You are on page 1of 19


THE UNITED STATES vs LORENZO ARCEO ET G.R. No. 120915. April 3, 1998
Facts: On the night of the 20th of February, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROSA
1903, between 8 and 9 o’clock at night, the ARUTA
accused, one of whom was with a gun and the
other two each with a bolo, entered the house of
the said Alejo Tiongson without first obtaining the Facts: Rosa Aruta y Menguin was arrested and
permission of any person. It appears that Alejo charged with violating Section 4, Article II of
and his wife had retired for the night and Marcela Republic Act No. 6425 or the Dangerous Drugs
was still sitting up sewing; that as soon as Act.
Marcela had discovered the accused in the house
she awoke Alejo and his wife immediately after That on or about the fourteenth (14th) day of
the accused were in the house, one of them December, 1988, the accused, engage in
wounded, by means of a bolo, Alejo Tiongson, the transporting approximately eight (8) kilos and
owner of the house and the accused appropriated five hundred (500) grams of dried marijuana
to their own use a certain quantity of money;
packed in plastic bag marked Cash Katutak
took and carried away out of the said house
placed in a travelling bag, which are prohibited
toward the fields the said Marcela San Andres and
illtreated her. drugs.

Issue: WON trial court was justified in finding Upon arraignment, she pleaded not guilty.
accused guilty of the crime entering the The Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City
residence of another against his will and with convicted and sentenced her to suffer the penalty
violence and intimidation? of life imprisonment and to pay a fine.

Held: He who being armed with deadly weapons The prosecution substantially relied on the
enters the residence of another in the nighttime,
testimonies of P/Lt. Ernesto Abello, Officer-in-
without consent, and immediately commits acts
Charge of the Narcotics Command (NARCOM) of
of violence and intimidation, is guilty of entering
the house of another with violence and Olongapo City and P/Lt. Jose Domingo. Based on
intimidation and is punishable under subsection 2 their testimonies, the court a quo found the
of article 491 of the Penal Code. following:
The inviolability of the house is one of the most
fundamental of all the individual rights declared On December 13, 1988, P/Lt. Abello was tipped
and recognized in the political codes of civilized off by his informant, known only as Benjie, that a
nations. No one can enter into the home of certain Aling Rosa would be arriving from Baguio
another without the consent of its owners or City the following day, December 14, 1988, with a
occupants. large volume of marijuana.Acting on said tip, P/Lt.
Abello assembled a team.
The privacy of the home the place of abode, the
place where a man with his family may dwell in
peace and enjoy the companionship of his wife Said team proceeded to West Bajac-Bajac,
and children unmolested by anyone, even the Olongapo City at around 4:00 in the afternoon of
king, except in the rare cases has always been December 14, 1988 and deployed themselves
regarded by civilized nations as one of the most near the Philippine National Bank (PNB)
sacred personal rights to which men are entitled. building. Dividing themselves into two groups,
Both the common and the civil law guaranteed to the informant posted themselves near the PNB
man the right of absolute protection to the building while the other group waited near the
privacy of his home. The king was powerful; he Caltex gasoline station.
was clothed with majesty; his will was the law,
but, with few exceptions, the humblest citizen or
While thus positioned, a Victory Liner Bus with
subject might shut the door of his humble cottage
in the face of the monarch and defend his body number 474 and the letters BGO printed on
intrusion into that privacy which was regarded as its front and back bumpers stopped in front of the
sacred as any of the kingly prerogatives. The PNB building at around 6:30 in the evening of the
poorest and most humble citizen or subject may, same day from where two females and a male
in his cottage, no matter how frail or humble it is, got off. It was at this stage that the informant
bid defiance to all the powers of the state; the pointed out to the team Aling Rosa who was then
wind, the storm and the sunshine alike may enter carrying a travelling bag.
through its weather-beaten parts, but the king
may not enter against its owner’s will; none of Having ascertained that accused-appellant was
the forces dare to cross the threshold even the
Aling Rosa, the team approached her and
humblest tenement without its owner’s consent.
introduced themselves as NARCOM agents. When
"A man’s house is his castle," has become a P/Lt. Abello asked Aling Rosa about the contents
maxim among the civilized peoples of the earth. of her bag, the latter handed it to the former.
His protection therein has become a matter of
constitutional protection in England, America, and Upon inspection, the bag was found to contain
Spain, as well as in other countries. dried marijuana leaves packed in a plastic bag
marked Cash Katutak. The team confiscated the
bag together with the Victory Liner bus ticket to

violating accused-appellants constitutional right the articles seized could not be used as evidence against unreasonable search and seizure as well against accused-appellant for these are fruits of a as their inadmissibility in evidence. As such. the NARCOM agents to ascertain its contents. there was no legal basis for the NARCOM agents to effect a warrantless G. To legitimize the warrantless search and Neither would the search and seizure of seizure of accused-appellants bag. there was no reason whatsoever for them the warrantless search. without a warrant. it being not incidental to a lawful Instead of presenting its evidence. Accused. Domingo affixed his signature. 1986 . the defense arrest. This the Court could neither the right exists. it must appear first that of the informant. except for the pointing finger “To constitute a waiver. Appellants silence should not be lightly taken as consent to such search. actual or constructive.R. The Accused-appellant Aruta cannot be said to be implied acquiscence to the search. that unreasonable search and seizure. The NARCOM agents would not have apprehended accused-appellant were it not for Thus.” rigid requirements of probable cause and warrantless arrests. accused-appellants lack of objection to the furtive finger of the informant because. suspect. In fact. Issue: WoN there was a valid search and seizure In the absence of probable cause to effect a conducted by the arresting officer? valid and legal warrantless arrest. The marijuana was obviously not immediately apparent as shown by the fact that the NARCOM agents still had to request accused-appellant to open the bag Held: In the instant case. could not have been more than mere commit one nor had she just committed a passive conformity given under intimidating or crime. belongings. therefore. that the person sanction nor tolerate as it is a clear violation of involved had knowledge. accused- accused-appellants bag be justified as a search appellant must have been validly arrested under of a moving vehicle. the constitutional guarantee against of the existence of such right. Seized was prepared for the confiscated the arrest being incipiently illegal. we cannot informant pointed to accused-appellant and appreciate consent based merely on the identified her to the agents as the carrier of the presumption of regularity of the performance of marijuana that she was singled out as the duty. secondly. follows that the subsequent search was similarly illegal. (a) When in his presence. Neither was she about to any. Sec. voluntarily consent to search of his or is attempting to commit an offense. Accused-appellant was merely crossing the coercive circumstances and is thus considered no street and was not acting in any manner that consent at all within the purview of the would engender a reasonable ground for the constitutional guarantee. 2: The appellant did not arrested has committed. It was only when the irregularly. she was accosted in the middle of warrant. The constitutional guarantee against filed a Demurrer to Evidence alleging the illegality unreasonable search and seizure must perforce of the search and seizure of the items thereby operate in favor of accused-appellant. NARCOM agents to suspect and conclude that she considering that the search was conducted was committing a crime. the person to be Issue no. 71410 November 25.A minutes after alighting from the Victory Liner peace officer or a private person may. there being no appellant was then brought to the NARCOM office probable cause and the accused-appellant not for investigation where a Receipt of Property having been lawfully arrested. pursuant to Article III. i. is actually committing.. and lastly. Consequently. Stated otherwise. poisoned tree and. Furthermore. . if there was committing a crime. were admittedly not armed with a warrant of arrest. the search and seizure of accused-appellants bag would also not WoN there was a waiver of rights? be justified as seizure of evidence in plain view under the second exception. There was no moving Section 5 of Rule 113 which provides inter alia: vehicle to speak of in the instant case as accused-appellant was apprehended several Sec. 2 which Lt. Neither was said person had an actual intention to relinquish there any semblance of any compliance with the the right. Arrest without warrant. to suspect that accused-appellant was committing a crime.e. 3(2) of the Constitution. as the search is not tantamount to a waiver of her clearly illustrated by the evidence on constitutional rights or a voluntary submission to record. arrest a person: the street and not while inside the vehicle. when lawful. without a bus. search of accused-appellants bag. must be rejected. it logically marijuana leaves. 5. No.

