You are on page 1of 10

A close scrutiny of the records of this case reveals that the evidence The victim and her mother

d her mother testified that she was only three years old
TIJING vs. CA presented by Bienvenida is sufficient to establish that John Thomas Lopez is at the time of the rape. However, the prosecution did not offer the victims
(facial similarity to prove kinship) actually her missing son, Edgardo Tijing, Jr. certificate of live birth or similar authentic documents in evidence.

Petitioners EDGARDO A. TIJING and BIENVENIDA R. TIJING are XXX Finding for the prosecution, the RTC rendered judgment finding Rullepa guilty
husband and wife. They have six children. The youngest is Edgardo Tijing, beyond reasonable doubt of rape and accordingly sentenced him to death.
Fourth, the trial court observed several times that when the child and The case was placed for automatic review of the Supreme Court
Jr., who was born on April 27, 1989, at the clinic of midwife and registered Bienvenida were both in court, the two had strong similarities in their faces,
nurse Lourdes Vasquez in Sta. Ana, Manila. Petitioner Bienvenida served as eyes, eyebrows and head shapes. Resemblance between a minor and his ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court erred in imposing the
the laundrywoman of private respondent ANGELITA DIAMANTE. alleged parent is competent and material evidence to establish supreme penalty of death upon Rullepa when the age of the victim was only
According to Bienvenida in August 1989, Angelita went to her house parentage.[18] Needless to stress, the trial courts conclusion should be given evidenced by appearance. NO
to fetch her for an urgent laundry job. Since Bienvenida was on her way to do high respect, it having had the opportunity to observe the physical
appearances of the minor and petitioner concerned. HELD: A persons appearance, where relevant, is admissible as object
some marketing, she asked Angelita to wait until she returned. She also left evidence, the same being addressed to the senses of the court. As to the
her four-month old son, Edgardo, Jr., under the care of Angelita as she Xxx weight to accord such appearance, especially in rape cases, the Court in
usually let Angelita take care of the child while Bienvenida was doing laundry. People v. Pruna laid down the guideline.
(discussion on DNA)
When Bienvenida returned from the market, Angelita and Edgardo, A persons appearance, as evidence of age (for example, of
Jr., were gone. Bienvenida forthwith proceeded to Angelitas house, but did A final note. Parentage will still be resolved using conventional infancy, or of being under the age of consent to intercourse), is usually
not find them there. Angelitas maid told Bienvenida that her employer went methods unless we adopt the modern and scientific ways regarded as relevant; and, if so, the tribunal may properly observe the person
out for a stroll and told Bienvenida to come back later. She returned to available. Fortunately, we have now the facility and expertise in using DNA brought before it.
Angelitas house after three days, only to discover that Angelita had moved to test[19] for identification and parentage testing. The University of the
another place. Bienvenida then complained to her barangay chairman and Philippines Natural Science Research Institute (UP-NSRI) DNA Analysis There can be no question, therefore, as to the admissibility of a
also to the police. Laboratory has now the capability to conduct DNA typing using short tandem persons appearance in determining his or her age. As to the weight to
repeat (STR) analysis. The analysis is based on the fact that the DNA of a accord such appearance, especially in rape cases, Pruna laid down guideline
Bienvenida and her husband looked for their missing son in other child/person has two (2) copies, one copy from the mother and the other from no. 3, which is again reproduced hereunder:
places. Notwithstanding their serious efforts, they saw no traces of his the father. The DNA from the mother, the alleged father and child are
whereabouts. analyzed to establish parentage.[20] Of course, being a novel scientific 3. If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been
technique, the use of DNA test as evidence is still open to lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and
Four years later or in October 1993, Bienvenida read in a tabloid credible, of the victims mother or a member of the family either by affinity or
about the death of Tomas Lopez, allegedly the common-law husband of challenge.[21] Eventually, as the appropriate case comes, courts should not
hesitate to rule on the admissibility of DNA evidence. For it was said, that consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such
Angelita, and whose remains were lying in state in Hagonoy, as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section 40,
Bulacan. Bienvenida went to Hagonoy, Bulacan, where she allegedly saw her courts should apply the results of science when competently obtained in aid
of situations presented, since to reject said result is to deny Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the following
son Edgardo, Jr., for the first time after four years. She claims that the boy, circumstances:
who was pointed out to her by Benjamin Lopez, a brother of the late Tomas progress.[22] Though it is not necessary in this case to resort to DNA testing,
Lopez, was already named John Thomas Lopez.[1] She avers that Angelita in future it would be useful to all concerned in the prompt resolution of a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be
refused to return to her the boy despite her demand to do so. parentage and identity issues. proved is that she is less than 7 years old;
Bienvenida and Edgardo filed their petition for habeas corpus with the b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be
trial court in order to recover their son. To substantiate their petition, proved is that she is less than 12 years old;
petitioners presented two witnesses. The first witness, Vasquez, testified that PP v. RONNIE RULLEPA y GUINTO
she assisted in the delivery of one Edgardo Tijing, Jr. on April 27, 1989. The c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be
(appearance to establish age) proved is that she is less than 18 years old.
second witness, Benjamin Lopez, declared that his brother, the late Tomas
Lopez, could not have possibly fathered John Thomas Lopez as the latter Ronnie Rullepa y Guinto (Rullepa), a houseboy, was charged and Under the above guideline, the testimony of a relative with respect to
was sterile found guilty with Rape of Cyra May (then only three and a half years old) the age of the victim is sufficient to constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt
before (RTC). in cases (a), (b) and (c) above. In such cases, the disparity between the
For her part, Angelita claimed that she is the natural mother of the
child. She asserts that at age 42, she gave birth to John Thomas Lopez on The crime committed by accused-appellant is statutory rape. allegation and the proof of age is so great that the court can easily determine
April 27, 1989, from the appearance of the victim the veracity of the testimony. The
The two elements of statutory rape are (1) that the accused had appearance corroborates the relatives testimony.
RTC: concluded that since Angelita and her common-law husband carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) that the woman is below twelve years
could not have children, the alleged birth of John Thomas Lopez is an of age. As the alleged age approaches the age sought to be proved, the
impossibility. The trial court also held that the minor and Bienvenida showed persons appearance, as object evidence of her age, loses probative
strong facial similarity. Accordingly, it ruled that Edgardo Tijing, Jr., and John The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. value. Doubt as to her true age becomes greater and such doubt must be
Thomas Lopez are one and the same person who is the natural child of resolved in favor of the accused.
Furthermore, the victims age may constitute a qualifying
petitioners. circumstance, warranting the imposition of the death sentence. The same In the present case, the prosecution did not offer the victims certificate
CA: Reversed Article states: of live birth or similar authentic documents in evidence. The victim and her
mother, however, testified that she was only three years old at the time of the
ISSUE: Whether or not kinship may be proven be facial similarity. The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is rape.
YES committed when the victim is x x x a child below seven (7) years old.
Because of the vast disparity between the alleged age (three years
HELD: (Edgardo is the son of bienvenida) old) and the age sought to be proved (below twelve years), the trial court
would have had no difficulty ascertaining the victims age from her adequately explains the absence of injuries in her body. At any rate, it is not ISSUE: W/N the guilt of the accused proved beyond reasonable
appearance. No reasonable doubt, therefore, exists that the second element necessary for the commission of rape that there be marks of physical doubt.
of statutory rape, i.e., that the victim was below twelve years of age at the violence on the victims body. While Emily repeatedly mentioned her struggles
time of the commission of the offense, is present. to be released from his grasp, such efforts need not always result in physical HELD: Anent the paraffin test, it is true that it produced a negative
injuries. Besides, they did not refer to the circumstances when she was being result but such fact does not ipso facto merit Delfins acquittal. This Court
Whether the victim was below seven years old, however, is another dragged by the accused, but to the circumstances when he initially grabbed acknowledges that the absence of powder burns in a suspects hand is not
matter. Here, reasonable doubt exists. A mature three and a half-year old can her hands, when he was on top of her, when he was undressing her, and conclusive proof that he has not fired a gun. In fact, the traces of nitrates can
easily be mistaken for an underdeveloped seven-year old. The appearance of when she was exerting efforts to disengage herself from the sexual easily be removed by the simple act of washing ones hand.
the victim, as object evidence, cannot be accorded much weight and, anchorage.
following Pruna, the testimony of the mother is, by itself, insufficient.
The circumstances of force and intimidation attending the instant
As it has not been established with moral certainty that Cyra May was case were manifested clearly not only in the victims testimony but also in the Caballes vs. CA
below seven years old at the time of the commission of the offense, accused- physical evidence presented during the trial consisting of her torn dress and
appellant cannot be sentenced to suffer the death penalty. Only the penalty (Search of moving vehicles)
underwear as well as the medico-legal report. Such pieces of evidence
of reclusion perpetua can be imposed upon him. indeed are more eloquent than a hundred witnesses. The fact of carnal [At] about 9:15 p.m. of June 28, 1989, Sgt. Victorino Noceja and
knowledge is not disputed. It was positively established through the offended Pat. Alex de Castro, while on a routine patrol in Barangay Sampalucan,
partys own testimony and corroborated by that of her examining physician. Pagsanjan, Laguna, spotted a passenger jeep unusually covered with
People vs Ulzoron "kakawati" leaves.
Moreover, the conduct of the complaining witness immediately
(Absence of marks of physical Violence) following the assault clearly established the truth of her charge that she was Suspecting that the jeep was loaded with smuggled goods, the
raped by accused-appellant. two police officers flagged down the vehicle. The jeep was driven by
FACTS: Samuel Ulzoron was charged with rape with the use of a deadly appellant. When asked what was loaded on the jeep, he did not answer; he
weapon. appeared pale and nervous.
(Samuel grabbed her wrists and locked them with one hand ABALOS vs. CA With appellant's consent, the police officers checked the cargo
behind her back with the other drawing his bolo and pointing it at her neck. and they discovered bundles of 3.08 mm aluminum/galvanized conductor
She struggled to free herself from his hold but was so intimidated with the (absence of gun powder) wires exclusively owned by National Power Corporation (NPC). Thereafter,
bolo that she could not shout for help; she lost her strength eventually. After Delfin Abalos was charged with murder for the killing of Liberato appellant and the vehicle with the high-voltage wires were brought to the
she weakened, he dragged her some forty (40) meters away to the bushes Damias.[1] The Information alleged that the accused, using an unlicensed Pagsanjan Police Station.
and tall grasses. He forced her to lie down; then he mounted her. He laid his firearm, with intent to kill, employing treachery and taking advantage of
bolo beside him, pinned her arms with one hand, and with the other, As his last straw of argument, the accused questions the
superior strength, shot and killed Liberato Damias on the night of 27 January constitutionality of the search and validity of his arrest on the ground that no
loosened the buttons of her dress. Emily could only struggle in vain until he 1993
ripped off her dress and panties. He opened the zipper of his pants and then warrant was issued to that effect.
inserted his penis to her vagina. He copulated with her for about fifteen (15) Veronica Bukatao (girlfriend of the deceased) narrated that on that ISSUE: whether the evidence taken from the warrantless search is
minutes. She did everything to disengage herself from the sexual imbroglio night, Liberato visited her at around 7 o'clock. As she was entertaining him at admissible against the appellant.
but her efforts proved no match to his strength.) the balcony of their house she noticed petitioner walking back and forth in
front of their house. He was just about four (4) meters or so away from HELD: The conviction or acquittal of petitioner hinges primarily on the validity
On the strength of the testimony of the complaining witness them. As she was ill at ease with petitioners conspicuous demeanor below, of the warrantless search and seizure made by the police officers, and the
Emily Gabo, the trial court convicted the accused. It found the latters she asked Liberato to transfer to their sala where they could continue admissibility of the evidence obtained by virtue thereof.
testimony straightforward and credible. talking. When they moved inside, Liberato sat near the entrance of the house
with his left side towards the door with Veronica sitting in front of him. The Search of moving vehicle - Highly regulated by the government,
Appellant faults the trial court for convicting him on the basis of the vehicle's inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when
his defense. He argues that the undisputed facts and circumstances made it positions of Liberato and Veronica and their proximity to one another could
have heightened Delfin's animosity that he suddenly appeared at the door its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion
more likely that Emily was involved in an adulterous relationship with him. amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a criminal
and in a semi-kneeling position shot Liberato on his left side. Veronica
He claims, for instance, that there was absolutely nothing to positively identified petitioner Delfin Abalos as he scurried away since the activity.15 Thus, the rules governing search and seizure have over the years
support the victims claim of struggle, and that while he allegedly dragged her sala of her house was adequately lit by a kerosene lamp and he was only one been steadily liberalized whenever a moving vehicle is the object of the
forty (40) meters away before assaulting her sexually, the examining (1) meter away from them when he pulled the trigger. search on the basis of practicality. This is so considering that before a
physician could not conclude that physical force was actually inflicted since warrant could be obtained, the place, things and persons to be searched
she did not sustain any physical injuries. RTC: It found petitioner guilty of murder. However, the aggravating must be described to the satisfaction of the issuing judge a requirement
circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm was not appreciated as the which borders on the impossible in the case of smuggling effected by the use
ISSUE1: W/N accused-appellants guilt was sufficiently established weapon was never recovered. of a moving vehicle that can transport contraband from one place to another
with impunity. We might add that a warrantless search of a moving vehicle is
HELD1: Contrary to accused-appellants claim that he was convicted CA: homicide. justified on the ground that it is not practicable to secure a warrant because
because of his weak defense, his conviction was actually founded on the the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the
overwhelming evidence of the prosecution. Contention of the accused: the appellate court erred in finding him
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide. He argues that he had a solid warrant must be sought.16 Searches without warrant of automobiles is also
The term dragged should not indeed be taken in the meaning alibi (he was at the tobacco field) to prove his innocence and that the paraffin allowed for the purpose of preventing violations of smuggling or immigration
understood by appellant as dragged along on the ground. When asked on test yielded negative for powder burns on his hand, hence confirming that he laws, provided such searches are made at borders or 'constructive borders'
cross-examination by the defense counsel to describe how she and appellant never fired the shot that killed Liberato. like checkpoints near the boundary lines of the State.17
travelled at (sic) forty (40) meters distance, she said, He was holding my
hands and at the same time he is (sic) pushing me forward. This testimony
The mere mobility of these vehicles, however, does not give the stolen cable wires in his vehicle which could otherwise have sustained their PEOPLE v. BALINGAN
police officers unlimited discretion to conduct indiscriminate searches without suspicion. Our jurisprudence is replete with cases where tipped information
warrants if made within the interior of the territory and in the absence of has become a sufficient probable cause to effect a warrantless search and (Checkpoints)
probable cause.18 Still and all, the important thing is that there was probable seizure. Unfortunately, none exists in this case. On August 1988, the Narcotics Division of the Baguio City police
cause to conduct the warrantless search, which must still be present in such received a telephone call from an unnamed male informant, alleging that
a case. accused Rudy Caballes is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime
charged. petitioner Balingan is going to Manila with a bag full of marijuana.
Although the term eludes exact definition, probable cause Acting on such information, police officer Obrera conducted
signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances surveillance of petitioner in different places, such as her house and at bus
sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man's belief that the stations around the city.
person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged; or the MUSTANG LUMBER, INC VS. CA
existence of such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably (Search of moving vehicles) Upon receiving information that petitioner boarded a Dangwa
discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and Bus, Obrera immediately went to the terminal to confirm the said report. He
that the items, articles or objects sought in connection with said offense or FACTS: On 1 April 1990, acting on an information that a huge stockpile of boarded the bus and saw petitioner carrying a gray maleta. A prior checkpoint
subject to seizure and destruction by law is in the place to be searched.The narra flitches, shorts, and slabs were seen inside the lumberyard of the along Kennon Road was set-up by the police in order to apprehend petitioner.
required probable cause that will justify a warrantless search and seizure is petitioner in Valenzuela, Metro Manila, the SAID organized a team of Upon arrival at the checkpoint, the bus stopped and yielded to the police
not determined by a fixed formula but is resolved according to the facts of foresters and policemen and sent it to conduct surveillance at the said officers. Obrera announced a routine check on petitioner, but petitioner did
each case. lumberyard. In the course thereof, the team members saw coming out from not respond. The police officers then grabbed the bag in the overhead
the lumberyard the petitioner's truck, with Plate No. CCK-322, loaded with compartment of petitioner Balingan and opened it. Just as they suspected,
One such form of search of moving vehicles is the "stop-and- lauan and almaciga lumber of assorted sizes and dimensions. Since the they found approximately 3 kilos of marijuana.
search" without warrant at military or police checkpoints which has been driver could not produce the required invoices and transport documents, the
declared to be not illegal per se, for as long as it is warranted by the team seized the truck together with its cargo and impounded them at the The police officers then requested Balingan to go with them to
exigencies of public order and conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists. DENR compound at Visayas Avenue, Quezon City.1 The team was not able the police station. However, the petitioner resisted and bit one of the police
A checkpoint may either be a mere routine inspection or it may involve an to gain entry into the premises because of the refusal of the owner. officers. Eventually, after thirty minutes, they were able to pull Balingan out of
extensive search. the bus and brought her to the Baguio City Police Station and locked her up
On 3 April 1990, RTC Valenzuela issued a search warrant. On same day, in jail.
Routine inspections are not regarded as violative of an the team seized from the lumberyard narra shorts, trimmings and slabs, narra
individual's right against unreasonable search. The search which is normally lumber, and various species of lumber and shorts. ISSUE Whether or not there was sufficient probable cause for the police
permissible in this instance is limited to the following instances: (1) where the officers to believe that she was then and there committing a crime so as to
officer merely draws aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle which is parked on On 4 April 1990, team returned to lumberyard and placed under justify the warrantless search and seizure of the bag
the public fair grounds; (2) simply looks into a vehicle; (3) flashes a light administrative seizure (owner retains physical possession of seized articles,
therein without opening the car's doors;26 (4) where the occupants are not only an inventory is taken) the remaining lumber because Mustang Lumber HELD: Yes.
subjected to a physical or body search;27 (5) where the inspection of the failed to produce required documents upon demand. Upon recommendation We also find no merit in appellant's argument that the marijuana
vehicles is limited to a visual search or visual inspection;28 and (6) where the of SAID Chief Robles, DENR Sec Factoran suspended Mustang Lumbers flowering tops should be excluded as evidence, they being the products of an
routine check is conducted in a fixed area.29 permit and confiscated in favor of the govt the seized articles. alleged illegal warrantless search. The search and seizure in the case at
None of the foregoing circumstances is obtaining in the case at Mustang Lumber filed for a TRO against Factoran and Robles, and bench happened in a moving, public vehicle.
bar. The police officers did not merely conduct a visual search or visual questioned the validity of the April 1 and 4 seizure. Search and seizure must be supported by a valid warrant is not
inspection of herein petitioner's vehicle. They had to reach inside the vehicle, an absolute rule. There are at least three (3) well-recognized exceptions
ISSUES: a) WON the search and seizure on April 1 was valid.
lift the kakawati leaves and look inside the sacks before they were able to see thereto. These are: [1] a search incidental to an arrest, [2] a search of a
the cable wires. It cannot be considered a simple routine check. HELD: Yes. It was duly established that on 1 April 1990, the petitioner's truck moving vehicle, and [3] seizure of evidence in plain view (emphasis supplied).
with Plate No. CCK-322 was coming out from the petitioner's lumberyard The circumstances of the case clearly show that the search in question was
On the other hand, when a vehicle is stopped and subjected to
loaded with lauan and almaciga lumber of different sizes and dimensions made as regards a moving vehicle. Therefore, a valid warrant was not
an extensive search, such a warrantless search would be constitutionally
which were not accompanied with the required invoices and transport necessary to effect the search on appellant and his co-accused.
permissible only if the officers conducting the search have reasonable or
documents. The seizure of such truck and its cargo was a valid exercise of
probable cause to believe, before the search, that either the motorist is a law- Unquestionably, the warrantless search in the case at bench is
the power vested upon a forest officer or employee by Section 80 of P.D. No.
offender or they will find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime not bereft of a probable cause. The Baguio INP Narcotics Intelligence
705, as amended by P.D. No. 1775. Then, too, as correctly held by the trial
in the vehicle to be searched.31 Division received an information that appellant was going to transport
court and the Court of Appeals in the FIRST CIVIL CASE, the search was
In the case at bar, the vehicle of the petitioner was flagged down conducted on a moving vehicle. Such a search could be lawfully conducted marijuana in a bag to Manila. Their surveillance operations revealed that
because the police officers who were on routine patrol became suspicious without a search warrant. appellant, whose movements had been previously monitored by the Narcotics
when they saw that the back of the vehicle was covered with kakawati leaves Division boarded a Dangwa bus bound for Manila carrying a suspicious
Search of a moving vehicle is one of the five doctrinally accepted exceptions looking gray luggage bag. When the moving, public bus was stopped, her
which, according to them, was unusual and uncommon.
to the constitutional mandate 34 that no search or seizure shall be made bag, upon inspection, yielded marijuana. Under those circumstances, the
We hold that the fact that the vehicle looked suspicious simply except by virtue of a warrant issued by a judge after personally determining warrantless search of appellant's bag was not illegal.
because it is not common for such to be covered with kakawati leaves does the existence of probable cause. The other exceptions are (3) search as an
not constitute "probable cause" as would justify the conduct of a search incident to a lawful arrest, (2) seizure of evidence in plain view, (3) customs
without a warrant. searches, and (4) consented warrantless search.

In addition, the police authorities do not claim to have received

any confidential report or tipped information that petitioner was carrying
airport public address systems, signs, and notices in their airline tickets that ISSUE:Is the evidence presented before the trial court sufficient to
they are subject to search and, if any prohibited materials or substances are warrant accused-appellants conviction?
People vs. Johnson found, such would be subject to seizure. These announcements place
passengers on notice that ordinary constitutional protections against HELD: While the conviction of accused-appellant in selling prohibited
(Routine Airport Procedures) drugs is warranted, accused-appellant should be liable only for such crime
warrantless searches and seizures do not apply to routine airport procedures.
Accused-appellant Leila Reyes Johnson was, at the time of the and his acquittal for possessing two bricks of marijuana flower tops is called
incident, 58 years old, a widow, and a resident of Ocean Side, California, The packs of methamphetamine hydrochloride having thus been for.
U.S.A. obtained through a valid warrantless search, they are admissible in evidence
against the accused-appellant herein. Corollarily, her subsequent arrest, It appears that the police officers justification for the seizure of the
On June 16, 1998, she arrived in the Philippines to visit her sons although likewise without warrant, was justified since it was effected upon the prohibited drugs was rooted from the fact that the intrusion and search was
family in Calamba, Laguna. She was due to fly back to the United States on discovery and recovery of shabu in her person in flagrante delicto. pursuant to accused-appellants lawful arrest after selling marijuana to a
July 26. member of the buy-bust team. A search incident to a lawful arrest is limited to
the person of one arrested and the premises within his immediate control. [15]
At around 7:30 p.m. of that day, Olivia Ramirez was on duty as a lady
frisker at Gate 16 of the NAIA departure area. PEOPLE vs ASPIRAS Under the plain view doctrine, unlawful objects within the plain view of
an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view are subject
When she frisked accused-appellant Leila Johnson, a departing (seizure of evidence in plain view) to seizure and may be presented in evidence.[16] Nonetheless, the seizure of
passenger bound for the United States, she felt something hard on the latters evidence in plain view must comply with the following elements: (a) a prior
abdominal area. Upon inquiry, Mrs. Johnson explained she needed to wear On December 26, 1994, Sr. Inspector Valdez of Paraaque Philippine valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are
two panty girdles as she had just undergone an operation as a result of an National Police Drug Enforcement Unit received a telephone call, informing legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) the evidence was
ectopic pregnancy. him that a certain alias Rolly, later identified as accused-appellant inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are;
Rolando Aspiras, of Tambo Paraaque was peddling prohibited drugs. (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and (d) plain view justified
Not satisfied with the explanation, Ramirez reported the matter to her mere seizure of evidence without further search.[17]
superior, saying that she does not believe that it is just a panty. She was Upon such information, Sr. Insp. Valdez constituted PO3 Jose Soreta,
directed to take accused-appellant to the nearest womens room for Police Aides (P/A) Abelardo Soto and Jerry Sabino to conduct a surveillance The record shows that the two bricks of marijuana flower tops were
inspection. operation on Rolando Aspiras. On the same day, surveillance was conducted recovered under the table, wrapped in a plastic bag.
at J. Puyat Compound where the house of the suspected peddler was
Ramirez then asked her to bring out the thing under her girdle. located. While it is true that the police officers had prior justification for
Accused-appellant brought out three plastic packs, which Ramirez then intrusion, permitting a warrantless seizure of any piece of evidence
turned over to her superior, outside the womens room.[9] Afterwards, the surveillance team went back to the police station and incriminating an accused, nonetheless, applying the plain view doctrine, such
planned a buy-bust operation. On December 27, 1994, at around 7 in the must be limited to those evidence that the police officer came across
The confiscated packs were found to be shabu.[10] evening, P/A Jerry Sabino acted as the poseur-buyer while PO3 Soreta, P/A inadvertently.
Soto and Crisanto Cruz positioned themselves approximately ten meters
Accused-appellant claims that she was arrested and detained in gross away from Aspiras house. When Sabino called for Aspiras, alias Bukol went The prosecution failed to show whether or not the plastic bag was
violation of her constitutional rights. She argues that the shabu confiscated out and inquired what Sabino wanted. Sabino related to San Lorenzo that he transparent that would prove beyond reasonable doubt that the plain view of
from her is inadmissible against her because she was forced to affix her wanted to score or buy marijuana for P50.00 pesos. Sabino then gave to San such plastic bag would readily disclose that its contents are marijuana. In our
signature on the plastic bags while she was detained at the 1st RASO office, Lorenzo the marked 5 pieces of ten peso bills worth P50.00. criminal justice system, the overriding consideration is not whether the court
without the assistance of counsel and without having been informed of her doubts the innocence of the accused but whether it entertains a reasonable
constitutional rights. Hence, she argues, the methamphetamine Upon receipt of such amount, San Lorenzo entered Aspiras house. doubt as to his guilt. If the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of
hydrochloride, or shabu, should have been excluded from the evidence.[17] Soon after, Aspiras came out and asked Sabino if he was the one who two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of
wanted to score. When Sabino confirmed, Aspiras handed five (5) pieces of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does
ISSUE: admissibility of the seized illegal drugs at the airport aluminum foils. Upon verifying its contents as marijuana, Sabino signaled his not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a
HELD: The methamphetamine hydrochloride seized from her during the companions to make the arrest. conviction.[21] Corollarily, the two bricks of marijuana are inadmissible in
routine frisk at the airport was acquired legitimately pursuant to airport When Aspiras saw the rest of Sabinos companions, he rushed inside evidence against accused-appellant.
