You are on page 1of 12


Alvarez vs CFI other agent, be ordered immediately to deposit
GR. No. 45358 all the seized articles in the office of the clerk
of court and that said agent be declared guilty
Facts: The chief of the secret service of the of contempt for having disobeyed the order of
Anti-Usury Board, of the Department of Justice, the court. Motion granted. Attorney Arsenio
presented to Judge Eduardo Gutierrez David an Rodriguez, representing the Anti-Usury Board,
affidavit alleging that according to reliable filed a motion praying that the order be set
information, the petitioner kept in his house in aside and that the Anti-Usury Board be
Infanta, Tayabas, books, documents, receipts, authorized to retain the articles seized for a
lists, chits and other papers used by him in period of thirty (30) days for the necessary
connection with his activities as a money- investigation.
lender charging usurious rates of interest in
violation of the law. In his oath at the end of Issue:
the affidavit, the chief of the secret service 1. Whether or not the affidavit is valid for
stated that his answers to the questions were purposes in issuing a search warrant
correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
He did not swear to the truth of his statements 2. Whether or not affidavit of witnesses is
upon his own knowledge of the facts but upon needed
the information received by him from a reliable
person. Upon the affidavit in question the 3. Whether or not the constitutional mandate
Judge, on said date, issued the warrant which is that the thing to be seized is particularly
the subject matter of the petition, ordering the described is violated
search of the petitioner’s house at any time of
the day or night, the seizure of the books and 4. Whether or not fishing evidence is valid
documents above-mentioned and the
immediate delivery thereof to him to be Ruling:
disposed of in accordance with the law.
1. The provisions of the constitution require
With said warrant, several agents of the that there be not only probable cause before
Anti-Usury Board entered the petitioner’s store the issuance of a search warrant but that the
and residence at seven o’clock on the night search warrant must be based upon an
and seized and took possession of the following application supported by oath of the applicant
articles: internal revenue licenses for the years and the witnesses he may produce. The oath
1933 to 1936, one ledger, two journals, two required must refer to the truth of the facts
cashbooks, nine order books, four notebooks, within the personal knowledge of the petitioner
four checks stubs, two memorandums, three or his witnesses, because the purpose thereof
bankbooks, two contracts, four stubs, forty- is to convince the committing magistrate, not
eight stubs of purchases of copra, two the individual making the affidavit and seeking
inventories, two bundles of bills of lading, one the issuance of the warrant, of the existence of
bundle of credit receipts, one bundle of stubs probable cause. The true test of sufficiency of
of purchases of copra, two packages of an affidavit to warrant issuance of a search
correspondence, one receipt book belonging to warrant is whether it has been drawn in such a
Luis Fernandez, fourteen bundles of invoices manner that perjury could be charged thereon
and other papers many documents and loan and affiant be held liable for damages caused
contracts with security and promissory notes,
504 chits, promissory notes and stubs of used it appears that the affidavit, which served as
checks of the Hongkong & Shanghai Banking the exclusive basis of the search warrant, is
Corporation. insufficient and fatally defective by reason of
the manner in which the oath was made, and
As the articles had not been brought therefore, it is hereby held that the search
immediately to the judge who issued the warrant in question and the subsequent seizure
search warrant, the petitioner filed a motion of the books, documents and other papers are
praying that the agent Emilio L. Siongco, or any illegal and do not in any way warrant the

The Constitution provides that no warrants shall description so made substantially complies issue but upon probable cause. — The Anti. SEARCH the facts was not personal but merely hearsay. As we have declared the affidavit insufficient and the warrant issued 3. SERVICE AT NIGHT. description could have been given. Neither the may be filed against him. it is clear opinion that there was no such waiver. These provisions of the constitution are exclusively upon it illegal. by the nature of the goods to be the search could not legally be made at night. WAIVER OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL description be given. their description must be rather generally. our conclusion is that mandatory and must be strictly complied with the contention is equally well founded and that but where.” Taking into consideration proceeding or proceedings. provides that it is of imperative necessity to for the purpose of using them as evidence in a take the deposition of the witnesses to be criminal case against the person in whose presented by the applicant or complainant in possession they were found. .. Other notes: Inasmuch as the affidavit of the agent in this case was insufficient because his knowledge of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. compromise whereby he agreed to pay a fine lender. in of P200 for the purpose of evading the criminal violation of the law. — Section it is the duty of the judge to require the 101 of General Orders. The only description of insinuates in its answer that the petitioner the articles given in the affidavit presented to cannot now question the validity of the search the judge was as follows: “that there are being warrant or the proceedings had subsequent to kept in said premises books.. Therefore. first. The because it makes the warrant unreasonable. articles. if the affidavit of the himself applicant or complainant is sufficient. WARRANT. the issuance thereof. The seizure of books Constitution nor General Orders.Usury Board no warrant could issue. as this would mean that GUARANTEES. 58 authorizes that affidavit of one or more witnesses for the the search be made at night when it is purpose of determining the existence of positively asserted in the affidavit that the probable cause to warrant the issuance of the property is on the person or in the place search warrant. chits and other papers used by his constitutional rights in proposing a him in connection with his activities as money. ID. documents. It is admitted the books and documents had really been that the judge who issued the search warrant seized to enable the Anti-Usury Board to in this case. it is not required that a technical ID. It is the practice in this jurisdiction to attach 4. No. because he has waived receipts. is unconstitutional addition to the affidavit of the latter. relied exclusively upon the conduct an investigation and later use all or affidavit made by agent Mariano G.deprivation to which the petitioner was that no other more adequate and detailed subjected. particularly because it is difficult to give a particular 2. 58 and documents by means of a search warrant. At the hearing of the incidents of the case the affidavit of at least the applicant or raised before the court it clearly appeared that complainant to the application. We are of the the nature of the article so described. purpose of both in requiring the presentation of and it is equivalent to a violation of the depositions is nothing more than to satisfy the constitutional provision prohibiting the committing magistrate of the existence of compulsion of an accused to testify against probable cause. Section 1. charging a usurious rate of interest. seized. lists. No. Almeda some of the articles in question as evidence and that he did not require nor take the against the petitioner in the criminal cases that deposition of any other witness. of Article III of the description of the contents thereof. the judge may dispense with that of other witnesses. which he did. paragraph 3. ordered to be searched. to be with the legal provisions because the officer of determined by the judge after examination the law who executed the warrant was thereby under oath or affirmation of the complainant placed in a position enabling him to identify the and the witnesses he may produce.

The Judge if there was a compromise it referred not to the then handed the records to the Fiscal who search warrant and the incidents thereof but to attached them to the records. and to which inquiry respondent the offer of compromise and. and that the fact that documents relating to the 8./Police District II INP. or in any proceedings and a joint affidavit of private respondents on the matter. Section 4 of Rule 126 which case. Goles and Reynaldo T. "it is with the court". The motion was denied by because the petitioner protested from the respondent Judge on March 1.R. so that he may produce and take their depositions in he had to inquire from the City Fiscal its . he discovered that nowhere from the provides that the judge must before issuing the records of the said case could be found the warrant personally examine on oath or search warrant and other pertinent papers affirmation the complainant and any witnesses connected to the issuance of the same. More emphatic and detailed is the implementing rule of the constitutional Petitioner claims that during the hearing of the injunction. which were wrongfully it is alleged subscribed. members of the Intelligence Section of 352nd PC Co. the contention is that the search warrant to be invalid and all the articles warrant issued by respondent Judge was based confiscated under such warrant as inadmissible merely on the application for search warrant as evidence in the case. because Judge replied. that in fact the court made a certification to that effect." produce". Mayote. took issue but upon probable cause to be and arranged bets on the Jai Alai game by determined by the Judge or such other "selling illegal tickets known as 'Masiao tickets' responsible officer as may be authorized by law without any authority from the Philippine Jai after examination under oath or affirmation of Alai & Amusement Corporation or from the the complainant and the witnesses he may government authorities concerned. Mata v. the institution of criminal proceedings for violation of the Anti-Usury Law. allegedly a failure on the part of respondent Judge to attach the necessary papers pertinent Held: No. Bernardo U. and sworn to before the Clerk of Court of Issues: Whether or not the search warrant is respondent Judge. but such was not the case Rules of Court. The waiver This led petitioner to file a motion to quash and would have been a good defense for the annul the search warrant and for the return of respondents had the petitioner voluntarily the articles seized. 50720 to the record of the criminal case is of no moment. petitioner is accused under PD 810. second. praying. Constitution and the Rules of Court. citing and invoking. among others. considering that the rule does not Facts: The validity of the search warrant specify when these documents are to be issued by respondent Judge (not reappointed) attached to the records. 4298-CC wherein Court. the information against Under the Constitution "no search warrant shall him alleging that Soriano Mata offered. 1979. Bayona search warrant were not attached immediately G. with the instant petition. Section 4 of Rule 126 of the Revised articles in question. that this Court declare the search Specifically. as amended by PD 1306. it is tainted with illegality for being to the issuance of the search warrant to the violative of the Constitution and the Rules of records of Criminal Case No. there was valid. No. he came to this Court. Furthermore. 2 Petitioner's motion is challenged by petitioner for its alleged failure for reconsideration of the aforesaid order to comply with the requisites of the having been denied.because the petitioner has emphatically denied whereabouts. among consented to the search and seizure of the others. stating beginning and stated his protest in writing in that the court has made a thorough the insufficient inventory furnished him by the investigation and examination under oath of agents.

