You are on page 1of 10

PANGANDAMAN vs CASAR

G.R. No. 71782, April 14, 1988
Facts: The shooting incident by armed men in Lanao led to the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Petitioners
assert that the respondent Judge issued a warrant of arrest against fifty (50) “John Does” transgressing the
Constitutional provision requiring that such warrants should particularly describe the persons or things to
be seized.
Issue: Whether said warrant is valid
Held: No.
Insofar as said warrant is issued against fifty (50) “John Does” not one of whom the witnesses to the
complaint could or would identify, it is of the nature of a general warrant, one of a class of writs long
proscribed as unconstitutional and once anathematized as “totally subversive of the liberty of the
subject.”[30] Clearly violative of the constitutional injunction that warrants of arrest should particularly
describe the person or persons to be seized,[31] the warrant must, as regards its unidentified subjects, be
voided.
WHEREFORE, the warrant complained of is upheld and declared valid insofar as it orders the arrest of the
petitioners. Said warrant is voided to the extent that it is issued against fifty (50) “John Does.” The
respondent Judge is directed to forward to the Provincial Fiscal of Lanao del Sur the record of the
preliminary investigation of the complaint in Criminal Case No. 1748 of his court for further appropriate
action.

Valmonte v. De Villa, G.R. No. 83988 September 29, 1989 (173 SCRA 211)
I. THE FACTS

On 20 January 1987, the National Capital Region District Command (NCRDC) was activated
pursuant to Letter of Instruction 02/87 of the Philippine General Headquarters, AFP, with the mission of
conducting security operations within its area of responsibility and peripheral areas, for the purpose of
establishing an effective territorial defense, maintaining peace and order, and providing an atmosphere
conducive to the social, economic and political development of the National Capital Region. As part of its
duty to maintain peace and order, the NCRDC installed checkpoints in various parts of Valenzuela, Metro
Manila.

Petitioners Atty. Ricardo Valmonte, who is a resident of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, and the Union
of Lawyers and Advocates For People’s Rights (ULAP) sought the declaration of checkpoints in Valenzuela,
Metro Manila and elsewhere as unconstitutional. In the alternative, they prayed that respondents Renato
De Villa and the National Capital Region District Command (NCRDC) be directed to formulate guidelines
in the implementation of checkpoints for the protection of the people. Petitioners contended that the
checkpoints gave the respondents blanket authority to make searches and seizures without search warrant
or court order in violation of the Constitution.
II. THE ISSUE

Do the military and police checkpoints violate the right of the people against unreasonable search
and seizures?

III. THE RULING

[The Court, voting 13-2, DISMISSED the petition.]

NO, military and police checkpoints DO NOT violate the right of the people against unreasonable
search and seizures.

the officer merely draws aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle which is parked on the public fair grounds. most likely brought about by deteriorating economic conditions – which all sum up to what one can rightly consider. the manning of checkpoints by the military is susceptible of abuse by the men in uniform. not all of which are reported in media. Suspecting the bulge on accused waist to be a gun. And it turned out to be a pouched bag and when accused opened the same bag the officer noticed four suspicious looking objects wrapped in brown packing tape. The order to establish a checkpoint was prompted by persistent reports that vehicles coming from Sagada were transporting marijuana and other prohibited drugs. the checkpoints during these abnormal times. are part of the price we pay for an orderly society and a peaceful community. these do not constitute unreasonable search. discomfort and even irritation to the citizen. 1991 Facts: Captain Alen Vasco. Where. in the interest of public security. or simply looks into a vehicle. MIKAEL MALMSTEDTG. In this connection. 91107 June 19. But before he alighted from the bus accused stopped to get two travelling bags. so clearly reflected in the increased killings in cities of police and military men by NPA “sparrow units.R. During the inspection CIC Galutan noticed a bulge on accused waist. at the very least. Sgt. as abnormal times. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. at the cost of occasional inconvenience. when conducted within reasonable limits. or flashes a light therein. In the afternoon the bus where accused was riding stopped. No. Fider and CIC Galutan boarded the bus and announced that they were members of the NARCOM and that they would conduct an inspection. in the same manner that all governmental power is susceptible of abuse. the commanding officer of the first regional command (NARCOM) stationed at camp Dangwa. It was only after the . the former should prevail. a derivative of marijuana. But. Not all searches and seizures are prohibited. And an information also was received about a Caucasian coming from Sagada had in his possession prohibited drugs.” not to mention the abundance of unlicensed firearms and the alarming rise in lawlessness and violence in such urban centers. the officer asked for accused’s passport and other identification papers. xxx. True. Thereafter. It contained hashish. the Court may take judicial notice of the shift to urban centers and their suburbs of the insurgency movement. The setting up of the questioned checkpoints in Valenzuela (and probably in other areas) may be considered as a security measure to enable the NCRDC to pursue its mission of establishing effective territorial defense and maintaining peace and order for the benefit of the public. Checkpoints may also be regarded as measures to thwart plots to destabilize the government. Those which are reasonable are not forbidden. When accused failed to comply. The officer inspects the bag. A reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of each case. the accused was invited outside the bus for questioning. ordered his men to set up a temporary checkpoint for the purpose of checking all vehicles coming from the Cordillera Region. for example. the officer required him to bring out whatever it was that was bulging o his waist. Between the inherent right of the state to protect its existence and promote public welfare and an individual's right against a warrantless search which is however reasonably conducted.

ALIH v. Issue: Whether or not there is a violation of the constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure Ruling: The Supreme Court held that under Section 5 Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides: “Arrest without warrant. Probable cause has been defined as such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonable. the person to be arrested has committed. ISSUE: Whether or not the acts done by the respondents are violative of the Bill of Rights and thus the evidence obtained therein inadmissible in court . is actually committing. which allows a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest. b) When an offense has in fact just been committed. without a warrant. Petitioners pray to recover the articles seized from them and respondents be enjoind from using the same against them since they did not have a warrant to search the compound when they seized said articles. CASTRO 151 SCRA 279 FACTS: The respondents raided the compound occupied by the petitioners in Zamboanga City in search of loose firearms. When NARCOM received the information that a Caucasian travelling from Sagada to Baguio City was carrying with him a prohibited drug. and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. The two bags contained a stuffed toy each. discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed. upon inspection the stuff toy contained also hashish. or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another” Accused was searched and arrested while transporting prohibited drugs.officers had opened the bags that the accused finally presented his passport. or is attempting to commit an offense. A crime was actually being committed by the accused and he was caught in flagrante delicto. thus constituting an illegal search. and c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporary confined while his case is pending. and that the object sought in connection with the offense are in the placed sought to be searched. there was no time to obtain a search warrant. arrest a person: a) When. when lawful – a peace officer or a private person may. ammunitions and other explosives. in the presence. thus the search made upon his personal effects falls squarely under paragraph 1 of the foregoing provision of law.

Manila. Ermita.000. filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of the court releasing the goods under bond. The respondents simply by-passed civil courts which had the authority to determine whether or not there was probable cause to search the petitioners’ premises. P. However. an assistant city fiscal and a representative of Remedios Mago. consisting of nine bales of goods. On 7 March 1967. all the firearms and the ammunitions taken form the raided compound are inadmissible as evidence in any of the proceedings against the petitioners. moral and exemplary damages in their favor.HELD: The precarious state of lawlessness in Zamboanga at the time in question did not excuse the non- observance of the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures. the Bureau of Customs. and the Anti. Under date of 15 November 1966. Claiming to have been prejudiced by the seizure and detention of the two trucks and their cargo.Smuggling Center of the Manila Police Department. enjoining the police and customs authorities. Papa. Judge Hilarion Jarencio issued an order ex parte restraining Ricardo Papa (as Chief of Police of Manila) and Juan Ponce Enrile (as Commissioner of Customs) in Civil Case 67496. allegedly misdeclared and undervalued. ex parte. ordered that an inventory of the goods be made by its clerk of court in the presence of the representatives of the claimant of the goods. conducted surveillance at gate 1 of the customs zone. At the hearing on 9 December 1966. and upon orders of Ricardo Papa. Martin Alagao of the Manila Police Department. issued by the Bureau of Customs in the name of a certain Bienvenido Naguit. At the time of the “zona” the petitioners were merely suspected of the mayor’s slaying and had not been in fact investigated.m. On 23 December 1966. including as party defendants Collector of Customs Pedro Pacis of the Port of Manila and Lt. The load of the two trucks. on his own behalf. MAGO Facts: Martin Alagao. 147-5501". from opening the bales and examining the goods. acting upon a reliable information received on 3 November 1966 to the effect that a certain shipment of personal effects.. alleging that since the inventory of the goods seized did not show any article of prohibited importation. praying for the issuance of a restraining order. Mago filed an amended petition. and the two trucks. Remedios Mago and Valentin B. al. Every person is entitled due process. of 4 November 1966. when the restraining order was received by Papa. Upon investigation. Mago filed an ex parte motion to release the goods. were seized on instructions of the Chief of Police.00. or their agents. would be released the following day from the customs zone of the port of Manila and loaded on two trucks. Vs CENDANA P. upon the ground that the Manila Police Department had been directed by . Chief of Police of Manila and a duly deputized agent of the Bureau of Customs. Vs CASTILLER PAPA vs. as well as a judgment for actual. some bales had already been opened by the examiners of the Bureau of Customs in the presence of officials of the Manila Police Department. a person claimed ownership of the goods and showed to the policemen a "Statement and Receipts of Duties Collected on Informal Entry No. and a writ of mandamus for the return of the goods and the trucks. The respondents defied the precept that “civilian authority is at all times supreme over the military” so clearly proclaimed in the Constitution. head of the counter-intelligence unit of the Manila Police Department. the Judge issued an order releasing the goods to Mago upon her filing of a bond in the amount of P40. elements of the counter-intelligence unit went after the trucks and intercepted them at the Agrifina Circle. On 13 March 1967. the same should be released as per agreement of the parties upon her posting of the appropriate bond that may be determined by the court. Lanopa filed with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila a petition "for mandamus with restraining order or preliminary injunction (Civil Case 67496). When the trucks left gate 1 at about 4:30 p. the lower court. with the conformity of the parties. et. It follows that as the search of the petitioners’ premises was violative of the Constitution. On 10 November 1966.

pass through or search any land. But even if there was a search. warehouse. box or envelope or any person on board. motorboat. without mentioning the need of a search warrant in said cases. Martin Alagao and his companion policemen had authority to effect the seizure without any search warrant issued by a competent court. speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. having been deputized in writing by the Commissioner of Customs. that Papa. Agnes. Papa. persons exercising police authority under the customs law may effect search and seizure without a search warrant in the enforcement of customs laws. Martin Alagao and his companion policemen did not have to make any search before they seized the two trucks and their cargo. envelope or other container wherever found when he had reasonable cause to suspect the presence therein of dutiable articles introduced into the Philippines contrary to law. The Tariff and Customs Code does not require said warrant herein. It cannot be doubted. filed the action for prohibition and certiorari with preliminary injunction before the Supreme Court. where it is not practicable to secure a warrant. with his unit. and likewise to stop. ROLDAN VS ARCA 65 SCRA 336FACTS:Respondent company filed a case against Fisheries Commissioner Arsenio N. The guaranty of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures is construed as recognizing a necessary difference between a search of a dwelling house or other structure in respect of which a search warrant may readily be obtained and a search of a ship. there is still authority to the effect that no search warrant would be needed under the circumstances obtaining herein. Papa. among others. Chief of Police of Manila. could. and also to inspect. and the latter has the legal duty to render said assistance. inclosure. Held: The Chief of the Manila Police Department. Ricardo G. Having declared that the seizure by the members of the Manila Police Department of the goods in question was in accordance with law and by that seizure the Bureau of Customs had acquired jurisdiction over the goods for the purposes of the enforcement of the customs and tariff laws. al. seizures. or automobile for contraband goods. Without waiting for the court's action on the motion for reconsideration. for alleged violations of some provisionsof the Fisheries Act. He could lawfully open and examine any box. its . Roldan. The CFI Manila granted it. because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. therefore.DECISION:The seizure of the vessel. trunk. the two fishing boats were actually seized forillegal fishing with dynamite. 1965. for the purposes of the enforcement of the customs and tariff laws. search and examine any vessel or aircraft and any trunk.also respectively called Srta. or stop and search and examine any vehicle. its equipment and dynamites therein was valid. thus respondentcompany took to possession of the vessel Tony Lex VI. wagon. for therecovery of fishing vessel Tony Lex VI which had been seized and impounded by petitionerFisheries Commissioner through the Philippine Nay. Winnie and Srta. He was given authority by the Chief of Police to make the interception of the cargo. articles or other movable property when the same may be subject to forfeiture or liable for any fine imposed under customs and tariff laws. to the exclusion of the Court of First Instance of Manila. et. not being a dwelling house. The Code authorizes persons having police authority under Section 2203 of the Tariff and Customs Code to enter.ISSUE:WON the seizure of the vessel.the Collector of Customs of the Port of Manila to hold the goods pending termination of the seizure proceedings. and arrests. But in the search of a dwelling house. effect searches. and alleging that they had no plain. made the search and seizure of the two trucks loaded with the nine bales of goods in question at the Agrifina Circle. could lawfully effect the search and seizure of the goods in question. and it was his duty to make seizure. store or building. or 6." Except in the case of the search of a dwelling house. On August 5. beast or person reasonably suspected of holding or conveying such article as aforesaid. of any cargo. This was what happened precisely in the case of Lt. search and examine any vehicle. package. The Tariff and Customs Code authorizes him to demand assistance of any police officer to effect said search and seizure. Petitioner requested the Philippine Navy to apprehended vessels Tony Lex VI and Tony Lex III. the Code provides that said "dwelling house may be entered and searched only upon warrant issued by a judge or justice of the peace. beast or person suspected of holding or conveying any dutiable or prohibited article introduced into the Philippines contrary to law. Herein. Martin Alagao who. Jr.

Hope's car at Camp Aguinaldo yielded eleven (11) sealed boxes. Spurred by such lead. a policeofficer or a private individual may. No. vs. The Agents saw four (4) boxes on the back seat of the Dodge and upon inquiry as to what those boxes were. b)who is reasonably believed to have committed the offense which has been actually committed. without warrant. the vessel can be quickly moved out of the locality and jurisdiction in which the searchwarrant must be sough before such search or seizure can be constitutionality effected. is a search or seizure as an incident to a lawful arrest.COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL. 1980 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. arrest a person a) who has committed. Another exception to the constitutional requirement of a search warrant for a valid search andseizure. A light blue Dodge car driven by Sgt. made a U-turn back to the North Diversion Road. As the man did not appear. Col. the members of the two vessels werecaught in flagrante illegally fishing with dynamite and without the requisite license. theseizure of the vessel. L-41686 November 17. Quezon City. Consequently. Theyare usually equipped with powerful motors that enable them to elude pursuing ships of thePhilippine Navy or Coast Guard. Arriving at the Tropical Hut. BRANCH IX. together with Col. Hope's car. QUEZON CITY FACTS: The Regional Anti-Smuggling Action Center (RASAC) was informed by an undisclosed Informer that a shipment of highly dutiable goods would be transported to Manila from Angeles City on a blue Dodge car. . the party. G." Respondents told that they were bringing the boxes to the Tropical Hut at Epifanio de los Santos. its equipment and dynamites therein was equally valid as an incident to alawful arrest. theirapprehension without a warrant of arrest while committing a crime is lawful. they stationed themselves in the vicinity of the toll gate of the North Diversion Road at Balintawak. Hope to stop but the latter instead of heeding. In the case at bar.R. Sgt.equipment and dynamites was valid. the agents succeeded in blocking Sgt. Hope's car and the latter stopped. four (4) on the rear seat and seven (7) more in the baggage compartment which was opened on orders of Col. Thesame exception should apply to the seizures of fishing vessels breaching our fishery laws. Under our Rules of Court. An inspection of Sgt. Abad. Agent Sabado blew his whistle and signaled Sgt. petitioner.Search and seizure of vessels and aircraft without search warrant for violations of the customslaws have been traditional exception to the constitutional requirement of a search warrantbecause. but he could not go through because of the buses in front of his car. Hope who was accompanied by Monina Medina approached the exit gate and after giving the toll receipt sped away towards Manila. At this point. The RASAC agents gave a chase and overtook Sgt. Abad "called off the mission" and brought respondents and their car to Camp Aguinaldo. Thus. Abad who had joined them waited for the man who according to Monina Medina was supposed to receive the boxes. Hope answered "I do not know.or c) who is detention prisoner who has escaped from confinement while serving finaljudgement or from temporary detention during pendency of his case or while being transferredfrom one confinement to another. isactually committing or is about the commit an offense which has been actually committed.

authorizing the latter to supervise and manage the M/V JOLO LEMA. the petitioner and Reparations Commission entered into a conditional contract. as well as the pictures of said items attempted to be presented as evidence against the accused. subject to the condition that the title to and ownership of the vessel shall remain with the Commission until full payment. LOPEZ vs.408 sacks of Indonesian copra and 86 sacks of Indonesian coffee beans. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS. The vessel however was however apprehended. 25/66 pending before the Commissioner of Customs. The facts being no less receptive to the applicability of the classic American ruling. RULING: What ASAC agents did was a faithful performance of a duty authorized under the Tariff and Customs Code directing them as authorized agents to retrieve articles reasonably suspected of having been possessed. petitioner entered into a contract with one Tomas Velasco. Later on. the find that the constitutional guarantee has not been violated and the respondent court gravely erred in issuing the order of August 20. The circumstances of the case at bar undoubtedly fall squarely within the privileged area where search and seizure may lawfully be effected without the need of a warrant. upon the ground that only questions of law would be taken up therein. the latter's force and effect as well as the Mago decision must be upheld and reiterated in this petition. on account of the Indonesian agricultural products smuggles into the Philippines through the use of M/V JOLO LEMA HELD: . PACIS VS PAMARAN JOSE G. searched and then seized by the Collector of Customs. A Seizure Identification proceeding was instituted against said vessel for smuggling into the Philippines 1.ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless search and seizure conducted is lawful. WHEREFORE. 1975 declaring as inadmissible evidence the items or articles obtained and seized by the apprehending agents without any search warrant. the Order appealed from is hereby set aside and the case is ordered remanded for further trial and reception of evidence without excluding the articles subject of the seizure or for such action as the prosecution may take after the re-assessment and re-evaluation of its evidence as hereinabove directed. DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND/OR ANY OF THEIR AUTHORIZED AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES FACTS: Sometime in 1964. ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of First Instance of Manila has jurisdiction to interfere with the Seizure Identification proceeding No. in violation of Section 2530 (a) and (k) of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines. This appeal taken by Lopez directly to the Supreme Court. issued or procured in violation of the tariff laws for which the government has a direct interest. REPARATIONS COMMISSION.

the proper place to set it up is in Seizure Identification proceeding No. however. Article IV of the Constitution. Such transfer should be construed in the light of section 1 of said Republic Act No. reading. Said section 5 of Republic Act No. Lastly. Earlier that day. a portable typewriter and 2 boxes were seized. inasmuch as Davao is a port of entry. 3512. 1984. Suffice it to say that. charges of subversion and rebellion by the CSG were filed by but the fiscal’s office merely charged her and Nolasco with illegal possession of subversive materials. whose decision may. 25/66. If the Commissioner of Customs overrules such defense and decrees the forfeiture of the vessel. PEOPLE VS CRUZ Nolasco vs. Well-settled is. the Philippine Navy and the Philippine Constabulary over fishing vessels and fishery matters. On the basis of the documents seized.m. papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose. 3512 are limited to those relating to the "development. and that probable cause has not been properly established for lack of searching questions propounded to the applicant’s witness. Judge Cruz Paño issued a search warrant to be served at Aguilar-Roque’s leased residence allegedly an underground house of the CPP/NPA. be reviewed by the Supreme Court. The arrest took place at 11:30 a. petitioner argues that the Reparations Commission may not unilaterally rescind its conditional contract of purchase and sale in his favor and that the Commission must first seek a judicial declaration of rescission of said contract. houses. Lopez may appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals. Aguilar-Roque asked for suppression of the evidence on the ground that it was illegally obtained and that the search warrant is void because it is a general warrant since it does not sufficiently describe with particularity the things subject of the search and seizure. functions and duties of the Bureau of Customs. 147 scra 509 FACTS: Milagros Aguilar-Roque was arrested together with Cynthia Nolasco by the Constabulary Security Group (CSG). guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons. ISSUE: WON the search warrant was valid? HELD: NO. her premises were searched and 428 documents.Lopez maintains that whatever powers the Commissioner of Customs had. 25/66 for the smuggling of Indonesian agricultural products into the Philippines is certainly beyond the jurisdiction of the Philippine Fisheries Commission. improvement. over seizure identification proceedings had been transferred to the Philippine Fisheries Commission. if petitioner feels it is a good defense. in turn. The M/V JOLO LEMA is not subject to forfeiture. This is neither the time nor the place to pass upon the merits of this contention. At noon of the same day. into the Philippines. the rule that a judicial action for the rescission of a contract is not necessary where the contract provides that it may be revoked and cancelled for violation of any of its terms and conditions. such as those concerning smuggling. are absolutely foreign to the object and purpose of said Act and could not have been and were not transferred to the aforementioned Commission. management and conservation of our fishery resources. prior thereto. Milagros had been wanted as a high ranking officer of the CPP." All other matters. of August 6. Cruz Pano. Seizure Identification proceeding No. particularly of agricultural products. It is clear that the powers transferred to the Philippine Fisheries Commission by Republic Act No. The Supreme Court said that this pretense is manifestly devoid of merit. Section 3. 3512 merely transfers to the Philippine Fisheries Commission the powers. It also specifically provides that no Search Warrant shall issue except upon probable .

cause to be determined by the Judge or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law. which are prohibited drugs for the purpose of selling the same from Baguio City to Olongapo City. There is absent a definite guideline to the searching team as to what items might be lawfully seized thus giving the officers of the law discretion regarding what articles they should seize as. It does not specify what the subversive books and instructions are. give away to another. It is at once evident that the foregoing Search Warrant authorizes the seizure of personal properties vaguely described and not particularized. what the manuals not otherwise available to the public contain to make them subversive or to enable them to be used for the crime of rebellion. after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. In the case at bar.A. People vs Anita Claudio G. 5425 The provision provides the Sale. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized.12? Held: Yes. and apprehension is unlawful under Rule 126. Issues: a)Whether or not the accused is also liable Sec. 8. Philippines. Art II of R.embracing description which includes everything conceivable regarding the Communist Party of the Philippines and the National Democratic Front. taken also were a portable typewriter and 2 wooden boxes. the above-named ACCUSED without being lawfully authorized. deliver. administer. In the recent rulings of this Court.1 kilos of Marijuana dried leaves.A. Although the accused contends that she may not be convicted of . seizure. Sec. or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions. Moreover. Administration. alibi does not deserve much credit as it was established only by the accused herself. Delivery Distribution and Transportation of Prohibited Drugs where the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from twenty thousand to thirty thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who. 4. distribute. in fact. It is thus in the nature of a general warrant and infringes on the constitutional mandate requiring particular description of the things to be seized. did then and there willfully. shall sell. 72564 April 15. in the Olongapo City. It is an all. search warrants of similar description were considered null and void for being too general. No. unless authorized by law. Sec. II of the same Act? b)Whether warrantless search. Art. The judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED. unlawfully and knowingly transport 1. 1988 Facts: On or about 21 July 1981. dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited drug. Art. II of R. 6425 aside from Sec. it is a well-established rule that alibi cannot prevail over positive testimony. 4.R.

. No. However. administration. the search warrant was not implemented immediately due to lack of police personnel to form the raiding team.R. Daniel Obiña did not need a warrant to arrest Claudio as the latter was caught in flagrante delicto. Rule 126. without a search warrant in paragraph (12a). there was no infirmity in the seizure of the 1. The search warrant implemented by the raiding party authorized only the search and seizure of the described quantity of shabu and paraphernalia. for as earlier observed. A search warrant is not a sweeping authority empowering a raiding party to undertake a fishing expedition to seize and confiscate any and all kinds of evidence or articles relating to a crime. The constitution itself and the Rules of Court specifically mandate that the search warrant must particularly describe the things to be seized. 109633 July 20. a plastic . 12 The provision provides the Search incident to lawful arrest where a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense. the same is not admissible in evidence. 147 SCRA 509).1 kilos of marijuana. In the course of the search they found a black canister containing shabu. Claudio was caught transporting 1. Thus. The warrantless search being an incident to a lawful arrest is in itself lawful. 1994 Facts: Del Rosario was charged with illegal possession of firearms and ammutions and illegal sale of regulated drugs Upon application of SPO3 Raymundo Untiveros of PNP Cavite. Sec.this provision. before RTC judge Arturo de Guia issued a search warrant authorizing the search and seizure of an : undetermined quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as shabu and its paraphernalia” in the premises of appellant’s house. in the search warrant. three set of ammunitions and three wallets containing the marked money. the search warrant was no authority for the police officers to seize the firearms which was not mentioned. Thus. having been illegally seized. the court held that contention is without merit.22 caliber. much less described with particularity. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. distribution and transportation of prohibited drugs. As held in the case of People v. thus the lower court did not err in finding her guilty of violating Sec. (Nolasco v. an aluminum foil.1 kilos of marijuana. 4. Therefore. 267) "the possession of such considerable quantity as three plastic bags of marijuana leaves and seeds coupled with the fact that he is not a user of prohibited drugs cannot indicate anything except the intention of the accused to sell. accused arrest was far from regular and legal. Issue: Whether or not there is a violation of the constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure Ruling: The Supreme Court held that the accused cannot be convicted of the illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions. Pat. Pano. appellant Claudio was caught transporting prohibited drugs. Neither may it maintain that the gun was seized in the course of an arrest. Toledo. (140 SCRA 259. NORMANDO DEL ROSARIO Y LOPEZ G. A closer perusal of the subject provision shows that it is not only delivery which is penalized but also the sale. Aid firearm. distribute and deliver said marijuana.