security procedures. his house and the police team sought after him. Thereat, the marked money
Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause by was recovered from Aspiras while PO3 Soreta seized two bricks of marijuana
exposure of their persons or property to the public in a manner reflecting a flower tops wrapped in plastic bag under a PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. QUE MING KHA
lack of subjective expectation of privacy, which expectation society is table. Afterwards, Aspiras and San Lorenzo were brought to the headquarters
prepared to recognize as reasonable.[19] and the marijuana flower tops were sent to the NBI for examination. Charges (Plain View) (Facts: go to the last paragraph)
were then filed against Aspiras and San Lorenzo for violation of Sections 4
Such recognition is implicit in airport security procedures. With and 8 of R.A. 6425, as amended. Go further argued that the search made on the van was illegal and
increased concern over airplane hijacking and terrorism has come increased therefore the shabu discovered from that search is inadmissible as
security at the nations airports. Passengers attempting to board an aircraft RTC: rendered its judgment convicting accused-appellant Aspiras and evidence. We do not agree.
routinely pass through metal detectors; their carry-on baggage as well as accused San Lorenzo of selling marijuana. With respect to the charge of
possessing prohibited drugs under Section 8 thereof, accused San The Constitution proscribes search and seizure without a judicial
checked luggage are routinely subjected to x-ray scans. Should these warrant and any evidence obtained without such warrant is inadmissible for
procedures suggest the presence of suspicious objects, physical searches Lorenzo was acquitted while accused-appellant Aspiras was convicted.
any purpose in any proceeding. The rule is, however, not absolute. Search
are conducted to determine what the objects are. There is little question that In this appeal, accused-appellant Aspiras questions the existence of and seizure may be made without a warrant and the evidence obtained
such searches are reasonable, given their minimal intrusiveness, the gravity the buy-bust operation, imputes ill-motive on the police officers and asserts therefrom may be admissible in the following instances: (1) search incident to
of the safety interests involved, and the reduced privacy expectations that the evidence against him is planted. a lawful arrest; (2) search of a moving motor vehicle; (3) search in violation of
associated with airline travel. Indeed, travelers are often notified through customs laws; (4) seizure of evidence in plain view; (5) when the accused
himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and seizures.[22] The The Office of the Solicitor General argues that the records clearly the police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but
search made in the case at bar falls under the fourth exception. We held show that there was no search made by the police team, in the first inadvertently comes across an incriminating object.[37] Clearly, their discovery
in People vs. Doria:[23] place. The OSG points out that the marijuana plants in question were grown of the cannabis plants was not inadvertent. We also note the testimony of
in an unfenced lot and as each grew about five (5) feet tall, they were visible SPO2 Tipay that upon arriving at the area, they first had to "look around the
Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in a position to from afar, and were, in fact, immediately spotted by the police officers when area" before they could spot the illegal plants.[38] Patently, the seized
have that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may they reached the site. The seized marijuana plants were, thus, in plain view marijuana plants were not "immediately apparent" and a "further search" was
be introduced in evidence. The 'plain view' doctrine applies when the of the police officers. The instant case must, therefore, be treated as a needed. In sum, the marijuana plants in question were not in "plain view" or
following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the warrantless lawful search under the "plain view" doctrine "open to eye and hand." The "plain view" doctrine, thus, cannot be made to
evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which apply.
he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of evidence in plain view is ISSUE: (1) Was the search and seizure of the marijuana
inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he plants in the present case lawful? Nor can we sustain the trial court's conclusion that just because the
observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to marijuana plants were found in an unfenced lot, appellant could not invoke
seizure. The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or (2) Were the seized plants admissible in evidence against the the protection afforded by the Charter against unreasonable searches by
properly be in a position from which he can particularly view the area. In the accused? agents of the State. The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is
course of such lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of HELD: NO. the immunity of one's person, which includes his residence, his papers, and
evidence incriminating the accused. The object must be open to eye and other possessions.[39] The guarantee refers to "the right of personal
hand and its discovery inadvertent. The Constitution lays down the general rule that a search and seizure security"[40] of the individual. As appellant correctly points out, what is sought
must be carried on the strength of a judicial warrant. Otherwise, the search to be protected against the State's unlawful intrusion are persons, not
The facts show that while the van was traversing Don Antonio Avenue and seizure is deemed "unreasonable." Evidence procured on the occasion places.[41] To conclude otherwise would not only mean swimming against the
in Quezon City, it accidentally hit a seven-year old ambulant vendor. The van of an unreasonable search and seizure is deemed tainted for being the stream, it would also lead to the absurd logic that for a person to be immune
stopped and the owner got off to bring the boy to the hospital. A police officer proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree and should be excluded.[32]Such evidence against unreasonable searches and seizures, he must be in his home or
who witnessed the accident approached the van to apprehend the driver for shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.[33] office, within a fenced yard or a private place. The Bill of Rights belongs as
reckless imprudence. As he stood near the van, he saw through the lightly much to the person in the street as to the individual in the sanctuary of his
tinted window of the van several sacks placed at the back of the van. One of In the instant case, there was no search warrant issued by a judge bedroom.
the sacks was open, revealing several plastic bags containing white after personal determination of the existence of probable cause. From the
crystalline substance which the police suspected to be shabu. Clearly, the declarations of the police officers themselves, it is clear that they had at least We therefore hold, with respect to the first issue, that the confiscated
prohibited substance was within the plain view of the police officer who was in one (1) day to obtain a warrant to search appellant's farm. Their informant plants were evidently obtained during an illegal search and seizure. As to the
a position to be near the van at the time. The substance is therefore not a had revealed his name to them. The place where the cannabis plants were second issue, which involves the admissibility of the marijuana plants as
product of an illegal search and not inadmissible as evidence. planted was pinpointed. From the information in their possession, they could evidence for the prosecution, we find that said plants cannot, as products of
have convinced a judge that there was probable cause to justify the issuance an unlawful search and seizure, be used as evidence against appellant.They
of a warrant. But they did not. Instead, they uprooted the plants and are fruits of the proverbial poisoned tree. It was, therefore, a reversible error
apprehended the accused on the excuse that the trip was a good six hours on the part of the court a quo to have admitted and relied upon the seized
PEOPLE vs. VALDEZ and inconvenient to them. We need not underscore that the protection marijuana plants as evidence to convict appellant.
(plain view) against illegal search and seizure is constitutionally mandated and only under
specific instances are searches allowed without warrants.[34] The mantle of
SPO3 Marcelo Tipay, testified that at around 10:15 a.m. of September protection extended by the Bill of Rights covers both innocent and guilty alike
24, 1996, he received a tip from an unnamed informer about the presence of against any form of high-handedness of law enforcers, regardless of the PEOPLE vs. ANTONIO C. ESTELLA
a marijuana plantation, allegedly owned by appellant Abe Valdez. The praiseworthiness of their intentions. (plain view)
prohibited plants were allegedly planted close to appellant's hut. Police
Inspector Alejandro R. Parungao, then formed a reaction team from his We find no reason to subscribe to Solicitor General's contention that Prior to November 20, 1996, a warrant was issued for the conduct of a search
operatives to verify the report. we apply the "plain view" doctrine. For the doctrine to apply, the following and seizure in the residence of appellant at Purok Yakal, Barangay
elements must be present: Baloganon, Masinloc, Zambales.
At approximately 5:00 o'clock A.M. the following day, said police
team, accompanied by their informer, left for the site where the marijuana (a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest In the morning of November 20, 1996, Senior Police Officer 1 (SPO1) Antonio
plants were allegedly being grown. The police operatives arrived at the place in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of Bulor[o]n enforced the search warrant. Barangay Captain Barnaceha
pinpointed by their informant. The police found appellant alone in his nipa their official duties; accompanied the police officers to the place mentioned in the search warrant.
hut. They, then, proceeded to look around the area where appellant had (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police
his kaingin and saw seven (7) five-foot high, flowering marijuana plants in two On their way to Purok Yakal, SPO1 Buloron saw appellant sitting on a rocking
who have the right to be where they are; and chair located about two (2) meters away from a hut owned by Narding
rows, approximately 25 meters from appellant's hut.[5]PO2 Balut asked
appellant who owned the prohibited plants and, according to Balut, the latter (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and Estella, brother of appellant, and being rented by appellants live-in partner,
admitted that they were his.[6] The police uprooted the seven marijuana named Eva. They approached appellant and introduced themselves as police
plants. The police took photos of appellant standing beside the cannabis (d) plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further officers. They showed appellant the search warrant and explained the
plants.[8] Appellant was then arrested. search.[35] contents to him. SPO1 Buloron asked appellant if indeed he had in his
possession prohibited drug and if so, to surrender the same so he would
Appellant contends that there was unlawful search. First, the records In the instant case, recall that PO2 Balut testified that they first located deserve a lesser penalty.
show that the law enforcers had more than ample time to secure a search the marijuana plants before appellant was arrested without a
warrant. Second, that the marijuana plants were found in an unfenced lot warrant.[36] Hence, there was no valid warrantless arrest which preceded the While inside the hut, appellant surrendered to the team two cans containing
does not remove appellant from the mantle of protection against search of appellant's premises. Note further that the police team was dried marijuana fruiting tops. One can contained twenty (20) bricks of fruiting
unreasonable searches and seizures. dispatched to appellant's kaingin precisely to search for and uproot the tops. The team searched the hut in the presence of appellant and his live-in
prohibited flora. The seizure of evidence in "plain view" applies only where partner. They found a plastic container under the kitchen table, which
contained four (4) big bricks of dried marijuana leaves and a .38 caliber committed or was actually committing an offense in the presence of the Nonetheless, the team proceeded to barangay Bagonbon and arrived
revolver with four live ammunitions.The team seized the prohibited drug, the arresting officers. Without that knowledge, there could have been no search at the residence of accused-appellant in the early morning of July 13,
revolver and ammunitions. The team seized and signed a receipt for the incident to a lawful arrest. 1995. SPO4 Villamor knocked at the gate and called out for the accused-
seized items. Barangay Captain Barnachea and SPO1 Edgar Bermudez of appellant. The prosecution contends that the accused-appellant opened the
the Masinloc Police Station also signed the receipt as witnesses. SPO1 Assuming arguendo that appellant was indeed committing an offense gate and permitted them to come in. He was immediately asked by SPO4
Buloron and his companions arrested appellant and brought him to San in the presence of the arresting officers, and that the arrest without a warrant Villamor about the suspected marijuana plants and he admitted that he
Marcelino, Zambales. was lawful, it still cannot be said that the search conducted was within the planted and cultivated the same for the use of his wife who was suffering
confines of the law. Searches and seizures incident to lawful arrests are from migraine. SPO4 Villamor then told him that he would be charged for
Appellant claims that the hut,[14] which was searched by the police and where governed by Section 12, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal violation of Section 9 of R.A. No. 6425 and informed him of his constitutional
the subject marijuana was recovered, does not belong to him. He points to Procedure, which reads: rights. The operatives then uprooted the suspected marijuana plants. SPO1
another house[15] as his real residence. To support his claim, he presents a Linda conducted an initial field test of the plants by using the Narcotics Drug
document[16] that shows that the subject hut was sold to his brother Leonardo Section 12. Search incident to lawful arrest. A person lawfully arrested may
be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used Identification Kit. The test yielded a positive result.[7]
C. Estella by one Odilon Eclarinal. The OSG, on the other hand, argues that
just because appellant has another house in a place away from the hut that or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant. On his part, accused-appellant .he heard somebody knocking
was searched does not necessarily mean that the hut is not occupied by him However, the scope of the search should be limited to the area within outside his house. He went down bringing with him a flashlight. After he
or under his full control.[17] The prosecution cites the testimony of Rey which the person to be arrested can reach for a weapon or for evidence that opened the gate, four (4) persons who he thought were members of the
Barnachea, the barangay captain of that place, to show that the hut in he or she can destroy.[32] The prevailing rule is that the arresting officer may military, entered the premises then went inside the house. . One of the four
question belongs to appellant. take from the arrested individual any money or property found upon the men told him to sit in the living room. Some of the men went upstairs while
latters person -- that which was used in the commission of the crime or was the others went around the house. None of them asked for his permission to
ISSUE: Whether or not the search and seizure was valid. search his house and the premises.
the fruit of the crime, or which may provide the prisoner with the means of
HELD: No. The OSG argues that [e]ven assuming that appellant was not the committing violence or escaping, or which may be used in evidence in the ISSUE:
occupant of the hut, the fact remains that he voluntarily surrendered the trial of the case
marijuana to the police officers. After appellant had surrendered the HELD: The relevant constitutional provisions are found in Sections 2
prohibited stuff, the police had a right to arrest him even without a warrant The purpose of the exception is to protect the arresting officer from and 3 [2], Article III of the 1987 Constitution which read as follows:
and to conduct a search of the immediate vicinity of the arrestee for weapons being harmed by the person being arrested, who might be armed with a
and other unlawful objects as an incident to the lawful arrest.[31] concealed weapon, and to prevent the latter from destroying evidence within Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
reach. The exception, therefore, should not be strained beyond what is and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature
The above argument assumes that the prosecution was able to prove needed to serve its purpose.[36] and for any purpose shall be inviolable
that appellant had voluntarily surrendered the marijuana to the police
officers. As earlier adverted to, there is no convincing proof that he indeed In the case before us, searched was the entire hut, which cannot be Sec. 3. xxx
surrendered the prohibited drug, whether voluntarily or otherwise. In fact, the said to have been within appellants immediate control. Thus, the search
exceeded the bounds of that which may be considered to be incident to a (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be
testimony of Prosecution Witness Barnachea clouds rather than clarifies the inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
prosecutions story. lawful arrest.
Said constitutional provisions are safeguards against reckless,
Given this backdrop, the police authorities cannot claim that the malicious and unreasonable invasion of privacy and liberty.
search was incident to a lawful arrest. Such a search presupposes a lawful or
valid arrest and can only be invoked through Section 5, Rule 113 of the PEOPLE vs. ARMANDO COMPACION A search and seizure, therefore, must be carried out through or with a
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which we quote: (Consented Search) judicial warrant; otherwise, such search and seizure becomes unreasonable
within the meaning of the constitutional provision.Evidence secured thereby,
SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful - A peace officer or a private Acting on a confidential tip supplied by a police informant that i.e., the fruits of the search and seizure, will be inadmissible in evidence for
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: accused-appellant Armando S. Compacion was growing and cultivating any purpose in any proceeding.
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is marijuana plants, SPO1 Gilbert L. Linda and SPO2 Basilio Sarong conducted
a surveillance of the residence of accused-appellant who was then the The requirement that a warrant must be obtained from the proper
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; judicial authority prior to the conduct of a search and seizure is, however, not
barangay captain of barangay Bagonbon, San Carlos City, Negros Occidental
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to on July 9, 1995. During the said surveillance, they saw two (2) tall plants in absolute. There are several instances when the law recognizes exceptions,
believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the the backyard of the accused-appellant which they suspected to be marijuana such as when the owner of the premises consents or voluntarily submits to a
person to be arrested has committed it; and plants.[4] search; when the owner of the premises waives his right against such
incursion; when the search is incidental to a lawful arrest; when it is made on
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a SPO1 Linda and SPO2 Sarong reported the result of their surveillance vessels and aircraft for violation of customs laws: when it is made on
penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is and a team was formed immediately. automobiles for the purpose of preventing violations of smuggling or
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being immigration laws; when it involves prohibited articles in plain view; when it
transferred from one confinement to another. On July 12, 1995, the team applied for a search warrant with the office involves a stop and frisk situation; when the search is under exigent and
of Executive Judge Bernardo Ponferrada in Bacolod City. However, Judge emergency circumstances; or in cases of inspection of buildings and other
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested Ponferrada informed them that he did not have territorial jurisdiction over the premises for the enforcement of fire, sanitary and building regulations. In
without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or matter.[5] The team then left Bacolod City for San Carlos City. They arrived these instances, a search may be validly made even without a warrant.
jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with Section 7 Rule 112. there around six-thirty in the evening, then went to the house of Executive
Judge Roberto S. Javellana to secure a search warrant. They were not able In the instant case, the search and seizure conducted by the
Never was it proven that appellant, who was the person to be to do so because it was nighttime and office hours were obviously over. They composite team in the house of accused-appellant was not authorized by a
arrested, was in possession of the subject prohibited drug during the were told by the judge to go back in the morning.[6] search warrant. It does not appear either that the situation falls under any of
search. It follows, therefore, that there was no way of knowing if he had
the above mentioned cases. Consequently, accused-appellants right against 5 oclock in the afternoon, and they agreed that appellant would deliver half a the evidence obtained therefrom may be admissible in the following
unreasonable search and seizure was clearly violated. kilo of shabu to the informant for P200,000.00 at 6:30 in the evening of that instances: (1) the search was incident to a lawful arrest; (2) the search is of a
same day. moving motor vehicle; (3) the search concerns violation of customs laws; (4)
It is extant from the records that accused-appellant did not consent to the seizure of evidence in plain view; and (5) when the accused himself
the warrantless search and seizure conducted. While the right to be secure Police officers, led by SPO2 Rodolfo Rival, then planned a buy-bust waives his right against unreasonable searches and seizures (People vs.
from unreasonable search and seizure may, like every right, be waived either operation for the entrapment of appellant. Eight genuine P500.00 bills, Doria, 301 SCRA 668 [1999]).
expressly or impliedly,[27] such waiver must constitute a valid waiver made marked with the letter C, were prepared. These marked P500.00 bills were
voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. The act of the accused-appellant in then placed at the top and at the bottom of four bundles of bogus money. The Clearly, the search made by the police officers in the instant case was
allowing the members of the military to enter his premises and his police designated PO3 Chico to be the poseur-buyer. incidental to a lawful arrest. Section 13, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of
consequent silence during the unreasonable search and seizure could not be Criminal Procedure explicitly states that a person lawfully arrested may be
construed as voluntary submission or an implied acquiescence to warrantless At around 6 oclock in the evening, 13 police officers left the police searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or
search and seizure especially so when members of the raiding team were station and proceeded to the designated meeting place. Ten minutes later, constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.
intimidatingly numerous and heavily armed. His implied acquiescence, if any, appellant arrived on board a green Mitsubishi Lancer. Appellant stopped in Undoubtedly, appellant was lawfully arrested, caught as he was in flagrante
could not have been more than mere passive conformity given under front of the police informant and PO3 Chico, rolled down the window of his delicto as a result of a buy-bust operation conducted by police officers.
coercive or intimidating circumstances and is, thus, considered no consent at car, and talked to the police informant in Chinese. The police informant then
all within the purview of the constitutional guarantee. Consequently, herein told PO3 Chico to board appellants car. PO3 Chico slid into the front A buy-bust operation is vastly different from an ordinary arrest. In
accused-appellants lack of objection to the search and seizure is not passenger seat while the police informant sat at the backseat of the car. lawful arrests in the course of a buy-bust operation, it becomes both the duty
tantamount to a waiver of his constitutional right or a voluntary submission to and the right of the apprehending officers to conduct a warrantless search not
Appellant then asked for the payment of half a kilo of shabu. PO3 only on the person of the accused but also in the permissible area within his
the warrantless search and seizure.[28] The case of People v. Burgos,[29] is Chico handed the marked money to appellant. Appellant reached down under
instructive. In Burgos, the Court ruled that the accused is not to be presumed reach, i.e., that point which is within the effective control of the person
his seat, took a plastic bag and gave it to PO3 Chico. When PO3 Chico arrested, or that which may furnish him the means of committing violence or
to have waived the unlawful search simply because he failed to object. There, opened the plastic bag, he saw a transparent plastic bag containing
we held: of escaping (People vs. Cueno, 298 SCRA 621 [1998]). In other words, a
substance which he suspected to be shabu. warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest may extend beyond the
xxx To constitute a waiver, it must appear first that the right exists; secondly, At this point, PO3 Chico introduced himself as a police officer and person of the one arrested to include the premises or surroundings under his
that the person involved had knowledge, actual or constructive, of the immediately arrested appellant. PO3 Chico then retrieved the marked money immediate control. In this case, the three plastic bags containing a total of
existence of such a right; and lastly, that said person had an actual intention from appellants lap. Thereafter, PO3 Chico inspected the space underneath 1,500 grams of shabu were seized inside the car where appellant himself was
to relinquish the right (Pasion Vda. De Garcia v. Locsin, 65 Phil. 689). The the drivers seat and found three more plastic bags containing suspected arrested.
fact that the accused failed to object to the entry into his house does not shabu. After Chicos arrest of appellant, SPO2 Rival arrived and informed
amount to a permission to make a search therein (Magoncia v. Palacio, 80 appellant of his constitutional rights. Appellant was then brought to the WPD
Phil. 770). As pointed out by Justice Laurel in the case of Pasion Vda. De headquarters.
Garcia v. Locsin (supra); PEOPLE vs. FERDINAND GUENO
Appellants contention: that the shabu seized from him is inadmissible (incidental to a lawful search)
xxx xxx xxx in evidence
x x x As the constitutional guaranty is not dependent upon any affirmative act On January 25, 1995, an asset accompanied P01 AVELINO
ISSUE: CAMANTIGUE and pointed to the house of the accused FERDINAND
of the citizen, the courts do not place the citizen in the position of either
contesting an officers authority by force, or waiving his constitutional rights; HELD: Appellant was arrested by virtue of a buy-bust operation CUENO. Upon instructions of their commanding officer, PO1 CAMANTIGUE
but instead they hold that a peaceful submission to a search or seizure is not conducted by the Drug Enforcement Unit of the Western Police District. A together with SPO1 AQUILINO SARMIENTO and P02 EDWIN MOJICA
a consent or an invitation thereto, but is merely a demonstration of regard for buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are conducted surveillance operations on the alleged drug pushing activities of
the supremacy of the law. resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the accused FERDINAND GUENO at around 9:30 in the morning of January 26,
execution of their criminal plans. It is a procedure or operation sanctioned by 1995. P01 CAMANTIGUE who posed as a newspaper vendor observed from
We apply the rule that: courts indulge every reasonable presumption against law and which has consistently proven itself to be an effective method of a distance of 15 meters from the store of FERDIE CUENO that a person was
waiver of fundamental constitutional rights and that we do not presume apprehending drug peddlers. Thus, unless there is a clear and convincing handing money to said accused and FERDIE in turn gave something to the
acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights. evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by improper person who immediately inserted the same in his pocket. CAMANTIGUE
motives or were not properly performing their duties, their testimony on the allegedly overheard FERDIE saying: 'hindi ka lugi sa halagang P20.00 at iyan
operation deserves full faith and credit ay malakas.' At that time SARMIENTO and MOJICA passed by
CAMANTIGUE who removed his cap as a signal that the sale was already
THE PEOPLE vs. JERRY TING UY In this case, the evidence shows that it was the police informant who consummated. After this, the group returned to their station, and reported the
(search incidental to a lawful arrest) initially contacted and arranged a drug deal with appellant. At the pre- result of their surveillance to their commanding officer who instructed them to
arranged meeting, the informant was accompanied by PO3 Chico, who posed apply for a search warrant.
as a buyer of shabu. PO3 Chico handed marked money to appellant as
payment for half a kilo of shabu. Appellant was then arrested when he "On January 30, 1995, a search warrant was issued. Said search
Appellant Jerry Ting Uy, a Taiwanese national, was charged on July handed a plastic bag containing shabu to PO3 Chico. warrant ordered the search of the premises of one PETER DOE alias
24, 1998 for violating the Dangerous Drugs Act. FERDIE and the seizure of dried marijuana leaves allegedly in the
In the same vein, appellants contention that the 1,510.8 grams of possession of aforesaid person.
The record shows that at around 3:30 in the afternoon of July 21, shabu seized from him is inadmissible in evidence must also be rejected. The
1998, a Chinese-Filipino police informant went to the Western Police Constitution generally proscribes searches and seizures without judicial "After the search warrant was issued, the team hatched a plan
headquarters in Ermita to inform the police officers that a certain Jerry Ting warrant. Any evidence obtained without such warrant is inadmissible for any that a buy-bust operation be conducted on the accused first before
Uy was engaged in illegal drug activities in Sta. Cruz, Manila. PO3 Chico purpose in any proceeding (Sections 2 and 3(2), Article III). The rule is not the implementation of the search warrant. It was agreed that P01
asked the police informant to contact appellant and to negotiate with him for absolute, however. Searches and seizures may be made without warrant and CAMANTIGUE will be accompanied by their informant who will introduce the
the purchase of shabu. The police informant called up appellant at about former to FERDIE as a user who is interested in buying marijuana.
At about 3:30 that same afternoon, a team of policemen together with their escape during the commotion that ensued. The marked bills were never tree."[11] As such, the prosecution's case must necessarily fail and the
informant, proceeded to where accused resides. Upon arrival thereat, as recovered. accused-appellant acquitted.
planned, the informant introduced CAMANTIGUE to FERDIE as a user who
wants to buy marijuana. FERDIE at that time was standing by the door of his Immediately thereafter, the NARCOM team conducted a search of the ISSUE:
store which is just an extension of the house where he was staying. premises in the presence of barangay official, Jess Abundo, a certain Mrs.
Catan, the house owner, and Appellant finding more marijuanas. HELD: The circumstances in this case are similar to those obtaining
The marijuana worth P150.00 was handed to CAMANTIGUE. He then in Posadas v. Court of Appeals[15] where this Court held that "at the time the
removed his cap as a signal to his companions that the sale has been ISSUE: peace officers identified themselves and apprehended the petitioner as he
consummated. SPO1 SARMIENTO, P02 MOJICA and his companions attempted to flee, they did not know that he had committed, or was actually
HELD: Appellant's assertion that he was illegally arrested and that the committing the offense of illegal possession of firearm and
approached them and they identified themselves as policemen. They then search of his premises was likewise illegal is not well taken. Appellant was
arrested FERDIE. ammunitions. They just suspected that he was hiding something in the buri
arrested in flagrante delicto in the act of selling and delivering marijuana to bag. They did not know what its contents were. The said circumstances did
FLORY (wife) was asked to go out of the store, and the policemen the poseur-buyers. His case therefore falls under the category of a valid not justify an arrest without a warrant."
announced to the couple that they had with them a search warrant for the warrantless arrest (Sec. 5, Rule 113, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure).
search and seizure of marijuana in the premises of both accused. Before the This Court, nevertheless, ruled that the search and seizure in
The subsequent search of his house which immediately followed the Posadas case brought about by the suspicious conduct
raiders proceeded to search the house of the accused, they called for yielding other incriminating evidence, and which became the basis of his
barangay officials in the area to witness the conduct of the search. of Posadas himself can be likened to a "stop and frisk" situation. There was a
conviction for possession of a prohibited drug, was a search probable cause to conduct a search even before an arrest could be made.
Inside the bedroom of the accused, SPO1 SARMIENTO found a contemporaneously made and as an incident to a valid warrantless arrest in
balikbayan box which contained dirty clothes, a brick of dried flowering tops the immediate vicinity where the arrest was made. That is a recognized In the present case, after SPO3 Nino told accused-appellant not to
of marijuana wrapped in a newspaper and twenty one (21) plastic tea bags exception to the general rule that any search and seizure must be supported run away, the former identified himself as a government agent.[16] The peace
containing dried flowering tops of marijuana together with rolling papers. by a valid warrant. The inclusion of the seized items, therefore, as evidence officers did not know that he had committed, or was actually committing, the
for the prosecution, was in conformity with the provision on lawful searches. offense of illegal possession of firearm. Tasked with verifying the report that
Appellant would question his conviction in Criminal Case No. 38- there were armed men roaming around in the barangays surrounding
95(possession and control of a prohibited drug) allegedly because of the Caibiran, their attention was understandably drawn to the group that had
illegality of the search made in his house. aroused their suspicion. They could not have known that the object wrapped
THE PEOPLE vs. NILO SOLAYAO in coconut leaves which accused-appellant was carrying hid a firearm.
(stop and frisk) As with Posadas, the case at bar constitutes an instance where a
HELD: The arrest of appellant has been made in the course of a search and seizure may be effected without first making an arrest. There was
buy-bust operation, thus, in flagrante delicto. Accused-appellant Nilo Solayao was charged with the crime of illegal
possession of firearm and ammunition. justifiable cause to "stop and frisk" accused-appellant when his companions
A buy-bust operation - a form of entrapment which has fled upon seeing the government agents. Under the circumstances, the
repeatedly been accepted to be a valid means of arresting violators of the SPO3 Jose Nio, narrated that at about 9:00 o'clock in the evening government agents could not possibly have procured a search warrant first.
Dangerous Drugs Law[15] - is far variant from an ordinary arrest. In lawful of July 9, 1992, with 2 CAFGU members, he went to Barangay Caulangohan,
Caibiran, Biliran. They were to conduct an intelligence patrol as required of Thus, there was no violation of the constitutional guarantee against
arrests, it becomes both the duty and the right of the apprehending officers to unreasonable searches and seizures. Nor was there error on the part of the
conduct a warrantless search not only on the person of the suspect but also them by their intelligence officer to verify reports on the presence of armed
persons roaming around the barangays of Caibiran. They met the group of trial court when it admitted the homemade firearm as evidence.
in the permissible area within his reach, i.e., that point which is within the
effective control of the person arrested, or that which may furnish him with the accused-appellant Nilo Solaya. The former became suspicious when they
means of committing violence or of escaping. observed that the latter were drunk and that accused-appellant himself was
wearing a camouflage uniform or a jungle suit. People of the Philippines vs Mikael Malmstedt
Police Officer Nio told accused-appellant not to run away and (Stop and frisk)
PEOPLE vs. EUGENIO CATAN, introduced himself as "PC," after which he seized the dried coconut leaves
which the latter was carrying and found wrapped in it a 49-inch long Accused Mikael Malmstedt, a tourist Swedish national went to a
(incident to a lawful arrest) homemade firearm locally known as "latong." When he asked accused- bus stop in Sagada to catch the first available trip to Baguio City. From
appellant who issued him a license to carry said firearm or whether he was Baguio City, accused planned to take a late afternoon trip to Angeles City,
The facts follow: On 8 April 1989, the Special Action Team, connected with the military or any intelligence group, the latter answered that then proceed to Manila to catch his flight out of the country, scheduled on 13
NARCOM, headed by Lt. Maximo Valiente, decided to conduct a "buy-bust" he had no permission to possess the same. Thereupon, SPO3 Nio May 1989. From Sagada, accused took a Skyline bus.
operation. A team of operatives was dispatched to the place at around 10:30 confiscated the firearm and turned him over to the custody of the policeman
to 11:45 a.m. on said date. Two (2) members of the team, acting as poseur- of Caibiran who subsequently investigated him and charged him with illegal At about 8: 00 o'clock in the morning of that same day (11 May
buyers, sought out Appellant at the said address. Inside the latter's house, possession of firearm.[4] 1989), Captain Alen Vasco, the Commanding Officer of the First Regional
they negotiated for the purchase of 300 grams of marijuana worth P450.00. Command (NARCOM) stationed at Camp Dangwa, ordered his men to set up
Accused-appellant argued that the trial court erred in admitting the a temporary checkpoint at Kilometer 14, Acop, Tublay, Mountain Province, for
In the meantime, the other members of the team positioned subject firearm in evidence as it was the product of an unlawful warrantless the purpose of checking all vehicles coming from the Cordillera Region. The
themselves outside. Crisostomo and Bascuna gave the amount of P500.00 to search. He maintained that the search made on his person violated his order to establish a checkpoint in the said area was prompted by persistent
Appellant. constitutional right to be secure in his person and effects against reports that vehicles coming from Sagada were transporting marijuana and
Soon after receiving the marijuana from Appellant, Crisostomo unreasonable searches and seizures. other prohibited drugs. Moreover, information was received by the
and Bascuna went out of the house and gave a pre-arranged signal to their Commanding Officer of NARCOM, that same morning, that a Caucasian
Hence, the search being unlawful, the homemade firearm confiscated coming from Sagada had in his possession prohibited drugs.2
companions who were waiting outside. The other team members rushed from him is inadmissible in evidence for being "the fruit of the poisonous
inside the house and arrested Appellant. Appellant, however, was able to
pass the marked bills to a companion inside the house who was able to
The group set up a checkpoint at the designated area at about personal effects of the accused. In other words, the acts of the NARCOM member of the Anti-Narcotics Unit of the Caloocan City Police, such
10:00 o'clock in the morning and inspected all vehicles coming from the officers in requiring the accused to open his pouch bag and in opening one of suspicious behavior was characteristic of drug addicts who were high. The
Cordillera Region. the wrapped objects found inside said bag (which was discovered to contain policemen therefore had sufficient reason to stop petitioner to investigate if he
hashish) as well as the two (2) travelling bags containing two (2) teddy bears was actually high on drugs.
At about 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon, the bus where accused with hashish stuffed inside them, were prompted by accused's own attempt to
was riding was stopped. Sgt. Fider and CIC Galutan boarded the bus and hide his identity by refusing to present his passport, and by the information
announced that they were members of the NARCOM and that they would received by the NARCOM that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had
conduct an inspection. The two (2) NARCOM officers started their inspection prohibited drugs in his possession. To deprive the NARCOM agents of the PEOPLE vs.ROLANDO DE GRACIA
from the front going towards the rear of the bus. Accused who was the sole ability and facility to act accordingly, including, to search even without
foreigner riding the bus was seated at the rear thereof. (Under exigent and emergency cirmustances)
warrant, in the light of such circumstances, would be to sanction impotence
During the inspection, CIC Galutan noticed a bulge on accused's and ineffectiveness in law enforcement, to the detriment of society. The incidents involved in this case took place at the height of the coup d'
waist. Suspecting the bulge on accused's waist to be a gun, the officer asked etat staged in December, 1989 by ultra-rightist elements headed by the
for accused's passport and other identification papers. When accused failed Reform the Armed Forces Movement-Soldiers of the Filipino People (RAM-
to comply, the officer required him to bring out whatever it was that was SFP) against the Government.
Manalili v CA
bulging on his waist. The bulging object turned out to be a pouch bag and Accused-appellant Rolando de Gracia was charged in two separate
when accused opened the same bag, as ordered, the officer noticed four (4) (stop and frisk) informations for illegal possession of ammunition and explosives in
suspicious-looking objects wrapped in brown packing tape, prompting the furtherance of rebellion.
officer to open one of the wrapped objects. The wrapped objects turned out to At about 2:10 PM on April 11, 1988, Police Anti-Narcotics Unit of Kalookan
contain hashish, a derivative of marijuana. City conducted surveillance along A. Mabini Street, in front of the Kalookan The records show that in the early morning of December 1, 1989, Maj. Efren
City Cemetery. This was done after receiving information that drug addicts Soria of the Intelligence Division, National Capital Region Defense
Thereafter, accused was invited outside the bus for questioning. But before were roaming around said area. Command, was on board a brown Toyota car conducting a surveillance of the
he alighted from the bus, accused stopped to get two (2) travelling bags from Eurocar Sales Office located at Epifanio de los Santos Avenue in Quezon
the luggage carrier. Upon reaching the cemetery, the policemen chanced upon a male person,
the petitioner, in front of the cemetery who appeared high on drugs. The City, together with his team composed of Sgt. Crispin Sagario, M/Sgt. Ramon
Upon stepping out of the bus, the officers got the bags and opened them. A petitioner had reddish eyes and was walking in a swaying manner. Briones, S/Sgt. Henry Aquino, one S/Sgt. Simon and a Sgt. Ramos. The
teddy bear was found in each bag. Feeling the teddy bears, the officer surveillance, which actually started on the night of November 30, 1989 at
noticed that there were bulges inside the same which did not feel like foam Petitioner was trying to avoid the policemen, but the officers were able to around 10:00 P.M., was conducted pursuant to an intelligence report received
stuffing. It was only after the officers had opened the bags that accused introduce themselves and asked him what he was holding in his hands. by the division that said establishment was being occupied by elements of the
finally presented his passport. Petitioner resisted. Policeman Espiritu asked him if he could see what the RAM-SFP as a communication command post.
petitioner had in his hands. The petitioner showed his wallet and allowed the
Accused was then brought to the headquarters of the NARCOM at Camp officer to examine it. Policeman Espiritu found suspected crushed marijuana Sgt. Crispin Sagario, the driver of the car, parked the vehicle around ten to
Dangwa, La Trinidad, Benguet for further investigation. At the investigation residue inside. He kept the wallet and its marijuana contents and took fifteen meters away from the Eurocar building near P. Tuazon Street, S/Sgt.
room, the officers opened the teddy bears and they were found to also petitioner to headquarters to be further investigated. Henry Aquino had earlier alighted from the car to conduct his surveillance on
contain hashish. foot. A crowd was then gathered near the Eurocar office watching the on-
The suspected marijuana was sent to the NBI Forensic Chemistry Section for going bombardment near Camp Aguinaldo. After a while, a group of five men
Seeking the reversal of the decision of the trial court finding him guilty of the analysis. disengaged themselves from the crowd and walked towards the car of the
crime charged, accused argues that the search of his personal effects was surveillance team. At that moment, Maj. Soria, who was then seated in front,
illegal because it was made without a search warrant and, therefore, the Issue: Whether or not the search and seizure of the suspected marijuana is saw the approaching group and immediately ordered Sgt. Sagario to start the
prohibited drugs which were discovered during the illegal search are not unreasonable, and hence inadmissible as evidence. car and leave the area. As they passed by the group, then only six meters
admissible as evidence against him. Held: Stop-and-frisk has already been adopted as another exception to the away, the latter pointed to them, drew their guns and fired at the team, which
general rule against a search without a warrant. In Posadas vs. Court of attack resulted in the wounding of Sgt. Sagario on the right thigh. Nobody in
ISSUE the surveillance team was able to retaliate because they sought cover inside
Appeals ,[24] the Court held that there are many instances where a search and
HELD: It must be observed that, at first, the NARCOM officers merely seizure can be effected without necessarily being preceded by an arrest, one the car and they were afraid that civilians or bystanders might be caught in
conducted a routine check of the bus (where accused was riding) and the of which is stop-and-frisk. In said case, members of the Integrated National the cross-fire.
passengers therein, and no extensive search was initially made. It was only Police of Davao stopped petitioner, who was carrying a buri bag and acting As a consequence, at around 6:30 A.M. of December 5, 1989, a searching
when one of the officers noticed a bulge on the waist of accused, during the suspiciously. They found inside petitioners bag one .38-cal. revolver with two team composed of F/Lt. Virgilio Babao as team leader, M/Sgt. Lacdao, Sgt.
course of the inspection, that accused was required to present his passport. rounds of live ammunition, two live ammunitions for a .22-cal. gun and a tear Magallion, Sgt. Patricio Pacatang, and elements of the 16th Infantry Battalion
The failure of accused to present his identification papers, when ordered to gas grenade. In upholding the legality of the search, the Court said that to under one Col. delos Santos raided the Eurocar Sales Office. They were able
do so, only managed to arouse the suspicion of the officer that accused was require the police officers to search the bag only after they had obtained a to find and confiscate six cartons of M-16 ammunition, five bundles of C-4
trying to hide his identity. For is it not a regular norm for an innocent man, search warrant might prove to be useless, futile and much too late under the dynamites, M-shells of different calibers, and "molotov" bombs inside one of
who has nothing to hide from the authorities, to readily present his circumstances. In such a situation, it was reasonable for a police officer to the rooms belonging to a certain Col. Matillano which is located at the right
identification papers when required to do so? stop a suspicious individual briefly in order to determine his identity or to portion of the building. Sgt. Oscar Obenia, the first one to enter the Eurocar
maintain the status quo while obtaining more information, rather than to building, saw appellant De Gracia inside the office of Col. Matillano, holding a
The receipt of information by NARCOM that a Caucasian coming simply shrug his shoulders and allow a crime to occur.
from Sagada had prohibited drugs in his possession, plus the suspicious C-4 and suspiciously peeping through a door. De Gracia was the only person
failure of the accused to produce his passport, taken together as a whole, led In the case at hand, Patrolman Espiritu and his companions observed then present inside the room. A uniform with the nametag of Col. Matillano
the NARCOM officers to reasonably believe that the accused was trying to during their surveillance that appellant had red eyes and was wobbling like a was also found. As a result of the raid, the team arrested appellant, as well as
hide something illegal from the authorities. From these circumstances arose drunk along the Caloocan City Cemetery, which according to police Soprieso Verbo and Roberto Jimena who were janitors at the Eurocar
a probable cause which justified the warrantless search that was made on the information was a popular hangout of drug addicts. From his experience as a building. They were then made to sign an inventory, written in Tagalog, of the
explosives and ammunition confiscated by the raiding team. No search
warrant was secured by the raiding team because, according to them, at that for record or evidentiary purposes. The NBI Forensic Chemist conducted two
time there was so much disorder considering that the nearby Camp tests on the fish samples and found that they contained sodium cyanide.
Aguinaldo was being mopped up by the rebel forces and there was
simultaneous firing within the vicinity of the Eurocar office, aside from the fact The trial court convicted the petitioners of the offense charged and CA
that the courts were consequently closed. The group was able to confirm later affirmed the decision, hence this petition.
that the owner of Eurocar office is a certain Mr. Gutierrez and that appellant is ISSUE: Whether the fish specimen, which yielded a positive result to the test
supposedly a "boy" therein. of the presence of sodium cyanide, are admissible being illegally seized on
HELD: II. The next question that may be asked is whether or not there was a the occasion of warrantless search and arrest.
valid search and seizure in this case. RULING: On the first issue, the court sustained the warrantless arrest and
It is admitted that the military operatives who raided the Eurocar Sales Office therefore the evidence obtained was admissible.
were not armed with a search warrant at that time. 15 The raid was actually Our Constitution proscribes search and seizure and the arrest of persons
precipitated by intelligence reports that said office was being used as without a judicial warrant. As a general rule, any evidence obtained without a
headquarters by the RAM. 16 Prior to the raid, there was a surveillance judicial warrant is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. The rule is,
conducted on the premises wherein the surveillance team was fired at by a however, subject to certain exceptions. Some of these are: (1) a search
group of men coming from the Eurocar building. When the military operatives incident to a lawful of arrest; (2) seizure of evidence in plain view; (3) search
raided the place, the occupants thereof refused to open the door despite of a moving motor vehicle; and (4) search in violation of customs laws.
requests for them to do so, thereby compelling the former to break into the
office. 17 The Eurocar Sales Office is obviously not a gun store and it is Search and seizure without search warrant of vessels and aircrafts for
definitely not an armory or arsenal which are the usual depositories for violations of customs laws have been the traditional exception to the
explosives and ammunition. It is primarily and solely engaged in the sale of constitutional requirement of a search warrant. It is rooted on the recognition
automobiles. The presence of an unusual quantity of high-powered firearms that a vessel and an aircraft, like motor vehicles, can be quickly moved out of
and explosives could not be justifiably or even colorably explained. In the locality or jurisdiction in which the search warrant must be sought and
addition, there was general chaos and disorder at that time because of secured. Yielding to this reality, judicial authorities have not required a search
simultaneous and intense firing within the vicinity of the office and in the warrant of vessels and aircrafts before their search and seizure can be
nearby Camp Aguinaldo which was under attack by rebel forces. 18 The constitutionally effected.
courts in the surrounding areas were obviously closed and, for that matter,
the building and houses therein were deserted. The same exception ought to apply to seizures of fishing vessels and boats
breaching our fishery laws. These vessels are normally powered by high-
Under the foregoing circumstances, it is our considered opinion that the speed motors that enable them to elude arresting ships of the Philippine
instant case falls under one of the exceptions to the prohibition against a Navy, the Coast Guard and other government authorities enforcing our
warrantless search. In the first place, the military operatives, taking into fishery laws.
account the facts obtaining in this case, had reasonable ground to believe
that a crime was being committed. There was consequently more than We thus hold as valid the warrantless search on the F/B Robinson, a fishing
sufficient probable cause to warrant their action. Furthermore, under the boat suspected of having engaged in illegal fishing. The fish and other
situation then prevailing, the raiding team had no opportunity to apply for and evidence seized in the course of the search were properly admitted by the
secure a search warrant from the courts. The trial judge himself manifested trial court. Moreover, petitioners failed to raise the issue during trial and
that on December 5, 1989 when the raid was conducted, his court was hence, waived
closed. 19 Under such urgency and exigency of the moment, a search warrant their right to question any irregularity that may have attended the said search
could lawfully be dispensed with. and seizure.


(Searches of vessel)

The accused crew members and fishermen of F/B Robinson owned by First
Fishermen Fishing Industries, Inc., represented by Richard Hizon were
apprehended by SPO3 Romulo Enriquez, and the members of the Task
Force BantayDagat for allegedly fishing in the shoreline of coastal waters of
Puerto Princesa, Palawan, with the use of obnoxious or poisonous substance
(sodium cyanide), of more or less one (1) ton of assorted live fishes. Such
acts constitute an offense of Illegal Fishing with the use of obnoxious or
poisonous substance penalized under PD No. 704, the Fisheries Decree of
1975. A day following the arrest, random samples of fish from the fish cage of
F/B Robinson were gathered for laboratory examination. The specimens were
brought to the NBI sub-office to determine the method of catching the same