STONEHILL VS DIOKNO

FACTS:

Stonehill et al and the corporation they form were alleged to have
committed acts in “violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs
Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code.” By the
strength of this allegation a search warrant was issued against their
persons and their corporation.

The warrant provides authority to search the persons above-named
and/or the premises of their offices, warehouses and/or residences, and
to seize and take possession of the following personal property to wit:
“Books
of
accounts,
financial
records,
vouchers,
correspondence, receipts, ledgers, journals, portfolios, credit
journals, typewriters, and other documents and/or papers
showing all business transactions including disbursements
receipts, balance sheets and profit and loss statements and
Bobbins (cigarette wrappers).”

The documents, papers, and things seized under the alleged authority
of the warrants in question may be split into (2) major groups, namely:
1) those found and seized in the offices of the
aforementioned corporations and
2) those found seized in the residences of petitioners herein.

Stonehill averred that the warrant is illegal for:
(1) they do not describe with particularity the documents,
books and things to be seized;
(2) cash money, not mentioned in the warrants, were actually
seized;
(3) the warrants were issued to fish evidence against the
aforementioned petitioners in deportation cases filed against
them;
(4) the searches and seizures were made in an illegal manner;
and
(5) the documents, papers and cash money seized were not
delivered to the courts that issued the warrants, to be
disposed of in accordance with law.

The prosecution counters, invoking the Moncado doctrine, that the
defects of said warrants, if any, were cured by petitioners’ consent; and
(3) that, in any event, the effects seized are admissible in evidence
against them. In short, the criminal cannot be set free just because the
government blunders.
ISSUE: Whether or not the search warrant issued is valid.
HELD:

The SC ruled in favor of Stonehill et al.

Search warrants issued were violative of the Constitution and the Rules,
thus, illegal or being general warrants.

There is no probable cause and warrant did not particularly specify the
things to be seized.

The purpose of the requirement is to avoid placing the sanctity of the
domicile and the privacy of communication and correspondence at the
mercy of the whims, caprice or passion of peace officers.





Document seized from an illegal search warrant is not admissible in
court as a fruit of a poisonous tee. However, they could not be
returned, except if warranted by the circumstances.
Petitioners were not the proper party to question the validity and return
of those taken from the corporations for which they acted as officers as
they are treated as personality different from that of the corporation.
The SC emphasized however that Stonehill et al cannot assail the
validity of the search warrant issued against their corporation for
Stonehill are not the proper party hence has no cause of action.
It should be raised by the officers or board members of the corporation.
The constitution protects the people’s right against unreasonable
search and seizure. It provides;
(1) that no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, to be
determined by the judge in the manner set forth in said
provision; and
(2) that the warrant shall particularly describe the things to be
seized. In the case at bar, none of these are met.
The warrant was issued from mere allegation that Stonehill et al
committed a “violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws,
Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code.”
In other words, no specific offense had been alleged in said
applications.
The averments thereof with respect to the offense committed were
abstract.
As a consequence, it was impossible for the judges who issued the
warrants to have found the existence of probable cause, for the same
presupposes the introduction of competent proof that the party against
whom it is sought has performed particular acts, or committed specific
omissions, violating a given provision of our criminal laws.
As a matter of fact, the applications involved in this case do not allege
any specific acts performed by herein petitioners.
It would be a legal heresy, of the highest order, to convict anybody of a
“violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal
Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code,” — as alleged in the
aforementioned applications — without reference to any determinate
provision of said laws or codes.
The grave violation of the Constitution made in the application for the
contested search warrants was compounded by the description therein
made of the effects to be searched for and seized, to wit:
“Books
of
accounts,
financial
records,
vouchers,
journals,
correspondence, receipts, ledgers, portfolios, credit journals,
typewriters, and other documents and/or papers showing all business
transactions including disbursement receipts, balance sheets and
related profit and loss statements.”
Thus, the warrants authorized the search for and seizure of records
pertaining to all business transactions of Stonehill et al, regardless of
whether the transactions were legal or illegal.
The warrants sanctioned the seizure of all records of Stonehill et al and
the aforementioned corporations, whatever their nature, thus openly
contravening the explicit command of the Bill of Rights — that the

or exercises acts of ownership over. In the absence of governmental interference. Charles Katz. NO Whether or Not the trial court not give credence to the explanation of the appellant on how said packages came to his possession. was charged with conducting illegal gambling operations across state lines in violation of federal law. United States (1928). the NBI took custody of said packages. The mere presence of the NBI agents did not convert the reasonable search effected by Mr. Under the circumstances. there being no evidence to the contrary. 5 [j]. allegedly in violation of appellant's constitutional rights. appellant is therefore estopped to claim otherwise. and only to the parts of his conversations dealing with illegal gambling transactions. The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures therefore applies as a restraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. Reyes into a warrantless search and siezure proscribed by the constitution. Said inspection was reasonable and a standard operating procedure on the part of Mr. included in the standard operating procedure and out of curiosity. the mere presence of the NBI agents did not convert the reasonable search effected by Reyes into a warrantless search and seizure proscribed by the Constitution. NO Whether or Not custodial investigation properly applied. the proprietor of the forwarding agency. From that inspection. PEOPLE VS MARTI FACTS:           Accused-appellant went to a forwarding agency to send four packages to a friend in Zurich. he took several grams of its contents. It is presumed that they have regularly performed their duties (See. federal agents placed a warrantless wiretap on the public phone booth that he used to conduct these operations. may an act of a private individual. Stated otherwise. the husband of the proprietress opened said boxes for final inspection. Second. The appellant.  According to the Court. 5(m). The contents . However.  In the case of Olmstead v. be invoked against the State. The Moncado doctrine is likewise abandoned and the right of the accused against a defective search warrant is emphasized. When the NBI was informed that the rest of the shipment was still in his office. and not mere voice amplification (the normal result of a wiretap).  It was Mr. who made search/inspection of the packages. Rule 131). NO “The case at bar assumes a peculiar character since the evidence sought to be excluded was primarily discovered and obtained by a private person. Afterwards. three agents went back with him. were found to be marijuana flowering tops. is required for an action to constitute a Fourth Amendment search. In their presence. was invited by the agents for questioning.  In order to collect evidence against Katz. It is not meant to be invoked against acts of private individuals. the trial court found him guilty of violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. is not search.           Issues: 1) 2) 3) Held:     Whether or Not the items admitted in the searched illegally searched and seized. Later on.” “The law enforcers testified that accused/appellant was informed of his constitutional rights. Merely to observe and look at that which is in plain sight is not a search. where no trespass has been committed in aid thereof.  The agents listened only to Katz's conversations. physical intrusion (a trespass) into a given area. the husband totally opened the packages. KATZ V US FACTS:  The petitioner. he refused. At this point. Before delivering said packages to the Bureau of Customs and the Bureau of Posts. Rule 131) and their testimonies should be given full faith and credence. Merely to observe and look at that which is in plain sight is not a search. are owned by him (Sec. Having observed that which is open. Reyes as a precautionary measure before delivery of packages to the Bureau of Customs or the Bureau of Posts. Job Reyes. It will be recalled that Mr Job Reyes was the one who opened the box in the presence of the NBI agents in his place of business. the accused was asked by the proprietress if the packages can be examined. Initially. He brought a letter and the said sample to the National Bureau of Investigation. things to be seized be particularly described — as well as tending to defeat its major objective: the elimination of general warrants.” The Supreme Court held based on the speech of Commissioner Bernas that the Bill of Rights governs the relationship between the individual and the state. while claiming his mail at the Central Post Office. can accused/appellant validly claim that his constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizure has been violated. the Supreme Court held that the warrantless wiretapping of phone lines did not constitute an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked against the State. acting in a private capacity and without the intervention and participation of State authorities. after examination by forensic chemists. .” “Appellant signed the contract as the owner and shipper thereof giving more weight to the presumption that things which a person possesses. The judgement of conviction finding appeallant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged was AFFIRMED.

NKV 969. cabinets. federal authorities to obtain a warrant before wiretapping private phone lines.”   Pursuant to the said search warrants." therefore. equipment. the evidence against him gathered from his conversations should be suppressed. Quezon City.S.  Subversive documents.  The federal agents countered by saying that a public phone booth was not a "constitutionally protected area. he did seek to keep out the uninvited ear. did not address the case from the perspective of a "constitutionally protected area. RMS Building. tables. Accordingly. they could place a wiretap on it without a warrant. The search warrants describe the articles sought to be seized in this wise:  All printing equipment.  He did not relinquish his right to do so simply because he went to a place where he could be seen. the business premises of the “Metropolitan Mail” and “We Forum” newspapers were searched. however. "     For the Fourth Amendment protects people. photo (equipment. is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection . and. among other things. Katz sought to exclude any evidence connected with these wiretaps. office and printing machines. ." In essence.  This Act required. business addresses of the “Metropolitan Mail” and “We Forum” newspapers. arguing that the warrantless wiretapping of a public phone booth constitutes an unreasonable search of a "constitutionally protected area" in violation of the Fourth Amendment. written by Justice Potter Stewart. What a person knowingly exposes to the public. communications/recording equipment. even if it were done in a public place. Project 6. issued two (2) search warrants where the premises at 19 Road 3.  The majority opinion. dictaphone and the like used and/or connected in the printing of the “WE FORUM” newspaper and any and all documents communication.  Motor vehicles used in the distribution/circulation of the “WE FORUM” and other subversive materials and propaganda. documents. BURGOS VS CHIEF OF STAFF FACTS:  On 7 December 1982.  Even in a public place. . typewriters. NKA 892. 2] DATSUN pick-up colored white with Plate No. not places. NBS 524.  Once this is acknowledged. more particularly. pick-up truck with Plate No. Therefore. Building upon this reasoning. publication and distribution of the said newspapers. a person may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his person. and other publication to promote the objectives and purposes of the subversive organizationknown as Movement for Free Philippines. the Supreme Court refined the Olmsteadtrespass doctrine by holding that an unreasonable search occurs only if a "constitutionally protected area" has been intruded upon. tape recorders. all evidence obtained is inadmissible. the wiretaps of the public phone booth used by Katz were illegal. But what he seeks to preserve as private even in an area accessible to the public. letters and facsimile of prints related to the “WE FORUM” newspaper. 1] Toyota-Corolla.  However. paraphernalia. . Quezon Avenue. respectively.  A person who enters into a telephone booth may expect the protection of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution as he assumes that the words he utters into the telephone will not be broadcast to the world. even in his own home or office.  The Government’s activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner’s telephone conversations constituted a search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment and absent a search warrant predicated upon sufficient probable cause. colored yellow with Plate No. Supreme Court agreed with Katz and held that placing of a warrantless wiretap on a public phone booth constitutes an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Judge Ernani Cruz-Paño. and 784 Units C & D. 3] A delivery truck with Plate No." Partly in response to this decision. Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City. motor vehicles and other articles used in the printing. colored white with Plate No. NGV 427 with marking “Bagong Silang. and. the majority argued that both sides in the case were wrong to think that the permissibility of a warrantless wiretap depended upon the area being placed under surveillance.  At his trial. ink. Quezon City. Congress passed the Federal Communications Act of 1933. leaflets. Light-a-Fire Movement and April 6 Movement. it is clear that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects persons and not areas from unreasonable searches and seizures. United States (1961).  Although the petitioner did not seek to hide his self from public view when he entered the telephone booth. 5] TOYOTA Hi-Lux. books. as well as numerous papers. pamphlets.  This is known as the "trespass doctrine.  the U. in the absence of a judicially authorized search warrant. may be constitutionally protected. PBP 665. In the case of Silverman v. ISSUE: Does the warrantless wiretapping of a public phone booth violate the unreasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution? HELD: YES  The petitioner strenuously asserted that the phone booth was a constitutionally protected area." the Court stated. 4] TOYOTA-TAMARAW. paper. the Fourth Amendment protects persons and not places from unreasonable intrusion. The Court held that. the Court held that it was the duty of the Judiciary to review petitions for warrants in instances in which persons may be engaging in conduct that they wish to keep secret. books and other written literature allegedly possessed by . paraphernalia.

REMEDY AGAINST ILLEGAL SEARCH  The correct remedy for petitioners was to file a motion to quash the search warrants – Indeed. the premises of both printing offices were padlocked and sealed thereby preventing the publication of the aforementioned newspapers. within legal bounds. petitioners. which was televised in Channel 7 and widely publicized in all metropolitan dailies. Jr. the City Fiscal of Quezon City. These documents lawfully belong to petitioner Jose Burgos. Jose Burgos. ON VALIDITY OF SEARCH WARRANTS        Use of evidence seized in an illegal search does not prevent a party from questioning its validity – Respondents also submit the theory that since petitioner Jose Burgos.” In the case at bar.022782 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. should have filed a motion to quash said warrants in the court that issued them (Templo v. or any other person having only a temporary right. publisher-editor of the “We Forum” newspaper. (Stanford vs. Furthermore.022872.  It is always in the power of the Supreme Court to suspend its rules or to except a particular case from its operation. As to the issue that the items seized were real properties..82[b] was applied for was 728 Units C & D. 19 Road 3. Dela Cruz. 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. the Court declared the two warrants null and void. Jr. 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. we take cognizance of this petition in view of the seriousness and urgency of the constitutional issues raised not to mention the public interest generated by the search of the “We Forum” offices. the addresses of the places sought to be searched were specifically set forth in the application. Respondents sought the dismissal of the petition on the ground that the petitioners came immediately before the Supreme Court without having previously sought the quashal of the search warrants before Judge Cruz. A petition for certiorari. The fact is that the place for which Search Warrant No. the machineries in question. This being the case. 60 SCRA 295 [1974]). subordinates. usufructuary. Q. Q. the ambiguity that might have arisen by reason of the typographical error is more apparent than real. the court applied the principle in the case of Davao Sawmill Co. the statements of the witnesses having been mere generalizations. However. The Court ruled that the affidavits submitted for the application of the warrant did not satisfy the requirement of probable cause.  The existence of this special circumstance justifies this Court to exercise its inherent power to suspend its rules. 20. NO 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. Quezon .Paño. jurisprudence tells of the prohibition on the issuance of general warrants. v. were seized. he is now estopped from challenging the validity of the search warrants. substitute or successors from using the articles seized as evidence in Criminal Case No. Quezon Avenue. two search warrants were applied for and issued because the purpose and intent were to search two distinct premises.   Jose Burgos. petitioners did not claim to be the owners of the land and/or building on which the machineries were placed. and to enjoin the Judge Advocate General of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). assistants. Quezon Avenue. ruling “that machinery which is movable by nature becomes immobilized when placed by the owner of the tenement. It would be quite absurd and illogical for respondent judge to have issued two warrants intended for one and the same place. RMS Building. Castillo. Jr. while in fact bolted to the ground remain movable property susceptible to seizure under a search warrant. and he can do whatever he pleases with them. We do not follow the logic of respondents. but not so when placed by a tenant. The defect pointed out is obviously a typographical error. A mere typographical error in a search warrant does not render the same invalid – The search warrant used to search the premises of the “We Forum” newspaper at 784 Units C & D. Jr. NO Whether or not the two (2) search warrants were validly issued. before impugning the validity of the warrants before this Court. The purpose and intent to search two distinct premises was evident in the issuance of the two warrant. Quezon City as contained in the warrant. The fact that he has used them as evidence does not and cannot in any way affect the validity or invalidity of the search warrants assailed in this petition. ISSUES: 1) 2) HELD:        Whether or not the immediate recourse to the Supreme Court was proper to question the validity of the two (2) search warrants. RMS Building. unless such person acted as the agent of the owner. Precisely. whenever the purpos es of justice require it. property or plant. subalterns. Thereafter. Besides. prohibition and mandamus with preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction was filed after 6 months following the raid to question the validity of said search warrants. had used and marked as evidence some of the seized documents in Criminal Case No. State of Texas). et al. and since it was Col. entitled People v. their representatives.  But this procedural flaw notwithstanding. Project 6. Abadilla himself who headed the team which executed the search warrants. Quezon City indicated that the articles sought to be seized were allegedly kept at No.

Mere unsubstantiated allegations or baseless conclusions of law do not constitute probable cause for issuance of a search warrant – 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. Thus. as           amended …” is a mere conclusion of law and does not satisfy the requi rements of probable cause. And it has also been said that the executing officer may look to the affidavit in the official court file to resolve an ambiguity in the warrant as to the place to be searched.” The seizure of articles belonging to other persons not named in the warrant does not invalidate the search warrant or the search conducted – Section 2 of Rule 126 (now Section 3 of Rule 126) of the Rules of Court provides that a search warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of (a) property subject of the offense. is of no consequence. news publications and other documents which were used and are all continuously being used as a means of committing the offense of subversion punishable under Presidential Decree 885.” was declared void by the U. the premises searched were the business and printing offices of the “Metropolitan Mail” and the “We Forum newspapers. The description of the articles sought to be seized under the search warrants in question cannot be characterized differently. It may or may not be owned by him. the Constitution requires no less than personal knowledge by the complainant or his witnesses of the facts upon which the issuance of a search warrant may be justified. This would seem to be especially true where the executing officer is the affiant on whose affidavit the warrant had issued.           City. … after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. Supreme Court for being too general. Probable cause for issuance of a search warrant must be based on personal knowledge of the applicant or his witness – Equally insufficient as basis for the determination of probable cause is the statement contained in the joint affidavit of Alejandro M. receipts. Necessarily.described were used and are continuously being used for subversive activities in conspiracy with. State of Texas the search warrant which authorized the search for “books. In fact. pictures. “that the evidence gathered and collated by our unit clearly shows that the premises above-mentioned and the articles and things above. and that portion of a search warrant which authorized the seizure of any “paraphernalia which could be used to violate Sec. because the purpose thereof is to convince the committing magistrate. 54-197 of the Connecticut General Statutes [the statute dealing with the crime of conspiracy]” was held to be a general warrant. and to promote the objective of. the broad statement in Col. this Court ruled that “the oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses. lists. records. memoranda. As a consequence of the search and seizure. Mere generalization will not suffice. Abadilla’s application that petitioner “is in possession or has in his control printing equipment and other paraphernalia. 33). Court of First Instance (64 Phil.S. directions to “seize any evidence in connection with the violation of SDC 13-3703 or otherwise” have been held too general. The closure of the business premises of the “Metropolitan Mail” and “We Forum” newspapers violates the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press – As heretofore stated. Such closure is in the nature of previous restraint or censorship abhorrent to the freedom of the press guaranteed under the .” General warrants are unconstitutional – Another factor which makes the search warrants under consideration constitutionally objectionable is that they are in the nature of general warrants. Obviously this is the same place that respondent judge had in mind when he issued the said search warrant. (b) property stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense. In Alvarez v. under Section 2(b). It does not require that the property to be seized should be owned by the person against whom the search warrant is directed. with the further result that the printing and publication of said newspapers were discontinued. pamphlets. recordings and other written instruments concerning the Communist Party in Texas. In Stanford v. Ownership. Gutierrez and Pedro U. and it is sufficient that the person against whom the warrant is directed has control or possession of the property sought to be seized. the application and/or its supporting affidavits must contain a specification. as in the case at bar. and April 6 Movement. one of the properties that may be seized is stolen property. Movement for Free Philippines. of the existence of probable cause. In like manner. illegal organizations such as the Light-a-Fire Movement. stolen property must be owned by one other than the person in whose possession it may be at the time of the search and seizure. stating with particularity the alleged subversive material he has published or is intending to publish. and therefore invalid. it has been held “that the executing officer’s prior knowledge as to the place intended in the warrant is relevant. Tango. which address appeared in the opening paragraph of the said warrant. not the individual making the affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant. these premises were padlocked and sealed. And when the search warrant applied for is directed against a newspaper publisher or editor in connection with the publication of subversive materials. therefore.” In mandating that “no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the judge. and when he knows that the judge who issued the warrant intended the building described in the affidavit. In the determination of whether a search warrant describes the premises to be searched with sufficient particularity. cards. and (c) property used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense.

While about to cross the road an old woman asked her for help in carrying a shoulder bag." the elements of which are: (a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties. Aruta Facts:  On Dec. the vehicle's inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity. The essential requisite of probable cause must still be satisfied before a warrantless search and seizure can be lawfully conducted. the latter handed it out to the police. Neither was she about to commit one nor had she just committed a crime. The accused cannot be said to be committing a crime.  The next day. alert and even militant press is essential for the political enlightenment and growth of the citizenry. Also. Aruta cannot be said to be committing a crime. 20-82[a] and 20-82[b] are null and void and are accordingly set aside. Consented warrantless search. The Supreme Court held that the Search Warrants Nos. Stated otherwise.  fundamental law. As such. Abello was tipped off by his informant that a certain “Aling Rosa” will be arriving from Baguio City with a large volume of marijuana and assembled a team. there was no legal basis for the NARCOM agents to effect a warrantless search of Aruta’s bag. the defense filed a demurrer to evidence alleging the illegality of the search and seizure of the items. (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent. Seizure of evidence in "plain view. she was merely crossing the street and was not acting suspiciously for the Narcom agents to conclude that she was committing a crime. it being not incidental to a lawful arrest. P/Lt. the arrest being incipiently illegal. The trial court convicted the accused in violation of the dangerous drugs of 1972 Issue: Whether or Not the police correctly searched and seized the drugs from the accused.               Instead of presenting its evidence. there being no probable cause and the accused-appellant not having been lawfully arrested. therefore. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12. 6. the articles seized could not be used as evidence against accused-appellant for these are “fruits of a poisoned tree” and.  When Abello asked “aling Rosa” about the contents of her bag. the accused claimed that she had just come from Choice theatre where she watched a movie “Balweg”. The prayer for a writ of mandatory injunction for the return of the seized articles was likewise granted and all articles seized by virtue of such warrants were ordered released to petitioners. 5. Neither was there any semblance of any compliance with the rigid requirements of probable cause and warrantless arrests. People vs. 1988.   The NARCOM agents would not have apprehended Aruta were it not for the furtive finger of the informant because. Highly regulated by the government. the team approached her and introduced themselves as NARCOM agents. no search warrant was presented. Rule 126 of the Rules of Court 8 and by prevailing jurisprudence 2. Sec. there was no probable cause and the accused was not lawfully arrested. and (d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further search. at the Victory Liner Bus terminal they waited for the bus coming from Baguio. The constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure must perforce operate in favor of accused-appellant. This state of being is patently anathematic to a democratic framework where a free. She has no knowledge of the identity of the old woman and the woman was nowhere to be found. 4. 3. Held: NO     The SC ruled in favor of Aruta and has noted that some drug traffickers are being freed due to technicalities. In her testimony. Customs search. must be rejected. pursuant to Article III. 7. it logically follows that the subsequent search was similarly illegal. There was no legal basis to effect a warrantless arrest of the accused’s bag. Stop and Frisk. 3(2) of the Constitution. 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. The following cases are specifically provided or allowed by law: 1. and constitutes a virtual denial of petitioners’ freedom to express themselves in print. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances. when the informer pointed out who “Aling Rosa” was. except for the pointing finger of the informant.  They found dried marijuana leaves packed in a plastic bag marked “cash katutak”. Consequently. Search of a moving vehicle. 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. . when she was later on arrested by the police. as clearly illustrated by the evidence on record. The SC could neither sanction nor tolerate as it is a clear violation of the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure. (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are. 13.

. The seized marijuana was illegal and inadmissible evidence. The police had more than 24 hours to procure a search warrant and they did not do so.