search warrant on the ground that the herein On arraignment she pleaded not guilty. GONZALES. Article III of admitting the evidence against her. and not determined personally by the Judge after acquitting the accused after finding that the examination under oath or affirmation of the searched was conducted in the place different complainant and the witnesses he may produce." warrant was subsequently issued. 6425. to hold Issue: WON search warrant and seizure of illegal liable for perjury the person giving it if it will articles were violative of the constitutional found later that his declarations are false. SP02 Teneros together with his team and the barangay The applicant was asking for the issuance of the chairwoman. immediately went to the place and search warrant on the basis of mere hearsay and confiscate the materials they found therein not of information personally known to him. They are now the bases of the Held: The court held that the issuance of the charge against the petitioner. He asks that their admission be to issue such. wherein there is an after which trial was ensued. Upon the issuance of the search warrant. confiscated. The conform to the essential requisites laid down by articles seized from him are sought to be used as the constitution. Article III. or the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. affidavits of the complainant and the witness. they objects sought in connection with the offense are also stated the place to search. This led the petitioner to file a petitioner's house was searched two days later motion to quash and annul the search warrant but none of the articles listed in the warrant was and for the return of the articles seized during the discovered. SPO2 Teneros and SP04 San Juan applied for a search warrant from the Probable cause was described as referring to Regional Trial Court Branch 23 to authorize them "such facts and circumstances which would lead a to search the premises at 122 M. the motion to annul the search Held: A search warrant must be supported by warrant is hereby granted. it was only based merely on the . The herein required by settled jurisprudence. The search in the place sought to be searched. in which is in contradiction to Section 2. It is necessary in order that the Judge may be able to properly determine the existence or non-existence of the probable cause. as including some personal properties. The petitioner is finding that the accused was guilty of the questioning the validity of the warrant of arrest charged filed against her. there must be a specific People vs Annabelle Francisco y David Facts: The herein defendant was placed under description of the place to be searched and the the surveillance after the police confirmed things to be seized. they also presented their witness.. However. 1984. from what was indicated in the search warrant. guarantee." defendant was charged with the violation of Section 16. The to the records. search found in the premises one Colt Magnum Issue: Whether or not the issuance of the search revolver and eighteen live bullets which they warrant is valid. The petitioner search warrant by the herein respondent was claims he was the victim of an illegal search and tainted by illegality on the ground that it does not seizure conducted by the military authorities. Furthermore. record. Republic Act No. The RTC denied her information that he is selling illegal tickets known motion to quash and upheld the validity of the as Masiao without the authority from the search warrant. in issuing warrant the Judge must strictly comply with requirements of the Constitution and the statutory provisions. They attached the surveillance that an offense has been committed and that the report. some other authorized officer after examining the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. Hizon St. 3 JOSEFINO S. there is also a failure on the part of Facts: The challenged search warrant was issued the herein respondent to attached the necessary documents to the issuance of the search warrant by the respondent judge on May 10. reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe Caloocan City. No less important. Bayona apartment unit at No. Mere affidavits of the evidence in his prosecution for illegal possession complainant and the witnesses are not sufficient of firearms. to prevent arbitrary and through a test-buy operation. the officers conducting the search. Therefore. ROAN vs THE HONORABLE application for search warrant and a joint ROMULO T. The RTC rendered its decision Philippine Jai Alai game. But she filed a motion to quash the search warrant stating that she and her live-in partner had been leasing an Mata vs. She filed for an appeal issued by the herein respondent on the ground stating that the RTC erred in convicting the that it was not personally examine by the Judge accused of the crime possession of shabu. Hizon Street as Facts: The herein respondent issued a certified by the owner. The Judge should take depositions in writing of the complainant and the witnesses temporarily restrained and thereafter he may produce and to attach them to the permanently enjoined. Because. that they were indiscriminate use of the warrant. petitioner violated PD 810. 120 M. engaged in selling shabu. in not finding the Constitution which states there that issuance that the search conducted was illegal and of search warrant is upon probable cause to be violative of accused constitutional rights. The court reminds that. but the articles probable cause to be determined by the judge or confiscated during the search cannot be returned to the petitioner.

he thought that the house bore the address in the event of search is inadmissible in evidence 122 M. four notebooks. In the case at bar. Section 3 The right effort. presented to Judge People vs Burgos Eduardo Gutierrez David then presiding over the Facts: Defendant is charged with illegal Court of First Instance of Tayabas. and the The absence of any of these requisites will persons or things to be seized. Caloocan City and it was committed. and distinguish it from other places in the houses. are confiscated. the decision rendered by the because it cannot be changed. Defendant residence at seven o'clock on the night of June 4. for a search warrant to to GOs 6and 7. four stubs. Therefore. papers. The requisite for the issuance of a searches and seizures of whatever nature and for valid search warrant are: (1) probable cause is any purpose shall not be violated. three person and his family. several agents of the Anti- a firearm. (2) such presence is determine warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except personally by the judge. Hizon St. 4 unlawful as it is done without valid warrant. the constitution requires that there be a particular description of the place to search and Issue: whether or not the arrest and the search things and people to be seized. Caloocan City. alleged extrajudicial statements have been made two cashbooks. 122. Subsequently. Hizon St. He avers that his arrest is bankbooks. receipts. The offense must also be committed in his an ocular inspection. enlarged or RTC in convicting the herein accused-appellant is amplified by the officers own knowledge of the reversed and set-aside. Thus. and (5) the or affirmation of the complainant and the warrant specifically describes the place to be witnesses he may produce. lists. only under fear. two memorandums. that Issue: Whether or not the search the trial court erred in holding the search warrant conducted by the police officers at accused in his house for the firearm lawful. chits and Sur. the police had no authority to search the accused-appellant. The However. judge. and particularly searched and the things and person to be seized. the description of SPO2 presence or within his view. Teneros and their police asset was similar to the the officers has no personal knowledge regarding house built in No. and seized and took possession of the and claims that he has been tortured in order to following articles: internal revenue licenses for accept ownership of subject firearm and that his the years 1933 to 1936. premises. allegedly issued and used by one Alias Usury Board entered the petitioner's store and Cmdr. documents. or such other responsible officer as may be (4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on the authorized by law. SPO2 Teneros and his team officers failed to comply with the basic searched the place that is different from what requirements in obtaining valid warrant of arrest was indicated in the search warrant. after examination under oath facts personally known to them. He states and search warrant. The application for provides for the protection of every individual the search warrant of SPO2 Teneros requested for against unreasonable search and seizure. the chief of the secret service of the Anti-Usury Board. FACTS: Around 1935. forty-eight . with reasonable Held: According to Article IV.. trial court erred in holding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of PD 9 in relation Held: The court said that. Davao del some books. The RTC conducted fact. the police authorities arrest defendant and had his house searched. nine order books. and at the time of the issuance of the search warrants to avoid the arrest he is not in actual possession of the exercise by the enforcing officers of discretion. But the court said therefore it cannot be used against the herein that. The court said that the the action of the herein defendant they just relay particularity of the place described is essential in upon the report of Masimlok. the evidence obtained that. ascertain and identify the place intended of the people to be secure in their persons. one ledger. 122 M. describing the place to be searched. CFI of Tayabas therein is inadmissible and it cannot be used as evidence against her.. Pol of the NPA. This provision invalidate the search warrant. is committing. place that is not indicated in the search warrant Therefore. denies being involved in any subversive activities 1936. and effects against unreasonable community. the court reversed the decision of RTC and declared that the searched done in the residence of herein defendant is violative of her constitutional right and all the evidence obtained Alvarez vs. threat and intimidation on his four checks stubs. or is about to commit accompanied by the sketch. (3) the complainant and upon probable cause to be determined by the the witness are personally examine by the judge. allegedly a man defendant tried to rates of interest in violation of the law. firearms and any subversion documents. of the Department of Justice. two journals. The rule is that a without warrant is valid description of a place to be search is sufficient if the officer with warrant can. an affidavit possession of firearm in furtherance of subversion alleging that the petitioner is keeping in his home and found guilty by the RTC of Digos. From the information filed by the police other papers used by him in connection with his authorities upon the information given by activities as a money-lender charging usurious Masamlok. be valid. and that the residence is reasonable. authority to search specifically the premised of The officer arresting a person who has just No. and it was also an offense must have personal knowledge of that testified by the police asset. recruit into the NPA. certain NPA-related documents and With said warrant. two contracts. and no search present.

2886). The search for and a seizure of said articles were made with the opposition of the petitioner who Held: The court defined first that " A search stated his protest below the inventories on the warrant is an order in writing. Siongco did not commit any faithfully and truthfully. why all the articles seized should not be returned to the petitioner The true test of sufficiency of an affidavit to warrant issuance of a search warrant is whether it has been drawn in such a manner that perjury . praying (section 95. No. Attorney Arsenio Rodriguez. filed a motion on June 8. date of notice of said order. that an particularly describing the place to be searched order be issued directing the return of all the and the person or thing to be seized. Siongco. therefore. and and upon application supported by oath praying that said warrant be cancelled. one bundle of credit by the court is illegal because it has been based receipts. and the petitioner filed another petition alleging that the persons or things to be seized. signed by of the documents. consequently. of Article III of the Constitution." It will be articles seized to the petitioner. seized for a period of thirty (30) days for the necessary investigation. and directed to brought immediately to the judge who issued the a peace officer. as amended that the agent Emilio L. 1936. and particularly On July 2 of said year. the be based upon an application supported by oath court issued an order holding: that the search of the applicant and the witnesses he may warrant was obtained and issued in accordance produce. Anti-Usury Board be punished for contempt of to be determined by the judge after examination court. and that charges be filed against him for search warrant but that the search warrant must abuse of authority. within made under an immediate sense of his the unextendible period of two (2) days from the responsibility to God. few are of greater importance or more seized articles in the office of the clerk of court essential to his peace and happiness than the and that said agent be declared guilty of right of personal security. General Orders. Almeda in copra. Of all the rights of a agent. and ordering the chief of the Anti. 5 stubs of purchases of copra. provides that "The Anti-Usury Board had failed to deposit the articles right of the people to be secure in their persons. if any. As the articles had not been a judge or a justice of the peace. In its broadest sense. that the sheriff be ordered to take all searches and seizures shall not be violated. 58. books. issued in the name ground that the agents seized even the originals of the People of the Philippine Islands. through his personal property and bring it before the court attorney. and it is sometimes contempt of court and must. and that he is bound in conscience to perform an act that agent Emilio L. person taking it that his attestation or promise is Usury Board in Manila to show case. the attorney for the describing the place top be searched. 504 chits. and the articles into his custody and deposit of the no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause. under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. representing the Since the proceeding is a drastic one. that the agent noted that both provisions require that there be who seized them be declared guilty of contempt not only probable cause before the issuance of a of court. seized by them and praying that a search warrant houses. and effects against unreasonable be issued. paragraph 3. 1936." Section 97 of search warrant issue was illegal and that it had General Orders. should not be cancelled. promissory secured from a person whom he considered notes and stubs of used checks of the Hongkong reliable. commanding him to search for search warrant. two packages of correspondence. or any other by section 6 of Act No. one whose oath he declared that he had no personal receipt book belonging to Luis Fernandez. two Issue: Whether or not the search warrant issued bundles of bills of lading. it is the Anti-Usury Board. On September 10. the petitioner. and seizure or search warrants must be strictly Usury Board be authorized to retain the articles construed. and court. The petitioner alleged that the officials of the relative to the bill of rights. and that involves the contempt for having disobeyed the order of the exemption of his private affairs. No. filed a motion praying that the general rule that statutes authorizing searches order of petitioner be set aside and that the Anti. that it had been duly complied with any form of attestation by which a party signifies and. knowledge of the facts which were to serve as a fourteen bundles of invoices and other papers basis for the issuance of the warrant but that he many documents and loan contracts with security had knowledge thereof through mere information and promissory notes. 58 provides that "A search not yet been returned to date together with the warrant shall not issue except for probable cause proceedings taken in connection therewith. It was also reiterated by the court that Section 1. one bundle of stubs of purchases of upon the affidavit of agent Mariano G. papers. an oath includes with the law. two inventories. be ordered immediately to deposit all the citizen. be defined as an outward pledge given by the exonerated. papers from the inspection and scrutiny of others. & Shanghai Banking Corporation.

the deprivation to which the petitioner was These provisions are mandatory and must be subjected. it is clear that no other more adequate take the deposition of the witnesses to be and detailed description could have been given. facts within his personal and direct knowledge. because he likewise illegal because it was based only on the has waived his constitutional rights in proposing a affidavit of the agent who had no personal compromise whereby he agreed to pay a fine of knowledge of the facts. relied documents. who issued the search warrant in this case. 6 could be charged thereon and affiant be held One of the grounds alleged by the petitioner in liable for damages caused. . and section 97 of General warrant. receipts. presented by the applicant or complainant in particularly because it is difficult to give a addition to the affidavit of the latter. charging a usurious rate of nor take the deposition of any other witness. chits and other papers exclusively upon the affidavit made by agent used by him in connection with his activities as Mariano G. the fact that it compromise and. seized. P200 for the purpose of evading the criminal proceeding or proceedings. that the warrant issued is subsequent to the issuance thereof. our case because the petitioner protested from the conclusion is that the contention is equally well beginning and stated his protest in writing in the founded and that the search could not legally be insufficient inventory furnished him by the made at night. of Article III of which served as the exclusive basis of the search the Constitution. it is the duty of the judge to petitioner in the criminal proceeding or require the affidavit of one or more witnesses for proceedings for violation against him. which shall serve as the basis for made. it is hereby held that the determining whether probable cause exist and search warrant in question and the subsequent whether the warrant should be issued. interest. it appearing that at least nineteen of in this case was insufficient because his the documents in question were seized for the knowledge of the facts was not personal but purpose of using them as evidence against the merely hearsay. The waiver would have been a good the affidavits that the property is on the person or defense for the respondents had the petitioner in the place ordered to be searched. because if there was a authorized its execution at night. No. 58 authorizes that the search criminal proceedings for violation of the Anti- be made at night when it is positively asserted in Usury Law. When the affidavit of the him. strictly complied with . lists. The purpose particular description of the contents thereof. but such was not the warrant issued exclusively upon it illegal. may dispense with that of other witnesses. is insufficient and fatally defective by Orders. Section 1. As we have voluntarily consented to the search and seizure of declared the affidavits insufficient and the the articles in question. and therefore. applicant or complainant is sufficient. therefore. We are of the opinion The petitioner alleged as another ground for the that there was no such waiver." Taking into Neither the Constitution nor General Orders. No. it is sufficient if the judge is satisfied that there exist probable cause. No. the The Anti-Usury Board insinuates in its answer that affidavit of one or more witnesses having a the petitioner cannot now question the validity of personal knowledge of the fact is necessary. We the search warrant or the proceedings had conclude. when the applicant's knowledge of the facts is mere hearsay. agents. first. consideration the nature of the article so 58 provides that it is of imperative necessity to described. the judge which he did. second. Section 101 of compromise it reffered but to the institution of General Orders. documents and other contain a particular description of the place to be papers are illegal and do not in any way warrant searched and the person or thing to be seized. It is the practice in this jurisdiction to attach the The only description of the articles given in the affidavit of at least the applicant or complainant affidavit presented to the judge was as follows: to the application. The of both in requiring the presentation of description so made substantially complies with depositions is nothing more than to satisfy the the legal provisions because the officer of the law committing magistrate of the existence of who executed the warrant was thereby placed in probable cause. in violation of the law. we hold the purpose of determining the existence of that the search warrant issued is illegal and that probable cause to warrant the issuance of the the documents should be returned to search warrant. 58 provide that the affidavit to be reason of the manner in which the oath was presented. It is admitted that the judge "that there are being kept in said premises books. description of the books and documents to be cited authorities. Inasmuch as the affidavit of the agent Therefore. if the affidavit of the a position enabling him to identify the articles. it appears that the affidavit. Therefore. paragraphs 3. Almeda and that he did not require money-lender. support of his contention that the warrant was issued illegally is the lack of an adequate In view of the foregoing and under the above. Cannot be used as an evidence for Criminal applicant of the complaint contains sufficient prosecution. because the declaration of the illegality of the search warrant petitioner has emphatically denied the offer of and the cancellation thereof. must seizure of the books.

Pablo Ygot. Together with other policemen and the firearm. Eugenio took Melvida to the police station Godinez. in one hundred peso bills.00. but his companions prevailed upon him to go with Luna. who is a lawyer. was near the crime scene. The motorcycle toppled (Melvidas) companions during the robbery were over Godinez.000. property custodian of the Medellin PNP station. Melvida hesitated Serafin[21] were taken at the PNP Headquarters . according to the station told Luna that Nenito Melvida was not there but commander. who was then at patted the bulge which turned out to be a . went to the Medellin Rural conducted. although Luna assured with Godinez behind him and Broniola behind the trial judge that the Municipal Mayor of Godinez. Melvida was allowed to go home the next cashier instructed Jimmy Serafin.[15] Melvida admitted that his motorcycle and ran away. approached were staying in the house of Juanito Hones in Godinex. Alfredo Mondigo hacienda.[5] Luna claimed he asked the Mayor to act as Melvidas counsel. Melvida because Nenito Melvida and Emerlindo Sequio admitted that he kept his share the loot in his used to work in the hacienda while Vicente house. Serafin leapt from the Alfredo Mondigo. took the money from the money bag.[19] Luna to the said house where Luna saw the accused Nenito Melvida playing cards with other On the morning of 25 April 1991. with gun in hand. Immediately. however. the accused.[7] Godinez noticed that Broniola had During the investigation conducted by SPO3 fallen off the motorcycle. leaving proceeded to the house of Hones where they saw Broniola behind. Lunas investigation of Melvida was hacienda. Medellin.00. Serafin drove the motorcycle the police investigation. overseer since 1952 of Hacienda Jose instead.[8] Meanwhile.17 to pay for the and Eliseo Tepait.[13] block their path and ordered them to stop. As to this amount.557. Godinez ran home. but only after the police had filed criminal motorcycle driver of the bank. Godinez carried the money in a money Medellin. Melvida was not assisted by counsel during banks motorcycles. to withdraw P50.00 which. Tumangan was then investigated in the that the culprit had already fled. Serafin had Tumangan and Sequio on the porch. So. Daanlungsod. Cebu. The banks supper. armed with guns. and fled on foot with his co-accused. was present. first. Luna noticed presence of the Municipal mayor. janitor and day. the sworn persons. Melvida then was brought to his house Tumangans parents were Godinezs neighbors. Luna went to the crime scene he negative. Tumangan did not answer. Sequio The barangay captain was not home. and informed Broniolas Mondigo and Artiquela approached Tumangan wife of the incident. as Luna had to take his wages of the hacienda workers.526. placed inside a shoe which he delivered to Serafin drove on. did not appear in the record of the Antipolo. to drive Godinez charges against him and he had posted and Broniola back to the hacienda on one of the bail.[9] and asked him what was that bulging at his waist. SPO1 Mariano Remulta. Medellin. he and Godinez heard a gunshot. Melvida was kept at the station the Ancajas in Medellin.[14] past the accused.[16] When asked if he had a license for sitio Antipolo. Cebu. tried to not reduced into writing. and Pedro Broniola. Elpidio took the highway robbery case.[12] People vs. then. Elpidio the P22. Luna asked Melvida to go with him to statements of Eugenio Godinez[20] and Jimmy the barangay captains house. Accused Vicente Tumangan and Ermelindo Sequio. Nenito and the entry for the fathers any further how the recovery was made and from name filled in with Elpidio Melvida.[18] but could not explain Melvida. Tumangan that the bushes were compressed and found a admitted that he was one of the holdupppers. the whole evening of 24 April 1991 for investigation haciendas bookkeeper. Mondigo and Artiquela then brought found an abandoned motorcycle. Cpl. Tumangan answered in the some Cafgus.[11] whom. Cebu. by Luna. so Luna Facts: At around noon of 24 April 1991. Mondigo SPO Elpidio Luna. received a caliber Squires Bingham revolver with holster and report from another policeman about a robbery at four bullets.526. One bystander volunteered to take Luna to merely declared that he was entrusted with Elpidio Melvidas house where. but as the motorcycle went the policemen. Godinez recognized the armed men In the course of Lunas investigation. While bag which he hung over his left shoulder. and nearing the investigation. 7 at first. located three kilometers from the policemen Sgt. With the Mondigo and policeman Proniely Artiquela assailants gone.38 the Medellin police headquarters. pinning him to the ground. was recovered in connection with was at his (Nenitos) brothers house. People who by Tumangan and Sequio to the police then had milled around the site informed Luna station.[6] where he got P9. who Tumangan.[17] piece of paper utilized as toilet paper with a stool on it [which] was somewhat newly delivered. by his fellow Bank. he admitted that his request As the three were in sitio Lahug. The Mondigo further declared that the police paper was a bio-data sheet[10]with the name recovered P22. Noticing proceeded to the house of the Broniolas which something bulging on the waist of Tumangan.

respectively. however. he went to Medellin together with his friend.38 caliber pistol. as his sister-in-law told him to stay there was instantaneous. At 7:00 a. and four live bullets. time of the crime. Sormillon determined that the The defense interposed alibi and denial and bullet followed an upward path from the lower suggested a frame-up for their exculpation. which was recorded as an at the upper back of the nape and the bullet Estafa Alarm in the said stations blotter. by P/Cpl.m. Probing the wound. were to procure Sequios birth certificate to be her husband Pedro Broniola earned a monthly used in the latters wedding. Melvida was 22297. Criminal Case No. Arturo Sormillon conducted the post- mortem examination on Pedro Broniola.[31] Cebu Provincial Director Rodolfo L. police officers Mondigo and exemplary damages. 4739-M) was April 1991 which he prepared reading as follows: filed with the Third MCTC of Daanbantayan- Medellin. issued by PNP had been detained. an outgoing security guard the PNP Crime Laboratory failed to turned over service revolver cal. On or about 0700H more or less 3 April 91 at the vicinity of Asian Arts.[22] company carrying a medium size bag presumably containing the said firearm. operation Mondigo and Artequela pointing an armalite and officer of the Forever Security and general a . At the time of his Sequio aunts house. Sequio.00 as At 8:00 p. The two arrived salary of P1. de Broniola. CBU-22297. thus. local made negative results for the presence of gunpowder w/ 5rds ammo to the in-coming security residue on both hands of Tumangan and Melvida. Perpetua Socorro Belarmino. nape and out of the victims mouth. Cebu. 1. On the same Tumangan went on absence without leave on 4 date. and at 1:00 p. death crime. he raised the possibility that the gun used was Accused-appellant Nenito Melvida claims he positioned lower than the exit wound. Esparagoza. which investigation disclosed that while Seqioos left hand tested positive for SG Tumangan hurriedly went out of the gunpowder residue. Labangon Parafin tests were then conducted on the Cebu City. he was already receiving P880. she suffered worries which she quantified at P50. Cebu City.[32] death. the day before the incident claiming they were looking for in 24 April that was his day off with Forever firearms. she also asked P10.. in Case No. Through acquainted only with Sequio and he just met Belarmino. at services. Branch barrio. guard. Other policemen searched the house. and they stayed in and died at the age of 63.00 from Hacienda Jose Ancajas in Medellin at 5:00 p. He was asked if stenographic notes of Mondigos testimony in we were the ones responsible for the robbery and People vs. P/Sgt.000. in Camp Cabahug. Dr. CBU. He claims he was confiscated from accused Tumangan.[25] Atty. Belarmino.00 from the they were tired from their long trip Social Security System. 8 in Medellin. Tumangan and Sequio awoke to find Rebuttal witness Olympio Lozano. Tumangan. killing and he said that is not true.. claim that on April 23.38 caliber revolver with serial saw in Sequios aunts house as he was fetching number 1022560. allegedly water at around 5:00 p. The tests yielded 38 w/ serial number 769398.[26] Labangon. Myrna Areola.[24] brought to the police station where he was asked if he knew those persons who just arrived in his Atty.m.200. Eliseo Tepait and Security Agency. the criminal complaint for highway robbery April 1991. stenographer of Branch 15 of to the house and showed Melvida the Soiled bio- the RTC of Cebu. They According to Presentation vda. Inc.000. The entrance of the bullet was to the security agency. exited a the mouth splitting the tongue. brought accused-appellant Ermelindo Sequio whom he the firearm a . He identified one those persons as Clerk of Court of the aforesaid trial court.[27] Artequela came and were let in by Sequios aunt.m. was not the incumbent clerk of court Tumangan had just left his post as a security when the said exhibits were presented in Criminal guard at the Asian Arts. Elpidio Luna.m. the prosecution also presented a accused-appellant Vicente Tumangan while they certification dated 30 May 1992. Inc. Security Guard Vicente accused by Lt.00. Later that night. testified to disprove accused Tumangans Tumangan. police officer Luna came Emilio Daclan. authenticated the transcript of data which he admitted to be his. of 24 April 1991. He found Lozano also reported to the Cebu City Police a single gunshot wound at the upper back of Station 3 Tumangans failure to return the firearm [Broniolas] head. stating that Vicente Tumangan had not been Accused-appellants Tumangan and Sequio issued a license nor a permit to possess the also placed themselves somewhere alse at the firearm described above. Cebu City. Tumangan asked had happened and . as evidenced by a spot report dated 3 with homicide (Criminal Case No. respectively.m. As a consequence of his from Cebu City. He also was at his brothers house at the time of the advanced that by the nature of the wound.[23] while she was in Cebu City and her husband was at work.[29] Dr. forensic chemist of Tumangan. Cebu. They went to sleep early as death.[28] According to Lozano.

Tumangan was finding what looked liked marijuana leaves took interrogated by the police without the assistance him to their headquarters for investigation. arbitrarily arrested and immediately handcuffed.[45] Melvidas voluntarily going with Luna under detention by the PC authorities and in fact upon the latters invitation was a submission to has never been set free since he was arrested in Lunas custody. in Iloilo security guard. shortly after disembarking from the M/V was the same as the firearm given to me as a Wilcon 9 at about 8:30 in the evening. Bingham. leaving Mondigo and Artequela upstairs to continue their People vs. That is restraint of the person to be arrested.000. headquarters. Tumangan and arrest was thus illegal. best. (which in fact compelled the robbery victims. Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. neither does the second try to secure a search warrant for the seizure or condition apply. At the station. inspected his bag and evening.[44] and it is made by an actual he submit to a medical examination. the investigator hitting the custodial interrogation made in violation of him with a piece of wood in the chest and arms paragraph (1) of Section 12. But the rial court was unconvinced the P9.[33] Tumangan and Sequio were City. Aminnudin disclaimed the the scene of the crime) to consummate their criminal intent to take away. was committed. Melvida was being held to answer for the Issue: Whether or not Aminnudin's claim that he commission of the said offense. Issue: Whether or not a valid warrantless arrest His bag was confiscated without a search was effected. He said he had no gun. 9 why the police were pointing guns at him. which Tumangan recognized because it 1984.[34] two bundles of suspect articles were confiscated from him and later taken to the NBI laboratory for The Court entertains no doubt whatsoever that examination. except the killed also inadmissible. It does not even connote that Melvida pronouncement. This is still the crime scene long before or after the crime a government of laws and not of men. the personal property of Hacienda his clothing consisting of a jacket. as they did. . to scamper away fast from In his defense. therefore. he was Held: Since the recovery of P9. Amminudin search. The rule is settled that once the primary cigarettes. warrant. especially as it comes from a was at the crime scene for the bio-data sheet mere lieutenant of the PC. or by his hardly fair or realistic.any secondary or derivative several bundles kept in the stock room of the PC evidence (the fruit) derived from it . Since he was was arrested and searched without warrant was arrested without a warrant. He also argued that the marijuana he source (the tree) is shown to have been was alleged to have been carrying was not unlawfully obtained -.. When they were verified as the accused did employ violence against marijuana leaves. had no personal . By no means can this because were very very sure that our operation indicate that Melvida committed the offense will yield positive result. Sequio were told to go downstairs. for marijuana. Held: No. An arrest is accused-appellant was not really beaten up the taking of a person into custody in order that because he did not complain about it later nor did he may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense. He alleged that he was of the hacienda overseer and paymaster). Luna. consequence of his admission .. The of counsel.00 obtained from Melvida as a because of his confusing testimonies. Lunas basis for arresting Melvida search of the subject mentioned in your was the bio-data sheet with Melvidas name on it intelligence report and the answer was no found at the crime scene. at policemen did not answer.00 from manhandled to force him to admit he was Melvida was due to his admission in the course of carrying the marijuana. He insisted he did not even know evidence pursuant to paragraph (3) of the said what marijuana looked like and that his business section then the P9. case is the trial court's conclusion that the accused Nenito Melvida was arrested. while Sequio was left in a cell. be whether a valid warrantless arrest was effected.000. but the knowledge of facts indicating Melvidas guilt.38 caliber Squires Facts: Idel Aminnudin was arrested on June 25.[ The only exception the court may make in this Regardless of Lunas claim to the contrary. This a cavalier charged. was a suspect in the robbery charged herein. The PC officers who were in fact waiting for brought to the police station that same him simply accosted him. At the PC headquarters. two shirts and Ancajas (payroll money under the custodial trust two pairs of pants. When they came down the policemen said they had found a gun. and Luna believed that Melvida 1984 and up to the present. Melvidas but the officers said he lied. he had an unreasonable suspicion.00 cannot also be was selling watches and sometimes admitted in evidence as a fruit of the poisonous the admission of Melvida properly Identified and could have been any of in this case -. the inquiry must now proper. hence. Article III of the even as he parried the blows while he was still Constitution and therefore inadmissible in handcuffed. The Supreme Court could have been obtained by anyone and left at cannot countenance such a statement.When asked by the court if they did not under the facts herein. It is possible Aminnudin submission to the custody of the person making never had that opportunity as he was at that time the arrest. an information for violation of (shooting and killing) and intimidation of persons the Dangerous Drugs Act was filed against him.000. averring that all he had in his bag was personal gain.

It was the furtive finger that even if were assumed for the sake of argument triggered his arrest. His name assassination of Mayor Cesar Climaco. As mere suspects." and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men. The Constitution is a law for determined on his own authority that a "search rulers and people. And from the Issue: Whether or not the seizing of the items information they had received. the accused-appellant was not as presumably the purpose was merely to warn caught in flagrante nor was a crime about to be the intruders and deter them from entering. the accused-appellant was not. of course. The Identification by the that they were guilty. 10 In the case at bar. he was like any time of the "zona. witnesses. the compound was warrant as in the case of Roldan v. The precarious state of at the moment of his arrest. of course. Every person is entitled to due simple fact is that the marijuana was seized process. lacking the shield of the case of the prosecution must fall. No one was hurt government. to justify the issuance of a warrant. they would not have been informer was the probable cause as determined any less entitled to the protection of the by the officers (and not a judge) that authorized Constitution. committing a crime lawlessness in Zamboanga City at the time in nor was it shown that he was about to do so or question certainly did not excuse the non- that he had just done so. Even expediency could not be ensued. but from arbitrary have been considered by the trial court for the punishment. were taken without a search warrant as required by the Bill of Rights. was known. circumstances. The make the raid without a search warrant on their . Unfortunately. had respondents took. to use the precept that "civilian authority is at all times Justice Holmes' felicitous phrase. This is not to say. The vehicle was Identified. nine rifle grenades. Instead. they pointed to him as the carrier of the marijuana were presumed innocent and not guilty as that he suddenly became suspect and so subject summarily pronounced by the military. as might be expected in incidents committed or had just been committed to justify like this. Facts: Respondents. which covers both the innocent and them to pounce upon Aminnudin and the guilty. the guilty need the armor of the Constitution. it is clear that they had at least two There was also the suggestion that the measure days within which they could have obtained a was necessary because of the aggravation of the warrant to arrest and search Aminnudin who was peace and order problem generated by the coming to Iloilo on the M/V Wilcon 9. To all appearances. simply signify is that. to protect them. Yet they did nothing. On invoked to dispense with the obtention of the the following morning. one M14 rifle. the Alih vs Castro respondents simply by-passed the civil courts. Arca. The respondents. and should never deserved sentence. cause. at all times and under all In the case at bar. equally in war and in peace. Petitioners came to the court and filed these vehicles may be quickly moved out of the an injunction suit and demanded the return of the locality or jurisdiction before the warrant can be arms and ammunition on the ground that they secured. indeed. not from a evidence cannot be admitted. The fact that the to comply with the law. Indeed. What it does the marijuana allegedly seized from Aminnudin. warrant. and aircraft are subject to warrantless searches and several rounds of ammunition found in the seizures for violation of the customs law because premises. they also defied illegally." they were merely suspected of the other passengers innocently disembarking of the mayor's slaying and had not in fact even from the vessel. In acting as they did. to apprehension. The initial reaction of the personal determination by him of the existence of people inside the compound was to resist the probable cause. Contrary to the averments of the invasion with a burst of gunfire. ammunitions and other explosives. warrant was not necessary. they proceeded to firearms. No effort was made Held: Superior orders cannot. The record and there was no outward indication that called does not disclose that the petitioners were wanted criminals or fugitives from justice. It was only when the informer been investigated for it. that the immediately arrest him. Without the evidence of Constitution coddles criminals. there was no warrant of arrest military operation was commonly known and or search warrant issued by a judge after dreaded as a "zona”. members of the Philippine which had the authority to determine whether or marines. the situation aggravated soon enough. It is the fruit of the poisonous tree. the warrantless arrest allowed under Rule 113 of The soldiers returned fire and a bloody shoot-out the Rules of Court. The Bill of Rights was petitioners were suspected of the Climaco killing ignored altogether because the PC lieutenant who did not excuse the constitutional short-cuts the was the head of the arresting team. What he was doing was observance of the constitutional guaranty against descending the gangplank of the M/V Wilcon 9 unreasonable searches and seizures. countermand the Constitution. That innocence. resulting in a number of casualties. At the for his arrest. while admitting the absence of the required such The present case presented no such urgency. for besieged and the forces confiscated nine M16 example. In the instant case. they could have are violative of the bill of Rights and are persuaded a judge that there was probable inadmissible as evidence against them. The date of its arrival was certain. raided the compound occupied by the not there was probable cause to search the petitioners in Zamboanga city in search for loose petitioner's premises. Here it was held that vessels and rifles. sought to justify their act on the ground From the conflicting declarations of the PC that they were acting under superior orders. supreme over the military" so clearly proclaimed in the 1973 Constitution.

There that he has the inherent power or authority to was absolutely no reason at all why they should order the seizure even without a warrant and that disregard the orderly processes required by the he being a quasi-judicial officer has the control of Constitution and instead insist on arbitrarily the prosecution and the presentation of the forcing their way into the petitioner's premises evidence in the criminal case is untenable. And since knew where the petitioners were. And for a search warrant to be valid: (1) then brought to the police station where she was it must be issued upon probable cause. upon being informed that the motor launch warrant. therefore. Lim vs Ponce de leon As for Maddela. Held: During the investigation. Facts: Police officer Luciano gave money and filed with the Court of First Instance of Palawan instructed his civil informer to buy marijuana from the corresponding information for Robbery the the accused. 11 own unauthorized determination of the There can be no question that without the proper petitioner's guilt. She begged not to search direct the detachment commander-in Balabac to the house but since the team insisted. they have making the raid. On June 15. Taha. entered the house through the back door. someone uttered “ito na”. A year later or on April 9. At the time the act complained of was compound are inadmissible in evidence in any of committed. it was proven that he merely Facts: On April 29. Sgt. While seated in Issue: whether or not defendant-appellee the sala. Sgt. and (4) the warrant properly obtained by the police. Lim. search warrant. These recognized the authority of Provincial Fiscals to articles are "fruits of the poisonous tree. They for the purpose of search and seizure. requesting him to went inside her house. 89373. If they were worried that the violated the constitutional right of plaintiffs- weapons inside the compound would be spirited appellants against unreasonable search and away. 1962. alleging that after the sale Jikil Taha forcibly took away the motor launch from him. there arose some inconsistencies with regards to how and where did the police obtain the marijuana. story. She said that while she was in the terrace of her house. Yte showing her what seemed to be Fiscal Ponce de Leon had the power to order the a warrant. respondents claiming that the latter entered their premises without a search warrant and then and Accused however narrated her version of the there took the motor launch without his consent. 1975 is illegal. the judge must examine. issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized. The police then brought the Madella to return the boat but he refused.R. The trial court himself and not by the applicant or any other ruled that the accused is guilty beyond person. In the . thus he is 1962 Alberto Timbangcaya filed a complaint with free of the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Palawan liabilities. Fiscal Francisco Ponce de at that same day. after conducting a preliminary People vs Gesmundo investigation. 1961. the said seizure G. Palawan. 1993. plaintiff-appellant Jikil obeyed the Taha sold to a certain Alberto Timbangcaya of order of his superior by fear of disciplinary action Brooke's Point. Accused was warrant. No. He saw the accused selling Force and Intimidation upon Persons against Jikil marijuana to his civilian informer so immediately. the police was in Balabac. Palawan a motor launch named and was M/L "SAN RAFAEL". No. If power to issue a search warrant is vested in a follows that as the search of the petitioners' judge or magistrate and in no other officer and no premises was violative of the Constitution. petitioner and third basis on top of the table as the hiding place of party buyer of the said motor launch. coming from seizure of the motor launch in question without a the kitchen. asked the dried marijuana.R. (3) in the determination of probable unreasonable. cause. Fiscal Francisco Ponce de Leon in his capacity as Acting Provincial Fiscal of Palawan. The contention of fiscal Ponce de leon in the meantime. policemen arrived. he applied for a search Leon. Lim accused to the police station where she was and Takil then filed a complaint against properly booked. 1962. they could have surrounded the premises seizure. (2) the detained and was asked to testify against a probable cause must be determined by the judge certain Marquez for drug pushing. Armed with a search warrant. reluctant to impound the motor launch. there was no law or rule that the proceedings against the petitioners. no public official has the right to The respondents cannot even plead the urgency enter the premises of another without his consent of the raid because it was in fact not urgent. Luciano insisted that the plastic bag came from her but Held: A search and seizure to be reasonable. March 9. G. They had every in the present case defendants-appellees seized opportunity to get a search warrant before the motor launch without a warrant. as a preventive measure. August 29. wrote the Provincial team went to the residence of the accused and Commander Orlando Maddela. the complainant and such witnesses Issue: Whether or Not the evidence was as the latter may produce. Yte and her proceeded to the warrant of search and seizure even if the same kitchen and saw PFC Luciano holding a bag who was admittedly the corpus delicti of the crime. she denied the accusation telling him that she must be effected by means of a valid search doesn’t know anything about it. all the search and seizure can be made without a proper firearms and ammunition taken from the raided warrant. On May 14. issue a search warrant. under oath or affirmation. L-22554. The with all the menace of a military invasion. she led impound and take custody of the motor launch them into her kitchen and she pointed a metal which the latter followed.

Yte in the kitchen however. be used as evidence against her. appellant and the these duties are mandatory and are required to vehicle with the high-voltage wires were brought preclude substitution of the items seized by to the Pagsanjan Police Station. the Presidential Commission on Good the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Government (PCGG) was formed in order to the crime of Theft. There is a Furthermore. residing in the same locality. room or any other premise shall be Neither is the right against unreasonable made except in the presence of the lawful searches and seizures applicable here. There occupant thereof or any member of his family or were no searches made and no seizure pursuant in the absence of the latter. the backyard of the house of the suspect. Pagsanjan. This requirement is mandatory to ensure regularity in the execution TAIÑO VS. right against self-incrimination has no application to juridical persons. in Sgt. the court a quo rendered judgment finding power. Suspecting that the jeep was she informed that she has the right to the loaded with smuggled goods. The conductor wires weighed 700 kilos and the duty to issue a detailed receipt for the valued at P55. together with a true and accurate approximately 8 kilometers away from inventory thereof duly verified under oath. and whether they had been violation of Section 7. while on a routine patrol in Barangay The document (PAGPAPATUNAY) was inadmissible Sampalucan. anomaly to hold that a state. the two police assistance of a counsel and the fact that it may officers flagged down the vehicle. Sampalucan. former President Marcos and his cronies. that pot in any of their testimonies. Not checked the cargo and they discovered bundles only does the law require the presence of of 3. Sgt. the search of the sovereignty." more importantly. Apparently. It would be a strange conducted by the police authorities. examination. he asserted that the marijuana were surrendered to Pfc. there The sequestration order issued in 1986 required. and charged. in the presence of to any search was ever made. However. 244. Furthermore. Inc. (BASECO). On appeal. BASECO mention of any marijuana obtained from a flower assails this order as it avers. there was no contempt of the PCGG if it fails to do so. and demand the production of the Court which specifically provides that no search corporate books and papers for that purpose. Luciano upon presentation of ISSUE: Whether or not BASECO is correct. inquire how these franchises had accused-appellant's house was conducted in been employed. the Court of recover ill-gotten wealth allegedly acquired by Appeals affirmed the judgment of conviction. appellant interposed denial and alibi. PCGG has the right to the prosecution witnesses cast doubt on the guilt require the production of such documents of appellant and his culpability to the crime pursuant to the power granted to it. Second. PCGG In defense. COURT OF APPEALS of the search warrant. Aquino then issued two executive orders in 1986 and ISSUE: Whether or not the constitutional right of pursuant thereto. the claim of the accused-appellant reserve right in the legislature to investigate the that the marijuana was planted is strengthened contracts of a corporation and find out whether it by the manner in which the search was has exceeded its powers. Yte cross seizures. Yte when they heard someone in the kitchen franchises. First of all. Alex de Castro. and that during the search they discovered a hole at in turn. that BASECO produce corporate the cover a flower pot was placed wherein the records from 1973 to 1986 under pain of marijuana was kept. could not. the search warrant. “Irreconcilable and unexplained contradictions in the testimonies of HELD: No. through dummy stockholders. Pfc it is against BASECO’s right against self- Luciano said that accused gave the marijuana to incrimination and unreasonable searches and Sgt. BASECO was two (2) witnesses of sufficient age and discretion merely ordered to produce the corporate records. BASECO VS. He is likewise required to deliver where the wires came from and appellant the property seized to the judge who issued the answered that they came from Cavinti. Victorino Noceja and Pat. a town warrant. Rule 126 of the Rules of abused. a sequestration and a takeover petitioner was violated when the police officers order were issued against Bataan Shipyard & searched his vehicle and seized the wires found engineering Co. The accused. Appellant was incarcerated for 7 days in the Municipal jail.. Judgment is reversed. Thereafter. Danilo Cabale interested parties. but it exclusively owned by National Power Corporation also imposes upon the person making the search (NPC). Again. FACTS: When President Corazon Aquino took Thus.08 mm aluminum/galvanized conductor wires witnesses when the search is conducted. 12 investigation report prepared by Luciano stated the Marcoses through the Romualdez family. in the exercise of uttered "ito na". BASECO was therein without a search warrant and when alleged to be in actuality owned and controlled by samples of the wires and references to them were admitted in evidence as basis for his conviction. having chartered a appellant was seated at the sala together with corporation like BASECO to make use of certain Sgt. Laguna. spotted a to the court as the accused was not informed of passenger jeep unusually covered with her right not to sign the document neither was "kakawati" leaves. Noceja asked appellant property seized. . established. took pictures of the appellant and the jeep loaded with the wires which were turned over to the The guilt of the accused was has not been Police Station Commander of Pagsanjan. It was not With appellant's consent. Laguna.45. among others. was a big biscuit can inside the hole and on top of among others. of a house. the police officers proved that the marijuana belonged to her.

the police operatives. With the affidavit of III of the Constitution bars the admission of Francisco Manalo. In the The search resulted in the confiscation of a can of exceptional events where warrant is not milo. Rule 126 of the house of Gloria Umali and served the search Rules of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence. namely: (1) search the house of Gloria Umali. ISSUE: Whether or not the court a quo gravely In the course of the investigation. the appellant. investigators to further identify the marked four In cases where warrant is necessary. on the specimen gave positive result to the tests the presence or absence of probable cause. supported by the two (2) foils evidence obtained in violation of such right. MORFE vs AMELITO R. or unreasonable search or seizure is purely a Samples of the marijuana leaves confiscated judicial question. Pfc.00 bills to buy approval or after his assumption of office “and within marijuana from sources known to him.00 bills. The searched in the house was prescribed by the Constitution and reiterated in made in the presence of Brgy. In return he asked JESUS P. possession of "Indian Hemp" penalized under Sec. Hence.00 bills with serial moving vehicles. went to the recognized under Section 12.00 bills were situations (Terry search). the Rules of Court must be complied with. father of the minor HELD: No. what constitutes a reasonable was being stored. warrant on her. as defined under Section the manner and circumstances of how he was 2. No. (6) stop and frisk Likewise. Leopoldo Pangan. Thus. the Chief of the Investigation The constitutional proscription against Division petitioned the Court for the issuance of a warrantless searches and seizures is not absolute search warrant as a justification for them to but admits of certain exceptions.R. he was asked persons and properties against unreasonable by the police investigators to give a statement on searches and seizures. was investigated by Pat. Since the search is predicated on a community. FACTS: The Law: Anti-Graft and Corrupt With the consent of Francisco Manalo. Practices Act of 1960 (RA No. liabilities. seizure. (3) search of Gloria Umali were the four P5. No. 170 affected his son. search. Article accused Gloria Umali. “a back the prohibited drug purchased by him to the true detailed and sworn statement of assets and police headquarters. Confiscated from the person of (2) seizure of evidence in plain view. 13 Manalo returned with two (2) foils of dried HELD: Enshrined in our Constitution is the marijuana which lie allegedly bought from the inviolable right of the people to be secure in their accused Gloria Umali. the place or thing searched and the reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal character of the articles procured. Chief of the Investigation Division Every public officer within 30 days after its gave him four (4) marked P5. L-20387 January 31. 76893. present in the four (4) P5. Punzalan. the for marijuana. (4) consented warrantless numbers as reflected in the police blotter. the court a quo rendered manner in which the search and seizure was judgment finding the accused guilty beyond made. Felino Noguerra for drug dependency and for an alleged crime of robbery. 3019) Sarmiento.R. (5) customs search. and (7) exigent and the letters T which were placed by the police emergency circumstances. of marijuana. the police investigators sought the presence of his parents. as well numbers of the money were entered in the police as upon termination of his position. Thereafter. 1968 policeman and agreed to help in the identification of the source of the marijuana. or marijuana leaves which were placed in a when the latter cannot be performed except tupperware and kept in the kitchen where rice without a warrant. and sought the help of such was procured maliciously the things seized Francisco Manalo and told him the social and are admissible in evidence. Quezon. shall prepare and blotter. but other minors in the SCRA 681). As Pierre Pangan is a minor. G. the steps (4) P5. The serial the month of January of every year thereafter”. The instruction was for Manalo to bring file with the head of the office to which he belongs. MUTUC the policeman to help him in some cases pending against him. the admissibility of these marked Pangan asked the police investigators if peso bills hinges on the legality of the arrest and something could be done to determine the source search on the person of the appellant" (People v. 8 of Article 6425 as amended otherwise known as People vs. containing sixteen (16) foils of dried necessary to effect a valid search or seizure. Umali the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. Felino Noguerra went to the valid search warrant. Article III. absent any showing that Tiaong Municipal Jail. this FACTS: On April 27. Pat. After securing warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest the same. 1985 Pierre Pangan a minor appeal from the lower court's decision. pernicious effect of prohibited drugs like marijuana being peddled to minors of Tiaong. examination. 27 February 1989. Manalo although a detention prisoner was touched by the appeal made to him by the N G. of the marijuana which has not only socially Paco. Capt. Mr. the policemen erred in admitting the prosecution's evidence discovered that Pierre Pangan was capable of which were obtained in violation of accused's committing crime against property. able to purchase two (2) marijuana foils from The exclusionary rule under Section 3(2). determinable from the were submitted to the PC Came Laboratory for uniqueness of the circumstances involved. Few minutes thereafter. "Where marked peso bills were seized was invited to the police headquarters and was by the police as a result of the search made on informed about the problem of his son. only if under constitutional rights against illegal search and the influence of drug. Qualitative examination conducted including the purpose of the search or seizure. including a statement of the amounts and .

the operatives of the Presidential Anti-  The standard for due process is Crime Commission (PACC). is bereft of implicit on the ban against unreasonable search and constitutional protection.  “It would be to dwell in the realm of abstractions and to ignore the harsh and Several firearms and ammunitions were found in compelling realities of public service with its ever. armed with the search REASONABLENESS. exceeds the permissible limit of the police power 1. done so upon assuming office…There was Their case was referred by the PACC to the DOJ therefore no unconstitutional exercise of police who took over the case. including the Executive Secretary and DOJ Sec: statement of the amounts of personal and family  Acceptance of public position = expenses. safety and welfare of society” (Justice Malcolm) DIOSDADO JOSE ALLADO vs HON. on that confession of Umbal. provision is allowable as long as due process is observed. 113630 May 5. No.” welfare in honest and clean public service and 1. and the amount of income taxes paid voluntary assumption of obligation for the next preceding calendar year. revelation of his assets and liabilities. Therefore he could also use due process alleged kidnapping and slaying of Eugen to strike down what he considers as an Alexander Van Twest. Insult to personal integrity and official dignity ban against unreasonable search and seizure construed  Only congressional power or competence. ROBERTO  The power of sovereignty. 14 sources of his income.” 1. upon by public official to protect the security of tenure which in a limited sense is analogous to He accused them as the brains behind the property. Right against self-incrimination and is thus offensive to the due process clause  We are not aware of any constitutional provision designed to protect a man’s conduct ISSUE: Whether the periodical submission of SAL for from judicial inquiry. present temptation to heed the call of greed and avarice to condemn as arbitrary and oppressive a So. 1994 enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort. Right to privacy The whole investigation was triggered by an  Right to be let alone extrajudicial confession by a Security Guard . going beyond curtailment of rights) Facts: On September 16. a German national. the raid including Van Twest's Cartier sunglasses. the power to govern C. contends that the person to privacy. 1993. carnapping. the challenged was issued by Judge Roberto Barrios of the RTC of Manila. Test: Official action must warrant issued separately raided the dwellings of not outrun the bounds of reason and result police officers who were also pointed by Umbal as in sheer oppression. a judge of a CFI. Unreasonable Search and Seizure is therefore a legitimate exercise of police  The constitutional guarantee against power. unreasonable search and seizure does not give  CFI of Pangasinan held that the requirement freedom from testimonial compulsion. the amounts of his personal and  “It cannot be said that the challenged family expenses and the amount of income taxes paid statutory provision calls for disclosure of for the next preceding calendar year”. may be the basis for declaring a statute invalid.R. kidnapping for assets and liabilities every two years after having ransom with murder. Then. by unlawful invasion of the constitutional right to privacy virtue of position he holds. Hernandez and Allado. Roberto Mendoza who are partners in the Law  It has been held that due process may be relied Firm of Salonga. This is not to say that a public officer. or aid him in fleeing from public officers is violative of due process and an justice. a search warrant  Under the Constitution. a Security Guard  Anyone with an alleged grievance regarding and a discharged Philippine Constabulary named the extension of police power to regulatory action Escolastico Umbal executed a sworn statement affecting persons in public or private life can invoke implicating petitioners Diosdado Jose Allado and the protection of due process. It cannot be denied that the periodical submission “within the month of January of rational relationship such a requirement possesses every other year thereafter” of their sworn statement of with the objective of a valid statute goes very far in assets and liabilities (SAL) is violative of due process as precluding assent to an objection of such an oppressive exercise of police power and as an character. and usurpation of authority. unlawful invasion of the right to privacy implicit in the 1. not together with the prohibition against self-incrimination the wisdom of the action taken. it is only to emphasize seizure construed together with the prohibition against that in subjecting him to such a further compulsory self-incrimination. the two lawyers and their other co-defendants requirement as that imposed upon public officials were charged with illegal possession of firearms and employees to file such sworn statement of and ammunitions. information which infringes on the right of a Plaintiff Morfe. the perpetrators of the crimes. HELD: Exercise of Police power and the defense provided by the Due Process Clause  “inherent and plenary power in the state which G. DIOKNO men and things within the limits of its domain (Justice Taney. there is no  Merely seeks to adopt a reasonable unconstitutional intrusion into what otherwise measure of insuring the interest of general would be a private sphere. Based infringement of his liberty. power.

require. Felix . there that accused committed the crime and submitted should be no confusion about their objectives. rigors and embarrassment of trial – is a abuse of discretion and in excess of his function of the prosecutor . fiscal or prosecutor to ascertain. the Judge Roberto distinguish the preliminary inquiry which Diokno found probable cause and issued a determines probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest without bail. and all other supporting documents behind the Based on the confession of Umbal. his body not found. took over the case. Ruling: Yes. nor have his remains been as detailed as the circumstances of each case recovered. the affidavits. It can be as brief or established. The Judge has to exercise sound discretion for. business transactions including disbursements (b) The preliminary inquiry made by a prosecutor receipts. a discharge of the Philippine ineffectual. Judge Barrios prosecutor’s certification which are material in of RTC Br 11 issued a search warrant against assisting the judge in his determination of petitioners.The judge does not have to follow what the and proceeds or fruits of the offense. to (a) The determination of probable cause is a search “books of accounts. journals. The cause issuing the search warrant. The probable cause test is an objective one. it is not for the provincial vouchers. transcript of stenographic notes (if any). the intended to be used as the means of committing prosecutor’s certification of probable cause is the offense. To be sure.” which is described in the . for in order that there be probable cause the facts and The extent of the Judge’s personal examination of circumstances must be such as would warrant a the report and its annexes depends on the belief by a reasonably discreet and prudent man circumstances of each case. and there is circumstances of the case so require. The preliminary investigation proper – whether or not there is The petitioners questioned the issued warrants of reasonable ground to believe that the accused is arrests. The extrajudicial statement of Umbal suffers from They further contend that the judge did not material inconsistencies. the Judge’s examination should be. Makasiar and People v. guilty of the offense charged and therefore. credit journals. but one witness who testifies to the killing. the case for trial which was assigned to Judge Diokno of Br 62. jurisdiction as there is lack of probable cause for him to issue the warrants. Prosecutor can perform the same functions as a commissioner for the taking of the evidence. documents supporting the Fiscal’s bare certification. balance sheets and profit and loss does not bind the judge.” as making the determination of probable cause. and (c) Judges and prosecutors alike should After preliminary investigation. portfolios. Inting. “the subject of the offense. the judge must go beyond the Prosecutor’s certification and investigation report We are reminded of the leading case of U. 15 Escolastico Umbal. after a new panel of prosecutors were recommended and after Even if the two inquiries be conducted in the preliminary investigation found probable cause course of one and the same proceeding. warrant is made by the judge. whenever necessary. sufficiency of the evidence where the Inting we said investigation was based from. whether or not he should be subjected to the They claim that Judge Diokno acted with grave expense. There is serious doubt on Van Twest’s reported after all. Judge Diokno after finding The determination of probable cause for the probable cause issued warrant of arrest. Stonehill vs Diokno 20 SCRA 383 In People v. there should be a report and necessary case. It merely assists him in statements and Bobbins (cigarette wrappers). It is the report.” or “used or prosecutor presents to him. .Only the judge and the judge alone makes this and other documents and/or papers showing all determination. where personally determine the admissibility and we reiterated Soliven v. ledgers. All these should be before the Judge. correspondence. receipts. we emphasized the important Facts: Respondents herein secured a total of 42 features of the constitutional mandate: search warrants against petitioners herein and/or the corporations of which they were officers. decided ninety-two years ago where this complainant and witnesses themselves to answer Court ruled that when the supposed victim is the court’s probing questions when the wholly unknown. In Lim v. The Judge does not have to personally examine Issue: WON the judge erred in finding probable the complainant and his witnesses. warrant of arrest from the preliminary investigation proper which ascertains whether the For the institution of criminal proceedings the DOJ offender should be held for trial or released. there is no probable cause in this However. the corpus delicti is not sufficiently proved. He should call for the Samarin. probable cause. stolen or embezzled . v. We cannot that the accused is guilty of the crime which has determine beforehand how cursory or exhaustive just been committed.S. the Constabulary. By itself. the personal determination is vested in death since the corpus delicti has not been the Judge by the Constitution. typewriters. financial records. function of the judge.

publisher. AFP [133 rules and regulations as may be issued by the SCRA 800. petitioners should have initially filed to the lower and 784 Units C & D. As regards the first group. printing machines on the ground that they have to whom the seized effects belong. 16 applications adverted to above as “violation of court that issued them before impugning the Central Bank Laws. 26 DEC 1984] Secretary of National Defense. Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. G. with have abandoned their right to the possession of the further result that the printing and publication the seized property. respondent Judge Cruz-Pano of the then Court of First Instance of Rizal. petitioners herein Metrocom Intelligence and Security Group could may not validly object to the use in evidence not have provided sufficient basis for the finding against them of the documents. V. this Court takes cognizance of this petition QuezonAvenue. papers and of a probable cause upon which a warrant may be things seized from the offices and premises of the validly issued in accordance with Section 3. The application along with a joint affidavit. and things seized under warranting a presumption that the party entitled the alleged authority of the warrants in question to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to may be split into two (2) major groups. and (b) those found the documents seized in a prior criminal case. as amended. Indeed. namely: assert it). Internal Revenue (Code) and the Revised Penal Respondents also assail the petition on ground of Code. abovementioned address. for the the applicant and his witnesses. The search warrants pinpointed only one regardless of the amount of shares of stock or of address which would be the former the interest of each of them in said corporations. Petitioners submit the following reasons to nullify the questioned warrants: Held: No. which authorizes proceedings against them in their individual sequestration of the property of any person capacity. respectively. Respondent Judge failed to conduct an assail the legality of the contested warrants and examination under oath oraffirmation of of the seizures made in pursuance thereof. of said newspapers were discontinued. Facts: Petitioners assail the validity of 2 search Issue: Whether or Not the 2 search warrants warrants issued on December 7. 4. business addresses in view of the seriousness and urgency of the of the "Metropolitan Mail" and "We Forum" constitutional Issue raised. engaged in subversive activities against the government in accordance with implementing BURGOS. it is well settled that the legality of a also seized although the warrants were only seizure can be contested only by the party whose directed against Jose Burgos. SR. gave an explanation evidencing that they have editor of the "We Forum" newspaper. from the personality of herein petitioners. since the right to Article IV of the 1973 Constitution. Jr. 885. the petitioners and control of petitioner Jose Burgos. were searched. is purely personal and cannot be availed of by upon which the warrants were issued. CHIEF OF STAFF. assert a right within a reasonable time. we hold that petitioners herein have no cause of action to 1. validity of the same before this Court. RMS Building. is stopped from challenging the validity of the search warrants. With the written literature alleged to be in the possession contention pertaining to laches. court. books and other inherent power to suspend its rules. Real properties were seized. as well as circumstance justifies this Court to exercise its numerous papers. It is negligence or omission to for being general warrants. Respondents contend that petitioners should On the enumerated reasons: have filed a motion to quash said warrants in the . Quezon City.R. exhausted other extra-judicial efforts to remedy As a consequence of the search and seizure.” laches (Failure or negligence for an unreasonable The petitioner contended that the search and unexplained length of time to do that which. publication and metropolitan dailies. not to mention the newspapers. Quezon City. 64261. "We Forum" offices which was televised in paraphernalia. Tariff and Customs Laws. The existence of this special distribution of the said newspapers. 2. corporations adverted to above. Jr. negating the presumption that they these premises were padlocked and sealed. the situation. The documents. were seized. he and seized in the residences of petitioners herein. Road 3. Articles belonging to his co-petitioners were be. Consequently. and that the 4. and whatever the offices they hold therein may 3. 19. papers. motor vehicles and Channel 7 and widely publicized in all otherarticles used in the printing. as mandated by simple reason that said corporations have their the above-quoted constitutional provision as well respective personalities. under which the premises Held: In regard to the quashal of warrants that known as No. Project 6. rights have been impaired thereby. equipment. from the third parties. NO. 1982 by were validly issued and executed. separate and distinct as Sec. could or should have violated the Constitution and the Rules of Court been done earlier. objection to an unlawful search and seizure 5. warrants are null and void as their issuance by exercising due diligence. object to the admission of said papers in Respondents justify the continued sealing of the evidence belongs exclusively to the corporations. Respondents further state that since (a) those found and seized in the offices of the petitioner had already used as evidence some of aforementioned corporations. documents. and public interest generated by the search of the office and printing machines. and may not been sequestered under Section 8 of Presidential be invoked by the corporate officers in Decree No. Issue: Whether petitioners can validly assail the search warrant against the corporation.

5. and authorizing Revenue Examiner de Leon make and file the application for search 2. against petitioners for violation of Sec 46(a) of that an examination had indeed been conducted the NIRC. At that time J premises. Deficient of such particulars as would justify a finding of the existence of probable cause. Commissioner Vera of 1. directing that ‘no search warrant shall search warrants are declared null and void. does not satisfy the requirements of probable cause. It would be quite absurd and illogical Ruiz was hearing a certain case. under the search warrants in question are too general. him that if his deposition was found to be false and without legal basis. The search warrant does not particularly Search and Seizure – Personal Examination describe the things to be seized. The were placed. papers and effects sought to be seized are described in the Search Warrant . issue but upon probable cause in connection with The closure of the premises subjected to search one specific offense. The broad statements in the application and ISSUE: Whether or not there had been a valid joint affidavit are mere conclusions of law and search warrant. while in fact bolted to the ground. in question. because the purpose thereof is to convince the committing Personal examination by the judge of the magistrate. by means of for respondent judge to have issued two warrants a note. J Ruiz failed to personally examine the truth of the facts within the personal knowledge complainant and his witness. Bache & Co. 208 and 209. remain movable property susceptible to seizure under a search warrant. Section 2. wrote a letter addressed to J moot and academic. This objection may properly be considered Internal Revenue. so. President Marcos it fit to amend Section 3 of Rule 122 of the former himself denies the request of military authorities Rules of Court that ‘a search warrant shall not to sequester the property seized from petitioners. Court of First Instance. this Court ruled that "the oath required must refer to the 1. as petitioners themselves Ruiz requesting the issuance of a search warrant conceded during the hearing on August 9. ruled in Stonehill “Such is the seriousness of the there is an absence of any implementing rules irregularities committed in connection with the and regulations promulgated by the Minister of disputed search warrants. It may or may not be owned respondent Logronio to take the oath and warned by him. The paragraph. of the petitioner or his witnesses. 1983. said allegation cannot serve as basis for HELD: The SC ruled in favor of Bache on three the issuance of a search warrant and it was a grounds. of the Judge The documents. In Alvarez v. witnesses. two search warrant which was attached to the letter." Another existence of a probable cause. de Leon and his witnesses went to CFI purpose and intent were to search two distinct Rizal to obtain the search warrant. not the individual making the complainant and his witnesses is necessary to affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant. that this Court deemed National Defense. does informed that the depositions had already been not require that the property to be seized should taken. enable him to determine the existence or non- of the existence of probable cause. particularly Sects 53. The search warrant in question was issued for at least four distinct offenses under the Tax Code. J Ruiz was 3. J Ruiz asked warrant is directed. 72. he could be charged for 4. The stenographer read to him her be owned by the person against whom the search stenographic notes. This being the case. et al vs BIR Commissioner Vivencio Ruiz et al 3. in relation to all other pertinent by respondent judge of Col. Abadilla and his provisions thereof. Rule 126. take the depositions of De Leon and Logronio. 17 FACTS: On 24 Feb 1970. Petitioners do not claim to be the owners of the perjury. factor which makes the search warrants under consideration constitutionally objectionable is 2. Inc. he instructed his Deputy Clerk of Court to intended for one and the same place. of the Rules of Court. Precisely. and thereafter. The search warrant was issued for more than that they are in the nature of general warrants.’ Not satisfied with this and seizure is contrary to the freedom of the qualification. As With regard to the respondents invoking PD 885. 73. the Court added thereto a press as guaranteed in our fundamental law. issue for more than one specific offense. The warrants were applied for and issued because the next day. the machineries search was subsequently conducted. Furthermore. The defect pointed out is obviously a typographical error. grave error for respondent judge to have done so. J Ruiz signed de Leon’s application for land and/or building on which the machineries search warrant and Logronio’s deposition. The description of the articles sought to be seized one specific offense. After the session had adjourned.

1. contracts. statutory requirement that he must determine the existence of probable cause by personally examining the applicant and his witnesses. as the chief of (ledgers. The witnesses. Chief of the determination of probable cause for the issuance Intelligence Special Action Division (ISAD) of the of warrant of arrest. has deviated from the prescribed procedure. Warrant” and “Deposition of Witnesses” issued Warrant No. the judge is not required to “Deposition of Witness” and subscribed and personally examine the complainant and his sworn to before respondent judge. Sec. The search warrant was then enforced. issued Search Warrant report and the supporting documents submitted No. Lt. Sec. he may disregard the fiscal’s questions and answers. and of Sec. Judge Ontal failed to comply with the circumstances will ordinarily allow or when the legal requirement that he must examine the description expresses a conclusion of fact not of applicant and his witnesses in the form of law by which the warrant officer may be guided in searching questions and answers in order to making the search and seizure or when the things determine the existence of probable cause. Ranulfo Villamor. 1 is valid describe the things to be seized when the description therein is as specific as the Held: NO. filed an “Application for Search Warrant”. III. then Presiding Judge of stocks and securities. Sec 2. the Constitution requires the judge to “personally examine” the Prudente vs. Issue: Whether Search Warrant No. Thus.. columnars. 1866 (Illegal issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of Possession of Firearms. In support of the probable cause. What the Constitution requires is the he has been informed that the petitioner Nemesio exclusive and personal responsibility of the Prudente is violating PD No. In satisfying himself of the application for the issuance of the search existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant. 18 “Unregistered and private books of accounts Facts: M/Sgt. 87-14. The petitioner complainant and the witnesses he may produce. “No search warrant or warrant of Soliven vs. Deposition of Witnesses was only issued on the Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court. Western Police District filed with the RTC of Manila. OIC of the ISAD executed a warrant of arrest. 3. and that the search report and require the submission of supporting warrant was a general warrant. on the basis thereof. certificates of same day. 2. Under Art III. Dayrit complainant and his witnesses in his Facts: P/Major Dimagmaliw. issue a warrant of warrant alleging that the examination of the arrest. of Nicomedes Silva for violation of RA6425 records of bank deposits and withdrawals. Jr. telex and coded messages. Following established doctrine and respondent judge after examining under oath procedure. Makasiar arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to Facts: Petitioner Beltran calls for an be determined personally by the judge after interpretation of the constitutional provision on examination under oath or affirmation of the the issuance of warrants of arrest. checks and check stubs. A search warrant may be said to particularly Issue: Whether Search Warrant No. covering the years to quash Search Warrant No. 1. Major Dimagmaliw alleged that he has good and sufficient reasons to believe and that Held: NO. receipts and the PC Narcom Detachment in Dumaguete City. the judge must relation to the offense for which the warrant is strictly comply with the constitutional and being issued. accounting and search the room of Marlon Silva in the residence business records. Judge Ontal. journals. or (2) if on the basis thereof he finds no witness was not in the form of searching probable cause. of the Constitution. etc). promissory notes the RTC pursuant to the “Application for Search and deeds of sale. Petitioners filed a motion records of foreign remittances. respondent trial judge who replaced retired Judge Ontal denied the motion for lack of merit. customers ledgers). Issue: Whether the contention of the petitioner is an application for the issuance of a search valid warrant. On the receipts for payments received. The be seized. 1 on the ground that 1966 to 1970. described are limited to those which bear direct in issuing a search warrant. be searched and that it failed to charge one It has not been shown that the respondent judge specific offense. directing the police officers to business communications. Angeles. and (Dangerous Drug Act).” alleged that under Art. that the sole basis of mimeographed which were warrant should particularly describe the things to accomplished by mere filling in the blanks.” the judge failed to examine the complainant and witnesses by searching questions and answers The description does not meet the requirement in and that the Application for Search Warrant and Art III. for the reason affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a that it did not particularly describe the place to conclusion as to the existence of probable cause. disbursements books. he shall: (1) personally evaluate the applicant and his witness. by the fiscal regarding existing probable cause The petitioner moved to quash the search and. 87-14 is valid Whether the search warrant is invalid on the ground that it failed to particularly described the place to be searched Silva vs Presiding Judge . presided over by respondent Judge Dayrit.

after examination under received information that Petitioner had in his oath or affirmation of the complainant and the possession at his house “M-16 Armalite rifles. directed Lt. handset with antennae. which were “used persons or things to be seized. MTCC. in its order. with reasonable effort. that unreasonable search and seizure Tambasen vs. witnesses he may produce. to be searched as the premises of PUP more particularly the offices of Department of Military Science and Tactics. In October. RTC granted of a place to be searched is sufficient if the officer the petition. a police team. P/Sgt. be seized. Natuel applied for be probable cause. which is to be determined issuance of search warrant alleging that he personally by the judge. People may not be made and that abuses may not be committed. SolGen can prove that they don’t have any personal petitioned with the RTC for theannulment of the knowledge as to the case of Prudente. In mere hearsay. pistols. the application for search warrant the articles which were not mentioned in the and the search warrant itself described the place search warrant was legal. . the court ruled that a description they should remain in custogia legis. to leave the officers of the law with no discretion. to be searched. even if there were several rooms at the intent of the requirement is to limit the things to ground floor and second floor of PUP. 19 Held: NO. transceiver may produce. before issuing the warrant. Major Dimagmaliw stated that he December. dynamite sticks describing the place to be searched and the and subversive documents”. In the Issue: Whether or Not the seizure of case at bar. The evident purpose and searched. For a valid search to issue. Petition granted. offense and the judge must. The notebook and assorted papers and handset probable cause must be shown to be within the battery pack”. personally examine in the form of In September. in writing and of petitioner and seized “2 envelopes containing under oath. regulator supply. People of the Philippines is ordered to return the money seized. petitioner moved that personal knowledge of the complainant or the the search and seizure be declared illegal and witnesses he may produce and not based on that the seized articles be returned to him. The police acts beyond the parameters of constitutional injunction that a search warrant their authority if they seize articles not described must particularly describe the place to be in the search warrants. on facts personally known to them withantennae. the complainant and any witness he P14000. with the warrant can. cause must be in connection with one specific The application was granted. The designation of the places to be should particularly describe the things to be searched sufficiently complied with the seized. academy and attach to the record their sworn statements together with any affidavits submitted. As to the failure to describe the place determination of legality of seizure of the articles. and particularly hand grenades. and the Office of the Held: Section 2 Article III of the 1987 President Prudente and the other rooms at the Constitution requires that a search warrant second floor. has only been informed about the violation of Torres to return the money seized to petitioner Prudente and Lt Angeles declared that they only ruling that any seizure should be limited to the gathered information from verified sources which specified items covered thereby. ascertain and identify the place intended.45 Cal. The probable orintended to be used” for illegal purposes. searched the house searching questions and answers. there must Facts: In August 1988. . order of MTCC citing that pending the NO. Col.