You are on page 1of 1

PEOPLE VS. NOEL TUDTUD AND DINDO BOLONG [G.R. No. 144037.

September 26, 2003]

Facts: Solier informed the police that Tudtud would come back with new
stocks of marijuana. Policemen saw two men alighted from the bus,
helping each other carry a carton/ box, one of them fitted the description of
Tudtud. They approached the two and Tudtud denied that he carried any
drugs. The latter opened the box, beneath dried fish where two bundles,
one wrapped in a plastic bag and another in newspapers. Policemen
asked Tudtud to unwrap the packages and contained what seemed to the
police as marijuana leaves. The two did not resist the arrest. Charged with
illegal possession of prohibited drugs, they pleaded not guilty and
interposed the defense that they were framed up. The trial court convicted
them with the crime charged and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua.

Issue: Whether or not searches and seizures without warrant may be


validly obtained.

Held: The rule is that a search and seizure must be carried out through or
with a judicial warrant; otherwise such search and seizure becomes
reasonable within the meaning of the constitutional provision, and any
evidence secured thereby will be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose
in any proceeding. Except with the following instances even in the
absence of a warrant: 1) Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest,
2) Search in evidence in plain view, 3) Search of a moving vehicle, 4)
Consented warrantless search, 5) Customs search, 6) Stop and frisk and
7) Exigent and emergency circumstances.
The long standing rule in this jurisdiction, applied with a degree of
consistency, is that, a reliable information alone is not sufficient to justify a
warrantless arrest. Hence, the items seized were held inadmissible,
having been obtained in violation of the accuseds constitutional rights
against unreasonable searches and seizures.

CIVIL ACTION ARISING FROM DELICT; EFFECT OF ACQUITTAL ON


THE CIVIL ASPECT; EFFECT OF GRANT OF DEMURRER ON THE
CIVIL ASPECT OF THE CASE