tsn. SPO3 de la Cruz and PO3 large extent upon the discretion of the Judge Francisco found a black canister containing just as long as the answers establish a shabu. routinary but one that is thorough and elicit the through PO1 Barbuco. To repeat. Crim. 1992).R. examination or investigation is not merely Jan. in the course of a judicial proceeding in PO1 Luna with a companion proceeded to advance of the trial or hearing upon oral appellant's house to implement the search examination. therefore. plastik . A marked money consisting of a P100 appropriate sense the meaning of the word is bill was given by the Station Commander to limited to written testimony of a witness given PO1 Luna and entered in the police logbook. Far more important is that the and initialed by SPO3 de la Cruz (p. three used ammunition in a of a specific offense and that the applicant is cup and three wallets. Del Rosario in writing of the complainant and the G. 109633 witnesses he may produce and to attach them to the record. them to the record. 50.. and attach them to the record. rendering the search Basa St.. 33. the seized items were taped chambers. 7. T. San Roque. must be under oath may not be in public. People v. an aluminum foil.. forwarded to NBI required information. No. Norma del propounded to the applicants of the search Rosario and appellant witnessed the search at warrant and his witnesses must depend to a appellant's house. Regional Trial Court Judge Arturo liable for perjury the person giving it if it will be de Guia issued in the morning of September 4.writing. it was agreed upon that PO1 Two points must be made clear. The examination or investigation which Onrubio (p. and said answers inside a show box aluminum foils. The searching questions warrant. Case No. 7. to hold of Cavite City. Barangay Capt. Such written deposition is necessary in order that the Judge may be Facts: Upon application of SPO3 Raymundo able to properly determine the existence or Untiveros of the Philippine National Police (PNP) non-existence of the probable cause. However.22 caliber reasonable ground to believe the commission atop the TV set. the warrant invalid search warrant was not implemented immediately due to the lack of police personnel Could it be that the certification was to form the raiding team made belatedly to cure the defect of the warrant? In the final briefing of the raiding team at the police station. laboratory analysis the aluminum foilContaining suspected shabu bought by PO1 . 1992). SPO4 Pilapil. found later that his declarations are false. hold that the search warrant is and seizure of an "undetermined quantity of tainted with illegality by the failure of the Judge Methamphetamine Hydrocholoride commonly to conform with the essential requisites of known as shabu and its paraphernalias" in the taking the depositions in writing and attaching premises of appellant's house located at 828 R. Jan. p. tsn. in addition to any affidavits presented to him. the sense to describe any written statement raiding team will implement the search verified by oath. Rec. It may even be held in the secrecy of his At police station. napkins and particularly describe with certainty the place to a burner SPO3 de la Cruz turned over the be searched and the persons or things to be wallet containing the marked money to PO3 seized. it must be Forensic Chemist Mary Ann Aranas for under oath and must be in writing. Maigue. The term Venerando Luna will buy shabu from appellant "depositions" is sometimes used in a broad and after his return from appellant's house. but in its more technical and warrant. 1991 a search warrant (Exh. Mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are thus not sufficient. 237-91) authorizing the search We. 8. The examining Judge has to take depositions 9. Cavite City. SPO1 Novero found one authorized by law. The next day.

Article III. offense. much less twenty-two (22) years old of Block 10. and crimes or offenses committed ammunition. The same way may be said subversion. UMIL and PO1 Barbuco. Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall Issue: Was Rolando was lawfully arrested? be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. to the Regional Medical Servicesof the having been illegally seized. Thus. Thus. Laguna however it warrant. the described quantity of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride commonly Facts: On 1 February 1988. Subversion being a continuing the illegally seized firearm. Quezon City. by virtue of the search warrant. In view of as earlier observed. therefore. were dispatched to the St. GEN. about a "sparrow man" (NPA A search warrant is not a sweeping authority member) who had been admitted to the said empowering a raiding party to undertake a hospital with a gunshot wound. against offense when arrested. ALEXANDER AGUIRRE. he was positively identified by the SCRA 383 [1967]).(Section 3 [2]. there is." firearm which was not mentioned.Luna from appellant in the buy-bus operation as well as the aluminum foils containing suspected marijuana which were confiscated (CASE 10) G. The Constitution expressly eyewitnesses as the one who murdered the 2 ordains the exclusion in evidence of illegally CAPCOM mobile patrols. That the fishing expedition to seize and confiscate any wounded man in the said hospital was among and all kinds of evidence or articles relating to the five (5) male "sparrows" who murdered two a crime. the raiding party authorized only the search respondents. The crimes rebellion. before a road hump along Macanining warrant must particularly describe the things to St. Biñan. described with particularly. thru VILLANUEVA. RENATO DE firearms was proper.With the exclusion in evidence of organization. DURAL. in the search South City Homes. Issue: Whether or Not the seizure of the FIDEL V. Bagong Barrio. be seized. No. MANOLITA O. vs. for wounded man was Rolando Dural. (2) Capcom mobile patrols the day before. Lot 4.. seized articles. Rolando Dural was transferred was far from regular and legal. GEN.R. to verify a was authorized to seize only shabu and confidential information which was received by paraphernalia for the use thereof and no other. Said firearm. 81567 October 3. the raiding party Roosevelt Avenue. Agnes Hospital. FELICITAS V. Caloocan City. accused-appellant. VILLA. 20 thereat. the arrest without warrant is justified a total absence of evidence to support the as it can be said that he was committing as charge of illegal possession of firearm. The search warrant implemented by BRIG. conspiracy or proposal to commit of the charge of illegal possession of such crimes. GEN. Neither may it be maintained that the was disclosed later that the true name of the gun was seized in the course of an arrest. military agents known as shabu and its paraphernalia" (Exh. RAMOS. their office. the search warrant was no The wounded man's name was listed by the authority for the police officers to seize the hospital management as "Ronnie Javellon. SESE. Diokno. O.. The Constitution itself (Section 2. an outlawed subversive Philippines). 1991 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR The findings of NBI Forensic Chemist Aranas HABEAS CORPUS OF ROBERTO UMIL. on 31 January 1988 at about 12:00 o'clock Rule 126) specifically mandate that the search noon. the same is not CAPCOM. Held: Rolando Dural was arrested for being a Constitution of the Republic of the member of the NPA. accused-appellant's arrest this verification. and seizure of ". gave positive results for NICANOR P. for security reasons. BRIG. 50. p. MAJ. original record). Held: No. or Article III) and the Rules of Court (Section 3. RAMON MONTANO. Methamphetamine Hydrocholoride petitioners. While confined admissible in evidence (Stonehill vs. disclosed that all the specimen submitted to ROLANDO DURAL and RENATO her for laboratory analysis by SPO1 Pilapil. in furtherance therefore in connection .

he was convicted of the crime arresting peace officer or private person has charged and sentenced to reclusion perpetual. Rule 113 Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City (Criminal of the Rules of Court. Sucro was reported grounds of suspicion are reasonable when. the Court The police team intercepted and arrested notes that the peace officers who arrested SUCRO at the corner of C. the suspicion that the person to be monitored to have talked and exchanged arrested is probably guilty of committing the things three times. Macabante admitted buying the also be coupled with acts done in good faith by marijuana from Sucro in front of the chapel. and second. The Edison SUCRO (accused).. in to be selling marijuana at a chapel 2 meters the absence of actual belief of the arresting away from Regalado’s house." in arrests without warrant must be based upon Facts: Pat. it should be mentioned here WARRANT that a few days after Dural's arrest.Seraspi proceeded to probable cause. suspicion therefore must be founded on From that moment. (CASE 11) G. . without warrant.R. front of Aklan Medical center. Seraspi. Fulgencio went to Arlie Regalado’s PROBABLE CAUSE. without *NOTE: Viewed from another but related warrant. based on "personal appellee. Sucro was officers. Youth Hostel in Maagama St.It has been ruled that EDISON SUCRO. While the police officers were at the part of the peace officers making the arrest. A third supported by circumstances sufficiently strong buyer was transacting with appellant and was in themselves to create the probable cause of reported and later identified as Ronnie guilt of the person to be arrested. which means an actual house at C. These activities are offense. Recovered were 19 sticks and 4 in good faith.therewith constitute direct assaults against the was made in compliance with the requirements state and are in the nature of continuing of paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 5. it will be noted. On 31 committed an offense. Fulgencio told Lt. coupled with good faith on the the area. is based on actual facts. accused-appellant. that the arrest of Dural in authority was filed against Dural in the falls under Section 5. He was thus promptly conditions for a valid arrest without warrant: placed under judicial custody (as distinguished first. Macabante was These requisites were complied with in the intercepted at Mabini and Maagama crossing in Umil case and in the other cases at bar. the officers who make the arrest. Rule 113. of Dural lawful. Issues: motivated in arresting Dural. which requires two (2) Case No. reported through radio to P/Lt. knowledge of facts" acquired by the arresting vs. duties. that the August 1988. it may also be said. Quimpo and Dural are deemed to have conducted the same Veterans. refers PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. paragraph (b). officer or private person. "personal knowledge of facts. i. 113. 2 CONDITIONS FOR VALID ARREST WITHOUT Parenthetically. Rule crimes. 1991 Section 5(b). 15 It is therefore (1) Whether or Not arrest without warrant is clear that the arrest.e. that the person to be arrested has just from custody of the arresting officers). Quimpo to monitor activities of belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion. personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested is the one who committed the offense. A reasonable Macabante. Macabante saw the police and threw a tea bag of marijuana on As to the condition that "probable cause" must the ground. an information charging double perspective. under the murder with assault against agents of persons facts of the Umil case. C-30112). considering that law enforcers teabags of marijuana from a cart inside the are presumed to regularly perform their official chapel and another teabag from Macabante. 93239 March 18. The records show that the arresting officers did not appear to have been ill. No. P/Lt. Seraspi to intercept. plaintiff- to arrests without warrant.

(CASE 12) G. Khan) adopted by the NARCOM agents failed to meet In this case identified Sucro was identified by this qualification. Yes. met with insufficient to fulfill requirements for its him and “a certain object wrapped in a plastic” issuance. No. CIC Taduran immediately released . warrantless search and later identified as marijuana was given in seizures are legal as long as PROBABLE CAUSE exchange for P200 for 100 grams. throwing of the without a valid search warrant may be used to marijuana and the admission.S. However. herein accused. found him guilty of violating the offense. Based on the very evidence Macabante. One of the agents went warrant stems from the fact that their to said location. The An offense is committed in the presence or accused was found positive of ultraviolet within the view of an officer. the procedure identification of the appellant. Sec 12 of Rules of Criminal Procedure DON RODRIGUEZA. the Don. Search and seizures supported by a appellee. v. vs. within the powder. Evidence admissible suspected drug dealer must be caught red- because the arrest is valid. Albay. considering the meaning of the rule authorizing an arrest evidences obtained and testimonies from the without a warrant. 95902 February 4. The lower court. the NARCOM agents they are regularly in performance of their were able to confiscate dried marijuana leaves duties. Castiller) traffic of prohibited drugs in Tagas. or hears the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 and sentenced disturbances created thereby and proceeds at him to reclusion perpetual. The police officers have personal The agent went back to headquarters and knowledge of the actual commission of the made a report. and aplastic syringe among others. asked for a certain Don. As police officers were the ones conducted in the house of the father of the conducting the surveillance. crime when it had earlier conducted the term in flagrante delicto requires that the surveillance activities. accused-appellant. although at a distance. based on which.R. The court held that a buy bust members of the team which monitors Sucro’s operation is a form of entrapment employed by nefarious activity. plaintiff- 1. YES. existed. which may be used as proof of the staged a buy-bust operation. valid warrant of arrest is not an absolute rule. Fortaleza) Issue: Whether or not evidence obtained 2. (People v. of the prosecution. (U. During the raid. a team was crime from the surveillance of the activities of subsequently organized and a raid was the accused. There was no authorization by any search warrant. The participating agents were given money treated The failure of the police officers to secure a with ultraviolet powder. (People v. 1992 Held: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. it is presumed that accused. when the officer sees the prosecution. Applied to the case at bar. after the alleged consummation of the sale of dried marijuana leaves. 1. after gaining commission of an offense. Rule 126. however. (People vs Bati) handed in the act of selling marijuana or any prohibited drug to a person acting or posing as *NOTE: It is well-settled that mere denials a buyer. knowledge required from the surveillance was Thereafter. he just committed an illegal act which the police officer had personal knowledge. once to the scene thereof. The act of Macabante. constitute that prosecute the accused. without a search information that there was an ongoing illegal warrant. cannot prevail against the positive In the instant case. being Held: No.(2) Whether or Not evidence from such arrest is admissible. Police officers have personal peace officers to trap and catch a malefactor in knowledge of the actual commission of the flagrante delicto. provides that a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or Facts: Narcotics Command (NARCOM) agents anything.

to seize and secure . or to stop and search and exchange for the liberty of the accused. a restraining order was issued brought into the country. or bought them from another person without merchandise thereon. search and examine any without a search warrant. sister of appellant. They In. And even assuming them to have introduced into the United States in any been misdeclared and. Mago But in the search of a dwelling house. Papa v. This examine any vehicle. marijuana did take place. who has since to inspect. building. would be released the following customs laws. Rebuttal witnesses Customs Code to enter. It is decidedly some of the bales were already opend by the contrary to the natural course of things and examiners of the Bureau of Customs in the inconsistent with the afforested purpose of a presence of officials of the Manila Police buy-bust operation. 2.appellant Rodrigueza instead of arresting and by Judge Jarencio from opening the 9 bales of taking him into his custody if the sale of goods. inclosure. suspected of holding or conveying any dutiable or prohibited article introduced into the Philippines contrary to law. therefor. that except in transportation. 16 19. allegedly misdeclared and without a search warrant in the enforcement of undervalued. Tariff and Customs Code because Mago had and if they should find any goods. The Tariff and Customs Code does not require said warrant in this case. not being a dwelling house. pass through or search Gracita Bahillo. The *NOTE: Motive of the NARCOM agents in Code authorizes persons having police prosecuting the accused was also revealed authority under Section 2203 of the Tariff and during the trial of the case. which they had probably knowledge that they were imported illegally." 17 It is the truck hired by Mago to Lanopa for our considered view. . they had authority to effect the action cannot be justified in court. without mentioning the need of a search warrant in said cases. received persons exercising police authority under the a reliable information that a certain shipment customs law may effect search and seizure of personal effects. the Code provides that said "dwelling house may be FACTS: The Manila Police Department seized entered and searched only upon warrant issued the goods owned by Mago which were inside by a judge or justice of the peace. and also testified that Sgt. It was seized because Alagao. search and examine any vessel or been reportedly dismissed from the service. beast or person on which or whom argues that the goods were illegally examined they should suspect there was merchandise because they requested for it to not be which was subject to duty. Hence the seizure without any search warrant issued by a accused was acquitted. Carroll vs US. package. . however. competent court. The Narcom agents should have secured a valid search warrant prior the raid since they ISSUE: Was the search conducted by the Bureu have already been conducting surveillance of Customs for the goods valid? against the accused for quite some time already and the urgency of their cause of HELD: Yes. intercepted them and seized 9 bales of goods but also to stop. were not manner contrary to law. undervalued. aircraft and any trunk. wares.000. store or Hospicio Segovia. cause to believe had been so unlawfully After some time. it was made lawful for conducted a surveillance at the gate and when customs officers not only to board and search the trucks left they went after the trucks and vessels within their own and adjoining districts. the case of the search of a dwelling house. beast or person was never refuted in court. or had been examined. father of Samuel Segovia. Department. Molinawe. the head of counter-intelligence unit. . warehouse. an assistant city fiscal and a representative of Mago. whether by the person subject to seizure under Section 2531 of the in charge of the vehicle or beast or otherwise. day from the customs zone of the port of Manila and loaded on two trucks. Also the owner vehicle. and any land.00 from each of them in any person on board. at the time it was received. or envelope or asked for P10.

CA conducted by police officers on the basis of ANTECEDENT FACTS: information received regarding the illegal trade Rodolfo Espano was convicted of violating the of drugs within the area of Zamora and Dangerous Drugs Act. informer gave instructions on to how they can reach Musa’s house and gave the description SEARCH AND SEIZURE FACTS: of Musa's appearance. Manila. Indeed. He was caught in flagranti as a result of a buy-bust operation 20. He was found of 12 Pandacan Streets. resulted positive in the drug test. Ani opened and this case. his conviction was was to raise his right hand if he successfully based on evidence which was irrelevant and buys marijuana from Musa. Musa was engaged in selling marijuana in when was not found. Musa came out of the house and asked ISSUE: Was he properly convicted Ani what he wanted. for commission and that it was physically trial and forfeiture. Ani was ordered by instead. he was just sleeping in his house 21. The police officer plastic bags containing crushed flowering tops saw petitioner handing over something to an and 5.Furthermore.00. they found more in bags of marijuana found at petitioners his house. After that he was charged of residence. lawful and told them they were policemen and frisked and the two cellophane bags of marijuana him. it is a well settled doctrine money. so they came to him of marijuana. however. he was denied the Because of that. Musa and was awakened because he was beiong handcuffed. The NARCOM team not properly identified positioned themselves about 90 to 100 meters away. Musa went into the house and came that findings of trial courts on the credibility of back. Sgt. In containing dried marijuana. a 'buy-bust' operation was constitutional right of confrontation and to planned for the next day. impossible for him to be there. Sgt. to conduct a prosecution was found more credible and surveillance and test buy on Musa. After the buyer left. Belarga and Sgt. Ani tried to buy and Petitioner contends that convicting him was a was able to buy one newspaper-wrapped dried mistake because 1. T/Sgt.’ They asked Musa about its contents scene of the crime at the time of its but failed to get a response. and the those of the defense must stand. the findings of the trial court that the inspected it. First. He simply but did not find the marked money because it contended that he was in his house sleeping at was given to his wife who has managed to the time of the incident. According to the alleged buyer. He also in evidence. Sgt. Espano v. they policemen. being the there were more so he said that there are fruits of the crime. He should be presumed innocent till found guilty 3. His arrest was. the same are inadmissible possession of prohibited drugs. inadmissible 2. He said that the policemen were FACTS: There was an information that Mari originally looking for his brother-in-law but. Lego went to consistently held that alibi is the weakest of all the kitchen and found a ‘cellophane colored defenses. and the vehicle or beast as well. The evidences seized were marijuana for P10. and for it to prosper. This Court has escape. People v. So they opened it .00 marked HELD: Yes. therefore. The trustworthy.5 grams of Marijuana. Ani said he wanted more marijuana and gave Musa the P20. Ani compulsory process and 4.the same. Belarga. As for the ten cellophane others in his house. they saw him selling something to searched him and discovered two cellophanes another person in Manila. He was not believed because the NARCOM leader T/Sgt. Belarga frisked Musa in the living room deserve any consideration. They searched Espano and asked him if seized were admissible in evidence. brought him to the station Zamboanga City. He raised his right hand as a prosecution witnesses were more credible than signal to the other NARCOM agents. the accused has white and stripe hanging at the corner of the the burden of proving that he was not at the kitchen. latter moved in and arrested Musa inside the the defense set up by petitioner does not house. In this plan. But according to Espano. giving Ani two newspaper wrappers witnesses deserve a high degree of respect.

article(s) or object(s) Police Anti-Narcotics Unit of Kalookan City sought in connection with said offense or conducted surveillance along A. person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged. (2) search of arrested the accused in the living room and moving vehicles. the marijuana inside the plastic seizure. The ‘cellophane colored white and stripe hanging at petitioner showed his wallet and allowed the the corner of the kitchen. the position to have that view are subject to and hence inadmissible as evidence. (4) moved into the kitchen in search for other customs search. the search and seizure bag was not immediately apparent from the may be made only with probable cause. stop-and-frisk has already been Upon reaching the cemetery. supported by seized illegally and cannot be presented in circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves evidence pursuant to Article III Section 3 (2) of to warrant a cautious man in the belief that the the Constitution. the plastic bag The exceptions to the rule are: (1) search was not in the ‘plain view’ of the police. (3) seizure in plain view.’ valid? officer to examine it. the ‘plain Probable cause being at best defined as a view’ does not apply. as an incident to a suspect’s lawful arrest. and (5) waiver by the accused evidences where they found the plastic bag. or the existence of such 29. petitioner effectively drugs. it was an unreasonable search and He kept the wallet and its marijuana contents seizure and therefore cannot be admitted as and took petitioner to headquarters to be evidence. They incidental to a lawful arrest. Policeman Espiritu asked him if he could see ISSUE: Was the search and seizure of the what the petitioner had in his hands. issue or object thereto during the trial. Any evidence obtained in violation object where the incriminating nature of the of this constitutionally guaranteed right is object is not apparent from the ‘plain view’ of legally inadmissible in any proceeding. front of the cemetery who appeared high on In the present case. It will not justify the seizure of the challenge. Therefore. The plastic bag was reasonable ground of suspicion. illegally obtained when he failed to raise the Petitioner was trying to avoid the policemen. Petitioner resisted. HELD: No. holding in his hands. In these cases. 1997 reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed Facts: At about 2:10 PM on April 11. The ‘plain view’ doctrine is usually applied Held: The general rule is a search and seizure where a police officer is not searching for must be validated by a previously secured evidence against the accused. subject to seizure and destruction by is in the in front of the Kalookan City Cemetery. and that the item(s). Mabini Street.and found dried marijuana leaves inside. Objects in the ‘plain Issue: Whether or not the search and seizure view’ of an officer who has the right to be in of the suspected marijuana is unreasonable. The petitioner had reddish eyes and was waived the inadmissibility of the evidence walking in a swaying manner. ‘plain view’ of said object. The warrantless search and seizure. otherwise. but nonetheless judicial warrant. 1988. Musa themselves and asked him what he was was then placed under arrest. of their right against unreasonable search and Furthermore. the petitioner. the object. Policeman Espiritu found suspected crushed marijuana residue inside. was done after receiving information that drug addicts were roaming around said area. Manalili vs Court of Appeals facts and circumstances which could lead a GR 113447. in rule against a search without a warrant. 9. further investigated. Additionally. to include the premises or surroundings under his immediate control. such a search and inadvertently comes across an incriminating seizure is unconstitutional and subject to object. In the case at bar. seizure and may be presented as evidence. the policemen adopted as another exception to the general chanced upon a male person. but the officers were able to introduce . may The suspected marijuana was sent to the NBI extend beyond the person of the one arrested Forensic Chemistry Section for analysis. This place to be searched. Oct.

the person person that the officer reasonably believes and the effects of the individual are beyond the could be armed. White”) agreed with the 392 US 1 majority. Petitioner is sentenced to suffer IMPRISONMENT of SIX (6) YEARS. merit the forcible stop and frisk. The facts of the case are the officer reasonably believes that the person important to understand the Supreme Court’s may be armed and dangerous. act. even without probable cause. . the assailed Decision and authorize a search and seizure that even a Resolution are hereby AFFIRMED with magistrate would not possess. and given the nature of the police to possess "probable cause" before they behavior the officer decided to perform a quick seize him. reasonable man that the person seized has committed. An officer may violent act. These are not United States Constitution (“Constitution”)? technical. The officer believed that the Petitioner and the other men The infringement on personal liberty of any were “casing” a store for a potential robbery. but he emphasized an additional against petitioner. which is closely seizure and a limited search for weapons on a allied with the Fifth. search under the Fourth Amendment to the we deal with probabilities. and to Justice John Harlan (“J. Ohio Justice Byron White (“J. Terry vs. armed robbery. That . but he emphasized that the particular facts of the case. eventually followed up the street. necessity of the reasonableness of the stop to investigate the crime. is rewritten.WHEREFORE. . The men would periodically peer into a searching them. is committing. SO ORDERED. ." search when an officer performs a quick Until the Fourth Amendment. Only that line draws a meaningful search of the men before questioning. The officer noticed the Petitioner talking and if the officer’s suspicions were correct then with another individual on a street corner while he would be in a dangerous position to repeatedly walking up and down the same approach the men for questioning without street. reasoning that the majority’s Court to water down constitutional guarantees holding would grant powers to officers to and give the police the upper hand. A quick distinction between an officer's mere inkling frisking of the Petitioner produced a concealed and the presence of facts within the officer's weapon and the Petitioner was charged with personal knowledge which would convince a carrying a concealed weapon. Facts. perform a search for weapons without a warrant. "In dealing with probable cause for arrest is an unreasonable probable cause. Harlan”) agreed with the PAY a FINE of SIX THOUSAND PESOS. that there was suspicion of a Synopsis of Rule of Law. as minimum. as maximum. A typical beat officer would be reach of all government agencies until there unduly burdened by being prohibited from are reasonable grounds to believe (probable searching individuals that the officer suspects cause) that a criminal venture has been to be armed. when Discussion. launched or is about to be launched. Justice William Douglas (“J. willingness to allow the search. they are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which Held. "seizure" of a person can only be "reasonable" The officer decided to approach the men for under the Fourth Amendment if we require the questioning. or is about to Issue. Whether a search for weapons without commit a particular crime. The officer also did not detain store window and then talk some more. The Supreme Court of the United States reasonable and prudent men. not legal (“Supreme Court”) held that it is a reasonable technicians. MODIFICATION. Douglas”) throughout our history that bear heavily on the dissented. as the very name implies. There have been powerful hydraulic pressures Dissent. The suspicious activity was a violent crime. The the men for a long period of time to constitute men also spoke to a third man whom they an arrest without probable cause. to TWELVE (12) YEARS. Costs majority. Concurrence.

hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater .