Veroy v. Layague [GR 95630, 18 June 1992] En Banc, Paras (J): 12 concur Facts: Leopoldo and Ma.
Luisa Veroy are husband and wife residing in Davao City. When Veroy was promoted to the position of Assistant Administrator of the Social Security System sometime in June 1988, he and his family transferred to Quezon City. The care and upkeep of their residence in Davao City was left to 2 houseboys, Jimmy Favia and Eric Burgos, who had their assigned quarters at a portion of the premises. The Veroys would occasionally send money to Edna Soquilon for the salary of the said houseboys and other expenses for the upkeep of their house. While the Veroys had the keys to the interior of the house, only the key to the kitchen, where the circuit breakers were located, was entrusted to Edna Soquilon to give her access in case of an emergency. On 12 April 1990, Capt. Reynaldo Obrero of the Talomo Patrol Station, PC/INP raided Veroy’s house in Davao City on information that the said residence was being used as a safehouse of rebel soldiers. They were able to enter the yard with the help of the caretakers but did not enter the house since the owner was not present and they did not have a search warrant. Permission was requested by phone to Ma. Luisa Veroy who consented on the condition that the search be conducted in the presence of Major Macasaet. The following day, Capt. Obrero and Maj. Macasaet met at the Veroy’s house to conduct the search pursuant to the authority granted by Ma. Luisa. Capt. Obrero recovered a .45 cal. handgun with a magazine containing 7 live bullets in a black clutch bag inside an unlocked drawer in the children’s room. 3 half-full jute sacks containing printed materials of RAM-SFP were also found in the children’s room. A search of the children’s recreation and study area revealed a big travelling bag containing assorted clothing, a small black bag containing a book entitled “Islamic Revolution Future Path of the Nation”, a road map of the Philippines, a telescope, a plastic bag containing assorted medicines and religious pamphlets was found in the master’s bedroom. Inventory and receipt of seized articles were made. The case was referred for preliminary investigation to the Quezon City Assistant Prosecutor , who was designated Acting Provincial Prosecutor for Davao City by the DOJ through Department Order 88 (16 May 1990). In a resolution dated 6 August 1990, the Fiscal recommended the filing of an Information against the Veroys for violation of PD 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions in Furtherance of Rebellion). Hence, on 8 August 1990, an Information for the said offense was filed by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Davao City before the RTC Davao City). No bail was recommended by the prosecution. The fiscal’s resolution was received by the Veroys on 13 August 1990. The latter filed a motion for bail on the same day which was denied for being premature, as they have not been arrested yet. The Veroys voluntarily surrendered to Gen. Pantaleon Dumlao, but who refused to receive them o the ground that his office has not received copies of their warrants of arrest. In the meantime, on 15 August 1990, the Veroys were admitted to the St. Luke’s Hospital for various ailments brought about or aggravated by the stress and anxiety caused by the filing of the criminal complaint. On 17 August 1990, Gen. Dumlao granted their request that they be allowed to be confined at the hospital and placed under guard thereat. Upon arraignment on 1 October 1990, the Veroys pleaded not guilty and filed a motion for hospital confinement, which was denied. The court ordered their commitment at the Davao City Rehabilitation Center pending trial on the merits. At the conclusion thereof, the court issued a second order denying their motion for reconsideration. The Veroys were returned to the St. Luke’s Hospital where their physical condition remained erratic. Gen. Dumlao informed the Veroys that he had issued a directive for their transfer from the St. Luke’s Hospital to Camp Crame on the basis of the 2 October 1990
Order. They would proceed with their transfer pursuant to the order of the trial court, unless otherwise restrained by the court. The Veroys filed the petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition. Issue: Whether the permission granted by ma. Luisa Veroy for ascertaining thereat the presence of alleged “rebel soldiers” include the authority to conduct a room to room search once inside the house. Held: The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures (Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution). However, the rule that searches and seizures must be supported by a valid warrant is not an absolute one. Among the recognized exceptions thereto are: (1) a search incidental to an arrest; (2) a search of a moving vehicle; and (3) seizure of evidence in plain view (People v. Lo Ho Wing). The necessity of the permission obtained from Ma. Luisa underlines the recognition of Capt. Obrero of the need of a search warrant to enter the house. The permission granted by was for the purpose of ascertaining thereat the presence of the alleged “rebel” soldiers. The permission did not include any authority to conduct a room to room search once inside the house. The police officers had ample time to procure a search warrant but did not. Warrantless searches were declared illegal because the officials conducting the search had every opportunity to secure a search warrant. The items taken were, therefore, products of an illegal search, violative of their constitutional rights. As such, they are inadmissible in evidence in the criminal actions instituted against them. The offense of illegal possession of firearms is malum prohibitum but it does not follow that the subject thereof is necessarily illegal per se. Motive is immaterial in mala prohibita but the subjects of this kind of offense may not be summarily seized simply because they are prohibited. A search warrant is still necessary. Hence, the rule having been violated and no exception being applicable, the articles seized were confiscated illegally and are therefore protected by the exclusionary principle. They cannot be used as evidence against the Veroys in the criminal action against them for illegal possession of firearms. Besides, assuming that there was indeed a search warrant, still in mala prohibita, while there is no need of criminal intent, there must be knowledge that the same existed. Without the knowledge or voluntariness there is no crime. People v. Omaweng [GR 99050, 2 September 1992] Third Division, Davide (J): 3 concur, 1 on leave Facts: In the morning of 12 September 1988, PC constables with the Mt. Province PC Command put up a checkpoint at the junction of the roads, one going to Sagada and the other to Bontoc. They stopped and checked all vehicles that went through the checkpoint. At 9:15 a.m., they flagged down a cream-colored Ford Fiera (ABT-634) coming from the Bontoc Poblacion and headed towards Baguio. The vehicle was driven by Conway Omaweng and had no passengers. The Constables (Layong, et.al.) asked permission to inspect the vehicle to which Omaweng acceded to. When they peered into the rear of the vehicle, they saw a travelling bag which was partially covered by the rim of a spare tire under the passenger seat on the right side of the vehicle. They asked permission to see the contents of the bag to which Omaweng consented to. When they opened the bag, they found that it contained 41 plastic packets of different sizes containing pulverized substances. The constable gave a packet to his team leader, who, after
sniffing the stuff concluded that it was marijuana. The Constables thereafter boarded the vehicles and proceeded to the Bontoc poblacion to report the incident to the PC Headquarters. The prohibited drugs were surrendered to the evidence custodian. The PC Forensic Chemist at Camp Dangwa, La Trinidad, Benguet conducted 2 chemistry examinations of the substance contained in the plastic packets taken from appellant and found them to be positive for hashish or marijuana. Omaweng was indicted for the violation of Section 4, Article II of RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as amended, in a criminal complaint filed with the MTC Bontoc, Mountain Province on 12 September 1988. Upon his failure to submit counter-affidavits despite the granting of an extension of time to do so, the court declared that he had waived his right to a preliminary investigation and, finding probable cause against Omaweng, ordered the elevation of the case to the proper court. On 14 November 1988, the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Mountain Province filed an Information charging Omaweng with the violation of Section 47 Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended (Crim Case 713). After his motion for reinvestigation was denied by the Provincial Fiscal, Omaweng entered a plea of not guilty during his arraignment on 20 June 1989. During the trial on the merits, the prosecution presented 4 witnesses. Omaweng did not present any evidence other than portions of the Joint Clarificatory Sworn Statement, dated 23 December 1988, of prosecution witnesses Joseph Layong and David Fomocod. On 21 March 1991, the trial court promulgated its Judgment convicting Omaweng of the crime of transporting prohibited drugs (Section 4, Article II of RA 6425, as amended). Omaweng appealed to the Supreme Court. Issue: Whether Omaweng was subjected to search which violates his Constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Held: Omaweng was not subjected to any search which may be stigmatized as a violation of his Constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures. He willingly gave prior consent to the search and voluntarily agreed to have it conducted on his vehicle and travelling bag. The testimony of the PC Constable (Layung) was not dented on cross-examination or rebutted by Omaweng for he chose not to testify on his own behalf. Omaweng waived his right against unreasonable searches and seizures when he voluntarily submitted to a search or consents to have it made in his person or premises. He is precluded from later complaining thereof right to be secure from unreasonable search may, like every right, be waived and such waiver may be made either expressly or impliedly. Since in the course of the valid search 41 packages of drugs were found, it behooved the officers to seize the same; no warrant was necessary for such seizure. Lopez vs. Commissioner of Customs [GR L-27968, 3 December 1975] Second Division, Fernando (J): 4 concur, 1 took no part Facts: M/V Jolo Lema had been under strict surveillance by the combined team of agents of the NBI, PC, RASAC, and City Police of Davao prior to its apprehension at a private wharf in Batjak, Sasa, Davao City. M/V [Jolo Lema] was skippered (sic) by Capt. Aquilino Pantinople and chartered by Mr. Tomas Velasco. During the period from the latter part of August to September 18, 1966, the said vessel was in Indonesian waters where it loaded copra and coffee beans from Taruna, Pitta, and Mangenito, all of Indonesia. In its trip to Indonesia it brought various merchandise from the Philippines which were exchanged and/or bartered for copra and coffee beans and subsequently taken to Davao City. Said vessel passed Marore, Indonesia on 18
480 sacks of copra and 86 sacks of coffee from the M/V motor vessel Jolo Lema. and its decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court on 29 November 1974 in Nasiad vs. a combined team of Constabulary and Regional Anti-Smuggling Center operatives headed by Earl Reynolds. the awardee of such Philippine Reparations Commission vessel. 12 August 1992] First Division. Arellano-Bani. The seizure was declared lawful by the Court of Tax Appeals. reiterating that the person who was present at his hotel room was one Teofila Ibañez. is violative of such constitutional provision. then seized. therefore. There are conficting claims whether the manicurist Teofila Ibañez or whether Velasco’s wife. Velasco. it can readily be concluded that there was consent sufficient in law to dispense with the need for a search warrant People vs. November 29. Held: There was an attempt on the part of Lopez and Velasco to counteract the force of the recital of the written statement of Teofila Ibañez (allegedly wife of Tomas Velasco) by an affidavit of one Corazon Y. who was allegedly inside the room at that time. Lopez. who stated that she is the legal wife of Velasco. and some companions were sent to verify the presence of CPP/NPA members in Barangay Catacdang. Senior NBI Agent of Davao. Issue: Whether there was consent on the part of the person who was the occupant of the hotel room then rented by Velasco. “a manicurist by occupation. 61 SCRA 238). proceeded to the Velasco’s room at the Skyroom Hotel in Davao City. Medialdea (J): 3 concur Facts: On 18 June 1988. The Collector of Customs of Davao seized 1. Pangasinan. of the said day. a Philippine Constabulary officer connected with the 152nd PC Company at Lingayen. that was the most prudent course of action. It would save her and even Velasco himself from any gossip or innuendo. Candido Quijardo. who entered into a contract with Jose G. and whether the police officers “forcibly opened luggages and boxes from which only several documents and papers were found. voluntarily allowed the police officers to enter. prohibition and mandamus. There was a person inside who from all indications was ready to accede to their request. Indonesia before proceeding to Davao City where it was apprehended on 19 September 1966. then it is much more easily understandable why that person. would have signified her consent readily and immediately. Dagupan City. At about 3:00 p. for its operation and use ostensibly for fishing. Even common courtesy alone would have precluded them from inquiring too closely as to why she was there. Court of Tax Appeals (GR L-29318. Under all the circumstances.” or whether Mrs. Damaso [GR 93516. In said
.” If such indeed were the case. Nor could the officers of the law be blamed if they would act on the appearances. who could be aptly described as the wrong person at the wrong place and at the wrong time.September 1966 on its a way to Tahuna. the charterer of the vessel. Teofila Ibañez. Velasco was not inside the hotel room when they entered the room. Lt. the only question left then is whether the search conducted by a party headed by Reynolds without the search warrant for the hotel room of Velasco.m. when the vessel was searched and after Captain Pantinople informed the team that Velasco. confiscated and took away the same. 1974. In the present special civil action for certiorari. to ask for said document. Under the circumstances. Velasco volunteered to open the suitcases and baggages of Velasco and delivered the documents and things contained therein to Reynolds. and another by Velasco himself. had other documents showing that vessel came from Indonesia carrying smuggled copra and coffee.
Teresita Calosa y Macabangon @ Ka Tessie. When they reached the house. sentencing the latter to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay the costs of the proceedings. At first. she denied it. Issue: Whether there was waiver on the part of Damaso to allow the warrantless search of his house. Marites Calosa y Evangelista @ Ka Tess. a visitor of Rosemarie Aritumba. Basilio Damaso. they saw books used for subversive orientation. the group proceeded to the house in Gracia Village. Held: Damaso was singled out as the sole violator of PD 1866. finding Damaso guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Teresita Calosa. the group found that it had already vacated by the occupants. They also found persons who were companions of Luz Tanciangco (namely. one M-14 rifle. in furtherance of. Zambales. The prosecution rested its case and offered its exhibits for admission. She stated that she worked with Bernie Mendoza/Basilio Damaso. the persons apprehended revealed that there was an underground safehouse at Gracia Village in Urdaneta. the group. Damaso appealed. They interviewed Luzviminda Morados. On 17 January 1990. Since Morados was hesitant to give the new address of Damaso (@Mendoza). maps of the Philippines. When Luz Tanciangco opened one of the rooms. The group requested the persons in the house to allow them to look around. a 1 x 7 caliber . or in connection with the crime of subversion. After coordinating with the Station Commander of Urdaneta. Kenwood radio. They likewise brought the persons found in the house to the headquarters for investigation. Dagupan City. Marites Calosa. When interrogated. a radio. Eric Tanciangco y Capira @ Ka Ric and Luz Tanciangco y Pencial @ Ka Luz. They confiscated the articles and brought them to their headquarters for final inventory. Damaso pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. and thereafter. manifested that he was not presenting any evidence for the accused. Upon entering the house. or in connection with the crime of subversion. or incident to. was originally charged in an information filed before the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City with violation of Presidential Decree 1866 in furtherance of. Revelina Gamboa and Deogracias Mayaoa. Eric Tanciangco and Luzviminda Morados). Thus. the group saw Luz Tanciangco outside. Mindoro and Laguna and other items. but when she saw Morados she requested the group to go inside the house. saw radio sets. or incident to. She guided the group to the house rented by Damaso(@Mendoza).place. Such information was later amended to exclude all other persons except Damaso from the criminal charge. immaterial or irrelevant and illegal for lack of a search warrant. the trial court rendered its decision. Ricardo Calosa. Berlina Aritumba. The group again required Morados to go with them. sister of Berlina Aritumba whom they earlier arrested. Ricardo Calosa y Perez @ Ka Ric. Pangasinan. as well as the Barangay Captain.” xerox copiers and a computer machine. the group looked for the Barangay Captain of the place and requested him to point out the new house rented by Damaso (@Mendoza). and put under surveillance the rented apartment of Rosemarie Aritumba. They told her that they already knew that she was a member of the NPA in the area.45 firearm and other items. the group apprehended Gregorio Flameniano. The defense counsel interposed his objections to the admissibility of the prosecution’s evidence on grounds of its being hearsay. After the raid. Upon arraignment. bullets and ammunitions. together with Luzviminda Morados y Galang @ Ka Mel. Trial on the merits ensued. the group proceeded to Bonuan. They found subversive documents. artificial beard. When they reached the house. pamphlets entitled “Ang Bayan. Said persons revealed that Damaso (@Mendoza) was the lessee of the house and owned the items confiscated therefrom. There is no substantial and credible evidence to
M/Sgt. Mountain Province. it being their station. being a personal one cannot he waived by anyone except the person whose rights are invaded or one who is expressly authorized to do so in his or her . Feliciano (J): 3 concur Facts: On 6 September 1987. People v. resulting to his warrantless arrest. constitutes a waiver. Barros was charged with violating Section 4 of RA 6425. There is no evidence that would establish the fact that Luz Morados was indeed Damaso’s helper or if it was true that she was his helper. the bus continued and upon reaching Sabangan. that Damaso had given her authority to open his house in his absence. rode the Dangwa Bus bearing Plate ABZ-242 bound for Sabangan. officers called for the bus conductor who pinpointed to Barros as the owner of the carton of marijuana. the authorities’ intrusion into Damaso’s dwelling cannot be given any color of legality. Ayan. Ayan before they alighted. Yag-as and S/Sgt. Thereafter. The prosecution likewise failed to show if Luz Tanciangco has such an authority. Mountain Province. But the record is silent on this point. Mountain Province Command. As a consequence. the trial court convicted Bonifacio Barros of violation of Section 4 of RA 6425 as amended and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P20. both members of the P. Bontoc. Francis Yag-as and S/Sgt.
. for the enforcement of no statute is of sufficient importance to justify indifference to the basic principles of government. still it must be exercised and the law enforced without transgressing the constitutional rights of the citizens. The constitutional immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures. the P. M/Sgt. When Barros denied ownership of the carton of marijuana. Without this evidence. After C2C Bongyao inspected the carton. Ayan and C2C Bongyao invited Barros to the detachment for questioning as the latter was the suspected owner of the carton containing marijuana. The fact that they came to Damaso’s house at nighttime. the case against him still will not prosper. Yag-as and S/Sgt.establish the fact that the appellant is allegedly the same person as the lessee of the house where the M-14 rifle and other subversive items were found or the owner of the said items. Upon reaching Chackchakan. Upon entering the detachment the carton was opened in the presence of Barros. While the power to search and seize is necessary to the public welfare. Barros [GR 90640. After trial. the reason being that the law enforcers failed to comply with the requirements of a valid search and seizure proceedings. the bus stopped and both M/Sgt. board the bus and seated himself on seat 18 after putting the carton under his seat. who were seated at the back. Issue: Whether the failure of the carton bearer to object to the search made in the moving vehicle. C2C Bongyao alighted with the carton and S/Sgt.C. as amended (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972). Even assuming for the sake of argument that Damaso is the lessee of the house.00.C. the search conducted by the authorities was illegal. he found out that it contained marijuana and he asked the passengers who the owner of the carton was but nobody answered.000. does not grant them the license to go inside his house. his alleged helper. The records show that Damaso was not in his house at that time Luz Tanciangco and Luz Morados. allowed the authorities to enter it. 29 March 1994] Third Division. James Ayan. Barros appealed. It would have been different if the situation here demanded urgency which could have prompted the authorities to dispense with a search warrant. saw Bonifacio Barros carrying a carton. called C2C [Fernando] Bongyao to inspect the carton under seat 18. Thereafter.
but is merely a demonstration of regard for the supremacy of the law. the vehicles are neither really searched nor their occupants subjected to physical or body searches. When. such a warrantless search would be constitutionally permissible only if the officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe. There are certain exceptions recognized in our law. (C2C Fernando Bongyao). it not being practicable to secure a judicial warrant before searching a vehicle. of the existence of such a right. Peace officers may lawfully conduct searches of moving vehicles — automobiles. secondly. not absolute.” The requirement that a judicial warrant must be obtained prior to the carrying out of a search and seizure is. The evidence secured thereby — i. Francis Yag-as and S/Sgt. and lastly. since such vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant may be sought. etc. the examination of the vehicles being limited to visual inspection. the “fruits” of the search and seizure — will be inadmissible in evidence “for any purpose in any proceeding. otherwise such search and seizure becomes “unreasonable” within the meaning of Section 2.e. Herein. simply did not suggest or indicate the presence of any such probable cause. peace officers are limited to routine checks. it must appear first that the right exists.. (2) agents of the Narcotics Command (”Narcom”) of the Philippine National Police (”PNP”) had received a confidential report from informers that a sizeable volume of marijuana would be transported along the route where the search was conducted. had in his possession prohibited drugs and when the Narcom agents confronted the accused Caucasian. there is nothing in the record that any circumstance which constituted or could have reasonably constituted probable cause for the peace officers to search the carton box allegedly owned by Barros. The accused is not to be presumed to have waived the unlawful search conducted on the occasion of his warrantless arrest “simply because he failed to object. — without need of a warrant. James Ayan). (3) Narcom agents were informed or “tipped off” by an undercover “deep penetration” agent that prohibited drugs would be brought into the country on a particular airline flight on a given date. the courts do not place the citizen in the position of either contesting an officer’s authority by force. The Court has in the past found probable cause to conduct without a judicial warrant an extensive search of moving vehicles in situations where (1) there had emanated from a package the distinctive smell of marijuana. or waiving his constitutional rights. and who had searched the box in his possession. that is. Further.” To constitute a waiver. however. (4) Narcom agents had received information that a Caucasian coming from Sagada. he failed to present his passport and other identification papers when requested to do so. a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search. The fact that the accused failed to object to the entry into his house does not amount to a permission to make a search therein. that the person involved had knowledge. that said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right. In carrying out warrantless searches of moving vehicles. because of a conspicuous bulge in his waistline. Mountain Province. one of which relates to the search of moving vehicles. but instead they hold that a peaceful submission to a search or seizure is not a consent or an invitation thereto. and (5) Narcom agents had received confidential information that a woman having the same physical appearance as that of the accused would be transporting marijuana. Article III of the 1987 Constitution. that either the motorist is a lawoffender or the contents or cargo of the vehicle are or have been instruments or the subject matter or the proceeds of some criminal offense. Courts indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights and
.Held: The general rule is that a search and seizure must be carried out through or with a judicial warrant. As the constitutional quaranty is not dependent upon any affirmative act of the citizen. The testimony of the law enforcement officers who had apprehended the accused (M/Sgt. trucks. however. however. actual or constructive. before the search.
Ramos he was the only person who had access to the trash can. the RTC Olongapo City (Branch 73) found her guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case 5990 for violating Section 8 of RA 6425 and sentenced her to imprisonment of 6 years and 1 day and a fine of P6. Tests buys were made using marked money. neither during the time she signed the document at the Fiscal’s Office.000. She had complete charge of the contents of the trash can under the table to the exclusion of all other persons. Held: The trash can (where the contraband were found) was found under the table where her legitimate wares were being sold. Ramos executed a statement confessing to her crimes which she swore to before Assistant City Fiscal. Ramos was thereafter brought to the station. But this is not to say that the law requires actual possession. Ramos sought reversal of the decisions with the Supreme Court. and thereafter were confirmed to be marijuana. Issue: Whether Ramos waived her right against the warrantless search of the trash can. purportedly to be the same money which was used to buy marijuana from her. the search and seizure of the carton box was equally non-permissible and invalid. The defense contends however that she assented to the invitation of the NARCOM operatives for investigation. Sudiacal. The “fruits” of the invalid search and seizure — i.that we do not presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights. The same was under her immediate physical control. The Narcotics Command (NARCOM) team proceeded to the place where appellant was selling cigarettes. Two informations were filed against Ramos. 1 took no part Facts: On 29 November 1982. Gutierrez Jr. The marijuana sticks confiscated were sent to the Philippine Constabulary Crime Laboratory (PCCL) for analysis. under her control. and arrested the latter for illegal peddling of marijuana. She claimed she was not assisted by any counsel during the investigation. She was later brought to the Fiscal’s Office after investigation.000. but which she insists was her money being saved for the rentals. The four marked five-peso bills used in the test buys were found among her possessions and were confiscated after the serial numbers were confirmed. People v. after search of her buri bags (which she stores the fruits that she sells) were fruitless. where she signed a document. (J): 3 concur. She claimed that she was forced to affix her signature on the four 5-peso bills by one Sgt. At the station. In criminal law. In law. Ramos was requested to take out the contents of her wallet. where illegal drugs were found. the 4) kilos of marijuana — should therefore not have been admitted in evidence against Barros.e. Search of Ramos’ stall yielded 20 sticks of marijuana cigarettes in a trash can placed under the small table where Ramos displayed the wares she was selling. actual possession exists when the thing is in the immediate occupancy and control of the party. possession necessary for conviction of the offense of possession of controlled substances with intent to distribute may be constructive as
. She was likewise found guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case 5991 for violating Section 4 of RA 6425 and was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of P20. After trial. 4 June 1990] Third Division. a civilian informer came to the Narcotics Command Office in Olongapo City and reported that a cigarette vendor by the name of “Mama Rose” (Rosalinda Ramos) was selling marijuana at the corner of 3rd Street and Rizal Avenue in Olongapo City. one for sale (Criminal Case 5991) and the other for possession of marijuana (Criminal Case 5990). Accordingly. Ramos [GR 85401-02..
The police informant spotted Dulay’s vehicle at 3:00 am. The trash can was obviously not for use by her customers. In fact. the 3 accused pleaded not guilty. Correa [GR 119246. about two feet high. The team seized the suspected contrabands and marked each bundle consecutively. Leonardo Dulay was placed under surveillance by the Police Operatives from the Drug Enforcement Unit of the Western Police District Command (DEU-WPDC) on account of confidential and intelligence reports received in said Unit about his drug trafficking around Bambang Street. On 12 July 1994. 30 January 1998] En Banc. as amended. On 17 June 1994. The can contained 8 bundles of suspected dried marijuana flowering tops wrapped in pieces of paper and plastic tapes. loaded in the vehicle of the appellants. Manila. operatives were alerted that Dulay would transport and deliver a certain quantity of drugs that night on board a owner-type jeep (FMR948). The trash can was positioned in such a way that it was difficult for another person to use the trash can.” Rito Gunida y Sesante @ “Dodong. The packages of suspected marijuana were submitted to the NBI for laboratory analysis to determine their chemical composition. an Information was filed with the RTC Manila (Branch 35) indicting Antonio Correa y Cayton @ “Boyet. The tests confirmed that the confiscated stuff were positive for marijuana and weighed 16. These requirements are present in the situation described. Held: Antonio Correa y Cayton @ “Boyet.N. Bonifacio Street on board 3 vehicles. People vs. The operatives tailed the subject jeepney until they reached Bambang extension and Jose Abad Santos Avenue. When arraigned. The team inspected a cylindrical tin can of El Cielo Vegetable Cooking Lard. Therefore. due to waiver on their part. the twenty sticks of marijuana are admissible in evidence and the trial court’s finding that Ramos is guilty of possession is correct. The 3 suspects were brought to the police headquarters at DEU-WPDC for investigation.well as actual. The defense. however. the operatives. The police surveillance brought forth positive results and confirmed Dulay’s illegal drug trade. Avenue. Caloocan City.” and Leonardo Dulay y Santos @ “Boy Kuba” are precluded from assailing the warrantless search and seizure when they voluntarily submitted to it as shown by their actuation during the search and seizure.” and Leonardo Dulay y Santos @ “Boy Kuba” for having violated Section 4. the lower court found the appellants guilty as charged and were sentenced to death and a fine of P10 million. After trial and on 3 March 1995. contends that the 3 accused were arrested without warrant in Camarin D.” Rito Gunida y Sesante @ “Dodong. Article II of RA 6425.’ and were brought to the WPDC headquarters at U. Tondo. Thereafter. where the prohibited drugs were found inside the trash can placed under the stall owned by Ramos. together with the informer proceeded to A. It is only necessary that the defendant must have dominion and control over the contraband. the NARCOM agents who conducted the search testified that they had to ask Ramps to stand so that they could look inside the trash can under Ramos’ papag. where they were detained. Martinez (J): 12 concur Facts: A week before 18 June 1994. enroute to Dulay’s house to get the things of his child allegedly rushed previously to the Metropolitan Hospital.
. for an alleged charge of trafficking on ’shabu. Issue: Whether the accused are precluded from assailing the warrantless search and seizure.1789 kilograms. and inconspicuously parked along the side of North Cemetery and waited for the suspect. where they accosted the passengers of said jeepney.
He was meted two (2) death sentences. 16. after she delivered a transparent plastic bag containing a white crystalline substance to an informant.48 grams of shabu.They never protested when the police officer opened the tin can loaded in their vehicle. BF Homes. possession and control 5. together with their cargo of drugs and their vehicle. He claimed that his sister was frightened and crying during the conduct of the search while Che Chun Ting was asleep at the second floor. The accused and the evidence were brought to Camp Crame. At 7:00 am they proceeded to the Roxas Seafront Garden in Pasay City where Che Chun Ting was and had the place under surveillance. the brother of Che Chun Ting’s girlfriend who rang the doorbell of Unit 122. Che Chun Ting [GR 130568-69.000. When they moved to the McDonald’s parking lot. 21 March 2000] En Banc. When questioned. were brought to the police station for investigation and subsequent prosecution. proceeded to the Roxas Seafront Garden. having in his custody. they effectively waived their constitutional right against the search and seizure by their voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the trial court. Noli alleged that he did not see any black bag seized but saw his sister’s video camera being carted away by the NARCOM agents. along with NARCOM agents.578. nor when they. Defense further contends that Unit 122 is owned by Nimfa Ortiz and that Che Chun Ting lived at 1001 Domingo Poblete St. and P12. apprehended a suspected drug courier.” Further. and. Unit 122 was searched by the agents.000. the accused and his girlfriend. in full view of NARCOM agents.
. When Nimfa opened the door. 2 NARCOM officers suddenly forced their way inside and searched the premises. When one voluntarily submits to a search or consents to have it made on his person or premises. The bag was examined in the presence of Maj. as amended). nor when he opened one of the bundles. At 10:30 am Mabel receive a call from the accused. the elements of the Special Operation Unit. like every right.68 grams of the same regulated drug. 15 and the other for violation of Sec. He was likewise ordered to pay a fine of P1. ordering one (1) kilo of shabu. The NARCOM agents immediately alighted and arrested the surprised man who was positively identified by Mabel as Che Chun Ting. Mabel Cheung Mei Po cooperated with the government agents and revealed the name of Che Chun Ting as the source of the drugs. of RA 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. Bellosillo (J): 14 concur Facts: Following a series of buy-bust operations. NARCOM agents parked 2 meters away saw the door of the unit open as a man went out to hand Mabel a transparent plastic bag containing a white crystalline substance.00 in the first case.000. People v. Garbo. he is precluded from later complaining thereof The right to be secure from unreasonable search may. It alleged that it was Noli Ortiz. one for violation of Sec. The Defense alleged otherwise. He is now before the Supreme Court on automatic review. distributing and dispatching in transit 999. Parañaque. Narcotics Command.00 in the second.. Mabel. Mabel honked twice upon arriving at the said place and went to Unit 122. Che Chun Ting was found guilty by the trial court on 22 August 1997 of delivering. when they entered a plea of not guilty upon arraignment and by participating in the trial.000. The contents of the bank were tested and found positive for shabu. where a black bag with several plastic bags containing a white crystalline substance in an open cabinet in the second floor was seized. both of Art. III. be waived and such waiver may be made either expressly or impliedly. On 27 June 1996 NARCOM deployed a team of agents for the entrapment and arrest of Che Chun Ting. Mabel called Che Chun Ting through her cellular phone and spoke to him in Chinese. Mabel Cheung Mei Po.
together with Barangay Tanod Macario Sacdalan.68 grams of shabu were illegal for being violative of one’s basic constitutional right and guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures. The inner portion of the house can hadly be said to constitute a permissible area within his reach or immediate control.43 grams was admissible in evidence. The accused was caught in flagrante delicto as a result of an entrapment conducted by NARCOM operatives on the basis of the information provided by Mabel Cheung Mei Po regarding the accused’s illegal trade. to be valid.578. it must be contemporaneous with the lawful arrest. 6 April 1990] Third Division. the search must have been conducted at about the time of the arrest or immediately thereafter and only at the place where the suspect was arrested. The lawful arrest being the sole justification for the validity of the warrantless search under the exception. As to subject. The search in Unit 122 and the seizure therein of some 5. The inadmissibility of such however does not totally exonerate the accused. and in the act of delivering to Mabel Cheung Mei Po a bag of shabu when he was arrested by the NARCOM operatives. were conducting surveillance mission at the Victory Liner Terminal compound located at Barangay San Nicolas. houses. Punzalan of the San Fernando Police Station. although the case falls within the exception. Santiago and SPO3 Campanilla saw him handing over a bag of white crystalline substance to Mabel Cheung Mei Po. shall be inviolable. Stated otherwise. The right of the people to be secure in their persons. time and place of the arrest. and thus are inadmissible in evidence under the exclusionary rule.Issue: Whether the search of Unit 122 is within the purview of the warrantless search incidental to an arrest. The illegal search in Unit 122 was preceded by a valid arrest. and things that may be seized from him are limited to “dangerous weapons” or “anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense. Gutierrez Jr. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. without a search warrant. A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense. The surveillance mission was aimed not only against persons who may commit misdemeanors at the said place but also on persons who may be
. Held: The 1987 Constitution ordains that no arrest. Herein. the same must be limited to and circumscribed by the subject. Patrolmen Silverio Quevedo and Romeo L. and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. search or seizure can be made without a valid warrant issued by a competent judicial authority. Tangliben [GR L-63630. (J): 4 concur Facts: In the late evening of 2 March 1982. Pampanga. being the fruit of the crime. San Fernando. The right is not absolute and admits of certain well-recognized exceptions. which was not his residence but a sojourner thereof. His arrest was lawful and the seized bag of shabu weighing 999. to justify a warrantless search therein. papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose. or the premises or surroundings under his immediate control. the warrantless search is sanctioned only with respect to the person of the suspect. People vs. The search may extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include the permissible area or surroundings within his immediate control. NARCOM agents P/Insp.” With respect to the time and place of the warrantless search. Che Chun Ting was admittedly outside unit 122.
However.000 and to pay the costs. Said bag contained marijuana leaves. smugglers of contraband goods. Section 12 (Search incident to a lawful arrest) of Rule 126 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that “A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense. would make it extremely difficult. more or less. The warrantless search was incident to a lawful arrest and is consequently valid. only to accede later on when the patrolmen identified themselves. Acting on this tip. Issue: Whether the warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest. found Medel Tangliben y Bernardino guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 4. illegal possessors of firearms. Sec. without a search warrant. if not impossible to contain the crimes with which these persons are associated. is actually committing. 5(a) provides that “A peace officer or a private person may. Although the trial court’s decision did not mention it. Silverio Quevedo submitted to his Station Commander his Investigator’s Report. as there was lack of urgency. and that Pat. 1 April 1998] Third Division. Rule 113. Faced with such on-the-spot information.” Meanwhile. the police officers had to act quickly. robbers. Aminnudin (163 SCRA 402 ). Third Judicial Region at San Fernando. Branch 41. without a warrant. The Court held that the marijuana could not be admitted in evidence since it was seized illegally. The person was requested by Patrolmen Quevedo and Punzalan to open the red traveling bag but the person refused. since he was carrying marijuana at the time of his arrest. Espano vs.. the person to be arrested has committed. Pampanga. Around 9:30 p. The accused was taken to the police headquarters at San Fernando. The Court is not unmindful of its decision in People v. and thus a search warrant can still be procured. This case therefore falls squarely within the exception. said Patrolmen noticed a person carrying a red traveling bag who was acting suspiciously and they confronted him. Court of Appeals [GR 120431. arrest a person: (a) When. etc. approached him as he descended from the gangplank. Thus. Found inside the bag were marijuana leaves wrapped in a plastic wrapper and weighing one kilo. or is attempting to commit an offense. The Regional Trial Court.” Tangliben was caught in flagrante. The person was asked of his name and the reason why he was at the said place and he gave his name as Medel Tangliben and explained that he was waiting for a ride to Olongapo City to deliver the marijuana leaves. the transcript of stenographic notes reveals that there was an informer who pointed to Tangliben as carrying marijuana. Article II of Republic Act 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 as amended) and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Pampanga. even in light of the Court’s ruling in People vs. In that case the PC officers had earlier received a tip from an informer that accused-appellant was on board a vessel bound for Iloilo City and was carrying marijuana. Romero (J): 3 concur
. to pay a fine of P20. for further investigation. There was not enough time to secure a search warrant. in his presence.engaging in the traffic of dangerous drugs based on informations supplied by informers. herein. detained him and inspected the bag he was carrying. jueteng collectors. they waited for him one evening. To require search warrants during on-the-spot apprehensions of drug pushers. The Court cannot therefore apply the ruling in Aminnudin herein.m. the case presented urgency. Held: One of the exceptions to the general rule requiring a search warrant is a search incident to a lawful arrest. Tangliben appealed. Aminnudin.
They saw Rodolfo Espano selling “something” to another person. the ten cellophane bags of marijuana seized at petitioner’s house after his arrest at Pandacan and Zamora Streets do not fall under the said exceptions. The appellate court. Espano posted bail and the trial court issued his order of release on 29 July 1991. Herein. therefore. Wilfredo Aquilino. Moreover. the trial court rendered a decision. Espano filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. it was beyond the reach and control of Espano. Simplicio Rivera. When asked if he had more marijuana. On 24 July 1991. Pat. After the buyer left. entered the Philippines for the 3rd time in December 1988 as a tourist. however. In the
. The articles seized from Espano during his arrest were valid under the doctrine of search made incidental to a lawful arrest. His arrest was. papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purposes shall be inviolable. Pat. lawful and the two cellophane bags of marijuana seized were admissible in evidence. After the alleged buyer left. convicting Espano of the crime charged. they searched him and discovered two cellophanes of marijuana. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. being the fruits of the crime. He had visited the country sometime in 1982 and 1985. however. identified themselves as policemen. He was caught in flagranti as a result of a buy-bust operation conducted by police officers on the basis of information received regarding the illegal trade of drugs within the area of Zamora and Pandacan Streets. Espano was brought to the police headquarters where he was charged with possession of prohibited drugs. Padilla (J): 8 concur. and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. the same inadmissible in evidence.m. Manila. which yielded ten cellophane bags of marijuana became unlawful since the police officers were not armed with a search warrant at the time. and Erlindo Lumboy of the Western Police District (WPD). on 15 January 1995 affirmed the decision of the trial court in toto. he replied that there was more in his house. Malmstedt [GR 91107. and frisked him.. a Swedish national. The policemen went to his residence where they found ten more cellophane tea bags of marijuana. houses. Manila to confirm reports of drug pushing in the area. 1 on leave Facts: Mikael Malmstedt.” An exception to the said rule is a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense. 19 June 1991] En Banc. Espano appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals. Romeo Pagilagan and other police officers. they approached Espano. It may extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include the premises or surroundings under his immediate control.Facts: On 14 July 1991. On 14 August 1992. The police officer saw Espano handing over something to an alleged buyer. Held: Espano’s arrest falls squarely under Rule 113 Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court. The right of the people to be secure in their persons. however. namely. The search yielded two plastic cellophane tea bags of marijuana . People v. Issue: Whether the search of Espano’s home after his arrest does not violate against his right against unreasonable search and seizure. As for the 10 cellophane bags of marijuana found at Espano’s residence. Narcotics Division went to Zamora and Pandacan Streets. The warrantless search made in his house. at about 12:30 a.
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. Malmstedt sought reversal of the decision of the trial court. in his presence. when he was invited outside the bus for questioning. Held: The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons. each containing a teddy bear. the officers opened the teddy bears and they were found to also contain hashish. Sgt. or is attempting to commit an offense. At the investigation room.evening of 7 May 1989. A lawful arrest without a warrant may be made by a peace officer or a private person under the following circumstances.000. Fider and CIC Galutan boarded the bus and announced that they were members of the NARCOM and that they would conduct an inspection. which was a pouch bag. they decided to take the next ride and asked Malmstedt to take charge of the bags. 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. and that they would meet each other at the Dangwa Station. Alen Vasco of NARCOM. ordered his men to set up a temporary checkpoint at Kilometer 14. Malmstedt stopped to get 2 travelling bags from the luggage carrier. (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed. Tublay. when opened. Suspecting the bulge on Malmstedt’s waist to be a gun. the officer required him to bring out whatever it was that was bulging on his waist. that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had in his possession prohibited drugs. and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested
. the officer noticed 4 suspicious-looking objects wrapped in brown packing tape. the bus where Malmstedt was riding was stopped.” After trial and on 12 October 1989. Issue: Whether the personal effects of Malmstedt may be searched without an issued warrant. Acop. An information was filed against Malmstedt for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. When Malmstedt failed to comply. During the inspection. It was observed that there were also bulges inside the teddy bears which did not feel like foam stuffing. Malmstedt claimed that the hashish was planted by the NARCOM officers in his pouch bag and that the 2 travelling bags were not owned by him. that same morning. he took a bus to Sagada and stayed in that place for 2 days. Mountain Province. the officer asked for Malmstedt’s passport and other identification papers. Representative samples were taken from the hashish found among the personal effects of Malmstedt and the same were brought to the PC Crime Laboratory for chemical analysis. Section 5 provides that “a peace officer or a private person may. which turned out to contain hashish. there is no need to obtain a search warrant. Malmstedt left for Baguio City. arrest a person (a) When. which established the objects examined as hashish. information was received by the Commanding Officer of NARCOM. Capt. Article II of RA 6425 and sentenced him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P20. papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Moreover. the trial court found Malmstedt guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 4. where the search is made pursuant to a lawful arrest. stationed at Camp Dangwa. without a warrant. When Malmstedt opened the same bag. the person to be arrested has committed. as ordered. but were merely entrusted to him by an Australian couple whom he met in Sagada. houses. Upon his arrival thereat in the morning of the following day. for the purpose of checking all vehicles coming from the Cordillera Region. Malmstedt was then brought to the headquarters of the NARCOM at Camp Dangwa for further investigation. On 11 May 1989. During the arraignment. CIC Galutan noticed a bulge on Malmstedt’s waist. However. a derivative of marijuana. At about 1:30 pm. Malmstedt entered a plea of “not guilty. is actually committing.
Quindo approached the accused-appellant.000 fine. Levi Dorado approached and arrested Kalubiran. Section 7. who told him at gun point to board the jeep and taken to PC headquarters. with positive results. in Dumaguete City. namely M/Sgt. Issue: Whether Kalubiran should be made to answer for the 19 sticks of marijuana found in his possession during his arrest. or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. He was released the following day with the help of a lawyer. Held: Kalubiran was arrested in flagrante delicto as a result of the entrapment and so came under Section 5. However. came later in a jeep. Quindo then gave the signal and Cpl. In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof. Kalubiran immediately produced two sticks of marijuana. Kalubiran [GR 84079. Ruben Laddaran. In addition to the Rules. Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. He recovered the marked money and found 17 more sticks of marijuana on Kalubiran’s person. The other team members. there is abundant jurisprudence justifying warrantless searches and seizures under the conditions established in the case. the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Dumaguete City found Kalubiran guilty as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment plus a P20. authorizing a warrantless arrest of any person actually committing a crime. which allow a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest. Kalubiran was accused only of selling the two sticks of marijuana under Section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Act when he should also have been charged with possession of the 17 other sticks found on his person at the time of his arrest.” Herein.” the jargon for buying marijuana. Ranulfo Villamor and Sgt. However. where they boarded Kalubiran to take him to the police station. 6 May 1991] First Division. he was called back by one Villamor. Kalubiran contended however that one Quindo approached and frisk him on the same night. 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 to the police station. It is unfortunate that he cannot be held to answer for the second offense because he has not been impleaded in a separate information for violation of Section 8 of the said law. where they were analyzed. and asked if he could “score. and found nothing on him. His arrest was the result of a “buy-bust” operation in which Pat.has committed it. the search made upon his personal effects falls squarely under paragraph (1) of the foregoing provisions of law. The 19 sticks of marijuana were marked and then taken to the PC Crime Laboratory. After trial. Malmstedt was caught in flagrante delicto. Thus. Leon Quindo acted as the buyer while the other team members lay in wait to arrest Kalubiran at the pre-arranged signal. when he was transporting prohibited drugs. and he shall be proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112. Dorado frisked the accused-appellant.00 bill.
. for which Quindo paid him a previously marked P5. Cruz (J): 4 concur Facts: Nestor Kalubiran was arrested on 12 July 1985. People v. by Narcotics Command (NARCOM) elements. the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail. The search was made as an incident of a lawful arrest and so was also lawful under Section 12 of Rule 116. Kalubiran appealed. who was with a group of friends in front of the Gamo Memorial Clinic.
P/Pfc. is actually committing or is attempting to commit an offense. Manila City Jail. Deogracias Gorgonia at Maliclic St. to pay a fine of P20. the Court was informed of the death of de la Cruz on 21 February 1989. without a warrant. Article IV of Republic Act 6425. and each to pay one-half of the costs.
. a “buy-bust” operation was conducted by the 13th Narcotics Regional Unit through a team composed of T/Sgt. Entrapment is the employment of such ways and means for the purpose of trapping or capturing a lawbreaker from whose mind the criminal intent originated. Tondo. 18 April 1990] Second Division. At the scene. Manila at around 2:30 p. Art. without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. S/Sgt. found Dela Cruz and Beltran guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.00 from the two accused. Oftentimes.00 worth of marijuana. the criminal case against de la Cruz was dismissed in the Supreme Court resolution of 25 September 1989.. The P10. Sgt. Arcoy gave the prearranged signal to his teammates by scratching his head and his teammates who were strategically positioned in the vicinity. II.00. There being no violation of the constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure. Jaime Raposas as Team Leader.000. it was Juan de la Cruz whom Arcoy first negotiated with on the purchase and when Arcoy told De la Cruz that he was buying P10. The court. the person to be arrested has committed. Held: A buy-bust operation is the method employed by peace officers to trap and catch a malefactor in flagrante delicto. While it is conceded that in a buy-bust operation. de la Cruz and Beltran appealed. in relation to Section 21. converged at the place. Adolfo Arcoy acted as the poseurbuyer with Arnel as his companion to buy marijuana worth P10. dated 3 March 1989. Adolfo Arcoy as poseur-buyer and Pat. Vicente Jimenez. arrest a person when. dela Cruz [GR 83260. After ascertaining that the foil of suspected marijuana was really marijuana. there is seizure of evidence from one’s person without a search warrant. The present appellate proceeding is limited only to Beltran.00 marked bill used by Arcoy was found in the possession of Juan de la Cruz together with two aluminum foils and containing marijuana. the confiscated articles are admissible in evidence. as amended. A peace officer may. needless to state a search warrant is not necessary. the search being incident to a lawful arrest. identified themselves as NARCOM agents and effected the arrest of De la Cruz and Beltran. the malefactors were invariably caught red-handed. It is a matter of judicial experience that in the arrest of violators of the Dangerous Drugs Act in a buy-bust operation. Juan de la Cruz and Reynaldo Beltran. with the accessory penalties provided by law. It is essentially a form of entrapment since the peace officer neither instigates nor induces the accused to commit a crime. Sgt. De la Cruz instructed Reynaldo Beltran to give one aluminum foil of marijuana which Beltran got from his pants’ pocket and delivered it to Arcoy.m. it is the only effective way of apprehending a criminal in the act of the commission of the offense. Rodelito Oblice. From this decision. In a letter of the Warden. on 15 March 1988. in his presence. Issue: Whether the warrantless seizure incidental to the buy-bust operation violates Beltran’s constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure. Dante Yang. of 4 May 1987 to catch the pusher/s. Regalado (J): 4 concur Facts: After receiving a confidential report from Arnel. Thus. P/Pfc.People vs. Juan de la Cruz y Gonzales and Reynaldo Beltran y Aniban were charged in Criminal Case 87-54417 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila with violation of Section 4. their informant.
“it was alright. On 1 August 1999. The man who resembled Tudtud’s description denied that he was carrying any drugs. all members of the Intelligence Section of the Toril Police Station. 1 filed a separate dissenting opinion Facts: Sometime during the months of July and August 1999. among other errors. According to his neighbors. the Toril Police Station. denying the charges against them. the RTC rendered judgment convicting both accused as charged and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P500. the admission in evidence of the marijuana leaves. The same man also toted a plastic bag. Swayed by the prosecution’s evidence beyond reasonable doubt.” Standing some 5 feet away from the men. PO1 Floreta and PO1 Desierto then approached the suspects and identified themselves as police officers.. About 8:00 p. The plastic bag contained 3. conducted surveillance in Solier’s neighborhood in Sapa. Upon arraignment. PO1 Floreta and SPO1 Villalonghan posted themselves at the corner of Saipon and McArthur Highway to await Tudtud’s arrival. The confiscated items were turned over to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for examination. Trial ensued thereafter. Forensic tests on specimens taken from the confiscated items confirmed the police officers’ suspicion.
.00. Reacting to the report. beneath which were two bundles. SPO1 Villalonghan. which they claim were seized in violation of their right against unreasonable searches and seizures. one wrapped in a striped plastic bag and another in newspapers. Davao City received a report from a “civilian asset” named Bobong Solier about a certain Noel Tudtud. cried frame-up.m. who was allegedly responsible for the proliferation of marijuana in their area. 26 September 2003] Second Division. saying. PO1 Desierto asked him if he could see the contents of the box. For 5 days. PO1 Desierto asked Tudtud to unwrap the packages. On appeal.000. The police thus arrested Tudtud and his companion. PO1 Desierto informed them that the police had received information that stocks of illegal drugs would be arriving that night. The two did not resist. Noel Tudtud and his companion. reserved their right to question the validity of their arrest and the seizure of the evidence against them. PO1 Ramil Floreta and their superior. informed them of their rights and brought them to the police station. At around 4:00 p. Davao City. PO1 Desierto and PO1 Floreta observed that one of the men fit Tudtud’s description. Issue: Whether the Tudtud’s implied acquiescence (Tudtud’s statement of “it’s all right” when the police officers requested that the box be opened) be considered a waiver. Tudtud obliged. were subsequently charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City with illegal possession of prohibited drugs. Tinga (J): 3 concur. both accused pleaded not guilty.200 grams of marijuana leaves while the newspapers contained another 890 grams. Tudtud. Solier described Tudtud as big-bodied and short. and usually wore a hat. The defense. All wore civilian clothes.m. Noel Tudtud and Dindo Bolong assign. The box yielded pieces of dried fish. Tudtud [GR 144037. They contained what seemed to the police officers as marijuana leaves. that same day. Solier related that his neighbors have been complaining about Tudtud. they gathered information and learned that Tudtud was involved in illegal drugs. 2 men disembarked from a bus and helped each other carry a carton marked “King Flakes.People vs. Solier informed the police that Tudtud had headed to Cotabato and would be back later that day with new stocks of marijuana. Toril. a team composed of PO1 Desierto.” Tudtud opened the box himself as his companion looked on. Tudtud was engaged in selling marijuana. PO1 Ronald Desierto. however. Dindo Bulong.
Held: The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is secured by Section 2, Article III of the Constitution. The RTC justified the warrantless search of appellants’ belongings under the first exception, as a search incident to a lawful arrest. A search incidental to a lawful arrest is sanctioned by the Rules of Court. It is significant to note that the search in question preceded the arrest. Recent jurisprudence holds that the arrest must precede the search; the process cannot be reversed. Nevertheless, a search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest if the police have probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search. The question, therefore, is whether the police herein had probable cause to arrest Tudtud, et. al. The long-standing rule in this jurisdiction, applied with a great degree of consistency, is that “reliable information” alone is not sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest under Section 5 (a), Rule 113. The rule requires, in addition, that the accused perform some overt act that would indicate that he “has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.” For the exception in Section 5 (a), Rule 113 to apply, this Court ruled, two elements must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. Reliable information alone is insufficient. Thus, herein, in no sense can the knowledge of the arresting officers that Tudtud was in possession of marijuana be described as “personal,” having learned the same only from their informant Solier. Solier, for his part, testified that he obtained his information only from his neighbors and the friends of Tudtud. Solier’s information is hearsay. Confronted with such a dubious informant, the police perhaps felt it necessary to conduct their own “surveillance.” This “surveillance,” it turns out, did not actually consist of staking out Tudtud to catch him in the act of plying his illegal trade, but of a mere “gathering of information from the assets there.” The police officers who conducted such “surveillance” did not identify who these “assets” were or the basis of the latter’s information. Clearly, such information is also hearsay, not of personal knowledge. Finally, there is an effective waiver of rights against unreasonable searches and seizures only if the following requisites are present: (1) It must appear that the rights exist; (2) The person involved had knowledge, actual or constructive, of the existence of such right; (3) Said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right. Here, the prosecution failed to establish the second and third requisites. Records disclose that when the police officers introduced themselves as such and requested Tudtud that they see the contents of the carton box supposedly containing the marijuana, Tudtud said “it was alright.” He did not resist and opened the box himself. Tudtud’s implied acquiescence, if at all, could not have been more than mere passive conformity given under coercive or intimidating circumstances and is, thus, considered no consent at all within the purview of the constitutional guarantee. Consequently, Tudtud’s lack of objection to the search and seizure is not tantamount to a waiver of his constitutional right or a voluntary submission to the warrantless search and seizure. As the search of Tudtud’s box does not come under the recognized exceptions to a valid warrantless search, the marijuana leaves obtained thereby are inadmissible in evidence. And as there is no evidence other than the hearsay testimony of the arresting officers and their informant, the conviction of Tudtud, et. al. cannot be sustained. People vs. Asis [GR 142531, 15 October 2002] En Banc, Panganiban (J): 7 concur, 6 on official leave Facts: Danilo Asis y Fonperada and Gilbert Formento y Saricon were charged in an Information dated 18 February 1998; the information stating “That on or about February 10, 1998, in the City
of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping each other, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to gain and by means of force and violence upon person, to wit: by then and there stabbing one YU HING GUAN @ ROY CHING with a bladed instrument on the different parts of the body thereafter take, rob and carry away the following, to wit: Cash money in the amount of P20,000.00; one (1) wristwatch’ one (1) gold necklace; and undetermined items; or all in the total amount of P20,000.00 more or less, belonging to said YU HING GUAN @ ROY CHING against his will, to the damage and prejudice of the said owner in the aforesaid amount more or less of P20,000.00, Philippine Currency, and as a result thereof, he sustained mortal stab wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death.” When arraigned on 9 July 1998, both accused pleaded not guilty. Found to be deaf-mutes, they were assisted, not only by a counsel de oficio, but also by an interpreter from the Calvary Baptist Church. The prosecution presented 9 witnesses. Although none of them had actually seen the crime committed, strong and substantial circumstantial evidence presented by them attempted to link both accused to the crime. After due trial, both accused were found guilty and sentenced to death. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila (Branch 54; Criminal Case 98-163090), on 8 March 2000, held that the “crime charged and proved is robbery with homicide under Article 294, No. 1 of the Revised Penal Code,” ruled that “although no witnesses to the actual killing and robbery were presented, the circumstantial evidence including the recovery of bloodstained clothing from both accused definitely proved that the two (2) x x x committed the crime,” and appreciated the aggravating circumstances of abuse of confidence, superior strength and treachery and thus sentenced both accused to the supreme penalty of death. Hence, the automatic review before the Supreme Court. Both the accused do not question the legality of their arrest, as they made no objection thereto before the arraignment, but object to the introduction of the bloodstained pair of shorts allegedly recovered from the bag of Formento; arguing that the search was illegally done, making the obtainment of the pair of shorts illegal and taints them as inadmissible. The prosecution, on the other hand, contends that it was Formento’s wife who voluntarily surrendered the bag that contained the bloodstained trousers of the victim, and thus claims that her act constituted a valid consent to the search without a warrant. Issue: Whether Formento, a deaf-mute, has given consent to the recovery of the bloodstained pair of short, in his possession during the warrantless search. Held: Primarily, the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures, being a personal one, cannot be waived by anyone except the person whose rights are invaded or who is expressly authorized to do so on his or her behalf. In the present case, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses show that at the time the bloodstained pair of shorts was recovered, Formento, together with his wife and mother, was present. Being the very subject of the search, necessarily, he himself should have given consent. Since he was physically present, the waiver could not have come from any other person. Lopez vs. Commissioner of Customs does not apply as the accused therein was not present when the search was made. Further, to constitute a valid waiver, it must be shown that first, the right exists; second, the person involved had knowledge, actual or constructive, of the existence of such a right; and third, the person had an actual intention to relinquish the right. Herein, Formento could not have consented to a warrantless search when, in the first place, he did not understand what was happening at that moment. There was no interpreter to assist him — a deaf-mute — during the arrest, search and seizure. The point
in the case Pasion vda. de Garcia v. Locsin, i.e. “as the constitutional guaranty is not dependent upon any affirmative act of the citizen, the courts do not place the citizen in the position of either contesting an officer’s authority by force, or waiving his constitutional rights; but instead they hold that a peaceful submission to a search or seizure is not a consent or an invitation thereto, but is merely a demonstration of regard for the supremacy of the law,” becomes even more pronounced in the present case, in which Formento is a deaf-mute, and there was no interpreter to explain to him what was happening. His seeming acquiescence to the search without a warrant may be attributed to plain and simple confusion and ignorance. The bloodstained pair of shorts was a piece of evidence seized on the occasion of an unlawful search and seizure. Thus, it is tainted and should thus be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of the poisonous tree. In the language of the fundamental law, it shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. Lastly, as to evidence vis-a-is the case in its totality, circumstantial evidence that merely arouses suspicions or gives room for conjecture is not sufficient to convict. It must do more than just raise the possibility, or even the probability, of guilt. It must engender moral certainty. Otherwise, the constitutional presumption of innocence prevails, and the accused deserves acquittal. Caballes vs. Court of Appeals [GR 136292, 15 January 2002] First Division, Puno (J): 4 concur Facts: About 9:15 p.m. of 28 June 1989, Sgt. Victorino Noceja and Pat. Alex de Castro, while on a routine patrol in Barangay Sampalucan, Pagsanjan, Laguna, spotted a passenger jeep unusually covered with “kakawati” leaves. Suspecting that the jeep was loaded with smuggled goods, the two police officers flagged down the vehicle. The jeep was driven by Rudy Caballes y Taiño. When asked what was loaded on the jeep, he did not answer, but he appeared pale and nervous. With Caballes’ consent, the police officers checked the cargo and they discovered bundles of 3.08 mm aluminum/galvanized conductor wires exclusively owned by National Power Corporation (NAOCOR). The conductor wires weighed 700 kilos and valued at P55,244.45. Noceja asked Caballes where the wires came from and Caballes answered that they came from Cavinti, a town approximately 8 kilometers away from Sampalucan. Thereafter, Caballes and the vehicle with the high-voltage wires were brought to the Pagsanjan Police Station. Danilo Cabale took pictures of Caballes and the jeep loaded with the wires which were turned over to the Police Station Commander of Pagsanjan, Laguna. Caballes was incarcerated for 7 days in the Municipal jail. Caballes was charged with the crime of theft in an information dated 16 October 1989. During the arraignment, Caballes pleaded not guilty and hence, trial on the merits ensued. On 27 April 1993, Regional Trial Court of Santa Cruz, Laguna rendered judgment, finding Caballes, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of theft. In a resolution dated 9 November 1998, the trial court denied Caballes’ motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court decision on 15 September 1998. Caballes appealed the decision by certiorari. Issue: Whether Caballes’ passive submission to the statement of Sgt. Noceja that the latter “will look at the contents of his vehicle and he answered in the positive” be considered as waiver on Caballes’ part on warrantless search and seizure.
(4) consented warrantless search. The mere mobility of these vehicles. nay. the presence or absence of probable cause. or when the latter cannot be performed except without a warrant. In addition. they were informing. the police authorities do not claim to have received any confidential report or tipped information that petitioner was carrying stolen cable wires in his vehicle which could otherwise have sustained their suspicion.Held: Enshrined in our Constitution is the inviolable right of the people to be secure in their persons and properties against unreasonable searches and seizures. Further. In the exceptional events where warrant is not necessary to effect a valid search or seizure. And the consent of the accused was established by clear and positive proof. When Caballes’ vehicle was flagged down. The exclusionary rule under Section 3(2). (3) search of moving vehicles. Article III of the Constitution bars the admission of evidence obtained in violation of such right. the evidence is lacking that Caballes intentionally surrendered his right against unreasonable searches. (6) stop and frisk situations (Terry search). as defined under Section 2. and (7) exigent and emergency circumstances. the place or thing searched and the character of the articles procured. for the consent of the accused to be searched. It is not controverted that the search and seizure conducted by the police officers was not authorized by a search warrant. The “consent” given under intimidating or coercive circumstances is no consent within the purview of the constitutional guaranty. Also. Philippine jurisprudence is replete with cases where tipped information has become a sufficient probable cause to effect a warrantless search and seizure. Neither can Caballes’ passive submission be construed as an implied acquiescence to the warrantless search. For all intents and purposes. Noceja approached Caballes and “told him I will look at the contents of his vehicle and he answered in the positive. It thus cannot be considered a simple routine check. In addition. does not give the police officers unlimited discretion to conduct indiscriminate searches without warrants if made within the interior of the territory and in the absence of probable cause. including the purpose of the search or seizure. Caballes’ vehicle was flagged down because the police officers who were on routine patrol became suspicious when they saw that the back of the vehicle was covered with kakawati leaves which. was unusual and uncommon. The fact that the vehicle looked suspicious simply because it is not common for such to be covered with kakawati leaves does not constitute “probable cause” as would justify the conduct of a search without a warrant. The constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and seizures is not absolute but admits of certain exceptions. the remaining evidence on record are
. Article III thereof. the manner in which the search and seizure was made. imposing upon Caballes that they will search his vehicle. lift the kakawati leaves and look inside the sacks before they were able to see the cable wires. in no uncertain terms. it cannot be said the police officers were asking or requesting for permission that they be allowed to search the vehicle of Caballes. Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence. In cases where warrant is necessary. according to them. Herein. none exists in the present case. (2) seizure of evidence in plain view. in cases where the Court upheld the validity of consented search. Unfortunately. namely: (1) warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12. The manner by which the two police officers allegedly obtained the consent of Caballes for them to conduct the search leaves much to be desired. the police officers did not merely conduct a visual search or visual inspection of Caballes’ vehicle. Sgt. Casting aside the cable wires as evidence. the steps prescribed by the Constitution and reiterated in the Rules of Court must be complied with.” By uttering those words. however. They had to reach inside the vehicle. what constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or seizure is purely a judicial question. (5) customs search. determinable from the uniqueness of the circumstances involved. it will be noted that the police authorities expressly asked.
of the same date. presented his luggage. who was assigned at the Arrival Area of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) in Pasay City. People vs. a Thailander. they noticed two persons. a Passenger of TG Flight 620 of the Thai Airways which had just arrived from Bangkok. It was gathered by the law enforcers that Gatward and Zaw Win Naing were scheduled to leave for Bangkok on board a KLM flight. a travelling bag for examination to Customs Examiner Busran Tawano. The Customs Examiner reported the matter to his superiors. Regalado (J): 4 concur Facts: At about 3:30 p. His guilt can only be established without violating the constitutional right of the accused against unreasonable search and seizure.80 grams. Thailand. the agents of the Customs Police and the Narcotics Command (NARCOM) gathered the information that U Aung Win had a contact in Bangkok and that there were other drug couriers in the Philippines. Following the lead. When opened. was dispatched to the City Garden Hotel in Mabini St. the bag revealed two packages containing the substance neatly hidden in between its partitions. U Aung Win also handed to Tawano his Customs Declaration 128417 stating that he had no articles to declare. proceeding towards the direction of Carousel 1. from the driver of the hotel service car used by the two when they arrived in the hotel. Manila. of 30 August 1994. On 31 August 1994. alight from a car and enter the hotel. the bag was turned over to the office of the Customs Police in the NAIA for x-ray examination where it was detected that it contained some powdery substance. to enable U Aung Win to communicate with his contact in Bangkok for further instructions. When Tawano was about to inspect his luggage. Ermita.m. Representative samples of the substance were examined by Elizabeth Ayonon. At about 7:45 p. A manhunt was conducted to locate U Aung Win. an employee of the Lufthansa Airlines. 7 February 1997] Second Division. together with U Aung Win. U Aung Win whispered to Customs Police Special Agent Edgar Quiñones that he recognized the two as drug couriers whom he saw talking with his contact in Bangkok named Mau Mau. operatives of the NAIA Customs Police mounted a surveillance operation at the Departure Area for Gatward and
.579. While the police officers were standing by. a Caucasian and an oriental. Upon their instructions. with a total weight of 5. as if to retrieve another baggage from it. Immediately.. and by Tita Advincula. U Aung Win suddenly left. Gatward [GRs 119772-73. During the investigation of U Aung Win.insufficient to sustain Caballes’ conviction. another chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory Service at Camp Crame. a team of law enforcers proceeded to the Departure Area and apprehended the accused after he had been identified through his signatures in his Customs Declaration and in his Bureau of Immigration and Deportation Arrival Card. the conveyor for the pieces of luggage of the passengers of Flight 620. Rey Espinosa. The two chemists concluded that the entire substance. and found to be positive for heroin. a team of lawmen. is heroin.m. The members of the team were able to establish the identity of the two persons as Nigel Richard Gatward and one Zaw Win Naing. contained in the two packages found in the bag of U Aung Win. After having inspected the luggages of the other incoming passengers. U Aung Win. a chemist of the Crime Laboratory Service of the Philippine National Police (PNP) assigned at the Arrival Area of the NAIA. notified the commander of the NAIA Customs Police District Command that a certain Burmese national by the name of U Aung Win appeared at the check-in counter of the airline as a departing passenger. Tawano became alarmed by the failure of U Aung Win to return and suspected that the bag of U Aung Win contained illegal articles. Customs Examiner Tawano also positively identified U Aung Win as the person who left his bag with him at the Arrival Area of the NAIA.
Makasiar (J): 4 concur. an international practice of strict observance. with a net weight of 5.237. Gatward pleaded not guilty of the charge when arraigned. On 3 March 1995. Gatward’s luggage. the other inside a partition in the middle. the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (transporting). He found the name “GATWARD/NRMR” listed therein as a passenger for Amsterdam and accordingly informed his teammates who responded immediately Customs Police Captain Juanito Algenio requested Victorio Erece. Arca [GR L-25434. no showing that he was authorized by law to import such dangerous drug. Nigel Richard Gatward was charged with violating Section 4 of Republic Act 6425. while U Aung Win was charged for transgressing Section 3 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (importing). of course. the presentation of which was required by the lower court despite said plea. which was scheduled to depart at about 7:55 p. Upon his disembarkment. together with many clothes. if any. nor did he claim or present any authority to do so. Gatward was invited by the police officers for investigation. His culpability was not based only upon his plea of guilty but also upon the evidence of the prosecution. However. was brought back to the NAIA from Bangkok through the Thai airways.m. There was.Zaw Win Naing who might be leaving the country. manager of the KLM airline at the NAIA. The conviction of U Aung Win is likewise unassailable. Issue: Whether Gatward’s and U Aung Win’s suitcases may be searched without warrant. the powdery substance contained in the two cardboard envelopes.. or in flagrante delicto. 1 took no part
. pursuant to the request of Erece. one at the side in between a double-wall. was found to be heroin. Upon its retrieval. The manager acceded to the request to off-load Gatward but not to the unloading of his check-in bag as the plane was about to depart and to do so would unduly delay the flight. the law enforcers subjected the bag to x-ray examinations in the presence of Gatward and some Customs officials. At about 7:45 p. the trial court found both guilty of the crime charged. Inside the bag were two improvised envelopes made of cardboard each containing the powdery substance. Special Agent Gino Minguillan of the Customs Police made a verification on the passenger manifest of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines Flight 806.m. The evidence thus presented convincingly proved his having imported into this country the heroin found in his luggage which he presented for customs examination upon his arrival at the international airport. Held: While no search warrant had been obtained for that purpose. The envelopes were hidden inside the bag. Erece made an assurance that the bag would be returned immediately to the Philippines on the first available flight from Bangkok. of 1 September 1994. His subsequent arrest. It was observed to contain some powdery substance. At about 3:00 p. Upon its examination by Chemists Ayonon and Advincula pursuant to the request of Police Senior Inspector John Campos of the NARCOM. unloaded. while U Aung Win pleaded guilty of the crime charged upon his arraignment. and waived any objection to a warrantless search. was justified since it was effected upon the discovery and recovery of the heroin in his bag.70 grams.m. Roldan vs. although likewise without a warrant. 25 July 1975] First Division. to let passenger Gatward disembark from the aircraft and to have his checked-in luggage. bound for Amsterdam via Bangkok. when Gatward checked in his bag as his personal luggage as a passenger of KLM Flight 806 he thereby agreed to the inspection thereof in accordance with customs rules and regulations.
On October 2 and 4. as amended by Commonwealth Acts 462. the CFI set aside its order of 10 April 1964 and granted the company’s motion for reconsideration praying for preliminary mandatory injunction. the Fisheries Commissioner requested the Palawan Provincial Fiscal to file criminal charges against the crew members of the fishing vessels.000. Winnie however. the two fishing boats were actually seized for illegal fishing with dynamite. On August 5 or 6. but said prayer was denied. Judge Arca denied the said motion for reconsideration. On 18 August 1965. On 18 October 1965. i.. and another against the crew members of Tony Lex VI — both for violations of Act 4003. On 2 October 1965. 1965.00 for the release of the two vessels. On the same day. that by virtue of the offer of compromise dated 13 September 1965 by the company to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. On 23 November 1965. one against the crew members of Tony Lex III. the company filed a complaint with application for preliminary mandatory injunction (Civil Case 62799) with the CFI of Manila against the Commission and the Navy. Judge Francisco Arca issued an order granting the issuance of the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction and issued the preliminary writ upon the filing by the company of a bond of P5. Among others. Jr. likewise. Morabe. are placed beyond the reach of the Government. there were filed in the CFI of Palawan a couple of informations. also respectively called Srta. remained in the possession of the company. Fish caught with dynamite and sticks of dynamite were then found aboard the two vessels. On 19 October 1965. Tony Lex VI or Srta. the Fisheries Commissioner requested the Philippine Navy to apprehend vessels Tony Lex VI and Tony Lex III. the Fiscal filed an ex parte motion to hold the boats in custody as instruments and therefore evidence of the crime. The Commission and the Navy filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with
. that on 18 October 1965 the Philippine Navy received from the Palawan CFI two orders dated October 2 and 4. the company took possession of the vessel Tony Lex VI from the Philippine Fisheries Commission adn the Philippine Navy by virtue of the said writ.000. Winnie and Srta.. De Guzman & Company filed with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila a civil case (56701) against Fisheries Commissioner Arsenio N. which are worth P495. the company prayed for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction with the CFI. Agnes. if any.e. the same were engaged in legitimate fishing operations off the coast of Palawan.Facts: On 3 April 1964. On 10 April 1964.000. 1965 requiring the Philippine Navy to hold the fishing boats in custody and directing that the said vessels should not be released until further orders from the Court.00 is grossly insufficient to cover the Government’s losses in case the two vessels. The vessel. among others. and cabled the Fisheries Commissioner to detain the vessels. and that the bond of P5. On 30 September 1965. On 28 April 1964. the numerous violations of the Fishery Laws. the CFI of Palawan ordered the Philippine Navy to take the boats in custody. by the crew members of the vessels were settled. 659 and 1088. the Commission and the Navy filed a motion for reconsideration of the order issuing the preliminary writ on 18 October 1965 on the ground. for illegal fishing with the use of dynamite. On 10 December 1964. thus frustrating their forfeiture as instruments of the crime. it was alleged that at the time of the seizure of the fishing boats in issue.00. for the recovery of fishing vessel Tony Lex VI which had been seized and impounded by the Fisheries Commissioner through the Philippine Navy. Thus. On 20 July 1965. Roldan. for alleged violations of some provisions of the Fisheries Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. the CFI dismissed Civil Case 56701 for failure of the company to prosecute as well as for failure of the Commission and the Navy to appear on the scheduled date of hearing.
00 nor more than P5.00. or imprisonment. Held: Section 4 of Republic Act 3512 approved on 20 March 1963 empowers the Fisheries Commissioner to carry out the provisions of the Fisheries Act. for not more than one year. the Philippine Navy has the function. apparel. That in the absence of a known owner of the vessel. as amended.” Section 78 of the same Fisheries Law provides that “in case of a second offense. That in case of a second offense. further. apparel. if present in the fishing boat. together with its tackle. and the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction thereunder issued.00. as amended by PD 34 of 27 October 1972. and other apparatus used in fishing in violation of said Section 12 of this Act.000. any person. functions and duties heretofore exercised by the Bureau of Customs.” The second paragraph of Section 12 also provides that “the possession and/or finding. tackle and other things that are subject to seizure under existing fishery laws”. otherwise known as Republic Act 4003. the President or manager shall be directly responsible for the acts of his employees or laborers if it is proven that the latter acted with his knowledge. the vessel together with its tackle. or both. patron or person in charge of such vessel shall be responsible for any violation of this Act: and Provided.000. furniture and stores shall be forfeited to the Government. and that the possession or discover in any fishing boat or fish caught or killed by the use of dynamite or other explosives. further. fishing equipment. Philippine Navy and Philippine Constabulary over fishing vessels and fishery matters. prohibits fishing with dynamites or other explosives which is penalized by Section 76 thereof “by a fine of not less than P1. Provided. as amended. or the fishing crew have been fishing with dynamite or other explosives. Issue: Whether the Fisheries Commissioner and the Navy can validly direct and/or effect the seizure of the vessels of the company for illegal fishing by the use of dynamite and without the requisite licenses. authorized any official or person
. “shall be punished for each offense by a fine of not more than P5. including fishery products. in the discretion of the Court. and all rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.500. the vessel. under expert testimony. shall constitute a presumption that the owner. furniture and stores shall be forfeited to the Government. otherwise the responsibility shall extend only as far as fine is concerned: Provided.” Section 12 of the Fisheries Act. Section 2210 of the Tariff and Customs Code. reorganizing the Armed Forces of the Philippines. aside from the confiscation and forfeiture of all explosives.preliminary injunction to restrain Judge Arca from enforcing his order dated 18 October 1965. “to assist the proper governmental agencies in the enforcement of laws and regulations pertaining to Fishing. to make searches and seizures personally or through his duly authorized representatives in accordance with the Rules of Court.” Under Section 78 of the Fisheries Act. furniture. boats. tackles. blasting caps and other explosives in any fishing boat shall constitute a presumption that the said dynamite and/or blasting caps and explosives are being used for fishing purposes in violation of this Section. of “explosives such as dynamites and the like. and “to effectively implement the enforcement of existing fishery laws on illegal fishing. as amended. the master.” Paragraph 5 of Section 4 of the same Republic Act 3512 likewise transferred to and vested in the Philippine Fisheries Commission “all the powers. and by imprisonment for not less than one (1) year and six (6) months nor more than five (5) years.” Under Section 13 of Executive Order 389 of 23 December 1950. among others. of dynamite. association or corporation fishing in deep sea fishery without the corresponding license prescribed in Sections 17 to 22 Article V of the Fisheries Act or any other order or regulation deriving force from its provisions. That in case of an association or corporation. apparel.
SPO1 Linda and SPO2 Sarong reported the result of their surveillance to SPO4 Ranulfo T. People vs. when the Philippine Navy. Javellana to secure a search warrant. Two members of the media. hence it is not practicable to require a search warrant before such search or seizure can be constitutionally effected. Judge Ponferrada informed them that he did not have territorial jurisdiction over the matter. and illegally fishing with explosives and without fishing license required by Sections 17 and 18 of the Fisheries Law. They were told by the judge to go back in the morning.m. During the said surveillance. Bacolod City. to search and seize any vessel or air craft as well as any trunk. Winnie. Search and seizure without search warrant of vessels and air crafts for violations of the customs laws have been the traditional exception to the constitutional requirement of a search warrant. upon request of the Fisheries Commissioner.. The operatives then uprooted the suspected marijuana plants. What happened thereafter is subject to conflicting accounts. Negros Occidental on 9 July 1995. the team applied for a search warrant with the office of Executive Judge Bernardo Ponferrada in Bacolod City. Chief of NARCOM. However.. They were not able to do so because it was nighttime and office hours were obviously over. the team proceeded to barangay Bagonbon and arrived at the residence of Compacion in the early morning of 13 July 1995. Villamor. SPO4 Villamor then told him that he would be charged for violation of Section 9 of RA 6425 and informed him of his constitutional rights.exercising police authority under the provisions of the Code. apprehended on August 5 or 6. the Criminal Investigation Command and the Special Action Force. were also included in the composite team. Agnes and Srta. package. The same exception should apply to seizures of fishing vessels breaching our fishery laws: They are usually equipped with powerful motors that enable them to elude pursuing ships of the Philippine Navy or Coast Guard. Herein. these vessels were found to be without the necessary license in violation of Section 903 of the Tariff and Customs Code and therefore subject to seizure under Section 2210 of the same Code. bag or envelope on board and to search any person on board for any breach or violation of the customs and tariff laws. Linda and SPO2 Basilio Sarong of the 6th Narcotic Regional Field Unit of the Narcotics Command (NARCOM) of the Bacolod City Detachment conducted a surveillance of the residence of Compacion who was then the barangay captain of barangay Bagonbon. San Carlos City. SPO1 Gilbert L. The prosecution contends that Compacion opened the gate and permitted them to come in. SPO1 Linda conducted an initial field test of the plants by using the Narcotics
. The team then left Bacolod City for San Carlos City. because the vessel can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the search warrant must be sought before such warrant could be secured. He was immediately asked by SPO4 Villamor about the suspected marijuana plants and he admitted that he planted and cultivated the same for the use of his wife who was suffering from migraine. who immediately formed a team composed of the members of the Intelligence Division Provincial Command. Compacion [GR 124442. one from DYWF Radio and another from DYRL Radio. then went to the house of Executive Judge Roberto S. They arrived there around 6:30 p. 1965 the fishing boats Tony Lex III and Tony Lex VI. 20 July 2001] First Division. they saw 2 tall plants in the backyard of Compacion which they suspected to be marijuana plants. SPO4 Villamor knocked at the gate and called out for Compacion. Jr. Nonetheless. On 12 July 1995. Kapunan (J): 4 concur Facts: Acting on a confidential tip supplied by a police informant that Armando Compacio y Surposa was growing and cultivating marijuana plants. otherwise known respectively as Srta.
The test yielded a positive result. when it involves prohibited articles in plain view. entered the premises then went inside the house. you have a (sic) marijuana here at your backyard” to which Compacion replied: “I do not know that they were (sic) marijuana plants but what I know is that they are medicinal plants for my wife” who was suffering from migraine. the “fruits” of the search and seizure. when it involves a “stop and frisk” situation. A picture of him together with the arresting team was taken with the alleged marijuana as back drop. when the owner of the premises waives his right against such incursion. on 13 July 1995 while he and his family were sleeping. the men met with the mayor and then unloaded the alleged marijuana plants. None of them asked for his permission to search his house and the premises.. 4 persons who he thought were members of the military. when the search is incidental to a lawful arrest. a search may be validly made even
. Issue: Whether Compacion’s right against unreasonable search and seizure was violated. therefore. not absolute. he was taken to Hda. however. malicious and unreasonable invasion of privacy and liberty. He went down bringing with him a flashlight. Senior Inspector Villavicencio weighed and measured the plants. It was dark so he could not count the others who entered the house as the same was lit only by a kerosene lamp. i. Bacolod City Police Command. He was later told by the military men that said plants were marijuana.m.m. Socorro at the SAF Headquarters. will be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. At around 10:00 a. On 2 January 1996. sanitary and building regulations.00. when it is made on automobiles for the purpose of preventing violations of smuggling or immigration laws. Upon arrival at the city hall. On his part. and the thin layer chromatographic test. All yielded positive results. such search and seizure becomes “unreasonable” within the meaning of the constitutional provision. A criminal complaint for violation of Section 9 of RA 6425. After he opened the gate. when it is made on vessels and aircraft for violation of customs laws. One of the four men told him to sit in the living room. when the search is under exigent and emergency circumstances. Compacion saw that one of the 2 service vehicles they brought was fully loaded with plants. After about 20 minutes of searching. On 15 July 1995. as amended by RA 7659 was filed against Compacion. the plants were turned over to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory. must be carried out through or with a judicial warrant. Soon thereafter. Thereafter. In these instances. or in cases of inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of fire. and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P500.Drug Identification Kit. Compacion maintains that around 1:30 a. Some of the men went upstairs while the others went around the house. he was brought inside the house where he and the military men spent the night. Evidence secured thereby. the chemical test.” The requirement that a warrant must be obtained from the proper judicial authority prior to the conduct of a search and seizure is. Article III of the 1987 Constitution are safeguards against reckless. otherwise.000. One of the military men said: “Captain. A search and seizure. There are several instances when the law recognizes exceptions. Held: Sections 2 and 3 . the men took pictures of him and themselves. he heard somebody knocking outside his house. After he was informed that the plants in his backyard were marijuana.. namely: the microscopic test.e. particularly to Senior Inspector Reah Abastillas Villavicencio. they brought him with them to the city hall. such as when the owner of the premises consents or voluntarily submits to a search. the men called him outside and brought him to the backyard. the trial court convicted Compacion of the crime charged. Three (3) qualitative examinations were conducted. one was 125 inches and weighed 700 grams while the other was 130 inches and weighed 900 grams.
After a three-hour. did not come across the marijuana plants inadvertently when they conducted a surveillance and barged into Compacion’s residence. The “plain view” doctrine is usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused. the following day. Nueva Vizcaya. The team was composed of SPO3 Marcelo M. Compacion’s right against unreasonable search and seizure was clearly violated. they initially wanted to secure a search warrant but could not simply wait for one to be issued. As a general rule. Balut. their intention was to seize the evidence against him. of 24 September 1996. (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent. When the agents entered his premises on 13 July 1995.” At approximately 5:00 a. the latter admitted that they were his. but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. As held in People v. It is usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused. Tobias and PO2 Alfelmer I.194 kilograms. SPO3 Marcelo Tipay. said police team. Thus. the “plain view” doctrine may not be used to launch unbridled searches and indiscriminate seizures nor to extend a general exploratory search made solely to find evidence of defendant’s guilt. Villaverde. received a tip from an unnamed informer about the presence of a marijuana plantation. Here. Chief of Police of Villaverde. Consequently. approximately 25 meters from Valdez’s hut. according to Balut. proceeded to look around the area where Valdez had his kaingin and saw 7 five-foot high. Musa. The police found Valdez alone in his nipa hut. Herein. flowering marijuana plants in two rows. but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. Quisumbing (J): 13 concur.without a warrant. SPO1 Romulo G. accompanied by their informer. Compacion is acquitted of the crime to which he was charged. there was no valid warrantless arrest. In fact. The prohibited plants were allegedly planted close to Valdez’s hut. Nueva Vizcaya. the search and seizure conducted by the composite team in the house of accused-appellant was not authorized by a search warrant. the following elements must be present before the doctrine may be applied: (a) a prior valid intention based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties. It does not appear either that the situation falls under any of the above mentioned cases. They. Police Inspector Alejandro R. Tipay. Morales. the police operatives arrived at the place pinpointed by their informant.m. Parungao. (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right to be where they are. SPO2 Pedro S. 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 without a warrant. allegedly owned by Abe Valdez y Dela Cruz at Sitio Bulan. Valdez [GR 129296. Libunao. which weighed 2. and (d) “plain view” justified were seizure of evidence without further search. It is undisputed that the NARCOM agents conducted a surveillance of the residence of Compacion on 9 July 1995 on the suspicion that he was growing and cultivating marijuana when they allegedly came in “plain view” of the marijuana plants. 1 on leave Facts: At around 10:15 a. The police uprooted the 7 marijuana plants. a member of the police force of Villaverde. People vs.m. Hence. Nueva Vizcaya then formed a reaction team from his operatives to verify the report. The NARCOM agents. Ibung. SPO2 Noel V. Inspector Parungao gave them specific instructions to “uproot said marijuana plants and arrest the cultivator of same. 25 September 2000] En Banc. The police took photos of Valdez standing
. uphill trek from the nearest barangay road. PO2 Balut asked Valdez who owned the prohibited plants and. left for the site where the marijuana plants were allegedly being grown. therefore. They forced their way into Compacion’s premises without the latter’s consent. then.
threatened him to admit owning the marijuana. the search and seizure is deemed “unreasonable. because of his refusal to participate in the former’s illegal logging activities.” This unknown person then brought Valdez to the place where the marijuana plants were found. there was no search warrant issued by a judge after personal determination of the existence of probable cause. it is clear that they had at least 1 day to obtain a warrant to search Valdez’s farm. a certain Kiko Pascua. Their informant had revealed his name to them. a barangay peace officer of Barangay Sawmill. where another photo was taken of him standing next to a bundle of uprooted marijuana plants. Such evidence shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. He was then made to uproot 5 of the cannabis plants. the automatic review by the Supreme Court. Nueva Vizcaya for analysis. Branch 27. Valdez was arraigned and. a positive indication for marijuana. and bring them to his hut. One of the plants. the Crime Laboratory forensic analyst. Valdez was charged for the cultivation and culture of the 7 fully grown marijuana plants. When he denied any knowledge thereof. they could have convinced a judge that there was probable cause to justify the issuance of a warrant. From the declarations of the police officers themselves. who bore a grudge against him. found Valdez guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 9 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (RA 6425. Instead. Valdez was then arrested. SPO2 Libunao poked a fist at him and told him to admit ownership of the plants. We need not underscore that the protection against illegal search and seizure is constitutionally mandated and
. Pascua.. testified that upon microscopic examination of said plant. Still. 25 September 1996. on 26 September 1996. 5 armed policemen were present and they made him stand in front of the hemp plants. he was weeding his vegetable farm in Sitio Bulan when he was called by a person whose identity he does not know.beside the cannabis plants. in Criminal Case 3105. The police team then brought him to the police station at Villaverde.” At the police headquarters. The place where the cannabis plants were planted was pinpointed. based on the “plain view” doctrine. The police then took a photo of him standing in front of one of the marijuana plants. the Regional Trial Court of Bayombong. accompanied the police officers. On 18 February 1997. otherwise be would “be put in a bad situation. and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death by lethal injection. On the way.m. Herein. He was then asked if he knew anything about the marijuana growing there. But they did not. she found cystolitic hairs containing calcium carbonate.” Evidence procured on the occasion of an unreasonable search and seizure is deemed tainted for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree and should be excluded. From the information in their possession. Valdez alleged otherwise. the results of which confirmed her initial impressions. He claims that at around 10:00 a. Valdez reiterated that he knew nothing about the marijuana plants seized by the police. Hence.090 kilograms. pleaded not guilty to the charge. Otherwise. Nueva Vizcaya. weighing 1. with assistance of counsel. Valdez was so nervous and afraid that he admitted owning the marijuana. was sent to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory in Bayombong. He was asked to go with the latter to “see something. Held: The Constitution lays down the general rule that a search and seizure must be carried on the strength of a judicial warrant. as amended by RA 7659). Issue: Whether the seizure of the marijuana plants was made pursuant to warrantless search and seizure. Inspector Prevy Fabros Luwis. She next conducted a chemical examination. Trial on the merits then ensued. On 15 November 1996. approximately 100 meters away from his nipa hut. they uprooted the plants and apprehended the accused on the excuse that the trip was a good six hours and inconvenient to them.
Angeles City where they took shelter from the heavy downpour that had interrupted their ride on motorcycles along Mac Arthur Highway. there was no valid warrantless arrest which preceded the search of Valdez’s premises. the following elements must be present: (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. they first had to “look around the area” before they could spot the illegal plants. thus. the radio controller of the PNP of Angeles City. Herein. and (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent. He called the Viper through the radio once again reporting that a vehicle heading north with plate number PMA 777 was involved in a hit and run accident. They recognized the driver as Robin C. The police team was dispatched to Valdez’s kaingin precisely to search for and uproot the prohibited flora. the marijuana plants in question were not in “plain view” or “open to eye and hand. The seizure of evidence in “plain view” applies only where the police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused. followed by a sickening sound of the vehicle hitting something. By the time Manarang completed the call. Manarang and Perez heard a screeching sound produced by the sudden and hard braking of a vehicle running very fast. Also. The Court finds no reason to subscribe to Solicitor General’s contention that it should apply the “plain view” doctrine. the police officers first located the marijuana plants before Valdez was arrested without a warrant. Manarang asked Cruz to look after the victim while he went back to the restaurant. Manarang and Cruz went out to investigate and immediately saw the vehicle occupying the edge or shoulder of the highway giving it a slight tilt to its side. the vehicle had started to leave the place of the accident taking the general direction to the north. The mantle of protection extended by the Bill of Rights covers both innocent and guilty alike against any form of highhandedness of law enforcers. Manarang noticed a vehicle. being a member of both the Spectrum. Manarang went to the location of the accident and found out that the vehicle had hit somebody. SPO2 Miranda went to the vehicle with plate number PMA 777 and instructed its driver to alight.only under specific instances are searches allowed without warrants. Enrique Manarang and his compadre Danny Perez were inside the Manukan sa Highway Restaurant in Sto. SPO2 Borja and SPO2 Miranda of Mobile 3 were able to intercept the vehicle by cutting into the latter’s path forcing it to stop. rode on his motorcycle and chased the vehicle. upon arriving at the area. Manarang. Kristo. their discovery of the cannabis plants was not inadvertent. Padilla vs. In sum. running fast down the highway prompting him to remark that the vehicle might get into an accident considering the inclement weather.
. Immediately after the vehicle had passed the restaurant.m. Francisco (J): 4 concur Facts: At about 8:00 p. Hence. a civic group and the Barangay Disaster Coordinating Council. a Mitsubishi Pajero. regardless of the praiseworthiness of their intentions. but inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right to be where they are. the seized marijuana plants were not “immediately apparent” and a “further search” was needed. For the doctrine to apply. Patently. Clearly. The driver rolled down the window and put his head out while raising both his hands. While inside the restaurant. He took out his radio and called the Viper. cannot be made to apply. Court of Appeals [GR 121917.” The “plain view” doctrine. decided to report the incident to the Philippine National Police (PNP) of Angeles City. During the chase he was able to make out the plate number of the vehicle as PMA 777. of 26 October 1992. and (d) plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search. 12 March 1997] Third Division.
He asked Padilla for the papers covering the rifle and Padilla answered angrily that they were at his home. a pietro berreta pistol with a single round in its chamber and a magazine loaded with 7 other live bullets. to 21 years of reclusion perpetua. instead. Suspecting that Padilla could also be carrying a rifle inside the vehicle since he had a magazine. SPO Mercado saw this and so when Padilla turned around as he was talking and proceeding to his vehicle. Mercado confiscated the magazine from Padilla. SPO2 Borja made the move to confiscate the gun but Padilla held the former’s hand alleging that the gun was covered by legal papers.Padilla. Padilla waived in writing his right to be present in any and all stages of the case. SPO Mercado modified the arrest of Padilla by including as its ground illegal possession of firearms. Issue: Whether the firearms and ammunition confiscated during a warrantless search and seizure. especially the baby armalite. Padilla filed his notice of appeal on 28 April 1994. arrogantly denied his misdeed and. Padilla also voluntarily surrendered a black bag containing two additional long magazines and one short magazine.
. a plea of not guilty was entered for Padilla after he refused. He saw a baby armalite rifle lying horizontally at the front by the driver’s seat. but granted his application for bail. On 28 September 1995. convinced that the conviction shows strong evidence of guilt.357 Caliber revolver. Padilla. SPO2 Borja disarmed Padilla and told the latter about the hit and run incident. 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as minimum. SPO2 Mercado prevented Padilla from going back to his vehicle by opening himself the door of Padilla’s vehicle. kinuha ang baril ko. filed on 2 December 1994 a motion to cancel Padilla’s bail bond. however.” Because Padilla’s jacket was short. Smith and Wesson. During the arraignment on 20 January 1993. Padilla filed the petition for review on certiorari with application for bail followed by two “supplemental petitions” filed by different counsels. SN-32919 with 6 live ammunitions. are admissible as evidence against Robin Padilla. SN-RP 131120 with 4 long and 1 short magazine with ammunitions. and  Six additional live double action ammunitions of . Pending the appeal in the Court of Appeals. a “second supplemental petition” and an urgent motion for the separate resolution of his application for bail.  one M-16 Baby Armalite rifle. It had a long magazine filled with live bullets in a semi-automatic mode. the Solicitor-General. SN-A 35723 Y with clip and 8 ammunitions. The police officers brought Padilla to the Traffic Division at Jake Gonzales Boulevard where Padilla voluntarily surrendered a third firearm.380 Pietro Beretta. to make any plea. The lower court then ordered the arrest of Padilla. its butt protruding.” ) under PD 1866. Padilla received a copy of this decision on 26 July 1995. SPO Mercado then read to appellant his constitutional rights. as maximum”. upon advice of counsel. Angeles City RTC Judge David Rosete rendered judgment dated 25 April 1994 convicting Padilla of the crime charged and sentenced him to an “indeterminate penalty from 17 years. Padilla was wearing a short leather jacket such that when he alighted with both his hands raised.  one .38 caliber revolver. before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City with illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions ( One . a gun tucked on the left side of his waist was revealed. After trial. On 9 August 1995 he filed a “motion for reconsideration (and to recall the warrant of arrest)” but the same was denied by the appellate court in its 20 September 1995 Resolution. played with the crowd by holding their hands with one hand and pointing to SPO2 Borja with his right hand saying “iyan. Padilla was correspondingly charged on 3 December 1992. The resolution of this motion was incorporated in the appellate court’s decision sustaining Padilla’s conviction. his gesture exposed a long magazine of an armalite rifle tucked in his back right pocket. SPO2 Miranda told Padilla to alight to which Padilla complied.
(2) Seizure of evidence in “plain view”. (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent. (4) consented warrantless search. This latter gesture of Padilla indicated a waiver of his right against the alleged search and seizure. before the search. 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. is a prying into hidden places for that which is concealed. Objects whose possession are prohibited by law inadvertently found in plain view are subject to seizure even without a warrant. are as follows: (1) warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12. In connection therewith. The same justification applies to the confiscation of the M-16 armalite rifle which was immediately apparent to the policemen as they took a casual glance at the Pajero and saw said rifle lying horizontally near the driver’s seat. The products of that search are admissible evidence not excluded by the exclusionary rule. that either the motorist is a law-offender (like Padilla with respect to the hit and run) or the contents or cargo of the vehicle are or have been instruments or the subject matter or the proceeds of some criminal offense. their seizure without a search warrant nonetheless can still be justified under a search incidental to a lawful arrest (first instance). (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are. The seizure of the Smith & Wesson revolver and an M-16 rifle magazine was justified for they came within “plain view” of the policemen who inadvertently discovered the revolver and magazine tucked in Padilla’s waist and back pocket respectively. the police officers should happen to discover a criminal offense being committed by any person. People v. and (5) customs search. Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence. it indeed appears that the authorities stumbled upon Padilla’s firearms and ammunitions without even undertaking any active search which.” With respect to the Berreta pistol and a black bag containing assorted magazines. Romero (J): 4 concur
. as it is commonly understood. the officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe. Thus it has been held that “When in pursuing an illegal action or in the commission of a criminal offense. and (d) “plain view” justified mere seizure of evidence without further search.Held: The 5 well-settled instances when a warrantless search and seizure of property is valid. Even assuming that the firearms and ammunitions were products of an active search done by the authorities on the person and vehicle of Padilla. 49 Highly regulated by the government. This satisfied the two-tiered test of an incidental search: (i) the item to be searched (vehicle) was within the arrestee’s custody or area of immediate control and (ii) the search was contemporaneous with the arrest. Padilla voluntarily surrendered them to the police. the police may undertake a protective search of the passenger compartment and containers in the vehicle which are within Padilla’s grabbing distance regardless of the nature of the offense. when he raised his hands after alighting from his Pajero. a warrantless search is constitutionally permissible when. Another justification is a search of a moving vehicle (third instance). they are not precluded from performing their duties as police officers for the apprehension of the guilty person and the taking of the corpus delicti. (3) Search of a moving vehicle. 27 January 1993] Third Division. 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. as in this case. Once the lawful arrest was effected. In conformity with the trial court’s observation. and that his failure to quash the information estopped him from assailing any purported defect. Musa [GR 96177.
Still. Musa returned to his house and gave Ani 2 newspaper wrappers containing dried marijuana. Upon his arraignment on 11 January 1990. An officer making an arrest may take from the person arrested and money or property found upon his person which was used in the commission of the crime or was the fruit of the crime or which might furnish the prisoner with the means of committing violence or of escaping. Information received from civilian informer was that this Mari Musa was engaged in selling marijuana in said place. Musa claimed that he was subjected to torture when he refused to sign the document containing details of the investigation. After trial and on 31 August 1990. When the discovery of the evidence did not constitute a search. Faisal. neither his permission to enter the house. may extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include the premises or surroundings under his immediate control. Mari Musa said. The next day. and a NARCOM officer (Sgt. or his father. 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. The signal to apprehend Musa was given. The money was given to Musa’s wife who was able to slip away. Issue: Whether the contents of the red plastic bag found in the kitchen may be admitted as evidence as evidence acquired incidental to a lawful arrest. Musa pleaded not guilty. or which may be used as evidence in the trial of the cause. the Narcotics Command (NARCOM) in Zamboanga City conducted surveillance and test buy on a certain Mari Musa of Suterville. The Narcom agent (Sgt. the warrantless seizure of the object was
. Belarga) frisked Musa but did not find the marked money. The next day. a buybust was planned with Sgt. Later.Facts: On 13 December 1989. in a buy-bust operation conducted to entrap a drug-pusher. NARCOM teams proceeded to the target site in 2 civilian vehicles. Musa appealed to the Supreme Court. Section 4 of RA 6425. Held: Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest authorizes the arresting officer to make a search upon the person of the person arrested. Mari Musa was handcuffed and was taken to the NARCOM office where he was joined by his wife. The NARCOM team rushed to the location of Ani. Musa was placed under arrest and was brought to the NARCOM office. but where the officer merely saw what was placed before him in full view. an information against Musa was filed on 15 December 1989. Ani gave Musa the P20. Mari Musa alleged that the NARCOM agents.00. Hence. He allegedly was not able to tell the fiscal that he had been maltreated by the NARCOM agents because he was afraid he might be maltreated in the fiscal’s office. he was taken to the fiscal‘s office to which he was allegedly made to answer to a single question: that if he owned the marijuana. Mari Musa was brought to the City Jail. got inside his house without any search warrant. as an incident to a suspect’s lawful arrest. he did not know. One newspaper-wrapper marijuana and the plastic bag containing more marijuana was sent to the PC Crime Laboratory. He also did not know if the plastic bag belonged to his brother. Ani) was able to buy one newspaper-wrapped dried marijuana for P10. Belarga found a plastic bag containing dried marijuana inside it somewhere in the kitchen. The warrantless search and seizure. The NARCOM agents searched the house and allegedly found a red plastic bag whose contents. dressed in civilian clothes. who was living in another house about ten arms-length away. Ani being the poseur-buyer.00 marked money. the law enforcement agents may seize the marked money found on the person of the pusher immediately after the arrest even without arrest and search warrants. the test of which gave positive results for the presence of marijuana. Zamboanga City. who was living with him. On the other hand. which was turned over to the Narcom office. the RTC Zamboanga City (Branch XII) found him guilty of selling marijuana in violation of Article II.
the black bag was opened in the presence of Libnao. Found inside it were 8 bricks of leaves sealed in plastic bags and covered with newspaper. As soon as the barangay captain arrived. Suspicious of the black bag and the two’s uneasy behavior when asked about its ownership and content. The “plain view” doctrine is usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused.m. at about 10 p. and personnel of the center. The “plain view” doctrine. SPO3 Arthur Antonio. the exclusion of the plastic bag containing marijuana does not. PO3 Florante Ferrer and SPO3 Roberto Aquino were assigned to man the checkpoint. may not be used to launch unbridled searches and indiscriminate seizures nor to extend a general exploratory search made solely to find evidence of defendant’s guilt. the guilt of Musa of the crime charged has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. who were later identified as Agpanga Libnao and Rosita Nunga. the Police Alert Team installed a checkpoint in Barangay Salapungan to apprehend the suspects. would be making a delivery that night. Puno (J): 4 concur Facts: On August 1996. the damaging effect of the other pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution to prove that the appellant sold marijuana. Witness SPO1 Marlon Gamotea. the ‘plain view’ doctrine may not be used to extend a general exploratory search from one object to another until something incriminating at last emerges. At about 1:00 a.. They learned from their asset that a certain woman from Tajiri. To determine who owns the bag and its contents.m. hot pursuit. however. the extension of the original justification is legitimate only where it is immediately apparent to the police that they have evidence before them. They brought with them the black bag. An hour later. intelligence operatives of the Philippine National Police (PNP) stationed in Tarlac. diminish. Tarlac and a companion from Baguio City were transporting illegal drugs once a month in big bulks. It had two female passengers seated inside.legal on the basis of the “plain view” doctrine and upheld the admissibility of said evidence. SPO1 Gamotea and PO3 Ferrer flagged down a passing tricycle. Thus. People vs. held a briefing in connection with a tip which his office received that the two drug pushers. but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. SPO3 Antonio interrogated the
. the two women and the bag were turned over to the investigator on duty. The “plain view” doctrine neither justify the seizure of the object where the incriminating nature of the object is not apparent from the “plain view” of the object. On 19 October 1996. of the following day. Tarlac began conducting surveillance operation on suspected drug dealers in the area. The leaves were suspected to be marijuana. Ani and T/Sgt. What the ‘plain view’ cases have in common is that the police officer in each of them had a prior justification for an intrusion in the course of which he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. or some other legitimate reason for being present unconnected with a search directed against the accused — and permits the warrantless seizure. Libnao [GR 136860. Chief Inspector Benjamin Arceo. Belarga and the two wrappings of marijuana sold by Musa to Sgt. in any way. Ani. Upon reaching the center. search incident to lawful arrest. Tarlac Police Chief. The doctrine serves to supplement the prior justification — whether it be a warrant for another object. Section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. In front of them was a black bag. PO3 Ferrer fetched Barangay Captain Roy Pascual to witness the opening of the black bag. however. riding in a tricycle. In the meantime. in violation of Article II. the officers invited them to Kabayan Center 2 located at the same barangay. Nunga. Of course. 20 January 2003] Third Division. among other pieces of evidence. By virtue of the testimonies of Sgt.
two. Nunga stated that it was owned by Libnao.A. On 19 November 1998. riding a tricycle and carrying a suspicious-looking black bag. Libnao and Nunga transport drugs in big bulks. Warrantless search and seizure of moving vehicles are allowed in recognition of the impracticability of securing a warrant under said circumstances as the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant may be sought. reasonably arising out of circumstances known to the seizing officer. otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. however. in turn. that an automobile or other vehicle contains as item. Pampanga on 23 October 1996. found Libnao and Nunga guilty. she was committing a criminal offense. Thereafter. are limited to routine checks where the examination of the vehicle is limited to visual inspection. Issue: Whether the warrantless search and seizure made upon Libnao and Nunga was reasonable. Thus. She concluded that the articles were marijuana leaves weighing eight kilos.. She was making a delivery or transporting prohibited drugs in violation of Article II. they were made to sign a confiscation receipt without the assistance of any counsel. Held: The constitutional guarantee (in Article III. upon a belief. Searches and seizures are as a rule unreasonable unless authorized by a validly issued search warrant or warrant of arrest. The warrantless search herein is not bereft of a probable cause.e. Under these circumstances. both became uneasy. Branch 65. not even close relatives of theirs were present. Under the Rules of Court. which possibly contained the drugs in bulk. the two were intercepted three hours later. the requirement that a judicial warrant must be obtained prior to the carrying out of a search and seizure is not absolute. At 10:00 pm of 19 October 1996. i. The seized articles were later brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory in San Fernando. Be that as it may. No. article or object which by law is subject to seizure and destruction. as amended. each was sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of two million pesos. such would be constitutionally permissible only if the officers made it upon probable cause. Tarlac City. Libnao and Nunga were charged for violation of Section 4. The Tarlac Police Intelligence Division had been conducting surveillance operation for three months in the area. During the course of the investigation. one of which relates to search of moving vehicles. Libnao appealed. the police received a tip that the two will be transporting drugs that night riding a tricycle. the Regional Trial Court. Peace officers in such cases. one of the instances a police officer is permitted to carry out a warrantless arrest is when the person to be arrested is caught committing a crime in flagrante delicto. It is also clear that at the time she was apprehended. Section 4 of R. the fundamental protection accorded by the search and seizure clause is that between persons and police must stand the protective authority of a magistrate clothed with power to issue or refuse to issue search warrants and warrants of arrest. The surveillance yielded the information that once a month. 6425. The latter. When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search. Surely. For their conviction. When they were asked who owned it and what its content was. Forensic Chemist Daisy P.
. There are certain familiar exceptions to the rule. Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution) is not a blanket prohibition against all searches and seizures as it operates only against “unreasonable” searches and seizures. disputed this allegation. Article II of RA 6425. as they were not informed of their right to have one. the warrantless search and seizure of Libnao’s bag was not illegal. Babu conducted a laboratory examination on them.
Barangay Baloganon. After about half an hour. the policemen went inside the house nearby and when they came out..People vs.320 kilograms of dried marijuana was ordered confiscated in favor of the government. The team seized the prohibited drug. to surrender the same so he would deserve a lesser penalty. Zambales. as amended by RA 7659. Zambales proceeded to Masinloc. SPO1 Buloron and his companions arrested Estrella and brought him to San Marcelino. and being rented by Estrella’s live-in partner. Barangay Baloganon. SPO1 Buloron asked Estrella if indeed he had in his possession prohibited drug and if so. the place mentioned in the search warrant. while Estrella was talking with his friends Rael Tapado and Victor de Leon at a vacant lot just outside the house of Camillo Torres and about 70 meters away from his house. named Eva. They photographed Estrella and brought him to their office at San Marcelino. however. Zambales. Masinloc. 21 January 2003] Third Division. Estella was investigated at San Marcelino. Masinloc. which contained 4 big bricks of dried marijuana leaves and a . While inside the hut. Estrella was charged for possession of prohibited drugs and unlicensed firearms. the latter’s brother. found Estrella guilty of violating Section 8. They showed Estrella the search warrant and explained the contents to him. Article II of RA 6425. San Marcelino. they had with them a bulk of plastic and had it shown to Estrella. The police did not believe him and insisted that Estrella’s house is that house located about 5–8 meters away from them. The 8. Senior Police Officer 1 (SPO1) Antonio Buloron. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iba. Masinloc for the enforcement of the search warrant. Panganiban (J): 4 concur Facts: Prior to 20 November 1996. Still. The policemen inquired from Estrella as to where his house is located and Estrella told them that his house is located across the road. They coordinated with the members of the Philippine National Police (PNP) in Masinloc and sought the assistance of Barangay Captain Rey Barnachea of Baloganon. Barangay Captain Barnachea and SPO1 Edgar Bermudez of the Masinloc Police Station also signed the receipt as witnesses. Estrella identified himself to them. then Intelligence and Investigation Officer. They found a plastic container under the kitchen table. One can contained 20 bricks of fruiting tops. The group introduced themselves as policemen and told them that they were looking for Antonio Estella because they have a search warrant issued against him. In the morning of 20 November 1996. The team searched the hut in the presence of Estrella and his live-in partner.m. alleged otherwise and claimed that on 20 November 1996 between 10:30 and 11:00 a. Zambales. Zambales (Branch 69). the revolver and ammunitions. and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. and the Sheriff
. Zambales where he informed the police officers of the fact that the house they searched was occupied by Spouses Vicente and Fely Bakdangan. Estrella surrendered to the team 2 cans containing dried marijuana fruiting tops. Barangay Captain Barnachea accompanied the police officers to Purok Yakal. Estrella [GR 138539-40.38 caliber revolver with four live ammunitions. in Criminal Case RTC 2143-I and on 25 August 1998. Estella at Purok Yakal. Executive Judge Romulo Estrada of the Regional Trial Court of Zambales issued a warrant for the conduct of a search and seizure in the residence of Antonio C. On their way to Purok Yakal. a group of men approached them. The defense. SPO1 Buloron saw Estrella sitting on a rocking chair located about 2 meters away from a hut owned by Narding Estella. They approached Estrella and introduced themselves as police officers. together with SPO1 Jose Arca and several other members of the Provincial Special Operation Group based in Burgos. Estrella told the policemen to inquire from the Barangay Captain Barnachea as to where his house is and heard the latter telling the policemen that his house is located near the Abokabar junk shop. The team seized and signed a receipt for the seized items.
Held: There is no convincing proof that Estrella indeed surrendered the prohibited drug. Without that knowledge. or is attempting to commit an offense.” Never was it proven that Estrella. Such a search presupposes a lawful or valid arrest and can only be invoked through Section 5 (Arrest without warrant. without a warrant.” However.38 caliber revolver without serial number and 4 live ammunitions. when lawful). Camp Crame. which provides that “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. 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 Rule 112.was directed to deliver the subject marijuana to the Dangerous Drugs Board for its proper disposition. Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. arrest a person: (a) when. Assuming arguendo that appellant was indeed committing an offense in the presence of the arresting officers. The exception. is actually committing. searched was the entire hut. In fact. was in possession of the subject prohibited drug during the search. Given this backdrop. or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. whether voluntarily or otherwise. Issue: Whether the search undertaken inside the hut — during which the incriminating evidence was allegedly recovered — was legal. there could have been no search incident to a lawful arrest. the person to be arrested has committed. and that the arrest without a warrant was lawful. in his presence. 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. On the other hand. and to prevent the latter from destroying evidence within reach. subject of the offense. it still cannot be said that the search conducted was within the confines of the law. who was the person to be arrested. or which may provide the prisoner with the means of committing violence or escaping. therefore. Estrella appealed said decision. The purpose of the exception in Chimel v. Estrella was acquitted from the charge of violation of PD 1866 The . the scope of the search should be limited to the area within which the person to be arrested can reach for a weapon or for evidence that he or she can destroy. In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above. Herein. California is to protect the arresting officer from being harmed by the person being arrested. the testimony of Prosecution Witness Barnachea clouds rather than clarifies the prosecution’s story. which provides that “A peace officer or a private person may. which cannot be said to have been within Estrela’s
. or which may be used in evidence in the trial of the case. Firearms and Explosives Division. It follows. were however ordered delivered to any authorized representative of the Philippine National Police. that there was no way of knowing if he had committed or was actually committing an offense in the presence of the arresting officers. Searches and seizures incident to lawful arrests are governed by Section 12 (Search incident to lawful arrest). (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. the police authorities cannot claim that the search was incident to a lawful arrest. therefore. who might be armed with a concealed weapon. The prevailing rule is that the arresting officer may take from the arrested individual any money or property found upon the latter’s person — that which was used in the commission of the crime or was the fruit of the crime. Quezon City. should not be strained beyond what is needed to serve its purpose.
entered a plea of not guilty.”
. comprised of three to four men. petitioner. 12 December 1997] En Banc. Manila. Manalili filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. and not more than 30 years of Reclusion Perpetua. They chanced upon two groups of Muslim-looking men. hitting him with benches and guns. the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. In its decision of 24 January 1996. pursuant to the exception of “stop and frisk. (J): 11 concur Facts: On 27 August 1990. but nothing was found on him. On 30 August 1990. These men were acting suspiciously with “their eyes moving very fast. the search exceeded the bounds of that which may be considered to be incident to a lawful arrest. Yu saw Malacat and 2 others attempt to detonate a grenade).m. the record of the case was forwarded to the Court of Appeals (CA-GR CR 15988). 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”. was on foot patrol with three other police officers (all of them in uniform) along Quezon Boulevard.” Yu and his companions positioned themselves at strategic points and observed both groups for about 30 minutes. several other police officers mauled him. and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of not less than 17 years. Malacat vs. Malacat was charged with violating Section 3 of Presidential Decree 1866. Yu did not issue any receipt for the grenade he allegedly recovered from Malacat. However. Petitioner was once again searched. as maximum. at about 6:30 p. Rodolfo Yu of the Western Police District. near the Mercury Drug store at Plaza Miranda. Yu found a fragmentation grenade tucked inside the latter’s “front waist line.38 caliber revolver was recovered. apprehended Abdul Casan from whom a .immediate control. with each group. In its decision dated 10 February 1994 but promulgated on 15 February 1994. who then fled in different directions. and that the seizure of the grenade from Malacat was incidental to a lawful arrest. As the policemen gave chase. likewise at Plaza Miranda. He saw the grenade only in court when it was presented. assisted by counsel de officio. Malacat denied the charges and explained that he only recently arrived in Manila. 3. Issue: Whether the search made on Malacat is valid. Quiapo. the trial court ruled that the warrantless search and seizure of Malacat was akin to a “stop and frisk. At arraignment on 9 October 1990. The trial court thus found Malacat guilty of the crime of illegal possession of explosives under Section 3 of PD 1866. Police Station No. inasmuch as allegedly the previous Saturday. Metropolitan Police Force of the Integrated National Police. Thus. 25 August 1990. as minimum. posted at opposite sides of the corner of Quezon Boulevard near the Mercury Drug Store.. allegedly in response to bomb threats reported seven days earlier. Davide Jr. Court of Appeals [GR 123595. 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. police officer Rogelio Malibiran. Quiapo. 4 months and 1 day of Reclusion Temporal. Upon searching Malacat. Manila. On 18 February 1994. Yu caught up with and apprehended Sammy Malacat y Mandar (who Yu recognized.” Yu’s companion. The police officers then approached one group of men. Malacat filed a notice of appeal indicating that he was appealing to the Supreme Court.
(5) a search incidental to a lawful arrest. Third. these are found in Section 5. 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. which underlies the recognition that a police officer may.. could not have been visible to Yu.” it nevertheless holds that mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a “stop and frisk. or an overt physical act. there was at all no ground. the search conducted on Malacat could not have been one incidental to a lawful arrest. under appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner. Terry vs. to believe that Malacat was armed with a deadly weapon. as the precedent arrest determines the validity of the incidental search. None was visible to Yu. subject to certain exceptions. As regards valid warrantless arrests. in light of the police officer’s experience and surrounding conditions. the alleged grenade was “discovered” “inside the front waistline” of Malacat. Malacat and his companions were merely standing at the corner and were not creating any commotion or trouble.Held: The general rule as regards arrests. These two types of warrantless searches differ in terms of the requisite quantum of proof before they may be validly effected and in their allowable scope. On the other hand.” A genuine reason must exist. 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. 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. was being committed or was going to be committed. Here. 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. In a search incidental to a lawful arrest. Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.” The concepts of a “stop-and-frisk” and of a search incidental to a lawful arrest must not be confused. Second. indicating that a crime had just been committed.” while that under Section 5(b) has been described as a “hot pursuit” arrest. a “stop-and-frisk” serves a two-fold interest: (1) the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection. and from all indications as to the distance between Yu and Malacat. any telltale bulge. Here. 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. on the part of Malacat. while probable cause is not required to conduct a “stop and frisk.m. (3) seizure of evidence in plain view. probable or otherwise. Plainly. The Constitutional prohibition against unreasonable arrests. Finally. A warrantless arrest under the circumstances contemplated under Section 5(a) has been denominated as one “in flagrante delicto. Turning to valid warrantless searches. 10 June 1968] Warren (J)
. to warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons concealed about him. approach a person for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even without probable cause. they are limited to the following: (1) customs searches. searches and seizures is that a warrant is needed in order to validly effect the same. the arresting officer. (2) search of moving vehicles. searches and seizures refers to those effected without a validly issued warrant. (4) consent searches. there are at least three (3) reasons why the “stop-and-frisk” was invalid: First. assuming that Malacat was indeed hiding a grenade. for as he admitted. thus presumably dusk. This claim is neither supported by any police report or record nor corroborated by any other police officer who allegedly chased that group. Ohio [392 US 1. and (6) a “stop and frisk.
The court distinguished between an investigatory “stop” and an arrest. he has “seized” that person within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. and the State Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that “no substantial constitutional question” was involved. and between a “frisk” of the outer clothing for weapons and a full-blown search for evidence of crime. Though the trial court rejected the prosecution theory that the guns had been seized during a search incident to a lawful arrest.” the officer followed them and saw them rejoin the third man a couple of blocks away in front of a store. the court denied the motion to suppress and admitted the weapons into evidence on the ground that the officer had cause to believe that Terry and Chilton were acting suspiciously. strolling down Huron Road. on a downtown beat which he had been patrolling for many years. The exclusionary rule cannot properly be invoked to exclude the products of legitimate and restrained police investigative techniques.” and therefore applies as much to the citizen on the streets as well as at home or elsewhere. The three were taken to the police station. at one of which they were joined by a third man (Katz) who left swiftly. He saw them proceed alternately back and forth along an identical route. The issue in this case is not the abstract propriety of the police conduct but the admissibility against petitioner of the evidence uncovered by the search and seizure. Whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away. observed two strangers (Terry and Richard Chilton) on a street corner. Terry and Chilton were found guilty. The officer ordered the three into the store.” whereupon McFadden spun Terry around. took out a revolver. The officer approached the three. that their interrogation was warranted. He did not put his hands under the outer garments of Katz (since he discovered nothing in his pat-down which might have been a weapon). Suspecting the two men of “casing a job. which they did for a total of about 24 times. “protects people. He removed Terry’s overcoat. not places. and found in his overcoat pocket. identified himself as a policeman. he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest
. and that the officer for his own protection had the right to pat down their outer clothing having reasonable cause to believe that they might be armed. made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. a pistol. Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered. and this Court’s approval of such techniques should not discourage remedies other than the exclusionary rule to curtail police abuses for which that is not an effective sanction. a stick-up. patted down his outside clothing. The defense moved to suppress the weapons. The Fourth Amendment applies to “stop and frisk” procedures such as those followed here. Issue: Whether it is always unreasonable for a policeman to seize a person and subject him to a limited search for weapons unless there is probable cause for an arrest. a Cleveland police detective. A careful exploration of the outer surfaces of a person’s clothing in an attempt to find weapons is a “search” under that Amendment. and asked their names. Terry and Chilton were charged with carrying concealed weapons. but was unable to remove. and ordered the three to face the wall with their hands raised. an intermediate appellate court affirmed. Held: The Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.Facts: Martin McFadden. He patted down the outer clothing of Chilton and Katz and seized a revolver from Chilton’s outside overcoat pocket. Each completion of the route was followed by a conference between the two on a corner. pausing to stare in the same store window. or under Terry’s or Chilton’s outer garments until he felt the guns. The men “mumbled something.
and any weapons seized may properly be introduced in evidence against the person from whom they were taken. The officer’s protective seizure of Terry and his companions and the limited search which he made were reasonable. Officer McFadden had reasonable grounds to believe that Terry was armed and dangerous. An officer may make an intrusion short of arrest where he has reasonable apprehension of danger before being possessed of information justifying arrest. have to be decided on its own facts. Though the police must whenever practicable secure a warrant to make a search and seizure. in front of the Kalookan City Cemetery. He did not conduct a general exploratory search for whatever evidence of criminal activity he might find. CA [GR 113447. where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries. both at their inception and as conducted. The officer here was performing a legitimate function of investigating suspicious conduct when he decided to approach Terry and his companions. Panganiban (J): 4 concur Facts: At about 2:10 p. to neutralize the threat of physical harm. Officer McFadden patted down the outer clothing of Terry and his two companions. he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. the revolver seized from Terry was properly admitted in evidence against him. Manalili v. The officer’s search was confined to what was minimally necessary to determine whether the men were armed. An officer justified in believing that an individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed may. of 11 April 1988. The reasonableness of any particular search and seizure must be assessed in light of the particular circumstances against the standard of whether a man of reasonable caution is warranted in believing that the action taken was appropriate. which was made for the sole purpose of protecting himself and others nearby. A search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to arrest must be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies of the situation. The actions of Terry and his companions were consistent with the officer’s hypothesis that they were contemplating a daylight robbery and were armed.
. The policeman carefully restricted his search to what was appropriate to the discovery of the particular items which he sought. and the intrusion. that procedure cannot be followed where swift action based upon on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat is required. and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others’ safety. He did not place his hands in their pockets or under the outer surface of their garments until he had felt weapons. was confined to ascertaining the presence of weapons. Herein. The policemen were Pat.that individual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed. Mabini street. of course.m. Romeo Espiritu and Pat. At the time McFadden seized Terry and searched him for weapons. Kalookan City. Each case of this sort will. Such a search is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. Where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous. and then he merely reached for and removed the guns. and it was necessary for the protection of himself and others to take swift measures to discover the true facts and neutralize the threat of harm if it materialized. 9 October 1997] Third Division. Thus. policemen from the Anti-Narcotics Unit of the Kalookan City Police Station were conducting a surveillance along A. take necessary measures to determine whether that person is carrying a weapon.
whenever practicable. however. obtain advance judicial approval of searches and seizures through the warrant procedure. In Philippine jurisprudence. filed a Notice of Appeal dated 31 May 1989. the latter approached him and introduced themselves as police officers. When this male person tried to avoid the policemen. Article II of Republic Act 6425. Held: In the landmark case of Terry vs. With the agreement of the public prosecutor. Benjamin Razon.000.00 bail bond. Romeo Espiritu asked the male person if he could see what said male person had in his hands. Issue: Whether a search and seizure could be effected without necessarily being preceded by an arrest. the Court of Appeals denied the appeal and affirmed the trial court. and pat him for weapon(s). The male person was then brought to the Anti-Narcotics Unit of the Kalookan City Police Headquarters and was turned over to Cpl. in appropriate circumstances and manner. a stop-and-frisk was defined as the vernacular designation of the right of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street. Atty. gives this guarantee. They then chanced upon a male person in front of the cemetery who appeared high on drugs. for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even though there is insufficient probable cause to make an actual arrest. counsel for the defense. In allowing such a search. Article III of the 1987 Constitution. Pat. Upon his arraignment on 21 April 1988. such search and seizure is unconstitutional and subject to challenge. otherwise. viz. The appellate court denied reconsideration via its Resolution dated 20 January 1994. (3) seizure
. Tamondong the confiscated wallet and its suspected marijuana contents. The surveillance was being made because of information that drug addicts were roaming the area in front of the Kalookan City Cemetery. acting as a Special Criminal Court. Espiritu took the wallet and examined it. The male person was observed to have reddish eyes and to be walking in a swaying manner. (2) search of moving vehicles. Manalili was charged by Assistant Caloocan City Fiscal E. abandon the rule that the police must. Juan R. the general rule is that a search and seizure must be validated by a previously secured judicial warrant. Lacerna enumerated five recognized exceptions to the rule against warrantless search and seizure. Manalili remained on provisional liberty. On 11 April 1988. Manalili was released after filing a P10. The policemen then asked the male person what he was holding in his hands.: “(1) search incidental to a lawful arrest. Upon reaching the Kalookan City Cemetery. Section 2. He kept the wallet and its marijuana contents. This right. the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City. Espiritu also turned over to Cpl. excused only by exigent circumstances. On 19 April 1993. It did not. the interest of effective crime prevention and detection allows a police officer to approach a person. The recent case of People vs. Wilfredo Tamondong for investigation. Romeo Espiritu to examine the same. interrogate him. rendered on 19 May 1989 a decision convicting appellant of illegal possession of marijuana residue. The male person tried to resist. He found suspected crushed marijuana residue inside. Pat. Manalili filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court. Ohio. After trial in due course. the policemen alighted from their vehicle. The man turned out to be Alain Manalili y Dizon. Branch 124. Pat. however. is not absolute. What justified the limited search was the more immediate interest of the police officer in taking steps to assure himself that the person with whom he was dealing was not armed with a weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against him. Bautista with violation of Section 8. Manalili pleaded “not guilty” to the charge. The latter showed the wallet and allowed Pat.Anger Lumabas and a driver named Arnold Enriquez was driving a Tamaraw vehicle which was the official car of the Police Station of Kalookan City.
” In People vs. the Court held that there were many instances where a search and seizure could be effected without necessarily being preceded by an arrest. During such investigation. They also brought Takeshi and his wife. it was reasonable for a police officer to stop a suspicious individual briefly in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo while obtaining more information. one of which was stop-and-frisk. requested Suzuki to open the box. People vs. the machine was activated.
. In Posadas vs. following reports that drug trafficking is prevalent in domestic airports. they found marijuana in his possession. Herein. Suzuki proceeded to the “walk-through metal detector. Stop-and-frisk has already been adopted as another exception to the general rule against a search without a warrant. Patrolman Espiritu and his companions observed during their surveillance that Manalili had red eyes and was wobbling like a drunk along the Caloocan City Cemetery. Sr. upon the advice of Corazon Sinosa. (4) customs search. This prompted PO3 Rhodelin Poyugao of the Police Aviation Security Command (PASCOM) to frisk him bodily.in plain view. signifying the presence of metallic substance either in his person or in the box he was carrying. “open. the red light switched on and the alarm sounded. the Court further explained that in these cases. but SPO1 Casugod called him. He appeared tense and reluctant and started to leave. PO3 Poyugao picked up the box of piaya and passed it through the machine. Finding no metallic object in his body. Hedishi Suzuki and Takeshi Koketsu. a civilian personnel of the PASCOM. and to coordinate with local airport authorities and the PASCOM. The search was valid. saying in faltering English. SPO1 Gilbert Linda of the Narcotics Command (NARCOM) and Donato Barnezo of the PASCOM.” The policemen therefore had sufficient reason to stop Manalili to investigate if he was actually high on drugs. being akin to a stop-and-frisk. Suzuki was bound for Manila via flight 132 of the Philippine Airlines and was carrying a small traveling bag and a box marked “Bongbong’s piaya. such suspicious behavior was characteristic of drug addicts who were “high. They apprehended Suzuki near the entrance of the terminal and brought him to the PASCOM office. futile and much too late under the circumstances. Encinada. From his experience as a member of the Anti-Narcotics Unit of the Caloocan City Police.” At the pre-departure area. PO3 Poyugao then ordered Suzuki to go to the hand-carried luggage inspection counter where several PASCOM and NARCOM personnel were present. Suzuki ran outside the pre-departure area but he was chased by PO3 Poyugao. SPO1 Arturo Casugod. open. 23 October 2003] En Banc. and (5) waiver by the accused themselves of their right against unreasonable search and seizure. To require the police officers to search the bag only after they had obtained a search warrant might prove to be useless. the search and seizure may be made only with probable cause as the essential requirement. Again. which according to police information was a popular hangout of drug addicts. both Japanese nationals. Thereupon. In the morning of 12 April 1994. Inside were dried fruiting tops which looked like marijuana. the PNP Narcotics Command issued a directive to all Chiefs of Narcotics Regional Field Units to cover all domestic airport terminals within their respective areas of responsibility. Sandoval-Gutierrez (J): 13 concur Facts: Sometime in November 1993. rather than to simply shrug his shoulders and allow a crime to occur. Upon seeing this.” SPO1 Casugod opened the box and found therein 18 small packs. entered the predeparture area of the Bacolod Airport Terminal. In such a situation. Suzuki [GR 120670. SPO1 Casugod opened one pack. Court of Appeals. Eventually he consented.” a machine which produces a red light and an alarm once it detects the presence of metallic substance or object. 17 of which were wrapped in aluminum foil.
Subsequently. the PASCOM agents have the right under the law to conduct search of prohibited materials or substances. the police apprised Suzuki of his constitutional rights. the Secretary of Justice. defined and penalized under Section 8. In People vs. (3) Exercise operational control and supervision over all agencies involved in airport security operations.Lourdes Linsangan. Article II of RA 6525. Suzuki and his companions were brought to the prosecutor’s office for inquest and placed under the custody of C/Inspector Ernesto Alcantara at the NARCOM office. to the detriment of society. Tayson. and People vs. Hence. refused to acknowledge. the Secretary of Public Works. (4) Take all necessary preventive measures to maintain peace and order. however. He then drafted a “confiscation receipt” which Suzuki. When he arrived. (2) Undertake aircraft anti-hijacking operations. To simply refuse passengers carrying suspected illegal items to enter the pre-departure area is to deprive the authorities of their duty to conduct search. Based upon the Memorandum of Understanding. Under the said Memorandum of Understanding the then AVSECOM (now PASCOM) shall have the following functions and responsibilities: (1) Secure all airports against offensive and terroristic acts that threaten civil aviation. Johnson. SPO1 Casugod weighed the contents of the box and inventoried the same.000. Lourdes asked permission to call Atty. in relation to RA 6235. in violation of the Dangerous Drug Act. which is a creation of Presidential Letter of Instruction (LOI) 399. conducted three tests on the specimen samples which proved positive for marijuana. Bacolod City in Criminal Case 94-16100 convicted Hedishi Suzuki of illegal possession of marijuana. Suzuki voluntarily gave his consent to the search conducted by the PASCOM agents. Silvestre Tayson. Transportation and Communication. a prohibited drug.
. the PASCOM had the legal authority to be at the Bacolod Airport. SPO1 Casugod turned over Suzuki to SPO1 Linda for investigation. Canton. the Court validated the search conducted on the departing passengers and the consequent seizure of the shabu found in their persons. to the office. National Intelligence and Security Authority and the Secretary of Finance was signed. Suzuki was charged with unlawful possession of marijuana. upon the advice of Atty. and trial followed thereafter.9 kilograms or 1. This is not the first time that the Court recognize a search conducted pursuant to routine airport security procedure as an exception to the proscription against warrantless searches. the forensic chemist of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory. as amended. Issue: Whether the PASCOM has the authority to inspect luggages or hand-carried bags. Here. P/Inspector Rea Abastillas Villavicencio. Held: The Police Aviation Security Command (PASCOM) is the implementing arm of the National Action Committee on Anti-Hijacking (NACAH). The total weight of the suspected marijuana fruiting tops was 1. On 18 February 1978. Branch 45. Meanwhile. It should be stressed. and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death and to pay a fine of P10. The Regional Trial Court. being suspects as conspirators with Suzuki in drug trafficking. xxx. the Director General. a Memorandum of Understanding among the Secretary of National Defense. Suzuki entered a plea of not guilty. Bacolod City and to inspect luggages or hand-carried bags. dated 28 April 1976. Clearly.900 grams. and provide other pertinent public safety services within the airports. that whenever the right against unreasonable search and seizure is challenged. an individual may choose between invoking the constitutional protection or waiving his right by giving consent to the search or seizure. the automatic review.00. The box with its contents was brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory. thus sanctioning impotence and ineffectivity of the law enforcers.000. pursuant to President LOI 399.
The confiscated packs contained a total of 580. the Regional Trial Court. the next day. (b) when an offense has in fact just been committed and person to be arrested has committed it. On 16 June 1998. Pasay City. contraband goods. bombs.” She was directed to take Johnson to the nearest women’s room for inspection. Mrs. a departing passenger bound for the United States via Continental Airlines CS-912.” The circumstances surrounding the arrest of the accused falls in either
. When she frisked Johnson. as amended by RA 7659. Ramirez reported the matter to her superior. saying “Sir. Her duty was to frisk departing passengers. and crew and check for weapons. Issue: Whether the extensive search made on Johnson at the airport violates her right against unreasonable search and seizure.S. 18 December 2000] Second Division. Olivia Ramirez was on duty as a lady frisker at Gate 16 of the NAIA departure area. Pictures were taken and her personal belongings were itemized. Branch 110.m. 58 years old. of that day. outside the women’s room.2 grams.000.m.2 grams of a substance which was fount by NBI Chemist George de Lara to be methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu. without a warrant. Not satisfied with the explanation. and xxx. is actually committing. a widow. She is a former Filipino citizen who was naturalized as an American on 16 June 1968 and had since been working as a registered nurse. in convalescent homes in the United States. where Johnson’s passport and ticket were taken and her luggage opened. or is attempting to commit an offense. SPO4 Reynaldo Embile. she arrived in the Philippines to visit her son’s family in Calamba. and a resident of Ocean Side. accompanied by SPO1 Rizalina Bernal. a regulated drug. 26 June 1998. taking care of geriatric patients and those with Alzheimer’s disease. and explosives.00 and the costs of the suit. Inside the women’s room. at the time of the incident. Rule 113 of tie 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides that “A peace officer or a private person may. Mendoza (J): 4 concur Facts: Leila Reyes Johnson was.People vs. Embile stayed outside. Held: The constitutional right of the accused was not violated as she was never placed under custodial investigation but was validly arrested without warrant pursuant to the provisions of Section 5. employees. On 14 May 1999. she felt something hard on the latter’s abdominal area.” Johnson brought out three plastic packs.A. She was due to fly back to the United States on July 26. Ramirez then asked her “to bring out the thing under her girdle. she checked in at the Philippine Village Hotel to avoid the traffic on the way to the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) and checked out at 5:30 p. Johnson was charged for the possession of 3 plastic bages of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Johnson was asked again by Ramirez what the hard object on her stomach was and Johnson gave the same answer she had previously given. On July 25. hindi po ako naniniwalang panty lang po iyon. Johnson [GR 138881. Upon inquiry. Laguna. arrest a person: (a) when in his presence.” Embile took Johnson and the plastic packs to the 1st Regional Aviation and Security Office (1st RASO) at the arrival area of the NAIA. At around 7:30 p. weighing a total of 580. U. which Ramirez then turned over to Embile. a violation of §16 of RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act). Johnson appealed. found Johnson guilty and sentenced her to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P500. Johnson explained she needed to wear two panty girdles as she had just undergone an operation as a result of an ectopic pregnancy. prohibited drugs. Ramirez took Johnson to the rest room. the person to be arrested has committed. California.
Ramos [GR 81567. if any prohibited materials or substances are found. who was listed in the hospital records as Ronnie Javelon. at the filing of the original information. Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause by exposure of their persons or property to the public in a manner reflecting a lack of subjective expectation of privacy. such would be subject to seizure. Jr. Bagong Barrio. Corollarily. These announcements place passengers on notice that ordinary constitutional protections against warrantless searches and seizures do not apply to routine airport procedures. In RE: Umil. Caloocan City. With increased concern over airplane hijacking and terrorism has come increased security at the nation’s airports. and notices in their airline tickets that they are subject to search and. Nazareno vs. Ramos [GR 84583-84]. or on 4 February 1988. Such recognition is implicit in airport security procedures. and In RE: Nazareno. is actually Rolando Dural. for security reasons. Agnes Hospital in Roosevelt Avenue. In RE: Ocaya. There is little question that such searches are reasonable.” (Criminal Case C-30112. as defendant. the Regional Intelligence Operations Unit of the Capital Command (RIOU-CAPCOM) received confidential information about a member of the NPA Sparrow Unit (liquidation squad) being treated for a gunshot wound at the St. The methamphetamine hydrochloride seized from her during the routine frisk at the airport was acquired legitimately pursuant to airport security procedures. Carlos Pabon and CIC Renato Manligot. While confined thereat. Dural was referred to the Caloocan City Fiscal who conducted an inquest and thereafter filed with the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City an information charging Rolando Dural alias Ronnie Javelon with the crime of “Double Murder with Assault Upon Agents of Persons in Authority. was justified since it was effected upon the discovery and recovery of “shabu” in her person in flagrante delicto. Passengers attempting to board an aircraft routinely pass through metal detectors. signs. no bail recommended). 9 July 1990]. The packs of methamphetamine hydrochloride having thus been obtained through a valid warrantless search. Quezon City. In view of this verification. Bernardo Itucal. or on 31 January 1988. Aguirre [GR 83162]. Upon verification. their carry-on baggage as well as checked luggage are routinely subjected to x-ray scans. Lim [GR 85727]. In RE: Anonuevo. de Villa [GR 8458182]. responsible for the killing of 2 CAPCOM soldiers the day before.paragraph (a) or (b) of the Rule above cited. Anonuevo vs. it was found that the wounded person. and fired at the 2 CAPCOM soldiers seated inside the car identified as T/Sgt. was still
. the gravity of the safety interests involved. On 15 February 1988. Indeed. a member of the NPA liquidation squad. her subsequent arrest. they are admissible in evidence against Johnson. given their minimal intrusiveness. in Macanining Street. and the reduced privacy expectations associated with airline travel. As a consequence of this positive identification. Dural was positively identified by eyewitnesses as the gunman who went on top of the hood of the CAPCOM mobile patrol car. which expectation society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. although likewise without warrant. the information was amended to include. Per Curiam: 11 concur Facts: [GR 81567] On 1 February 1988. physical searches are conducted to determine what the objects are. Should these procedures suggest the presence of suspicious objects. also Roque vs. Station Commander of Muntinlupa Police Station [GR 86332] En Banc. Dural was transferred to the Regional Medical Services of the CAPCOM. hence the allegation that she has been subjected to custodial investigation is far from being accurate. travelers are often notified through airport public address systems. Espiritu vs. Umil vs. Ocaya vs. In RE: Espiritu. who.
and establishing spot checkpoints. who
. on bearing arms by members of security agencies or police organizations. and crimes or offenses committed in furtherance thereof or in connection therewith constitute direct assaults against the State and are in the nature of continuing crimes. House of Representatives. Dural was arrested for being a member of the New Peoples Army (NPA). Subversion being a continuing offense. Seemingly. is more an act of capturing them in the course of an armed conflict. and Brig. than for the purpose of immediately prosecuting them in court for a statutory offense. to quell the rebellion. on 6 February 1988. organizing special strike forces. Aniag vs. However. Gen. promulgating rules and regulations on bearing. therefore.” Mr. his arrest without warrant is unjustified. On 26 February 1988. Taccad. Held: Dural. Commission on Elections [GR 104961. the arrest of Rolando Dural without warrant is justified as it can be said that he was committing an offense when arrested. Brig. The arrest of persons involved in the rebellion whether as its fighting armed elements. Gen. 7 October 1994] En Banc. Alexander Aguirre filed a Return of the Writ on 12 February 1988. Rolando Dural. and Renato Villanueva. Serapio P. Issue: Whether Dural can be validly arrested without any warrant of arrest for the crime of rebellion. it clearly appears that he was not arrested while in the act of shooting the 2 CAPCOM soldiers nor was he arrested just after the commission of the said offense for his arrest came a day after the said shooting incident. The crimes of rebellion. Thereafter. Ramon Montano. an outlawed subversive organization. The arrest. using and transporting of firearms. a petition for habeas corpus was filed with the Supreme Court on behalf of Roberto Umil. or any other milder acts but equally in pursuance of the rebellious movement.unidentified. Gen. Meanwhile. pursuant to the “Gun Ban. the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) issued on 11 December 1991 Resolution 2323 (”Gun Ban”). carrying and transporting of firearms or other deadly weapons. however. Umil and Villanueva posted bail before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City where charges for violation of the Anti-Subversion Act had been filed against them. need not follow the usual procedure in the prosecution of offenses which requires the determination by a judge of the existence of probable cause before the issuance of a judicial warrant of arrest and the granting of bail if the offense is bailable. or for committing non-violent acts but in furtherance of the rebellion. Obviously. Maj.. and they were accordingly released. subversion. on 26 December 1991 COMELEC issued Resolution 2327 providing for the summary disqualification of candidates engaged in gunrunning. the absence of a judicial warrant is no legal impediment to arresting or capturing persons committing overt acts of violence against government forces. the parties were heard on 15 February 1988. The Court issued the writ of habeas corpus on 9 February 1988 and Fidel V. Sergeant-at-Arms. Bellosillo (J): 6 concur. wrote Congressman Francisc B. on security personnel or bodyguards. Subsequently. and organization or maintenance of reaction forces during the election period. The arrest or capture is thus impelled by the exigencies of the situation that involves the very survival of society and its government and duly constituted authorities. 3 on leave Facts: In preparation for the synchronized national and local elections scheduled on 11 May 1992. Renato de Villa. On 10 January 1992. conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes. Ramos. Aniag Jr.
of the same day. not a security officer nor a bodyguard. and the inspection of the vehicle is merely limited to a visual search. He explained that he was ordered by Aniag to get the firearms from the house and return them to Sergeant-at Arms Taccad of the House of Representatives. On 13 April 1992. On 15 January 1992. at about 5:00 p. Aniag filed a petition for declaratory relief. and Sec. (q). Aniag moved for reconsideration and to hold in abeyance the administrative proceedings as well as the filing of the information in court. As there was no evidence to show that the policemen were impelled to do so because of a confidential report leading them to reasonably believe that certain motorists matching the description furnished by
. upon recommendation of its Law Department. 33 and 35 of RA 7166. the police referred Arellano’s case to the Office of the City Prosecutor for inquest. On 28 January 1992. and stressed that the warrantless search is not violative of the Constitution for as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body search.. 261. in relation to Sec. of BP 881 otherwise known as the Omnibus Election Code. the policemen manning the outpost flagged down the car driven by Arellano as it approached the checkpoint. recommended that the case against Arellano be dismissed and that the “unofficial” charge against Aniag be also dismissed. About 30 minutes later. 52. the Office of the City Prosecutor issued a resolution which. COMELEC issued Resolution 92-0829 directing the filing of information against Aniag and Arellano for violation of Sec. the City Prosecutor invited Aniag to shed light on the circumstances mentioned in Arellano’s sworn explanation. (c). The referral did not include Aniag as among those charged with an election offense.m. Aniag immediately instructed his driver. this is not absolute. as well as the search conducted at police or military checkpoints which we declared are not illegal per se. Arellano was then apprehended and detained. Aniag not only appeared at the preliminary investigation to confirm Arellano’s statement but also wrote the City Prosecutor urging him to exonerate Arellano. Held: As a rule. pursuant to COMELEC Resolution 2327. Ernesto Arellano. par. that he was Aniag’s driver. Aside from a search incident to a lawful arrest. 32 of RA 7166. among other matters. On 23 April 1992. the Philippine National Police (PNP) headed by Senior Superintendent Danilo Cordero set up a checkpoint outside the Batasan Complex some 20 meters away from its entrance. of BP 881. 32. Thereafter. Meanwhile. and. par. the City Prosecutor ordered the release of Arellano after finding the latter’s sworn explanation meritorious. and Aniag to show cause why he should not be disqualified from running for an elective position. certiorari and prohibition against the COMELEC. a valid search must be authorized by a search warrant duly issued by an appropriate authority. They searched the car and found the firearms neatly packed in their gun cases and placed in a bag in the trunk of the car. Upon being advised of the request on 13 January 1992 by his staff. He explained that Arellano did not violate the firearms ban as he in fact was complying with it when apprehended by returning the firearms to Congress. On 6 March 1992. Issue: Whether the search of Aniag’s car that yielded the firarms which were to be returned to the House of Representatives within the purview of the exception as to the search of moving vehicles. a warrantless search had been upheld in cases of moving vehicles and the seizure of evidence in plain view. Nevertheless.was then Congressman of the 1st District of Bulacan requesting the return of the 2 firearms issued to him by the House of Representatives. However. the COMELEC denied Aniag’s motion for reconsideration. in relation to Secs. to pick up the firearms from his house at Valle Verde and return them to Congress. on 6 April 1992.
RASAC-MBA. Consequently. Agent Sabado boarded the Dodge car with Hope and Medina while Agent Manuel took their own car and both cars drove towards Tropical Hut making a brief stop at the Bonanza where Agent Manuel called up Col. the boxes were opened before the presence of Hope and Medina. Quezon City [GR L-41686.. that when the apprehending agents arrested respondents and brought them together with the seized articles to the ASAC Office in
.C. a light blue Dodge car with Plate 21-87-73. Abad “called off the mission” and brought respondents and their car to Camp Aguinaldo arriving there at about 9:00 a.” Further. Hope’s car and the latter stopped. COSAC and photographers of the Department of National Defense. but he could not go through because of the buses in front of his car. Jessie Hope who was accompanied by Monina Medina approached the exit gate and after giving the toll receipt sped away towards Manila. At this point. As the man did not appear.441 more or less wrist watches of assorted brands. the search could not be valid.m. Hope and Medina were asked where they were bringing the boxes. Hope to stop but the latter instead of heeding. 4 on the rear seat and 7 more in the baggage compartment which was opened on orders of Col. At about 6:45 a. ASAC Chairman General Pelagio Cruz requested the Bureau of Customs to issue a Warrant of Seizure and Detention against the articles including the Dodge car. however. Manuel and Sabado who were in civilian clothes showed their identification cards to Hope and Medina and introduced themselves as RASAC agents. Art. driven by Sgt. CFI Rizal. of the Constitution. On the same order of the intelligence officer. Arriving at the Tropical Hut. to which Medina replied that they were bringing them (boxes) to the Tropical Hut at Epifanio de los Santos. Agent Sabado blew his whistle and signaled Sgt. on said date and upon order of the Chief of Intelligence and Operations Branch. People vs. 1. The RASAC agents gave a chase and overtook Sgt.” supposedly untaxed.075 more or less watch bracelets of assorted brands. An inspection of Sgt. 2.their informant were engaged in gunrunning. The Collector of Customs did issue the same on 12 February 1974. the agents succeeded in blocking Sgt. The contents of the bozes revealed some “4. Guerrero (J): 4 concur Facts: One week before 9 February 1974. transporting firearms or in organizing special strike forces. the firearms obtained in violation of Aniag’s right against warrantless search cannot be admitted for any purpose in any proceeding. The action then of the policemen unreasonably intruded into Aniag’s privacy and the security of his property. As consequence. Absent such justifying circumstances specifically pointing to the culpability of Aniag and Arellano. in violation of Sec. Hope answered “I do not know. Abad by telephone. Hope’s car. stationed themselves in the vicinity of the toll gate of the North Diversion Road at Balintawak. made a U-turn back to the North Diversion Road. RASAC Agents Arthur Manuel and Macario Sabado. The Agents saw 4 boxes on the back seat of the Dodge and upon inquiry as to what those boxes were. Bureau of Customs. Sgt. the party. It was admitted. thereof. Abad who had joined them waited for the man who according to Monina Medina was supposed to receive the boxes. Jr. Nor was there any indication from the package or behavior of Arellano that could have triggered the suspicion of the policemen. of the same day. P. III.m. Col. Col. Branch IX. Antonio Abad. representatives of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Spurred by such lead. Abad. the Regional Anti-Smuggling Action Center (RASAC) was informed by an undisclosed Informer that a shipment of highly dutiable goods would be transported to Manila from Angeles City on a blue Dodge car. Hope’s car at Camp Aguinaldo yielded 11 sealed boxes.. 17 November 1980] First Division. Quezon City. together with Col.
the Collector of Customs issued his decision in the seizure cases on 1 April 1975 declaring that the seized articles including the car are not subject of forfeiture. this does not necessarily exclude the possibility of smuggling. was adducing as evidence the pictures of the 11 boxes containing the assorted watches and watch bracelets. The importer or possessor is treated differently.Camp Aguinaldo. Del Rosario to transport the boxes and deliver them to a certain Mr. that he was not present when the boxes were loaded in his car nor was he ever told of their contents on the way. 14281-A against the Dodge car pursuant to Section 2530(k) of the same Code. on 14 March 1974. Del Rosario did not reveal the contents of the boxes which she came to know of only when the boxes were opened at Camp Aguinaldo. By the same token. The fact that the administrative penalty befalls on him is an inconsequential incidence to criminal liability. respondents pleaded not guilty. Hope and Medina disclaimed ownership of the seized articles. Peter at the Tropical Hut who will in turn give her the contracted price. The prosecution filed a petition for certiorari which was treated as a special civil action in the Supreme Court’s Resolution of 5 May 1976. concerns the res rather than the persona. As there was not enough evidence to controvert the testimonies of respondents and the narration of claimant Antonio del Rosario. the probable guilt cannot be negated simply because he was not held administratively liable. the former were not armed with a warrant of arrest and seizure. he never knew that these are untaxed commodities. In a general sense. Agent Macario Sabado. the trial court issued the order of 20 August 1975 declaring that the alleged smuggled articles and the pictures taken of said items as inadmissible in evidence. On the other hand. after the requisite preliminary investigation. Meanwhile. filed Criminal Case Q-3781 in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Quezon City). as in other seizure proceedings. On the part of Monina Medina. Issue: Whether the search and seizure made on the boxes in the blue Dodge car was valid. The proceeding is a probe on contraband or illegally imported goods. In conjunction with the Warrant of Seizure and Detention issued by the Collector of Customs. The decision of the Collector of Customs. even after the Collector of Customs declared the seized articles not subject to forfeiture. Held: It is not accurate to say that the Collector of Customs made no findings that the articles were smuggled. The Collector’s final declaration that the articles
. After the parties have argued their grounds in their respective memoranda. finding the existence of a prima facie case against Hope and Medina. Trial commenced on 28 January 1975 and while the prosecution through its first witness. the City Fiscal of Quezon City. In fact. what the Collector stated was that the prosecution failed to present the quantum of evidence sufficient to warrant the forfeiture of the subject articles. and therefore inadmissible in evidence under Section 4(2). and granting that he had such knowledge. the defense counsel objected to the presentation of the pictures and the subject articles on the ground that they were seized without the benefit of warrant. Article IV of the New Constitution. she testified that what she did was only in compliance with the agreement with Mr. that he consented to transport said boxes from Angeles City to Manila in his car upon request of his girl friend Monina as a personal favor. Ownership was instead claimed by one Antonio del Rosario who intervened in the proceedings. and Seizure Identification No. Upon arraignment on 23 April 1974. The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was denied on 30 September 1975. Hope claimed that at the time of apprehension. seizure proceedings were instituted and docketed as Seizure Identification 14281 against the wrist watches and watch bracelets pursuant to Section 2530 (m) — 1 of the Tariff and Customs Code. he had no knowledge of the contents of the boxes. that Mr.
et. a person claimed ownership of the goods and showed to the policemen a “Statement and Receipts of Duties Collected on Informal Entry No. constitutional infirmity was stamped in favor of a warrantless search and seizure of such nature as herein. and upon orders of Ricardo Papa. enjoining the police and customs authorities. When the trucks left gate 1 at about 4:30 p. of 4 November 1966. 28 February 1968] En Banc. acting upon a reliable information received on 3 November 1966 to the effect that a certain shipment of personal effects. in the exercise of the specific functions. 147-5501″. However. ex parte. Manila. as well as a judgment for actual. and a writ of mandamus for the return of the goods and the trucks. moral and exemplary damages in their favor. issued by the Bureau of Customs in the name of a certain Bienvenido Naguit. Zaldivar (J): 9 concur Facts: Martin Alagao. United States 6 wherein an imprimatur against. if any. Mago [GR L-27360. Judge Hilarion Jarencio issued an order ex parte restraining Ricardo Papa (as Chief of Police of Manila) and Juan Ponce Enrile (as Commissioner of Customs) in Civil Case 67496. But under our penal laws. criminal responsibility. On 10 November 1966. from opening the bales and examining the goods. the Court in that case expressed the considered view that “except in the case of the search of a dwelling house. Remedios Mago and Valentin B. would be released the following day from the customs zone of the port of Manila and loaded on two trucks. Papa vs. conducted surveillance at gate 1 of the customs zone. The load of the two trucks. Chief of Police of Manila and a duly deputized agent of the Bureau of Customs. head of the counter-intelligence unit of the Manila Police Department. consisting of nine bales of goods. persons exercising police authority under the customs law may effect search and seizure without a search warrant in the enforcement of customs laws. praying for the issuance of a restraining order. Section 3 of the 1973 Constitution.. On this stable foundation. when the restraining order was received by Papa.” Aware of this delineation. some bales had already been opened by the examiners of the Bureau of Customs in the presence of officials of the Manila Police Department.” The rationale of the Mago ruling was nurtured by the traditional doctrine in Carroll v. the warrantless seizure did not violate Article IV. an assistant city fiscal and a representative
. Lanopa filed with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila a petition “for mandamus with restraining order or preliminary injunction (Civil Case 67496). Mago. the Code does not mention the need of a search warrant unlike Section 2209 which explicitly provides that a “dwelling house may be entered and searched only upon warrant issued by a judge (or justice of the peace). were seized on instructions of the Chief of Police. which finds origin in the Fourth Amendment of the American Constitution.m. Claiming to have been prejudiced by the seizure and detention of the two trucks and their cargo. must be proven not by preponderance of evidence but by proof beyond reasonable doubt. allegedly misdeclared and undervalued. Upon investigation. Hope and Medina’s exoneration in the administrative cases cannot deprive the State of its right to prosecute.are not subject to forfeiture does not detract his findings that untaxed goods were transported in Hope and Medina’s car and seized from their possession by agents of the law. or their agents. Whether criminal liability lurks on the strength of the provision of the Tariff and Customs Code adduced in the information can only be determined in a separate criminal action. al. elements of the counter-intelligence unit went after the trucks and intercepted them at the Agrifina Circle. upon sworn application showing probable cause and particularly describing the place to be searched and person or thing to be seized. As enunciated in the leading case of Papa vs. and the two trucks. Ermita.
Martin Alagao and his
. with the conformity of the parties. Held: The Chief of the Manila Police Department. seizures. On 13 March 1967. and the latter has the legal duty to render said assistance. Without waiting for the court’s action on the motion for reconsideration. store or building. Mago filed an ex parte motion to release the goods.00. among others. therefore. and also to inspect. ordered that an inventory of the goods be made by its clerk of court in the presence of the representatives of the claimant of the goods. On 7 March 1967. Martin Alagao and his companion policemen had authority to effect the seizure without any search warrant issued by a competent court. and likewise to stop. not being a dwelling house. for the purposes of the enforcement of the customs and tariff laws.Smuggling Center of the Manila Police Department. It cannot be doubted.of Remedios Mago. envelope or other container wherever found when he had reasonable cause to suspect the presence therein of dutiable articles introduced into the Philippines contrary to law. persons exercising police authority under the customs law may effect search and seizure without a search warrant in the enforcement of customs laws. and it was his duty to make seizure. could. with his unit. the Code provides that said “dwelling house may be entered and searched only upon warrant issued by a judge or justice of the peace. could lawfully effect the search and seizure of the goods in question. on his own behalf. Ricardo G. trunk. the Judge issued an order releasing the goods to Mago upon her filing of a bond in the amount of P40. The Tariff and Customs Code authorizes him to demand assistance of any police officer to effect said search and seizure. speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The Code authorizes persons having police authority under Section 2203 of the Tariff and Customs Code to enter. articles or other movable property when the same may be subject to forfeiture or liable for any fine imposed under customs and tariff laws. that Papa. of any cargo. He could lawfully open and examine any box. box or envelope or any person on board. package.000. At the hearing on 9 December 1966. Under date of 15 November 1966. This was what happened precisely in the case of Lt. The Tariff and Customs Code does not require said warrant herein. including as party defendants Collector of Customs Pedro Pacis of the Port of Manila and Lt. But in the search of a dwelling house. filed the action for prohibition and certiorari with preliminary injunction before the Supreme Court. He was given authority by the Chief of Police to make the interception of the cargo. On 23 December 1966. or stop and search and examine any vehicle. Chief of Police of Manila. al. search and examine any vessel or aircraft and any trunk. search and examine any vehicle. beast or person suspected of holding or conveying any dutiable or prohibited article introduced into the Philippines contrary to law. filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of the court releasing the goods under bond. Martin Alagao who. Herein. warehouse. and arrests. the same should be released as per agreement of the parties upon her posting of the appropriate bond that may be determined by the court. the Bureau of Customs. inclosure. Papa. upon the ground that the Manila Police Department had been directed by the Collector of Customs of the Port of Manila to hold the goods pending termination of the seizure proceedings. made the search and seizure of the two trucks loaded with the nine bales of goods in question at the Agrifina Circle.” Except in the case of the search of a dwelling house. alleging that since the inventory of the goods seized did not show any article of prohibited importation. the lower court. Papa. Papa. Mago filed an amended petition. et. beast or person reasonably suspected of holding or conveying such article as aforesaid. and alleging that they had no plain. Martin Alagao of the Manila Police Department. without mentioning the need of a search warrant in said cases. effect searches. having been deputized in writing by the Commissioner of Customs. and the Anti. pass through or search any land.
In the afternoon of 11 July 1991. Eldon Maguan. on 11 July 1991. where it is not practicable to secure a warrant.. First Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Dennis Villa Ignacio (”Prosecutor”) informed Go.. At the corner of Wilson and J. The police arrived shortly thereafter at the scene of the shooting and there retrieved an empty shell and one round of live ammunition for a 9mm caliber pistol. San Juan. Having established that the assailant was probably Go. Rolito Go y Tambunting entered Wilson St. heading towards P. while the complaint was still with the Prosecutor. A security guard at a nearby restaurant was able to take down Go’s car plate number. Go’s counsel filed with the prosecutor an
. 11 February 1992] En Banc. the police launched a manhunt for Go. that he could avail himself of his right to preliminary investigation but that he must first sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. to the exclusion of the Court of First Instance of Manila. filed an information for murder before the Regional Trial Court. The police obtained a facsimile or impression of the credit card used by Go from the cashier of the bake shop. Go alighted from his car. there is still authority to the effect that no search warrant would be needed under the circumstances obtaining herein. At the bottom of the information. in the Presence of his lawyers. Metro Manila. Eldon Maguan was driving his car along Wilson St.companion policemen did not have to make any search before they seized the two trucks and their cargo. No bail was recommended. the Prosecutor. Go vs. But even if there was a search. died of his gunshot wound(s). walked over and shot Maguan inside his car. Go’s and Maguan’s cars nearly bumped each other. The following day. The security guard of the bake shop was shown a picture of Go and he positively identified him as the same person who had shot Maguan. the victim. That same day. Guevarra St. The guaranty of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures is construed as recognizing a necessary difference between a search of a dwelling house or other structure in respect of which a search warrant may readily be obtained and a search of a ship. Having declared that the seizure by the members of the Manila Police Department of the goods in question was in accordance with law and by that seizure the Bureau of Customs had acquired jurisdiction over the goods for the purposes of the enforcement of the customs and tariff laws. because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. they were informed that Go had dined at Cravings Bake Shop shortly before the shooting. instead of filing an information for frustrated homicide. where it is a one-way street and started traveling in the opposite or “wrong” direction. Go presented himself before the San Juan Police Station to verify news reports that he was being hunted by the police. positively identified Go as the gunman. Accordingly.. On 8 July 1991. An eyewitness to the shooting. Feliciano (J): 5 concur Facts: On 2 July 1991. and before an information could be filed in court. who was at the police station at that time. Court of Appeals [GR 101837. Go then boarded his car and left the scene. wagon. the Prosecutor certified that no preliminary investigation had been conducted because the accused did not execute and sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. he was accompanied by two (2) lawyers. The police forthwith detained him. Verification at the Land Transportation Office showed that the car was registered to one Elsa Ang Go. On 9 July 1991. Abad Santos Sts. motorboat. Go refused to execute any such waiver. the police returned to the scene of the shooting to find out where the suspect had come from. the police promptly filed a complaint for frustrated homicide against Go with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal. or automobile for contraband goods.
Go filed a petition for certiorari. The petition for certiorari. Go also moved for suspension of all proceedings in the case pending resolution by the Supreme Court of his petition: this motion was. however. the Court issued a Resolution directing Judge Pelayo to held in abeyance the hearing of the criminal case below until further orders from the Supreme Court. prohibition and mandamus to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals. On 19 September 1991. however. the trial court issued an Order 9 granting leave to conduct preliminary investigation and cancelling the arraignment set for 15 August 1991 until after the prosecution shall have concluded its preliminary investigation. On 19 July 1991. Judge Pelayo issued a Commitment Order directing the Provincial Warden of Rizal to admit Go into his custody at the Rizal Provincial Jail. On 16 July 1991.omnibus motion for immediate release and proper preliminary investigation. the Judge motu proprio issued an Order. On 17 July 1991. on 2. however. approved the cash bond posted by Go and ordered his release. On the said date. on 2 September 1991. denied by Judge Pelayo. 15. On 23 July 1991. were subsequently consolidated in the Court of Appeals. on the one hand. RTC of Pasig City). On 27 August 1991. 21 and 22 November 1991. issued a resolution denying Go’s motion to restrain his arraignment on the ground that motion had become moot and academic. and is thus not entitled to be released pending the conduct of a preliminary investigation. Go filed the present petition for Review on Certiorari. among others. Pelayo (Branch 168. on the same date. Go was in fact released that same day. On 23 August 1991. of his refusal to enter a plea. On 12 July 1991. Go filed a petition for habeas corpus in the Court of Appeals. On 19 August 1991. Judge Pelayo issued an order in open court setting Go’s arraignment on 23 August 1991. the prosecution presented three (3) more witnesses at the trial. the Court of Appeals issued the writ of habeas corpus.
. Go’s Counsel also filed a “Withdrawal of Appearance” with the trial court. Go surrendered to the police. On 30 August 1991. 14. 11 and 17 October. alleging that the warrantless arrest of Go was unlawful and that no preliminary investigation had been conducted before the information was filed. Go filed an urgent ex-parte motion for special raffle in order to expedite action on the Prosecutor’s bail recommendation. 8. On 16 August 1991. the trial court entered for him a plea of not guilty. On the same date. Go was arraigned. 24 and 26 September. The case was raffled to the sala of Judge Benjamin V. On 3 October 1991. and on 7. On 14 October 1991. 3. the Supreme Court remanded the petition for certiorari. Issue: Whether Go was arrested legally without warrant for the killing of Maguan. Go filed with the Court of Appeals a motion to restrain his arraignment. (1) recalling the 12 July 1991 Order which granted bail: petitioner was given 48 hours from receipt of the Order to surrender himself: (2) recalling and cancelling the 16 July 1991 Order which granted leave to the Prosecutor to conduct preliminary investigation: (3) treating Go’s omnibus motion for immediate release and preliminary investigation dated 11 July 1991 as a petition for bail and set for hearing on 23 July 1991. upon the other. On 4 October 1991. with Go’s conformity. prohibition and mandamus before the Supreme Court assailing the 17 July 1991 Order. and the petition for habeas corpus. trial of the criminal case commenced. By a Resolution dated 24 July 1991. On 23 September 1991. who. In view. the Court of Appeals rendered a consolidated decision dismissing the 2 petitions on the grounds that Go’s warrantless arrest was valid and Go’s act of posting bail constituted waiver of any irregularity attending his arrest. The trial court then set the criminal case for continuous hearings on 19. prohibition and mandamus. the Prosecutor filed with the Regional Trial Court a motion for leave to conduct preliminary investigation and prayed that in the meantime all proceedings in the court be suspended.
Moreover. 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 or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. Regalado (J): 4 concur Facts: [Prosecution] At around 5:00 p. When the police filed a complaint for frustrated homicide with the Prosecutor. when a confidential informer arrived and told them that there was an ongoing illegal traffic of prohibited drugs in Tagas. arrest a person: (a) When. Moreover. He did not state that he was “surrendering” himself. together with S/Sgt. Neither could the “arrest” effected 6 days after the shooting be reasonably regarded as effected “when [the shooting had] in fact just been committed” within the meaning of Section 5 (b). Galutan and their commanding officer. the latter should have immediately scheduled a preliminary investigation to determine whether there was probable cause for charging Go in court for the killing of Eldon Maguan. That information did not. The information upon which the police acted had been derived from statements made by alleged eyewitnesses to the shooting — one stated that Go was the gunman another was able to take down the alleged gunman’s car’s plate number which turned out to be registered in Go’s wife’s name. Albay. or is attempting to commit an offense. CIC Ciriaco Taduran was in their headquarters at the Office of the Narcotics Regional Unit at Camp Bagong Ibalon. constitute “personal knowledge. These bills were treated with ultraviolet powder at the Philippine Constabulary
. 4 February 1992] Second Division. Indeed. of 1 July 1987. which team was given P200. he was also entitled to be released forthwith subject only to his appearing at the preliminary investigation. In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof. People vs. however. within the meaning of Section 5(a).” Go’s “arrest” took place 6 days after the shooting of Maguan. Zeidem. CIC Leonardo B. is actually committing.00 in different denominations to buy marijuana. Elpidio Molinawe. Rodrigueza [GR 95902.Held: Go’s warrantless “arrest” or detention does not fall within the terms of Section 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure which provides that “A peace officer or a private person may. the Prosecutor proceeded under the erroneous supposition that Section 7 of Rule 112 was applicable and required Go to waive the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code as a condition for carrying out a preliminary investigation. When he walked into the San Juan Police Station. for Go was entitled to a preliminary investigation and that right should have been accorded him without any conditions. and he shall be proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112. none of the “arresting” officers had any “personal knowledge” of facts indicating that Go was the gunman who had shot Maguan. the person to be created has committed. at the time Go had allegedly shot Maguan. It is clear too that Section 7 of Rule 112 is also not applicable.m. Daraga. Instead. he in fact placed himself at the disposal of the police authorities. Legaspi City. since Go had not been arrested. with or without a warrant. and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail. Section 7. in all probability to avoid the implication he was admitting that he had slain Eldon Maguan or that he was otherwise guilty of a crime. (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed. accompanied by two (2) lawyers.” It is thus clear to the Court that there was no lawful warrantless arrest of Go within the meaning of Section 5 of Rule 113. This was substantive error. in his presence. Major Zeidem formed a team to conduct a buybust operation. Go was not arrested at all. without a warrant. Major Crisostomo M. The “arresting” officers obviously were not present. as noted earlier.
they were able to confiscate dried marijuana leaves and a plastic syringe. however. for possession of 100 grams of marijuana leaves and for selling. Taduran did not go with them. among others. agents of the Narcotics Command (NARCOM) conducted a raid in the house of Jovencio Rodrigueza. the Court has allowed government authorities to conduct searches and seizures even without a search warrant. Like Segovia. Issue: Whether the time of Don Rodrigueza’s arrest is material in determining his culpability in the crime charged.m. When he came back. he was accompanied by a man who was later on introduced to him as Don Rodrigueza. must generally be authorized by a search warrant duly issued by the proper government authority. to which question he answered in the negative. He boarded it and left Taduran and Segovia. he was asked if he knew anything about the marijuana incident. The arrests were brought to the headquarters for investigation. in a buy-bust operation. Don Rodrigueza. when it is made on vessels and aircraft for violation of
. Antonio Lonceras and Samuel Segovia. the alleged seller of prohibited drugs. he met Samuel Segovia. Taduran returned to the headquarters and made a report regarding his said purchase of marijuana. He asked Segovia where he could find Don and where he could buy marijuana.Crime Laboratory (PCCL).00 for 100 grams of marijuana. Segovia left for a while and when he returned.00 bill and was brought to the crime laboratory for examination. He was also tortured in order to make him admit his complicity in the alleged sale of marijuana.000. when the owner of the premises waives his right against such incursion. The court. when the search is incidental to a lawful arrest. Jovencio Rodrigueza was released from detention but Don Rodrigueza was detained. He stayed there overnight and did not leave the place until the next day when his brother arrived and told him that their father was taken by some military men the preceding night. Thereafter. Based on that information. True. CIC Galutan and S/Sgt. From that time on. he was made to hold a P10. He was told to look for a certain Don. During the arraignment. in some instances. In the evening of the same date. he was not allowed to go home and was detained inside the camp. Don’s father. Don gave Taduran “a certain object wrapped in a plastic” which was later identified as marijuana. Rodrigueza went to Camp Bagong Ibalon and arrived there at around 8:00 a. Don halted a passing tricycle driven by Antonio Lonceras. all the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge against them. [Defense] Don Rodrigueza. Daraga. The Regional Trial Court of Legaspi City. a search. The next day. Branch 10. Legaspi City. said 100 grams of dried marijuana leaves for a consideration of P200. Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (Republic Act 6425. however. Molinawe proceeded to Regidor Street. however. as amended) and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P20. while along the road. of 2 July 1987.00. Major Zeidem ordered a team to conduct an operation to apprehend the suspects. Rodrigueza appealed.00 and costs. Thereafter. on the other hand. armed with a warrant of arrest when they apprehended the three accused. The constables were not. The search. During the raid. to be valid. Thus. claimed that on said date he was in the house of his aunt in San Roque. On 10 July 1987. After agreeing on the price of P200. Held: As provided in the present Constitution. was not authorized by any search warrant. Molinawe gave the money to Taduran who acted as the poseur buyer. Albay and arrested Rodrigueza. found Don Rodrigueza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 4. Taduran went to Tagas alone and. and received payment therefor. Samuel Segovia and Antonio Lonceras. acquitted Segovia and Lonceres. Sgt. When he arrived.
1 on leave Facts: At about 3:30 a. that Garcellano’s description fitted a person known as alias “Jun Dulce. For this reason. nonetheless. said that upon entering the house. who knew where Cubcubin lived. Jr. the Joint Affidavit of Arrest corroborates his testimony that he was not among those who were arrested on the night of 1 July 1987. some evidentiary aspects pointing to the truth in his testimony. told him that Fidel Abrenica Cubcubin Jr. desk officer of the Cavite City police station. or in cases of inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of fire. Armando Plata. received a telephone call that a person had been shot near the cemetery along Julian Felipe Boulevard in San Antonio. Firstly. and Prosecutor Lu to Cubucubin’s house in Garcia Extension.customs laws. bearing the brand name “Hanes” and the name “Dhenvher” written in the inner portion of the shirt’s hemline. Upon
. PO3 Rosal. when it involves prohibited articles in plain view. a police team. The policemen knocked on the door for about 3 minutes before it was opened by a man who answered the description given by Danet Garcellano and who turned out to be Cubcubin. told PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao. While it is true that Rodrigueza’s defense amounts to an alibi. sanitary and building regulations. Cavite City. Jr. another tricycle driver. the raid conducted by the NARCOM agents in the house of Jovencio Rodrigueza was not authorized by any search warrant. Hence. Forthwith. responded to the call and found Henry P. and as such is the weakest defense in a criminal prosecution. Rodrigueza is acquitted of the crime charged. either. have first secured a search warrant during that time. the inconsistencies made by prosecution witnesses give more credibility to the testimony of Don Rodrigueza.” Armando Plata. then asked permission to enter and look around the house. Jr. His co-accused Segovia also testified that Rodrigueza was not with them when they were apprehended by the NARCOM agents. Cubcubin [GR 136267. placed over a divider near the kitchen. Sgt. PO3 Estoy. Had it been their intention to conduct the raid. Hence.. and the victim were last seen together coming out of the Sting Cafe. SPO1 Malinao. PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao. Garcellano described Cubcubin as a lean. because they easily could. PO3 Manicio. when it is made on automobiles for the purpose of preventing violations of smuggling or immigration laws. Cavite City. PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao. Rodrigueza’s right against unreasonable search and seizure was clearly violated. a food server/waitress in Sting Cafe. dark-complexioned. then they should. about a kilometer and a half away from the crime scene. Jr. Cavite City. Jr. due to the failure of the prosecution to establish its cause. Jr. Police photographer Fred Agana took pictures of the crime scene showing the victim slumped on the handle of the tricycle. composed of SPO1 Malinao. Piamonte slumped dead on his tricycle which was then parked on the road. however. Herein. Mendoza (J): 12 concur. who refused to divulge his name. he noticed a white t-shirt. went to the cafe and talked to Danet Garcellano. of 26 August 1997. Further... a search may be validly made even without a search warrant. led PO3 Rosal. Jr. there are. Cubcubin denied involvement in the incident. 10 July 2001] En Banc. The NARCOM agents could not have justified their act by invoking the urgency and necessity of the situation because the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses reveal that the place had already been put under surveillance for quite some time. People vs. and SPO3 Manalo.m. PO3 Rosal testified that a tricycle driver. located in San Antonio near the gate of Sangley Point. and mustachioed man who had on a white tshirt and brown short pants. SPO1 Malinao. The police operatives identified themselves and informed him that he was being sought in connection with the shooting near the cemetery. that the situation falls under any of the aforementioned cases. It does not appear. Rogel. 1 on official business.
for PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao. or is attempting to commit an offense. Cavite City. arrest a person: (a) When. said Cubcubin refused to tell him where he hid the gun so he sought the latter’s permission to go back to his house to conduct a further search. Thereupon.. two spent . Jr. SPO1 Malinao. to believe that Cubcubin committed the crime.38 caliber shells fell from it. which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion. Jr. to allow them to conduct the latter’s warrantless arrest.” Herein. they saw Cubcubin’s 11-year old son Jhumar. the arresting officers. Held: Rule 113.38 caliber gun. is actually committing. was conducting the search. The police investigators asked Cubcubin where the fatal gun was. Jr. by an alleged witness who saw Cubcubin and the victim coming out of the Sting Cafe. PO3 Rosal stayed with Cubcubin while he conducted a search. The two did not have “personal knowledge of facts” indicating that Cubcubin had committed the crime. SPO3 Manalo.. waitress
. Jr. On 5 October 1998. found Cubcubin guilty of murder and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death.. They then took the t-shirt and the two bullet shells. found on top of a plastic water container (drum) outside the bathroom a homemade Smith and Wesson caliber . of 26 August 1997 and reported that a man had been killed along Julian Felipe Boulevard of the said city. the Regional Trial Court. Cavite City at about 3:30 a. the automatic review. the arrest of Cubcubin was effected shortly after the victim was killed. the arresting officers.38 revolver (six shooter). then asked Cubcubin to go with them to Sting Cafe for purposes of identification. Hence. proceeded thereto. said that he inscribed his initials “RDE” (for Raymundo D. without a serial number. While PO3 Estoy. Estoy) on the cylinder of the gun with the use of a sharp object. Branch 88. second. SPO1 Malinao. There. SPO1 Malinao. Jr. Cubcubin was then taken to the police station. SPO1 Malinao. PO3 Estoy. to believe that Cubcubin committed the crime. Jr. and PO3 Rosal stayed with Cubcubin in the sala. There was no “probable cause. and PO3 Rosal. the white “Hanes” t-shirt. Cubcubin was positively identified by Danet Garcellano as the victim’s companion. and the two spent . Inside the house. Jr. or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. accompanied by Prosecutor Lu. the arresting peace officer or private person has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. Their knowledge of the circumstances from which they allegedly inferred that Cubcubin was probably guilty was based entirely on what they had been told by others. in his presence. the person to be arrested has committed. as amended. PO3 Manicio. he said that he found it to be “bloodied. (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed. where he was photographed along with the things seized from him. Jr. Jr.” When he picked up the t-shirt. The .. Jr. and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. Cubcubin was charged for the crime of murder. by Danet Garcellano.close examination. (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.” Under §5(b). PO3 Estoy. Issue: Whether there was “probable cause” for PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao. PO3 Estoy.38 caliber shells were all photographed. He found the gun loaded with five live bullets. provides that “A peace officer or a private person may. to wit: by someone who called the PNP station in San Antonio. §5 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. It has been held that “personal knowledge of facts’ in arrests without a warrant must be based upon probable cause. two conditions must concur for a warrantless arrest to be valid: first. the offender has just committed an offense and. however.m. without a warrant.
Jupiter did not reveal the damage to either his relatives or the police.. Jupiter went near the lifeless body of the victim who turned out to be his own mother. Nor were the police officers justified in seizing the white “Hanes” t-shirt placed on top of the divider “in plain view” as such is not contraband nor is it incriminating in nature which would lead SPO1 Malinao.at the Sting Cafe. to settle her due obligations at a store. Jr. Cubcubin did not object to the arraignment. Pangasinan. owned by a certain Brigida Tumamang. Jupiter allegedly noticed a commotion near the creek about 10 meters away from him. PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao. the arresting officers allegedly asked Cubcubin where he hid the gun used in killing the victim. The records show that he pleaded not guilty to the charge when arraigned on 11 November 1997.. Her head and face sustained four hacking wounds. Jr. The Baulas and Dacucos allegedly fled but not before they had threatened Jupiter with death if he were to divulge the incident to anyone. Vitug (J): 3 concur Facts: On 13 December 1995. Contrary to what SPO1 Malinao. The assault allegedly lasted for about 4minutes. of 14 December 1995.e. mustachioed. It cannot be said that the . there is no evidence to link Cubcubin directly to the crime. consequently. 15 November 2000] Third Division. merely relied on information given to them by others. and took pictures of the body of the victim. the things obtained as a result of the illegal search. Thus. For fear of reprisal from the Baulas.38 caliber gun. when Cubcubin refused to answer.38 caliber gun was discovered through inadvertence. He allegedly focused his flashlight towards the direction where he heard the commotion and saw Crisanto Baula and Danilo Dacucos in the act of hacking a person who was lying on the ground. it is not visible that there were bloodstains. Jupiter rushed home and brought his niece and nephew to the house of a neighbor for their safety. while Robert Baula and Ruben Baula stood as lookouts. On the other hand. From the photograph of the t-shirt. Jupiter Caburao. are inadmissible in evidence against him. about 1 1/2 kilometers away. After bringing Cubcubin to the Sting Cafe where he was positively identified by a waitress named Danet Garcellano as the victim’s companion. Thus.m. The actual t-shirt merely had some small specks of blood at its lower portion. Jr. allegedly decided to follow his mother. Patrocinia Caburao. Be that as it may. Baula [GR 132671.38 caliber revolver on top of a plastic water container outside the bathroom.. led by SPO4 Fermin Mirande. who said that the man last seen with the victim was lean. and the . by a tricycle driver named Armando Plata who told them that the physical description given by Garcellano fitted Cubcubin. she had been to Brigida
. he sought Cubcubin’s permission to go back to his house and there found the . et. People vs. went to the locus criminis. said.m. the white “Hanes” t-shirt. who had earlier left their house at Barangay Siwasiw West. Jr. About 2:00 a. two of which damaged her brain tissues. al. Sual. two spent shells. the search of Cubcubin’s house was illegal and. The investigation revealed that before the victim was killed. and thus has waived the right to object to the legality of his arrest. alias “Jun Dulce” and who said he knew where Cubcubin lived and accompanied them to Cubcubin’s house. the police authorities. the gun was purposely sought by the police officers and they did not merely stumble upon it. darkcomplexioned and was wearing a white t-shirt and a pair of brown short pants. the t-shirt was not “bloodied” which could have directed his attention to take a closer look at it. While traversing the road towards the store. to conclude that it would constitute evidence of a crime. Cubcubin cannot now question the validity of his arrest without a warrant. Furthermore. and believing that the police would be able to solve the gory killing on their own. According to SPO1 Malinao. at around 8:00 p. i.
Trial shortly thereafter ensued. the arrest itself must have to be effected under the circumstances enumerated by law. When arraigned. or seizure of evidence in “plain view. denied their involvement in Patrocinia’s killing. that the Baulas. Mere suspicion cannot satisfy the requirement of probable cause which signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he can be charged. of Lingayen. could be responsible for the commission of the crime and only because of their being at the store where the victim was last seen. and the Court has had occasions to rule that a warrantless search and seizure of property is valid under certain circumstances. The bloodstained pair of short pants. convicting Baula. jointly and severally. The investigating officers had no personal knowledge of facts indicating that the accused had committed the crime. the heirs of Patrocinia Caburao (a) 50. Pangasinan. One such case is when an offense has in fact just been committed. the bloodstains on the polo shirt and the bloodstains on the pair of short pants had the same type “O” blood as that of the victim. al. et. were also at the store having a drinking spree. (b) P15. 15 minutes later. also left. and 8:00 p. and (d) to pay proportionally the costs. Being in no position to effect a warrantless arrest. Baula.” its elements being extant. Branch 38. The policemen asked Ruben Baula and Crisanto Baula for the clothing they wore on the night of the murder. Rules 126 of the Rules of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence. (c) moral damages of P75. polo shirt and short pants were allegedly taken from them but were just being questioned by the police officers conducting the investigation about the death of Patrocinia Caburao.00 for the death of Patrocinia Caburao. together with the victim’s dried blood samples.000. for instance. There can. al. were sent on the same day to the National Bureau of Investigation.m. The Baulas. Ruben Baula gave his bloodstained pair of short pants. the Baulas. for forensic examination. The policemen next went to the hut of Danilo Dacucos. or search of a moving vehicle.00 for funeral expenses. Danilo Dacucos. Inside the hut. et. et. and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay. however. et. appealed. The trial court rendered its judgment on 17 November 1997.000. Issue: Whether the Baulas can be arrested without warrant for the killing of Petrocinia Caburao. that the victim left the store between 7:00 p. al. Crisanto Baula and Ruben Baula were not being arrested at the time that the bloodstained bolo.. be a lawful warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12. SPO4 Mirande. et. and that. and the peace officer has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. et.m. repaired to the respective houses of accused-appellants.000. the accused all entered a plea of not guilty to the offense charged. Held: The proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures is not absolute. can hardly come within the purview of any of the established exceptions. polo shirt and bolo. Ruben Baula. The situation here in question. and Crisanto Baula turned over his bloodstained polo shirt. al. or customs search. The results of the examination disclosed that the bloodstains found in the bolo. or consented search. Dagupan City Branch Office. On 7 August 1996. the group found hanging on the wall a bloodstained bolo.00. the police officers were thus likewise barred from effecting a warrantless search and seizure. and whether seizures can be effected pursuant to such arrests. An illegal search cannot be undertaken and then an arrest effected on the
. al. with several policemen.Tumamang’s store. Robert Baula and Danilo Dacucos were charged with murder before the Regional Trial Court. Crisanto Baula. The police officers acted on a mere suspicion that Baula. In a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest. al. of the crime charged.
The driver. posted themselves in such a manner as to keep it in view. the penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed on him. the following day. of the complex crime of kidnapping with frustrated murder (under Articles 267.” Benjamin Espinosa @ “Benji. of the special complex crime of kidnapping with murder (under Article 267 in relation to Articles 248 2 and 48 3 of the Revised Penal Code) — in Criminal Case 3564. was motoring from the company compound (at Taganito. Assisted by their respective counsel. the Regional Trial Court of Surigao City. a secret informant (known as a “civilian asset”) named Boyet reported to the police Station at Monkayo. was not as lucky. both Sinoc and Salon entered pleas of not guilty and were thereafter jointly tried.m.” and one Roger Doe @ “Ram” (at large) were charged on 23 January 1992. cannot prevail against the constitutionally protected rights of an individual. Davao del Norte. the other accused being then at large. Some 3 hours later. Branch 30. on the other hand was acquitted inasmuch as conspiracy was not proven.m. Salon. they were stopped by several armed men. Surigao del Norte. On instructions of the Station Commander.m. identifying themselves as members of the New People’s Army (NPA). Vicente Salon @ “Dodong. driven by Tarcisio Guijapon. at about 6:00 a. a police team went to the place. At about 7 a. Davao del Norte that the stolen (”carnapped”) “Pajero” was parked behind the apartment of a certain Paulino Overa at the Bliss Housing Project at Poblacion. and the other. Only Sinoc and Vicente Salon were arraigned. They later turned over Sinoc to the 459th Mobile Force. tried to run away. Surigao del Norte) to Surigao City. As Viacrusis and Guijapon were approaching the public cemetery of Claver. their initial inquiries having yielded the information that the man who had brought it there would return that morning.strength of the evidence yielded by that search. An alleged consent to a warrantless search and seizure cannot be based merely on the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty. and after making them lie face down on the ground. The Court finds it less than credible the stance of the prosecution that the polo shirt and short pants have been voluntarily given. the armed men ordered Viacrusis and Guijapon to alight. 248. Sinoc appealed.” and was acting under instructions of certain companions who were waiting for him at the Star Lodge at Tagum. People vs.” Victorino Delegencia @ Jun-Gren. He was riding on a company vehicle. The latter.. Narvasa (CJ): 4 concur Facts: On 20 September 1991. This presumption by itself. Guijapon. and zeal in the pursuit of criminals cannot ennoble the use of arbitrary methods that the Constitution itself abhors. 1 July 1997] Third Division.
. Viacrusis miraculously survived. Claver. Isidoro Viacrusis.. found Sinoc guilty beyond reasonable doubt in two cases jointly tried: one. Riding on the recovered “Pajero.” the police officers brought Sinoc to the Star Lodge only to discover that his companions were no longer there. had the key of the “Pajero. They stopped him. together with the “Pajero. Sinoc [GR 113511-12. shot them several times. a Mitsubishi Pajero (DFX-397). they saw a man approach the “Pajero” who. In each case.” Jaime Jornales @ “James. he died on the spot. boarded the Pajero and ordered Guijapon to proceed. identified as Danilo Sinoc of Surigao del Norte. They found out that the man. their hands bound behind their back to a coconut grove some 6 meters from the road. When they reached Barobo. at about 10:30 a. led them. on 14 July 1992. They saw the “Pajero” and. 6 4 and 48 of the same Code) — in Criminal Case 3565.” Sinoc. On 7 October 1993. Monkayo. manager of Taganito Mining Corporation. on seeing them.
Gabriel Gerente.” There is no question that the police officers in this case were aware that an offense had just been committed. She overheard the three men talking about their intention to kill Clarito Blace. that the man who had brought the “Pajero” would be back by 12:00 noon. they were told by Paulino Overa. the former having died and the latter being on the verge of death. Held: The law provides that an arrest without warrant may be licitly effected by a peace officer. Reyes allegedly witnessed the killing. Right away. their omission to do so would have been inexcusable. of the same day. Patrolman Urrutia. owner of the apartment behind which the vehicle was parked.” His arrest without warrant was justified. “Ram”). on taking custody of the “Pajero.’” just as there is no question that when the police officers accosted him.” Fredo and Totoy Echigoren and Gerente carried out their plan to kill Clarito Blace at about 2:00 p. together with Police Corporal Romeo Lima and Patrolman Alex Umali. it was in the premises the officers’ clear duty to apprehend him. There is no question either that when SPO1 Aringo and his companions reached the place where the “Pajero” was parked. Fredo Echigoren struck the first blow against Clarito Blace.M. together with Fredo Echigoren and Totoy Echigoren. Sinoc had the key to the stolen “Pajero” and was in the act of moving toward it admittedly to take possession of it (after having arrived by bus from Tagum together with another suspect.” went to that place and.Issue: Whether the police officer had personal knowledge of the crime Sinoc committed to allow them to arrest the latter without a warrant of arrest. of the same day.m. indeed. The cause of death was massive fracture of the skull caused by a hard and heavy object. “Gabriel. i. allegedly started drinking liquor and smoking marijuana in Gerente’s house which is about 6 meters away from the house of Edna Edwina Reyes who was in her house on that day. proceeded to Paseo de Blas where the mauling incident
. It was precisely to recover the “Pajero” that a team composed of SPO1 Michael Aringo and “joint elements of 459 PNP MFC and Moncayo Police Station led by Insptr Eden T. papatayin natin si Clarito Blace.m. a “Pajero” belonging to a private company had been stolen (”carnapped”) and its driver and passenger shot. Grino-Aquino (J): 3 concur Facts: At about 7:00 a. followed by Totoy Echigoren and Gabriel Gerente who hit him twice with a piece of wood in the head and when he fell.e. He was informed by the hospital officials that the victim died on arrival. She testified that she heard Fredo Echigoren saying. Sinoc’s link to the stolen vehicle (and hence to the kidnapping and killing accompanying its asportation) was thus palpable.” forthwith dispatched a radio message to “Higher Headquarters” advising of that fact. Thereafter.. At about 4:00 p. He went to the Valenzuela District Hospital where the victim was brought.m. that the person thus described did in fact show up at about 10:00 A. of 30 April 1990.. the three men dragged Blace to a place behind the house of Gerente. “When an offense has in fact just been committed. Patrolman Jaime Urrutia of the Valenzuela Police Station received a report from the Palo Police Detachment about a mauling incident. and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. People vs. that some 12 hours earlier. The foregoing circumstances left the police officers no alternative save to arrest Sinoc and take possession of the “Pajero. Nor is there any doubt that an informer (”asset”) had reported that the stolen “Pajero” was at the Bliss Housing Project at Monkayo. Totoy Echigoren dropped a hollow block on the victim’s head. Ugale. Gerente [GR 95847-48. and was immediately identified by Overa as “the one who rode on that car ‘Pajero. inter alia. 10 March 1993] First Division.
” The policemen arrested Gerente only some 3 hours after Gerente and his companions had killed Blace. A joint trial of the two cases was held. as minimum. they found the instruments of death: a piece of wood and a concrete hollow block which the killers had used to bludgeon him to death. The policemen proceeded to the house of Gerente. The search conducted on Gerente’s person was likewise lawful because it was made as an incident to a valid arrest. The eyewitness. Gutierrez Jr. On 24 September 1990. are still at large. They saw Blace dead in the hospital and when they inspected the scene of the crime. a hollow block and two roaches of marijuana. They told him to come out of the house and they introduced themselves as policemen. Gerente appealed. 18 March 1991] Third Division. and for Murder. . Fredo and Totoy Echigoren. is actually committing. They were informed by Reyes that she saw the killing and she pointed to Gabriel Gerente as one of the three men who killed Clarito. The other suspects. without a warrant. Under those circumstances.” The frisk and search of Gerente’s person upon his arrest was a permissible precautionary measure of arresting officers to protect themselves. as one of the killers. On 2 May 1990. Paragraphs (a) and (b). The Forensic Chemist found them to be marijuana. to 20 years. (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed. Gerente pleaded not guilty to both charges. Metro Manila. Section 5. and the subsequent searchly Gerente’s person. People vs.took place. the person to be arrested has committed. Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Court provide that “A peace officer or a private person may. (J): 4 concur
. arrest a person: (a) When. since the policemen had personal knowledge of the violent death of Blace and of facts indicating that Gerente and two others had killed him. Only Gerente was apprehended by the police. reported the happening to the policemen and pinpointed her neighbor. of RA 6425. Patrolman Urrutia frisked Gerente and found a coin purse in his pocket which contained dried leaves wrapped in cigarette foil. Held: The search of Gerente’s person and the seizure of the marijuana leaves in his possession were valid because they were incident to a lawful warrantless arrest. without a search warrant. II. Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court which provides that “A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense. The dried leaves were sent to the National Bureau of Investigation for examination. or is attempting to commit an offense. Art. If they had postponed his arrest until they could obtain a warrant. Sucro [GR 93239. Edna Edwina Reyes. and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. found Gerente guilty of Violation of Section 8 of Republic Act 6425 and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a term of 12 years and 1 day. in his presence. Branch 172. Issue: Whether the police officers have the personal knowledge of the killing of Blace to allow them to arrest. as maximum. they could lawfully arrest Gerente without a warrant. Gerente. without the necessary warrant. This is in accordance with Section 12. the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela. who was then sleeping. he would have fled the law as his two companions did. When arraigned on 16 May 1990. for the person who is about to be arrested may be armed and might attack them unless he is first disarmed. There they found a piece of wood with blood stains. and also found him guilty of Murder for which crime he was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. two separate informations were filed by Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Benjamin Caraig against him for Violation of Section 8.
When confronted. about 2 meters away. Aklan) to monitor the activities of Edison Sucro. Held: Section 5. Aldie Borromeo. As planned. The police recovered 19 sticks and 4 teabags of marijuana from the cart inside the chapel and another teabag from Macabante. 12. without warrant. Fulgencio told P/Lt. P/ Lt. is actually committing. and pay a fine of P20. It was at this instance that Pat.000. Fulgencio positioned himself under the house of a certain Arlie Regalado at C. Fulgencio to continue monitoring developments. Seraspi to intercept Macabante and Sucro. and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. The teabags of marijuana were sent to the PC-INP Crime Laboratory Service. (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed. Pat. which provides that a person
. Among the exceptions granted by law is a search incidental to a lawful arrest under Sec. Upon seeing the police. Jr. Issue: Whether the arrest without warrant of the accused is lawful and consequently.” An offense is committed in the presence or within the view of an officer. taking something which turned out later to be marijuana from the compartment of a cart found inside the chapel. Adjacent to the house of Regalado. Vicente Seraspi. Quimpo and Veterans Sts. Macabante readily admitted that he bought the same from Sucro in front of the chapel. Roy Fulgencio. the person to be arrested has committed.Facts: On 21 March 1989. within the meaning of the rule authorizing an arrest without a warrant. Fulgencio radioed P/Lt.. Still. in front of the Aklan Medical Center. the team of P/Lt Seraspi proceeded to the area and while the police officers were at the Youth Hostel at Maagma St. Seraspi and his team caught up with Macabante at the crossing of Mabini and Maagma Sts. Fulgencio again called up Seraspi to report that a third buyer later identified as Ronnie Macabante. Upon arraignment. Seraspi instructed Pat. Quimpo Street. Rule 126 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. (Station Commander of the INP Kalibo. What is paramount is that probable cause existed. and costs. because of information gathered by Seraspi that Sucro was selling marijuana. Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides for the instances where arrest without warrant is considered lawful. that searches and seizures must be supported by a valid warrant is not an absolute rule.M. and then return to the street where he handed the same to a buyer. Aklan. a member of the INP. Trial ensued and a judgment of conviction was rendered.. entered a plea of “not guilty” to the offense charged. The failure of the police officers to secure a warrant stems from the fact that their knowledge acquired from the surveillance was insufficient to fulfill the requirements for the issuance of a search warrant. Seraspi and reported the activity going on P/Lt. At about 6:30 P. The specimens were all found positive of marijuana. After a while Sucro went back to the chapel and again came out with marijuana which he gave to a group of persons. although at a distance. Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act. on said date. The rule states that “A peace officer or private person may. was instructed by P/Lt. or hears the disturbances created thereby and proceeds at once to the scene thereof. at Camp Delgado. was transacting with Sucro. Pat. Macabante threw something to the ground which turned out to be a tea bag of marijuana. Thereafter. The police team was able to overtake and arrest Sucro at the corner of C. Pat. Pat. at about 5:00 P. or is attempting to commit an offense. was a chapel. Pat. Sucro appealed. Iloilo City for analysis. whether the evidence resulting from such arrest is admissible. Sucro was charged with violation of Section 4. arrest a person: (a) When in his presence. assisted by counsel. At that point. Kalibo. Sucro. when the officer sees the offense.M. Fulgencio saw Sucro enter the chapel. finding Sucro guilty of the sale of prohibited drug and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment.
to justify the issuance of a warrant. His name was known. and sentenced to life imprisonment plus a fine of P20. The date of its arrival was certain. The Bill of Rights was ignored altogether because the
.. who was eventually convicted. it is clear that they had at least two days within which they could have obtained a warrant to arrest and search Aminnudin who was coming Iloilo on the M/V Wilcon 9.000. the fiscal filed a motion to dismiss the charge against Ali on the basis of a sworn statement of the arresting officers absolving her after a “thorough investigation. Yet they did nothing. Both were arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Subsequently. one saying it was two days before the arrest (this was the declaration of the chief of the arresting team. The present case presented no urgency. When they were verified as marijuana leaves. the fruits obtained from such lawful arrest are admissible in evidence. indeed. Thus. The PC officers who were in fact waiting for him simply accosted him. And from the information they had received. Held: It is not disputed. Their only justification was the tip they had earlier received from a reliable and regular informer who reported to them that Aminnudin was arriving in Iloilo by boat with marijuana. Herein. Aminnudin was not caught in flagrante nor was a crime about to be committed or had just been committed to justify the warrantless arrest allowed under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. and trial proceeded only against Aminnudin. an information for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act was filed against him. Issue: Whether there was ample opportunity to obtain a warrant of arrest against Aminnudin. they could have persuaded a judge that there was probable cause. and in fact it is admitted by the PC officers who testified for the prosecution. Cruz (J): 3 concur Facts: Idel Aminnudin y Ahni was arrested on 25 June 1984. in Iloilo City. Jr. Lt. No effort was made to comply with the law. 6 July 1988] First Division. without a search warrant. Their testimony varies as to the time they received the tip. who had also been arrested with him that same evening and likewise investigated. shortly after disembarking from the M/V Wilcon 9 at about 8:30 p. Later. that they had no warrant when they arrested Aminnudin and seized the bag he was carrying.lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense. another two weeks and a third “weeks before June 25. People vs. Under the circumstances (monitoring of transactions) there existed probable cause for the arresting officers. as there is nothing unlawful about the arrest considering its compliance with the requirements of a warrantless arrest. The two bundles of suspect articles were confiscated from him and later taken to the NBI laboratory for examination. police officers have personal knowledge of the actual commission of the crime when it had earlier conducted surveillance activities of the accused. to arrest Sucro who was in fact selling marijuana and to seize the contraband. Contrary to the averments of the government. Even expediency could not be invoked to dispense with the obtention of the warrant.” The motion was granted. The vehicle was identified.). the information was amended to include Farida Ali y Hassen. inspected his bag and finding what looked liked marijuana leaves took him to their headquarters for investigation. Cipriano Querol. From the conflicting declarations of the PC witnesses.00.” There was no warrant of arrest or search warrant issued by a judge after personal determination by him of the existence of probable cause. ergo. Aminnudin [GR L-74860. for alleged possession and transport of illegal drugs.m.
Urdaneta found Pasudag guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal cultivation of marijuana and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P500. On 10 February 1997. Astrero. SPO3 Alcantara and PO3 Rasca) to conduct an investigation.. Matro filed with the Regional Trial Court. The Regional Trial Court. SPO3 Fajarito looked for Pasudag and asked him to bring the team to his backyard garden which was about 5 meters away.m. Time was not of the essence to uproot and confiscate the plants. papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable. the trial court arraigned the accused. went to Brgy. had determined on his own authority that “search warrant was not necessary. 4th Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Pangasinan Emiliano M. Trial ensued.m. 26 May 1993] First Division. On 17 December 1996. He urinated at a bushy bamboo fence behind the public school.00. at around 1:30 p. without subsidiary penalty and other accessories of the law. the police authorities had ample opportunity to secure from the court a search warrant. 9. Urdaneta an Information charging Pasudag with violation of RA 6425. Pasudag appealed. Branch 46. SPO2 Calip went to the Police Station and reported to Chief of Police Romeo C. Upon seeing the marijuana plants. He pleaded not guilty. Sec. About 5 meters away. Herein.. who took pictures of Pasudag standing beside one of the marijuana plants. He inquired from a storekeeper nearby as to who owned the house with the garden. the procurement of a search warrant is required before a law enforcer may validly search or seize the person. the policemen called for a photographer. Pangasinan. the seized plants are inadmissible in evidence against Pasudag. papers or effects of any individual. Artacho and went straight to the house of Pasudag. Artacho to conduct anti-jueteng operations.000. The storeowner told him that Alberto Pasudag y Bokang owned it. 4 May 2001] First Division. They were three months old and there was no sufficient reason to believe that they would be uprooted on that same day. The team brought Pasudag and the marijuana plants to the police station. SPO2 Pepito Calip of the PNP Sison. SPO2 Pepito Calip inquired as to who owned the house. house. There were marijuana plants in between corn plants and camote tops. Pardo (J): 4 concur Facts: On 26 September 1995. The Constitution provides that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons. Held: As a general rule. With the illegal seizure of the marijuana plants.” Any evidence obtained in violation of this provision is inadmissible. Pangasinan. They uprooted 7 marijuana plants. he saw a garden of about 70 square meters. The latter dispatched a team (composed of SPO2 Calip. At around 2:30 p. Issue: Whether time was of the essence to uproot and confiscate the marijuana plants.PC lieutenant who was the head of the arresting team. Enrile [GR 74189. Pasudag [GR 128822. People vs. He was acquainted with marijuana plants and immediately recognized that some plants in the backyard of the house were marijuana plants. Cruz (J): 3 concur
. the team arrived at Brgy.” People vs. Pangasinan. SPO3 Fajarito. houses.
Issue: Whether the mark money found in Enrile’s possession. Enrile refused to make any statement pending consultation with a lawyer. however. also in San Francisco del Monte. Subsequent laboratory examination revealed this to be marijuana with flowering tops weighing 22 grams. Even assuming this to be true. Abugatal signed a sworn confession. with such authority. They had no right to simply force themselves into his house on the bare (and subsequently disallowed) allegations of Abugatal and bundle Enrile off to the police station as if he had been caught in flagrante delicto. was killed in an attempted jailbreak and thus the appeal is dismissed as to him. According to the policemen themselves. or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.Facts: At about 6:30 p.m. (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed. They found in the right front pocket of his trousers the marked money earlier delivered to Abugatal. and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. who was himself to pose as the buyer. what happened was that they asked Abugatal who gave him the marijuana and were told it was Enrile. of 25 October 1985. Quezon City. At the police headquarters. whereupon the policemen immediately arrested and frisked him. What the policemen should have done was secure a search warrant on the basis of the information supplied by Abugatal and then. is actually committing. Enrile came out and met them at the gate. search and seizure. the person to be arrested has committed. On that occasion the policemen saw Polines hand over to Abugatal the marked money representing payment for the mock transaction. in his presence. or is attempting to commit an offense. Abugatal said he did lead the policemen to Enrile’s house where he pointed to Enrile as the source of the marijuana. after trial and on 14 February 1986. Wilson Rances of the Quezon City Police Anti-Narcotics Unit was dispatched to entrap Rogelio Abugatal at Roosevelt Avenue in San Francisco del Monte.000. of the Rules of Court. found Enrile and Abugatal guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced them to life imprisonment and a fine of P30. Section 5. at the same time confiscating the wrapped object. Paragraphs (a) and (b) are clearly inapplicable. Quezon City. a peace officer or a private person may make a warrantless arrest only under any of the following circumstances: (a) When. Held: It was Abugatal who was allegedly caught red-handed by the policemen as he sold the marijuana to Polines. 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. Paragraph (b) is also not in point because the policemen who later arrested Enrile at his house had no personal knowledge that he was the source of the marijuana. Abugatal pointed to Enrile as the source of the marijuana. Upon prodding. proceeded to search and. arrest Enrile.
. Under Rule 113. a police informer. provide for his criminal culpability. Enrile was not even at the scene of the entrapment at that time. Antonio Enrile y Villaroman and Rogelio Abugatal y Marquez were charged for violation of the Dangerous Drug Act by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.00. Both appealed. The RTC. Abugatal. Abugatal led the policemen to a house at 20 De Vera Street. The plan was made on the strength of a tip given by Renato Polines. The two policemen then approached Abugatal and placed him under arrest. Abugatal left with the money and returned 10 minutes later with a wrapped object which he gave Polines. a buy-bust team composed of Pat. if the search was fruitful. that circumstance alone did not justify Enrile’s warrantless arrest and search. Jaime Flores and Pat. It was for this reason that they proceeded to Enrile’s house and immediately arrested him. pursuant to a warrantless arrest. where he called out for Antonio Enrile.
Pangasinan found Calimlim guilty of 4 counts of rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death. she was again forcibly taken back to her room. Limin claimed that she did not struggle nor shout nor resist because she was afraid that appellant might kill her.” She was then dragged to the pig pen. the automatic review. Held: Calimlim avers that his arrest violated Section 5 of Rule 113. In each of these places. 40 since his arrest was made one day after the crime was committed. Quisumbing (J): 14 concur Facts: Lanie S. all fresh. later identified as Manuel Calimlim y Muyano. but without any judicial warrant. indicating that there were insertions within the past 24 hours. Even if it were. Calimlim immediately poked a knife at the left side of her neck and said “Accompany me because I killed my wife. the sons of Manny and Cresencia. Calimlim [GR 123980. Urdaneta. After the fourth intercourse. the positions of which were at 9:00 o’clock. he had effectively waived his right to question any irregularity which might have accompanied his arrest and the unlawful restraint of his liberty. Nancy Quinto who lived nearby. Issue: Whether Calimlim may raise the illegality of the warrantless arrest conducted against him.. Afterwards.M. People vs. Thus. On 17 November 1995. This is clear from a reading of Section 9 of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Sec. The Ferrers were in the other house about 15 meters away.000. Ricardo Ferrer conducted the physical examination on Lanie. which provides that “the failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before he
. 8638 to 8640. in each of the cases. Calimlim was charged in 4 informations for rape in Criminal Cases U-8525. She stated that she knew Calimlim because she had seen him always following her whenever she went to school. although the police had ample time to get one. were out for the night (disco). Calimlim forcibly had sexual intercourse with her while he poked a knife against her neck. Calimlim threatened that he would kill her if she reported the incidents. 30 August 2001] En Banc. 6:00 o’clock and 3:00 o’clock. First Judicial Region. The marked money was not prohibited per se. According to Limin. Despite the threat. Manuel Calimlim denied the accusations. On the night of 2 April 1995. then to her cousin’s room and to the kitchen. the Regional Trial Court. There was also a whitish vaginal discharge which was found positive for spermatozoa. This he claims is also in violation of Article III. and to pay the costs. she was awakened when she heard somebody. about 8-9 meters away from the place where she slept. Hence. she was left alone in one of the two houses of the Ferrers since her usual companions. especially as the arrest was made a day after the crime was committed. 2 of the Constitution. who then reported the matter to Dr. enter her room. But here it will be noted that Calimlim entered a plea of not guilty to each of the informations charging him of rape. she first recognized Calimlim while they were in the kitchen when she was able to remove the cloth covering his face. Dr.00 as damages. The rapes were reported to the station of SPO1 Mario Suratos by Kagawad Ferrer. At around 11:30 P. she told her cousin. Limin was 14 years old and had been living with the family of Kagawad Manny Ferrer and Cresencia Ferrer for the past 3 years. and found that there was minimal vaginal bleeding and there were lacerations in the hymen. to pay the offended party the amount of P50. that fact alone would not retroactively validate the warrantless search and seizure. Manicris Ferrer.The discovery of the marked money on him did not mean he was caught in the act of selling marijuana. Branch 46.
pleads to the complaint or information. headed by SPO3 Nino. fled. People v. SPO3 Niño confiscated the firearm and turned him over to the custody of the policemen of Caibiran who subsequently investigated him and charged him with illegal possession of firearm. CAFGU members. Salayao did not contest the confiscation of the shotgun but averred that this was only given to him by one of his companions. 20 September 1996] Second Division. either because he did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the same in said motion. shall be deemed a waiver of any objections except those based on the grounds provided for in paragraphs (a). The trial court. (b). is valid. they met the 5-man group of accused Nilo Solayao. having found no mitigating but one aggravating circumstance of nighttime.” When he asked Salayao who issued him a license to carry said firearm or whether he was connected with the military or any intelligence group. who was also wearing a camouflage uniform. His companions. The circumstances are similar to those obtaining in Posadas v. In Baragay Onion. or was actually committing the offense of illegal possession of firearm
. as well as the fact that he himself was attired in a camouflage uniform or a jungle suit and that upon espying the peace officers. Moreover. the latter answered that he had no permission to possess the same. the illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from error. upon seeing the government agents. Hermogenes Cenining. SPO3 Niño told Salayao not to run away and introduced himself as “PC. Solayao [GR 119220. sentenced accused-appellant to suffer the prison term of reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties provided by law.” Given the circumstances of his case. Salayao’s claim was corroborated by one Pedro Balano. (g) and (i) of section 3 of this Rule. On 15 August 1994. they did not know that he had committed. nor can the state be deprived of its right to convict the guilty when all the facts on record point to his culpability. the exceptions do not apply here and the Court is constrained to rule that Calimlim is estopped from raising the issue of the legality of his arrest. yielding the firearm wrapped in coconut leaves. were conducting an intelligence patrol to verify reports on the presence of armed persons roaming around the barangays of Caibiran. The defense’s claim of warrantless arrest which is illegal cannot render void all other proceedings including those leading to the conviction of Calimlim. when it was still wrapped in coconut leaves. Thereupon. his companions fled. which they were using the coconut leaves as a torch. Issue: Whether the search upon Solayao. Salayao appealed to the Supreme Court. Court of Appeals where this Court held that “at the time the peace officers identified themselves and apprehended the petitioner as he attempted to flee. It should be noted that the peace officers were precisely on an intelligence mission to verify reports that armed persons were roaming around the barangays of Caibiran.” after which he seized the dried coconut leaves which the latter was carrying and found wrapped in it a 49-inch long homemade firearm locally known as “latong. Romero (J): 4 concur Facts: On 9 June 1992. the RTC of Naval Biliran (Branch 16) found Salayao guilty of illegal possession of firearm under Section 1 of PD 1866 and imposed upon him the penalty of imprisonment ranging from reclusion temporal maximum to reclusion perpetua. Held: Nilo Solayao and his companions’ drunken actuations aroused the suspicion of SPO3 Niño’s group.
the case herein constitutes an instance where a search and seizure may be effected without first making an arrest. Under the circumstances. Thus.” As with Posadas. There was justifiable cause to “stop and frisk” Solayao when his companions fled upon seeing the government agents.
. They did not know what its contents were.and ammunitions. The said circumstances did not justify an arrest without a warrant. the government agents could not possibly have procured a search warrant first. Nor was there error on the part of the trial court when it admitted the homemade firearm as evidence. They just suspected that he was hiding something in the buri bag. there was no violation of the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures.