed it. as he is deemed to be in the act of committing the offense at any time of the day or night. Held: No. in the act of committing an offense. the only objects to be seized that the warrant determined was the methamphetamine and the paraphernalia’s therein. which authorized the search and seizure of an undetermined quantity of methamphetamine and its paraphernalia’s.
Dural was arrested for being a member of the NPA. and that they are.C. Upon positive identification by an eyewitness. the arrest of Dural w/o warrant is justified as it can be said that he was committing an offense when arrested. Dural was referred to the Caloocan City Fiscal who conducted an inquest and thereafter filed w/ the RTC-Caloocan City an info. further detained by virtue of valid informations filed against them in court. Dural was then transferred to the Regional Medical Services of the CAPCOM. . However. Subversion being a continuing offense. an outlawed subversive organization. or any other milder acts but equally in pursuance of the rebellious movement. It was found that the wounded person. As to Dural. is more an act of capturing them in the course of an armed conflict. who was listed in the hospital records as Ronnie Javelon. who has been released on bail. Agnes Hospital in Roosevelt Ave. is now moot and academic and is accordingly dismissed. he was not arrested while in the act of shooting the 2 soldiers. a member of the NPA liquidation squad. The arrest. since the writ does not lie in favor of an accused in a crim. Enrile. The arrest of persons involved in rebellion whether as its fighting armed elements. I In Umil v. so that their arrests. when apprehended. than for the purpose of immediately prosecuting them in court for a statutory offense. the issuance of a judicial warrant and the granting of bail if the offense is bailable. the absence of a judicial warrant is no legal impediment to arresting or capturing persons committing overt acts of violence against govt forces. therefore. insofar as Umil & Villanueva are concerned. about a member of the NPA-Sparrow unit being treated for a gunshot wound at the St. Nor was he arrested after the commission of said offense for his arrest came a day after the shooting incident." The petition for HC.) . xxx (Garcia-Padilla v. responsible for the killing of 2 CAPCOM soldiers the day before. to quell the rebellion. Ramos. need not follow the usual procedure in the prosecution of offenses w/c requires the determination by a judge of the existence of probable cause bef. w/o warrant were clearly justified. or for committing non-violent acts but in furtherance of rebellion. is actually Rolando Dural. charging Dural w/ the crime of "Double Murder w/ Assault upon agents of persons in authority. RIOU-CAPCOM received confidential info.The persons in whose behalf these petitions for HC have been filed had freshly committed or were actually committing an offense. Obviously. Q. case.
Sucro was reported to be selling marijuana at a chapel 2 meters away from Regalado’s house. Seraspi to intercept. Sec 12 of Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything. While the police officers were at the Youth Hostel in Maagama St. the writ of HC is no longer available ** People v Sucro 195 SCRA 388 (1991) Facts: Pat. However. Quimpo and Veterans. warantless search and seizures are legal as long as PROBABLE CAUSE existed. (2) Whether or Not evidence from such arrest is admissible.Dural was found guilty of the charge and is now serving the sentence imposed upon him by the trial court. Fulgencio went to Arlie Regalado’s house at C. Macabante was intercepted at Mabini and Maagama crossing in front of Aklan Medical center. The police officers have personal knowledge of the actual commission of the crime from the surveillance of . Sucro was monitored to have talked and exchanged things three times. Rule 126. Recovered were 19 sticks and 4 teabags of marijuana from a cart inside the chapel and another teabag from Macabante.(People v. Castiller) The failure of the police officers to secure a warrant stems from the fact that their knowledge required from the surveillance was insufficient to fulfill requirements for its issuance. Thus. The police team intercepted and arrested SUCRO at the corner of C. A third buyer was transacting with appellant and was reported and later identified as Ronnie Macabante.Seraspi proceeded to the area. Held: Search and seizures supported by a valid warrant of arrest is not an absolute rule. Quimpo to monitor activities of Edison SUCRO (accused). without a search warrant. which may be used as proff of the commission of an offense. Macabante admitted buying the marijuana from Sucro in front of the chapel. Fulgencio told Lt. Seraspi. P/Lt. Macabante saw the police and threw a tea bag of marijuana on the ground. Issues: (1) Whether or Not arrest without warrant is lawful. From that moment. These activities are reported through radio to P/Lt.
The authorities immediately conducted a raid and apprehended the accused while confiscating marijuana leaves and syringes. while traveling in the wrong direction on a one-way street. however. The Narcom agents should have secured a valid search warrant prior the raid since they have already been conducting surveillance against the accused for quite sometime already and the urgency of their cause of action cannot be justified in court. it is presumed that they are regularly in performance of their duties. almost had a collision with another vehicle. the term in flagrante delicto requires that the suspected drug dealer must be caught redhanded in the act of selling marijuana or any prohibited drug to a person acting or posing as a buyer. Petitioner thereafter got out of his car. accompanied by 2 lawyers. As police officers were the ones conducting the surveillance. The raid however was not authorized by a search warrant. People v Rodrigueza 205 SCRA 791 (1992) “buy-bust operation and raid without search warrant” Facts: An informer of the Narcotics Division reported activity on illegal drug trafficking to the authorities and a buy-bust operation was conducted where the informer successfully bought 100 grams of marijuana for P10. Subsequently a criminal charge was brought against him.00 from the accused. Applied to the case at bar. who subsequently ordered a manhunt for petitioner. 6 days after the shooting. Accused now contends that the court erred in admitting the evidence seized without any search warrant and in violation of his constitutional rights. An eyewitness of the incident was able to take down petitioner’s plate number and reported the same to the police. Hence the accused was acquitted. the prosecutor filed the . petitioner presented himself in the police station. Issue: Whether or not evidence obtained without a valid search warrant may be used to prosecute the accused. the police detained him. shot the driver of the other vehicle. Petitioner posted bail. and drove off. Held: The court held that a buy bust operation is a form of entrapment employed by peace officers to trap and catch a malefactor in flagrante delicto. ** Go v CA 206 SCRA 138 (1992) Facts: Petitioner.the activities of the accused. the procedure adopted by the NARCOM agents failed to meet this qualification. In the instant case.
he neither expressed surrender nor any statement that he was or was not guilty of any crime. Prosecutor made a substantive error. they spotted petitioner carrying a "buri" . Issues: (1) Whether or Not warrantless arrest of petitioner was lawful. Rule 112 of The 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides for the rules and procedure pertaining to situations of lawful warrantless arrests. as when he walked in the police station. petitioner is ordered released upon posting a bail bond. Davao City. preliminary investigation should have been scheduled to determine probable cause.case to the lower court. necessarily in a criminal charge. were conducting a surveillance along Magallanes. (2) Whether or Not petitioner effectively waived his right to preliminary investigation. Prosecutor reasons that the petitioner has waived his right to preliminary investigation as bail has been posted and that such situation.e. Further. that petitioner has been arrested without a warrant lawfully. which however constituted “continuing crimes. Held: Petitioner and prosecutor err in relying on Umil v. falls under Section 5. membership in an outlawed organization. There was no lawful warrantless arrest under Section 5. both members of the INP of the Davao Metrodiscom assigned w/ the Intelligence Task Force. where the same is required appear thereat. Petitioner was not arrested at all. Petitioner in his petition for certiorari assails such procedure and actions undertaken and files for a preliminary investigation. petitioner is entitled to preliminary investigation. Rule 113 and Section 7. wherein the Court upheld the warrantless arrest as valid effected 1 to 14 days from actual commission of the offenses. Section 7. St. etc. setting and commencing trial without preliminary investigation. ** Posadas v CA 188 SCRA 288 (1990) F: Patrolmans Ungab and Umpar. prosecutor is ordered to conduct preliminary investigation.” i. This is because the arresting officers were not actually there during the incident.. Petition granted. subversion. Ramos. does not apply. trial for the criminal case is suspended pending result from preliminaryinvestigation. thus they had no personalknowledge and their information regarding petitioner were derived from other sources. Rule 113. While they were w/in the premises of the Rizal Memorial Colleges. When a complaint was filed to the prosecutor. Rule 112.
and trial on the merits. a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything (w/c may be) used as proof of a commission of an offense. gun. it was effected on the basis of a probable cause. just been committed. He was prosecuted for illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions in the RTC of Davao City wherein after a plea of not guilty. among others. when in his presence the person to be arrested has committed. is actually committing. 12. there was a probable cause that he was concealing something illegal in the bag and it was the right and duty of the police officers to inspect the same. futile and much too late. the main thrust of w/c is that there being no lawful arrest or search and seizure. It is too much indeed to require the police officers to search the bag in the possession of the petitioner only after they shall have obtained a SW for the purpose. the latter is more reasonable considering that. As bet. a warrantless search and seizure (S & S) conducted at military or police checkpoints and the search thereof in the case at bar. foremost of w/c is the 'stop & search' w/o a SW at military or police checkpoints.22 cal. it is clear that an arrest w/o a warrant may be effected by a peace officer or private person. Petitioner attempted to flee but was stopped by the 2. unlike in the former. The probable cause is that when the petitioner acted suspiciously and attempted to flee w/ the buri bag. or when an offense has in fact. the constitutionality of w/c has been upheld by this Court in Valmonte v. there are many instances where a warrant & seizure can be effected w/o necessarily being preceded by an arrest. or is attempting to commit an offense. . They just suspected that he was hiding something in the buri bag. 5. HELD: From Sec. indeed. Petitioner was brought to the police station for further investigation. They did not know what its contents were. They then checked the "buri" bag of the petitioner where they found 1 caliber . & he has personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the person arrested has committed it. the offense. The said circumstances did not justify an arrest w/o a warrant. w/ 2 rounds of live ammunition for a . a decision was rendered finding petitioner guilty. R 136 of ROC.38 cal. The CA affirmed the appealed decision in toto. de Villa. R 113. The Sol-Gen argues that under Sec. & 2 live ammunition for a . Hence. However.bag & they noticed him to be acting suspiciously. they did not know that he had committed. there is no question that. a smoke grenade. ROC. gun. Such an exercise may prove to be useless. They approached the petitioner and identified themselves as members of the INP. At the time the peace officers identified themselves and apprehended the petitioner as he attempted to flee. the items w/c were confiscated from the possession of the petitioner are inadmissible in evidence against him. w/o a SW. or was actually committing.38 Smith & Wesson revolver. the petition for review.
" PETITION DENIED. For his part. it is reasonable for an officer rather than simply to shrug his shoulder and allow a crime to occur. RAM.As the Sol-Gen said: "The assailed S & S may still be justified as akin to a 'stop and frisk' situation whose object is either to determine the identity of suspicious individuals or to maintain the status quo momentarily while the police officers seeks to obtain more info.. (not in VV's revised outline) (e) When there is a valid express waiver made voluntarily and intelligently. whereupon the two tried to run but unable to escape because the other lawmen surrounded them. to stop a suspicious individual briefly in order to determine his identity or maintaing the status quo while obtaining more info. The US SC held in Terry v. Mengote made no effort to prove that he owned the fire arm or that he was licensed to possess it but instead. An information was filed before the RTC convicting the accused of illegal possession of firearm arm.. he claimed that the weapon was planted on him at the time of his arrest. He was convicted for violation of . The weapons were taken from them and they were turned over to the police headquarters for investigation." In such a situation. The suspects were then searched. which he reported to the police including the revolver. ** People v Mengote 210 SCRA 174 (1992) Facts: The Western Police District received a telephone call from an informer that there were three suspicious looking persons at the corner of Juan Luna and side to side. while his companion had a fan knife.38 caliber with live ammunitions in it. for it many happen that he did so only out of respect for the authorities. one of whom holding his abdomen. . Waiver cannot be implied from the fact that the person consented or did not object to the search. One of them the accused-appellant was found with a . The waiver must be expressly made. They approached the persons and identified themselves as policemen. A witness testified that the weapon was among the articles stolen at his shop. Ohio that "a police officer may in appropriate circumstances & in an appropriate manner approach a person for the purpose of investigating possible criminal behaviour even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest.
near the Mercury Drug store at Plaza Miranda. Manila. Manila. comprised of three . or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. Issue: Whether or not the warrantless search and arrest was illegal. There was apparently no offense that has just been committed or was being actually committed or at least being attempt by Mengote in their presence. is actually committing. Quiapo. according to the arresting officers themselves. Quiapo. Judgment is reversed and set aside. Rodolfo Yu of the Western Police District.P. In his appeal he pleads that the weapon was not admissible as evidence against him because it had been illegally seized and therefore the fruit of a poisonous tree. the accused appellant was merely looking from side to side and holding his abdomen. At the time of the arrest in question. Metropolitan Police Force of the Integrated National Police. or is attempting to commit an offense. They chanced upon two groups of Muslim-looking men. III sec 32 of the Constitution. North Bay Boulevard in Tondo. was on foot patrol with three other police officers (all of them in uniform) along Quezon Boulevard. These requirements have not been established in the case at bar. Rule 113 sec.m.. Accused-appellant is acquitted. Moreover a person may not be stopped and frisked in a broad daylight or on a busy street on unexplained suspicion. Police Station No. A surveillance team of plainclothesmen was forthwith dispatched to the place. The patrolmen saw two men looking from ** Malacat v CA 283 SCRA 159 (December 12. (b) when the offense in fact has just been committed. with each group.1866 and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. provides arrest without warrant lawful when: (a) the person to be arrested has committed.5 of the Rules of Court. 1997) Facts: On 27 August 1990. 3. Manila.D. allegedly in response to bomb threats reported seven days earlier. at about 6:30 p. Held: An evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure inadmissible in any proceeding for any purpose as provided by Art. and he has personal knowledge of the facts indicating the person arrested has committed it and (c) the person to be arrested has escaped from a penal establishment or a place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending.
Petitioner was once again searched. The trial court thus found Malacat guilty of the crime of illegal possession of explosives under Section 3 of PD 1866. These men were acting suspiciously with “their eyes moving very fast. inasmuch as allegedly the previous Saturday. However.” where a “warrant and seizure can be effected without necessarily being preceded by an arrest” and “whose object is either to maintain the status quo momentarily while the police officer seeks to obtain more information”. assisted by counsel de officio.” The concepts of a “stop-and-frisk” and of a search incidental to a lawful arrest must not be confused. At arraignment on 9 October 1990. they are limited to the following: (1) customs searches. Upon searching Malacat. these are found in Section 5. Turning to valid warrantless searches. the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. On 18 February 1994. the trial court ruled that the warrantless search and seizure of Malacat was akin to a Issue: Whether the search made on Malacat is valid. and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of not less than 17 years. searches and seizures is that a warrant is needed in order to validly effect the same.to four men. He saw the grenade only in court when it was presented. The police officers then approached one group of men. posted at opposite sides of the corner of “stop and frisk. petitioner. These two types of warrantless searches differ in terms of the . On 30 August 1990.” while that under Section 5(b) has been described as a “hot pursuit” arrest. and that the seizure of the grenade from Malacat was incidental to a lawful arrest. searches and seizures refers to those effected without a validly issued warrant.” Held: The general rule as regards arrests. entered a plea of not guilty. police officer Rogelio Malibiran. A warrantless arrest under the circumstances contemplated under Section 5(a) has been denominated as one “in flagrante delicto. (4) consent searches. In its decision dated 10 February 1994 but promulgated on 15 February 1994. (2) search of moving vehicles. As the policemen gave chase. as minimum. who then fled in different directions. Manalili filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. the record of the case was forwarded to the Court of Appeals (CA-GR CR 15988). Malacat was charged with violating Section 3 of Presidential Decree 1866. but nothing was found on him.” Yu and his companions positioned themselves at strategic points and observed both groups for about 30 minutes. pursuant to the exception of “stop and frisk. Malacat denied the charges and explained that he only recently arrived in Manila. Yu did not issue any receipt for the grenade he allegedly recovered from Malacat. Yu saw Malacat and 2 others attempt to detonate a grenade). as maximum. hitting him with benches and guns. Yu found a fragmentation grenade tucked inside the latter’s “front waist line. Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. The Constitutional prohibition against unreasonable arrests. Yu caught up with and apprehended Sammy Malacat y Mandar (who Yu recognized. In its decision of 24 January 1996. Quezon Boulevard near the Mercury Drug Store. However. apprehended Abdul Casan from whom a . likewise at Plaza Miranda. (5) a search incidental to a lawful arrest.38 caliber revolver was recovered. Malacat and Casan were then brought to Police Station 3 where Yu placed an “X” mark at the bottom of the grenade and thereafter gave it to his commander. and (6) a “stop and frisk. As regards valid warrantless arrests. (3) seizure of evidence in plain view. and not more than 30 years of Reclusion Perpetua. 25 August 1990. subject to certain exceptions.” Yu’s companion. several other police officers mauled him. Malacat filed a notice of appeal indicating that he was appealing to the Supreme Court. 4 months and 1 day of Reclusion Temporal.
for as he admitted.” A genuine reason must exist. assuming that Malacat was indeed hiding a grenade. could not have been visible to Yu. Plainly. ** People v Aruta 288 SCRA 626 (1998) Facts: On Dec. to believe that Malacat was armed with a deadly weapon. and from all indications as to the distance between Yu and Malacat. there was at all no ground. or an overt physical act. as the precedent arrest determines the validity of the incidental search. Third.” it nevertheless holds that mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a “stop and frisk. while probable cause is not required to conduct a “stop and frisk. and (2) the more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation which permit the police officer to take steps to assure himself that the person with whom he deals is not armed with a deadly weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against the police officer. Abello was tipped off by his informant that a certain “Aling Rosa” will be arriving from Baguio City with a large volume of marijuana and assembled a team. any telltale bulge. probable or otherwise. Finally. at the Victory Liner Bus terminal they waited for the bus coming from Baguio. They found dried marijuana leaves packed in a plastic bag marked “cash katutak”. approach a person for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even without probable cause. to warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons concealed about him. Second. there was nothing in Malacat’s behavior or conduct which could have reasonably elicited even mere suspicion other than that his eyes were “moving very fast” — an observation which leaves us incredulous since Yu and his teammates were nowhere near Malacat and it was already 6:30 p. the search conducted on Malacat could not have been one incidental to a lawful arrest. indicating that a crime had just been committed. when the informer pointed out who “Aling Rosa” was. under appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner. the team approached her and introduced themselves as NARCOM agents. was being committed or was going to be committed. On the other hand. Malacat and his companions were merely standing at the corner and were not creating any commotion or trouble. thus presumably dusk. In a search incidental to a lawful arrest. the latter handed it out to the police. the arresting officer. .requisite quantum of proof before they may be validly effected and in their allowable scope. in light of the police officer’s experience and surrounding conditions. which underlies the recognition that a police officer may. 1988. When Abello asked “aling Rosa” about the contents of her bag. The next day. there are at least three (3) reasons why the “stop-and-frisk” was invalid: First. None was visible to Yu.m. 13. a “stop-and-frisk” serves a two-fold interest: (1) the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection. there is grave doubts as to Yu’s claim that Malacat was a member of the group which attempted to bomb Plaza Miranda 2 days earlier. Here. the alleged grenade was “discovered” “inside the front waistline” of Malacat. Here. This claim is neither supported by any police report or record nor corroborated by any other police officer who allegedly chased that group. What is unequivocal then are blatant violations of Malacat’s rights solemnly guaranteed in Sections 2 and 12(1) of Article III of the Constitution. P/Lt. on the part of Malacat. there could have been no valid in flagrante delicto or hot pursuit arrest preceding the search in light of the lack of personal knowledge on the part of Yu..
4. . Also. (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent. Seizure of evidence in "plain view. when she was later on arrested by the police. (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are. Held: The following cases are specifically provided or allowed by law: 1. The trial court convicted the accused in violation of the dangerous drugs of 1972 Issue: Whether or Not the police correctly searched and seized the drugs from the accused. the defense filed a demurrer to evidence alleging the illegality of the search and seizure of the items. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12. and (d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further search. Rule 126 of the Rules of Court 8 and by prevailing jurisprudence 2. While about to cross the road an old woman asked her for help in carrying a shoulder bag." the elements of which are: (a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties. 3. no search warrant was presented. the accused claimed that she had just come from Choice theatre where she watched a movie “Balweg”. Search of a moving vehicle. She has no knowledge of the identity of the old woman and the woman was nowhere to be found. the vehicle's inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity. Highly regulated by the government. Consented warrantless search. In her testimony.Instead of presenting its evidence.
7. — A peace officer or a private person may. or is attempting to commit an offense. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances. arrest a person: (a) When. Stop and Frisk. and . Customs search. she was merely crossing the street and was not acting suspiciously for the Narcom agents to conclude that she was committing a crime. when lawful. There was no legal basis to effect a warrantless arrest of the accused’s bag. The essential requisite of probable cause must still be satisfied before a warrantless search and seizure can be lawfully conducted. The seized marijuana was illegal and inadmissible evidence. 6. Arrest without warrant. is actually committing. RULE 113. in his presence. there was no probable cause and the accused was not lawfully arrested. RULES OF COURT Section 5. The accused cannot be said to be committing a crime. and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it. The police had more than 24 hours to procure a search warrant and they did not do so. (b) When an offense has just been committed. without a warrant. the person to be arrested has committed.5.
return and proceedings thereon. or any court within the judicial region where the warrant shall be enforced. In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b) above. RULE 126.(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 is temporarily confined while his case is pending. any court within the judicial region where the crime was committed if the place of the commission of the crime is known. RULES OF COURT Section 2. Court where application for search warrant shall be filed. Delivery of property and inventory thereof to court. the application shall only be made in the court where the criminal action is pending. if refused admittance to the place of directed search after giving notice of his purpose and authority. . the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112. Section 12. b) For compelling reasons stated in the application. — An application for search warrant shall be filed with the following: a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed. if the criminal action has already been filed. or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. Section 7. Right to break door or window to effect search. may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house or any part of a house or anything therein to execute the warrant or liberate himself or any person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained therein. However. — The officer.
A violation of this section shall constitute contempt of court. as amended. shall summon the person to whom the warrant was issued and require him to explain why no return was made. Tublay. the judge shall ascertain whether section 11 of this Rule has been complained with and shall require that the property seized be delivered to him. 1989. as amended. the Commanding Officer of the First Regional Command (NARCOM) stationed at Camp Dangwa. The order to establish a checkpoint in the said area was prompted by persistent reports that vehicles coming from Sagada were transporting marijuana and other prohibited drugs. ordered his men to set up a temporary checkpoint at Kilometer 14. the result. Upon his arrival thereat in the morning of the following day. information was received by the Commanding Officer . People v Aminnudin 163 SCRA 402 (1988) ** People v Malmstedt 198 SCRA 401 (1991) Facts: In an information filed against the accused. Captain Alen Vasco. entered the Philippines for the third time in December 1988 as a tourist. otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. the accused went to Nangonogan bus stop in Sagada. and if none. a Swedish national. (b) Ten (10) days after issuance of the search warrant. together with a true inventory thereof duly verified under oath. the issuing judge shall ascertain if the return has been made. he took a bus to Sagada and stayed in that place for two (2) days. If the return has been made. Benguet. Accused Mikael Malmstedt. for violation of Section 4. He had visited the country sometime in 1982 and 1985.appellant Mikael Malmstead was charged before the RTC of La Trinidad. and other actions of the judge. Mountain Province. for the purpose of checking all vehicles coming from the Cordillera Region. (c) The return on the search warrant shall be filed and kept by the custodian of the log book on search warrants who shall enter therein the date of the return. II of Republic Act 6425. Then in the 7 in the morning of May 11. accused left for Baguio City. The judge shall see to it that subsection (a) hereof has been complied with. In the evening of 7 May 1989. Moreover. Art. Acop. At about 8: 00 o'clock in the morning of that same day (11 May 1989).(a) The officer must forthwith deliver the property seized to the judge who issued the warrant.
The group composed of seven (7) NARCOM officers. Feeling the teddy bears. the officers opened the teddy bears and they were found to also contain hashish. an information was filed against accused for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. But before he alighted from the bus. Representative samples were taken from the hashish found among the personal effects of accused and the same were brought to the PC Crime Laboratory for chemical analysis. the officer required him to bring out whatever it was that was bulging on his waist. Upon stepping out of the bus. During the inspection. The wrapped objects turned out to contain hashish. in coordination with Tublay Police Station. set up a checkpoint at the designated area at about 10:00 o'clock in the morning and inspected all vehicles coming from the Cordillera Region. In the chemistry report. the officers got the bags and opened them. that same morning that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had in his possession prohibited drugs. When accused failed to comply.of NARCOM. a derivative of marijuana. as ordered. La Trinidad. CIC Galutan noticed a bulge on accused's waist. the officer noticed that there were bulges inside the same which did not feel like foam stuffing. A teddy bear was found in each bag. Thereafter. prompting the officer to open one of the wrapped objects. Thus. accused stopped to get two (2) travelling bags from the luggage carrier. accused was invited outside the bus for questioning. At the investigation room. The bulging object turned out to be a pouch bag and when accused opened the same bag. Benguet for further investigation. the officer asked for accused's passport and other identification papers. Accused who was the sole foreigner riding the bus was seated at the rear thereof. the officer noticed four (4) suspicious-looking objects wrapped in brown packing tape. The two (2) NARCOM officers started their inspection from the front going towards the rear of the bus. Accused was then brought to the headquarters of the NARCOM at Camp Dangwa. Suspecting the bulge on accused's waist to be a gun. It was only after the officers had opened the bags that accused finally presented his passport. a prohibited drug which is a derivative of marijuana. ACCUSED’S DEFENSE . it was established that the objects examined were hashish.
He also claimed that the hashish was planted by the NARCOM officers in his pouch bag and that the two (2) travelling bags were not owned by him. He further claimed that the Australian couple intended to take the same bus with him but because there were no more seats available in said bus. papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. accused argues that the search of his personal effects was illegal because it was made without a search warrant and. Held: The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons. in his presence. arrest a person: (a) When. therefore. but were merely entrusted to him by an Australian couple whom he met in Sagada. However. or is attempting to commit an offense. accused entered a plea of "not guilty. A lawful arrest without a warrant may be made by a peace officer or a private person under the following circumstances. without a warrant. Sec. Issue: Whether or Not the contention of the accused is valid. they decided to take the next ride and asked accused to take charge of the bags. the prohibited drugs which were discovered during the illegal search are not admissible as evidence against him. –– A peace officer or a private person may. houses. The trial court found the guilt of the accused Mikael Malmstedt established beyond reasonable doubt." For his defense.During the arraignment. he raised the issue of illegal search of his personal effects. there is no need to obtain a search warrant. 5 Arrest without warrant. and therefore the RTC ruling be reversed. when lawful. where the search is made pursuant to a lawful arrest. the person to be arrested has committed is actually committing. . and that they would meet each other at the Dangwa Station. Seeking the reversal of the decision of the trial court finding him guilty of the crime charged.
however. and Senior Police Officers Ruben Laddaran and Winifredo Noble of NARCOM posted themselves at the gate of Pier 1. the search made upon his personal effects falls squarely under paragraph (1) of the foregoing provisions of law. at about 6:00 in the morning. and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. the Coastguard chief officer CPO Tolin. 11 and attempted to flee. which allow a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest. A crime was actually being committed by the accused and he was caught in flagrante delicto. because of existence of probable cause. Probable cause has been defined as such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonable.m. instructed them to intercept the suspect. which was arriving at that moment in Dumaguete City. Upon receipt of the information. and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. under the circumstances of the case. ** People v Saycon 236 SCRA 325 (1994) Facts: On or about 8 July 1992. a certain Miagme. where the smell of marijuana emanated from a plastic bag owned by the accused. or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed. Costs against the accusedappellant. there was sufficient probable cause for said officers to believe that accused was then and there committing a crime. discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed. The MV Doña Virginia docked at 6:00 a. A combined team of NARCOM agents and Philippine Coastguard personnel consisting of CPO Tolin. the Coastguard personnel received information from NARCOM agent Ruben Laddaran that a suspected "shabu" courier by the name of Alvaro Saycon was on board the MV Doña Virginia. The appealed judgment of conviction by the trial court is hereby affirmed. While it is true that the NARCOM officers were not armed with a search warrant when the search was made over the personal effects of accused. 10 or where the accused was acting suspiciously. Thus. Warrantless search of the personal effects of an accused has been declared by this Court as valid. Accused was searched and arrested while transporting prohibited drugs (hashish). . 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.
Then Saycon. giving Ani two newspaper wrappers containing dried . Alvaro Saycon alighted from the boat carrying a black bag and went through the checkpoint manned by the Philippine Coastguard where he was identified by police officer Winifredo Noble of NARCOM. there was a Marlboro pack containing the suspected "shabu". Three weeks earlier. more widely known as "shabu. From his position." Issue: Whether or Not the warrantless search was valid. The civilian informer guided Ani to Musa’s house and gave the description of Musa. The next day. At the headquarters. Drug couriers do not go about their trade with some external sign indicating that they are transporting prohibited drugs. agents of the Narcotics Command bought methamine hydrochloride from him. the NARCOM agents did not have a warrant of arrest. An agent of the Narcotics Command reported that the accused would be arriving on board the vessel and carrying methamphetamine hydrochloride with him. Ani said he wanted more marijuana and gave Musa the P20. Held: The warrantless search was valid. Ani was to raise his right hand if he successfully buys marijuana from Musa. as the accused was a passenger of a motor vehicle. Saycon was then invited to the Coastguard Headquarters at the Pier area. to conduct a surveillance and test buy on Musa.that same morning at Pier 1 in Dumaguete City. ** People v Musa 217 SCRA 597 (1993) Facts: A civilian informer gave the information that Mari Musa was engaged in selling marijuana in Suterville. He willingly went with them.00 marked money. Belarga could see what was going on. Ani was ordered by NARCOM leader T/Sgt. As Ani proceeded to the house. In it were personal belongings and a maong wallet. his bag and the suspected "shabu" were brought to the NARCOM office for booking. There was probable cause to believe that the accused was carrying prohibited drugs. The PNP's Forensic Analyst declared in court that she had conducted an examination of the specimens and found out that the specimens weighed 4. Inside that maong wallet. a buy-bust was planned. Saycon merely bowed his head. Sgt. When Alvaro Saycon was arrested. Musa went into the house and came back. Zamboanga City.2 grams in total. consisted of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Belarga. the NARCOM team positioned themselves about 90 to 100 meters away. When police officer Winifredo Noble asked Saycon whether the Marlboro pack containing the suspected "shabu" was his. the coastguard asked Saycon to open his bag. Ani was able to buy one newspaper-wrapped dried marijuana for P10. and the latter willingly obliged. This must be taken into account in determining probable cause. Musa came out of the house and asked Ani what he wanted.00.
Belarga and Sgt. the marijuana inside the plastic bag was not immediately apparent from the ‘plain view’ of said object. Issue: Whether or Not the seizure of the plastic bag and the marijuana inside it is unreasonable. the ‘plain view’ does not apply. They arrested the accused in the living room and moved into the kitchen in search for other evidences where they found the plastic bag. Therefore. As part of its duty to maitain peace and order. the NCRDC was activated w/ the mission of conducting security operations w/in its area or responsibility and peripheral areas. and providing an atmosphere conducive to the social. Held: Yes. It will not justify the seizure of the object where the incriminating nature of the object is not apparent from the ‘plain view’ of the object. Ani opened and inspected it. The plastic bag was seized illegally and cannot be presented in evidence pursuant to Article III Section 3 (2) of the Constitution. He raised his right hand as a signal to the other NARCOM agents. for the purpose of establishing an effective territorial defense. Belarga frisked Musa in the living room but did not find the marked money (gave it to his wife who slipped away). the NCRDC installed checkpoints in various parts of Valenzuela and MM. It constituted unreasonable search and seizure thus it may not be admitted as evidence. and the latter moved in and arrested Musa inside the house. maintaining peace and order. economic and political dev't of the NCR.marijuana. Objects 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 presented as evidence. Musa was then placed under arrest. as an incident to a suspect’s lawful arrest. The warrantless search and seizure. may extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include the premises or surroundings under his immediate control. hence. Lego went to the kitchen and found a ‘cellophane colored white and stripe hanging at the corner of the kitchen. In the case at bar. . inadmissible as evidence. ** Valmonte v De Villa 185 SCRA 665 (1989)F: On 1/20/87. T/Sgt.’ They asked Musa about its contents but failed to get a response. Furthermore. but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. So they opened it and found dried marijuana leaves inside. the plastic bag was not in the ‘plain view’ of the police. The ‘plain view’ doctrine is usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused.
. Read Rules 113 and 126. when conducted w/in reasonable limits. indeed. the former should prevail. – Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense. or threatened to be infringed. reasonably conducted. at the cost of occasional inconveninece.ARREST Section 1. Their alleged fear for their safety increased when Benjamin Parpon. the checkpoints during these abnormal times. The setting up of the questioned checkpoints may be considered as a security measure to enable the NCRDC to pursue its mission of establishing effective territorial defense and maintaining peace and order for the benfit of the public. the manning of checkpoints by the military is susceptible of abuse by the military in the same manner that all governmental power is susceptible of abuse. Checkpoints may not also be regarded as measures to thwart plots to destabilize the govt. in the course of their routine checks. are part of the price we pay for an orderly society and a peaceful community. the military. Between the inherent right of the state to protect its existence and promote public welfare and an individual's right against a warrantless search w/c is. in the interest of public security. No proof has been presented before the Court to show that. however. committed specific violations of petitioners' rights against unlawful search and seizure of other rights. illegal. Definition of arrest. True. The constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right invocable only by those whose rights have been infringed. the Valenzuela residents are worried of being harassed and of their sarety being placed at the arbitrary. HELD: Petitioner's concern for their safety and apprehension at being harassed by the military manning the checkpoints are not sufficient grounds to declare the checkpoints per se. of the institution of said checkpoints. discomfort and even irritation to the citizen. considering that their cars and vehicles are being subjected to regular searches and check-ups. capricious and whimsical disposition of the military manning the checkpoints. But. w/o a SW and/ or court order. bec. Revised Rules of Court RULE 113 .Petitioners aver that. especially at night or at dawn. Not all searches and seizures are prohibited. was gaunned down allegedly in cold blood by members of the NCRDC for ignoring and/ or continuing to speed off inspite of warning shots fired in the air. Those w/c are reasonable are not forbidden.
Arrest without warrant. Sec. except when he flees or forcibly resists before the officer has opportunity to so inform him. 5. when lawful. he shall state the reason therefore. 8. Arrest. – The head of the office to whom the warrant of arrest was delivered for execution shall cause the warrant to be executed within ten (10) days from its receipt. the officer shall inform the person to be arrested of the cause of the arrest and the fact that a warrant has been issued for his arrest. or when the giving of such information will imperil the arrest. the officer to whom it was assigned for execution shall make a report to the judge who issued the warrant. how made. Execution of warrant. The officer need not have the warrant in his possession at the time of the arrest but after the arrest. 4. – It shall be the duty of the officer executing the warrant to arrest the accused and deliver him to the nearest police station or jail without unnecessary delay. 6. or when the giving of such information will imperil the arrest. 2. the officer shall inform the person to be arrested of his authority and the cause of the arrest. Sec. the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112. 3. – An arrest is made by an actual restraint of a person to be arrested. No violence or unnecessary force shall be used in making an arrest. is actually committing. 7. – An arrest may be made on any day and at any time of the day or night. without a warrant. arrest a person: (a) When. if the person arrested so requires. Method of arrest by officer without warrant. – A peace officer or a private person may. in his presence.Sec. Duty of arresting officer. has escaped. Sec. Time of making arrest. – When making an arrest by virtue of a warrant. or forcibly resists before the officer has opportunity to so inform him. 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 is temporarily confined while his case is pending. or is attempting to commit an offense.chan robles virtual law library Sec. Sec. Method of arrest by officer by virtue of warrant. . Within ten (10) days after the expiration of the period. – When making an arrest without a warrant. is pursued immediately after its commission. (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. In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above. or by his submission to the custody of the person making the arrest. flees. or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. In case of his failure to execute the warrant. Sec. unless the latter is either engaged in the commission of an offense. The person arrested shall not be subject to a greater restraint than is necessary for his detention. the warrant shall be shown to him as soon as practicable. the person to be arrested has committed.
have the right to visit and confer privately with such person in the jail or any other place of custody at any hour of the day or night. signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer. or forcibly resists before the person making the arrest has opportunity to so inform him. he may break out therefrom when necessary to liberate himself. 13. Search warrant defined. may break into any building or enclosure where the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to be. any person may immediately pursue or retake him without a warrant at any time and in any place within the Philippines. – Any member of the Philippine Bar shall. flees. in order to make an arrest either by virtue of a warrant. – When making an arrest. Right of attorney or relative to visit person arrested. is pursued immediately after its commission. Sec. 12. at the request of the person arrested or of another acting in his behalf. Court where application for search warrant shall be filed. Every person so summoned by an officer shall assist him in effecting the arrest when he can render such assistance without detriment to himself. 11. Sec. Method of arrest by private person. or has escaped. 9. Arrest after escape or rescue.SEARCH AND SEIZURE Section 1. unless the latter is either engaged in the commission of an offense. or when the giving of such information will imperil the arrest. a private person shall inform the person to be arrested of the intention to arrest him and the case of the arrest. a relative of the person arrested can also exercise the same right. or any court within the judicial region where the warrant shall be enforced. commanding him to search for personal property described therein and bring it before the court. 10. – If a person lawfully arrested escapes or is rescued. . or without a warrant as provided in section 5. after announcing his authority and purpose. – A search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines. Officer may summon assistance. – An officer making a lawful arrest may orally summon as many persons as he deems necessary to assist him in effecting the arrest.chan robles virtual law library (b) For compelling reasons stated in the application. Right to break out from building or enclosure. Sec. 2. – Whenever an officer has entered the building or enclosure in accordance with the preceding section. – An officer.Sec. if he is refused admittance thereto. Sec. Subject to reasonable regulations. Sec. Right of officer to break into building or enclosure. – An application for search warrant shall be filed with the following: (a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed. RULE 126 . 14. any court within the judicial region where the crime was committed if the place of the commission of the crime is known. Sec.
or any other premises shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter. may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house or any part of a house or anything therein to execute the warrant to liberate himself or any person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained therein. 4. Issuance and form of search warrant. – The officer. – A search warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of personal property: (a) Subject of the offense. Sec. room. – The warrant must direct that it be served in the day time. he shall issue the warrant. it shall be void. or (c) Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense. if refused admittance to the place of directed search after giving notice of his purpose and authority. which must be substantially in the form prescribed by these Rules. Sec. – The officer seizing the property under the warrant must give a detailed receipt for the same to the lawful occupant of the premises in whose presence the . Thereafter. 10.chan robles virtual law library Sec. personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers. Sec. in writing and under oath. Sec. the application shall only be made in the court where the criminal action is pending. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines. – If the judge is satisfied of the existence of facts upon which the application is based or that there is probable cause to believe that they exist. Sec. together with the affidavits submitted. – No search of a house. Requisites for issuing search warrant. Receipt for the property seized. or fruits of the offense. (b) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds. or premises to be made in presence of two witnesses. the complainant and the witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn statements. unless the affidavit asserts that the property is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched. Search of house. Time of making search. Sec. Examination of complainant. 9. before issuing the warrant. 5. Sec. room. 8. 3. Right to break door or window to effect search. in which case a direction may be inserted that it be served at any time of the day or night. Validity of search warrant. 7. if the criminal action has already been filed. record. two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. 11. – A search warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days from its date. Sec. 6. – A search warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witness he may produce. Personal property to be seized.However. – The judge must.
and if none. 13. the judge shall ascertain whether section 11 of this Rule has been complied with and shall require that the property seized be delivered to him. together with a true inventory thereof duly verified under oath. – A motion to quash a search warrant and/or to suppress evidence obtained thereby may be filed in and acted upon only by the court where the action has been instituted. Sec. Sec. the result. . in the presence of at least two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. the motion shall be resolved by the latter court. (c) The return on the search warrant shall be filed and kept by the custodian of the log book on search warrants who shall enter therein the date of the return. A violation of this section shall constitute contempt of court. If no criminal action has been instituted. However. Search incident to lawful arrest. – (a) The officer must forthwith deliver the property seized to the judge who issued the warrant. the motion may be filed in and resolved by the court that issued search warrant. 12. Motion to quash a search warrant or to suppress evidence. Sec. the issuing judge shall ascertain if the return has been made. return and proceedings thereon. 14. – A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.search and seizure were made. if such court failed to resolve the motion and a criminal case is subsequently filed in another court. where to file. leave a receipt in the place in which he found the seized property. and other actions of the judge. or in the absence of such occupant. must. shall summon the person to whom the warrant was issued and require him to explain why no return was made. (b) Ten (10) days after issuance of the search warrant. If the return has been made. Delivery of property and inventory thereof to court. The judge shall see to it that subsection (a) hereof has been complied with.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.