Waiver | Search And Seizure | Search Warrant

People v.

Omaweng [GR 99050, 2 September 1992] Third Division, Davide (J): 3 concur, 1 on leave Facts: In the morning of 12 September 1988, PC constables with the Mt. Province PC Command put up a checkpoint at the junction of the roads, one going to Sagada and the other to Bontoc. They stopped and checked all vehicles that went through the checkpoint. At 9:15 a.m., they flagged down a cream-colored Ford Fiera (ABT-634) coming from the Bontoc Poblacion and headed towards Baguio. The vehicle was driven by Conway Omaweng and had no passengers. The Constables (Layong, et.al.) asked permission to inspect the vehicle to which Omaweng acceded to. When they peered into the rear of the vehicle, they saw a travelling bag which was partially covered by the rim of a spare tire under the passenger seat on the right side of the vehicle. They asked permission to see the contents of the bag to which Omaweng consented to. When they opened the bag, they found that it contained 41 plastic packets of different sizes containing pulverized substances. The constable gave a packet to his team leader, who, after sniffing the stuff concluded that it was marijuana. The Constables thereafter boarded the vehicles and proceeded to the Bontoc poblacion to report the incident to the PC Headquarters. The prohibited drugs were surrendered to the evidence custodian. The PC Forensic Chemist at Camp Dangwa, La Trinidad, Benguet conducted 2 chemistry examinations of the substance contained in the plastic packets taken from appellant and found them to be positive for hashish or marijuana. Omaweng was indicted for the violation of Section 4, Article II of RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as amended, in a criminal complaint filed with the MTC Bontoc, Mountain Province on 12 September 1988. Upon his failure to submit counter-affidavits despite the granting of an extension of time to do so, the court declared that he had waived his right to a preliminary investigation and, finding probable cause against Omaweng, ordered the elevation of the case to the proper court. On 14 November 1988, the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Mountain Province filed an Information charging Omaweng with the violation of Section 47 Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended (Crim Case 713). After his motion for reinvestigation was denied by the Provincial Fiscal, Omaweng entered a plea of not guilty during his arraignment on 20 June 1989. During the trial on the merits, the prosecution presented 4 witnesses. Omaweng did not present any evidence other than portions of the Joint Clarificatory Sworn Statement, dated 23 December 1988, of prosecution witnesses Joseph Layong and David Fomocod. On 21 March 1991, the trial court promulgated its Judgment convicting Omaweng of the crime of transporting prohibited drugs (Section 4, Article II of RA 6425, as amended). Omaweng appealed to the Supreme Court. Issue: Whether Omaweng was subjected to search which violates his Constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Held: Omaweng was not subjected to any search which may be stigmatized as a violation of his Constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures. He willingly gave prior consent to the search and voluntarily agreed to have it conducted on his vehicle and travelling bag. The testimony of the PC Constable (Layung) was not dented on cross-examination or rebutted by Omaweng for he chose not to testify on his own behalf. Omaweng waived his right against unreasonable searches and seizures when he voluntarily submitted to a search or consents to have it made in his person or premises. He is precluded from later complaining thereof right to be secure from unreasonable search may, like every right, be waived and such waiver may be made either expressly or impliedly. Since in the course of the valid search 41 packages of drugs

were found, it behooved the officers to seize the same; no warrant was necessary for such seizure. * Case showing valid waiver… The accused driving a vehicle, was stopped at a checkpoint, and when the vehicle was inspected, the soldiers asked permission to see the contents of the bag which was partially covered by a spare tire. The accused consented, and upon inspection, the bag was found to contain marijuana. (NACHURA)

People vs. Correa [GR 119246, 30 January 1998] En Banc, Martinez (J): 12 concur Facts: A week before 18 June 1994, Leonardo Dulay was placed under surveillance by the Police Operatives from the Drug Enforcement Unit of the Western Police District Command (DEU-WPDC) on account of confidential and intelligence reports received in said Unit about his drug trafficking around Bambang Street, Tondo, Manila. The police surveillance brought forth positive results and confirmed Dulay’s illegal drug trade. On 17 June 1994, operatives were alerted that Dulay would transport and deliver a certain quantity of drugs that night on board a owner-type jeep (FMR948). Thereafter, the operatives, together with the informer proceeded to A. Bonifacio Street on board 3 vehicles, and inconspicuously parked along the side of North Cemetery and waited for the suspect. The police informant spotted Dulay’s vehicle at 3:00 am. The operatives tailed the subject jeepney until they reached Bambang extension and Jose Abad Santos Avenue, where they accosted the passengers of said jeepney. The team inspected a cylindrical tin can of El Cielo Vegetable Cooking Lard, about two feet high, loaded in the vehicle of the appellants. The can contained 8 bundles of suspected dried marijuana flowering tops wrapped in pieces of paper and plastic tapes. The team seized the suspected contrabands and marked each bundle consecutively. The 3 suspects were brought to the police headquarters at DEU-WPDC for investigation. The packages of suspected marijuana were submitted to the NBI for laboratory analysis to determine their chemical composition. The tests confirmed that the confiscated stuff were positive for marijuana and weighed 16.1789 kilograms. The defense, however, contends that the 3 accused were arrested without warrant in Camarin D, Caloocan City, enroute to Dulay’s house to get the things of his child allegedly rushed previously to the Metropolitan Hospital, for an alleged charge of trafficking on ’shabu,’ and were brought to the WPDC headquarters at U.N. Avenue, where they were detained. On 12 July 1994, an Information was filed with the RTC Manila (Branch 35) indicting Antonio Correa y Cayton @ “Boyet,” Rito Gunida y Sesante @ “Dodong,” and Leonardo Dulay y Santos @ “Boy Kuba” for having violated Section 4, Article II of RA 6425, as amended. When arraigned, the 3 accused pleaded not guilty. After trial and on 3 March 1995, the lower court found the appellants guilty as charged and were sentenced to death and a fine of P10 million. Issue: Whether the accused are precluded from assailing the warrantless search and seizure, due to waiver on their part. Held: Antonio Correa y Cayton @ “Boyet,” Rito Gunida y Sesante @ “Dodong,” and Leonardo Dulay y Santos @ “Boy Kuba” are precluded from assailing the warrantless search and seizure when they voluntarily submitted to it as shown by their actuation during the search and

that either the motorist is a law-offender or the contents or cargo of the vehicle are or have been instruments or the subject matter or the proceeds of some criminal offense.C. They never protested when the police officer opened the tin can loaded in their vehicle. Yag-as and S/Sgt. Barros was charged with violating Section 4 of RA 6425. when they entered a plea of not guilty upon arraignment and by participating in the trial. he is precluded from later complaining thereof The right to be secure from unreasonable search may. rode the Dangwa Bus bearing Plate ABZ-242 bound for Sabangan. peace officers are limited to routine checks. the examination of the vehicles being limited to visual inspection. one of which relates to the search of moving vehicles.” The requirement that a judicial warrant must be obtained prior to the carrying out of a search and seizure is. nor when he opened one of the bundles. or waiving his constitutional rights. that the person involved had knowledge. — without need of a warrant. Article III of the 1987 Constitution. The accused is not to be presumed to have waived the unlawful search conducted on the occasion of his warrantless arrest “simply because he failed to object. M/Sgt. be waived and such waiver may be made either expressly or impliedly. etc. board the bus and seated himself on seat 18 after putting the carton under his seat. otherwise such search and seizure becomes “unreasonable” within the meaning of Section 2. followed the accused. nor when they. the vehicles are neither really searched nor their occupants subjected to physical or body searches.000. such a warrantless search would be constitutionally permissible only if the officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe. like every right. Yag-as and S/Sgt. trucks.00.. however. but instead they hold that a peaceful submission to a search or seizure is not a consent or an invitation thereto. actual or constructive. Further. Francis Yag-as and S/Sgt. that is. M/Sgt. Ayan. the bus stopped and both M/Sgt. After C2C Bongyao inspected the carton. When Barros denied ownership of the carton of marijuana. Mountain Province. and who had searched the box in his possession. that said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right. Ayan before they alighted. Thereafter. Francis Yag-as and S/Sgt. Feliciano (J): 3 concur Facts: On 6 September 1987. Mountain Province. James Ayan. Herein. he found out that it contained marijuana and he asked the passengers who the owner of the carton was but nobody answered. simply did not suggest or indicate the presence of any such probable cause. The “fruits” of the invalid search and seizure — i. Thereafter. (C2C Fernando Bongyao). Held: The general rule is that a search and seizure must be carried out through or with a judicial warrant. Upon reaching Chackchakan. As the constitutional guarranty is not dependent upon any affirmative act of the citizen.” Further. since such vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant may be sought. Mountain Province.e. saw Bonifacio Barros carrying a carton. Upon entering the detachment the carton was opened in the presence of Barros. The Court has in the past found probable cause to conduct without a judicial warrant an extensive search of moving vehicles in situations where (1) there had emanated from a package the distinctive smell of marijuana. There are certain exceptions recognized in our law. the search and seizure of the carton box was equally non-permissible and invalid. When one voluntarily submits to a search or consents to have it made on his person or premises. he failed to present his passport and other identification papers when requested to do so. the courts do not place the citizen in the position of either contesting an officer’s authority by force. Bontoc. before the search. Ayan and C2C Bongyao invited Barros to the detachment for questioning as the latter was the suspected owner of the carton containing marijuana. there is nothing in the record that any circumstance which constituted or could have reasonably constituted probable cause for the peace officers to search the carton box allegedly owned by Barros.C. as amended (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972). it being their station. together with their cargo of drugs and their vehicle. (4) Narcom agents had received information that a Caucasian coming from Sagada. Peace officers may lawfully conduct searches of moving vehicles — automobiles. The testimony of the law enforcement officers who had apprehended the accused (M/Sgt. both members of the P. . and lastly. The evidence secured thereby — i. 29 March 1994] Third Division. Barros appealed. then informed that later accosted him and one of the policemen opened a tin can in the jeepney of the accused but the accused didn’t protest . resulting to his warrantless arrest. because of a conspicuous bulge in his waistline. had in his possession prohibited drugs and when the Narcom agents confronted the accused Caucasian. it not being practicable to secure a judicial warrant before searching a vehicle.” To constitute a waiver. the trial court convicted Bonifacio Barros of violation of Section 4 of RA 6425 as amended and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P20. After trial. The fact that the accused failed to object to the entry into his house does not amount to a permission to make a search therein. who were seated at the back. however. the bus continued and upon reaching Sabangan. a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search. Mountain Province Command. and (5) Narcom agents had received confidential information that a woman having the same physical appearance as that of the accused would be transporting marijuana. not absolute. James Ayan). Barros [GR 90640. officers called for the bus conductor who pinpointed to Barros as the owner of the carton of marijuana. In carrying out warrantless searches of moving vehicles. * Case showing valid waiver… Police officers informed that the accused would deliver marijuana. of the existence of such a right. they effectively waived their constitutional right against the search and seizure by their voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the trial court. the “fruits” of the search and seizure — will be inadmissible in evidence “for any purpose in any proceeding. the 4) kilos of marijuana — should therefore not have been admitted in evidence against Barros.seizure. the P.e. secondly. Courts indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights and that we do not presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights. it must appear first that the right exists.. however. were brought to the police station for investigation and subsequent prosecution. The SC held that there was consent. (2) agents of the Narcotics Command (”Narcom”) of the Philippine National Police (”PNP”) had received a confidential report from informers that a sizeable volume of marijuana would be transported along the route where the search was conducted. Accordingly. called C2C [Fernando] Bongyao to inspect the carton under seat 18. (NACHURA) People v. When. (3) Narcom agents were informed or “tipped off” by an undercover “deep penetration” agent that prohibited drugs would be brought into the country on a particular airline flight on a given date. but is merely a demonstration of regard for the supremacy of the law. C2C Bongyao alighted with the carton and S/Sgt. Issue: Whether the failure of the carton bearer to object to the search made in the moving vehicle. constitutes a waiver.

Waiver of the right against an unreasonable search and seizure. manifested that he was not presenting any evidence for the accused. There must be proof of the following: a. and put under surveillance the rented apartment of Rosemarie Aritumba. a visitor of Rosemarie Aritumba. Upon entering the house. They likewise brought the persons found in the house to the headquarters for investigation. They found subversive documents. They confiscated the articles and brought them to their headquarters for final inventory. immaterial or irrelevant and illegal for lack of a search warrant. the persons apprehended revealed that there was an underground safehouse at Gracia Village in Urdaneta.45 firearm and other items. Revelina Gamboa and Deogracias Mayaoa. Berlina Aritumba. Marites Calosa. CA. Lt. When they reached the house. the residence of a relative of the suspect was forcibly open by the authorities by kicking the kitchen door to gain entry into the house. either constructive or actual. and some companions were sent to verify the presence of CPP/NPA members in Barangay Catacdang. Trial on the merits ensued. the group apprehended Gregorio Flameniano. bullets and ammunitions. but when she saw Morados she requested the group to go inside the house. Paula Matillano failed to object to the opening of her wooden closet and the taking of their personal properties. Damaso pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Ricardo Calosa. Dagupan City. In search of the allegedly missing amount of P45. and thereafter. that the person involved had knowledge. The search was therefore held illegal and the members of the searching party held liable for damages in accordance with the doctrine laid down in Lim vs. May 27. Ponce de Leon and MHP Garments vs. After the raid.000. Zambales. Dagupan City. a radio. . BUT A WAIVER BY IMPLICATION CANNOT BE PRESUMED. MATILLANO. When they reached the house. When interrogated. a 1 x 7 caliber . b. They were in possession of a mission order but later on claimed that the owner of the house gave his consent to the warrantless search. Eric Tanciangco y Capira @ Ka Ric and Luz Tanciangco y Pencial @ Ka Luz. they confiscated different personal properties therein which were allegedly part of those stolen from the employer. She guided the group to the house rented by Damaso(@Mendoza). Teresita Calosa y Macabangon @ Ka Tessie. Mission Order does not authorize an illegal search. maps of the Philippines. pamphlets entitled “Ang Bayan. Since Morados was hesitant to give the new address of Damaso (@Mendoza). Are the things admissible in evidence? Can they be sued for damages as a result of the said warrantless search and seizure? Held: The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right which may be waived expressly or impliedly. she denied it. the group. VS. People vs. sister of Berlina Aritumba whom they earlier arrested. Pangasinan. Eric Tanciangco and Luzviminda Morados). 2004 Right against unreasonable searches and seizures. c. the group saw Luz Tanciangco outside.” xerox copiers and a computer machine. Kenwood radio. They also found persons who were companions of Luz Tanciangco (namely. Arellano-Bani. the trial court rendered its decision. one M-14 rifle. the group proceeded to the house in Gracia Village. After coordinating with the Station Commander of Urdaneta. The group requested the persons in the house to allow them to look around. artificial beard. the group found that it had already vacated by the occupants. Marites Calosa y Evangelista @ Ka Tess. the group looked for the Barangay Captain of the place and requested him to point out the new house rented by Damaso (@Mendoza). Mindoro and Laguna and other items. The group again required Morados to go with them. Basilio Damaso. or in connection with the crime of subversion. They interviewed Luzviminda Morados. There must be clear and convincing evidence of an actual intention to relinquish the right. was originally charged in an information filed before the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City with violation of Presidential Decree 1866 in furtherance of. Candido Quijardo. a Philippine Constabulary officer connected with the 152nd PC Company at Lingayen. The defense counsel interposed his objections to the admissibility of the prosecution’s evidence on grounds of its being hearsay. Ricardo Calosa y Perez @ Ka Ric.00 owned by the employer. She stated that she worked with Bernie Mendoza/Basilio Damaso. In said place. The petitioners were armed with handgun. Thus. At first. On 17 January 1990. the waiver must be made voluntarily. Upon arraignment. knowingly and intelligently in order that the said is to be valid. Lui had threatened and intimidated her and her husband was out of the house when the petitioner & the cohorts conducted the search.ELI LUI. The prosecution rested its case and offered its exhibits for admission. the group proceeded to Bonuan. Finally. 12 August 1992] First Division. Pangasinan. that the said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right. While admittedly. Said persons revealed that Damaso (@Mendoza) was the lessee of the house and owned the items confiscated therefrom. Teresita Calosa. Thereafter. of the existence of said right. ET AL. they saw books used for subversive orientation. Damaso [GR 93516. or incident to. saw radio sets. Medialdea (J): 3 concur Facts: On 18 June 1988. finding Damaso guilty beyond reasonable doubt. They told her that they already knew that she was a member of the NPA in the area. together with Luzviminda Morados y Galang @ Ka Mel. as well as the Barangay Captain. sentencing the latter to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay the costs of the proceedings. such failure to oblect or resist did not amount to an implied waiver of her right against unreasonable search & seizure. Damaso appealed. When Luz Tanciangco opened one of the rooms. that the right exists. Such information was later amended to exclude all other persons except Damaso from the criminal charge.

At about 3:00 p. the charterer of the vessel. or incident to. Fernando (J): 4 concur. as well as the seizure. During the period from the latter part of August to September 18. Indonesia before proceeding to Davao City where it was apprehended on 19 September 1966. 1974. Tanciangco (who turned out to be a helper of the accused). reiterating that the person who was present at his hotel room was one Teofila Ibañez. they saw one Luz. 1 took no part Facts: M/V Jolo Lema had been under strict surveillance by the combined team of agents of the NBI. or in connection with the crime of subversion. then seized. Without this evidence. Lopez. 3 December 1975] Second Division. The PC officers told Luz that they already knew that she was a member of NPA. Accordingly. a combined team of Constabulary and Regional AntiSmuggling Center operatives headed by Earl Reynolds. there was no evidence that Luz was authorized to open the house of the accused in his absence. the team found subversive materials and firearms. Here. for its operation and use ostensibly for fishing. M/V [Jolo Lema] was skippered (sic) by Capt.” If such indeed were the case. 61 SCRA 238). the reason being that the law enforcers failed to comply with the requirements of a valid search and seizure proceedings. There is no evidence that would establish the fact that Luz Morados was indeed Damaso’s helper or if it was true that she was his helper. that was the most prudent course of action. In the present special civil action for certiorari. Sasa. or one who is authorized to do so in his behalf. when the vessel was searched and after Captain Pantinople informed the team that Velasco. It would save her and even Velasco himself from any gossip or innuendo. Velasco volunteered to open the suitcases and baggages of Velasco and delivered the documents and things contained therein to Reynolds. PC officers sent to verify the presence of CPP/NPA members in Dagupan City. The Collector of Customs of Davao seized 1. who entered into a contract with Jose G.480 sacks of copra and 86 sacks of coffee from the M/V motor vessel Jolo Lema. Pitta. for the enforcement of no statute is of sufficient importance to justify indifference to the basic principles of government. his alleged helper. of the said day. had other documents showing that vessel came from Indonesia carrying smuggled copra and coffee. reached a house suspected to be rented by a rebel. the authorities’ intrusion into Damaso’s dwelling cannot be given any color of legality. to ask for said document. Indonesia on 18 September 1966 on its a way to Tahuna. prohibition and mandamus. the only question left then is whether the search conducted by a party headed by Reynolds without the search warrant for the hotel room of Velasco.” or whether Mrs. November 29. Held: Damaso was singled out as the sole violator of PD 1866. the search conducted by the authorities was illegal. The records show that Damaso was not in his house at that time Luz Tanciangco and Luz Morados. There was a person inside who from all indications was ready to accede to their request. then it is much more easily understandable why that person. cannot be waived by anyone except the person whose rights are invaded.m. Luz consented. PC. was declared illegal. voluntarily allowed the police officers to enter. being a personal one. The seizure was declared lawful by the Court of Tax Appeals. Under the circumstances. which Luz identified as belonging to the accused. the case against him still will not prosper. Even common courtesy alone would . “a manicurist by occupation. (NACHURA) Held: There was an attempt on the part of Lopez and Velasco to counteract the force of the recital of the written statement of Teofila Ibañez (allegedly wife of Tomas Velasco) by an affidavit of one Corazon Y. Tomas Velasco. Court of Tax Appeals (GR L-29318. Aquilino Pantinople and chartered by Mr. all of Indonesia.. and Mangenito. Senior NBI Agent of Davao. the said vessel was in Indonesian waters where it loaded copra and coffee beans from Taruna. is violative of such constitutional provision. Nor could the officers of the law be blamed if they would act on the appearances. The fact that they came to Damaso’s house at nighttime. Davao City. But the record is silent on this point. It would have been different if the situation here demanded urgency which could have prompted the authorities to dispense with a search warrant. Commissioner of Customs [GR L-27968. and its decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court on 29 November 1974 in Nasiad vs. Inside the house. who was allegedly inside the room at that time. Velasco was not inside the hotel room when they entered the room. The prosecution likewise failed to show if Luz Tanciangco has such an authority. In its trip to Indonesia it brought various merchandise from the Philippines which were exchanged and/or bartered for copra and coffee beans and subsequently taken to Davao City. Teofila Ibañez. Outside the house. who could be aptly described as the wrong person at the wrong place and at the wrong time. There is no substantial and credible evidence to establish the fact that the appellant is allegedly the same person as the lessee of the house where the M-14 rifle and other subversive items were found or the owner of the said items. While the power to search and seize is necessary to the public welfare. that Damaso had given her authority to open his house in his absence. in furtherance of. SC held that the constitutional right against unreasonable searches & seizures . proceeded to the Velasco’s room at the Skyroom Hotel in Davao City. would have signified her consent readily and immediately. The constitutional immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures. allowed the authorities to enter it. Even assuming for the sake of argument that Damaso is the lessee of the house. who stated that she is the legal wife of Velasco. ***waiver must be given by the person whose right is violated. being a personal one cannot he waived by anyone except the person whose rights are invaded or one who is expressly authorized to do so in his or her . Said vessel passed Marore.Issue: Whether there was waiver on the part of Damaso to allow the warrantless search of his house. As a consequence. Velasco. and another by Velasco himself. RASAC. does not grant them the license to go inside his house. There are conficting claims whether the manicurist Teofila Ibañez or whether Velasco’s wife. and City Police of Davao prior to its apprehension at a private wharf in Batjak. 1966. and requested that they be allowed to look around. Lopez vs. Issue: Whether there was consent on the part of the person who was the occupant of the hotel room then rented by Velasco. the search . the awardee of such Philippine Reparations Commission vessel. still it must be exercised and the law enforced without transgressing the constitutional rights of the citizens. confiscated and took away the same. and whether the police officers “forcibly opened luggages and boxes from which only several documents and papers were found.

unlawfully and feloniously. de Garcia v. Locsin.000.00.00. Formento. Philippines. there being no interpreter to assist him. the waiver could not have come from any other person. on 8 March 2000. There was no interpreter to assist him — a deaf-mute — during the arrest. The point in the case Pasion vda.000. . It must engender moral certainty. making the obtainment of the pair of shorts illegal and taints them as inadmissible. the person had an actual intention to relinquish the right. the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses show that at the time the bloodstained pair of shorts was recovered. of the existence of such a right. of guilt. His seeming acquiescence to the search without a warrant may be attributed to plain and simple confusion and ignorance. Although none of them had actually seen the crime committed. superior strength and treachery and thus sentenced both accused to the supreme penalty of death. His seeming acquiescence to the search without a warrant may be attributed to plain and simple confusion and ignorance. After due trial. conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping each other. strong and substantial circumstantial evidence presented by them attempted to link both accused to the crime. not only by a counsel de oficio. the courts do not place the citizen in the position of either contesting an officer’s authority by force. The prosecution. The bloodstained pair of shorts was a piece of evidence seized on the occasion of an unlawful search and seizure.” and appreciated the aggravating circumstances of abuse of confidence. actual or constructive. but is merely a demonstration of regard for the supremacy of the law. Formento could not have consented to a warrantless search when.” ruled that “although no witnesses to the actual killing and robbery were presented. contends that it was Formento’s wife who voluntarily surrendered the bag that contained the bloodstained trousers of the victim. the right exists. to constitute a valid waiver. circumstantial evidence that merely arouses suspicions or gives room for conjecture is not sufficient to convict. upon a warrantless search of a hotel room. Being the subject of the search. the constitutional presumption of innocence prevails. arguing that the search was illegally done.have precluded them from inquiring too closely as to why she was there. it is tainted and should thus be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of the poisonous tree. Thus. one (1) wristwatch’ one (1) gold necklace. The prosecution presented 9 witnesses. ***Ruling in Lopez not applied here. search and seizure. It must do more than just raise the possibility. in his possession during the warrantless search. i.000. No. Asis [GR 142531. as they made no objection thereto before the arraignment. or waiving his constitutional rights. on the other hand. Criminal Case 98-163090). did then and there wilfully. together with his wife and mother. Panganiban (J): 7 concur. he sustained mortal stab wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death. and undetermined items. because at the time the bloodstained pair of shorts was recovered. a “mere manicurist”. but instead they hold that a peaceful submission to a search or seizure is not a consent or an invitation thereto. 1998. or all in the total amount of P20. has given consent to the recovery of the bloodstained pair of short. therefore. in the City of Manila. Philippine Currency. the automatic review before the Supreme Court. 15 October 2002] En Banc. the information stating “That on or about February 10. cannot be waived by anyone except the person whose rights are invaded or who is expressly authorized to do so on his or her behalf. it shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures. both accused pleaded not guilty. with intent to gain and by means of force and violence upon person. “as the constitutional guaranty is not dependent upon any affirmative act of the citizen. it must be shown that first. In the present case. in which Formento is a deaf-mute. was present. to wit: by then and there stabbing one YU HING GUAN @ ROY CHING with a bladed instrument on the different parts of the body thereafter take. Lopez vs. it can readily be concluded that there was consent sufficient in law to dispense with the need for a search warrant *** There was deemed a valid waiver where. held that the “crime charged and proved is robbery with homicide under Article 294. in fact. being a personal one. or even the probability. the circumstantial evidence including the recovery of bloodstained clothing from both accused definitely proved that the two (2) x x x committed the crime. and as a result thereof.” becomes even more pronounced in the present case.. to the damage and prejudice of the said owner in the aforesaid amount more or less of P20. and third. Otherwise. Held: Primarily. he himself should have given consent. In the language of the fundamental law. and the accused deserves acquittal. Issue: Whether Formento. he himself should have given consent. Further. a deaf-mute. they were assisted. and thus claims that her act constituted a valid consent to the search without a warrant. consent and voluntary surrender of papers belonging to the registered but absent occupant was given by a woman identified as the wife of the occupant although it turned out later that she was. and there was no interpreter to explain to him what was happening.00 more or less. Commissioner of Customs does not apply as the accused therein was not present when the search was made. in the first place. to wit: Cash money in the amount of P20.” When arraigned on 9 July 1998. as to evidence vis-a-is the case in its totality. second. both accused were found guilty and sentenced to death. 1 of the Revised Penal Code. was present. but object to the introduction of the bloodstained pair of shorts allegedly recovered from the bag of Formento. 6 on official leave Facts: Danilo Asis y Fonperada and Gilbert Formento y Saricon were charged in an Information dated 18 February 1998.e. Added to this is the fact that the appellant is a deaf-mute who could not understand what was happening at the moment. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila (Branch 54. he did not understand what was happening at that moment. Found to be deaf-mutes. together with his wife and mother. Lastly. Herein. (NACHURA) People vs. rob and carry away the following. necessarily. the said accused. Hence. Being the very subject of the search. Since he was physically present. but also by an interpreter from the Calvary Baptist Church. appellant Formento. the person involved had knowledge. belonging to said YU HING GUAN @ ROY CHING against his will. Both the accused do not question the legality of their arrest. Under all the circumstances.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful