EQUAL PROTECTION

People of the Philippines vs Cayat “Equal Protection” – Requisites of a Valid Classification – Bar from Drinking Gin In 1937, there exists a law (Act 1639) which bars native nonChristians from drinking gin or any other liquor outside of their customary alcoholic drinks. Cayat, a native of the Cordillera, was caught with an A-1-1 gin in violation of this Act. He was then charged and sentenced to pay P5.00 and to be imprisoned in case of insolvency. Cayat admitted his guilt but he challenged the constitutionality of the said Act. He averred, among others, that it violated his right to equal protection afforded by the constitution. He said this an attempt to treat them with discrimination or “mark them as inferior or less capable race and less entitled” will meet with their instant challenge. The law sought to distinguish and classify native non-Christians from Christians. ISSUE: Whether or not the said Act violates the equal protection clause. HELD: The SC ruled that Act 1639 is valid for it met the requisites of a reasonable classification. The SC emphasized that it is not enough that the members of a group have the characteristics that distinguish them from others. The classification must, as an indispensable requisite, not be arbitrary. The requisites to be complied with are; (1) must rest on substantial distinctions; (2) must be germane to the purposes of the law; (3) must not be limited to existing conditions only; and (4) must apply equally to all members of the same class. Act No. 1639 satisfies these requirements. The classification rests on real or substantial, not merely imaginary or whimsical, distinctions. It is not based upon “accident of birth or parentage.” The law, then, does not seek to mark the non Christian tribes as “an inferior or less capable race.” On the contrary, all measures thus far adopted in the promotion of the public policy towards them rest upon a recognition of their inherent right to equality in the enjoyment of those privileges now enjoyed by their Christian brothers. But as there can be no true equality before the law, if there is, in fact, no equality in education, the government has endeavored, by appropriate measures, to raise their culture and civilization and secure for them the benefits of their progress, with the ultimate end in view of placing them with their Christian brothers on the basis of true equality.

DUMLAO vs. COMELEC 95 SCRA 392 L-52245 January 22, 1980

Facts: Petitioner Patricio Dumlao, is a former Governor of Nueva Vizcaya, who has filed his certificate of candidacy for said position of Governor in the forthcoming elections of January 30, 1980. Petitioner Dumlao specifically questions the constitutionality of section 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 52 as discriminatory and contrary to the equal protection and due process guarantees of the Constitution which provides that “….Any retired elective provincial city or municipal official who has received payment of the retirement benefits to which he is entitled under the law and who shall have been 65 years of age at the commencement of the term of office to which he seeks to be elected shall not be qualified to run for the same elective local office from which he has retired.” He likewise alleges that the provision is directed insidiously against him, and is based on “purely arbitrary grounds, therefore, class legislation. Issue: Whether or not 1st paragraph of section 4 of BP 22 is valid. Held: In the case of a 65-year old elective local official, who has retired from a provincial, city or municipal office, there is reason to disqualify him from running for the same office from which he had retired, as provided for in the challenged provision. The need for new blood assumes relevance. The tiredness of the retiree for government work is present, and what is emphatically significant is that the retired employee has already declared himself tired and unavailable for the same government work, but, which, by virtue of a change of mind, he would like to assume again. It is for this very reason that inequality will neither result from the application of the challenged provision. Just as that provision does not deny equal protection, neither does it permit of such denial. The equal protection clause does not forbid all legal classification. What is proscribes is a classification which is arbitrary and unreasonable. That constitutional guarantee is not violated by a reasonable classification based upon substantial distinctions, where the classification is germane to the purpose of the low and applies to all those belonging to the same class. WHEREFORE, the first paragraph of section 4 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 52 is hereby declared valid.

Ramon Ceniza et al vs COMELEC, COA & National Treasurer “Equal Protection” – Gerrymandering **”Gerrymandering” is a “term employed to describe an apportionment of representative districts so contrived as to give an unfair advantage to the party in power.” ** Pursuant to Batas Blg 51 (enacted 22 Dec 1979), COMELEC adopted Resolution No. 1421 which effectively bars voters in chartered cities (unless otherwise provided by their charter), highly urbanized (those earning above P40 M) cities, and component cities (whose charters prohibit them) from voting in provincial elections. The City of Mandaue, on the other hand, is a component city NOT a chartered one or a highly urbanized one. So when COMELEC added Mandaue to the list of 20 cities that cannot vote in provincial elections, Ceniza, in behalf of the other members of DOERS (Democracy or Extinction: Resolved to Succeed) questioned the constitutionality of BB 51 and the COMELEC resolution. They said that the regulation/restriction of voting being imposed is a curtailment of the right to suffrage. Further, petitioners claim that political and gerrymandering motives were behind the passage of Batas Blg. 51 and Section 96 of the Charter of Mandaue City. They contend that the Province of Cebu is politically and historically known as an opposition bailiwick and of the total 952,716 registered voters in the province, close to one-third (1/3) of the entire province of Cebu would be barred from voting for the provincial officials of the province of Cebu. Ceniza also said that the constituents of Mandaue never ratified their charter. Ceniza likewise aver that Sec 3 of BB 885 insofar as it classifies cities including Cebu City as highly urbanized as the only basis for not allowing its electorate to vote for the provincial officials is inherently and palpably unconstitutional in that such classification is not based on substantial distinctions germane to the purpose of the law which in effect provides for and regulates the exercise of the right of suffrage, and therefore such unreasonable classification amounts to a denial of equal protection. ISSUE: Whether or not there is a violation of equal protection. HELD: The thrust of the 1973 Constitution is towards the fullest autonomy of local government units. In the Declaration of Principles and State Policies, it is stated that “The State shall guarantee and promote the autonomy of local government units to ensure their fullest development as self-reliant communities. The petitioners allegation of gerrymandering is of no merit, it has no factual or legal basis. The Constitutional requirement that the creation, division, merger, abolition, or alteration of the boundary of a province, city, municipality, or barrio should be subject to the approval by the majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the governmental unit or units affected is a new requirement that came into being only with the 1973 Constitution. It is prospective in character and therefore cannot affect the creation of the City of Mandaue which came into existence on 21 June 1969.

The classification of cities into highly urbanized cities and component cities on the basis of their regular annual income is based upon substantial distinction. The revenue of a city would show whether or not it is capable of existence and development as a relatively independent social, economic, and political unit. It would also show whether the city has sufficient economic or industrial activity as to warrant its independence from the province where it is geographically situated. Cities with smaller income need the continued support of the provincial government thus justifying the continued participation of the voters in the election of provincial officials in some instances. The petitioners also contend that the voters in Mandaue City are denied equal protection of the law since the voters in other component cities are allowed to vote for provincial officials. The contention is without merit. The practice of allowing voters in one component city to vote for provincial officials and denying the same privilege to voters in another component city is a matter of legislative discretion which violates neither the Constitution nor the voter’s right of suffrage. Rufino Nuñez vs Sandiganbayan & the People of the Philippines “Equal Protection” – Creation of the Sandiganbayan Nuñez assails the validity of the PD 1486 creating the Sandiganbayan as amended by PD 1606. He was accused before the Sandiganbayan of estafa through falsification of public and commercial documents committed in connivance with his other co-accused, all public officials, in several cases. It is the claim of Nuñez that PD1486, as amended, is violative of the due process, equal protection, and ex post facto clauses of the Constitution. He claims that the Sandiganbayan proceedings violates Nuñez’s right to equal protection, because – appeal as a matter of right became minimized into a mere matter of discretion; – appeal likewise was shrunk and limited only to questions of law, excluding a review of the facts and trial evidence; and there is only one chance to appeal conviction, by certiorari to the SC, instead of the traditional two chances; while all other estafa indictees are entitled to appeal as a matter of right covering both law and facts and to two appellate courts, i.e., first to the CA and thereafter to the SC. ISSUE: Whether or not the creation of Sandiganbayan violates equal protection insofar as appeals would be concerned. HELD: The SC ruled against Nuñez. The 1973 Constitution had provided for the creation of a special court that shall have original jurisdiction over cases involving public officials charged with graft and corruption. The constitution specifically makes mention of the creation of a special court, the Sandiganbayan, precisely in response to a problem, the urgency of which cannot be denied, namely, dishonesty in the public service. It follows that those who may thereafter be tried by such court ought to have been aware as far back as January 17, 1973, when the present Constitution came into

force, that a different procedure for the accused therein, whether a private citizen as petitioner is or a public official, is not necessarily offensive to the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Further, the classification therein set forth met the standard requiring that it “must be based on substantial distinctions which make real differences; it must be germane to the purposes of the law; it must not be limited to existing conditions only, and must apply equally to each member of the class.” Further still, decisions in the Sandiganbayan are reached by a unanimous decision from 3 justices - a showing that decisions therein are more conceivably carefully reached than other trial courts.

PASEI vs DRILON 163 SCRA 380 Facts:Petitioner, Phil association of Service Exporters, Inc., is engaged principally in the recruitment of Filipino workers, male and female of overseas employment. It challenges the constitutional validity of Dept. Order No. 1 (1998) of DOLE entitled “Guidelines Governing the Temporary Suspension of Deployment of Filipino Domestic and Household Workers.” It claims that such order is a discrimination against males and females. The Order does not apply to all Filipino workers but only to domestic helpers and females with similar skills, and that it is in violation of the right to travel, it also being an invalid exercise of the lawmaking power. Further, PASEI invokes Sec 3 of Art 13 of the Constitution, providing for worker participation in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law. Thereafter the Solicitor General on behalf of DOLE submitting to the validity of the challenged guidelines involving the police power of the State and informed the court that the respondent have lifted the deployment ban in some states where there exists bilateral agreement with the Philippines and existing mechanism providing for sufficient safeguards to ensure the welfare and protection of the Filipino workers. Issue:Whether or not there has been a valid classification in the challenged Department Order No. 1. Decision:SC in dismissing the petition ruled that there has been valid classification, the Filipino female domestics working abroad were in a class by themselves, because of the special risk to which their class was exposed. There is no question that Order No.1 applies only to female contract workers but it does not thereby make an undue discrimination between sexes. It is well settled hat equality before the law under the constitution does not import a perfect identity of rights among all men and women. It admits of classification, provided that: 1. Such classification rests on substantial distinctions 2. That they are germane to the purpose of the law 3. They are not confined to existing conditions 4. They apply equally to al members of the same class In the case at bar, the classifications made, rest on substantial distinctions. Dept. Order No. 1 does not impair the right to travel. The consequence of the deployment ban has on the right to travel does not impair the right, as the right to travel is subjects among other things, to the requirements of “public safety” as may be provided by law. Deployment ban of female domestic helper is a valid exercise of police power. Police power as been defined as the state authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote general welfare. Neither is there merit in the contention that Department Order No. 1 constitutes an invalid exercise of legislative power as the labor code vest the DOLE with rule making powers.

Justice Makasiar (concurring & dissenting) Persons who are charged with estafa or malversation of funds not belonging to the government or any of its instrumentalities or agencies are guaranteed the right to appeal to two appellate courts – first, to the CA, and thereafter to the SC. Estafa and malversation of private funds are on the same category as graft and corruption committed by public officers, who, under the decree creating the Sandiganbayan, are only allowed one appeal – to the SC (par. 3, Sec. 7, P.D. No. 1606). The fact that the Sandiganbayan is a collegiate trial court does not generate any substantial distinction to validate this invidious discrimination. Three judges sitting on the same case does not ensure a quality of justice better than that meted out by a trial court presided by one judge. The ultimate decisive factors are the intellectual competence, industry and integrity of the trial judge. But a review by two appellate tribunals of the same case certainly ensures better justice to the accused and to the people. Then again, par 3 of Sec 7 of PD 1606, by providing that the decisions of the Sandiganbayan can only be reviewed by the SC through certiorari, likewise limits the reviewing power of the SC only to question of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, and not questions of fact nor findings or conclusions of the trial court. In other criminal cases involving offenses not as serious as graft and corruption, all questions of fact and of law are reviewed, first by the CA, and then by the SC. To repeat, there is greater guarantee of justice in criminal cases when the trial court’s judgment is subject to review by two appellate tribunals, which can appraise the evidence and the law with greater objectivity, detachment and impartiality unaffected as they are by views and prejudices that may be engendered during the trial. Limiting the power of review by the SC of convictions by the Sandiganbayan only to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, likewise violates the constitutional presumption of innocence of the accused, which presumption can only be overcome by proof beyond reasonable doubt (Sec. 19, Art. IV, 1973 Constitution).

” And that the ordinance is violative to equal protection as it singled out Ormoc Sugar As being liable for such tax impost for no other sugar mill is found in the city. former executives and their widows among others. Ormoc Sugar Company Inc. The problem is not solved by retaining it for some and withdrawing it from others. At the time of the taxing ordinance’s enactment. PJA assailed the said law complaining that the law would adversely impair the communication within the judiciary as it may impair the sending of judicial notices. Prado implemented Circ.424.00. the franking privilege must be withdrawn from it. The Postmaster cannot be sustained in contending that the removal of the franking privilege from the judiciary is in order to cut expenditure.Philippine Judges Association et al vs DOTC Secretary Pete Prado et al “Equal Protection” – Franking Privilege of the Judiciary A report came in showing that available data from the Postal Service Office show that from January 1988 to June 1992. The judiciary needs the franking privilege so badly as it is vital to its operation. If the problem of the respondents is the loss of revenues from the franking privilege. ISSUE: Whether or not there has been a violation of equal protection before the law. What the clause requires is equality among equals as determined according to a valid classification. the Department of Justice and the Office of the Ombudsman. Evident to that need is the high expense allotted to the judiciary’s franking needs. Inc. the classification. and the Judiciary. vs Ormoc City et al “Equal Protection” In 1964. Still. regardless of age. Inc.864. to be reasonable. Sec 35 has placed the courts of justice in a category to which it does not belong. If it recognizes the need of the President of the Philippines and the members of Congress for the franking privilege.50) in protest averring that the same is violative of Sec 2287 of the Revised Administrative Code which provides: “It shall not be in the power of the municipal council to impose a tax in any form whatever. ISSUE: Whether or not there has been a violation of equal protection. The problem is not solved by violating the Constitution. HELD: The SC held in favor of Ormoc Sugar. from the coverage of the tax. for example. This might in fact sometimes result in unequal protection.” Though referred to as a “production tax”. The taxing ordinance should not be singular and exclusive as to exclude any subsequently established sugar central. the act of Ormoc City is still violative of equal protection.. in Ormoc City a municipal tax equivalent to one per centum (1%) per export sale to the United States of America and other foreign countries. frank mails from the Judiciary and other agencies whose functions include the service of judicial processes. For production of sugar alone is not taxable.00. amounted to P86. HELD: The SC ruled that there is a violation of the equal protection clause. In lumping the Judiciary with the other offices from which the franking privilege has been withdrawn. there is no reason why it should not recognize a similar and in fact greater need on the part of the Judiciary for such privilege.481. was the only sugar central in the city of Ormoc. The ordinance is discriminatory for it taxes only centrifugal sugar produced and exported by the Ormoc Sugar Company.175. PJA averred that the law is discriminatory as it disallowed the franking privilege of the Judiciary but has not disallowed the franking privilege of others such as the executive. Acting from this. Ormoc Sugar Company.574. as the entity to be levied upon.991. would benefit the morals of the youth but violate the liberty of adults. which may or may not need it at all. The SC noted that even if Sec 2287 of the RAC had already been repealed by a latter statute (Sec 2 RA 2264) which effectively authorized LGUs to tax goods and merchandise carried in and out of their turf. . This is untenable for if the Postmaster would intend to cut expenditure by removing the franking privilege of the judiciary. then they should have removed the franking privilege all at once from all the other departments. and any attempt to impose an import or export tax upon such goods in the guise of an unreasonable charge for wharfage. should be in terms applicable to future conditions as well. No. the remedy is to withdraw it altogether from all agencies of the government. or out of the same. of the same class as plaintiff.00. and those coming from the petitioners reached the total amount of P60. As it is now. especially where there is no substantial distinction between those favored. of this amount.431. the total volume of frank mails amounted to P90. Inc. Ormoc Sugar paid the tax (P7. The equal protection clause does not require the universal application of the laws on all persons or things without distinction. upon goods and merchandise carried into the municipality. the imposition actually amounts to a tax on the export of centrifugal sugar produced at Ormoc Sugar Company. it is true. and none other. 9228 as the IRR for the said law. which definitely needs it. Inc. such as the intervenor.087. as where. use of bridges or otherwise. shall be void. including those who do not need it. Frank mails coming from the Judiciary amounted to P73.759. The postmaster’s conclusion is that because of this considerable volume of mail from the Judiciary. it cannot be subject to the tax because the ordinance expressly points only to Ormoc Sugar Company. even if later a similar company is set up. the only time the tax applies is when the sugar produced is exported. a law prohibiting mature books to all persons. Ormoc City passed a bill which read: “There shall be paid to the City Treasurer on any and all productions of centrifugal sugar milled at the Ormoc Sugar Company Incorporated. By classification is meant the grouping of persons or things similar to each other in certain particulars and different from all others in these same particulars.

among others. Shell and Caltex by building refineries of their own will have to spend billions of pesos. HELD: The SC declared the unconstitutionality of RA 8180 because it violated Sec 19 of Art 12 of the Constitution. Shell and Caltex stand as the only major league players in the oil market. 1993. The tariff differential of 4% therefore works to their immense benefit. Those who will not build refineries but compete with them will suffer the huge disadvantage of increasing their product cost by 4%. Article II of R. Yet. Tatad assails the constitutionality of the law. R. They will be competing on an uneven field.A. lease or own and operate refineries and other downstream oil facilities and market such crude oil or use the same for his own requirement. The thrust of petitioner’s challenge is that the above proviso makes an unconstitutional cut between two classes of employees in the BSP. CENTRAL BANK (NOW BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS) EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION. INC. 2001. Petitioner also claims that it is not germane to the purposes of Section 15(c). A compensation structure.A. almost eight years after the effectivity of R. Provided. promotion. Inc.Francisco Tatad et al vs Secretary of Energy “Equal Protection” – Oil Deregulation Law Considering that oil is not endemic to this country. On June 8. RA 8180 is unconstitutional on the ground inter alia that it discriminated against the “new players” insofar as it placed them at a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis the established oil companies by requiring them to meet certain conditions already being observed by the latter. Shell and Caltex. No. transfer. or dismissal of all personnel. It violated that provision because it only strengthens oligopoly which is contrary to free competition. hiring. Shell and Caltex boast of existing refineries of various capacities.” allegedly not based on substantial distinctions which make real differences. New players that intend to equalize the market power of Petron. Exercise of Authority -In the exercise of its authority. FACTS: On July 3. a foreign oligopoly at that. 7653 provides: Section 15. viz: (1) the BSP officers or those exempted from the coverage of the Salary Standardization Law (SSL) (exempt class). That the Monetary Board shall make its own system conform as closely as possible with the principles provided for under Republic Act No.. It is contended that this classification is “a classic case of class legislation. Such system shall aim to establish professionalism and excellence at all levels of the Bangko Sentral in accordance with sound principles of management. or those not exempted from the coverage of the SSL (non-exempt class). This law allows that “any person or entity may import or purchase any quantity of crude oil and petroleum products from a foreign or domestic source. ISSUE: Whether or not RA 8180 is constitutional. Tatad contends that the 3%-7% tariff differential unduly favors the three existing oil refineries and discriminates against prospective investors in the downstream oil industry who do not have their own refineries and will have to source refined petroleum products from abroad. and (2) the rankand-file (Salary Grade [SG] 19 and below). 6758. history shows that the government has always been finding ways to alleviate the oil industry. the Monetary Board shall: (c) Establish a human resource management system which shall govern the selection. PETITIONER. Petron. The argument that the 4% tariff differential is desirable because it will induce prospective players to invest in refineries puts the cart before the horse. that the imposition of different tariff rates on imported crude oil and imported refined petroleum products violates the equal protection clause.3% is to be taxed on unrefined crude products and 7% on refined crude products. Petitioner offers the following sub-set of arguments: . 7653. No. Article II. It abolished the old Central Bank of the Philippines. RESPONDENTS. It erects a high barrier to the entry of new players. based on job evaluation studies and wage surveys and subject to the Board’s approval. The other edge cuts and cuts deep in the heart of their competitors. One such law is the Downstream Oil Deregulation Act of 1996 or RA 8180. He claims.” subject only to monitoring by the Department of Energy. No. 7653 (the New Central Bank Act) took effect. Article II of R. 7653.. Without new players belonging to the league of Petron. this is only one edge of the tariff differential. As the dominant players. vs. shall be instituted as an integral component of the Bangko Sentral’s human resource development program: Pro vided. to restrain respondents from further implementing the last proviso in Section 15(c). and created a new BSP. on the ground that it is unconstitutional. The government created laws accommodate these innovations in the oil industry. filed a petition for prohibition against BSP and the Executive Secretary of the Office of the President. BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS AND THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY. 7653. Section 15(c) of R. but solely on the SG of the BSP personnel’s position. that compensation and wage structure of employees whose positions fall under salary grade 19 and below shall be in accordance with the rates prescribed under Republic Act No. The first need is to attract new players and they cannot be attracted by burdening them with heavy disincentives. All other players belong to the lilliputian league. appointment. No.A. petitioner Central Bank (now BSP) Employees Association.A. No.A. however. the most important of which is to establish professionalism and excellence at all levels in the BSP. It cannot be denied that our downstream oil industry is operated and controlled by an oligopoly. Petron. competition in our downstream oil industry is an idle dream. 6758 [Salary Standardization Act].

. in its comment. and (b) the urgency and propriety of the petition. In sum. The foregoing provisions impregnably institutionalize in this jurisdiction the long honored legal truism of "equal pay for equal work. even though affirmed by a former adjudication. effort and responsibility. THE ENACTMENT. Petitioner also stresses: (a) that R. While R. he argues that the classification is based on actual and real differentiation. . b.994 BSP rank-and-file employees have been prejudiced since 1994 when the proviso was implemented. 7653 to establish professionalism and excellence within the BSP subject to prevailing laws and policies of the national government. subjecting the compensation of the BSP rank-and-file employees to the rate prescribed by the SSL actually defeats the purpose of the law of establishing professionalism and excellence eat all levels in the BSP.a. and e. No. No. denied the equal protection of the laws.albeit significant .A. 7037. SECTION 15(c). provided it is construed in harmony with other provisions of the same law. GSIS.A. should be paid similar salaries. as some 2. nor in the original version of Senate Bill No. if a statute in its practical operation becomes arbitrary or confiscatory." Persons who work with substantially equal qualifications. 1235. Respondent BSP. 7653 has a separability clause. runs afoul of the constitutional mandate that "No person shall be . the sole . and even admitted by one senator as discriminatory against low-salaried employees of the BSP. and violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.A. ISSUE: Thus. bears no constitutional infirmities. the assailed proviso has caused the demoralization among the BSP rank-and-file and resulted in the gross disparity between their compensation and that of the BSP officers’. No. 1235. ARTICLE II OF R. is open to inquiry and investigation in the light of changed conditions. HOWEVER.A. be determined by a mere comparison of its provisions with applicable provisions of the Constitution. UNDER THE PRESENT STANDARDS OF EQUAL PROTECTION. speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course except through this petition for prohibition. which will allow the declaration of the unconstitutionality of the proviso in question without affecting the other provisions.issue to be resolved in this case is whether the last paragraph of Section 15(c)." RULING: A. the BSP rank-and-file are also discriminated upon. 7653 started as a valid measure well within the legislature’s power. No. respondents’ implementation of such amounts to lack of jurisdiction.A. the legislative history of R. NO. OF SUBSEQUENT LAWS EXEMPTING ALL OTHER RANK-AND-FILE EMPLOYEES OF GFIs FROM THE SSL . since the statute may be constitutionally valid as applied to one set of facts and invalid in its application to another. B. we hold that the enactment of subsequent laws exempting all rank-and-file employees of other GFIs leeched all validity out of the challenged proviso. such as “fiscal and administrative autonomy of BSP. contends that the provision does not violate the equal protection clause and can stand the constitutional test. 7653 shows that the questioned proviso does not appear in the original and amended versions of House Bill No. under similar conditions. on behalf of respondent Executive Secretary. on its face and in its operation. Quite simplistically. petitioner posits that the classification is not reasonable but arbitrary and capricious. and (2) it has no appeal nor any other plain. No. even as it adheres to the enunciated policy of R. d. c. in every instance. which this Court should take cognizance of. also defends the validity of the provision. It is settled in constitutional law that the "equal protection" clause does not prevent the Legislature from establishing classes of individuals or objects upon which different rules shall operate .A. its validity. Jurisprudential standards for equal protection challenges indubitably show that the classification created by the questioned proviso. The constitutionality of a statute cannot. the assailed proviso was the product of amendments introduced during the deliberation of Senate Bill No. without showing its relevance to the objectives of the law.so long as the classification is not unreasonable. considering the transcendental importance of the legal issue involved. 7653 IS VALID. 7653. Article II of R. skill. Thus. thus within the class of rank-and-file personnel of government financial institutions (GFIs). . A statute valid at one time may become void at another time because of altered circumstances. Petitioner concludes that: (1) since the inequitable proviso has no force and effect of law. DBP and SSS personnel are all exempted from the coverage of the SSL.” and the mandate of the Monetary Board to “establish professionalism and excellence at all levels in accordance with sound principles of management. LBP.” The Solicitor General.RENDERS THE CONTINUED APPLICATION OF THE CHALLENGED PROVISION A VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.

and require a stricter and more exacting adherence to constitutional limitations. For some time he and his fellow Chinese businessmen enjoyed a “monopoly” in the local market in Pasay. which alone has the power to erase any inequity perpetrated by R.and not the officers . this Court must discharge its primary role as the vanguard of constitutional guaranties. concerns have been raised as to the propriety of a ruling voiding the challenged provision. LAO ICHONG VS JAIME HERNANDEZ Constitutional Law – Treaties May Be Superseded by Municipal Laws in the Exercise of Police Power Lao Ichong is a Chinese businessman who entered the country to take advantage of business opportunities herein abound (then) – particularly in the retail business. and its policies should be accorded recognition and respect by the courts of justice except when they run afoul of the Constitution.are given higher compensation packages to entice them to stay. Under most circumstances. To be sure. low-salaried employees are limited to the rates prescribed by the SSL. A weak and watered down view would call for the abdication of this Court’s solemn duty to strike down any law repugnant to the Constitution and the rights it enshrines. Officers of the BSP now receive higher compensation packages that are competitive with the industry. Ichong then petitioned for the nullification of the said Act on the ground that it contravened several treaties concluded by the RP which. Furthermore. conditions or limitations . not its wisdom. He said that as a Chinese . especially in terms of job marketability. and the legislative discretion would be given deferential treatment. They cannot be asked to wait some more for discrimination cannot be given any waiting time. the BSP rank-and-file employees merit greater concern from this Court. In the case at bar. When these violations arise. the issue on whether or not the prescribed qualifications or conditions have been met. 7653. with the higher grades as recipients of a benefit specifically withheld from the lower grades.” Any act of Congress that runs counter to this constitutional desideratum deserves strict scrutiny by this Court before it can pass muster. The implications are quite disturbing: BSP rank-and-file employees are paid the strictly regimented rates of the SSL while employees higher in rank . These BSP rank-and-file employees represent the politically powerless and they should not be compelled to seek a political solution to their unequal and iniquitous treatment.A. we hold that the continued operation and implementation of the last proviso of Section 15(c). Indeed. IN VIEW WHEREOF. What is more. one of its basic predicates. or the limitations respected. It is akin to a distinction based on economic class and status. conditional or subject to limitations. They represent the more impotent rank-and-file government employees who.who have the real economic and financial need for the adjustment This is in accord with the policy of the Constitution "to free the people from poverty. Until in June 1954 when Congress passed the RA 1180 or the Retail Trade Nationalization Act the purpose of which is to reserve to Filipinos the right to engage in the retail business. 7653 is unconstitutional. But if the challenge to the statute is premised on the denial of a fundamental right or the perpetuation of prejudice against persons favored by the Constitution with special protection. violates the equal protection clause (pacta sund servanda). nor the power to hold a strike to protest unfair labor practices. Article II of Republic Act No. Indeed. but are under the ineluctable obligation . or prejudices persons accorded special protection by the Constitution. Considering that majority. it is they .possessing higher and better education and opportunities for career advancement . provide adequate social services. Judicial scrutiny would be based on the “rational basis” test. the Court will exercise judicial restraint in deciding questions of constitutionality.to settle it. recognizing the broad discretion given to Congress in exercising its legislative power. when the grant of power is qualified. as members of the highest Court of the land.made particularly more exacting and peremptory by our oath. to support and defend the Constitution . and the system of checks and balances. It has been proffered that the remedy of petitioner is not with this Court. it is the Court’s duty to save them from reasonless discrimination. Unless the equal protection clause of the Constitution is a mere platitude. while the poorer. No. said qualifications. judicial scrutiny ought to be more strict. have no specific right to organize as a collective bargaining unit and negotiate for better terms and conditions of employment. the judicial inquiry into such issue and the settlement thereof are the main functions of courts of justice under the Presidential form of government adopted in our 1935 Constitution.Congress retains its wide discretion in providing for a valid classification. they have waited for many years for the legislature to act. if not all. the crux of the problem being one of legality or validity of the contested act. Rational basis should not suffice. is justifiable or non-political. extend to them a decent standard of living. a bill proposing the exemption of the BSP rank-and-file from the SSL has supposedly been filed. As a consequence. the challenged proviso operates on the basis of the salary grade or officer-employee status. we have neither the authority nor the discretion to decline passing upon said issue. the rank-and-file employees consist of people whose status and rank in life are less and limited.particularly those prescribed or imposed by the Constitution . This is true whether the actor committing the unconstitutional act is a private person or the government itself or one of its instrumentalities. Oppressive acts will be struck down regardless of the character or nature of the actor. unlike employees in the private sector. The deference stops where the classification violates a fundamental right. Otherwise. according to him. but with Congress. Accordingly. and improve the quality of life for all.would be set at naught.

In this case. and reasonable grounds exist for making a distinction between those who fall within such class and those who do not. 442. so they could both go the place where the recruitment was reportedly being undertaken . Erlie Ramos. Ramos remained outside and stood on the pavement. locally or abroad. After which. there is no conflict at all between the raised generally accepted principle and with RA 1180. hiring or procuring workers. in the morning of the said date. after having learned that a woman is there to recruit job applicants for Singapore. a law may supersede a treaty or a generally accepted principle. Hence. The provision in question reads: ART. promising or advertising for employment. a raid was executed. (2) Whether or not accused was denied equal protection and therefore should be exculpated . even if it would be assumed that a treaty would be in conflict with a statute then the statute must be upheld because it represented an exercise of the police power which.000 to Jasmine.000. Fifteen (15) minutes later. talk about the possible employment she has to provide in Singapore and the documents that the applicants have to comply with. thus. and. identified as Carol Figueroa. Araneta. enlisting. 13.D. while P30. Attorney II of the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA). Thereafter. Maria Lourdes Modesto and Nancy Araneta together with her friends Jennelyn Baez.000 for the visa and the round trip ticket. Consequently. from where he was able to see around six (6) persons in the sala. Carol was charged and convicted by the trial court of illegal recruitment. Bellotindos came out with a biodata form in hand. HELD: Yes.—(a) x x x. being inherent could not be bargained away or surrendered through the medium of a treaty. Jasmine.m. offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. utilizing. who assured her that she was authorized to receive the money. 13 (b) of P. That any person or entity which. if it applies alike to all persons within such class. ISSUE: Whether or not a law may invalidate or supersede treaties or generally accepted principles. accused questions her conviction for illegal recruitment in large scale and assails. contract services. that the equal protection clause “is not infringed by legislation which applies only to those persons falling within a specified class. Ramos. After the interview. ISSUES: (1) Whether or not sec. The initial payment was P2. 1994. a certain Mayeth Bellotindos. Upon appeal. Ramos conferred with a certain Capt. whether for profit or not: Provided. Bellotindos entered the house and pretended to be an applicant. the constitutionality of the law defining and penalizing said crime. (b) “Recruitment and placement” refers to any act of canvassing. Carol dela Piedra was already briefing some people when they arrived. First. received a telephone call from an unidentified woman inquiring about the legitimacy of the recruitment conducted by a certain Mrs.000 will be by salary deduction. DELA PIEDRA FACTS: On the afternoon of January 30. transporting. immediately contacted a friend. and includes referrals. Ramos even heard a woman.businessman engaged in the business here in the country who helps in the income generation of the country he should be given equal opportunity. as well. Definitions. Upon arriving at the reported area at around 4:00 p. otherwise known as the illegal recruitment law is unconstitutional as it violates the due process clause. Mendoza of the Criminal Investigation Service (CIS) to organize the arrest of the alleged illegal recruiter.000 as placement fee and for the processing of the papers.. whose duties include the surveillance of suspected illegal recruiters.” For the sake of argument. contracting. as amended. her friends and Lourdes then filled up biodata forms and were required to submit pictures and a transcript of records. violates the due process clause. They listened to the “recruiter” who was then talking about the breakdown of the fees involved: P30. Carol Figueroa. in any manner. Meanwhile. Lourdes gave the initial payment of P2. welcomed and asked them to sit down. accused submits that Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code defining “recruitment and placement” is void for vagueness and. Ichong can no longer assert his right to operate his market stalls in the Pasay city market. and P5. A surveillance team was then organized to confirm the report. The recruiter said that she was “recruiting” nurses for Singapore. PEOPLE VS. it merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike. The equal protection of the law clause “does not demand absolute equality amongst residents. under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced”. on the other hand. and Sandra Aquino went to the house of Jasmine Alejandro.

for employment to a prospective employer) does not render the law overbroad. But a discriminatory purpose is not presumed. The absence of such records notwithstanding. remained scot-free. the guilty party in appellant’s eyes. The prosecution of one guilty person while others equally guilty are not prosecuted. the Court merely bemoaned the lack of records that would help shed light on the meaning of the proviso. however. therefore. there must be a showing of “clear and intentional discrimination. the proviso therein is merely couched in imprecise language that was salvaged by proper construction. while a Zamboangueña. was charged with the commission of a crime. dela Piedra submits that Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code defining “recruitment and placement” is void for vagueness and. that her reliance on the said case was misplaced. there was a “clear and intentional discrimination” on the part of the prosecuting officials. accused has not presented any evidence to overcome this presumption. was not.” In this case. is not. Dela Piedra invokes the equal protection clause in her defense. The issue in Panis was whether. thus. In support of her submission. when construed to punish conduct which cannot be constitutionally punished is unconstitutionally vague . the Court was able to arrive at a reasonable interpretation of the proviso by applying principles in criminal law and drawing from the language and intent of the law itself. the crime of illegal recruitment could be committed only “whenever two or more persons are in any manner promised or offered any employment for a fee. resulting in its unequal application to those who are entitled to be treated alike. such as the freedom of speech or religion. according to appellant. Evidently.” The Court ruled. Panis. Dela Piedra further argues that the acts that constitute “recruitment and placement” suffer from overbreadth since by merely “referring” a person for employment. Furthermore. Dela Piedra has failed to show that. A generally worded statute. a denial of the equal protection of the laws. If at all. Dela Piedra misapprehends concept of overbreadth. It is not void for vagueness. is not a denial of equal protection unless there is shown to be present in it an element of intentional or purposeful discrimination. The Supreme Court held that the argument has no merit. not by mere speculation. she concludes that the prosecution discriminated against her on grounds of regional origins. violates the due process clause. a person may be convicted of illegal recruitment. under the proviso of Article 13 (b). dela Piedra invokes People vs. appellant was the only one criminally charged.HELD: (1) For the First issue. Section 13 (b). and the alleged crime took place in Zamboanga City. As said earlier. Due process requires that the terms of a penal statute must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties. That Section 13 (b) encompasses what appellant apparently considers as customary and harmless acts such as “labor or employment referral” (“referring” an applicant.” In the case at bar. to the extent that it fails to give adequate warning of the boundary between the constitutionally permissible and the constitutionally impermissible applications of the statute. is insufficient to support a conclusion that the prosecution officers denied appellant equal protection of the laws. the presumption is that the prosecuting officers regularly performed their duties. where the Supreme Court “criticized” the definition of “recruitment and placement. The unlawful administration by officers of a statute fair on its face. and this presumption can be overcome only by proof to the contrary. a Cebuana. by itself. Alejandro. (2) Anent the second issue. Appellant is a Cebuana while Alejandro is a Zamboangueña. The mere allegation that dela Piedra. in charging her. She points out that although the evidence purportedly shows that Jasmine Alejandro handed out application forms and even received Lourdes Modesto’s payment. is not a “perfectly vague act” whose obscurity is evident on its face. From this. A statute may be said to be overbroad where it operates to inhibit the exercise of individual freedoms affirmatively guaranteed by the Constitution. on the other hand.

JUDGE VILLANUEVA [126 SCRA 463. Judge Samulde sent the records back to Fiscal Salvani stating that although he found that a probable cause existed. 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes Labels: Case Digests. it calls for the exercise of judicial discretion on the part of issuing magistrate. the judge finds no probable cause. considering the functions of a president. They contended that the fiscal’s certification in the informations of the existence of probable cause constitutes sufficient justification for the judge to issue warrants of arrest. 98 Phil. The issuance of a warrant is not a mere ministerial function. he may disregard the fiscal’s certification and require submission of the affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at the conclusion as to existence of probable cause. Samulde transmitted the records of the case to Provincial Fiscal Salvani with his finding that “there is prima facie evidence of robbery as charged in the complaint”. alleging that Arangale harvested palay from a portion of her land directly adjoining Arangale’s land. he did not believe that Arangale should be arrested. Neverhteless. after conducting a PI. Makasiar averred that Cory cannot file a complaint affidavit because this would defeat her immunity from suit. for the purpose of issuing warrants of arrest. 2011 Constitutional Law – President’s Immunity From Suit – Must Be Invoked by the President Beltran is among the petitioners in this case. a person other than the president. To determine whether a WA should issue. After the hearing. RTC dismissed the petition on the ground that the fiscal had not shown that he has a clear. such certification does not bind the judge to come out with the warrant. HELD: THE PURPOSE OF A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE THE ISSUANCE OF A WA BY THE INVESTIGATING JUDGE OR OFFICER. Cory herself filed a complaint-affidavit against him and others. respondent judge set the hearing of the criminal cases to determine propriety of issuance of warrants of arrest. It is not obligatory. Issue: Whether or Not respondent city judge may. After the PI. Petitioners petitioned for certiorari and mandamus to compel respondent to issue warrants of arrest. L60349-62.SEARCHES & SEIZURES Amarga v. 5. the president may not be able to appear in court to be a witness for herself thus she may be liable for contempt. PLACER VS. Upon receipt of said informations. G. February 03. instead. he must be satisfied that a probable cause exists. Also. Judge Samulde was ordered to issue a WA in accordance with Sec.R. But. Soliven vs Makasiar on October 29. 739 (1956) F: Municipal Judge Samulde conducted a preliminary investigation (PI) of Arangale upon a complaint for robbery filed by complainant Magbanua. if a president would sue then the president would allow herself to be placed under the court’s jurisdiction and conversely she would be consenting to be sued back. Political Law Facts: Petitioners filed informations in the city court and they certified that Preliminary Investigation and Examination had been conducted and that prima facie cases have been found. Fiscal Salvani returned the records to Judge Samulde on the ground that the transmittal of the records was “premature” because Judge Samulde failed to include the warrant of arrest (WA) against the accused. but merely discretionary. Petition dismissed. that there exists prima facie evidence that the accused commited the crime charged. If on the face of the information. legal right to the performance of the act to be required of the judge and that the latter had an imperative duty to perform it. for the determination of whether it is necessary to arrest the accused in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. Under Section 6 Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. 29 DEC 1983] Tuesday. ISSUE: Whether it is mandatory for the investigating judge to issue a WA of the accused in view of his finding. a PI is conducted on the basis of affidavits to determine whether or not there is sufficient ground to hold the accused for trial. and there must be a need to place the accused under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. issue a warrant of arrest. compel the fiscal to submit to the court the supporting affidavits and other documentary evidence presented during the preliminary investigation. NOS. The fiscal should. upon the investigating judge to issue a WA. Under Rule 112 of the 1985 ROC. the investigating judge must have examined in writing and under oath the complainant and his wirtnesses by searching questions and answers. He grounded his contention on the principle that a president cannot be sued. However. He together with others was charged for libel by the president. Abbas. Held: Judge may rely upon the fiscal’s certification for the existence of probable cause and on the basis thereof. have filed an information immediately so that the RTC may issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused. Fiscal Salvani filed a mandamus case against Judge Samulde to compel him to issue a WA. the judge must satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause before issuing a warrant of arrest. is left to his sound judgment or discretion. respondent issued an order requiring petitioners to submit to the court affidavits of prosecution witnesses and other documentary evidence in support of the informations to aid him in the exercise of his power of judicial review of the findings of probable cause by petitioners. ISSUE: Whether or not such immunity can be invoked by Beltran. HELD: The rationale for the grant to the President of the privilege of immunity from suit is to assure the exercise of Presidential duties and functions free from any hindrance or . Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules of Court.

The SC further notes that there is a need to restructure the law on rebellion as it is . Article III of the Constitution. Bagatsing. denied his right to bail. Rolando Narciso. in the public bidding. merely relied on the information and the resolution attached thereto. in personally determining the existence of probable cause. the President of National Marine Corporation (NMC). Ho and Narciso alleged that the Sandiganbayan. The SC ruled that there is no such crime as Rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder. was said to have entered without legal justification into a negotiated contract of affreightment disadvantageous to the NSC for the haulage of its products at the rate of P129. represented by its chief prosecutor Atty. filed with the Office of the Ombudsman a complaint against Doris Teresa Ho. HELD: Enrile filed for habeas corpus because he was denied bail although ordinarily a charge of rebellion would entitle one for bail. The Court has no power to effect such change. What Enrile et al can be charged of would be Simple Rebellion because other crimes such as murder or all those that may be necessary to the commission of rebellion is absorbed hence he should be entitiled for bail. Enrile was then brought to Camp Karingal. It is a decision that cannot be assumed and imposed by any other person. Rolando S. aside from requiring all of the office-holder’s time. FACTS On August 8. J. thereby giving unwarranted benefits to the National Marine Corporation. being then the Vice-President of the National Steel Corporation (NSC). whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby. The crime of rebellion charged against him however is complexed with murder and multiple frustrated murders – the intention of the prosecution was to make rebellion in its most serious form so as to make the penalty thereof in the maximum. Thus.00 per Metric Ton. Hopefully.56 and P123. which is properly within its province. Thus. Enrile later filed for the habeas corpus alleging that the crime being charged against him is non existent. in violation of the requirements of Section 2. Nos.distraction. That he was charged with a criminal offense in an information for which no complaint was initially filed or preliminary investigation was conducted. Anthony Marden. the Anti-Graft League of the Philippines. (PSLI). But this privilege of immunity from suit. The proper step that should have been taken was for Enrile to file a petition to be admitted for bail. Panlilio. The complaint was for alleged violation of Section 3 (g) of Republic Act 3019 prohibiting a public officer from entering into any contract or transaction on behalf of the government if it is manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the latter. Congress will perceive the need for promptly seizing the initiative in this matter. from Iligan City to Manila. a private corporation organized and operating under our Corporation law. Inc. if so minded the President may shed the protection afforded by the privilege and submit to the court’s jurisdiction. to support his conclusion and justify the issuance In February 1990. Moreover. 2011 Constitutional Law – Political Question – Restriction to the exercise of judicial power being used apparently by others as a tool to disrupt the peace and espouse violence.R. Enrile vs Salazar on October 30. considering that being the Chief Executive of the Government is a job that. and Doris Ho. & Mrs. and what is needed lies beyond interpretation. so that it cannot be conveniently utilized as the umbrella for every sort of illegal activity undertaken in its name. not by any other person in the President’s behalf.50/MT. Sen Enrile was arrested. (LSCI) and Premier Shipping Lines. Narciso (petitioners in G. The choice of whether to exercise the privilege or to waive it is solely the President’s prerogative. and Honasan for the crime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder which allegedly occurred during their failed coup attempt. respectively). there is nothing in our laws that would prevent the President from waiving the privilege. 106632 and 106678. ISSUE: Whether or Enrile’s arrest is valid. other than the information filed by the investigating prosecutor. must have before him sufficient evidence submitted by the parties. Such contract was entered into despite their full knowledge that the rate they have agreed upon was much higher than those offered by the Loadstar Shipping Company. Inc. in a criminal case in which the President is complainant cannot raise the presidential privilege as a defense to prevent the case from proceeding against such accused. According to the information. a government-owned or controlled corporation organized and operating under the Philippine laws. hence was denied due process. filed by the Ombudsman without other supporting evidence. for it can only interpret the law as it stands at any given time. pertains to the President by virtue of the office and may be invoked only by the holder of the office. and settled jurisprudence. respectively. also demands undivided attention. Arsenio Benjamin Santos and Leonardo Odoño. Reynaldo L. either to raise the penalty therefor or to clearly define and delimit the other offenses to be considered as absorbed thereby. He should have exhausted all other efforts before petitioning for habeas corpus. He was charged together with Mr. The SC however noted that a petition for habeas corpus was not the proper remedy so as to avail of bail.” HO vs PEOPLE (1997) Panganiban. in the amounts of P109. They contend that a judge. 1991. The SC can only act w/in the bounds of the law. in determining probable cause for the issuance of the warrant for their arrest. an accused like Beltran et al. and arrested and detained on the strength of a warrant issued without the judge who issued it first having personally determined the existence of probable cause. Thus SC said “There is an apparent need to restructure the law on rebellion.

whether there is a necessity for placing him under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. reiterated and elaborated on the doctrine laid down in People vs. The Court. the contents of the prosecutor’s report will support his own conclusion that there is reason to charge the accused of an offense and hold him for trial. the judge cannot rely solely on the report of the prosecutor in finding probable cause to justify the issuance of a warrant of arrest. papers. Inting and ruled that: “First. 1987 Constitution: The right of the people to be secure in their persons. Following established doctrine and procedure. he shall: (1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and. or the reconsideration sought for.” Sandiganbayan’s Denial: “Considering. upon which to legally sustain his own findings on the existence (or nonexistence) of probable cause to issue an arrest order. as filed. Makasiar: “In satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. the prosecutor could ease the burden of the judge and speed up the litigation process by forwarding to the latter not only the  . the determination of probable cause by the prosecutor is for a purpose different from that which is to be made by the judge. the preliminary inquiry made by a Prosecutor does not bind the Judge. including the evidence submitted by the complainant and the accused-respondents.of an arrest warrant. other than the prosecutor’s bare report. and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. would appear to be an exercise in futility. there should be no confusion as to their distinct objectives.” People vs. then the recall of the warrant of arrest. without having before him any of the evidence (such as complainant’s affidavit. the determination of probable cause is a function of the Judge. Such evidence should not be “merely described in a prosecutor’s resolution. and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable. on the other hand. exhibits. Second. Thus.  Art III Section 2. Hence. in this case. on the basis thereof. Even if the two inquiries are conducted in the course of one and the same proceeding. he may disregard the fiscal’s  report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause. even if both should base their findings on one and the same proceeding or evidence. determines whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused. Obviously and understandably. This responsibility of determining personally and independently the existence or nonexistence of probable cause is lodged in him by no less than the most basic law of the land.” ISSUE May a judge determine probable cause and issue a warrant of arrest solely on the basis of the resolution of the prosecutor (in the instant case. therefore.) which may have been submitted at the preliminary investigation? DECISION & RATIO NO. cannot be granted. i. More so. respondent’s counter-affidavit. as held in Inting. The judge. This emphasis shows the present Constitution’s intent to place a greater degree of responsibility upon trial judges than that imposed under the previous Charters. he must have supporting evidence. clearly shows that it is sufficient in form and substance based on the facts and evidence adduced by both parties during the preliminary investigation. However. Third. First. (Art III Section 2.  Soliven vs. since their objectives are different. It is not for the Provincial Fiscal or Prosecutor or for the Election Supervisor to ascertain. It merely assists him to make the determination of probable cause. when the information. or (2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause. there should be no confusion about the objectives. the Office of the Special Prosecutor of the Ombudsman) who conducted the preliminary investigation. Inting: There is a difference between the judge’s goal from that of the prosecutor’s. houses. issue a warrant of arrest. Whether there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and should be held for trial is what the prosecutor passes upon. To require this Court to have the entire record of the preliminary investigation to be produced before it. 1987 Constitution) The word “personally” does not appear in the corresponding provisions of our previous Constitutions. Judges and Prosecutors alike should distinguish the preliminary inquiry which determines probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest from the preliminary investigation proper which ascertains whether the offender should be held for trial or released. that this Court did not rely solely on the certification appearing in the information in this case in the determination of whether probable cause exists to justify the issuance of the warrant of arrest but also on the basis predominantly shown by the facts and evidence appearing in the resolution/memorandum of responsible investigators/ prosecutors.e. Second. etc. the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. Parenthetically. the judge must decide independently.

Mayors and prosecuting officers cannot issue warrants of seizure or arrest.” IN THE INSTANT CASE. paragraph (c). 1205 to petitioner. but also so much of the records and the evidence on hand as to enable His Honor to make his personal and separate judicial finding on whether to issue a warrant of arrest Lastly. 1990 Facts: Rosalie Tesoro of Pasay City in a sworn statement filed with the POEA. Achacoso 183 SCRA 145 G. Under the Constitution. paragraph (c) of the Labor Code is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL and null and void. Salazar Vs. at the very least. if any) upon which to make his independent judgment or. the search and seizure order was in the nature of a general warrant. of the Labor Code. it having verified that petitioner has— (1) No valid license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment to recruit and deploy workers for overseas employment. like the one at bar. attached to the information filed before it. it is the sole domain of the courts. because it must identify specifically the things to be seized. may no longer issue search or arrest warrants. is that the judge must have sufficient supporting documents (such as the complaint. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized”. No. This Court has consistently held that a judge fails in his bounden duty if he relies merely on the certification or the report of the investigating officer. public respondent Administrator Tomas Achacoso issued a Closure and Seizure Order No. which in turn gives his report the presumption of accuracy. The said Order violated due process. The group. (2) Committed/are committing acts prohibited under Article 34 of the New Labor Code in relation to Article 38 of the same code. . the petition is GRANTED. charged petitioner with illegal recruitment. For a Salazar. Respondent Court palpably committed grave abuse of discretion in ipso facto issuing the challenged warrant of arrest on the sole basis of the prosecutor’s findings and recommendation. we repeat. The team confiscated assorted costumes. On the same day. who let them in. after knowing that petitioner had no license to operate a recruitment agency. counter-affidavits. Article 38. The point is: he cannot rely solely and entirely on the prosecutor’s recommendation. the authorities must go through the judicial process. upon which to verify the findings of the prosecutor as to the existence of probable cause. Achacoso Case Digest Salazar Vs. Issue: Whether or Not the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (or the Secretary of Labor) can validly issue warrants of search and seizure (or arrest) under Article 38 of the Labor Code Held: Under the new Constitution. The respondents are ORDERED to return all materials seized as a result of the implementation of Search and Seizure Order No. “We reiterate that the Secretary of Labor. Although the prosecutor enjoys the legal presumption of regularity in the performance of his official duties and functions. We do not intend to unduly burden trial courts by obliging them to examine the complete records of every case all the time simply for the purpose of ordering the arrest of an accused. and without determining on its own the issue of probable cause based on evidence other than such bare findings and recommendation. The court held that the warrant is null and void. obviously. It (the power to order arrests) cannot be made to extend to other cases. A team was then tasked to implement the said Order. commands the judge to personally determine probable cause in the issuance of warrants of arrest. exceptional. and the properties were confiscated against her will and were done with unreasonable force and intimidation. “. not being a judge. as Respondent Court did in this case. and its conjecture that the Ombudsman would not have approved their recommendation without supporting evidence. She also alleged that it violated sec 2 of the Bill of Rights. WHEREFORE. no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. Ferdinand Marquez sent petitioner a telegram directing him to appear to the POEA regarding the complaint against him. The Closure and Seizure Order was based on Article 38 of the Labor Code. . What is required. it is not required that the complete or entire records of the case during the preliminary investigation be submitted to and examined by the judge. the public respondent relied fully and completely upon the resolution of the graft investigation officer and the memorandum of the reviewing prosecutor. It had no other documents from either the complainant (the Anti-Graft League of the Philippines) or the People from which to sustain its own conclusion that probable cause exists. went to petitioner’s residence. The Supreme Court held. 81510 March 14. because she was not given prior notice and hearing. They served the order to a certain Mrs. unconstitutional and of no force and effect… The power of the President to order the arrest of aliens for deportation is.information and his bare resolution finding probable cause.” Furthermore. 1205. rather.R. affidavits. we declare Article 38. It stated that there will a seizure of the documents and paraphernalia being used or intended to be used as the means of committing illegal recruitment. the Constitution. Public respondent Atty. accompanied by mediamen and Mandaluyong policemen. Hence. Petitioner filed with POEA a letter requesting for the return of the seized properties. . To that extent. sworn statements of witnesses or transcripts of stenographic notes.

two memorandums. No. Upon the affidavit in question the Judge. promissory notes and stubs of used checks of the Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation.R.ALVAREZ VS. L-50720. two packages of correspondence. Section 4 of Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court. filed a motion. and that the fact that documents relating to the search warrant were not attached immediately to the record of the criminal case is of no moment. Goles and Reynaldo T. one receipt book belonging to Luis Fernandez. an affidavit alleging that according to reliable information. forty-eight stubs of purchases of copra. Mata vs Bayona G. and (b) because the warrant was issued for the sole purpose of seizing evidence which would later be used in the criminal proceedings that might be instituted against the petitioner. took and arranged bets on the Jai Alai game by “selling illegal tickets known as ‘Masiao tickets’ without any authority from the Philippine Jai Alai & Amusement Corporation or from the government authorities concerned. as amended by PD 1306. considering that the rule does not specify when these documents are to be attached to the records. and attach them to the record. fourteen bundles of invoices and other papers many documents and loan contracts with security and promissory notes. and to which inquiry Judge Josephine K. books. four stubs. the petitioner kept in his house. “it is with the court”. two inventories. neither could the search and seizure be made at night. Mata’s motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid order having been denied. of the Department of Justice. four notebooks. receipts. praying that the agent. the petitioner. L-45358. several agents of the Anti-Usury Board entered the petitioner's store and residence at seven o'clock on the night. No. in addition to any affidavits presented to him? . the information against him alleging that Soriano Mata offered. The motion was denied by the Judge on 1 March 1979. members of the Intelligence Section of 352nd PC Co. Bayona. two contracts. stating that the court has made a thorough investigation and examination under oath of Bernardo U. for violation of the Anti-Usury Law. With said warrant. 504 chits. one ledger. and as it does not appear positively in the affidavit that the articles were in the possession of the petitioner and in the place indicated. that the Court declare the search warrant to be invalid for its alleged failure to comply with the requisites of the Constitution and the Rules of Court. ISSUE: WON the judge must before issuing the warrant personally examine on oath or affirmation the complainant and any witnesses he may produce and take their depositions in writing. citing and invoking. 26 March 1984 ARRESTS. presiding Judge of the City Court of Ormoc replied. among others.R.” Mata claimed that during the hearing of the case. The Judge then handed the records to the Fiscal who attached them to the records. be ordered immediately to deposit all the seized articles in the office of the clerk of court and that said agent be declared guilty of contempt for having disobeyed the order of the court. ISSUE: Whether or not there was a valid search and seizure. nine order books. he discovered that nowhere from the records of the said case could be found the search warrant and other pertinent papers connected to the issuance of the same. four checks stubs. with the petition for certiorari. January 29 1937 FACTS: The chief of the secret service of the Anti-Usury Board. and that all the articles confiscated under such warrant as inadmissible as evidence in the case. two cashbooks. on said date. that in fact the court made a certification to that effect. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES > Examination of witnesses FACTS: Soriano Mata was accused under Presidential Decree (PD) 810. one bundle of credit receipts. That as the warrant had been issued unreasonably. This led Mata to file a motion to quash and annul the search warrant and for the return of the articles seized. HELD: No. he came to the Supreme Court. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF TAYABAS G. two journals. praying. chits and other papers used by him in connection with his activities as a money-lender charging usurious rates of interest in violation of the law. As the articles had not been brought immediately to the judge who issued the search warrant. and seized and took possession of the following articles: internal revenue licenses for the years 1933 to 1936. documents. or in any proceedings on the matter. so that he had to inquire from the City Fiscal its whereabouts. lists. He did not swear to the truth of his statements upon his own knowledge of the facts but upon the information received by him from a reliable person. presented to Judge Eduardo Gutierrez David. one bundle of stubs of purchases of copra./Police District II INP. issued the warrant which is the subject matter of the petition. two bundles of bills of lading. through his attorney. Mayote. three bankbooks. The search for and a seizure of said articles were made with the opposition of the petitioner who stated his protest below the inventories on the ground that the agents seized even the originals of the documents. That the search and seizure made are illegal for the following reasons: (a) Because the warrant was based solely upon the affidavit of the petitioner who had no personal knowledge of the facts of probable cause. among others.

The examining Judge has to take depositions in writing of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce and to attach them to the record. 1984 Facts: Two warrants were issued against petitioners for the search on the premises of “Metropolitan Mail” and “We Forum” newspapers and the seizure of items alleged to have been used in subversive activities. (2) the examination of the said witness was not in the form of searching questions and answers. Petitioners questioned the warrants for the lack of probable cause and that the two warrants issued indicated only one and the same address. the statements of the witnesses having been mere generalizations.HELD:YES. jurisprudence tells of the prohibition on the issuance of general warrants. explosives handgrenades and ammunition which are illegally possessed or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense which the said Nemesio Prudente is keeping and concealing at the following premises of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines. Such written deposition is necessary in order that the Judge may be able to properly determine the existence or nonexistence of the probable cause. for the reason that it did not particularly describe the place to be searched and that it failed to charge one specific offense. hold that the search warrant is tainted with illegality by the failure of the Judge to conform with the essential requisites of taking the depositions in writing and attaching them to the record. petitioners did not claim to be the owners of the land and/or building on which the machineries were placed. v.R. JUDGE DAYRIT G. as follows: 1) That he has been informed and has good and sufficient reasons to believe that Nemesio Prudente has in his control or possession firearms. December 14 1989 FACTS: P/Major Alladin Dimagmaliw. the Court declared the two warrants null and void. filed with the (RTC) an application for the issuance of a search warrant. We. The description and enumeration in the warrant of the items to be searched and seized did not indicate with specification the subversive nature of the said items. 2) That the undersigned has verified the report and found it to be a fact. Petitioner moved to quash the search warrant. No L-64261 December 26. and (4) the search warrant was issued in . No. Under the Constitution “no search warrant shall issue but upon probable cause to be determined by the Judge or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce”. Chief of Staff G. Florenio C. believes that a Search Warrant should be issued Respondent Judge issued Search Warrant which was enforced by some 200 WPD operatives. Lt. Angeles. the items seized subject to the warrant were real properties. therefore. PRUDENTE VS. to hold liable for perjury the person giving it if it will be found later that his declarations are false. Castillo. In his application for search warrant. More emphatic and detailed is the implementing rule of the constitutional injunction. In addition. The purpose and intent to search two distinct premises was evident in the issuance of the two warrant. As to the issue that the items seized were real properties. among others. the court applied the principle in the case of Davao Sawmill Co. P/Major Alladin Dimagmaliw alleged. Probable cause for a search is defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. and therefore. rendering the search warrant invalid. (3) the search warrant was a general warrant. ruling “that machinery which is movable by nature becomes immobilized when placed by the owner of the tenement. Jose Burgos vs.” In the case at bar. However. Petitioners prayed that a writ of preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction be issued for the return of the seized articles. or any other person having only a temporary right. Mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are thus not sufficient. and attach them to the record. Held: The defect in the indication of the same address in the two warrants was held by the court as a typographical error and immaterial in view of the correct determination of the place sought to be searched set forth in the application. unless such person acted as the agent of the owner. usufructuary.R. while in fact bolted to the ground remain movable property susceptible to seizure under a search warrant. the machineries in question. The Court ruled that the affidavits submitted for the application of the warrant did not satisfy the requirement of probable cause. in addition to any affidavits presented to him. property or plant. 82870. The Rules provide that the judge must before issuing the warrant personally examine on oath or affirmation the complainant and any witnesses he may produce and take their depositions in writing. He claimed that (1) the complainant's lone witness. but not so when placed by a tenant. Issue: Whether or not the two warrants were valid to justify seizure of the items. State of Texas). Furthermore. and that respondents be enjoined from using the articles thus seized as evidence against petitioner. (Stanford vs. had no personal knowledge of the facts which formed the basis for the issuance of the search warrant. This being the case.

Florenio Angeles shows that it was too brief and short. the questions asked were leading as they called for a simple "yes" or "no" answer. president and chairman of the board of directors of the insurance firm. For a valid search warrant to issue. HELD: No. October 27-28. It appears that the respondent judge intended the search to apply to all the three classes of property. the complainant and any witness he may produce. Respondent Judge did not examine him "in the form of searching questions and answers. contests the validity of the search warrant on the ground that it authorized the search and seizure of personal properties so vaguely described and . 5. The probable cause must be in connection with one specific offense and the judge must. its workers. as manifested in the petition filed by the petitioner The search warrant reads in part: “x x x property should be seized and brought to the undersigned. denying the petitioner's motion and supplemental motion to quash. 1965 Armed with the search warrant." Asian Surety & Insurance Co . Moreover. 19 of the Supreme Court in that the complainant failed to allege under oath that the issuance of the search warrant on a Saturday was urgent.. Manuel Cuaresma. in his supporting deposition. upon the sworn application of NBI agent Celso Zoleta. including the government itself. on facts personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn statements together with any affidavits submitted. The petitioner also manifested that the seizure of TWO carloads of their papers has paralyzed their business to the grave prejudice of not only the company. 8 and 10 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court." This probable cause must be shown to be within the personal knowledge of the complainant or the witnesses he may produce and not based on mere hearsay." On the contrary. and that he "has verified the report and found it to be a fact. after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. a perusal of the deposition of P/Lt. End of Issue The criminal charges filed by the NBI have all been dismissed and/or dropped by the court or by the office of the City Fiscal of Manila in 1968. IV of the New Constitution. papers and receipt. has been defined "as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed. they "gathered informations from verified sources" that the holders of the said fire arms and explosives are not licensed to possess them. Florenio C.. but acquired knowledge thereof only through information from other sources or persons. falsification. issued a search warrant against the corporation. "Probable cause" for a valid search warrant.” The judge made no attempt to determine whether the property he authorized to be searched and seized pertains specifically to any one of the three classes of personal property that may be searched and seized under a search warrant. and conducting of examination in a general manner. particularly Section 3. 1965 Judge Herrera. and Sections 3. Angeles declared that. which is to be determined personally by the judge." On the other hand. October 27-28. agents. Respondent Judge issued an order. Zoleta and other agents entered the premises of the Republic Supermarket Building and served the search warrant in the presence of Mr. P/Lt. vs. Herrera Facts of the case: 1961 – 1964 Believed that the four offenses alleged to Asian Surety & Insurance Co.. Inc. In his application for search warrant. 1965 The Asian Surety & Insurance Company Inc. tax evasion & insurance fraud – took place.violation of Circular No. and that objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. of Art. in writing and under oath. Asian Surety & Insurance Co. In other words. there must be PROBABLE CAUSE. William Li Yao. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration 10 was likewise denied ISSUE: Whether or not there was probable cause to satisfy the issuance of a search warrant. P/Major Alladin Dimagmaliw stated that "he has been informed" that Nemesio Prudente "has in his control and possession" the firearms and explosives described therein. Jr. Inc. filed a petition assailing the validity of the search warrant. before issuing the warrant. personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. the applicant and his witness had no personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances which became the basis for issuing the questioned search warrant. After the search they seized and carried away two carloads of documents. October 27. supported by the deposition of his witness. claiming that it was issued in contravention of the explicit provisions of the Constitution and the Rules of Court. as a result of their continuous surveillance for several days. and of the general public. employees but also of its numerous insured and beneficiaries of bonds issued by it. Asking of leading questions to the deponent in an application for search warrant. Inc – estafa. would not satisfy the requirements for issuance of a valid search warrant.

unconstitutional and of no force and effect… The power of the President to order the arrest of aliens for deportation is. Probable cause must be personally determined by the judge after examination under oath of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce before the issuance of a search warrant. Under the Constitution. like the one at bar. may no longer issue search or arrest warrants. Inc. Achacoso 183 SCRA 145 G. Bache & Co. exceptional. paragraph (c).. no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. Issue: Whether or not the issuance of the said warrant is valid. Without costs. She also alleged that it violated sec 2 of the Bill of Rights. the search and seizure order was in the nature of a general warrant. It also assails the non-compliance with the Sec 2 of Rule 126 which provides that a search warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of the enumerated personal properties including the property subject of the offense. and that involves the exemption of his private affairs. On the same day. not being a judge. The team confiscated assorted costumes. Petitioner contends that the application for the search warrant and the joint deposition of witnesses failed to fulfill the requirements prescribed by the Constitution on the ground that probable cause was not personally determined. the petition is GRANTED. papers and other objects seized or taken therunder. B. Yao or his employees committed offenses using their properties. It stated that there will a seizure of the documents and paraphernalia being used or intended to be used as the means of committing illegal recruitment. Supreme Court The petition was granted. Petitioner filed with POEA a letter requesting for the return of the seized properties. 1205. paragraph (c) of the Labor Code is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL and null and void. No.not particularized. the authorities must go through the judicial process. Hence. It clearly violates the Constitutional Law: the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures stating that the right of personal security. of the Labor Code. 1990 Facts: Rosalie Tesoro of Pasay City in a sworn statement filed with the POEA. Achacoso Case Digest Salazar Vs. The court held that the warrant is null and void. 2010 . To that extent. 1205 to petitioner. is nullified and set aside. 2011 (Constitutional Law – Search Warrant. “. because it must identify specifically the things to be seized. accompanied by mediamen and Mandaluyong policemen. Article 38. Inc. obviously. because she was not given prior notice and hearing. “We reiterate that the Secretary of Labor. it is the sole domain of the courts. Court of Appeals. books and papers from the inspection and scrutiny of others. It (the power to order arrests) cannot be made to extend to other cases. is an important factor to peace and happiness. who let them in. we declare Article 38. WHEREFORE. The group. The Closure and Seizure Order was based on Article 38 of the Labor Code.” Furthermore. and the respondents were ordered to return immediately all documents. and the properties were confiscated against her will and were done with unreasonable force and intimidation. They served the order to a certain Mrs. et al vs BIR Commissioner Vivencio Ruiz et al on November 16. went to petitioner’s residence. The said Order violated due process. Lower Court Judge Herrera approved the respondents’ application and commanded them to make an immediate search at any time to Asian Surety & Insurance Co. . charged petitioner with illegal recruitment. The Supreme Court held. a search warrant was issued against Siao and the same complaint was filed against petitioner for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law. for there are good & sufficient reasons to believe that Mr. it having verified that petitioner has— (1) No valid license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment to recruit and deploy workers for overseas employment. digested Posted by Pius Morados on November 11. after knowing that petitioner had no license to operate a recruitment agency.R. For a Salazar. Ferdinand Marquez sent petitioner a telegram directing him to appear to the POEA regarding the complaint against him. The respondents are ORDERED to return all materials seized as a result of the implementation of Search and Seizure Order No. Issue: Whether or Not the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (or the Secretary of Labor) can validly issue warrants of search and seizure (or arrest) under Article 38 of the Labor Code Held: Under the new Constitution. public respondent Administrator Tomas Achacoso issued a Closure and Seizure Order No. Public respondent Atty. 1965. the search warrant of October 27. 81510 March 14. Salazar Vs. 84873. Mayors and prosecuting officers cannot issue warrants of seizure or arrest. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized”. Pendon vs. Probable Cause) Facts: Based on the application and joint deposition. (2) Committed/are committing acts prohibited under Article 34 of the New Labor Code in relation to Article 38 of the same code. Held: No. A team was then tasked to implement the said Order. Ratio Decidendi A. . GR No.

However. 208 and 209. where by the nature of the goods to be seized. journals. contracts. ISSUE: Whether or not there had been a valid search warrant. J Ruiz asked respondent Logronio to take the oath and warned him that if his deposition was found to be false and without legal basis. The search was subsequently conducted. The constitutional requirement of reasonable particularity of description of the things to be seized is primarily meant to enable the law enforcers serving the warrant to: (1) readily identify the properties to be seized and thus prevent them from seizing the wrong items. he instructed his Deputy Clerk of Court to take the depositions of De Leon and Logronio. columnars. J Ruiz failed to personally examine the complainant and his witness. receipts for payments received.Search and Seizure – Personal Examination of the Judge On 24 Feb 1970. customers ledgers). A raid conducted by operatives of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and Philippine National Police Narcotics Command (PNP NARCOM) at premises allegedly leased by appellant and at his residence yielded huge quantities of marijuana. promissory notes and deeds of sale. however. business communications. that this Court deemed it fit to amend Section 3 of Rule 122 of the former Rules of Court that ‘a search warrant shall not issue but upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense. covering the years 1966 to 1970. alias “Estoy Tee. The search warrant was issued for more than one specific offense. receipts and disbursements books. records of bank deposits and withdrawals. In an information dated July 24. The next day. and thereafter. Frank Uy & Unifish Packing Corp. that the warrant should particularly describe the things to be seized.’ Not satisfied with this qualification. The documents. has no leg to stand on. he could be charged for perjury. wrote a letter addressed to J Ruiz requesting the issuance of a search warrant against petitioners for violation of Sec 46(a) of the NIRC. Sec. A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to be seized when the description therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow or when the description expresses a conclusion of fact not of law by which the warrant officer may be guided in making the search and seizure or when the things described are limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. by means of a note. and authorizing Revenue Examiner de Leon make and file the application for search warrant which was attached to the letter. HELD: The SC ruled in favor of Bache on three grounds. telex and coded messages. What the Constitution seeks to avoid are search warrants of broad or general characterization or sweeping descriptions. since the requirement of a technical description would mean that no warrant could issue. of the Constitution. the City Prosecutor of Baguio City charged Modesto Tee. papers and effects sought to be seized are described in the Search Warrant “Unregistered and private books of accounts (ledgers. Commissioner Vera of Internal Revenue. directing that ‘no search warrant shall issue for more than one specific offense. which will authorize police officers to undertake a fishing expedition to seize and confiscate any and all kinds of evidence or articles relating to an offense. certificates of stocks and securities. accounting and business records. As ruled in Stonehill “Such is the seriousness of the irregularities committed in connection with the disputed search warrants. checks and check stubs. a businessman. 72. de Leon and his witnesses went to CFI Rizal to obtain the search warrant. and (2) leave said peace officers with no discretion regarding the articles to be seized and thus prevent unreasonable searches and seizures. The pendency of said motion. did not stop the filing of the appropriate charges against appellant. After the session had adjourned.” with illegal possession of marijuana. Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court. J Ruiz was informed that the depositions had already been taken. 73. in relation to all other pertinent provisions thereof. it is not required that technical precision of description be required. Appellant moved to quash the search warrant on the ground that it was too general and that the NBI had not complied with the requirements for the issuance of a valid search warrant. At that time J Ruiz was hearing a certain case.” The description does not meet the requirement in Art III. The stenographer read to him her stenographic notes. 1998. 3. their description must be rather general. particularly. ISSUE: Whether or not the appellant's contention that the description on the serach warrant which says “an undetermined amount of marijuana. and of Sec. the Court added thereto a paragraph. The search warrant in question was issued for at least four distinct offenses under the Tax Code. The search warrant does not particularly describe the things to be seized. vs Bureau of Internal Revenue et al on November 15. PEOPLE VS TEE FACTS: Appellant is a Chinese national in his forties.” was too general and hence makes the warrant void for vagueness. 1. 3. and records of foreign remittances. J Ruiz signed de Leon’s application for search warrant and Logronio’s deposition. 2010 . 2. particularly Sects 53. and a resident of Baguio City. 1. Personal examination by the judge of the complainant and his witnesses is necessary to enable him to determine the existence or non-existence of a probable cause. HELD: SC held that the appellant’s contention. so.

and (4) the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized. are: (1) the warrant must be issued upon probable cause. A third warrant was issued on the same day for the alleged violation of Uy of Sec 238 in relation to sec 263. 49 (the old Intellectual Property Law). In Oct 1993. The CA dismissed the appeal for a certiorari is not the proper remedy. the BIR requested before RTC Cebu to issue a search warrant. The SC noted that there has been inconsistencies in the description of the place to be searched as indicated in the said warrants. The lower court issued the desired search warrants. accompanied by members of the PNP.: I. G. on 2 Oct 1993. Article III of the Constitution guarantees the right of the people against unreasonable searches and seizures: The right of the people to be secure in their persons. the judge properly lifted the search warrants he issued earlier. a former employee of UPC reported to the BIR that Uy Chin Ho aka Frank Uy. Judge GozoDadole issued a warrant on the same day. On the strength of these warrants. among other things. Rodrigo Abos. He used generic itineraries. houses.R. UPC filed a motion to quash the warrants which was denied by the RTC. 49. (3) in the determination of probable cause. This is a violation of Sec 253 & 263 of the Internal Revenue Code. 1988 DECISION rd (3 Division) GUTIERREZ. THE FACTS th Petitioner 20 Century Fox Film Corporation sought the assistance of the NBI in conducting searches and seizures in connection with the NBI’s anti-film piracy campaign. Court of Appeals.Search and Seizure – Requisites of a Valid Search Warrant In Sept 1993. under oath or affirmation. NBI agents who acted as witnesses during the application for search warrant did not have personal knowledge of the subject matter of their testimony. J. agents of the BIR. was selling thousands of cartons of canned cartons without issuing a report. The SC however noted that the inconsistencies wered cured by the issuance of the latter warrant as it has revoked the two others. searched the premises of the UPC. Also the thing to be seized was not clearly defined by the judge. Nos. One warrant was directed only against Uy and the other was against Uy and UPC. HELD: The SC ruled in favor of UPC and Uy in a way for it ordered the return of the seized items but sustained the validity of the warrant. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the lower court. A search warrant must conform strictly to the requirements of the foregoing constitutional and statutory provisions. A second warrant was issued which contains the same substance but has only st one page. and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce. The CA affirmed the trial court. the records and documents of UPC. The warrants were also inconsistent as to who should be searched. II. which was granted by the lower court.] YES. These warrants were issued for the alleged violation by Uy of Sec 253. The lower court lifted the three (3) questioned search warrants in the absence of probable cause that the private respondents violated P. August 19. The NBI.D. accompanied by the petitioner's agents. manager of UPC. and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable. ISSUE: Whether or not there was a valid search warrant issued. Only the petitioner’s counsel who was also a witness during the application stated . raided the video outlets and seized the items described in the three warrants. 20th Century Fox Film v. which was the alleged commission of the offense of piracy by the private respondents. in outline form. They appealed before the CA via certiorari. the same was dated Oct 1 2003. The SC ruled that the search warrant issued has not met some basic requisites of validity.. the judge must examine. THE RULING [The Court DISMISSED the petition and AFFIRMED the questioned decision and resolution of the CA. These requirements. (2) the probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by the applicant or any other person. THE ISSUE Did the judge properly lift the search warrants he issued earlier? III. papers. A return of said search was duly made by Labaria with the RTC of Cebu. Petitioner alleged that certain videotape outlets all over Metro Manila are engaged in the unauthorized sale and renting out of copyrighted films in violation of PD No. 7664951. They seized. Private respondents later filed a motion to lift the search warrants and release the seized properties. Section 2. JR. The NBI conducted surveillance and investigation of the outlets pinpointed by the petitioner and subsequently filed three (3) applications for search warrants against the video outlets owned by the private respondents.

Accordingly. The court cannot presume that duplicate or copied tapes were necessarily reproduced from master tapes that it owns. declaring that the testimony of petitioner’s counsel did not have much credence because the master tapes of the allegedly pirated tapes were not shown to the court during the application.that he had personal knowledge that the confiscated tapes owned by the private respondents were pirated tapes taken from master tapes belonging to the petitioner. The essence of a copyright infringement is the similarity or at least substantial similarity of the purported pirated works to the copyrighted work. HELD: Rule 126. Cortes and his group started searching the house. even though the second part. is not. The fact that there was no probable cause to support the application for the seizure of drug paraphernalia does not warrant the conclusion that the search warrant is void. The fact is that none was taken by virtue of the search warrant issued. They heard people inside the house. If at all. Kamuning. one (1) search warrant may thus be validly issued for the said violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. 2001 FACTS: Sr. he was able to purchase 2. ascertain and identify the place intended to be searched. with reasonable effort. After the search. Aguilar applied for a warrant in the RTC to search the residence of accused-appellant Robert Salanguit y Ko. ISSUE: Whether or not the search warrant was valid. who testified that as a poseur-buyer. The sale took place in accused-appellant's room. Accordingly. Accused-appellant contends that the warrant was issued for more than one specific offense because possession or use of methamphetamine hydrochloride and possession of drug paraphernalia are punished under two different provisions of R. PEOPLE VS. a paper clip box also containing a white crystalline substance. the search warrant is void only insofar as it authorized the seizure of drug paraphernalia. from which the pirated films were allegedly copied. April 19. which was issued on probable cause and particularly describing the items to be seized on the basis thereof. A description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can. EDSA. Hence. SALANGUIT G. is to be invalidated in toto because the judge erred in authorizing a search for other items not supported by the evidence. the police operatives took accusedappellant with them to Station 10. Insp. and two bricks of dried leaves which appeared to be marijuana wrapped in newsprint having a total weight of approximately 1. Mere allegations as to the existence of the copyrighted films cannot serve as basis for the issuance of a search warrant. He presented as his witness SPO1 Edmund Badua. Quezon City. we hold that the first part of the search warrant.R. The police operatives knocked on accused-appellant’s door.A. along with the items they had seized. but it is valid as to the seizure of methamphetamine hydrochloride as to which evidence was presented showing probable cause as to its existence. 6425. It would be a drastic remedy indeed if a warrant. A receipt of the items seized was prepared. authorizing the search of accused-appellant's house for an undetermined quantity of shabu. was necessary for the validity of search warrants against those who have in their possession the pirated films. No. The petitioner's argument to the effect that the presentation of the master tapes at the time of application may not be necessary as these would be merely evidentiary in nature and not determinative of whether or not a probable cause exists to justify the issuance of the search warrants is not meritorious. and Badua saw that the shabu was taken by accused-appellant from a cabinet inside his room. apparently panicking. is valid. but nobody opened it. therefore. No. Lt. They found 12 small heat-sealed transparent plastic bags containing a white crystalline substance. This linkage of the copyrighted films to the pirated films must be established to satisfy the requirements of probable cause. . but the accused-appellant refused to sign it. This fact would be material only if drug paraphernalia was in fact seized by the police. The lower court lifted the warrants. The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 is a special law that deals specifically with dangerous drugs which are subsumed into "prohibited" and "regulated" drugs and defines and penalizes categories of offenses which are closely related or which belong to the same class or species. with respect to the search for drug paraphernalia.255 grams. §4 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that a search warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. After showing the search warrant to the occupants of the house.12 grams of shabu from accused-appellant. The presentation of the master tapes of the copyrighted films. The police operatives then forced the door open and entered the house. and a search warrant was later issued. 133254-55. the applicant must present to the court the copyrighted films to compare them with the purchased evidence of the video tapes allegedly pirated to determine whether the latter is an unauthorized reproduction of the former. The application was granted. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines.

San Jose Del Monte. 8. This is contested by accused-appellant. The question is whether these requisites were complied with by the authorities in seizing the marijuana in this case. Apt 1207 Area F.126859.45 caliber pistol. as attested to by SPO1 Badua in his depostion. 1995. Found in Apartment No. or more explicitly. 2 at 154 Obiniana Compound. Kalookan City. Branch 125. and only in the warrant itself. Under the "plain view doctrine. presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court. People vs Court of Appeals (291 SCRA 400) FACTS A petition for certiorari has been filed to invalidate the order of Judge Casanova which quashed search warrant issued by Judge Bacalla and declared inadmissible for any purpose the items seized under the warrant. 2001 Facts: Judge Geronimo S. A search incident to a lawful arrest is limited to the person of the one arrested and the premises within his immediate control. it is reasonable to assume that the police found the packets of the shabu first. Court of Appeals Posted on June 26. in the same compound and found one (1) .. it cannot be left to the discretion of the police officers conducting the search. On April 1. not what the applicants had in their thoughts. Sarang Palay. Once the valid portion of the search warrant has been executed. 2 were firearms. This should not have been done. It would open wide the door to abuse of the search process. Petitioners were charged before the Regional Trial Court of . No. the police searched Apartment No.e. The place to be searched. The following day Search Warrant No. issued search warrants 54-953 and 55-954 for the search and seizure of certain items in Apartment No. Because the location of the shabu was indicated in the warrant and thus known to the police operatives. presumably during the search conducted after the shabu had been recovered from the cabinet. Bulacan. i. 2013 by winnieclaire tandard GR No. The police failed to allege in this case the time when the marijuana was found. the premises that the executing officers had in their mind. even if it not be that delineated in the warrant. There was no apparent illegality to justify their seizure. was invalid. and what was done was to substitute for the place that the Judge had written down in the warrant. ammunitions and explosives." unlawful objects within the "plain view" of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented in evidence. the shabu subject of the warrant. HELD: The ambiguity lies outside the instrument. Such a change is proscribed by the Constitution which requires inter alia the search warrant to particularly describe the place to be searched as well as the persons or things to be seized. arising from the absence of a meeting of minds as to the place to be searched between the applicants for the warrant and the Judge issuing the same. therefore. What is material in determining the validity of a search is the place stated in the warrant itself. Azfar Hussain who had allegedly in his possession firearms and explosives at Abigail Variety Store. Bagon Buhay Avenue. The marijuana bricks were wrapped in newsprint. >An application for a search warrant was made by S/Insp Brillantes against Mr. September 4. there must be: (a) prior justification. Yousef Al Ghoul vs. The search warrant authorized the seizure of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu but not marijuana. or contemporaneous with. as set out in the warrant. seizure of the latter drug is being justified on the ground that the drug was seized within the "plain view" of the searching party. or had represented in the proofs they submitted to the court issuing the warrant. cannot be amplified or modified by the officers' own personal knowledge of the premises. It would concede to police officers the power of choosing the place to be searched. or whether it was recovered on accused-appellant's person or in an area within his immediate control. The particularization of the description of the place to be searched may properly be done only by the Judge. 1. and grant to officers executing a search warrant that discretion which the Constitution has precisely removed from them.seizure of a number of different explosives and firearms. Kalookan City. immediately adjacent to Abigail Variety Store resulting in the arrest of 4 Pakistani nationals and the ISSUE: WON a search warrant was validly issued as regard the apartment in which private respondents were then actually residing. Its recovery. The rationale for permitting such a search is to prevent the person arrested from obtaining a weapon to commit violence. Mangay. whether prior to. 1068 was issued but was served not at Abigail Variety Store but at Apt. the "plain view doctrine" can no longer provide any basis -for admitting the other items subsequently found. Deparo Road. or the evidence they adduced in support of their application for the warrant. or to reach for incriminatory evidence and destroy it. National Capital Judicial Region. and (c) immediate apparent illegality of the evidence before the police. It is neither fair nor licit to allow police officers to search a place different from that stated in the warrant on the claim that the place actually searched — although not that specified in the warrant — is exactly what they had in view when they applied for the warrant and had demarcated in their supporting evidence. (b) inadvertent discovery of the evidence. For this doctrine to apply. However. WON that particular apartment had been specifically described in the warrant.

the person to he arrested has committed. SEPT. No. RATIO: There can be no dispute that. with the following dispositive part: "WHEREFORE. . That the articles seized during the search of Apartment No. or were actually committing an offense when apprehended so that their arrest without .HELD:Arrest and detention is valid. 835 (1971). without a warrant. Policemen may not be restrained from pursuing their task with vigor. ammunitions and explosives. 6 The law expressly allowing arrests without warrant is found in Section 5. is actually committing. the search conducted at Apartment No. enlarged nor amplified by the police. Petitioners contend that the search and seizure orders violated Sections 2 and 3 of the Bill of Rights as well as Section 3 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court on Criminal Procedure because the place searched and articles seized were not described with particularity. The items seized from Apartment No. Revised Rules of Court. pursuant to Presidential Decree No. when lawful. and said witness was not presented at the trial. 2 could not be similarly faulted. They argue that the two-witness requirement under Section 10 of Rule 126 was ignored when only one witness signed the receipt for the properties seized during the search. it would be virtually impossible for the applicants to obtain a search warrant as they would not know exactly what kind of things they are looking for. UMIL VS. The nature of the items ordered to be seized did not require a technical description. in contrast. paragraphs (a) and (b) of the said Rule 113. ISSUE: W/N the items described in the warrant were sufficiently described with particularity. ordering the respective respondents to produce the bodies of the persons named therein and explain why they should not be set off to liberty without delay. except in those cases express authorized by law. A careful examination of the Search Warrants shows that they were worded in such a manner that the enumerated items to be seized could bear a direct relation to the offense of violation of Section 1 and 3 of Presidential Decree No.Petitioners are members of NPA ISSUE: WON the petitioners are illegally arrested and detained.45 caliber pistol taken thereat is inadmissible in evidence against petitioners. without warrant. In the present cases. which read: Sec.000. Exclusion of unlawfully seized evidence is the only practical means of enforcing the constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures. the law does not require that the things to be seized must be described in precise and minute details as to leave no room for doubt on the part of the searching authorities. The search was done in the presence of its occupants. ammunitions and explosives. Hence. we are constrained to declare that the search made at Apartment No. Lim). . 5. the petitions are hereby DISMISSED.00 to P10." .6 Thereafter. 1866.1866. and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrest has committed it. Asuncion.R. (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed.Respondents assert that the privilege of habeas corpus is not available to petitioners as they have been legally arrested and detained by virtue of valid information file in court against them. 2 were described with specifity in the warrants in question.These petitions were consolidated because of the similarity of the issues being raised. The search warrants in question specifically mentioned Apartment No. — A peace officer or a private person may. as amended. herein petitioners. HELD: As held in PICOP v. 8 is illegal and the . Arrest without warrant. (Phil. for brevity) which dismissed the petitions. The record of the cases would show that the persons in whose behalf these petitions for habeas corpus have been filed has freshly committed. 85727 (Espiritu vs. no peace officer or person has the power or authority to arrest anyone without a warrant of arrest. 1990) Digest FACTS: -The are separate motions filed by 8 different petitions seeking reconsideration of the Court's decision promulgated on 9 July 1990 (the decision. the place to be searched cannot be changed. can be conducted.Kalookan City accusing them with illegal possession of firearms. the bail bond for petitioner's provisional liberty is hereby ordered reduced from P60. RAMOS (GR 81567. penalizing illegal possession of firearms. petitioners were arrested and detained. pointed out that one of the tests to determine the particularity in the description of objects to be seized under a search warrant is when the things described are limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. otherwise. 2. Rule 113 of the Rules of Court which states the grounds upon which a valid arrest. Now. Moreover. No costs. except that in G. in accordance with Section 7 of Rule 126. 2 are of the same kind and nature as those items enumerated in the search warrant appears to be beyond cavil. v.). in his presence. as a general rule.000. 8. but in doing so. Substantial similarity of those articles described as a class or species would suffice. praying for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus. The case of Bache and Co. Petitioners allege lack of particularity in the description of objects to be seized pursuant to the warrants. Ruiz . arrest a person: (a) When. the focus is understandably on Section 5. care must be taken that constitutional and legal safeguards are not disregarded.00. or is attempting to commit an offense. 37 SCRA 823. Inc.

His bag was confiscated without a search warrant. there is seizure of evidence from one's person without a search warrant. Manila at around 2:30 p. needless to state a search warrant is not necessary. Article IV of Republic Act 6425. Tondo. arrest a person when. the Court was informed of the death of de la Cruz on 21 February 1989. it is the only effective way of apprehending a criminal in the act of the commission of the offense. Oftentimes.00 marked bill used by Arcoy was found in the possession of Juan de la Cruz together with two aluminum foils and containing marijuana. without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. without a warrant. who was eventually convicted . P/Pfc. a "buy-bust" operation was conducted by the 13th Narcotics Regional Unit through a team composed of T/Sgt. PEOPLE VS. Issue: Whether the warrantless seizure incidental to the buybust operation violates Beltran’s constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure. Entrapment is the employment of such ways and means for the purpose of trapping or capturing a lawbreaker from whose mind the criminal intent originated. There being no violation of the constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure. L-74869. Arcoy gave the prearranged signal to his teammates by scratching his head and his teammates who were strategically positioned in the vicinity.000. in his presence. de la Cruz and Beltran appealed. in Iloilo City.R. In a letter of the Warden. He insisted he did not even know what marijuana looked like and that his business was selling watches and sometimes cigarettes. it was Juan de la Cruz whom Arcoy first negotiated with on the purchase and when Arcoy told De la Cruz that he was buying P10. of 4 May 1987 to catch the pusher/s." The motion was granted. averring that all he had in his bag was his clothing consisting of a jacket.warrant is clearly justified . De la Cruz instructed Reynaldo Beltran to give one aluminum foil of marijuana which Beltran got from his pants' pocket and delivered it to Arcoy. The court. Deogracias Gorgonia at Maliclic St. to pay a fine of P20. the information was amended to include Farida Ali y Hassen. inspected his bag and finding what looked liked marijuana leaves took him to their headquarters for investigation. the fiscal filed a motion to dismiss the charge against Ali on the basis of a sworn statement of the arresting officers absolving her after a 'thorough investigation. He alleged that he was arbitrarily arrested and immediately handcuffed. Sgt. Rodelito Oblice. It is a matter of judicial experience that in the arrest of violators of the Dangerous Drugs Act in a buy-bust operation.. Dante Yang. The PC officers who were in fact waiting for him because of a tip from one their informers simply accosted him. II.00 worth of marijuana. P/Pfc. In his defense. After ascertaining that the foil of suspected marijuana was really marijuana. and each to pay one-half of the costs. Both were arraigned and pleaded not guilty. he was manhandled to force him to admit he was carrying the marijuana. Political Law Facts: Idel Aminnudin. Saying that he only has two watches during that time and that he did not sufficiently proved the injuries allegedly sustained. Adolfo Arcoy as poseur-buyer and Pat. the criminal case against de la Cruz was dismissed in the Supreme Court resolution of 25 September 1989. Thus. Vicente Jimenez. two shirts and two pairs of pants. 1984. S/Sgt. Art.00. the confiscated articles are admissible in evidence. as amended. Manila City Jail. G. Aminnudin disclaimed the marijuana. Held: A buy-bust operation is the method employed by peace officers to trap and catch a malefactor in flagrante delicto. 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes Labels: Case Digests.00 from the two accused. From this decision. and trial proceeded only against the accused-appellant. identified themselves as NARCOM agents and effected the arrest of De la Cruz and Beltran. A peace officer may. in relation to Section 21. The P10. It was found to contain three kilos of what were later analyzed as marijuana leaves by an NBI forensic examiner. The present appellate proceeding is limited only to Beltran. on 15 March 1988. Subsequently. February 06. is actually committing or is attempting to commit an offense. converged at the place. Juan de la Cruz y Gonzales and Reynaldo Beltran y Aniban were charged in Criminal Case 87-54417 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila with violation of Section 4. People vs. Sgt. accused-appellant was arrested on June 25. with the accessory penalties provided by law. the person to be arrested has committed. Juan de la Cruz and Reynaldo Beltran. Regalado (J): 4 concur Facts: After receiving a confidential report from Arnel. 6 Jul 1988] Friday. 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. . the search being incident to a lawful arrest. 18 April 1990] Second Division. Jaime Raposas as Team Leader. However the RTC rejected his allegations. dela Cruz [GR 83260. Adolfo Arcoy acted as the poseur-buyer with Arnel as his companion to buy marijuana worth P10. shortly after disembarking from the M/V Wilcon 9 at about 8:30 in the evening. who had also been arrested with him that same evening and likewise investigated. and that they are detained by virtue of valid information filed against them. At the PC headquarters. dated 3 March 1989. found Dela Cruz and Beltran guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. At the scene. It is essentially a form of entrapment since the peace officer neither instigates nor induces the accused to commit a crime. While it is conceded that in a buy-bust operation.m. An information for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act was filed against him. AMMINUDIN [163 SCRA 402. Later. the malefactors were invariably caught redhanded. The two bundles of suspect articles were confiscated from him and later taken to the NBI laboratory for examination. their informant.

and no plausible explanation has been advanced therefor. testified that appellant sold him 100 grams of dried marijuana leaves wrapped in a plastic bag. The police officers have personal knowledge Held: The NARCOM agents’ procedure in the entrapment of the accused failed to meet the qualification that the suspected drug dealer must be caught red-handed in the act of selling marijuana to a person posing as a buyer. The Court further notes the confusion and ambiguity in the identification of the confiscated marijuana leaves and other prohibited drug paraphernalia presented as evidence against appellant: CIC Taduran. which may be used as proff of the commission of an offense. without a search warrant. Recovered were 19 sticks and 4 teabags of marijuana from a cart inside the chapel and another teabag from Macabante. At the moment of his arrest. SUCRO [195 SCRA 388. then they should. The lower court. No. The said marijuana therefore could not be appreciated as evidence against the defendant. Seraspi to intercept. Had it been their intention to conduct the raid. While the police officers were at the Youth Hostel in Maagama St. Sucro was reported to be selling marijuana at a chapel 2 meters away from Regalado’s house. During the raid. To all appearances. The NARCOM agents could not have justified their act by invoking the urgency and necessity of the situation because the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses reveal that the place had already been put under surveillance for quite some time. a team was subsequently organized and a raid was conducted in the house of the father of the accused. P/Lt. Sec 12 of Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything. No. Defendant was not caught in flagrante delicto. Issue: Whether or Not the lower court was correct in its judgment. Political Law Facts: Pat. he was not committing a crime. (2) Whether or Not evidence from such arrest is admissible. 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes Labels: Case Digests. Macabante was intercepted at Mabini and Maagama crossing in front of Aklan Medical center. herein accused. G. The accused was found positive of ultraviolet powder. Albay. Held: The search was illegal. Thereafter. as the situation did not fall in the circumstances wherein a search may be validly made even without a search warrant. Issues: (1) Whether or Not arrest without warrant is lawful. warantless search and seizures are legal as long as PROBABLE CAUSE existed. February 04. Seraspi. who acted as the poseur buyer. A third buyer was transacting with appellant and was reported and later identified as Ronnie Macabante. it is presumed that they are regularly in performance of their duties. Macabante admitted buying the marijuana from Sucro in front of the chapel. The agent went back to headquarters and made a report. after gaining information that there was an ongoing illegal traffic of prohibited drugs in Tagas. The police team intercepted and arrested SUCRO at the corner of C. when it involves prohibited articles in plain view. 18 Mar 1991] Wednesday. Rule 126.e. However. Quimpo and Veterans. asked for a certain Don. and furthermore he is acquitted of the crime as charged. Castiller) The failure of the police officers to secure a warrant stems from the fact that their knowledge required from the surveillance was insufficient to fulfill requirements for its issuance.Seraspi proceeded to the area. the Don. 4 Feb 1992] Wednesday. As police officers were the ones conducting the surveillance. 95902.(People v. Surprisingly. Nor was he about to do so or had just done so. Political Law Facts: NARCOM agents staged a buy-bust operation. Quimpo to monitor activities of Edison SUCRO (accused). because they easily could. PEOPLE V. Held: Search and seizures supported by a valid warrant of arrest is not an absolute rule. he was like any of the other passengers innocently disembarking from the vessel. found him guilty of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. G. The participating agents were given money treated with ultraviolet powder. since the operation was conducted after the actual exchange. 93239. February 04. PEOPLE VS.R. These activities are reported through radio to P/Lt.Issue: Whether or not search of defendant’s bag is legal. There was no authorization by any search warrant. 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes Labels: Case Digests. i. have first secured a search warrant during that time. Said raid also violated accused’ right against unreasonable search and seizure. met with him and “a certain object wrapped in a plastic” later identified as marijuana was given in exchange for P200. Fulgencio told Lt. what were . considering the evidences obtained and testimonies from the prosecution. the NARCOM agents were able to confiscate dried marijuana leaves and a plastic syringe among others. based on which. One of the agents went to said location. From that moment. when the search is incidental to a lawful arrest. Fulgencio went to Arlie Regalado’s house at C. Macabante saw the police and threw a tea bag of marijuana on the ground.R. RODRIGUEZA [205 SCRA 791. of the actual commission of the crime from the surveillance of the activities of the accused. which could allow warrantless arrest or search. Sucro was monitored to have talked and exchanged things three times.

these prohibited articles were among those confiscated during the so-called follow-up raid in the house of Rodrigueza’s father. NO. which he reported to the police including the revolver. Failure to do so would be fatal to the cause of the prosecution. These requirements have not been established in the case at bar. The patrolmen saw two men looking from side to side. Held: An evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure inadmissible in any proceeding for any purpose as provided by Art.5 of the Rules of Court. Rule 113 and Section 7. 87059. one of whom holding his abdomen. the accused appellant was merely looking from side to side and holding his abdomen. G. 22 JUN 1992] Friday. falls under Section 5. One of them the accused-appellant was found with a . Moreover a person may not be stopped and frisked in a broad daylight or on a busy street on unexplained suspicion. Accused-appellant is acquitted. this Court had the occasion to rule that the plastic bag and the dried marijuana leaves contained therein constitute the corpus delicti of the crime.1866 and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. the existence thereof must be proved with certainty and conclusiveness. Subsequently a criminal charge was brought against him. is actually committing. "C"— Four (4) aluminum foils each containing suspected dried marijuana fruiting tops having a total weight of seven grams then further wrapped with a piece of aluminum foil. Manila. Petitioner posted bail. "B"— Fifty (50) grams of suspected dried marijuana leaves and seeds contained inside a white colored plastic labelled "Robertson". The weapons were taken from them and they were turned over to the police headquarters for investigation. the prosecutor filed the case to the lower court. 6 days after the shooting. Issue: Whether or not the warrantless search and arrest was illegal. At the time of the arrest in question. There was apparently no offense that has just been committed or was being actually committed or at least being attempt by Mengote in their presence. according to the arresting officers themselves. 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes Labels: Case Digests. An information was filed before the RTC convicting the accused of illegal possession of firearm arm. For his part. Rule 112 of The 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides for the rules and procedure pertaining to situations of lawful warrantless arrests. while his companion had a fan knife. and drove off. Judgment is reversed and set aside. while traveling in the wrong direction on a one-way street. the police detained him. who subsequently ordered a manhunt for petitioner. As such. In People vs. A surveillance team of plainclothesmen was forthwith dispatched to the place. almost had a collision with another vehicle. petitioner presented himself in the police station. "D"— Five (5) small transparent plastic bags each containing suspected dried marijuana fruiting tops having a total weight of seventeen grams. GO VS. he claimed that the weapon was planted on him at the time of his arrest. PEOPLE V. The unanswered question then arises as to the identity of the marijuana leaves that became the basis of appellant's conviction. "A"—Thirty (30) grams of suspected dried marijuana fruiting tops contained inside a transparent plastic bag. G. Exh. Exh. Exh. or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. They approached the persons and identified themselves as policemen.R. Prosecutor reasons that the petitioner has waived his right to preliminary investigation as bail has been posted and that such situation. 101837. COURT OF APPEALS [206 SCRA 138. shot the driver of the other vehicle. that petitioner has been arrested without a warrant lawfully. Evidently. 11 FEB 1992] Facts: Petitioner.38 caliber with live ammunitions in it. A witness testified that the weapon was among the articles stolen at his shop. setting and commencing trial without preliminary investigation. accompanied by 2 lawyers. He was convicted for violation of P. provides arrest without warrant lawful when: (a) the person to be arrested has committed. Rubio. In his appeal he pleads that the weapon was not admissible as evidence against him because it had been illegally seized and therefore the fruit of a poisonous tree. NO.submitted to and examined by the PCCL and thereafter utilized as evidence against the appellant were the following items: One (1) red and white colored plastic bag containing the following: Exh. Conviction is reversed and set aside and accused is acquitted. whereupon the two tried to run but unable to escape because the other lawmen surrounded them. Mengote made no effort to prove that he owned the fire arm or that he was licensed to possess it but instead. III sec 32 of the Constitution. and he has personal knowledge of the facts indicating the person arrested has committed it and (c) the person to be arrested has escaped from a penal establishment or a place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending. (b) when the offense in fact has just been committed. Political Law Facts: The Western Police District received a telephone call from an informer that there were three suspicious looking persons at the corner of Juan Luna and North Bay Boulevard in Tondo. "E"— One plastic syringe. or is attempting to commit an offense. An eyewitness of the incident was able to take down petitioner’s plate number and reported the same to the police. The suspects were then searched. February 06. Petitioner thereafter got out of his car. Exh.D.R. Rule 113 sec. MENGOTE [210 SCRA 174. Petitioner in his petition for .

Pistol and Casio wristwatch said to belong to Alfaro. they peeped through a small window and saw a man and woman repacking suspected marijuana. Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that the arresting officer must have “personal knowledge” nor was the offense “in fact just been committed. as when he walked in the police station.Afterwhich. Ramos. ISSUE: Whether or not the arrest and seizure of the gun and the watch was valid. becomes moot in view of the eyewitness account of Manlapaz which the Court found credible. Perez may have personally gathered the information which led to the arrest of Manlulu. The law requires “personal knowledge”. wherein the Court upheld the warrantless arrest as valid effected 1 to 14 days from actual commission of the offenses. prosecutor is ordered to conduct preliminary investigation.” While Pat. preliminary investigation should have been scheduled to determine probable cause. “personal gathering of information” is different from personal knowledge. Karuhatan Valenzuela Metro Manila. The RTC convicted them of the crime charged. People v. some nineteen hours later. he neither expressed surrender nor any statement that he was or was not guilty of any crime. without a warrant and without informing Manlulu of his right to counsel. fatal as it may be. necessarily in a criminal charge. However.45 cal. still the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Manlulu and Samson were arrested nineteen hours after the incident. (2) WON petitioner effectively waived his right to preliminary investigation. She insists that the trial court should not regard the testimony of PO3 cCarizon credible because he does not have personal knowledge regarding the conduct of the arrest and search making his testimony a hearsay. etc. the police officers arrested the two.e. Paragraph (b) Sec. The rule requires that the arrest immediately follows the commission of the offense. the flaw. When a complaint was filed to the prosecutor. thus they had no personal knowledge and their information regarding petitioner were derived from other sources. Petitioner was not arrested at all. People of the Philippines v. Petition granted. Prosecutor made a substantive error. HELD: Issues: (1) WON warrantless arrest of petitioner was lawful. Section 7. was stabbed and shot in a drinking spree. a NARCOM agent.” i. Rule 113. Upon reaching the house.certiorari assails such procedure and actions undertaken and files for a preliminary investigation. petitioner is ordered released upon posting a bail bond.8 of Article II of Republic Act 6425 otherwise known as Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. Brigida St. that is not enough. 5. Obviously. The killing took place at one o’clock in the morning. His drinking companions. not some nineteen hours later. Rule 112. membership in an outlawed organization. and the exclusion of real evidence. where the same is required appear thereat. as well as his extra-judicial confession which was taken in violation of the Constitution. They enter the house and introduce themselves as police officers and confiscated the tea bag and other drug paraphernalia. Zenaida Bolasa Facts: FACTS: An informer told the police that an illegal transaction of prohibited drugs were being conducted at a certain house in Sta. who was also drinking with the accused and the victim. . trial for the criminal case is suspended pending result from preliminary investigation. Patrolman Perez arrested Manlulu on the information given by Manlapaz. petitioner is entitled to preliminary investigation. the tea bags were confirmed as marijuana. PO3 Salonga and Carizon together with SPO1 Fernando Arenas immediately proceed to the said house. In spite of the nullification of the arrest of accused Manlulu. Held: Petitioner and prosecutor err in relying on Umil v. which however constituted “continuing crimes. Accused Bolasa asserts that the search and her arrest was illegal. Alfaro. Further. This instance cannot come within the purview of a valid warrantless arrest. Manlulu The warrantless arrest was invalid. Zenaida Bolasa and Roberto de los Reyes were charged with violation of Sec. There was no lawful warrantless arrest under Section 5. Upon examination by the NBI.Zenaida Bolasa and Roberto de los Reyes. Patrolman Perez seized from Manlulu the . subversion. does not apply. This is because the arresting officers were not actually there during the incident. The arrest and the consequent search and seizure came at around seven o’clock that evening.

Appellant put up the defense of alibi alleging that he was having merienda with his wife and children when the incident occurred. This resulted to his death. were committing or about to commit a crime. The Supreme Court held that the arrest was invalid because the arresting officers had no personal knowledge that at the time of their arrest. the accompanying search was also illegal. (A person charged with an offense may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense Pp. wherein he was detained after. they brought him to the Homicide . He also alleged that he had an altercation with a woman on that day who caused his arrest for the crime of malicious mischief. (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent. The court stated that the arresting officers should have first conducted a surveillance considering that the identities and addressed of the suspected culprits were already ascertained.Issue: Whether or not the arrest and seizure were valid Ruling: No. or a stop and frisk situations. accused-apellants had just committed. With respect to the seizure of the tea bags. The Court held that the State cannot in a cavalier fashioni ntrude into the persons of its citizens as well as into their houses. Citing the Rules of Criminal Procedure on lawful warrantless arrest. they should have secured a warrant prior to effecting a valid arrest and seizure. He was thereafter taken in custody. 3. Salvatierra Facts: While Charlie Fernandez was walking towards Quiapo. (c) when the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending. 1990 the police received a complaint that appellant was creating a commotion. or is about to commit an offense in his presence. (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who havethe right to be where they are.5. The constitutional provision protects the privacy and sanctity of the person himself against unlawful arrests and other forms of restraint The Court enumerated the exceptions as follows: 1.4. The constitutional provision protects the privacy and sanctity of the person himself against unlawful arrests and other forms of restraint. vs. the search cannot be categorized as a search of a moving vehicle.( b) when an offense has in fact been committed and he has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested hascommitted it. (d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further search. the Court stated that an arrest is lawful even in theabsence of a warrant :(a) when the person to be arrested has committed. Then. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest. and. a customs search. appellant and the 2 accused lunged a pointed instrument at Charlie. The arrest being illegal ab initio. 15. The arresting officers also have no personal knowledge that a crime was committed nor have a reasonable ground to believe that the accused committed the crime. when police arrived. Highly regulated by the government. And accused appellants were not prisoners who have escaped from a penal establishment. Search of evidence in plain view. is actually committing. Exigent and emergency circumstances. papers and effects. Customs search . The Court held that the State cannot in a cavalier fashioni ntrude into the persons of its citizens as well as into their houses. or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement toanother. Stop and Frisk. and 7. and.the court held that it is also invalid because the objects were not seized in plain view. Search of a moving vehicle. Every evidence thus obtained during the illegal search cannot be used against the accusedappellants. papers and effects. After conducting the surveillance and determining the existence of probable cause. The elements of the plain view doctrine are: (a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the policeare legally present in the pursuit of their official duties. On Nov.6. In like manner. 2. Consented warrantless search . hitting the latter at the left breast. The police officers intentionally peeped through the window to ascertain the activities of appellants inside the room. a consented warrantless arrest. the vehicle s inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable causethat the occupant committed a criminal activity . There was no valid intrusion and the evidence was not inadvertently discovered.

Administration. NO RATIO Re: warrantless arrest Gaddao ’s warrantless arrest was illegal because she was arrested solely on the basis of the alleged identification made by Doria. They frisked him but did not find the marked bills on him. and upon inquiry. thus making the arrest illegal. scope and definition > Types > Warrantless search and seizure > “ Plain view ” doctrine FACTS Members of the PNP Narcotics Command received information that one “ Jun” [Doria] was engaged in illegal drug activities. he admitted that he merely presumed the contents to be marijuana because it had the same plastic wrapping as the "buy-bust marijuana. doria. so he entered the house and took hold of the box. In his direct examination. making its warrantless seizure valid. Florencio Doria *“ Jun ”+ and Violeta Gaddao [ “Neneth ” ] 22 Jan 1999 / Puno / Appeal from a Pasig RTC decision Search and seizure > Nature. contraband or otherwise subject to seizure An object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly exposed to sight. Standing by the door. the object itself is not in plain view and therefore cannot be seized without a warrant. PO3 Manlangit noticed a carton box under the dining table. People v. If the package is such that an experienced observer could infer from its appearance that it contains the prohibited article. If there is no showing that the person who effected the warrantless arrest had knowledge of facts implicating the person arrested to the perpetration of the criminal offense. Delivery. “ Jun” identified her as “Neneth. plain view. Section 4 [Sale. It must be immediately apparent to the police that the items that they observe may be evidence of a crime. warrantless search People v. He was arrested. The difficulty arises when the object is inside a closed container. so they decided to entrap and arrest him in a buy-bust operation. but as the person with whom he left the marked bills. however. Since the warrantless arrest of Gaddao was illegal. pink or blue . Where the object seized was inside a closed package. The law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area b. otherwise. Issue: W/N the arrest is violative of his constitutional rights? Held: No. Requisites a. Distribution and Transportation of Prohibited Drugs] in relation to Section 21 [Attempt and Conspiracy]. He peeked inside the box and saw 10 bricks of what appeared to be dried marijuana leaves. The team found the door open and a woman inside the house. Appellant is estopped from questioning the legality of his arrest considering that he never raised it before entering his plea. Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure in the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before he enters his plea. On crossexamination. Appellant claimed that the arrest was made almost 3 months after the commission of the crime and no warrant had been obtained during the 3-month intervening period between the commission of the crime and his apprehension. The discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent c. The bricks were examined and they were found to be dried marijuana leaves. so he led the police team to her house. This identification does not necessarily mean that Gaddao conspired with Doria in pushing drugs. Doria did not point to her as his associate in the drug business. One of the box’ s flaps was open. then the article is deemed in plain view. contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. ” His suspicion aroused.warrantless arrest. PO3 Manlangit said that he was sure that the contents of the box were marijuana because he himself checked and marked the said contents.Section where he was investigated for the stabbing of Fernandez. RTC convicted them. It is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime. Florencio Doria and Violeta Gaddao were charged with violation of RA 6425 [Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972]. and it appeared similar to the marijuana earlier sold to him by “ Jun. “ Plain view ” issue Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced in evidence. ISSUE AND HOLDING WON RTC correctly found that the box of marijuana was in plain view. dangerous drugs act. the search of her person and home and the subsequent seizure of the marked bills and marijuana cannot be deemed legal as an incident to her arrest. Doria Tags: criminal procedure. and inside it was something wrapped in plastic. plain view doctrine. ” and she was asked by SPO1 Badua about the marked money as PO3 Manlangit looked over her house [he was still outside the house]. he revealed that he left it at the house of his associate “ Neneth ” [Gaddao]. the arrest is legally objectionable. the objection is deemed waived. people v.white. doria." Each of the ten bricks of marijuana in the box was individually wrapped in old newspaper and placed inside plastic bags-. SPO1 Badua recovered the marked bills from “ Neneth ” and they arrested her.

It was fruit of the poisonous tree and should have been excluded and never considered by the trial court. A receipt of the items seized was prepared. They heard people inside the house. He presented as his witness SPO1 Edmund Badua. Aruta alighted from a Victory Liner Bus carrying a travelling bag even as the informant pointed her out to the law enforcement officers.600. and Badua saw that the shabu was taken by accused-appellant from a cabinet inside his room. and two bricks of dried leaves which appeared to be marijuana wrapped in newsprint having a total weight of approximately 1.255 grams. SALANGUIT G. it being not incidental to a lawful arrest. must be rejected. The police operatives knocked on accused-appellant’s door. 2010 Search and Seizure – Informer’s Tip In the morning of 13 Dec 1988. . The fact that the box containing about 6 kilos of marijuana was found in Gaddao ’s house Gaddao does not justify a finding that she herself is guilty of the crime charged. she gave the same to him. they found dried marijuana leaves. Abello about the contents of her travelling bag. It was not immediately apparent to PO3 Manlangit that the content of the box was marijuana. 133254-55. the poseur-buyer  Prosecution failed to prove that Gaddao conspired with accused-appellant Doria in the sale of said drug DORIA SENTENCED TO SUFFER RECLUSION PERPETUA + 500K FINE GADDAO ACQUITTED People of the Philippines vs Rosa Aruta y Menguin on November 16. there was no legal basis for the NARCOM agents to effect a warrantless search of Aruta’s bag. hence. ISSUE: Whether or not the conducted search and seizure is constitutional. It was only when the informant pointed to Aruta and identified her to the agents as the carrier of the marijuana that she was singled out as the suspect. No. The NARCOM agents would not have apprehended Aruta were it not for the furtive finger of the informant because. After showing the search warrant to the occupants of the house. who testified that as a poseur-buyer. there was no reason whatsoever for them to suspect that accused-appellant was committing a crime. Aruta was merely crossing the street and was not acting in any manner that would engender a reasonable ground for the NARCOM agents to suspect and conclude that she was committing a crime. Kamuning. but the accused-appellant refused to sign it. The sale took place in accused-appellant's room. the police operatives took accusedappellant with them to Station 10. In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs. what is material is the submission of proof that the sale took place between the poseur-buyer and the seller and the presentation of the drug as evidence in court. NARCOM officers approached her and introduced themselves as NARCOM agents. Doria sold and delivered 970 grams of marijuana to PO3 Manlangit. Aruta was then brought to the NARCOM office for investigation. it was not in plain view and its seizure without the requisite search warrant was in violation of the law and the Constitution. therefore. 2001 FACTS: Sr. the articles seized could not be used as evidence against accused-appellant for these are “fruits of a poisoned tree” and. except for the pointing finger of the informant. He did not know exactly what the box contained that he had to ask appellant Gaddao about its contents. The constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure must perforce operate in favor of accused-appellant. a paper clip box also containing a white crystalline substance. When asked by Lt. Neither was she about to commit one nor had she just committed a crime. The application was granted. Lt. Consequently. EDSA. As such. he was able to purchase 2. HELD: The SC ruled in favor of Aruta and has noted that some drug traffickers are being freed due to technicalities. They found 12 small heat-sealed transparent plastic bags containing a white crystalline substance.  Prosecution established the fact that in consideration of the P1. Aruta cannot be said to be committing a crime. as clearly illustrated by the evidence on record. Aguilar applied for a warrant in the RTC to search the residence of accused-appellant Robert Salanguit y Ko. Stated otherwise. the law enforcement officers received information from an informant named “Benjie” that a certain “Aling Rosa” would be leaving for Baguio City on 14 Dec 1988 and would be back in the afternoon of the same day carrying with her a large volume of marijuana. When they opened the same. At 6:30 in the evening of 14 Dec 1988. Quezon City. The SC could neither sanction nor tolerate as it is a clear violation of the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure. Neither was there any semblance of any compliance with the rigid requirements of probable cause and warrantless arrests.R. it logically follows that the subsequent search was similarly illegal. April 19. 3(2) of the Constitution. Insp. PO3 Manlangit himself admitted on crossexamination that the contents of the box could be items other than marijuana. The police operatives then forced the door open and entered the house. but nobody opened it. and a search warrant was later issued. After the search. there being no probable cause and the accused-appellant not having been lawfully arrested. ISSUE: Whether or not the search warrant was valid. the arrest being incipiently illegal. pursuant to Article III.00 he received.12 grams of shabu from accused-appellant.in color. PEOPLE VS. Sec. along with the items they had seized. apparently panicking. Cortes and his group started searching the house.

which was issued on probable cause and particularly describing the items to be seized on the basis thereof.e.. Accordingly. ascertain and identify the place intended to be searched. authorizing the search of accused-appellant's house for an undetermined quantity of shabu. therefore. presumably during the search conducted after the shabu had been recovered from the cabinet.HELD: Rule 126. but it is valid as to the seizure of methamphetamine hydrochloride as to which evidence was presented showing probable cause as to its existence. giving Ani two newspaper wrappers containing dried marijuana. Belarga could see what was going on. 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes Labels: Case Digests. with reasonable effort. whether prior to. (b) inadvertent discovery of the evidence. There was no apparent illegality to justify their seizure. It would be a drastic remedy indeed if a warrant. For this doctrine to apply. one (1) search warrant may thus be validly issued for the said violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Ani was ordered by NARCOM leader T/Sgt. Accused-appellant contends that the warrant was issued for more than one specific offense because possession or use of methamphetamine hydrochloride and possession of drug paraphernalia are punished under two different provisions of R. PEOPLE VS. MUSA [217 SCRA 597. Ani was to raise his right hand if he successfully buys marijuana from Musa. or to reach for incriminatory evidence and destroy it. G. even though the second part. is valid. the "plain view doctrine" can no longer provide any basis -for admitting the other items subsequently found. Zamboanga City. there must be: (a) prior justification. Ani was able to buy one newspaper-wrapped dried marijuana for P10. The question is whether these requisites were complied with by the authorities in seizing the marijuana in this case. it is reasonable to assume that the police found the packets of the shabu first. As Ani proceeded to the house. 6425. The fact is that none was taken by virtue of the search warrant issued. Sgt. The police failed to allege in this case the time when the marijuana was found. the NARCOM team positioned themselves about 90 to 100 meters away. and (c) immediate apparent illegality of the evidence before the police.A. 27 JAN 1993] Friday.00. is not. This fact would be material only if drug paraphernalia was in fact seized by the police. A description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can. Belarga. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines. The fact that there was no probable cause to support the application for the seizure of drug paraphernalia does not warrant the conclusion that the search warrant is void. Ani said he wanted more marijuana and gave Musa the P20." unlawful objects within the "plain view" of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented in evidence. However. He raised his right hand as a signal to the . If at all. i. February 06. Once the valid portion of the search warrant has been executed. §4 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that a search warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. we hold that the first part of the search warrant. No. Because the location of the shabu was indicated in the warrant and thus known to the police operatives. to conduct a surveillance and test buy on Musa. This is contested by accused-appellant. Musa went into the house and came back. Musa came out of the house and asked Ani what he wanted. Under the "plain view doctrine. the shabu subject of the warrant. NO. The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 is a special law that deals specifically with dangerous drugs which are subsumed into "prohibited" and "regulated" drugs and defines and penalizes categories of offenses which are closely related or which belong to the same class or species. as attested to by SPO1 Badua in his depostion. Ani opened and inspected it. is to be invalidated in toto because the judge erred in authorizing a search for other items not supported by the evidence. The marijuana bricks were wrapped in newsprint. or whether it was recovered on accused-appellant's person or in an area within his immediate control.. The search warrant authorized the seizure of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu but not marijuana. The rationale for permitting such a search is to prevent the person arrested from obtaining a weapon to commit violence. seizure of the latter drug is being justified on the ground that the drug was seized within the "plain view" of the searching party. the search warrant is void only insofar as it authorized the seizure of drug paraphernalia.00 marked money. Accordingly. The civilian informer guided Ani to Musa’s house and gave the description of Musa. The next day. with respect to the search for drug paraphernalia. From his position. Political Law Facts: A civilian informer gave the information that Mari Musa was engaged in selling marijuana in Suterville. A search incident to a lawful arrest is limited to the person of the one arrested and the premises within his immediate control. 96177. Its recovery. or contemporaneous with.R. was invalid. a buy-bust was planned. therefore.

Bonifacio Barros was charged and convicted of violating Section 4 of R. the vehicle of the petitioner was flagged down because the police officers who were on routine patrol became suspicious when they saw that the back of the vehicle was covered with kakawati leaves which.Barros now appeals from the judgment of conviction and claims that his right to due process was violated when he was searched without the mandatory warrant. the plastic bag was not in the ‘plain view’ of the police. The ‘plain view’ doctrine is usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused. ISSUE: WON the flagging down of his vehicle by police officers who were on routine patrol. 1994 ) Digest FACTS: . It constituted unreasonable search and seizure thus it may not be admitted as evidence.Rudy was found guilty of the crime of theft. . the marijuana inside the plastic bag was not immediately apparent from the ‘plain view’ of said object. 1989. . COURT OF APPEALS and PP FACTS: . The warrantless search and seizure.08 mm aluminum/galvanized conductor wires exclusively owned by NPC. 244. the fact that the vehicle looked suspicious simply because it is not common for such to be covered with kakawati leaves does not constitute "probable cause" as would justify the conduct of a search without a warrant. the ‘plain view’ does not apply. and the latter moved in and arrested Musa inside the house. T/Sgt. James Ayan.A. Issue: Whether or Not the seizure of the plastic bag and the marijuana inside it is unreasonable. Bontoc. The plastic bag was seized illegally and cannot be presented in evidence pursuant to Article III Section 3 (2) of the Constitution. Held: Yes. Alex de Castro. he did not answer. On June 28. the police authorities do not claim to have received any confidential report or tipped information that petitioner was carrying stolen cable wires in his vehicle which could otherwise have sustained their suspicion.other NARCOM agents. 6425. Bonifacio was arrested and subsequently convicted. hence. When asked what was loaded on the jeep. PEOPLE VS.C. to Nacagang. The conductor wires weighed 700 kilos and valued at P55. the two police officers flagged down the vehicle. Sgt. rode the Dangwa Bus. constitutes a waiver. spotted a passenger jeep unusually covered with "kakawati" leaves. Francis Yag-as and S/Sgt. Belarga and Sgt. HELD: . Suspecting that the jeep was loaded with smuggled goods. In the case at bar. Lego went to the kitchen and found a ‘cellophane colored white and stripe hanging at the corner of the kitchen. merely on "suspicion" that "it might contain smuggled goods. In the case at bar. Objects in the ‘plain view’ of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence. However. . MARCH 29. such a warrantless search would be constitutionally permissible only if the officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe. inadmissible as evidence. Sgt. Musa was then placed under arrest. but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. resulting to his warrantless arrest. HELD: When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search.C. Sampalucan. as an incident to a suspect’s lawful arrest. Mountain Province Command. No. that either the motorist is a law-offender or they will find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime in the vehicle to be searched. while on a routine patrol in Brgy. BARROS (GR 90640. In addition. Mountain Province to Baguio City where he carried four (4) kilos of dried marijuana which the accused intended for distribution and sale. Ayan ordered C2C Bongyao to inspect the carton and found out it contained marijuana. officers Yag-as and Ayan Bonifacio Barros carrying that same carton when he boarded the bus at Chackchakan. It will not justify the seizure of the object where the incriminating nature of the object is not apparent from the ‘plain view’ of the object.After alighting at their station. Laguna. Barros was coming from Chackchakan.As both P. They arrested the accused in the living room and moved into the kitchen in search for other evidences where they found the plastic bag. . was unusual and uncommon. a town approximately 8 kilometers away from Sampalucan. board the bus and seated himself and put the carton under his seat. With Rudy’s consent. So they opened it and found dried marijuana leaves inside. Rudy and the vehicle with the high-voltage wires were brought to the Pagsanjan Police Station. Thereafter. Belarga frisked Musa in the living room but did not find the marked money (gave it to his wife who slipped away). Pagsanjan.M/Sgt. according to them. Sabangan. WON Bonifacio was denied due process when he was searched and arrested without warrant.’ They asked Musa about its contents but failed to get a response." constitutes probable cause that will justify a warrantless search and seizure. Victorino Noceja and Pat. may extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include the premises or surroundings under his immediate control. Furthermore. he appeared pale and nervous. both members of the P. The jeep was driven by Rudy. Noceja asked Rudy where the wires came from and Rudy answered that they came from Cavinti.45. Therefore. ISSUE: WON Bonifacio’s non-objection to the search made in the moving vehicle. Mountain Province.Barros carrying a carton. RUDY CABALLES y TAIÑO vs. the police officers checked the cargo and they discovered bundles of 3. before the search. .

Article III of the Constitution. . and (4) Stop-and-search without warrant conducted by police officers on the basis of prior confidential information which were reasonably corroborated by other attendant matters is also recognized by the court to be legal. The prosecutor recommended dismissing the case. An extensive search without warrant could only be resorted to if the officers conducting the search had reasonable or probable cause to believe before the search that either the motorist was a law offender or that they would find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to the commission of a crime in the vehicle to be searched. Article III of the 1987 Constitution. Petitioner was not made a party to the charge but was invited to shed light on the incident. Agnes. he was apprehended and detained and his case was referred for inquest to the City prosecutor office. petitioner ordered his driver Arellano to pick up the firearms in his house to return them to Congress. The fruits of the search and seizure will be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.. Held: The court held that as a rule. because the vessel can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the search warrant must be sought before such warrant could be secured. for the recovery of fishing vessel Tony Lex VI which had been seized and impounded by petitioner Fisheries Commissioner through the Philippine Navy. – petitioner charged in violation of Omnibus Election Code (gun ban)– invokes deprivation of Constitutional right on due process of law. NAVY. the two fishing boats were actually seized for illegal fishing with dynamite. since such vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant may be sought. Consequently. Because there was no sufficient evidence that would impel the policemen to suspect Arellano to justify the search they have conducted. 1965.” To constitute a waiver. Petitioner explained the purpose how Arellano came to have the firearms boarded on the car and wrote the prosecutor to exonerate Arellano from the charges. the firearms obtained in violation of petitioner's right against warrantless search cannot be admitted for any purpose in any proceeding. its equipment and dynamites therein was valid. HELD: YES. The same exception should apply to seizures of fishing vessels breaching our fishery laws. DE GUZMAN & COMPANY. On August 5 or 6.Respondent company filed a case against Roldan. vs. ARSENIO N. Aniag Jr. Aside from a search incident to a lawful arrest.Petitioner requested the Philippine Navy to apprehend vessels Tony Lex VI and Tony Lex III. Arellano was flagged down in a check point and police search the car. Jr. a valid search must be authorized by a search warrant duly issued by an appropriate authority. The facts show that petitioner was not among those charged by the PNP with violation of the Omnibus Election Code. it not being practicable to secure a judicial warrant before searching a vehicle. Issue: Whether or not petitioner was denied of due process of law. ROLDAN. Nor was he subjected by the City Prosecutor to a preliminary investigation for such offense. and the inspection of the vehicle is merely limited to a visual search. of the existence of such a right. Exception: 1) Peace officers may conduct searches of moving vehicles. however only visual inspection. Thus the court declared the warrantless search and seizure of the firearms as illegal hence inadmissible to court as evidence in any proceeding against the petitioner. The CFI Manila granted it. Upon finding the guns. The Comelec however issued a resolution filing information in violation of the gun ban against petitioner.Judgment reversed RATIO: The general rule is that a search and seizure must be carried out through or with a judicial warrant. also respectively called Srta. 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. and THE PHIL. In compliance.” Facts: Upon the issuance of declaration of gun ban by the Comelec in connection to the national & local election. for alleged violations of some provisions of the Fisheries Act. such action constitutes an unreasonable intrusion of the petitioner’s privacy and security of his property in violation of Section 2. v Comelec 237 SCRA 424 (1994) “Driver underwent illegal search and seizure on check pt. and MORABE. a warrantless search had been upheld in cases of (1) moving vehicles (2) the seizure of evidence in plain view and (3) search conducted at police or military checkpoints which are not illegal for as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body search. However. thus respondent company took Possession of the vessel Tony Lex VI. The manner by which COMELEC proceeded against petitioner runs counter to the due process clause of the Constitution. Search and seizure without search warrant of vessels and air crafts for violations of the customs laws have been the traditional exception to the constitutional requirement of a search warrant. and lastly. ISSUE: WON the seizure of the vessel. FRANCISCO ARCA. On his way back to the Batasan Complex. actual or constructive. JR. . secondly. FACTS: . the Sgt-at-Arms of the House of Representatives requested petitioner to return the 2 firearms issued by the House to him. otherwise such search and seizure becomes “unreasonable” within the meaning of Section 2. it must appear first that the right exists. that the person involved had knowledge. that said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right. Winnie and Srta. hence it is not practicable to require a search warrant before such search or seizure can be constitutionally effected. HON. HON. this is not absolute. Petitioner moves for reconsideration to the Comelec which was denied hence this petition contending that the search on his car was illegal and that he was not impleaded as respondent in the preliminary investigation and his constitutional rights for due process was violated.

the seizure of the vessel. which allow a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest. But before he alighted from the bus. of the same day. CFI Rizal. Moreover. Thus. CIC Galutan noticed a bulge on Malmstedt’s waist. the officer asked for Malmstedt’s passport and other identification papers. that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had in his possession prohibited drugs. The two (2) NARCOM officers started their inspection from the front going towards the rear of the bus. Feeling the teddy bears. Branch IX. the person to be arrested has committed is actually committing. A lawful arrest without a warrant may be made by a peace officer or a private person under the following circumstances: (a) When. the officer noticed that there were bulges inside the same which did not feel like foam stuffing. Jr. A teddy bear was found in each bag. A crime was actually being committed by the accused and he was caught in flagrante delicto. that same morning. a light blue Dodge car with Plate 21-87-73. Thereafter.In the afternoon. there’s an existence of a probable cause. and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. The wrapped objects turned out to contain hashish . Benguet for further investigation. The RASAC agents gave a chase and overtook Sgt. At the investigation room. . arrest a person (a) who has committed. Sgt. information was received by `the Commanding Officer of NARCOM. entered the Philippines for the third time in December 1988 as a tourist. the officer noticed 4 suspiciouslooking objects wrapped in brown packing tape. the prohibited drugs which were discovered during the illegal search are not admissible as evidence against him. In the case at bar.m.Malmstedt. Antonio Abad. Quezon City. in his presence. People vs. RASAC-MBA. a Swedish national. Hope's . and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending. for the purpose of checking all vehicles coming from the Cordillera Region. he left for Baguio City. Fider and CIC Galutan boarded the bus and announced that they were members of the NARCOM and that they would conduct an inspection. Capt. vs. When accused failed to comply. Consequently. Suspecting the bulge on Malmstedt’s waist to be a gun. HELD: It was LEGAL and VALID. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. . stationed themselves in the vicinity of the toll gate of the North Diversion Road at Balintawak. Accused was searched and arrested while transporting prohibited drugs (hashish). and attempted to flee. Tublay. or is attempting to commit an offense. the search made upon his personal effects falls squarely under paragraph (1) of the foregoing provisions of law. where the smell of marijuana emanated from a plastic bag owned by the accused. . In the evening of 7 May 1989.Upon stepping out of the bus. . the officers opened the teddy bears and they were found to also contain hashish. the Regional AntiSmuggling Action Center (RASAC) was informed by an undisclosed Informer that a shipment of highly dutiable goods would be transported to Manila from Angeles City on a blue Dodge car. a police officer or a private individual may. or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. Mountain Province. It was only after the officers had opened the bags that accused finally presented his passport. or (c) who is a prisoner who has escaped from confinement while serving a final judgment or from temporary detention during the pendency of his case or while being transferred from one confinement to another. the Commanding Officer of the First Regional Command (NARCOM) stationed at Camp Dangwa. accused was invited outside the bus for questioning. the officer required him to bring out whatever it was that was bulging on his waist. Under our Rules of Court. The order to establish a checkpoint in the said area was prompted by persistent reports that vehicles coming from Sagada were transporting marijuana and other prohibited drugs. Jessie Hope who was accompanied by Monina Medina approached the exit gate and after giving the toll receipt sped away towards Manila. . its equipment and dynamites therein was equally valid as an incident to a lawful arrest. the bus where accused was riding was stopped.In the morning May 11. At about 6:45 a.. prompting the officer to open one of the wrapped objects. Guerrero (J): 4 concur Facts: One week before 9 February 1974. Moreover. the officers got the bags and opened them.Accused was then brought to the headquarters of the NARCOM at Camp Dangwa.During the inspection. (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed. Col. therefore. Accused who was the sole foreigner riding the bus was seated at the rear thereof. a derivative of marijuana. ordered his men to set up a temporary checkpoint at Kilometer 14. is actually committing or is about to commit an offense in his presence. ISSUE: WON the search of the Malmstedt’s personal effects was illegal because it was made without a search warrant and. (b) who is reasonably believed to have committed an offense which has been actually committed. The bulging object turned out to be a pouch bag and when accused opened the same bag.They are usually equipped with powerful motors that enable them to elude pursuing ships of the Philippine Navy or Coast Guard. Acop. Spurred by such lead. MIKAEL MALMSTEDT FACTS: . Vasco. the members of the crew of the two vessels were caught in flagrante illegally fishing with dynamite and without the requisite license. Thus their apprehension without a warrant of arrest while committing a crime is lawful. Quezon City [GR L-41686. accused stopped to get 2 traveling bags from the luggage carrier. RASAC Agents Arthur Manuel and Macario Sabado. La Trinidad. on said date and upon order of the Chief of Intelligence and Operations Branch. without a warrant. 17 November 1980] First Division. driven by Sgt. or where the accused was acting suspiciously.

Abad by telephone. after the requisite preliminary investigation. he had no knowledge of the contents of the boxes. and therefore inadmissible in evidence under Section 4(2). as in other seizure proceedings. the City Fiscal of Quezon City. Manuel and Sabado who were in civilian clothes showed their identification cards to Hope and Medina and introduced themselves as RASAC agents. Meanwhile. Del Rosario to transport the boxes and deliver them to a certain Mr. that when the apprehending agents arrested respondents and brought them together with the seized articles to the ASAC Office in Camp Aguinaldo. Del Rosario did not reveal the contents of the boxes which she came to know of only when the boxes were opened at Camp Aguinaldo. respondents pleaded not guilty. she testified that what she did was only in compliance with the agreement with Mr. even after the Collector of Customs declared the seized articles not subject to forfeiture. and Seizure Identification No. the defense counsel objected to the presentation of the pictures and the subject articles on the ground that they were seized without the benefit of warrant. The importer or possessor is treated differently. Agent Sabado blew his whistle and signaled Sgt. Peter at the Tropical Hut who will in turn give her the contracted price. what the Collector stated was that the prosecution failed to present the quantum of evidence sufficient to warrant the forfeiture of the subject articles. Hope's car at Camp Aguinaldo yielded 11 sealed boxes. and granting that he had such knowledge. Trial commenced on 28 January 1975 and while the prosecution through its first witness. Hope to stop but the latter instead of heeding. The decision of the Collector of Customs." Further. thereof. Sgt. On the same order of the intelligence officer. Agent Macario Sabado. On the part of Monina Medina.m. that he was not present when the boxes were loaded in his car nor was he ever told of their contents on the way. The Collector of Customs did issue the same on 12 February 1974. Hope and Medina disclaimed ownership of the seized articles.C. the former were not armed with a warrant of arrest and seizure. Abad. P. the agents succeeded in blocking Sgt. 4 on the rear seat and 7 more in the baggage compartment which was opened on orders of Col. Abad "called off the mission" and brought respondents and their car to Camp Aguinaldo arriving there at about 9:00 a. Ownership was instead claimed by one Antonio del Rosario who intervened in the proceedings. representatives of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Hope and Medina were asked where they were bringing the boxes. The prosecution filed a petition for certiorari which was treated as a special civil action in the Supreme Court's Resolution of 5 May 1976. Held: It is not accurate to say that the Collector of Customs made no findings that the articles were smuggled. concerns the res rather than the persona. ASAC Chairman General Pelagio Cruz requested the Bureau of Customs to issue a Warrant of Seizure and Detention against the articles including the Dodge car.car. this does not necessarily exclude the possibility of smuggling. Bureau of Customs. Hope answered "I do not know. Abad who had joined them waited for the man who according to Monina Medina was supposed to receive the boxes. that he consented to transport said boxes from Angeles City to Manila in his car upon request of his girl friend Monina as a personal favor." supposedly untaxed. Arriving at the Tropical Hut. As there was not enough evidence to controvert the testimonies of respondents and the narration of claimant Antonio del Rosario. made a Uturn back to the North Diversion Road. he never knew that these are untaxed commodities. Col. the Collector of Customs issued his decision in the seizure cases on 1 April 1975 declaring that the seized articles including the car are not subject of forfeiture. COSAC and photographers of the Department of National Defense. An inspection of Sgt. On the other hand. The contents of the bozes revealed some "4. Upon arraignment on 23 April 1974. filed Criminal Case Q-3781 in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Quezon City).441 more or less wrist watches of assorted brands. however. Article IV of the New Constitution. It was admitted. Hope's car and the latter stopped. but he could not go through because of the buses in front of his car. 14281-A against the Dodge car pursuant to Section 2530(k) of the same Code. was adducing as evidence the pictures of the 11 boxes containing the assorted watches and watch bracelets. seizure proceedings were instituted and docketed as Seizure Identification 14281 against the wrist watches and watch bracelets pursuant to Section 2530 (m) — 1 of the Tariff and Customs Code. 1. After the parties have argued their grounds in their respective memoranda. As the man did not appear. to which Medina replied that they were bringing them (boxes) to the Tropical Hut at Epifanio de los Santos. the boxes were opened before the presence of Hope and Medina. In a general sense. on 14 March 1974. together with Col. Hope claimed that at the time of apprehension. In fact. The fact that the administrative penalty befalls on him is an . Agent Sabado boarded the Dodge car with Hope and Medina while Agent Manuel Manuel called up Col. In conjunction with the Warrant of Seizure and Detention issued by the Collector of Customs. that Mr. The prosecution's motion for reconsideration was denied on 30 September 1975.. The Agents saw 4 boxes on the back seat of the Dodge and upon inquiry as to what those boxes were.075 more or less watch bracelets of assorted brands. The proceeding is a probe on contraband or illegally imported goods. At this point. finding the existence of a prima facie case against Hope and Medina. As consequence. the party. Issue: Whether the search and seizure made on the boxes in the blue Dodge car was valid. the trial court issued the order of 20 August 1975 declaring that the alleged smuggled articles and the pictures taken of said items as inadmissible in evidence.

searches and seizures is that a warrant is needed in order to validly effect the same. By the same token. Police Station No. upon sworn application showing probable cause and particularly describing the place to be searched and person or thing to be seized. Hope and Medina's exoneration in the administrative cases cannot deprive the State of its right to prosecute. inasmuch as allegedly the previous Saturday. Malacat filed a notice of appeal indicating that he was appealing to the Supreme Court. comprised of three to four men. several other police officers mauled him. pursuant to the exception of “stop and frisk. likewise at Plaza Miranda. if any. searches and seizures refers to those effected without a validly issued warrant. and not more than 30 years of Reclusion Perpetua. entered a plea of not guilty. In its decision dated 10 February 1994 but promulgated on 15 February 1994. Yu caught up with and apprehended Sammy Malacat y Mandar (who Yu recognized." Yu's companion. near the Mercury Drug store at Plaza Miranda. A warrantless arrest under the circumstances contemplated under Section 5(a) has been denominated as one "in flagrante delicto. Mago. persons exercising police authority under the customs law may effect search and seizure without a search warrant in the enforcement of customs laws. the record of the case was forwarded to the Court of Appeals (CA-GR CR 15988). and that the seizure of the grenade from Malacat was incidental to a lawful arrest. Malacat and Casan were then brought to Police Station 3 where Yu placed an "X" mark at the bottom of the grenade and thereafter gave it to his commander." Aware of this delineation. was on foot patrol with three other police officers (all of them in uniform) along Quezon Boulevard. As enunciated in the leading case of Papa vs. However.. Yu found a fragmentation grenade tucked inside the latter's "front waist line. the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. apprehended Abdul Casan from whom a . the Court in that case expressed the considered view that "except in the case of the search of a dwelling house. Petitioner was once again searched. On 30 August 1990. police officer Rogelio Malibiran. hitting him with benches and guns. posted at opposite sides of the corner of Quezon Boulevard near the Mercury Drug Store. Section 3 of the 1973 Constitution. However. the Code does not mention the need of a search warrant unlike Section 2209 which explicitly provides that a "dwelling house may be entered and searched only upon warrant issued by a judge (or justice of the peace). as minimum. Davide Jr. petitioner. Yu did not issue any receipt for the grenade he allegedly recovered from Malacat. As the policemen gave chase. Rodolfo Yu of the Western Police District. these are found in Section 5. but nothing was found on him. Quiapo. Turning to valid warrantless searches. constitutional infirmity was stamped in favor of a warrantless search and seizure of such nature as herein. As regards valid warrantless arrests. Whether criminal liability lurks on the strength of the provision of the Tariff and Customs Code adduced in the information can only be determined in a separate criminal action. Court of Appeals [GR 123595. Malacat was charged with violating Section 3 of Presidential Decree 1866. Manalili filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court.38 caliber revolver was recovered. with each group. and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of not less than 17 years.inconsequential incidence to criminal liability. Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. 12 December 1997] En Banc. they are . Issue: Whether the search made on Malacat is valid. The trial court thus found Malacat guilty of the crime of illegal possession of explosives under Section 3 of PD 1866. Upon searching Malacat. But under our penal laws. The Constitutional prohibition against unreasonable arrests. allegedly in response to bomb threats reported seven days earlier. In its decision of 24 January 1996. at about 6:30 p. Yu saw Malacat and 2 others attempt to detonate a grenade). in the exercise of the specific functions. as maximum." Yu and his companions positioned themselves at strategic points and observed both groups for about 30 minutes. Manila. 4 months and 1 day of Reclusion Temporal." The rationale of the Mago ruling was nurtured by the traditional doctrine in Carroll v." while that under Section 5(b) has been described as a "hot pursuit" arrest. On 18 February 1994. On this stable foundation. which finds origin in the Fourth Amendment of the American Constitution. They chanced upon two groups of Muslim-looking men. the trial court ruled that the warrantless search and seizure of Malacat was akin to a "stop and frisk.” Held: The general rule as regards arrests. 3. He saw the grenade only in court when it was presented. The police officers then approached one group of men. These men were acting suspiciously with "their eyes moving very fast. At arraignment on 9 October 1990. the warrantless seizure did not violate Article IV. Quiapo. assisted by counsel de officio. Malacat denied the charges and explained that he only recently arrived in Manila. Manila.m. United States 6 wherein an imprimatur against." where a "warrant and seizure can be effected without necessarily being preceded by an arrest" and "whose object is either to maintain the status quo momentarily while the police officer seeks to obtain more information". subject to certain exceptions. the probable guilt cannot be negated simply because he was not held administratively liable. criminal responsibility. Malacat vs. must be proven not by preponderance of evidence but by proof beyond reasonable doubt. who then fled in different directions. Metropolitan Police Force of the Integrated National Police. (J): 11 concur Facts: On 27 August 1990. 25 August 1990. The Collector's final declaration that the articles are not subject to forfeiture does not detract his findings that untaxed goods were transported in Hope and Medina's car and seized from their possession by agents of the law.

was stopped and searched by an officer after the officer observed the Petitioner seemingly casing a store for a potential robbery. and from all indications as to the distance between Yu and Malacat. which underlies the recognition that a police officer may. as the precedent arrest determines the validity of the incidental search. the arresting officer. when the officer reasonably believes that the person may be armed and dangerous. Third. Terry (the “Petitioner”). Ohio Brief Fact Summary. Whether a search for weapons without probable cause for arrest is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution (”Constitution”)? Held. probable or otherwise. the search conducted on Malacat could not have been one incidental to a lawful arrest. (3) seizure of evidence in plain view. (4) consent searches. Justice Byron White (”J.m. The officer noticed the Petitioner talking with another individual on a street corner while repeatedly walking up and down the same street. Finally. thus presumably dusk. Terry v. The Petitioner. What is unequivocal then are blatant violations of Malacat's rights solemnly guaranteed in Sections 2 and 12(1) of Article III of the Constitution. in light of the police officer's experience and surrounding conditions. Issue. on the part of Malacat. even without probable cause. there could have been no valid in flagrante delicto or hot pursuit arrest preceding the search in light of the lack of personal knowledge on the part of Yu. a "stop-and-frisk" serves a two-fold interest: (1) the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection. Malacat and his companions were merely standing at the corner and were not creating any commotion or trouble. The officer approached the Petitioner for questioning and decided to search him first. approach a person for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even without probable cause. The facts of the case are important to understand . None was visible to Yu. but he emphasized an additional necessity of the reasonableness of the stop to investigate the crime. Concurrence. In a search incidental to a lawful arrest. to warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons concealed about him. while probable cause is not required to conduct a "stop and frisk." it nevertheless holds that mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a "stop and frisk. Discussion. but he emphasized that the particular facts of the case. for as he admitted. (5) a search incidental to a lawful arrest. A typical beat officer would be unduly burdened by being prohibited from searching individuals that the officer suspects to be armed. These two types of warrantless searches differ in terms of the requisite quantum of proof before they may be validly effected and in their allowable scope. The officer believed that the Petitioner and the other men were “casing” a store for a potential robbery. merit the forcible stop and frisk." A genuine reason must exist. Second. there was at all no ground. Here. Justice William Douglas (”J. An officer may perform a search for weapons without a warrant. John W. or an overt physical act. could not have been visible to Yu.limited to the following: (1) customs searches. Plainly. Dissent." The concepts of a "stop-and-frisk" and of a search incidental to a lawful arrest must not be confused. The Supreme Court of the United States (”Supreme Court”) held that it is a reasonable search when an officer performs a quick seizure and a limited search for weapons on a person that the officer reasonably believes could be armed. any telltale bulge. On the other hand. there was nothing in Malacat's behavior or conduct which could have reasonably elicited even mere suspicion other than that his eyes were "moving very fast" — an observation which leaves us incredulous since Yu and his teammates were nowhere near Malacat and it was already 6:30 p. Douglas”) dissented. The officer decided to approach the men for questioning. indicating that a crime had just been committed. Synopsis of Rule of Law. assuming that Malacat was indeed hiding a grenade. was being committed or was going to be committed. under appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner. Facts. A quick frisking of the Petitioner produced a concealed weapon and the Petitioner was charged with carrying a concealed weapon. Justice John Harlan (”J. The men would periodically peer into a store window and then talk some more.. there are at least three (3) reasons why the "stop-and-frisk" was invalid: First. and (6) a "stop and frisk. and (2) the more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation which permit the police officer to take steps to assure himself that the person with whom he deals is not armed with a deadly weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against the police officer. The men also spoke to a third man whom they eventually followed up the street. the alleged grenade was "discovered" "inside the front waistline" of Malacat. Harlan”) agreed with the majority. (2) search of moving vehicles. reasoning that the majority’s holding would grant powers to officers to authorize a search and seizure that even a magistrate would not possess. This claim is neither supported by any police report or record nor corroborated by any other police officer who allegedly chased that group. and given the nature of the behavior the officer decided to perform a quick search of the men before questioning. to believe that Malacat was armed with a deadly weapon. there is grave doubts as to Yu's claim that Malacat was a member of the group which attempted to bomb Plaza Miranda 2 days earlier. White”) agreed with the majority. Here. that there was suspicion of a violent act.

the Supreme Court’s willingness to allow the search. The suspicious activity was a violent crime. and if the officer’s suspicions were correct then he would be in a dangerous position to approach the men for questioning without searching them. . The officer also did not detain the men for a long period of time to constitute an arrest without probable cause. armed robbery.