You are on page 1of 38


DIGESTED CASES CONSTI II – Atty. Joan Largo general welfare and prosperity of its
inhabitants. (Slaughter House Cases) Upon police
U.S. vs GOMEZ power of the state depends the security of social
order, the life and health of the citizens, the
Facts: comfort of an existence in a thickly populated
In this case, defendant was found guilty by the community, the enjoyment of private and social
trial court with the crime of practicing medicine life, and the beneficial use of property. It extends
without a license, in violation of Section 8, Act 30 to the protection of the lives, limbs, health,
of the Philippine Commission which provides: “The comfort and quiet of all persons and the protection
Board of Medical Examiners may refuse to issue of all property within the state. Persons and
any of the following certificates provided for property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and
therein to an individual convicted by a court of burdens, in order to secure the general comfort,
competent jurisdiction of any offense involving health, and prosperity of the state.
immoral or dishonorable conduct. In case of such
refusal, the reason therefore shall be stated to the BINAY vs DOMINGO
applicant in writing. The Board may also revoke
any such certificate for like cause, or for Facts:
unprofessional conduct, after due notice to the The Burial Assistance Program (Resolution No. 60 –
person holding the certificate, and a hearing, assisting those who only earn less than
subject to an appeal to the Board of Health for the P2,000/month of burial assistance in the amount of
Philippine Islands, the decision of which shall be P500.00) made by Makati Mayor Jejomar Binay, in
final.” Defendant contends that the court erred in the exercise of the police power granted to him by
declaring the aforementioned provision are no in the municipal charter, was referred to the
conflict with the provisions of the Philippine Bill of Commission on Audit after the municipal secretary
1902 and in which he relies on paragraph 1, certified the disbursement of four hundred
section 5 thereof which states: “That no law shall thousand pesos for its implementation was
be enacted in said Islands which shall deprive any disallowed by said commission of such
person of life, liberty, or property without due disbursements because there cannot be seen any
process of law, or deny to any person therein the perceptible connection or relation between the
equal protection of the laws.” objective sought to be attained and the alleged
public safety, general welfare, etc. of its
Held: inhabitants. Hence, this petition revolving around
Defendant’s contention is not meritorious because the pivotal issue on whether or not Resolution No.
the Board of Medical Examiners where given such 60 of the Municipality of Makati is a valid exercise
a responsibility through the exercise of the State’s of police power under the general welfare clause.
police power. The state has general power to
enact such laws, in relation to persons, and Held:
property within its borders, as may promote Resolution No. 60 of the Municipality of Makati is a
public health, public morals, public safety, valid exercise of police power under the general
and the general prosperity and welfare of its welfare clause. The police power is a governmental
inhabitants. This power of the state is generally function, an inherent attribute of sovereignty,
denominated in its police power. It has been held which was born with civilized government. It is
that the state cannot be deprived of its right to founded largely on the maxims, “Sic utere tuo et
exercise this power. The police power and the right ahenum non laedas” (use your property so as not
to exercise it constitute the very foundation, or at to impair others) and “Salus populi est suprema
least one of the cornerstones of the state. For the lex” (the welfare of the people is the supreme law).
state to deprive itself or permit it to be deprived of Its fundamental purpose is securing the general
the right to enact laws to promote general welfare, comfort and convenience of the people.
prosperity and welfare of its inhabitants, and Police power is the power to prescribe
promote public health, public morals, and public regulations to promote the health, morals,
safety, would be to destroy the very purpose and peace, education, good order or safety and
objects of the state. No legislature can bargain general welfare of the people. It is the most
away the public health, public safety, or the public essential, insistent, and illimitable of powers. In a
morals. The people themselves cannot do it, much sense it is the greatest and most powerful
less their servants. Governments are organized attribute of the government. It is elastic and must
with a view to preservation of these things. They be responsive to various social conditions. The
cannot deprive themselves of the power to provide care for the poor is generally recognized as a
for them. (Stone vs. Mississippi) In order to enforce public duty. The support for the poor has long been
the police power of the state, it may, under an accepted exercise of police power in the
certain conditions become necessary to promotion of the common good.
deprive its citizens of property and of a right
providing for the continuance of property, AGUSTIN vs EDU
when the property or the exercise of the
right may tend to destroy the public health, Facts:
the public morals, the public safety, and the The letter of instruction providing for an early



warning device for motor vehicles is being assailed Facts:

in the case at bar as being violative of the This Court has before it the delicate task of
constitutional guarantee of due process. Petitioner passing upon the validity and constitutionality of a
contends that they are "infected with arbitrariness legislative enactment, fundamental and far‐
because it is harsh, cruel and unconscionable to reaching in significance. The enactment poses
the motoring public;" 13 are "one‐sided, onerous questions of due process, police power and equal
and patently illegal and immoral because [they] protection of the laws. It also poses an important
will make manufacturers and dealers instant issue of fact, that is whether the conditions which
millionaires at the expense of car owners who are the disputed law purports to remedy really or
compelled to buy a set of the so‐called early actually exist. Admittedly springing from a deep,
warning device at the rate of P 56.00 to P72.00 per militant, and positive nationalistic impulse, the law
set." 14 are unlawful and unconstitutional and purports to protect citizen and country from the
contrary to the precepts of a compassionate New alien retailer. Through it, and within the field of
Society [as being] compulsory and confiscatory on economy it regulates, Congress attempts to
the part of the motorists who could very well translate national aspirations for economic
provide a practical alternative road safety device, independence and national security, rooted in the
or a better substitute to the specified set of drive and urge for national survival and welfare,
EWD's." into a concrete and tangible measures designed to
free the national retailer from the competing
Held: dominance of the alien, so that the country and
Petitioner’s contention is erroneous because the the nation may be free from a supposed economic
Letter of Instruction was issued in the exercise of dependence and bondage. Do the facts and
the police power which is “nothing more or less circumstances justify the enactment?
than the powers of government inherent in every
sovereignty.” In the leading case of Calalang v. Held:
Williams, Justice Laurel identified police power It has been said the police power is so far ‐
with state authority to enact legislation that reaching in scope, that it has become almost
may interfere with personal liberty or impossible to limit its sweep. As it derives its
property in order to promote the general existence from the very existence of the
welfare. Persons and property could thus ‘be State itself, it does not need to be expressed
subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens in or defined in its scope; it is said to be co‐
order for the general comfort, health and extensive with self‐protection and survival,
prosperity of the state.’ This doctrine was later and as such it is the most positive and active
reiterated again in Primicias v. Fugoso which of all governmental processes, the most
referred police power as ‘the power to prescribe essential, insistent and illimitable. Especially
regulations to promote the health, morals, is it so under a modern democratic framework
peace, education, good order or safety, and where the demands of society and of nations have
general welfare of the people.’ The concept multiplied to almost unimaginable proportions; the
was set forth in negative terms by Justice Malcolm field and scope of police power has become
in a pre-Commonwealth decision as ‘that almost boundless, just as the fields of public
inherent and plenary power in the State interest and public welfare have become
which enables it to prohibit all things hurtful almost all‐embracing and have transcended
to the comfort, safety and welfare of human foresight. Otherwise stated, as we
society.’ Its scope, ever-expanding to meet the cannot foresee the needs and demands of
exigencies of the times, even to anticipate the public interest and welfare in this constantly
future where it could be done, provides enough changing and progressive world, so we
room for an efficient and flexible response to cannot delimit beforehand the extent or
conditions and circumstances thus assuring the scope of police power by which and through
greatest benefits. In the language of Justice which the State seeks to attain or achieve
Cardozo: ‘Needs that were narrow or parochial in interest or welfare. So it is that Constitutions
the past may be interwoven in the present with the do not define the scope or extent of the
well-being of the nation. What are critical or urgent police power of the State; what they do is to
changes with the time.’ The police power is thus a set forth the limitations thereof. The most
dynamic agency, suitably vague and far from important of these are the due process
precisely defined, rooted in the conception that clause and the equal protection clause.
men in organizing the state and imposing upon its Resuming what we have set forth above we hold
government limitations to safeguard constitutional that the disputed law was enacted to remedy a
rights did not intend thereby to enable an real actual threat and danger to national economy
individual citizen or a group of citizens to obstruct posed by alien dominance and control of the retail
unreasonably the enactment of such salutary business and free citizens and country from
measures calculated to communal peace, safety, dominance and control; that the enactment clearly
good order, and welfare.” falls within the scope of the police power of the
State, thru which and by which it protects its own
ICHONG vs. HERNANDEZ personality and insures its security and future; that
the law does not violate the equal protection



clause of the Constitution because sufficient grounds; the restriction of objectionable trades to
grounds exist for the distinction between alien and certain localities; the compulsary vaccination of
citizen in the exercise of the occupation regulated, children; the confinement of the insane or those
nor the due process of law clause, because the law afficted with contagious deceases; the restraint of
is prospective in operation and recognizes the vagrants, beggars, and habitual drunkards; the
privilege of aliens already engaged in the suppression of obscene publications and houses of
occupation and reasonably protects their privilege; ill fame; and the prohibition of gambling houses
that the wisdom and efficacy of the law to carry and places where intoxicating liquors are sold.
out its objectives appear to us to be plainly evident Beyond this, however, the State may
— as a matter of fact it seems not only appropriate interfere wherever the public interests
but actually necessary — and that in any case demand it, and in this particular a large
such matter falls within the prerogative of the discretion is necessarily vested in the
Legislature, with whose power and discretion the legislature to determine, not only what the
Judicial department of the Government may not interests of the public require, but what
interfere; that the provisions of the law are clearly measures are necessary for the protection of
embraced in the title, and this suffers from no such interests. (Barbier vs. Connolly, 113 U. S.,
duplicity and has not misled the legislators or the 27; Kidd vs. Pearson, 128 U. S., 1.) To justify the
segment of the population affected; and that it State in thus interposing its authority in behalf of
cannot be said to be void for supposed conflict the public, it must appear, first, that the interests
with treaty obligations because no treaty has of the public generally, as distinguished from those
actually been entered into on the subject and the of a particular class, require such interference;
police power may not be curtailed or surrendered and, second, that the means are reasonably
by any treaty or any other conventional necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose,
agreement. and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. The
legislature may not, under the guise of protecting
THE UNITED STATES vs LUIS TORIBIO the public interests, arbitrarily interfere with
private business, or impose unusual and
Facts: unnecessary restrictions upon lawful occupations.
Appellant in the case at bar was charged for the In other words, its determination as to what is a
violation of sections 30 & 33 of Act No. 1147, an proper exercise of its police powers is not final or
Act regulating the registration, branding, and conclusive, but is subject to the supervision of the
slaughter of large cattle. Evidence sustained in the court.
trial court found that appellant slaughtered or From what has been said, we think it is clear that
caused to be slaughtered for human consumption, the enactment of the provisions of the
the carabao described in the information, without statute under consideration was required by
a permit from the municipal treasurer of the "the interests of the public generally, as
municipality where it was slaughtered. Appellant distinguished from those of a particular
contends that he applied for a permit to slaughter class;" and that the prohibition of the
the animal but was not given one because the slaughter of carabaos for human
carabao was not found to be “unfit for agricultural consumption, so long as these animals are fit
work” which resulted to appellant to slaughter said for agricultural work or draft purposes was a
carabao in a place other than the municipal "reasonably necessary" limitation on private
slaughterhouse. Appellant then assails the validity ownership, to protect the community from
of a provision under Act No. 1147 which states that the loss of the services of such animals by
only carabaos unfit for agricultural work can be their slaughter by improvident owners,
slaughtered. tempted either by greed of momentary gain,
or by a desire to enjoy the luxury of animal
Held: food, even when by so doing the productive
The extent and limits of what is known as the power of the community may be measurably
police power have been a fruitful subject of and dangerously affected.
discussion in the appellate courts of nearly every Chief Justice Redfield, in Thorpe vs. Rutland &
State in the Union. It is universally conceded to Burlington R. R. Co. (27 Vt., 140), said (p. 149) that
include everything essential to the public safely, by this "general police power of the State, persons
health, and morals, and to justify the destruction and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints
or abatement, by summary proceedings, of and burdens, in order to secure the general
whatever may be regarded as a public nuisance. comfort, health, and prosperity of the State; of the
Under this power it has been held that the State perfect right in the legislature to do which no
may order the destruction of a house falling to question ever was, or, upon acknowledge and
decay or otherwise endangering the lives of general principles, ever can be made, so far as
passers‐by; the demolition of such as are in the natural persons are concerned."
path of a conflagration; the slaughter of diseased
cattle; the destruction of decayed or unwholesome CHURCHILL vs. RAFFERTY
food; the prohibition of wooden buildings in cities;
the regulation of railways and other means of Facts:
public conveyance, and of interments in burial The case arises from the fact that defendant,



Collector of Internal Revenue, would like to destroy in Metro Manila. Bel-Air Village Association
or remove any sign, signboard, or billboard, the (BAVA), respondent herein, received a letter of
property of the plaintiffs, for the sole reason that request from the petitioner to open Neptune Street
such sign, signboard, or billboard is, or may be of Bel-Air Village for the use of the public. The said
offensive to the sight. The plaintiffs allege opening of Neptune Street will be for the safe and
otherwise. Was there valid exercise of police power convenient movement of persons and to regulate
in this case? the flow of traffic in Makati City. This was
pursuant to MMDA law or Republic Act No. 7924.
Held: On the same day, the respondent was appraised
Yes. There can be no doubt that the exercise of the that the perimeter wall separating the subdivision
police power of the Philippine Government belongs and Kalayaan Avenue would be demolished.
to the Legislature and that this power is limited The respondent, to stop the opening of the said
only by the Acts of Congress and those street and demolition of the wall, filed a
fundamentals principles which lie at the foundation preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining
of all republican forms of government. An Act of order. Respondent claimed that the MMDA had
the Legislature which is obviously and undoubtedly no authority to do so and the lower court decided
foreign to any of the purposes of the police power in favor of the Respondent. Petitioner appealed
and interferes with the ordinary enjoyment of the decision of the lower courts and claimed that it
property would, without doubt, be held to be has the authority to open Neptune Street to
invalid. But where the Act is reasonably within public traffic because it is an agent of the State
a proper consideration of and care for the that can practice police power in the delivery of
public health, safety, or comfort, it should basic services in Metro Manila.
not be disturbed by the courts.
"The power vested in the legislature by the Issue: Whether or not the MMDA has the
constitution to make, ordain, and establish all mandate to open Neptune Street to public traffic
manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, pursuant to
statutes, and ordinances, either with penalties or its regulatory and police powers.
without, not repugnant to the constitution, as they
shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the Held:
commonwealth, and of the subjects of the same." The Court held that the MMDA does not have the
"The police power of the State, so far, has not capacity to exercise police power. Police power is
received a full and complete definition. It may be primarily lodged in the National Legislature.
said, however, to be the right of the State, or However, police power may be delegated to
state functionary, to prescribe regulations government units. Petitioner herein is a
for the good order, peace, health, protection, development authority and not a political
comfort, convenience and morals of the government unit. Therefore, the MMDA cannot
community, which do not ... violate any of exercise police power because it cannot be
the provisions of the organic law." delegated to them.
"It [the police power] has for its object the It is not a legislative unit of the government.
improvement of social and economic conditioned Republic Act No. 7924 does not empower the
affecting the community at large and collectively MMDA to enact ordinances, approve resolutions
with a view to bring about "he greatest good of the and appropriate funds for the general welfare of
greatest number."Courts have consistently and the inhabitants of Manila. There is no syllable in
wisely declined to set any fixed limitations upon the said act that grants MMDA police power. It is
subjects calling for the exercise of this power. It is an agency created for the purpose of laying down
elastic and is exercised from time to time as policies and coordinating with various national
varying social conditions demand correction." government agencies, people’s organizations, non-
"It may be said in a general way that the police governmental organizations and the private
power extends to all the great public needs. It sector for the efficient and expeditious delivery of
may be put forth in aid of what is sanctioned basic services in the vast metropolitan area.
by usage, or held by the prevailing morality
or strong and preponderant opinion to be CITY OF MANILA VS. CHINESE COMMUNITY
greatly and immediately necessary to the
public welfare." Facts:
"It is much easier to perceive and realize the The City of Manila, plaintiff herein, prayed for the
existence and sources of this police power than to expropriation of a portion private cemetery for
mark its boundaries, or to prescribe limits to its the conversion into an extension of Rizal Avenue.
exercise." Plaintiff claims that it is necessary that such
public improvement be made in the said portion of
MMDA Vs. Bel-Air Village the private cemetery and that the said lands are
within their jurisdiction.
Facts: Defendants herein answered that the said
Metropolitan Manila Development Authority expropriation was not necessary because other
(MMDA), petitioner herein, is a Government routes were available. They further claimed that
Agency tasked with the delivery of basic services the expropriation of the cemetery would create



irreparable loss and injury to them and to all those with the commencement of the expropriation
persons owing and interested in the graves and proceedings, or takes place subsequent to the
monuments that would have to be destroyed. filing of the complaint for eminent domain, the just
The lower court ruled that the said public compensation should be determined as of the date
improvement was not necessary on the particular- of the filing of the complaint. In the instant case, it
strip of land in question. Plaintiff herein assailed is undisputed that the Republic was placed in
that they have the right to exercise the power of possession of the Castelvi property, by authority of
eminent domain and that the courts have no right court, on August 10, 1959. The “taking” of the
to inquire and determine the necessity of the Castelvi property for the purposes of determining
expropriation. Thus, the same filed an appeal. the just compensation to be paid must, therefore,
be reckoned as of June 26, 1959 when the
Issue: Whether or not the courts may inquire complaint for eminent domain was filed.
into, and hear proof of the necessity of the There is no basis to the contention of the Republic
expropriation. that a lease on a year-to-year basis can give rise to
Held: permanent right to occupy since by express
The courts have the power of restricting the provision a lease made for a determinate time, as
exercise of eminent domain to the actual was the lease of Castelvi land in the instant case,
reasonable necessities of the case and for the ceases upon the day fixed, without need of a
purposes designated by the law. The moment the demand (Art. 1669, New Civil Code). The Supreme
municipal corporation or entity attempts to Court, however, did not apply Art. 1250 of the New
exercise the authority conferred, it must comply Civil Code for the adjustment of the peso rate in
with the conditions accompanying the authority. times of extraordinary inflation or deflation
The necessity for conferring the authority upon a because in eminent domain cases the obligation to
municipal corporation to exercise the right of pay arises from law independent of contract.
eminent domain is admittedly within the power of
the legislature. But whether or not the municipal AMIGABLE VS. CUENCA
corporation or entity is exercising the right in a
particular case under the conditions imposed by Facts:
the general authority, is a question that the Victoria Amigable is the registered owner of a
courts have the right to inquire to. particular lot. At the back of her Transfer
Certificate of Title (1924), there was no annotation
REPUBLIC VS. CASTELVI in favor of the government of any right or interest
in the property. Without prior expropriation or
Facts: negotiated sale, the government used a portion of
In 1947, the republic, through the Armed Forces of the lot for the construction of the Mango and
the Philippines (AFP), entered into a lease Gorordo Avenues. On 1958, Amigable’s counsel
agreement with Castelvi on a year-to-year basis. wrote the President of the Philippines, requesting
When Castelvi gave notice to terminate the lease payment of the portion of the said lot. It was
in 1956, the AFP refused. She then instituted an disallowed by the Auditor General in his 9th
ejectment proceeding against the AFP. In 1959, Endorsement. Petitioner then filed in the court a
however, the republic commenced the quo a complaint against the Republic of the
expropriation proceedings for the land in question. Philippines and Nicolas Cuenca, in his capacity as
Commissioner of Public Highways for the recovery
Issue: Whether or Not the compensation should of ownership and possession of the lot. According
be determined as of 1947 or 1959. to the defendants, the action was premature
because it was not filed first at the Office of the
Held: Auditor General. According to them, the right of
The Supreme Court ruled that the “taking” should action for the recovery of any amount had already
not be reckoned as of 1947, and that just prescribed, that the Government had not given its
compensation should not be determined on the consent to be sued, and that plaintiff had no cause
basis of the value of the property as of that year. of action against the defendants.
The requisites for taking are: 1) the expropriator
must enter a private property, 2) the entry must Issue: Whether or Not, under the facts of the
be for more than a momentary period, 3) it must case, appellant may properly sue the government.
be under warrant or color of authorities, 4) the
property must be devoted for public use or Held:
otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously In the case of Ministerio v. Court of First Instance of
affected, and 5) the utilization of the property for Cebu, it was held that when the government takes
public use must be such a way as to oust the away property from a private landowner for public
owner and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of use without going through the legal process of
the property. Under Sec. 4 Rule 67 of the Rules of expropriation or negotiated sale, the aggrieved
Court, “just compensation” is to be determined as party may properly maintain a suit against the
of the date of the filing of the complaint. The government without violating the doctrine of
Supreme Court has ruled that when the taking of governmental immunity from suit without its
the property sought to be expropriated coincides consent. In the case at bar, since no annotation in



favor of the government appears at the back of the protection of the laws; and (3) that it is in excess
certificate of title and plaintiff has not executed of the power given to the Comelec to regulate the
any deed of conveyance of any portion of the lot to operation of media communication or information
the government, then she remains the owner of during election period.
the lot. She could then bring an action to recover
possession of the land anytime, because Held:
possession is one of the attributes of ownership. Petitioners' argument is without merit, All
However, since such action is not feasible at this broadcasting, whether by radio or by
time since the lot has been used for other television stations, is licensed by the
purposes, the only relief left is for the government government. Airwave frequencies have to be
to make due compensation用rice or value of the lot allocated as there are more individuals who
at the time of the taking. want to broadcast than there are frequencies
to assign. 9 A franchise is thus a privilege
REPUBLIC VS. PLDT subject, among other things, to amended by
Congress in accordance with the
Facts: constitutional provision that "any such
The plaintiff Republic of the Philippines is a political franchise or right granted . . . shall be
entity exercising government powers through one subject to amendment, alteration or repeal
of its branches, the Bureau of Telecommunication. by the Congress when the common good so
Herein defendant, PLDT is a public service requires."
corporation holding a franchise to install operates
and maintains a telephone system. Indeed, provisions for COMELEC Time have been
After its creation, the BOT set up its own made by amendment of the franchises of radio and
government telephone system by utilizing its own television broadcast stations and, until the present
appropriations and other equipment and by renting case was brought, such provisions had not
trunk lines of the PLDT to enable the govt offices been thought of as taking property without
to call privately. BOT entered into an agreement just compensation. Art. XII, §11 of the
with the RCA communications for joint overseas Constitution authorizes the amendment of
telephone service whereby BOT would convey franchises for "the common good." What
overseas calls received by RCA to local residents. better measure can be conceived for the
PLDT complained to the BOT that it was a violation common good than one for free air time for
of the condition of their agreement since the BOT the benefit not only of candidates but even
had used trunk lines only for the use of more of the public, particularly the voters, so
government offices but even to serve private that they will be fully informed of the issues
persons or the general public in competition with in an election? "[I]t is the right of the
the business of PLDT. Subsequently, the plaintiff viewers and listeners, not the right of the
commenced suit against PLDT asking the court broadcasters, which is paramount."
judgment be rendered ordering the PLDT to
execute a contract with the plaintiff, through the
BOT for the use of the facilities of PLDT's Nor indeed can there be any constitutional
telephone system throughout the country under objection to the requirement that broadcast
such conditions as the court may consider stations give free air time. Even in the United
reasonable. The CFI rendered judgment stating States, there are responsible scholars who believe
that it could not compel PLDT to enter into such that government controls on broadcast media can
agreement. Hence this petition. constitutionally be instituted to ensure diversity of
views and attention to public affairs to further the
Issue: Whether or Not PLDT may be compelled system of free expression. For this purpose,
to enter into such agreement. broadcast stations may be required to give free air
Held: time to candidates in an election.
Yes, the state may, in the interest of national
welfare, transfer utilities to public ownership upon In truth, radio and television broadcasting
payment of just compensation, there is no reason companies, which are given franchises, do not own
why the state ma not require a public utility to the airwaves and frequencies through which they
render services in the general interest provided transmit broadcast signals and images. They are
just compensation is paid. merely given the temporary privilege of using
them. Since a franchise is a mere privilege, the
TELEBAP vs. COMELEC exercise of the privilege may reasonably be
burdened with the performance by the grantee of
Facts: some form of public service.
TELEBAP and GMA Network together filed a
petition to challenge the validity of Comelec Time MANOSCA VS. COURT OF APPEALS
due to the fact that said provisions: (1) have taken
properties without due process of law and without Facts:
just compensation; (2) it denied the radio and The National Historical Institute declared the parcel
television broadcast companies the equal of land owned by Petitioners as a national



historical landmark, because it was the site of the legislature may make the initial determination but
birth of Felix Manalo, the founder of Iglesia ni when a party claims a violation of the guarantee in
Cristo. The Republic of the Philippines filed an the Bill of Rights that the private party may not be
action to appropriate the land. Petitioners argued taken for public use without just compensation, no
that the expropriation was not for a public statute, decree, or executive order can mandate
purpose. that its own determination shall prevail over the
court’s findings. Much less can the courts be
Issue: Whether or Not the taking or exercise of precluded from looking into the justness of the
eminent domain may be granted. decreed compensation.


Public use should not be restricted to the
traditional uses. The taking is for a public use Facts:
because of the contribution of Felix Manalo to the The instant case is an unending sequel to several
culture and history of the Philippines. suits commenced almost twenty years ago
involving a parcel of land located at the corner of
EPZA VS. DULAY the south end of EDSA and F.B. Harrison in Pasay
City. The land was owned by petitioners Cristina de
Facts: Knecht and her son, Rene Knecht.
The four parcels of land which are the subject of On the land, the Knechts constructed eight houses,
this case is where the Mactan Export Processing leased out the seven and occupied one of them as
Zone Authority in Cebu (EPZA) is to be their residence. In 1979, the government filed for
constructed. Private respondent San Antonio the expropriation of Knechts’ property.
Development Corporation (San Antonio, for The government wanted to use the land for the
brevity), in which these lands are registered under, completion of the Manila Flood Control and
claimed that the lands were expropriated to the Drainage Project and the extension of the EDSA
government without them reaching the agreement towards Roxas Boulevard. In 1982, the City
as to the compensation. Respondent Judge Dulay Treasurer of Pasay discovered that the Knechts
then issued an order for the appointment of the failed to pay real estate taxes on the property from
commissioners to determine the just 1980 to 1982. As a consequence of this deficiency,
compensation. It was later found out that the the City Treasurer sold the property at public
payment of the government to San Antonio would auction for the same amount of their deficiency
be P15 per square meter, which was objected to by taxes. The highest bidders were respondent
the latter contending that under PD 1533, the Spouses Anastacio and Felisa Babiera (the
basis of just compensation shall be fair and Babieras) and respondent Spouses Alejandro and
according to the fair market value declared by the Flor Sangalang (the Sangalangs). Subsequently,
owner of the property sought to be expropriated, Sangalang and Babiera sold the land to respondent
or by the assessor, whichever is lower. Such Salem Investment Corporation. On February 17,
objection and the subsequent Motion for 1983, the Batasang Pambansa passed B.P. Blg. 340
Reconsideration were denied and hearing was set authorizing the national government to expropriate
for the reception of the commissioner’s report. certain properties in Pasay City for the EDSA
EPZA then filed this petition for certiorari and Extension. The property of the Knechts was part of
mandamus enjoining the respondent from further those expropriated under B.P. Blg. 340. The
hearing the case. government gave out just compensation for the
lands expropriated under B.P. Blg. 340. Salem was
Issue: Whether or Not the exclusive and included and received partial payment. Seven of
mandatory mode of determining just the eight houses of the Knechts were demolished
compensation in PD 1533 is unconstitutional. and the government took possession of the portion
of land on which the houses stood. Since the
Held: Knechts refused to vacate their one remaining
The Supreme Court ruled that the mode of house, Salem filed a case against them for
determination of just compensation in PD 1533 is unlawful detainer. As defense, the Knechts claimed
unconstitutional. ownership of the land and building. The Municipal
The method of ascertaining just compensation Trial Court however ordered the Knechts'
constitutes impermissible encroachment to judicial ejectment thus their residence was demolished.
prerogatives. It tends to render the courts inutile in The Knechts continuously claimed ownership of
a matter in which under the Constitution is the property and allege that they must be given
reserved to it for financial determination. The just compensation.
valuation in the decree may only serve as guiding
principle or one of the factors in determining just Issue: Whether or not Knechts are the lawful
compensation, but it may not substitute the owners of the land at subject.
court’s own judgment as to what amount should
be awarded and how to arrive at such amount. The Held:
determination of just compensation is a judicial The Supreme Court held that the Knechts were not
function. The executive department or the the owners anymore of the said land. The Knechts'



right to the land had been foreclosed after they because they needed a place of residence very
failed to redeem it one year after the sale at public badly, their former house having been destroyed
auction. Since the petitions questioning the order by a typhoon and hitherto they had been living on
of dismissal were likewise dismissed by the Court leased property. Thereafter, defendants were
of Appeals and this Court, the order of dismissal charged in violation of the ordinance and
became final and res judicata on the issue of subsequently convicted. Hence this appeal.
ownership of the land. Petitioners contended that
they did not receive notice of their tax Issue:Whether or Not the ordinance is a valid
delinquency. Neither did they receive notice of the exercise of police power.
auction sale. However, this question has been
previously raised in the cases which have been Held:
already set aside. The court is not a trier of facts. No. It is not a valid exercise of police power. The
Res judicata has already set it. The Knechts ordinance is unreasonable and oppressive, in that
therefore are not the lawful owners of the land and it operates to permanently deprive appellants of
are not any longer accountable for just the right to use their own property; hence, it
compensation given by the government. oversteps the bounds of police power, and
Note: Res judicata is a ground for dismissal of an amounts to a taking of appellant’s property
action. It is a rule that precludes parties from without just compensation. We do not overlook
relitigating Issue actually litigated and determined that the modern tendency is to regard the
by a prior and final judgment. It pervades every beautification of neighborhoods as conducive to
well-regulated system of jurisprudence, and is the comfort and happiness of residents.
based upon two grounds embodied in various As the case now stands, every structure that may
maxims of the common law 8 one, public policy be erected on appellants' land, regardless of its
and necessity, that there should be a limit to own beauty, stands condemned under the
litigation; and another, the individual should not be ordinance in question, because it would interfere
vexed twice for the same cause. When a right of with the view of the public plaza from the highway.
fact has been judicially tried and determined by a The appellants would, in effect, be constrained to
court of competent jurisdiction, or an opportunity let their land remain idle and unused for the
for such trial has been given, the judgment of the obvious purpose for which it is best suited, being
court, so long as it remains unreversed, should be urban in character. To legally achieve that result,
conclusive upon the parties and those in privity the municipality must give appellants just
with them in law or estate. To follow a contrary compensation and an opportunity to be heard
doctrine would subject the public peace and quiet
to the will and neglect of individuals and prefer the US vs. Ling Su Fan, 10 Phil 104
gratification of the litigious disposition of the
parties to the preservation of the public Facts:
tranquility.Res judicata applies when: (1) the Defendant, Ling Su Fan, is accused of attempting
former judgment or order is final; (2) the judgment to export Philippine silver coins from the
or order is one on the merits; (3) it was rendered Philippines contrary to Act No. 1411 of the
by a court having jurisdiction over the subject Philippine Commission. His defenses, among
matter and the parties; (4) there is between the others, involved the deprivation of due process
first and second actions, identity of parties, of due to the confiscation of the coins.
subject matter and of cause of action.
PEOPLE VS. FAJARDO ...phrase "due process of law" was defined by
Judge Story, in his work on Constitutional Law, as "
Facts: the law in its regular course of administration
The municipal council of baao, camarines sur through the courts of justice."
stating among others that construction of a Due process of law in each particular case means
building, which will destroy the view of the plaza, such an exertion of the powers of the government
shall not be allowed and therefore be destroyed at as the settled maxims of law permit and sanction,
the expense of the owner, enacted an ordinance. and under such safeguards for the protection of
Herein appellant filed a written request with the individual rights as those maxims prescribed for
incumbent municipal mayor for a permit to the class of cases to which the one in question
construct a building adjacent to their gasoline belongs. Judge Cooley, in his work on
station on a parcel of land registered in Fajardo's Constitutional Limitations, says:
name, located along the national highway and "Due process of law" is process or proceedings
separated from the public plaza by a creek. The according to the law of the land. "Due process of
request was denied, for the reason among others law" is not that the law shal l be according to the
that the proposed building would destroy the view wishes of all the inhabitants of the state, but
or beauty of the public plaza. Defendants simply — First. That there shall be a law
reiterated their request for a building permit, but prescribed in harmony with the general powers of
again the mayor turned down the request. the legislative department of the Government
Whereupon, appellants proceeded with the Second. That this law shall be reasonable in its
construction of the building without a permit, operation;



Third. That it shall be enforced according to the needed publication pursuant to section 399 of the
regular methods of procedure prescribed; and Code of Civil Procedure. Publication was made in
Fourth. That it shall be applicable alike to all the a newspaper of Manila and an order of the court
citizens of the state or to all of a class. deposited in the post office in a stamped
Lower court's decision was affirmed convicting him envelope of the summons and complaint directed
guilty with costs against him to defendant. The clerk, however, failed to
comply with the mail publication requirement.
White Light Corporation vs. City of Manila The bank was able to foreclose the property
without the defendant.
Facts: After seven years, the administrator of the estate,
City of Manila passes an Ordinance preventing Vicente Palanca, appeared and requested the court
hotels, motels, lodging houses, pension houses to set aside the order of default of July 2, 1908,
and similar establishments offer ing shorttime and the judgment rendered upon July 3, 1908, and
admission as well as pro-rated or wash up rates for to vacate all the proceedings subsequent thereto.
abbreviated stays. The basis of this application, as set forth in the
Petitioners allege, among others, that the motion itself, was that the order of default and
Ordinance deprives their customers the the judgment rendered thereon were void because
Constitutional guaranty to the right of due process. the court had never acquired jurisdiction over the
defendant or over the subject of the action. His
Held: appeal was denied by the lower court, hence the
The purpose of the guaranty is to prevent arbitrary appeal.
governmental encroachment against the life, His appeal was denied by the lower court, hence
liberty and property of individuals. The due the appeal.
process guaranty serves as a protection against
arbitrary regulation or seizure. Even corporations Issue: Whether or not the procedural aspect of
and partnerships are protected by the guaranty the right to due process has been prejudiced.
insofar as their property is concerned.
The due process guaranty has traditionally been Held:
interpreted as imposing two related but distinct 1. There must be a COURT or TRIBUNAL clothed
restrictions on government, "procedural due with judicial power to hear and determine the
process" and "substantive due process." matter before it;
Procedural due process refers to the procedures 2. JURISDICTION must be lawfully acquired over
that the government must follow before it the person of the defendant or over the property
deprives a person of life, liberty, or property. which is the subject of the proceeding;
Procedural due process concerns itself with 3. The defendant must be given the
government action adhering to the established OPPORTUNITY to be heard; and
process when it makes an intrusion into the private 4. Judgment must be rendered upon lawful
sphere. HEARING.
Substantive due process completes the protection The essentials of procedural fairness inn judicial
envisioned by the due process clause. It inquires proceedings are:
whether the government has sufficient Conclusions stated by the court indicated that the
justification for depriving a person of life, liberty, judgment appealed from is without error, and the
or property. same is accordingly affirmed.
Even as the implementation of moral norms
remains an indispensable complement to ANG TIBAY VS. CIR
governance, that prerogative is hardly absol ute,
especially in the face of the norms of due process FACTS:
of liberty. And while the tension may often be left Petitioner, Ang Tibay has filed an opposition for
to the courts to relie ve, it is possible for the both the motion for reconsideration of CIR and the
government to avoid the constitutional conflict by motion for a new trial by the National Labor Union.
employing more judicious, less drastic means to The National Labor Union’s case: they alleged that
promote morality. Toribio Teodoro, who dominated the National
Petition was granted by the Court and held the Workers’ Brotherhood of Ang Tibay,made a false
Ordinance unconstitutional. claim that there was a shortage of leather soles in
ANg Tibay that made it necessary for him to lay off
Banco Español vs. Palanca, 37 Phil 921 workers, however, claim was unsupported by
records of the Bureau of Customs & the accounts
Facts: of native dealers of leather. Such was just a
Engracio Palanca Tanquinyeng secured a debt with scheme adapted to systematically discharge all
various parcels of real property in Manila. The debt the members of the NLU, inc., from work. · Unfair
amounted to P218,294.10 at 8% per annum, labor practice for discriminating against the
payable quarterly. Property's estimated value was National Labor Union, Inc., and unjustly favoring
about P292,558. After the instrument's execution, the National Workers' Brotherhood.· That the
mortgagor returned to Amoy, China and died on exhibits hereto attached are so inaccessible to the
January 29, 1810. The foreclosure proceeding respondents that even with the exercise of due



diligence they could not be expected to have judges, therefore, must act on its or his own
obtained them and offered as evidence in the independent consideration of the law and
Court of Industrial Relations. facts of the controversy, and not simply
That the attached documents and exhibits are of accept the views of a subordinate in
such far-reaching importance and effect that their arriving at a decision. It may be that the
admission would necessarily mean the volume of work is such that it is literally
modification and reversal of the judgment Relations personally to decide all controversies
rendered herein. coming before them.
7.The Court of Industrial Relations should, in all
HELD: controversial questions, render its decision
motion for reconsideration denied, motion for new in such a manner that the parties to the
trial granted. proceeding can know the various issues
Discussion of the Nature of the CIR to emphasize involved, and the reasons for the decision
certain guiding principles which should be rendered. The performance of this duty is
observed in the trial of cases brought before it. inseparable from the authority conferred upon
Court of Industrial Relations 10 an administrative it.
court - exercises judicial or quasi-judicial functions
in the determination of disputes between The court observed that, except as to the alleged
employers and employees agreement between the Ang Tibay and the
- has jurisdiction over the entire Philippines, to National Worker's Brotherhood, the record is
consider, investigate, decide, and settle any barren and does not satisfy the thirst for a factual
question, matter controversy or dispute arising basis upon which to predicate, in a national way, a
between, and/or affecting employers and conclusion of law. Therefore, in the interest of
employees or laborers, and regulate the relations justice, a new trial should commence giving the
between them, subject to, and in accordance with, movant the opportunity to present new evidence.
the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 103
(section 1). Diosdado Guzman vs National University
There is in reality here a mingling of executive and
judicial functions, which is a departure from the Facts:
rigid doctrine of the separation of governmental Petitioners Diosdado Guzman, Ulysses Urbiztondo
powers. and Ariel Ramacula, students of respondent
In the case of Goseco vs. Court of Industrial National University, have come to this Court to
Court of Industrial Relations is not narrowly seek relief from what they describe as their
constrained by technical rules of procedure, school's "continued and persistent refusal to allow
and the Act requires it to "act according to them to enrol." In their petition "for extraordinary
justice and equity and substantial merits of legal and equitable remedies with prayer for
the case, without regard to technicalities or preliminary mandatory injunction" dated August 7,
legal forms and shall not be bound by any 1984, they alleged that they were denied due to
technicalities or legal forms and shall not be the fact that they were active participation in
bound by any technical rules of legal peaceful mass actions within the premises of the
evidence but may inform its mind in such manner University.
as it may deem just and equitable." (Section 20, The respondents on the other hand claimed that
Commonwealth Act No. 103.) requirements of due the petitioners’ failure to enroll for the first
process in trials and investigations of an semester of the school year 1984-1985 is due to
administrative character. their own fault and not because of their alleged
1. right to a hearing, which includes the right exercise of their constitutional and human rights.
of the party interested or affected to present That as regards to Guzman, his academic showing
his own case and submit evidence in support was poor due to his activities in leading boycotts of
thereof. classes. That Guzman “is facing criminal charges
2. tribunal must consider the evidence for malicious mischief before the Metropolitan Trial
presented. Court of Manila in connection with the destruction
3. have something to support the decision of properties of respondent University. The
4. evidence must be "substantial." - such petitioners have “failures in their records, and are
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind not of good scholastic standing.”
accepts as adequate to support a
conclusion." Held:
5. The decision must be rendered on the Immediately apparent from a reading of
evidence presented at the hearing, or at respondents' comment and memorandum is the
least contained in the record and disclosed to fact that they had never conducted proceedings of
the parties affected. Only by confining the any sort to determine whether or not petitioners-
administrative tribunal to the evidence students had indeed led or participated "in
disclosed to the parties, can the latter be activities within the university premises,
protected in their right to know and meet the conducted without prior permit from school
case against them. authorities, that disturbed or disrupted classes
6. The Court of Industrial Relations or any of its therein" 3 or perpetrated acts of "vandalism,


- 10 -

coercion and intimidation, slander, noise barrage implacable and immutable command for all
and other acts showing disdain for and defiance of seasons and all persons. Flexibility must be the
University authority." 4 Parenthetically, the best virtue of the guaranty. The very elasticity of
pendency of a civil case for damages and a the due process clause was meant to make it
criminal case for malicious mischief against adapt easily to every situation, enlarging or
petitioner Guzman, cannot, without more, furnish constricting its protection as the changing times
sufficient warrant for his expulsion or debarment and circumstances may require.
from re-enrollment. Also apparent is the omission The minimum requirements of due process
of respondents to cite this Court to any duly are notice and hearing which, generally
published rule of theirs by which students may be speaking, may not be dispensed with
expelled or refused re-enrollment for poor because they are intended as a safeguard
scholastic standing. against official arbitrariness. It is a gratifying
There are withal minimum standards which must commentary on our judicial system that the
be met to satisfy the demands of procedural due jurisprudence of this country is rich with
process; and these are, that applications of this guaranty as proof of our fealty
(1) the students must be informed in to the rule of law and the ancient rudiments of fair
writing of the nature and cause of any play. We have consistently declared that every
accusation against them; person, faced by the awesome power of the State,
(2) they shag have the right to is entitled to "the law of the land," which Daniel
answer the charges against them, Webster described almost two hundred years ago
with the assistance of counsel, if in the famous Dartmouth College Case, as "the law
desired; which hears before it condemns, which proceeds
(3) they shall be informed of the upon inquiry and renders judgment only after
evidence against them; trial." It has to be so if the rights of every person
(4) they shall have the right to adduce are to be secured beyond the reach of officials
evidence in their own behalf; and who, out of mistaken zeal or plain arrogance,
(5) the evidence must be duly would degrade the due process clause into a worn
considered by the investigating and empty catchword.
committee or official designated by It has already been remarked that there are
the school authorities to hear and occasions when notice and hearing may be
decide the case. validly dispensed with notwithstanding the
usual requirement for these minimum
THE PETITION WAS GRANTED AND THE guarantees of due process. It is also
RESPONDENTS ARE DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE conceded that summary action may be
PETITIONERS TO RE-ENROLL WITHOUT PREJUDICE validly taken in administrative proceedings
TO ANY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS. as procedural due process is not necessarily
judicial only. In the exceptional cases
Ynot vs Intermediate Appellate Court accepted, however there is a justification for
the omission of the right to a previous
Facts: hearing, to wit, the immediacy of the
The case was about the constitutionality of EO problem sought to be corrected and the
626-A which prohibits interprovincial movement of urgency of the need to correct it.
carabaos. Due process is violated because the owner of the
The petitioner had transported six carabaos in a property confiscated is denied the right to be
pump boat from Masbate to Iloilo on January 13, heard in his defense and is immediately
1984, when they were confiscated by the police condemned and punished.
station commander of Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo, for
violation of the above measure. The petitioner EO 626-A was declared unconstitutional.
sued for recovery, and the Regional Trial Court of
Iloilo City issued a writ of replevin upon his filing of Tanada vs Tuvera
a supersedeas bond of P12,000.00. After
considering the merits of the case, the court Facts:
sustained the confiscation of the carabaos and, Due process was invoked by the petitioners in
since they could no longer be produced, ordered demanding the disclosure of a number of
the confiscation of the bond. The court also presidential decrees which they claimed had not
declined to rule on the constitutionality of the been published as required by law. The
executive order, as raise by the petitioner, for lack government argued that while publication was
of authority and also for its presumed validity. necessary as a rule, it was not so when it was
"otherwise provided," as when the decrees
Held: themselves declared that they were to become
The due process clause was kept effective immediately upon their approval.
intentionally vague so it would remain also
conveniently resilient. This was felt necessary Issue: WON publication is needed for laws that
because due process is not, like some provisions of were to become effective immediately.
the fundamental law, an "iron rule" laying down an


- 11 -

Held: praying that the certificate be amended. On the

It is not correct to say that under the disputed following day, July 3, and without previous notice
clause publication may be dispensed with to the petitioner or a previous hearing thereon,
altogether. The reason is that such omission would ordered the modification of the line in accordance
offend due process insofar as it would deny the with the petition.
public knowledge of the laws that are supposed to
govern the legislature could validly provide that a Issue:
law is effective immediately upon its approval WON the order of the amendment of the route,
notwithstanding the lack of publication (or after an without notice to the petitioner and other
unreasonably short period after publication), it is interested parties, or hearing in which the latter
not unlikely that persons not aware of it would be may be given opportunity to be present, was
prejudiced as a result and they would be so not lawfully and validly issued by the Commission.
because of a failure to comply with but simply WON petitioner’s right to due process was violated.
because they did not know of its existence, Held:
Significantly, this is not true only of penal laws as
is commonly supposed. One can think of many The order by the Commission of amending the
non-penal measures, like a law on prescription, route was not validly issued and petitioner’s right
which must also be communicated to the persons to due process was violated.
they may affect before they can begin to operate. In the first place, the power to issue provisional
permits is expressly authorized. In the second
The term "laws" should refer to all laws and not place, the change ordered is not provisional
only to those of general application, for strictly merely, like that granted in a provisional permit,
speaking all laws relate to the people in general but final and permanent in character. In the third
albeit there are some that do not apply to them place, even if the Commission is not bound by the
directly. An example is a law granting citizenship to rules in judicial proceedings, it must bow its head
a particular individual, like a relative of President to he constitutional mandate that no person shall
Marcos who was decreed instant naturalization. It be deprived of a right without due process of law.
surely cannot be said that such a law does not The "due process of law" clause of the
affect the public although it unquestionably does Constitution binds not only the Government
not apply directly to all the people. The subject of of the Republic of the Philippines, but also
such law is a matter of public interest which any each and everyone of its branches, agencies,
member of the body politic may question in the etc. (16 C.J.S., 1149.)"Due process of law, or, in
political forums or, if he is a proper party, even in the mean accord with the procedure outlines in the
the courts of justice. In fact, a law without any law, or, in the absence of express procedure, under
bearing on the public would be invalid as an such safeguards for the protection of individual
intrusion of privacy or as class legislation or as an rights as the settled maxims of law permit and
ultra vires act of the legislature. To be valid, the sanction for the particular class of cases to which
law must invariably affect the public interest even the one in question belongs," (16 C.J.S., 1141.) In
if it might be directly applicable only to one the case at bar, the Public Service Act does not
individual, or some of the people only, and t to the include the amendment made in the disputed
public as a whole. order among those may be ordered without notice
We hold therefore that all statutes, including those or hearing in accordance with Section 17 of the
of local application and private laws, shall be Act. Is the amendment, without notice or hearing,
published as a condition for their effectivity, which permitted by the well settled maxims of law? We
shall begin fifteen days after publication unless a declare it is not, because due process of law
different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature. guarantees notice and opportunity to be
heard to persons who would be affected by
Halili vs Public Service Commission the order or act contemplated.

Facts: In a General sense it means the right to be

A petition for certiorari was filed seeking for the heard before some tribunal having
revocation and annulment of an order by jurisdiction to determine the question in
respondent Public Service Commission dated July dispute.
3, 1952 which changed part of the route of the bus
service established by the respondent CAM Transit By "due process of law" is meant orderly
Co., Inc., between Balara and City Hall, Manila. proceeding adopted to the nature of the
Petitioner herein is the holder of various case, before a tribunal having jurisdiction,
certificates of public convenience to operate auto- which proceeds upon notice, with an
truck services between Balara and various points opportunity to bee heard, with full power to
in the City of Manila and its suburbs. grant relief.
On July 2, 1952, CAM Transit Co., Inc. filed a
petition with the respondent Commission alleging Some legal procedure in which the person
that the route authorized in its City Hall(Manila)- proceeded against, if he is to be concluded
Balara line is entirely different from that supported thereby, shall have an opportunity to defend
by the evidence presented in the hearing, and himself.


- 12 -

power of organized society are brought to bear

A course of proceeding according to these rules upon the individual. This is obviously not the case
and principles which have been established in our of termination of employment under Art. 283. Here
system of jurisprudence for the protection and the employee is not faced with an aspect of the
enforcement of private rights. adversary system. The purpose for requiring a 30-
day written notice before an employee is laid off is
Serrano vs National Labor Relations not to afford him an opportunity to be heard on
Commission any charge against him, for there is none. The
purpose rather is to give him time to prepare for
Facts: the eventual loss of his job and the DOLE an
A petition was filed seeking a review of a opportunity to determine whether economic
resolution made by the National Labor relations causes do exist justifying the termination of his
commission which reversed the decision rendered employment.
by theLaborArbiter and dismissed petitioner's The third reason why the notice requirement under
complaint for illegal dismissal and denied his Art. 283 can not be considered a requirement of
motion for reconsideration. the Due Process Clause is that the employer
cannot really be expected to be entirely an
Petitioner was hired by private respondent Isetann impartial judge of his own cause. This is also the
Department Store. Sometime in 1991, as a cost- case in termination of employment for a just cause
cutting measure, said respondent decided to phase under Art. 282.
out its entire security section and engage the We hold, therefore, that, with respect to Art. 283 of
services of an independent security agency. A the Labor Code, the employer's failure to comply
memorandum was subsequently wrote to with the notice requirement does not constitute a
petitioner informing him of his termination denial of due process but a mere failure to observe
immediately (date of effectivity of termination was a procedure for the termination of employment
exactly the same as the date the memorandum which makes the termination of employment
was made). merely ineffectual. Indeed, under the Labor Code,
only the absence of a just cause for the
Issue: termination of employment can make the dismissal
WON there was a violation of petitioner's right to of an employee illegal.
due process when respondent-employer failed to
give the required 1 month notice provided in the Lao Gi v Court of Appeals
Labor Code.
Held: Herein petitioner faces a charge for deportation
when a judgment was rendered cancelling his
"It is now settled that where the dismissal of one citizenship (obtained from a prior judgment) on the
employee is in fact for a just and valid cause and is ground that it was founded on fraud and
so proven to be but he is not accorded his right to misrepresentation. Petitioners were required to
due process, i.e., he was not furnished the twin register as aliens but refused. They filed a motion
requirements of notice and opportunity to be for reconsideration of the of the order directing
heard, the dismissal shall be upheld but the them to register as aliens and to oppose the
employer must be sanctioned for non-compliance motion for their arrest but was denied by Acting
with the requirements of, or for failure to observe, Commissioner Nituda. Petitioners filed for certiorari
due process." in the CFI of Manila which was dismissed fo lack of
There are three reasons why, on the other hand, legal basis. Petition for certiorari was also
violation by the employer of the notice dismissed on appeal in the CA and a motion for
requirement cannot be considered a denial of due reconsideration was also denied. Hence, the
process resulting in the nullity of the employee's present petition.
dismissal or layoff.
The first is that the Due Process Clause of the Issue:
Constitution is a limitation on governmental WON petitioners are entitled to the right to due
powers. It does not apply to the exercise of private process even if they are aliens.
power, such as the termination of employment
under the Labor Code. This is plain from the text of Held:
Art. III, §1 of the Constitution, viz.: "No person shall The power to deport an alien is an act of the State.
be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due It is an act by or under the authority of the
process of law. . . ." The reason is simple: Only the sovereign power. It is a police measure against
State has authority to take the life, liberty, or undesirable aliens whose presence in the country
property of the individual. The purpose of the Due is found to be injurious to the public good and
Process Clause is to ensure that the exercise of this domestic tranquility of the people.
power is consistent with what are considered
civilized methods. Although a deportation proceeding does not
The second reason is that notice and hearing are partake of the nature of a criminal action,
required under the Due Process Clause before the however, considering that it is a harsh and


- 13 -

extraordinary administrative proceeding be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and

affecting the freedom and liberty of a responsibilities imposed. What the clause requires
person, the constitutional right of such is equality among equals as determined according
person to due process should not be denied. to a valid classification. Section 35 of RA 7354 is
Thus, the provisions of the Rules of Court of declared unconstitutional. Circular No. 92-28 is set
the Philippines particularly on criminal aside insofar
procedure are applicable to deportation
proceedings. PEOPLE VS. CAYAT

Under Section 37(c) of the Philippine Immigration Facts:

Act of 1940 as amended, it is provided: “Law prohibits any member of a non-Christian tribe
to buy, receive, have in his possession, or drink,
c)No alien shall be deported without being any intoxicating liquors of any kind.” The law, Act
informed of the specific grounds for deportation No. 1639, exempts only the so-called native wines
nor without being given a hearing under rules of or liquors which the members of such tribes have
procedure to be prescribed by the Commissioner of been accustomed to take.
Hence, the charge against an alien must specify Issue: Whether or Not the law denies equal
the acts or omissions complained of which must be protection to one prosecuted and sentenced for
stated in ordinary and concise language to enable violation of said law.
a person of common understanding to know on
what ground he is intended to be deported and Held:
enable the CID to pronounce a proper judgment. No. It satisfies the requirements of a valid
classification, one of which is that the classification
Petition is hereby granted and the questioned under the law must rest on real or substantial
order of the respondent commission on distinctions. The distinction is reasonable. The
immigration and deportation is hereby set aside. classification between the members of the non-
Christian and the members of the Christian tribes
PHILIPPINE JUDGES ASSO. VS. PRADO is not based upon accident of birth or parentage
but upon the degree of civilization and culture. The
Facts: term ‘non-Christian tribes’ refers to a geographical
The Philippine Postal Corporation issued circular area and more directly to natives of the Philippines
No. 92-28 to implement Section 35 of RA 7354 of a low grade civilization usually living in tribal
withdrawing the franking privilege from the SC, CA, relationship apart from settled communities. The
RTCs, MeTCs, MTCs and Land Registration distinction is reasonable for the Act was intended
Commission and with certain other government to meet the peculiar conditions existing in the non-
offices. It is alleged that RA 7354 is discriminatory Christian tribes” The prohibition is germane to the
because while withdrawing the franking privilege purposes of the law. It is designed to insure peace
from judiciary, it retains the same for the President and order in and among the non- Christian tribes
& Vice-President of the Philippines, Senator & has often resulted in lawlessness and crime
members of the House of Representatives, thereby hampering the efforts of the government
COMELEC, National Census & Statistics Office and to raise their standards of life and civilization. This
the general public. The respondents counter that law is not limited in its application to conditions
there is no discrimination because the law is based existing at the time of the enactment. It is
on a valid classification in accordance with the intended to apply for all times as long as those
equal protection clause. conditions exist. The Act applies equally to all
members of the class. That it may be unfair in its
Issue: Whether or Not Section 35 of RA 7354 is operation against a certain number of non-
constitutional. Christians by reason of their degree of culture is
not an argument against the equality of its
Held: operation nor affect the reasonableness of the
The equal protection of the laws is embraced in classification thus established.
the concept of due process, as every unfair RUBI VS. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO
discrimination offends the requirements of justice
and fair play. It has nonetheless been embodied in
a separate clause in Article III Section 1 of the Facts:
Constitution to provide for amore specific This is an application for habeas corpus in favor of
guarantee against any form of undue favoritism or Rubi and other Manguianes of the Province of
hostility from the government. Arbitrariness in Mindoro. The provincial board of Mindoro adopted
general may be challenged on the basis of the due resolution No. 25 which states that “provincial
process clause. But if the particular act assailed governor of any province in which non-Christian
partakes of an unwarranted partiality or prejudice, inhabitants (uncivilized tribes) are found is
the sharper weapon to cut it down is the equal authorized, when such a course is deemed
protection clause. Equal protection simply requires necessary in the interest of law and order, to direct
that all persons or things similarly situated should such inhabitants to take up their habitation on


- 14 -

sites on unoccupied public lands to be selected by (1) The failure of former attempts for the
him and approved by the provincial board”. It is advancement of the non-Christian people of the
resolved that under section 2077 of the province; and (2) the only successfully method for
Administrative Code, 800 hectares of public land in educating the Manguianes was to oblige them to
the sitio of Tigbao on Naujan Lake be selected as a live in a permanent settlement. The Solicitor-
site for the permanent settlement of Mangyanes in General adds the following; (3) The protection of
Mindoro. Further, Mangyans may only solicit the Manguianes; (4) the protection of the public
homesteads on this reservation providing that said forests in which they roam; (5) the necessity of
homestead applications are previously introducing civilized customs among the
recommended by the provincial governor. Manguianes. Considered purely as an exercise of
Thereafter, the provincial governor of Mindoro the police power, the courts cannot fairly say that
issued executive order No. 2, which says that the the Legislature has exceeded its rightful authority.
provincial governor has selected a site in the sitio It is, indeed, an unusual exercise of that power. But
of Tigbao on Naujan Lake for the permanent a great malady requires an equally drastic remedy.
settlement of Mangyanes in Mindoro. In that case, One cannot hold that the liberty of the citizen is
pursuant to Section 2145 of the Revised unduly interfered without when the degree of
Administrative Code, all the Mangyans in the civilization of the Manguianes is considered. They
townships of Naujan and Pola and the Mangyans are restrained for their own good and the general
east of the Baco River including those in the good of the Philippines. Nor can one say that due
districts of Dulangan and Rubi's place in Calapan, process of law has not been followed. None of the
were ordered to take up their habitation on the site rights of the citizen can be taken away except by
of Tigbao, Naujan Lake. Also, that any Mangyan due process of law. To constitute "due process of
who shall refuse to comply with this order shall law," as has been often held, a judicial proceeding
upon conviction be imprisoned not exceed in sixty is not always necessary. In some instances, even a
days, in accordance with section 2759 of the hearing and notice are not requisite a rule which is
revised Administrative Code. Said resolution of the especially true where much must be left to the
provincial board of Mindoro were claimed as discretion of the administrative officers in applying
necessary measures for the protection of the a law to particular cases. The idea of the provision
Mangyanes of Mindoro as well as the protection of in question is to unify the people of the Philippines
public forests in which they roam, and to introduce so that they may approach the highest conception
civilized customs among them. of nationality. The public policy of the Government
It appeared that Rubi and those living in his of the Philippine Islands is shaped with a view to
rancheria have not fixed their dwelling within the benefit the Filipino people as a whole. The
reservation of Tigbao and are liable to be Manguianes, in order to fulfill this governmental
punished. It is alleged that the Manguianes are policy, must be confined for a time, as we have
being illegally deprived of their liberty by the said, for their own good and the good of the
provincial officials of that province. Rubi and his country.
companions are said to be held on the reservation Therefore, petitioners are not unlawfully
established at Tigbao, Mindoro, against their will, imprisoned or restrained of their liberty. Habeas
and one Dabalos is said to be held under the corpus can, therefore, not issue.
custody of the provincial sheriff in the prison at
Calapan for having run away form the reservation. Villegas vs Ho

Issue: Whether or Not Section 2145 of the Facts:

Administrative Code deprive a person of his liberty
without due process of law. Whether or Not Section A petition for certiorari is filed to review the
2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 is decision rendered by the CFI of Manila wherein
constitutional. Ordinance 6537, which prohibits aliens from being
employed or to engage or participate in any
Held: position or occupation or business without first
The Court held that section 2145 of the securing an employment permit from the Mayor of
Administrative Code does not deprive a person of Manila and paying the permit fee of fifty pesos
his liberty without due process of law and does not xxx, was declared null and void for it is arbitrary,
deny to him the equal protection of the laws, and oppressive and unreasonable, being applied only
that confinement in reservations in accordance to aliens who are thus deprived of their rights to
with said section does not constitute slavery and life, liberty and property and therefore violates the
involuntary servitude. The Court is further of the due process and equal protection clauses of the
opinion that section 2145 of the Administrative Constitution.
Code is a legitimate exertion of the police power,
somewhat analogous to the Indian policy of the Issue:
United States. Section 2145 of the Administrative WON respondent judge committed a serious and
Code of 1917 is constitutional. The preamble of the patent error of law in ruling that ordinance 6537
resolution of the provincial board of Mindoro which violated the due process and equal protection
set apart the Tigbao reservation, it will be read, clauses of the Constitution.
assigned as reasons fort the action, the following:


- 15 -

Held: Issue:
No, respondent judge did not commit the errors WON the Acting secretary erred in upholding the
assigned. The ordinance in question violates the reasonableness of the classification made by
due process of law and equal protection rule of the respondent-school.
Requiring a person before he can be employed to Held:
get a permit from the City Mayor of Manila who Yes. That public policy abhors inequality and
may withhold or refuse it at will is tantamount to discrimination is beyond contention. Our
denying him the basic right of the people in the Constitution and laws reflect the policy against
Philippines to engage in a means of livelihood. these evils. The Constitution 8 in the Article on
While it is true that the Philippines as a State is not Social Justice and Human Rights exhorts Congress
obliged to admit aliens within its territory, once an to "give highest priority to the enactment of
alien is admitted, he cannot be deprived of life measures that protect and enhance the right of all
without due process of law. This guarantee people to human dignity, reduce social, economic,
includes the means of livelihood. The shelter of and political inequalities." The very broad Article
protection under the due process and equal 19 of the Civil Code requires every person, "in the
protection clause is given to all persons, exercise of his rights and in the performance of his
both aliens and citizens. duties, [to] act with justice, give everyone his due,
and observe honesty and good faith.
International School Alliance of Educators vs The Constitution 18 also directs the State to
Quisumbing promote "equality of employment opportunities for
all." Similarly, the Labor Code 19 provides that the
Facts: State shall "ensure equal work opportunities
regardless of sex, race or creed." It would be an
Petitioners are employees (teachers) of affront to both the spirit and letter of these
respondent's school who are receiving less than provisions if the State, in spite of its primordial
their counterparts hired abroad and now cry obligation to promote and ensure equal
discrimination. The school contends that a foreign- employment opportunities, closes its eyes to
hire would necessarily uproot himself from his unequal and discriminatory terms and conditions
home country, leave his family and friends, and of employment.
take the risk of devaiting from a promising career
path - all for the purpose of pursuing his profession The Constitution enjoins the State to "protect the
as an educator, but this time in a foreign land and rights of workers and promote their welfare," 25
such person does not enjoy security of tenure as "to afford labor full protection." The State,
well so the compensation scheme is simply the therefore, has the right and duty to regulate the
School's adaptive measure to remain competitive relations between labor and capital. These
on an international level in terms of attracting relations are not merely contractual but are so
competent pruofessionals in the field of impressed with public interest that labor contracts,
international education. The school's classification collective bargaining agreements included, must
between foreign-hires and local-hires was in the yield to the common good. Should such contracts
point-of-hire so foreigners hired locally are being contain stipulations that are contrary to public
classified as local-hires. Petitioner claims that such policy, courts will not hesitate to strike down these
classification is discriminatory to Filipinos and that stipulations.
the grant of higher salaries to foreign-hires In this case, we find the point-of-hire classification
constitutes racial discrimination. On the other employed by respondent School to justify the
hand, the Acting Secretary of Labor upheld the distinction in the salary rates of foreign-hires and
point-of hire classification for the distinction in local hires to be an invalid classification. There is
salary rates. He also stated that The Union cannot no reasonable distinction between the services
also invoke the equal protection clause to justify its rendered by foreign-hires and local-hires. The
claim of parity. It is an established principle of practice of the School of according higher salaries
constitutional law that the guarantee of equal to foreign-hires contravenes public policy and,
protection of the laws is not violated by legislation certainly, does not deserve the sympathy of this
or private covenants based on reasonable Court.
classification. A classification is reasonable if it is
based on substantial distinctions and apply to all Republic vs   Sandiganbayan
members of the same class. Verily, there is a
substantial distinction between foreign hires and Facts:
local hires, the former enjoying only a limited Immediately upon her assumption to office
tenure, having no amenities of their own in the following the successful EDSA Revolution, then
Philippines and have to be given a good President Corazon C. Aquino issued Executive
compensation package in order to attract them to Order No. 1 (“EO No. 1”) creating the Presidential
join the teaching faculty of the School. Commission on Good Government (“PCGG”). EO
No. 1 primarily tasked the PCGG to recover all ill-
Hence the present petition. gotten wealth of former President Ferdinand E.
Marcos, his immediate family, relatives,


- 16 -

subordinates and close associates. EO No. 1 that she owns the P2,870,000.00 and $50,000 US
vested the PCGG with the power “(a) to conduct Dollars for she had no visible source of income.
investigation as may be necessary in order to This money was never declared in the
accomplish and carry out the purposes of this Statement of Assets and Liabilities of respondent.
order” and the power “(h) to promulgate such There was an intention to cover the existence of
rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry these money because these are all ill-gotten and
out the purpose of this order.” Accordingly, the unexplained wealth. Were it not for the affidavits
PCGG, through its then Chairman Jovito R. Salonga, of the members of the Military Security Unit
created an AFP Anti-Graft Board (“AFP Board”) assigned at Camp Eldridge, Los Baños, Laguna, the
tasked to investigate reports of unexplained existence and ownership of these money would
wealth and corrupt practices by AFP personnel, have never been known.
whether in the active service or retired. The Statement of Assets and Liabilities of
Based on its mandate, the AFP Board respondent were also submitted for scrutiny and
investigated various reports of alleged unexplained analysis by the Board’s consultant. Although the
wealth of respondent Major General Josephus Q. amount of P2,870,000.00 and $50,000 US Dollars
Ramas (“Ramas”). On 27 July 1987, the AFP Board were not included, still it was disclosed that
issued a Resolution on its findings and respondent has an unexplained wealth of
recommendation on the reported unexplained P104,134. 60.
wealth of Ramas.
Evidence in the record showed that Issue: WON the bill of rights was operative at the
respondent is the owner of a house and lot located time of President Aquino issued E.O. 1
at 15-Yakan St., La Vista, Quezon City. He is also
the owner of a house and lot located in Cebu City. Ruling:
The lot has an area of 3,327 square meters. The EDSA Revolution took place on 23-25
The value of the property located in February 1986. As succinctly stated in President
Quezon City may be estimated modestly at Aquino’s Proclamation No. 3 dated 25 March 1986,
P700,000.00. the EDSA Revolution was “done in defiance of
The equipment/items and communication facilities the provisions of the 1973 Constitution.” The
which were found in the premises of Elizabeth resulting government was indisputably a
Dimaano and were confiscated by elements of the revolutionary government bound by no
PC Command of Batangas were all covered by constitution or legal limitations except treaty
invoice receipt in the name of CAPT. EFREN obligations that the revolutionary government, as
SALIDO, RSO Command Coy, MSC, PA. These the de jure government in the Philippines,
items could not have been in the possession of assumed under international law.
Elizabeth Dimaano if not given for her use by The correct issues are: (1) whether the
respondent Commanding General of the Philippine revolutionary government was bound by the Bill of
Army. Rights of the 1973 Constitution during the
Aside from the military equipment/items interregnum, that is, after the actual and
and communications equipment, the raiding team effective take-over of power by the revolutionary
was also able to confiscate money in the amount government following the cessation of resistance
of P2,870,000.00 and $50,000 US Dollars in the by loyalist forces up to 24 March 1986
house of Elizabeth Dimaano on 3 March 1986. (immediately before the adoption of the Provisional
Affidavits of members of the Military Constitution); and (2) whether the protection
Security Unit, Military Security Command, accorded to individuals under the International
Philippine Army, stationed at Camp Eldridge, Los Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“Covenant”)
Baños, Laguna, disclosed that Elizabeth Dimaano and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
is the mistress of respondent. That respondent (“Declaration”) remained in effect during the
usually goes and stays and sleeps in the alleged interregnum.
house of Elizabeth Dimaano in Barangay Tengga, We hold that the Bill of Rights under the
Itaas, Batangas City and when he arrives, Elizabeth 1973 Constitution was not operative during the
Dimaano embraces and kisses respondent. That interregnum. However, we rule that the protection
on February 25, 1986, a person who rode in a car accorded to individuals under the Covenant and
went to the residence of Elizabeth Dimaano with the Declaration remained in effect during the
four (4) attache cases filled with money and owned interregnum.
by MGen Ramas. During the interregnum, the directives and
Sworn statement in the record disclosed orders of the revolutionary government were the
also that Elizabeth Dimaano had no visible means supreme law because no constitution limited the
of income and is supported by respondent for she extent and scope of such directives and orders.
was formerly a mere secretary. With the abrogation of the 1973 Constitution by
Taking in toto the evidence, Elizabeth the successful revolution, there was no municipal
Dimaano could not have used the military law higher than the directives and orders of the
equipment/items seized in her house on March 3, revolutionary government. Thus, during the
1986 without the consent of respondent, he being interregnum, a person could not invoke any
the Commanding General of the Philippine Army. It exclusionary right under a Bill of Rights because
is also impossible for Elizabeth Dimaano to claim there was neither a constitution nor a Bill of Rights


- 17 -

during the interregnum. validated by a previously secured judicial warrant;

otherwise, such a search and seizure is
It is widely known that Mrs. Aquino’s unconstitutional and subject to challenge. Any
rise to the presidency was not due to evidence obtained in violation of this
constitutional processes; in fact, it was constitutionally guaranteed right is legally
achieved in violation of the provisions of the inadmissible in any proceeding.
1973 Constitution as a Batasang Pambansa The exceptions to the rule are: (1) search
resolution had earlier declared Mr. Marcos as incidental to a lawful arrest, (2) search of moving
the winner in the 1986 presidential election. vehicles, (3) seizure in plain view, (4) customs
Thus it can be said that the organization of Mrs. search, and (5) waiver by the accused of their right
Aquino’s Government which was met by little against unreasonable search and seizure. In these
resistance and her control of the state evidenced cases, the search and seizure may be made only
by the appointment of the Cabinet and other key with probable cause. Probable cause being at best
officers of the administration, the departure of the defined as a reasonable ground of suspicion,
Marcos Cabinet officials, revamp of the Judiciary supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in
and the Military signaled the point where the themselves to warrant a cautious man in the belief
legal system then in effect, had ceased to be that the person accused is guilty of the offense
obeyed by the Filipino. with which he is charged; or the existence of such
facts and circumstances which could lead a
During the interregnum, the government in reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe
power was concededly a revolutionary government that an offense has been committed and that the
bound by no constitution. No one could validly item(s), article(s) or object(s) sought in connection
question the sequestration orders as violative of with said offense or subject to seizure and
the Bill of Rights because there was no Bill of destruction by is in the place to be searched.
Rights during the interregnum. However, upon the Additionally, stop-and-frisk has already been
adoption of the Freedom Constitution, the adopted as another exception to the general rule
sequestered companies assailed the sequestration against a search without a warrant.
orders as contrary to the Bill of Rights of the In the present case, petitioner effectively waived
Freedom Constitution. the inadmissibility of the evidence illegally
obtained when he failed to raise the issue or object
Manalili v CA  (GR 113447) Oct. 9, 1997 thereto during the trial.
The Supreme Court affirmed with modifications the
Facts: assailed Decision and Resolution of the respondent
At about 2:10 PM on April 11, 1988, Police Anti- court.
Narcotics Unit of Kalookan City conducted
surveillance along A. Mabini Street, in front of the Agcaoili vs Molina
Kalookan City Cemetery. This was done after
receiving information that drug addicts were Facts:
roaming around said area. In the aforecited order, complainant judge
Upon reaching the cemetery, the policemen alleged that respondent, in conducting the
chanced upon a male person, the petitioner, in preliminary investigation of the above-mentioned
front of the cemetery who appeared high on drugs. criminal case, failed to exercise utmost care in the
The petitioner had reddish eyes and was walking in issuance of a warrant of arrest against the
a swaying manner. accused, Rolando Anama, based as it was, merely
Petitioner was trying to avoid the policemen, but on the statements of two (2) witnesses who had no
the officers were able to introduce themselves and personal knowledge of the commission of the
asked him what he was holding in his hands. offense charged.
Petitioner resisted. Policeman Espiritu asked him if Such action, complainant judge averred,
he could see what the petitioner had in his hands. was a clear violation of section 2, Article III of the
The petitioner showed his wallet and allowed the 1987 Constitution which requires that before a
officer to examine it. Policeman Espiritu found warrant of arrest is issued, "the judge must
suspected crushed marijuana residue inside. He personally determine the existence of probable
kept the wallet and its marijuana contents and cause from an examination under oath of the
took petitioner to headquarters to be further complainant and his witnesses." 2
investigated. Mere hearsay evidence cannot be the basis
The suspected marijuana was sent to the NBI that probable cause exists, stated complainant
Forensic Chemistry Section for analysis. judge. There must be something more concrete.
Consequently, in the same order,
Issue: complainant judge recalled the warrant of arrest
Whether or not the search and seizure of the and the order directing its issuance and directed
suspected marijuana is unreasonable, and hence the National Bureau of Investigation, through
inadmissible as evidence. Regional Office No. 2, Ilagan, Isabela, to conduct
an investigation in order to avoid a possible
Held: miscarriage of justice.
The general rule is a search and seizure must be In his Comment, respondent admitted that he was


- 18 -

the inquest judge in the preliminary investigation the present case are as follows:
of the above entitled case and finding the > Atty. Cabanlas, Chief of the Legal, Information
existence of probable cause, he ordered the and Compliance Division (LICD) of BFAD filed an
issuance of the warrant of arrest against the application for the issuance of a search warrant
accused and as the case was cognizable by the against Aiden Lanuza (private respondent) of 516
Regional Trial Court, it was forwarded to the San Jose de la Montana Street, Mabolo, Cebu City
Provincial Prosecutor's Office in Aparri, Cagayan. 3 for violation of Article 40(k) of RA 7934 (The
Respondent explained that since the case Consumer Act of the Philippines). However, the
was cognizable by the Regional Trial Court, the application ended with a statement that the
Provincial Prosecutor's Office, which has the final warrant is to search the premises of another
say and disposition on the existence of probable person at a different address (Belen Cabanero at
cause on cases cognizable by the Regional Trial New Frontier Village, Talisay, Cebu - who happened
Court, should carry the brunt of the responsibility to be the subject on whom another search was
for "erroneous" finding of probable cause. 4 applied for by the same applicant)
Respondent judge argued that the findings >Respondent Judge issued search warrant 958 on
of complainant judge in his 9 August 1993 order is June 27, 1995 which was served the next day. The
his opinion-argument and contended that "the present petition stated that, during the search, the
proper remedy for a seemingly weak probable team discovered that said address (516 xx) was
cause finding is a reinvestigation." 5 actually a 5,000-meter compound containing at
least 15 structures. The policemen proceeded to
Issue: WON there was probable cause in the search the residence of private respondent Lanuza
issuance of a warrant. at Lot 41 of said address. Failure to find any drug
products prompted the policemen to proceed to
Ruling: search a nearby warehouse at Lot 38 which yielded
Section 6(b), Rule 112 of the New Rules of Criminal 52 cartons of assorted drug products.
Procedure requires that a warrant of arrest shall be > On August 22, 1995, private respondent Lanuza
issued only when the "municipal trial judge filed a motion to quash the search warrant on the
conducting the preliminary investigation is ground that the search warrant is illegal and null
satisfied after an examination in writing in the form and void.
of searching questions and answers, that a Respondent judge granted Lanyza’s motion to
probable cause exists and that there is a necessity quash the search warrant and denied petitioner’s
of placing the respondent under immediate motion for reconsideration.
custody in order not to frustrate the ends of Hence, the present petition.
justice." This is in conformity with the
constitutional mandate that no "warrant of arrest ISSUE: WON respondent judge erred in granting
shall issue except upon probable cause to be Lanuza’s motion to quash Search Warrant 958.
determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the Held:
complainant and the witnesses he may produce. There are, however, two (2) serious grounds to
quash the search warrant.
In turn, probable cause for the issuance of a
Firstly, we cannot fault the respondent Judge for
warrant of arrest has been defined as such facts
nullifying the search warrant as she was not
and circumstances which would lead a reasonably
convinced that there was probable cause for its
discreet and prudent man to believe that an
issuance due to the failure of the applicant to
offense has been committed by the person sought
present documentary proof indicating that private
to be arrested. 8
respondent Aiden Lanuza had no license to sell
Although the foregoing provisions seemingly grant drugs.
judges wide latitude and unbridled discretion in We hold that to establish the existence of probable
determining probable cause, an elementary legal cause sufficient to justify the issuance of a search
principle must not be compromised — hearsay warrant, the applicant must show "facts and
evidence cannot be the basis of probable cause. circumstances which would lead a reasonably
The rules on evidence are explicit. A witness can discreet and prudent man to believe that an
testify only to those facts which he knows of his offense has been committed and that the objects
personal knowledge; that is, which are derived sought in connection with the offense are in the
from his own perception. 9 Hearsay evidence, place sought to be searched.
therefore, has no probative value whatsoever. The facts and circumstances that would show
probable cause must be the best evidence that
PEOPLE VS ESTRADA could be obtained under the circumstances. The
introduction of such evidence is necessary
FACTS: especially in cases where the issue is the existence
A petition for review was filed seeking the reversal or the negative ingredient of the offense charged
of respondent Judge Estrada's order that granted — for instance, the absence of a license required
private respondent's motion to quash search by law, as in the present case — and such
warrant 958 as well as the denial of petitioner's evidence is within the knowledge and control of
motion for reconsideration. The pertinent facts of the applicant who could easily produce the same.


- 19 -

But if the best evidence could not be secured at warehouses and/or residences. Books of accounts,
the time of application, the applicant must show a financial records, vouchers, correspondence,
justifiable reason therefore during the examination receipts, ledgers, journals, portfolios, credit
by the judge. The necessity of requiring stringent journals, typewriters, and other documents and/or
procedural safeguards before a search warrant can papers showing all business transactions including
be issued is to give meaning to the constitutional disbursements receipts, balance sheets, and profit
right of a person to the privacy of his home and and loss statements and Bobbins were to be
personalities. seized.
In the case at bar, the best evidence procurable Petitioner contends that the issued search
under the circumstances to prove that private warrants were null and void as having contravened
respondent Aiden Lanuza had no license to sell the Constitution and the Rules of Court for, among
drugs is the certification to that effect from the others, it did not describe the documents, books
Department of Health. SPO4 Manuel Cabiles could and things to be seized PARTICULARLY.
have easily procured such certification when he
went to the BFAD to verify from the registry of Issue:
licensed persons or entity. No justifiable reason Whether or not the search warrant has been
was introduced why such certification could not be validly issued.
secured. Mere allegation as to the non-existence of Whether or not the seized articles may be
a license by private respondent is not sufficient to admitted in court.
establish probable cause for a search warrant.
Secondly, the place sought to be searched had not Held:
been described with sufficient particularity in the The authority of the warrants in question may be
questioned search warrant, considering that split in two major groups: (a) those found and
private respondent Aiden Lanuza's residence is seized in the offices of the corporations; and (b)
actually located at Lot No. 41, 516 San Jose de la those found and seized in the residences of the
Montana St., Mabolo, Cebu City, while the drugs petitioners.
sought to be seized were found in a warehouse at The petitioners have no cause of action against the
Lot No. 38 within the same compound. The said contested warrants on the first major group. This is
warehouse is owned by a different person. because corporations have their respective
This Court has held that the applicant should personalities, separate and distinct from the
particularly describe the place to be searched and personality of their officers, directors and
the person or things to be seized, wherever and stockholders. The legality of a seizure can be
whenever it is feasible. 28 In the present case, it contested only by the party whose rights have
must be noted that the application for search been impaired, the objection to an unlawful search
warrant was accompanied by a sketch 29 of the and seizure purely being personal cannot be
compound at 516 San Jose de la Montana St., availed by third parties.
Mabolo, Cebu City. The sketch indicated the 2- As to the second major group, two important
storey residential house of private respondent with questions need be settled: (1) whether the search
a large "X" enclosed in a square. Within the same warrants in question, and the searches and
compound are residences of other people, seizures made under authority thereof, are valid or
workshops, offices, factories and warehouse. With not; and (2) if the answer is no, whether said
this sketch as the guide, it could have been very documents, papers and things may be used in
easy to describe the residential house of private evidence against petitioners.
respondent with sufficient particularity so as to The Constitution protects the rights of the people
segregate it from the other buildings or structures from unreasonable searches and seizure. Two
inside the same compound. But the search warrant points must be stressed in connection to this
merely indicated the address of the compound constitutional mandate: (1) no warrant shall be
which is 516 San Jose de la Montana St., Mabolo, issued except if based upon probable cause
Cebu City. This description of the place to be determined personally by the judge by the manner
searched is too general and does not pinpoint the set in the provision; and (2) the warrant shall
specific house of private respondent. Thus, the describe the things to be seized with particularly.
inadequacy of the description of the residence of In the present case, no specific offense has been
private respondent sought to be searched has alleged in the warrant’s application. The
characterized the questioned search warrant as a averments of the offenses committed were
general warrant, which is violative of the abstract and therefore, would make it impossible
constitutional requirement. for judges to determine the existence of probable
cause. Such impossibility of such determination
Stonehill v Diokno naturally hinders the issuance of a valid search
Facts: The Constitution also requires the things to be
Forty-two (42) search warrants were issued at seized described with particularity. This is to
different dates against petitioners and the eliminate general warrants.
corporations of which they were officers. Peace The Court held that the warrants issued for the
officers were directed to search the persons of the search of three residences of petitioners are null
petitioners and/or their premises of their offices, and void.


- 20 -

mentioned, the reason for the issuance of the

People vs Court of Appeals search warrant could be anything under the sun.
There is no question that the search
Facts: warrant did not relate to a specific offense, in
The properties consisted of 27 units of violation of the doctrine announced in Stonehill v.
distribution transformers of various sizes sold to Diokno 2 and of Section 3 of Rule 126 providing as
the University of the Philippines-Iloilo (UP, for follows:
short) and delivered on June 15, 1987. The agreed Sec. 3. Requisites for issuing search warrant. —
price, including installation cost, was $39,516.00 A search warrant shall not issue but upon
and was fully paid by UP to the seller, Varona probable cause in connection with one specific
Trading, through its general manager, Danilo offense to be determined personally by the judge
Varona. On June 27, 1987, these same properties after examination under oath or affirmation of
were pulled out by Varona on the excuse that they the complainant and the witnesses he may
had certain factory defects that had to be repaired. produce, and particularly describing the place to
When Varona failed to comply with UP's demand searched and the things to be seized. (Emphasis
for their return pending their replacement, UP supplied.)
referred the matter to the National Bureau of Significantly, the petitioner has not denied
Investigation, which found that the properties were this defect in the search warrant and has merely
in the warehouse of Ruben Siao, herein private said that there was probable cause, omitting to
respondent. NBI applied for and secured the continue that it was in connection with one specific
questioned search warrant, 1 which was issued by offense. He could not, of course, for the warrant
Judge Abelardo M. Dayrit of the Regional Trial Court was a scatter-shot warrant that could refer, in
of Manila on September 25, 1987. On the strength Judge Dayrit's own words "to robbery, theft,
of this warrant, NBI seized the said transformers, qualified theft or estafa." On this score alone, the
which were later ascertained to be the same search warrant was totally null and void and was
transformers sold to UP, not only by their serial correctly declared to be so by the very judge who
numbers but also because the crates where they had issued it.
were contained were marked "UP-Iloilo." Probable cause is defined as referring to
On September 28, Siao filed an urgent "such facts and circumstances antecedent to the
motion to quash the search warrant on the ground issuance of the warrant that in themselves are
that Nissen-Denki Philippine Corporation, of which sufficient to induce a cautious person to rely on
he was the manager, had bought the said them, and to act in pursuance thereof." 3 At the
transformers from Varona for the sum of time he issued the search warrant, there was in
P702,483.00. The motion was denied on December Judge Dayrit's view probable cause that a crime
10, 1987, after a lengthy exchange of pleadings had been committed by Siao, who had possession
between the parties. However, on July 7, 1988, of the subject properties. However, such probable
again after a spirited debate between the cause no longer exists now because the
petitioner and the private respondent, Judge Dayrit information for estafa against Siao has already
granted Siao's motion for reconsideration and been dismissed by the Regional Trial Court of
dissolved the search warrant. He also ordered the Manila on motion of the prosecution itself. Siao's
NBI to return the seized transformers to Siao. guilt is no longer open for conjecture.
UP had filed a complaint for estafa against
Varona and Siao and the City Prosecutor of Iloilo
City had lodged the corresponding information Abdula vs Guiani
before the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo. Upon re-
investigation of the complaint, however, it was Facts:
found that there was no cause to hold Siao for trial A petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside
and accordingly, on motion of the prosecution, the the warrant of arrest issued by herein respondent
case against him was dismissed by the trial court Japal guiani, then presiding judge of Branch 14 of
on October 13, 1989. RTC of Cotabato City, was filed before the Supreme
Issue: WON the search warrant was valid. A complaint for murder was filed but was
dismissed by the provincial prosecutor on the
Ruling: gorund that there was no prima facie case for
The search warrant issued by the trial murder again a number of accused (6). However,
court left the space in the caption intended for the he recommended the filing of an information for
nature of the offense in blank, indicating the murder against one of the respondents (accused)
uncertainty of petitioner and the court as to the only before the sala of the respondent judge
crime committed and for which the search warrant Guiani. Guiani returned the case to the provincial
was issued. On the other hand, all that the body of prosecutor for further investigation since there was
the search warrant stated was that the no necessary resolution required under the Rules
transformers were "Stolen or Embezzled and of Court to show how the investigating prosecutor
proceeds or fruits of the offense, used or intended arrived at such a conclusion (charging only one of
to be used as the means of committing the the 8 respondent-accused). Upon the return of the
offense." But, since the particular offense was not records of the case, it was assigned for


- 21 -

reinvestigation to another prosecutor who then emphasize three vital matters once more: First, as
recommended the filing of charges against 5 held in
accused, 2 of whom are herein petitioners. Inting, the determination of probable cause by the
On January 2, 1995, an information was filed prosecutor is for a purpose different from that
against petitioner-spouses and 3 others. The which is to be made by the judge. Whether there is
following day, January 3, respondent Judge issued reasonable ground to believe that the accused is
a warrant for the arrest of petitioners. On January guilty of the offense charged and should be held
4, petitioners filed an urgent Ex-Parte motion for for trial is what the prosecutor passes upon. The
the setting aside of saide warrant of arrest. On judge, on the other hand, determines whether a
January 11, a petition for review was filed with the warrant of arrest should be issued against the
DOJ. Despite said filing, respondent judge did not accused, i.e., whether there is a necessity for
act upon petitioner’s pending Motion to Set Aside placing him under immediate custody in order not
the Warrant of Arrest. to frustrate the ends of justice.
Hence, this Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition Second, since their objectives are different, the
praying the warrant of Arrest be set aside and judge cannot rely solely on the report of the
declared void ab initio. prosecutor in finding probable cause to justify the
issuance of a warrant of arrest. The judge must
Issue: WON the Warrant of Arrest should be set decide independently. Hence, he must have
aside and declared void ab initio. supporting evidence, other than the prosecutor's
bare report, upon which to legally sustain his own
Held: findings on the existence (or nonexistence) of
Section 2, Art. III, 1987 Constititution: “The right of probable cause to issue an arrest order. This
the people to be secure in their persons, houses, responsibility of determining personally and
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches independently the existence or nonexistence of
and seizures of whatever nature and for any probable cause is lodged in him by no less than
purpose shall be inviolable, and NO SEARCH the most basic law of the land.
WARRANT OR WARRANT OF ARREST SHALL ISSUE Lastly, it is not required that the complete or entire
EXCEPT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE TO BE records of the case during the preliminary
DETERMINED PERSONALLY BY THE JUDGE AFTER investigation be submitted to and examined by the
EXAMINATION UNDER OATH OR AFFIRMATION OF judge.What is required, rather, is that the judge
THE COMPLAINANT AND THE WITNESSES HE MAY must have sufficient supporting documents (such
PRODUCE and particularly describing the place to as the complaint, affidavits, counter-affidavits,
be searched and the persons or things to be sworn statements of witnesses or transcript of
seized.” stenographic notes, if any) upon which to make his
independent judgment or, at the very least, upon
It must be stressed that the 1987 Constitution which to verify the findings of the prosecutor as to
requires the judge to determine probable the existence of probable cause. The point is: he
cause "personally," a requirement which does not cannot rely solely and entirely on the prosecutor's
appear in the corresponding provisions of our recommendation, as Respondent Court did in this
previous constitutions. This emphasis evinces the case.
intent of the framers to place a greater degree of In the case at bench, respondent admits that he
responsibility upon trial judges than that imposed issued the questioned warrant as there was "no
under previous Constitutions. reason for (him) to doubt the validity of the
What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive certification made by the Assistant Prosecutor that
and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to a preliminary investigation was conducted and that
satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. probable cause was found to exist as against those
In satisfying himself of the existence of probable charged in the information filed." The statement is
cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the an admission that respondent relied solely and
judge is not required to personally examine the completely on the certification made by the fiscal
complainant and his witnesses. Following that probable cause exists as against those
established doctrine and procedure, he shall: (1) charged in the information and issued the
personally evaluate the report and the challenged warrant of arrest on the sole basis of
supporting documents submitted by the the prosecutor's findings and recommendations.
fiscal regarding the existence of probable He adopted the judgment of the prosecutor
cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a regarding the existence of probable cause as his
warrant of arrest; or (2) if on the basis own. CONSEQUENTLY, THE WARRANT OF ARREST
thereof he finds no probable cause, he may SHOULD BE DECLARED NULL AND VOID.
disregard the fiscal's report and require the
submission of supporting affidavits of
witnesses to aid him in arriving at a PICOP vs. Asuncion GR 122092 May 19, 1999
conclusion as to the existence of probable
cause. Facts:
Ho vs. People 41 summarizes existing On January 25, 1995, Police Chief Inspector
jurisprudence on the matter as follows: Napoleon B. Pascua applied for a search warrant
Lest we be too repetitive, we only wish to before the Quezon City RTC, stating:


- 22 -

1. The management of PICOP located at PICOP his own inquiry on the intent and justification of
compound, Barangay Tabon, Bislig, Surigao del the application.
Sur, represented by its Sr. Vice President Ricardo SPO3 Bacolod appeared during the hearing and
G. Santiago, is in possession or has in its control was extensively examined by the judge. However,
high powered firearms, ammunitions, explosives, his testimony showed that he did not have
which are the subject of the offense, or used or personal knowledge that the petitioners were not
intended to be used in committing the offense, licensed to possess firearms, ammunitions or
and which … are being kept and concealed in the explosives in violation of PD 1866.
premises described. Lastly, the search warrant failed to describe
2. That the Search Warrant should be issued to particularly the place to be searched. It merely
enable any agent of the law to take possession authorized the search of the aforementioned
and bring to this Honorable Court the following premises. The warrant thus gives the police
described properties: officers unbridled and thus illegal authority to
a. 70 M16 Armalite rifles cal. 5.56 search all the structures found inside the PICOP
b. 10 M16 US rifles compound. The particularization of the description
c. 2 AK-47 rifles of the place to be searched may properly be done
d. 2 UZI submachine guns only by the judge, and only in the warrant itself; it
e. 2 M203 Grenade Launchers cal. 40mm cannot be left to the discretion of the police
officers conducting the search.
f. 10 cal. 45 pistols
Since the evidences are illegally obtained, they are
g. 10 cal. 38 revolvers
deemed inadmissible in Court.
h. 2 ammunition reloading machines The petition for certiorari and prohibition is
i. Assorted ammunitions for said calibers of GRANTED, & the Search Warrant declared NULL &
firearms VOID.
j. 10 hand grenades
After propounding several questions to SPO3 PEOPLE VS CA (291 SCRA 400)
Bacolod, Judge Asuncion issued the contested
search warrant. FACTS
A petition for certiorari has been filed to invalidate
Issue: the order of Judge Casanova which quashed search
Whether or not the search warrant issued by Judge warrant issued by Judge Bacalla and declared
Asuncion complied with the requisites for a valid inadmissible for any purpose the items seized
issuance. under the warrant.
>An application for a search warrant was made by
Held: S/Insp Brillantes against Mr. Azfar Hussain who had
Sections 3 & 4 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court allegedly in his possession firearms and explosives
provide in detail the requisites for the valid at Abigail Variety Store, Apt 1207 Area F. Bagon
issuance of search warrants. The requisites are: (1) Buhay Avenue, Sarang Palay, San Jose Del Monte,
probable cause is present; (2) such presence is Bulacan. The following day Search Warrant No.
determined personally by the judge; (3) the 1068 was issued but was served not at Abigail
complainant and the witnesses he or she may Variety Store but at Apt. No. 1, immediately
produce are personally examined by the judge, in adjacent to Abigail Variety Store resulting in the
writing and under oath or affirmation; (4) the arrest of 4 Pakistani nationals and the seizure of a
applicant and the witnesses testify on facts number of different explosives and firearms.
personally known to them; and (5) the warrant
specifically describes the place to be searched and ISSUE: WON a search warrant was validly issued
the things to be seized. as regard the apartment in which private
In the present case, the search warrant is INVALID respondents were then actually residing, or more
because (1) the trial court failed to examine explicitly, WON that particular apartment had been
personally the complainant and the other specifically described in the warrant.
deponents; (2) SPO3 Bacolod had no personal
knowledge that the petitioners were not licensed HELD:
to possess the subject firearms; and (3) the place The ambiguity lies outside the instrument, arising
to be searched was not described with from the absence of a meeting of minds as to the
particularity. place to be searched between the applicants for
Chief Inspector Pascua was asked was not asked the warrant and the Judge issuing the same; and
nor said anything more in his application. He even what was done was to substitute for the place that
failed to affirm it. The trial judge failed to propound the Judge had written down in the warrant, the
questions, let alone probing questions. Judge premises that the executing officers had in their
Asuncion heavily relied on their affidavits. Mere mind. This should not have been done. It is neither
affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are fair nor licit to allow police officers to search a
not sufficient. It is axiomatic that the examination place different from that stated in the warrant on
must be probing and exhaustive, not merely the claim that the place actually searched —
routinary or pro-forma. The judge must not simply although not that specified in the warrant — is
rehash the contents of the affidavit but must make exactly what they had in view when they applied


- 23 -

for the warrant and had demarcated in their

supporting evidence. What is material in HELD:
determining the validity of a search is the place Sec. 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. – A
stated in the warrant itself, not what the search warrant shall not issue except upon
applicants had in their thoughts, or had probable cause in connection with one specific
represented in the proofs they submitted to the offense to be determined personally by the judge
court issuing the warrant. after examination under oath or affirmation of the
The place to be searched, as set out in the complainant and the witnesses he may produce,
warrant, cannot be amplified or modified by the and particularly describing the place to be
officers' searched and the things to be seized which may
own personal knowledge of the premises, or the be anywhere in the Philippines.
evidence they adduced in support of their Sec. 5. Examination of complainant; record. – The
application for the warrant. Such a change is judge must, before issuing the warrant, personally
proscribed by the Constitution which requires inter examine in the form of searching questions and
alia the search warrant to particularly describe the answers, in writing and under oath, the
place to be searched as well as the persons or complainant and the witnesses he may produce on
things to be seized. It would concede to police facts personally known to them and attach to the
officers the power of choosing the place to be record their sworn statements, together with the
searched, even if it not be that delineated in the affidavits submitted.
warrant. It would open wide the door to abuse of The things to be seized must be described with
the search process, and grant to officers executing particularity. Technical precision of description is
a search warrant that discretion which the not required. It is only necessary that there be
Constitution has precisely removed from them. The reasonable particularity and certainty as to
particularization of the description of the place to the identity of the property to be searched
be searched may properly be done only by the for and seized, so that the warrant shall not be a
Judge, and only in the warrant itself; it cannot be mere roving commission. Any description of the
left to the discretion of the police officers place or thing to be searched that will enable
conducting the search. the officer making the search with
reasonable certainty to locate such place or
VALLEJO VS CA thing is sufficient. Thus, the specific
property to be searched for should be so
FACTS: A SW was applied for and subsequently particularly described as to preclude any
issued by respondents to be served in the Registry possibility of seizing any other property(test
of Deeds, provincial capitol of Isabela in which it of particularity).
enumerated the things to be seized: As correctly pointed out by the petitioner and the
OSG, the terms expressly used in the warrant were
1. Undetermined number of Fake Land Titles, too all-embracing, with the obvious intent of
Official Receipts in the Cashier's Office, Judicial subjecting all the records pertaining to all the
Form No. 39 known as Primary Entry Book under transactions of the petitioner's office at the
No. 496 and other pertinent documents related Register of Deeds to search and seizure. Such
therewith; tenor of a seizure warrant contravenes the explicit
command of the Constitution that there be a
particular description of the things to be seized.
2. Blank Forms of Land Titles kept inside the
drawers of every table of employees of the PEOPLE VS LAGUIO JR.
Registry (sic) of Deeds;
FACTS: Respondent was acquitted on 3 different
3. Undetermined number of land Transfer cases filed against him (dangerous drugs act,
transactions without the corresponding payment illegal possession of firearms and comelec gun
of Capital Gains Tax and payment of ban) after his demurrer to evidence (inadmissibility
documentary Stamps. of the evidence) was granted due to the
illegal/unlawful arrest, search and seizure that was
A motion to quash the SW was filed by the conducted by the police officers contending that
respondent contending that the things to be seized he was arrested in flagrante delicto but the
were not described with particularity and was in a defense further presented that respondent did not
nature of a general warrant, therefore, is a do any overt act to make him be subject to a
violation of the constitutional prohibition against warrantless arrest under the exceptions in section
unreasonable searches and seizures but was 5 of rule 113.
denied by the RTC and the CA. Hence, the present
petition for certiorari. (The OSG in its comment ISSUE: Whether there was lawful arrest, search
agreed with petitioners.) and seizure by the police operatives in this case
despite the absence of a WOA and/or SW.
ISSUE: WON the warrant issued by the RTC was HELD:
valid. There are actually two (2) acts involved in this


- 24 -

case, namely, the warrantless arrest and the FACTS:

warrantless search. There is no question that Respondent-accused was charged, together with
warrantless search may be conducted as an her nephew, for violation of the Dangerous Drugs
incident to a valid warrantless arrest. The law Act in an information which provided that:
requires that there be first a lawful arrest before a That on or about the 8th day of February 1989, at
search can be made; the process cannot be about 3:00 PM. in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and
reversed. However, if there are valid reasons to within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
conduct lawful search and seizure which thereafter said accused, conniving and confederating
shows that the accused is currently committing a together and mutually helping each other, with
crime, the accused may be lawfully arrested in deliberate intent, did then and there sell and
flagrante delicto without need for a warrant of deliver, without authority of law, Three (3) sticks of
arrest. marijuana cigarettes, a (sic) prohibited drugs, to a
person who posted himself as a buyer, in Viol. of
Section 5, provides three (3) instances when Sec. 4, Art. 11, of RA 6425, as amended, otherwise
warrantless arrest may be lawfully effected: known as the Dangerous Act of 1972.
(a) arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto; The accused were then convicted of the offense
(b) arrest of a suspect where, based on charged against them in the trial court.
personal knowledge of the arresting officer, On appeal, respondent presented her argument
there is probable cause that said suspect that the lower court erred in admitting the
was the author of a crime which had just evidence against her when there wasn’t any
been committed; (c) arrest of a prisoner who search warrant. Therefore, violating the
has escaped from custody serving final constitutional guarantee against unreasonable
judgment or temporarily confined while his searches and seizures.
case is pending.
ISSUE: WON there was a violation against the
constitutional guarantee of individuals against
For a warrantless arrest of an accused unreasonable searches and seizures.
caught in flagrante delicto under paragraph
(a) of Section 5 to be valid, two requisites RULING:
must concur: (1) the person to be arrested The second assigned error is without merit. The
must execute an overt act indicating that he evidence for the prosecution discloses that the
has just committed, is actually committing, appellant placed the packs of marijuana sticks
or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) under the rolled pair of pants which she was then
such overt act is done in the presence or carrying at the time she hurriedly left her shanty
within the view of the arresting officer. after noticing the arrest of Rommel. When she was
asked to spread it out, which she voluntary did, the
The facts and circumstances surrounding the package containing the packs of marijuana sticks
present case did not manifest any suspicious were thus exposed in plain view to the member of
behavior on the part of private respondent the team. A crime was thus committed in the
Lawrence Wang that would reasonably invite the presence of the policemen. Pursuant to Section 5,
attention of the police. He was merely walking Rule 113 and Section 12 Rule 126 of the Revised
from the Maria Orosa Apartment and was about to Rules of Court, she could lawfully be arrested and
enter the parked BMW car when the police searched for anything which may be used as proof
operatives arrested him, frisked and searched his of the commission of an offense without the
person and commanded him to open the corresponding arrest and search warrants
compartment of the car, which was later on found
to be owned by his friend, David Lee. He was not Even assuming ex gratia argumenti that
committing any visible offense then. Therefore, the seach and seizure were without a
there can be no valid warrantless arrest in warrant, the appellant had effectively
flagrante delicto under paragraph (a) of Section 5. waived her constitutional right relative
It is settled that "reliable information" alone, thereto by voluntarily submitting to the
absent any overt act indicative of a felonious seach and seizure. In People vs.
enterprise in the presence and within the Malasugui, 20 this Court ruled:
view of the arresting officers, is not
sufficient to constitute probable cause that
would justify an in flagrante delicto arrest. When one voluntarily submits to a search
and consent to have it made of his person or
premises, he is precluded from later
The inevitable conclusion, as correctly made by complaining thereof. The right to be secure
the trial court, is that the warrantless arrest was from unreasonable seach may, like every
illegal. Ipso jure, the warrantless search incidental right, be waived and such waiver may be
to the illegal arrest is likewise unlawful. made either expressly or impliedly.



- 25 -

FACTS: appellant Gaddao to flee from the policemen to

A buy-bust operation was conducted by the police justify her arrest in "hot pursuit."114 In fact, she
which caught accused Doria red-handed of selling was going about her daily chores when the
prohibited drugs and during the operation the policemen pounced on her.
police officers searched for the marked bills that
they used in buying said drugs which happened to This brings us to the question of whether the trial
be in the house of Gaddao, according to Doria. court correctly found that the box of marijuana was
When they reached her house, the police officers in plain view, making its warrantless seizure valid.
came upon a box. He saw that one of the box's
flaps was open and inside the box was something
wrapped in plastic. The plastic wrapper and its The "plain view" doctrine applies when the
contents appeared similar to the marijuana earlier following requisites concur: (a) the law
"sold" to him by "Jun." His suspicion aroused, PO3 enforcement officer in search of the evidence
Manlangit entered "Neneth's" house and took hold has a prior justification for an intrusion or is
of the box. He peeked inside the box and found in a position from which he can view a
that it contained ten (10) bricks of what appeared particular area; (b) the discovery of the
to be dried marijuana leaves. evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is
Both accused were convicted of the crime chared. immediately apparent to the officer that the
Hence, this present petition. item he observes may be evidence of a
crime, contraband or otherwise subject to
ISSUE: WON the warrantless arrest of Gaddao, the seizure. The law enforcement officer must
search of her person and house, and the lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a
admissibility of the pieces of evidence obtained position from which he can particularly view the
therefrom was valid. area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, he
came inadvertently across a piece of evidence
HELD: incriminating the accused. The object must be
open to eye and hand and its discovery
We hold that the warrantless arrest of accused-
appellant Doria is not unlawful. Warrantless arrests
are allowed in three instances as provided by It is clear that an object is in plain view if the
Section 5 of Rule 113. Under Section 5 (a), a object itself is plainly exposed to sight. The
person may be arrested without a warrant if he difficulty arises when the object is inside a
"has committed, is actually committing, or is closed container. Where the object seized
attempting to commit an offense." Appellant Doria was inside a closed package, the object itself
was caught in the act of committing an offense. is not in plain view and therefore cannot be
When an accused is apprehended in flagrante seized without a warrant. However, if the
delicto as a result of a buy-bust operation, the package proclaims its contents, whether by
police are not only authorized but duty-bound to its distinctive configuration, its
arrest him even without a warrant. transparency, or if its contents are obvious
to an observer, then the contents are in plain
view and may be seized. In other words, if
The warrantless arrest of appellant Gaddao, the the package is such that an experienced
search of her person and residence, and the observer could infer from its appearance that
seizure of the box of marijuana and marked bills it contains the prohibited article, then the
are different matters. article is deemed in plain view. It must be
immediately apparent to the police that the items
Our Constitution proscribes search and seizure that they observe may be evidence of a crime,
without a judicial warrant and any evidence contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. The
obtained without such warrant is inadmissible for marijuana was not in plain view and its seizure
any purpose in any proceeding. 105 The rule is, without the requisite search warrant was in
however, not absolute. Search and seizure may violation of the law and the Constitution. 135 It was
be made without a warrant and the evidence fruit of the poisonous tree and should have been
obtained there from may be admissible in excluded and never considered by the trial court.
the following instances: (1) search incident
to a lawful arrest; 2) search of a moving PEOPLE VS. MALMSTEDT
motor vehicle; (3) search in violation of
customs laws; (4) seizure of evidence in Facts:
plain view; (5) when the accused himself In an information filed against the accused-
waives his right against unreasonable appellant Mikael Malmstead was charged before
searches and seizures. Accused-appellant the RTC of La Trinidad, Benguet, for violation of
Gaddao was not caught red-handed during the Section 4, Art. II of Republic Act 6425, as amended,
buy-bust operation to give ground for her arrest otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of
under Section 5 (a) of Rule 113. She was not 1972, as amended. Accused Mikael Malmstedt, a
committing any crime. Contrary to the finding of Swedish national, entered the Philippines for the
the trial court, there was no occasion at all for


- 26 -

third time in December 1988 as a tourist. He had which is a derivative of marijuana. Thus, an
visited the country sometime in 1982 and 1985. information was filed against accused for violation
In the evening of 7 May 1989, accused left for of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
Baguio City. Upon his arrival thereat in the morning ACCUSED’S DEFENSE
of the following day, he took a bus to Sagada and During the arraignment, accused entered a plea of
stayed in that place for two (2) days. Then in the 7 "not guilty." For his defense, he raised the issue of
in the morning of May 11, 1989, the accused went illegal search of his personal effects. He also
to Nangonogan bus stop in Sagada. At about 8: 00 claimed that the hashish was planted by the
o'clock in the morning of that same day (11 May NARCOM officers in his pouch bag and that the two
1989), Captain Alen Vasco, the Commanding (2) travelling bags were not owned by him, but
Officer of the First Regional Command (NARCOM) were merely entrusted to him by an Australian
stationed at Camp Dangwa, ordered his men to set couple whom he met in Sagada. He further
up a temporary checkpoint at Kilometer 14, Acop, claimed that the Australian couple intended to
Tublay, Mountain Province, for the purpose of take the same bus with him but because there
checking all vehicles coming from the Cordillera were no more seats available in said bus, they
Region. The order to establish a checkpoint in the decided to take the next ride and asked accused to
said area was prompted by persistent reports that take charge of the bags, and that they would meet
vehicles coming from Sagada were transporting each other at the Dangwa Station. The trial court
marijuana and other prohibited drugs. Moreover, found the guilt of the accused Mikael Malmstedt
information was received by the Commanding established beyond reasonable doubt. Seeking the
Officer of NARCOM, that same morning that a reversal of the decision of the trial court finding
Caucasian coming from Sagada had in his him guilty of the crime charged, accused argues
possession prohibited drugs. The group composed that the search of his personal effects was illegal
of seven (7) NARCOM officers, in coordination with because it was made without a search warrant
Tublay Police Station, set up a checkpoint at the and, therefore, the prohibited drugs which were
designated area at about 10:00 o'clock in the discovered during the illegal search are not
morning and inspected all vehicles coming from admissible as evidence against him.
the Cordillera Region. The two (2) NARCOM officers
started their inspection from the front going Issue: Whether or Not the contention of the
towards the rear of the bus. Accused who was the accused is valid, and therefore the RTC ruling be
sole foreigner riding the bus was seated at the rear reversed.
thereof. During the inspection, CIC Galutan noticed
a bulge on accused's waist. Suspecting the bulge Held:
on accused's waist to be a gun, the officer asked The Constitution guarantees the right of the
for accused's passport and other identification people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers. When accused failed to comply, the officer papers and effects against unreasonable searches
required him to bring out whatever it was that was and seizures. However, where the search is made
bulging on his waist. The bulging object turned out pursuant to a lawful arrest, there is no need to
to be a pouch bag and when accused opened the obtain a search warrant. A lawful arrest without a
same bag, as ordered, the officer noticed four (4) warrant may be made by a peace officer or a
suspicious-looking objects wrapped in brown private person under the following circumstances.
packing tape, prompting the officer to open one of Sec. 5 Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A
the wrapped objects. The wrapped objects turned peace officer or a private person may, without a
out to contain hashish, a derivative of marijuana. warrant, arrest a person:
Thereafter, accused was invited outside the bus for (a) When, in his presence, the person to be
questioning. But before he alighted from the bus, arrested has committed is actually committing, or
accused stopped to get two (2) travelling bags is attempting to commit an offense;
from the luggage carrier. Upon stepping out of the (b) When an offense has in fact just been
bus, the officers got the bags and opened them. A committed, and he has personal knowledge of
teddy bear was found in each bag. Feeling the facts indicating that the person to be arrested has
teddy bears, the officer noticed that there were committed it; and
bulges inside the same which did not feel like foam (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner
stuffing. It was only after the officers had opened who has escaped from a penal establishment or
the bags that accused finally presented his place where he is serving final judgment or
passport. Accused was then brought to the temporarily confined while his case is pending, or
headquarters of the NARCOM at Camp Dangwa, La has escaped while being transferred from one
Trinidad, Benguet for further investigation. At the confinement to another.
investigation room, the officers opened the teddy Accused was searched and arrested while
bears and they were found to also contain hashish. transporting prohibited drugs (hashish). A crime
Representative samples were taken from the was actually being committed by the accused and
hashish found among the personal effects of he was caught in flagrante delicto. Thus, the
accused and the same were brought to the PC search made upon his personal effects falls
Crime Laboratory for chemical analysis. squarely under paragraph (1) of the foregoing
In the chemistry report, it was established that the provisions of law, which allow a warrantless search
objects examined were hashish. a prohibited drug incident to a lawful arrest. While it is true that the


- 27 -

NARCOM officers were not armed with a search

warrant when the search was made over the Issue: Whether or not search of defendant’s bag is
personal effects of accused, however, under the legal.
circumstances of the case, there was sufficient
probable cause for said officers to believe that Held:
accused was then and there committing a crime. The search was illegal. Defendant was not caught
Probable cause has been defined as such facts and in flagrante delicto, which could allow warrantless
circumstances which could lead a reasonable, arrest or search. At the moment of his arrest, he
discreet and prudent man to believe that an was not committing a crime. Nor was he about to
offense has been committed, and that the objects do so or had just done so. To all appearances, he
sought in connection with the offense are in the was like any of the other passengers innocently
place sought to be searched. Warrantless search of disembarking from the vessel. The said marijuana
the personal effects of an accused has been therefore could not be appreciated as evidence
declared by this Court as valid, because of against the defendant, and furthermore he is
existence of probable cause, where the smell of acquitted of the crime as charged.
marijuana emanated from a plastic bag owned by
the accused, 10 or where the accused was acting MALACAT vs. CA
suspiciously, and attempted to flee. The appealed
judgment of conviction by the trial court is hereby Facts:
affirmed. Costs against the accused-appellant. Petitioner was arrested for having in his possession
a hand grenade after he was searched by a group
PEOPLE VS. AMINUDIN of policemen when he was said to be acting suspici
ously when he was hanging around Plaza Miranda
Facts: with his eyes moving fast together with other Musli
Idel Aminnudin, accused-appellant was arrested on m-looking men. When the policemen approached t
June 25, 1984, shortly after disembarking from the he group of men, they scattered in all directions w
M/V Wilcon 9 at about 8:30 in the evening, in Iloilo hich prompted the police to give chase and petitio
City. The PC officers who were in fact waiting for ner was then apprehended and a search was made
him because of a tip from one their informers on his person.
simply accosted him, inspected his bag and finding He was then convicted under PD 1866 in the lower
what looked liked marijuana leaves took him to court. Hence, the present petition wherein petition
their headquarters for investigation. The two er contended that the lower court erred in holding
bundles of suspect articles were confiscated from that the search made on him and the seizure of th
him and later taken to the NBI laboratory for e hand grenade from him was an appropriate incid
examination. It was found to contain three kilos of ent to his arrest and that it erred in admitting the h
what were later analyzed as marijuana leaves by and grenade as evidence since it was admissible b
an NBI forensic examiner. An information for ecause it was a product of an unreasonable and ill
violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act was filed egal search.
against him. Later, the information was amended
to include Farida Ali y Hassen, who had also been Issue: WON the search and seizure conducted by t
arrested with him that same evening and likewise he police was valid.
investigated. Both were arraigned and pleaded not
guilty. Subsequently, the fiscal filed a motion to Held:
dismiss the charge against Ali on the basis of a The general rule as regards arrests, searches and
sworn statement of the arresting officers absolving seizures is that a warrant is needed in order to
her after a thorough investigation." The motion validly effect the same. 31 The Constitutional
was granted, and trial proceeded only against the prohibition against unreasonable arrests, searches
accused appellant, who was eventually convicted . and seizures refers to those effected without a
In his defense, Aminnudin disclaimed the validly issued warrant, 32 subject to certain
marijuana, averring that all he had in his bag was exceptions. As regards valid warrantless arrests,
his clothing consisting of a jacket, two shirts and these are found in Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules
two pairs of pants. He alleged that he was of Court, which reads, in part:
arbitrarily arrested and immediately handcuffed.
His bag was confiscated without a search warrant. Sec. 5. — Arrest, without warrant; when lawful —
At the PC headquarters, he was manhandled to A peace officer or a private person may, without
force him to admit he was carrying the marijuana, a warrant, arrest a person:
the investigator hitting him with a piece of wood in
the chest and arms even as he parried the blows
while he was still handcuffed. He insisted he did (a) When, in his presence, the person to be
not even know what marijuana looked like and that arrested has committed, is actually
his business was selling watches and sometimes committing, or is attempting to commit an
cigarettes. However the RTC rejected his offense;
allegations. Saying that he only has two watches
during that time and that he did not sufficiently (b) When an offense has in fact just been
proved the injuries allegedly sustained. committed, and he has personal knowledge of


- 28 -

facts indicating that the person to be arrested for his own or others' safety, he is entitled for
has committed it; and the protection of himself and others in the area
to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer
(c) When the person to be arrested is a clothing of such persons in an attempt to
prisoner who has escaped . . . discover weapons which might be used to
assault him. Such a search is a reasonable
search under the Fourth Amendment . .
A warrantless arrest under the circumstances
contemplated under Section 5(a) has been
denominated as one "in flagrante delicto," while Other notable points of Terry are that while
that under Section 5(b) has been described as a probable cause is not required to conduct a "stop
"hot pursuit" arrest. and frisk," it nevertheless holds that mere
suspicion or a hunch will not validate a "stop and
frisk." A genuine reason must exist, in light of
Turning to valid warrantless searches, they are the police officer's experience and
limited to the following: (1) customs searches; (2) surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief
search of moving vehicles; (3) seizure of evidence that the person detained has weapons
in plain view; (4) consent searches; 33 (5) a search concealed about him. Finally, a "stop-and-
incidental to a lawful arrest;34 and (6) a "stop and frisk" serves a two-fold interest: (1) the
frisk.’ general interest of effective crime
prevention and detection, which underlies
At the outset, we note that the trial court confused the recognition that a police officer may,
the concepts of a "stop-and-frisk" and of a search under appropriate circumstances and in an
incidental to a lawful arrest. These two types of appropriate manner, approach a person for
warrantless searches differ in terms of the purposes of investigating possible criminal
requisite quantum of proof before they may be behavior even without probable cause; and
validly effected and in their allowable scope. (2) the more pressing interest of safety and
self-preservation which permit the police
In a search incidental to a lawful arrest, as officer to take steps to assure himself that
the precedent arrest determines the validity the person with whom he deals is not armed
of the incidental search, the legality of the with a deadly weapon that could
arrest is questioned in a large majority of unexpectedly and fatally be used against the
these cases, e.g., whether an arrest was police officer.
merely used as a pretext for conducting a
search. 36 In this instance, the law requires GO VS. CA
that there first be a lawful arrest before a
search can be made — the process cannot be FACTS: Petitioner was the primary suspect of
reversed. 37 At bottom, assuming a valid killing of Maguan when he was seen by a security
arrest, the arresting officer may search the officer near the place where his and the victim’s
person of the arrestee and the area within car almost collided at the corner of a street, after
which the latter may reach for a weapon or which he went of out of his car and shot Maguan,
for evidence to destroy, and seize any money which caused his death later on, then went back to
or property found which was used in the his car and left the scene. He was then arrested
commission of the crime, or the fruit of the days after the crime happened.
crime, or that which may be used as
evidence, or which might furnish the ISSUE: WON a lawful warratless arrest had been
arrestee with the means of escaping or effected by the San Juan Police in respect of
committing violence. petitioner Go.

We now proceed to the justification for and We do not believe that the warrantees "arrest" or
allowable scope of a "stop-and-frisk" as a "limited detention of petitioner in the instant case falls
protective search of outer clothing for weapons," within the terms of Section 5 of Rule 113 of the
as laid down in Terry, thus: 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.
Petitioner's "arrest" took place six (6) days
We merely hold today that where a police officer after the shooting of Maguan. The
observes unusual conduct which leads him "arresting" officers obviously were not
reasonably to conclude in light of his experience present, within the meaning of Section 5(a),
that criminal activity may be afoot and that the at the time petitioner had allegedly shot
persons with whom he is dealing may be armed Maguan. Neither could the "arrest" effected
and presently dangerous, where in the course of six (6) days after the shooting be reasonably
investigating this behavior he identifies himself regarded as effected "when [the shooting
as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, had] in fact just been committed" within the
and where nothing in the initial stages of the meaning of Section 5(b). Moreover, none of
encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear the "arresting" officers had any "personal


- 29 -

knowledge" of facts indicating that serving final judgment or temporarily confined

petitioner was the gunman who had shot while his case is pending, or has escaped while
Maguan. The information upon which the police being transferred from one confinement to
acted had been derived from statements made by another. These requirements have not been
alleged eyewitnesses to the shooting — one stated established in the case at bar. At the time of the
that petitioner was the gunman; another was able arrest in question, the accused appellant was
to take down the alleged gunman's car's plate merely looking from side to side and holding his
number which turned out to be registered in abdomen, according to the arresting officers
petitioner's wife's name. That information did not, themselves. There was apparently no offense that
however, constitute "personal knowledge." has just been committed or was being actually
It is thus clear to the Court that there was no committed or at least being attempt by Mengote in
lawful warrantless arrest of petitioner within the their presence. Moreover a person may not be
meaning of Section 5 of Rule 113. stopped and frisked in a broad daylight or on a
busy street on unexplained suspicion. Judgment is
PEOPLE V. MENGOTE reversed and set aside. Accused-appellant is
The Western Police District received a telephone UMIL VS. RAMOS
call from an informer that there were three
suspicious looking persons at the corner of Juan Facts:
Luna and North Bay Boulevard in Tondo, Manila. A On 1 February 1988, military agents were
surveillance team of plainclothesmen was dispatched to the St. Agnes Hospital, Roosevelt
forthwith dispatched to the place. The patrolmen Avenue, Quezon City, to verify a confidential
saw two men looking from side to side, one of information which was received by their office,
whom holding his abdomen. They approached the about a "sparrow man" (NPA member) who had
persons and identified themselves as policemen, been admitted to the said hospital with a gunshot
whereupon the two tried to run but unable to wound. That the wounded man in the said hospital
escape because the other lawmen surrounded was among the five (5) male "sparrows" who
them. The suspects were then searched. One of murdered two (2) Capcom mobile patrols the day
them the accused-appellant was found with a .38 before, or on 31 January 1988 at about 12:00
caliber with live ammunitions in it, while his o'clock noon, before a road hump along
companion had a fan knife. The weapons were Macanining St., Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. The
taken from them and they were turned over to the wounded man's name was listed by the hospital
police headquarters for investigation. Information management as "Ronnie Javellon," twenty-two (22)
was filed before the RTC convicting the accused of years old of Block 10, Lot 4, South City Homes,
illegal possession of firearm arm. A witness Binan, Laguna however it was disclosed later that
testified that the weapon was among the articles the true name of the wounded man was Rolando
stolen at his shop, which he reported to the police Dural. In view of this verification, Rolando Dural
including the revolver. For his part, Mengote made was transferred to the Regional Medical Servicesof
no effort to prove that he owned the fire arm or the CAPCOM, for security reasons. While confined
that he was licensed to possess it but instead, he thereat, he was positively identified by the
claimed that the weapon was planted on him at eyewitnesses as the one who murdered the 2
the time of his arrest. He was convicted for CAPCOM mobile patrols.
violation of P.D.1866 and was sentenced to
reclusion perpetua. In his appeal he pleads that Issue: Whether or Not Rolando was lawfully
the weapon was not admissible as evidence arrested.
against him because it had been illegally seized
and therefore the fruit of a poisonous tree. Held:
Rolando Dural was arrested for being a member of
Issue: Whether or not the warrantless search and the NPA, an outlawed subversive organization.
arrest was illegal. Subversion being a continuing offense, the
arrest without warrant is justified as it can
Held: be said that he was committing as offense
Evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search when arrested. The crimes rebellion, subversion,
and seizure inadmissible in any proceeding for any conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and
purpose as provided by Art. III sec 32 of the crimes or offenses committed in furtherance
Constitution. Rule 113 sec.5 of the Rules of Court, therefore in connection therewith constitute direct
provides arrest without warrant lawful when: (a) assaults against the state and are in the nature of
the person to be arrested has committed, is continuing crimes.
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense, (b) when the offense in fact has just been PEOPLE VS. LEILA JOHNSON
committed, and he has personal knowledge of the
facts indicating the person arrested has committed Facts:
it and (c) the person to be arrested has escaped Leila Johnson was arrested at the airport after she
from a penal establishment or a place where he is was found to have in her possession more than


- 30 -

500 grams of shabu when she was initially frisked luggage are routinely subjected to x-ray
by a security personnel at a gate in the airport. scans. Should these procedures suggest the
The security personnel felt something hard in presence of suspicious objects, physical searches
respondent’s abdominal area and when asked she are conducted to determine what the objects
said that she had to wear 2 girdles because of an are. There is little question that such searches are
operation. Unconvinced, the security personnel reasonable, given their minimal intrusiveness, the
went to her supervisor. Subsequently, after a gravity of the safety interests involved, and the
thorough search on respondent, packets of shabu reduced privacy expectations associated with
were seized from her. airline travel. Indeed, travelers are often notified
Accused (respondent) was subsequently convicted through airport public address systems, signs, and
and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. notices in their airline tickets that they are subject
In the present appeal, respondent contended that to search and, if any prohibited materials or
the search made upon her was not valid and that substances are found, such would be subject to
her constitutional rights were infringed when such seizure. These announcements place passengers
search was conducted. on notice that ordinary constitutional
protections against warrantless searches
Issue: WON a valid search was made. and seizures do not apply to routine airport
The constitutional right of the accused was not The packs of methamphetamine hydrochloride
violated as she was never placed under custodial having thus been obtained through a valid
investigation but was validly arrested without warrantless search, they are admissible in
warrant pursuant to the provisions of Section 5, evidence against the accused-appellant
Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure herein. Corollarily, her subsequent arrest,
which provides: although likewise without warrant, was
justified since it was effected upon the
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when discovery and recovery of “shabu” in her
lawful. A peace officer or a private person person in flagrante delicto.
may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) when in his presence, the person
to be arrested has committed, is actually Facts: Mago, the owner of the goods that were
committing, or is attempting to commit an seized, when the truck transporting the goods was
offense; intercepted by the BOC, questioned the validity of
(b) when an offense has in fact just the search conducted by them since it was made
been committed, and he has personal without any search warrant and whether the BOC
knowledge of facts indicating that the has jurisdiction over the forfeited goods.
person to be arrested has committed it;
and… Issue: Was the search conducted by the BOC
The circumstances surrounding the arrest of the Held:
accused above falls in either paragraph (a) or (b) Petitioner Martin Alagao and his companion
of the Rule above cited, hence the allegation that policemen had authority to effect the seizure
she has been subjected to custodial investigation without any search warrant issued by a competent
is far from being accurate.[18] court. The Tariff and Customs Code does not
require said warrant in the instant case. The Code
The methamphetamine hydrochloride seized authorizes persons having police authority under
from her during the routine frisk at the airport was Section 2203 of the Tariff and Customs Code to
acquired legitimately pursuant to airport security enter, pass through or search any land, inclosure,
procedures. warehouse, store or building, not being a dwelling
house; and also to inspect, search and examine
Persons may lose the protection of the any vessel or aircraft and any trunk, package, or
search and seizure clause by exposure of envelope or any person on board, or to stop and
their persons or property to the public in a search and examine any vehicle, beast or person
manner reflecting a lack of subjective suspected of holding or conveying any dutiable or
expectation of privacy, which expectation prohibited article introduced into the Philippines
society is prepared to recognize as contrary to law, without mentioning the need of a
reasonable. Such recognition is implicit in airport search warrant in said cases. 16 But in the search of
security procedures. With increased concern over a dwelling house, the Code provides that said
airplane hijacking and terrorism has come "dwelling house may be entered and
increased security at the nation’s searched only upon warrant issued by a judge or
airports. Passengers attempting to board an justice of the peace. . . ." 17 It is our considered
aircraft routinely pass through metal detectors; view, therefor, that except in the case of the
their carry-on baggages as well as checked search of a dwelling house, persons exercising


- 31 -

police authority under the customs law may effect (i) after he has committed or while he is actually
search and seizure without a search warrant in the committing or is at least attempting to commit an
enforcement of customs laws. offense, (ii) in the presence of the arresting officer
In, Carroll vs US, it was made lawful for or private person. 29 Both elements concurred
customs officers not only to board and here, as it has been established that petitioner's
search vessels within their own and vehicle figured in a hit and run — an offense
adjoining districts, but also to stop, search committed in the "presence" of Manarang, a
and examine any vehicle, beast or person on private person, who then sought to arrest
which or whom they should suspect there petitioner. It must be stressed at this point that
was merchandise which was subject to duty, "presence" does not only require that the arresting
or had been introduced into the United person sees the offense, but also when he "hears
States in any manner contrary to law, the disturbance created thereby AND proceeds at
whether by the person in charge of the once to the scene." 30 As testified to by Manarang,
vehicle or beast or otherwise, and if they he heard the screeching of tires followed by a
should find any goods, wares, or thud, saw the sideswiped victim (balut vendor),
merchandise thereon, which they had reported the incident to the police and thereafter
probably cause to believe had been so gave chase to the erring Pajero vehicle using his
unlawfully brought into the country, to seize motorcycle in order to apprehend its driver. After
and secure the same, and the vehicle or having sent a radio report to the PNP for
beast as well, for trial and forfeiture. assistance, Manarang proceeded to the Abacan
bridge where he found responding policemen SPO2
ROBIN PADILLA VS. CA Borja and SPO2 Miranda already positioned near
the bridge who effected the actual arrest of
Facts: Petitioner was involved in a hit and run petitioner.
accident and was later apprehended by the police
after he was chased by them. During the arrest, The five (5) well-settled instances when a
petitioner was found to have in his possession two warrantless search and seizure of property is
different firearms and 2 other firearms were found valid, 44 are as follows:
inside his vehicle after the policemen saw the first
two firearms he was carrying.
Petitioner was then convicted of illegal possession 1. warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest
of firearms. Hence the present petition. recognized under Section 12, Rule 126 of the
Rules of Court45 and by prevailing
Issue: WON the warrantless search and arrest jurisprudence 46,
conducted on petitioner was valid
2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view", the
Held: elements of which are:
Warrantless arrests are sanctioned in the following
instances: (a). a prior valid intrusion based on the valid
warrantless arrest in which the police are
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — legally present in the pursuit of their official
A peace officer or a private person may, duties;
without a warrant, arrest a person:
(b). the evidence was inadvertently
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be discovered by the police who had the right to
arrested has committed, is actually be where they are;
committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense; (c). the evidence must be immediately
apparent, and
(b) When an offense has in fact just been
committed, and he has personal knowledge of (d). "plain view" justified mere seizure of
facts indicating that the person to be arrested evidence without further search.
has committed it.
3. search of a moving vehicle. 49 Highly regulated
(c) When the person to be arrested is a by the government, the vehicle's inherent
prisoner who has escaped from a penal mobility reduces expectation of privacy
establishment or place where he is serving especially when its transit in public
final judgment or temporarily confined while thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable
his case is pending, or has escaped while suspicion amounting to probable cause that the
being transferred from one confinement to occupant committed a criminal activity.
another. 4. consented warrantless search, and
5. customs search.
Paragraph (a) requires that the person be arrested


- 32 -

In conformity with respondent court's observation, probable cause to believe, before the search, that
it indeed appears that the authorities stumbled either the motorist is a law-offender (like herein
upon petitioner's firearms and ammunitions petitioner with respect to the hit and run) or the
without even undertaking any active search which, contents or cargo of the vehicle are or have been
as it is commonly understood, is a prying into instruments or the subject matter or the proceeds
hidden places for that which is concealed. 51 The of some criminal offense.
seizure of the Smith & Wesson revolver and an M-
16 rifle magazine was justified for they came PEOPLE VS. MARIACOS
within "plain view" of the policemen
who inadvertently discovered the revolver and Facts: Respondent was found guilty of violation of
magazine tucked in petitioner's waist and back the dangerous drugs act.
pocket respectively, when he raised his hands She was arrested after she was carrying a bag
after alighting from his Pajero. The same alleged to have prohibited drugs inside. The bag,
justification applies to the confiscation of the M-16 before it came to her possession was found inside
armalite rifle which wasimmediately apparent to a passenger jeepney with no owner so the
the policemen as they took a casual glance at the policeman looked inside it only to find packs of
Pajero and saw said rifle lying horizontally near the marijuana. The policeman was acting on a report
driver's seat. 52 Thus it has been held that: made about the bag by an agent of the Barangay
Intelligence Network.
(W)hen in pursuing an illegal action or in the
commission of a criminal offense, the . . . Issue: WON the warrantless search conducted was
police officers should happen to discover a valid.
criminal offense being committed by any
person, they are not precluded from Held:Firstly, this Court opines that the invocation
performing their duties as police officers for of Section 2, Article III of the Constitution is
the apprehension of the guilty person and misplaced. At the time, when PO2 Pallayoc looked
the taking of the, corpus delicti. 53 into the contents of the suspicious bags, there was
no identified owner. He asked the other passengers
atop the jeepney but no one knew who owned the
Objects whose possession are prohibited by bags. Thus, there could be no violation of the right
law inadvertently found in plain view are when no one was entitled thereto at that time.
subject to seizure even without a warrant.
Thirdly, x x x the search was conducted in a
With respect to the Berreta pistol and a black moving vehicle. Time and again, a search of a
bag containing assorted magazines, petitioner moving vehicle has been justified on the ground
voluntarily surrendered them to the police. This that the mobility of motor vehicles makes it
latter gesture of petitioner indicated a waiver of possible for the vehicle to move out of the locality
his right against the alleged search and or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be
seizure 56, and that his failure to quash the sought. Thus, under the facts, PO2 Pallayoc could
information estopped him from assailing any not be expected to secure a search warrant in
purported defect. order to check the contents of the bags which were
loaded on top of the moving jeepney. Otherwise, a
Even assuming that the firearms and ammunitions search warrant would have been of no use
were products of an active search done by the because the motor vehicle had already left the
authorities on the person and vehicle of petitioner, locality.13
their seizure without a search warrant nonetheless
can still be justified under a search incidental to a The constitutional proscription against warrantless
lawful arrest (first instance). Once the lawful arrest searches and seizures admits of certain
was effected, the police may undertake a exceptions. Aside from a search incident to a
protective search 58 of the passenger compartment lawful arrest, a warrantless search had been
and containers in the vehicle 59 which are within upheld in cases of a moving vehicle, and the
petitioner's grabbing distance regardless of the seizure of evidence in plain view.
nature of the offense. 60 This satisfied the two-
tiered test of an incidental search: (i) the item to
be searched (vehicle) was within the arrestee's It is well to remember that in the instances we
custody or area of immediate control 61 and (ii) the have recognized as exceptions to the requirement
search was contemporaneous with the of a judicial warrant, it is necessary that the officer
arrest. 62 The products of that search are effecting the arrest or seizure must have been
admissible evidence not excluded by the impelled to do so because of probable cause. The
exclusionary rule. Another justification is a search essential requisite of probable cause must be
of a moving vehicle (third instance). In connection satisfied before a warrantless search and seizure
therewith, a warrantless search is constitutionally can be lawfully conducted.17 Without probable
permissible when, as in this case, the officers cause, the articles seized cannot be admitted in
conducting the search have reasonable or evidence against the person arrested.18


- 33 -

Probable cause is defined as a reasonable ground his right by giving consent to the search or
of suspicion supported by circumstances seizure.9
sufficiently strong in themselves to induce a
cautious man to believe that the person accused is Here, appellant voluntarily gave his consent to the
guilty of the offense charged. It refers to the search conducted by the PASCOM agents.
existence of such facts and circumstances that can
lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to
believe that an offense has been committed, and It is axiomatic that a reasonable search is not to be
that the items, articles or objects sought in determined by any fixed formula but is to be
connection with said offense or subject to seizure resolved according to the facts of each
and destruction by law are in the place to be case.12 Given the circumstances obtaining here, we
searched.19 find the search conducted by the airport
authorities reasonable and, therefore, not violative
of his constitutional rights. Hence, when the search
The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in of the box of piaya revealed several marijuana
the absence of actual belief of the arresting fruiting tops, appellant is deemed to have been
officers, the suspicion that the person to be caught in flagrante delicto, justifying his arrest
arrested is probably guilty of committing the even without a warrant under Section 5(a), Rule
offense is based on actual facts, i.e., supported by 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.13 The packs
circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to of marijuana obtained in the course of such valid
create the probable cause of guilt of the person to search are thus admissible as evidence against
be arrested. A reasonable suspicion therefore must appellant.14
be founded on probable cause, coupled with good
faith on the part of the peace officers making the
arrest. Nonetheless, we find the trial court’s reliance on
the plain view doctrine misplaced. Such doctrine
PEOPLE VS. SUZUKI finds application only when the incriminating
nature of the object is in the "plain view" of the
Facts: Appellant was found guilty of illeal police officer.15 Here, it is beyond cavil that the
possession of prohibited drugs and was sentenced marijuana seized from appellant is contained in the
to death. Hence, the instant review. box of piaya, wrapped in aluminum foil and not
The facts of the case are: immediately apparent to the airport authorities.
Appellant was in the airport for his flight to Manila.
PASCOM and NARCOM agents were in the airport to Neither was the search incidental to a lawful arrest
follow on reports on drug trafficking. since appellant was not yet arrested at the time of
When he walked through the metal detector, the the search. To be considered a search incidental to
alarm sounded. He was bodily frisked and nothing a lawful arrest, the law requires that there must be
was found on his person so they proceeded to a lawful arrest before the search can be made.
check his luggage but appellant refused then SALVADOR VS. PEOPLE
consented eventually and opened it. There they
found packs of aluminum foil and when opened, it Facts: Petitioners, PAL ground crew employees
was found to be marijuana. were allegedly caught with dutiable goods
(branded watches, etc) after PAF officers were
Issue: WON the PASCOM agents were authorized observing their conduct and found it to be
to conduct the search. WON accused consented to suspicious during a special mission given to them
the search. WON the search was conducted was to make a routine surveillance to check on reports
incidental to a lawful arrest. WON the confiscated of alleged trafficking and smuggling being
items were in plain view. facilitated by PAL employees.
Petitioners were convicted. Hence, the present
Held: petition.
In PPvs.Canton and PPvs.Johnson we validated the
search conducted on the departing passengers Issue: WON the seized items are admissible in
and the consequent seizure of the shabu found in evidence.
their persons, thus:
"Persons may lose the protection of the search and Held:
seizure clause by exposure of their persons or Here, it should be noted that during the incident in
property to the public in a manner reflecting a lack question, the special mission of the PAF operatives
of subjective expectation of privacy, which was to conduct a surveillance operation to verify
expectation society is prepared to recognize as reports of drug trafficking and smuggling by" certain PAL personnel in the vicinity of the airport.
In other words, the search made by the PAF team
It should be stressed, however, that whenever the on petitioner and his co-accused was in the nature
right against unreasonable search and seizure is of a customs search. As such, the team properly
challenged, an individual may choose between effected the search and seizure without a search
invoking the constitutional protection or waiving warrant since it exercised police authority under


- 34 -

the customs law. circumstances. The only requirement in these

exceptions is the presence of probable cause.
Probable cause is the existence of such facts and
In Papa vs. Mago, involving a customs search,
circumstances which would lead a reasonable,
we held that law enforcers who are tasked to discreet, and prudent man to believe that an
effect the enforcement of the customs and offense has been committed and that the objects
tariff laws are authorized to search and seize, sought in connection with the offense are in the
without a search warrant, any article, cargo or place to be searched.8 In People v. Aruta,9 we ruled
other movable property when there is that in warrantless searches, probable cause must
reasonable cause to suspect that the said only be based on reasonable ground of suspicion
items have been introduced into the or belief that a crime has been committed or is
Philippines in violation of the tariff and about to be committed. There is no hard and fast
customs law. They may likewise conduct a rule or fixed formula in determining probable
cause for its determination varies according to the
warrantless search of any vehicle facts of each case.
or person suspected of holding or conveying Here, the search involved a moving vehicle, an
the said articles, as in the case at bar. instance where a warrantless search and seizure
may be conducted by peace officers. The only
In short, Mago clearly recognizes the power of issue we should determine is whether there was
the State to foil any fraudulent schemes probable cause to justify such warrantless search
resorted to by importers who evade payment and seizure.
In People v. Vinecarao,10 we ruled that where a
of customs duties. The Government’s policy
vehicle sped away after noticing a checkpoint and
to combat the serious malady of smuggling even after having been flagged down by police
cannot be reduced to futility and impotence officers, in an apparent attempt to dissuade the
on the ground that dutiable articles on which police from proceeding with their inspection, there
the duty has not been paid are entitled to the exists probable cause to justify a reasonable belief
same Constitutional protection as an on the part of the law enforcers that the persons
individual’s private papers and effects. Here, on board said vehicle were officers of the law or
we see no reason not to apply this State that the vehicle contained objects which were
policy which we have continued to affirm. instruments of some offense. This ruling squarely
applies to the present case.
Facts: Petitioners were caught to have in their
possession lumber and subsequently could not FACTS:
produce any permit from the DENR for them to cut On January 20, 1987, the NCRDC was activated
and transport the same. Such incident happened with the mission of conducting security
after the police came about a report of a vehicle operationswithhin its area of responsibility and
transporting lumber without permit and after peripheral areas for thepurpose of establishing an
which set up a roadblock to catch said vehicle. effective territorialdefense, maintaining peace and
After the described vehicle was spotted by the order, and providing an atmosphere conducive to
the social, economic and political development of
police they intercepted it. They flagged it down
the NCR. As part of its duty to maintain peace and
but it did not stop, forcing the police to chase it
order, the NCRDC installed checkpoints in various
until it reached Shilan, La Trinidad. A search of the
parts of Valenzuela and Metro Manila.
vehicle disclosed several pieces of Benguet pine
Petitioners aver that because of the institution of
lumber. Petitioners could not produce the required
said checkpoints, the Velanzuela residents are
DENR permit to cut and transport the same.
worried of being harassed and of their safety being
placed at the arbitrary, capricious and whimsical
Issue: WON the police officers have a probable
disposition of the military manning the checkpoints
cause to believe that the subject vehicle was
considering that their cars and vehicles are being
loaded with illegal cargo and that, therefore, it can
subjected to regular searches and check-ups
be stopped and searched without a warrant.
especially at night or at dawn without a search
warrant or a court order. Their alleged fear for their
safety increased when Benjamin Parpon was
In People v. Sarap,7 we listed the exceptions where
gunned down allegedly in cold blood by members
search and seizure may be conducted without
of the NCRDC for ignoring and/or continuing to
warrant, thus: (1) search incident to a lawful
speed off inspite of warning shots fired in the air.
arrest; (2) search of a moving motor vehicle; (3)
search in violation of customs laws; (4) seizure of
the evidence in plain view; (5) search when the
Petitioner’s concern for their safety and
accused himself waives his right against
apprehension at being harassed by the military
unreasonable searches and seizures; (6) stop and
manning the checkpoints are not sufficient
frisk; and (7) exigent and emergency
grounds to declare the checkpoints per se illegal.


- 35 -

No proof has been presented before the Court to unreasonable search. In fact, these routine
show that, in the course of their routine checks, checks, when conducted in a fixed area, are
the military, indeed, committed specific violations even less intrusive.
of petitioners’ right against unlawful search and
seizure of other rights. We see no need for checkpoints to be announced,
The constitutional right against unreasonable as the accused have invoked. Not only would it be
searches and seizures is a personal right invocable impractical, it would also forewarn those who
only by those whose rights have been infringed, or intend to violate the ban. Even so, badges of
threatened to be infringed. legitimacy of checkpoints may still be inferred from
Not all searches and seizures are prohibited. Those their fixed location and the regularized manner in
which are reasonable are not forbidden. which they are operated.49
The setting up of the questioned checkpoints may
be considered as a security measure to enable the
NCRDC to pursue its mission of establishing Usana and Lopez also question the validity of the
effective territorial defense and maintaining peace search. The trial court, in convicting the three
and order for the benefit of the public. Checkpoints accused for violation of R.A. No. 6425, accepted as
may not also be regarded as measures to thwart aboveboard the search done by the Makati Police
plots to destabilize the government, in the interest of the trunk of the car. Jurisprudence recognizes
of public security. six generally accepted exceptions to the warrant
Between the inherent right of the state to requirement: (1) search incidental to an arrest; (2)
protect its existence and promote public search of moving vehicles; (3) evidence in plain
welfare and an individual’s right against a view; (4) customs searches; (5) consented
warrantless search which is, however, warrantless search; and (6) stop-and-frisk
reasonably conducted, the former should situations.
True, the manning of checkpoints by the military is WHO VS. AQUINO
susceptible of abuse by the military in the same
manner that all governmental power is susceptible Facts: An original action for certiorari and
of abuse. But, at the cost of occasional prohibition to set aside respondent judge's refusal
inconvenience, discomfort and irritation to to quash a search warrant issued by him at the
the citizen, the checkpoints during these instance of respondents COSAC (Constabulary
abnormal times, when conducted within Offshore Action Center) officers for the search and
reasonable limits, are part of the price we seizure of the personal effects of petitioner official
pay for an orderly society and a peaceful of the WHO (World Health Organization)
community. notwithstanding his being entitled to diplomatic
immunity, as duly recognized by the executive
PEOPLE VS ESCANO branch of the Philippine Government and to
prohibit respondent judge from further proceedings
Facts: Accused-appellants were convicted of in the matter.
violation of PD 1866 and violation of the COMELEC
gun ban due to a checkpoint search conducted by Issue: WON diplomatic immunity is applicable.
the police which search was subsequently
questioned by herein petitioners. Held:
It is a recognized principle of international law and
Issue: WON the checkpoint search conducted under our system of separation of powers that
valid? diplomatic immunity is essentially a political
question and courts should refuse to look beyond a
Held: determination by the executive branch of the
This Court has ruled that not all checkpoints are government, 8 and where the plea of diplomatic
illegal. Those which are warranted by the immunity is recognized and affirmed by the
exigencies of public order and are conducted executive branch of the government as in the case
in a way least intrusive to motorists are at bar, it is then the duty of the courts to accept
allowed.47 For, admittedly, routine the claim of immunity upon appropriate suggestion
checkpoints do intrude, to a certain extent, by the principal law officer of the government, the
on motorists' right to "free passage without Solicitor General in this case, or other officer
interruption," but it cannot be denied that, acting under his direction. 9 Hence, in adherence to
as a rule, it involves only a brief detention of the settled principle that courts may not so
travelers during which the vehicle's exercise their jurisdiction by seizure and detention
occupants are required to answer a brief of property, as to embarrass the executive arm of
question or two. For as long as the vehicle is the government in conducting foreign relations, it
neither searched nor its occupants subjected is accepted doctrine that "in such cases the judicial
to a body search, and the inspection of the department of (this) government follows the action
vehicle is limited to a visual search, said of the political branch and will not embarrass the
routine checks cannot be regarded as latter by assuming an antagonistic jurisdiction."
violative of an individual's right against


- 36 -

arrest and he must be shown the warrant of

PEOPLE VS. MAHINAY arrest, if any; Every other warnings,
information or communication must be in a
FACTS: language known to and understood by said
Respondent was charged with the crime of rape person;
with homicide in which he was convicted in the
lower court. The information provides 2. He must be warned that he has a right
to remain silent and that any statement
That on or about the 26th day of June 1995 in he makes may be used as evidence
Valenzuela, Metro Manila and within the against him;
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the above-
named accused, by means of force and 3. He must be informed that he has the
intimidation employed upon the person of right to be assisted at all times and
MARIA VICTORIA CHAN y CABALLERO, age 12 have the presence of an independent
years old, did then and there wilfully, and competent lawyer, preferably of his
unlawfully and feloniously lie with and have own choice;
sexual intercourse with said MARIA VICTORIA
CHAN Y CABALLERO against her will and
without her consent; that on the occasion of 4. He must be informed that if he has no
said sexual assault, the above-named accused, lawyer or cannot afford the services of
choke and strangle said MARIA VICTORIA CHAN a lawyer, one will be provided for him;
Y CABALLERO as a result of which, said victim and that a lawyer may also be engaged by
died. any person in his behalf, or may be
appointed by the court upon petition of the
person arrested or one acting in his behalf;
Contrary to law. 3
5. That whether or not the person arrested
Respondent made an extra-judicial confession has a lawyer, he must be informed that no
during the custodial investigation which was then custodial investigation in any form shall
admitted as evidence against him but he be conducted except in the presence of
subsequently pleaded not guilty of the offense his counsel or after a valid waiver has
charged against him and further contended that been made;
when he was apprehended, he heard the police
officer's plan to salvage him if he would not admit
that he was the one who raped and killed the 6. The person arrested must be informed
victim. Scared, he executed an extra-judicial that, at any time, he has the right to
confession. He claimed that he was assisted by communicate or confer by the most
Atty. Restituto Viernes only when he was forced to expedient means - telephone, radio, letter
sign the extra-judicial confession but evidence or messenger - with his lawyer (either
proved otherwise. retained or appointed), any member of his
immediate family, or any medical
HELD: doctor, priest or minister chosen by him
or by any one from his immediate
family or by his counsel, or be visited
Lastly, considering the heavy penalty of death and by/confer with duly accredited national
in order to ensure that the evidence against an or international non-government
accused were obtained through lawful means, the organization. It shall be the responsibility
Court, as guardian of the rights of the people lays of the officer to ensure that this is
down the procedure, guidelines and duties which accomplished;
the arresting, detaining, inviting, or investigating
officer or his companions must do and observe at
the time of making an arrest and again at and 7. He must be informed that he has the
during the time of the custodial interrogation 40 in right to waive any of said rights
accordance with the Constitution, jurisprudence provided it is made voluntarily,
and Republic Act No. 7438: 41 It is high-time to knowingly and intelligently and ensure
educate our law-enforcement agencies who that he understood the same;
neglect either by ignorance or indifference the so-
called Miranda rights which had become 8. In addition, if the person arrested
insufficient and which the Court must update in waives his right to a lawyer, he must be
the light of new legal developments: informed that it must be done in writing
AND in the presence of counsel,
1. The person arrested, detained, invited or otherwise, he must be warned that the
under custodial investigation must be waiver is void even if he insist on his
informed in a language known to and waiver and chooses to speak;
understood by him of the reason for the


- 37 -

9. That the person arrested must be charged against him. Hence the present review
informed that he may indicate in any because of the death penalty. One issues raised by
manner at any time or stage of the the accused was that the lower court erred in
process that he does not wish to be convicting accused-appellant on the ground that
questioned with warning that once he he was positively identified by complainant.
makes such indication, the police may Accused-appellant primarily assails the testimony
not interrogate him if the same had not of Sally, the complainant in this case. At the
yet commenced, or the interrogation outset, he (accused-appellant) impugns Sally's
must ceased if it has already begun; positive identification of him as her assailant.
Specifically, accused-appellant assails the police
10. The person arrested must be informed line-up where he was identified by the complainant
that his initial waiver of his right to claiming that police line-ups are inherently
remain silent, the right to counsel or unreliable as they are "peculiarly riddled with
any of his rights does not bar him from innumerable dangers and variable
invoking it at any time during the factors."25 Moreover, the identification of accused-
process, regardless of whether he may have appellant during the police line-up is allegedly
answered some questions or volunteered inadmissible in evidence being a fruit of an illegal
some statements; arrest and violative of accused-appellant's
constitutional right to counsel.
11. He must also be informed that any HELD:
statement or evidence, as the case may Accused-appellant's allegation with respect to the
be, obtained in violation of any of the conduct of the police line-up is futile. That he was
foregoing, whether inculpatory or without counsel at the time of the police line-up
exculpatory, in whole or in part, shall does not render the same irregular or invalid. The
be inadmissible in evidence. guarantees of Section 12(1), Article III of the 1987
Constitution, or the so-called Miranda rights, may
PEOPLE VS. ALMANZAR be invoked only by a person while he is under
custodial investigation. Custodial investigation
FACTS: starts when the police investigation is no
Accused-appellant was charged with the crime of longer a general inquiry into an unsolved
rape in an information which provides: crime but has begun to focus on a particular
suspect taken into custody by the police who
That on or about the 11th day of March starts the interrogation and propounds
1994, in the Municipality of Makati, Metro questions to the person to elicit
Manila, Philippines and within the incriminating statements. A police line-up is
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the not part of the custodial investigation;
above-named accused, with lewd designs, hence, the right to counsel cannot yet be
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and invoked at this stage.
feloniously abduct, take and carry away
the herein complainant while walking It appears from the record that accused-appellant
along Makati Avenue, Ayala Center, Makati, was not under custodial investigation when he was
Metro Manila near Landmark Department brought to the Makati police station. The police did
Store on her way to Jollibee, Greenbelt not, as yet, interrogate him or elicit incriminating
Branch, where she works as a service statements from him. He was brought to the police
crew, by means of force, violence and station to be presented, along with other men, to
intimidation, to wit: by introducing himself Sally and to be identified by her. The presence of
as a Marikina police, poking a handgun on counsel at that stage was not therefore necessary.
the left side of the complainant's body,
and then pulling her and forcing her to
board inside the front passenger seat of
the accused' car and threatening to shoot
her and brought her to a secluded area
within Makati, where said accused at
gunpoint and intimidation, ordered herein
complainant to undress by taking off her T-
shirt, pants and panty, and by means of
force, violence and intimidation,
succeeded in having sexual intercourse
with her against her will.1âwphi1.nêt

Contrary to law.1

Almanzar was then convicted of the offense


- 38 -