You are on page 1of 4

Republic of the Philippines

Cebu City




CA-G.R. CR. No. 04215

Leo Buenaventura, et al,


Appellee PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, by counsel, to
this Honorable Court, respectfully submits this Memorandum
of Authority and states:
On the issue of whether the
Catanduanes Provincial Police
is valid.
Appellants Leo and Lear Buenaventura assail the trial
courts decision convicting them of illegal possession of
Dangerous Drugs. The brothers argues that they should not
have been convicted of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs
because the shabu found inside Leo Buenaventura was a
product of an illegal search, as PO3 Rico Reyes and PO1
Andres Handa were not armed with a search warrant at the

time they were searched.

Appellants assertions holds merit.
There is no question that evidence obtained as a result of
an illegal search or seizure is inadmissible in any proceeding
for any purpose. That is the absolute prohibition of Article III,
Section 3 [2], of the Constitution (People v. Mengote, G.R. No.
87059, June 1992, 210 SCRA 174).
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, which defines
warrantless arrest pertinently provides:
Sec.5. Arrest without warrant, when lawful A
peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person:
a) When, in his presence, the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually committing
or is attempting to commit an offense;
b) When an offense has just been committed and
he has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances
that the person to be arrested has committed it;
c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner
who has escaped from a penal establishment or
place where he is service final judgment or is
temporarily confined while his case is pending,

or has escaped while being transferred from

one confinement to another.




Evidence gathered from an unlawful search and seizure

is not admissible as evidence. The Supreme Court summarizes
the rule as follows:
Corolarilly, the 1987 Constitution states that a
search and consequent seizure must be carried
out with a judicial warrant; otherwise, it
becomes unreasonable and any evidence
obtained therefrom shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in a proceeding. Said proscription,

however, admits of exceptions, namely:

1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful
2. Search of evidence in plain view;
3. Search of a moving vehicle;
4. Consented warrantless search;
5. Customs search;
6. Stop and Frisk; and
7. Exigent and emergency circumstances.



What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable

warrantless search or seizure is purely a juridical question,
determinable from the uniqueness of the circumstances
involved, including the purpose of the search or seizure, the
presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in which
the search and seizure was made, the place or thing searched,
and the character f the articles produced.
In searches incident to a lawful arrest, the arrest must
precede the search; generally, the process cannot be reversed.
Nevertheless, a search substantially contemporaneous with an
arrest can precede the arrest if the police have probable cause
to make the arrest at the outset of the search. Although
probable cause eludes exact and concrete definition, it
ordinarily signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion
supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves
to warrant a cautious man to believe that the person accused
is guilty of the offense with which he is charged (Tibagong v.
People of the Philippines G.R. no. 182178. August 15, 2011).
The above provisions aforementioned indicate
warrantless arrests that are considered lawful are:


1. The warrantless search conducted must be incidental

to the lawful arrest of the accused;

2. The search can be done if the evidence is visible in

plain view;
3. The search can be conducted in a moving vehicle;
4. The person being searched consented to such
warrantless search;
5. The search be conducted by customs;
6. The nature of the search is Stop and Frisk; and
7. The search be done in exigent and emergency
The Shabu obtained as a result of a warrantless arrest is
inadmissible as evidence for the following reasons:
1. The accused was not acting suspiciously;