MICHAEL C.

ARGABIOSO

THE CASE- PEOPLE VS. AMMINUDIN [163 SCRA 402; G.R. L-74869; 6 Jul 1988]

FACTS-
Idel Aminnudin, accused-appellant was arrested on June 25, 1984, shortly after
disembarking from the M/V Wilcon 9 at about 8:30 in the evening, in Iloilo City. The PC
officers who were in fact waiting for him because of a tip from one their informers simply
accosted him, inspected his bag and finding what looked liked marijuana leaves took him to
their headquarters for investigation. The two bundles of suspect articles were confiscated from
him and later taken to the NBI laboratory for examination. It was found to contain three kilos
of what were later analyzed as marijuana leaves by an NBI forensic examiner. An information
for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act was filed against him. Later, the information was
amended to include Farida Ali y Hassen, who had also been arrested with him that same
evening and likewise investigated. Both were arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Subsequently,
the fiscal filed a motion to dismiss the charge against Ali on the basis of a sworn statement of
the arresting officers absolving her after a 'thorough investigation." The motion was granted,
and trial proceeded only against the accused-appellant, who was eventually convicted .
In his defense, Aminnudin disclaimed the marijuana, averring that all he had in his bag
was his clothing consisting of a jacket, two shirts and two pairs of pants. He alleged that he
was arbitrarily arrested and immediately handcuffed. His bag was confiscated without a search
warrant. At the PC headquarters, he was manhandled to force him to admit he was carrying
the marijuana, the investigator hitting him with a piece of wood in the chest and arms even as
he parried the blows while he was still handcuffed. He insisted he did not even know what
marijuana looked like and that his business was selling watches and sometimes cigarettes.
However the RTC rejected his allegations. Saying that he only has two watches during that time
and that he did not sufficiently proved the injuries allegedly sustained.

ISSUE-
Is the search of defendant’s bag is legal.

RULING-
The search was illegal. Defendant was not caught in flagrante delicto, which could allow
warrantless arrest or search. At the moment of his arrest, he was not committing a crime. Nor
was he about to do so or had just done so. To all appearances, he was like any of the other
passengers innocently disembarking from the vessel. The said marijuana therefore could not be
appreciated as evidence against the defendant, and furthermore he is acquitted of the crime as
charged.

Doctrine learned- In flagrante delicto is an example of warrantless arrest. The requisite of In

flagrante delicto; 1. When, in the presence of the policeman, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. This is the "in
flagrante delicto" rule; 2. When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause
to believe, based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances, that the person to be
arrested has committed it. This is the "hot pursuit" arrest rule; 3. When the person to be
arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment. However in this case the
requisite for a warrantless arrest to be valid is not present, hence, unconstitutional.

THE CASE- PEOPLE VS. TANGLIBEN [184 SCRA 220; G.R. No.L-63630; 6 Apr 1990]
Friday, February 06, 2009

FACTS-
Patrolmen Silverio and Romeo Punzalan were conducting surveillance at the San
Fernando Victory Liner Terminal. At around 9:30pm they noticed a person, Medel Tangliben,
carrying a traveling bag who acted suspiciously. They confronted him, inspected his bag, and
there they found marijuana leaves.
The accused was then taken to the Police Headquarters for further investigations. The
TC found Tangliben guilty of violating sec.4 art. 2 of the RA 6425 or the Dangerous Drugs Act
of 1972.

ISSUE-
Whether or not there was an unlawful search due to lack of search warrant.

RULING-
No. Rule 113 sec. 5 provides the a peace officer or a private person may w/o a warrant
arrest a person when in his presence the person to be arrested has committed, is committing,
or is attempting to commit an offense.
 In the present case, the accused was found to have been committing possession
of marijuana and can be therefore searched lawfully even without a search warrant. Another
reason is that this case poses urgency on the part of the arresting police officers. It was found
out that an informer pointed to the accused telling the policemen that the accused was
carrying marijuana. The police officers had to act quickly and there was not enough time to
secure a search warrant.

Doctrine learned-

One of the requisites for a warrantless arrest to be valid is in the presence of the
policeman, the person to be arrested has committed. Thus, the urgency of police action is
material in this case because the court found that the officers faced by an on the spot
information while in the case of Aminnudin wherein the policemen had at least two days to
have a warrant against the person.

The Case- UMIL VS. RAMOS [187 SCRA 311; G.R. NO. 81567; 3 OCT 1991]
Wednesday, February 04, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes

FACTS-
On 1 February 1988, military agents were dispatched to the St. Agnes Hospital,
Roosevelt Avenue, Quezon City, to verify a confidential information which was received by their
office, about a "sparrow man" (NPA member) who had been admitted to the said hospital with
a gunshot wound. That the wounded man in the said hospital was among the five (5) male
"sparrows" who murdered two (2) Capcom mobile patrols the day before, or on 31 January
1988 at about 12:00 o'clock noon, before a road hump along Macanining St., Bagong Barrio,
Caloocan City. The wounded man's name was listed by the hospital management as "Ronnie
Javellon," twenty-two (22) years old of Block 10, Lot 4, South City Homes, Biñan, Laguna
however it was disclosed later that the true name of the wounded man was Rolando Dural. In
view of this verification, Rolando Dural was transferred to the Regional Medical Servicesof the
CAPCOM, for security reasons. While confined thereat, he was positively identified by the
eyewitnesses as the one who murdered the 2 CAPCOM mobile patrols.

ISSUE-
Is Rolando arrested lawfully?
The Ruling-
Rolando Dural was arrested for being a member of the NPA, an outlawed subversive
organization. Subversion being a continuing offense, the arrest without warrant is justified as it
can be said that he was committing as offense when arrested. The crimes rebellion, subversion,
conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and crimes or offenses committed in
furtherance therefore in connection therewith constitute direct assaults against the state and
are in the nature of continuing crimes.

Doctrine learned-
The offense involve in this case is a continuing offense which make a warrantless arrest
valid because if arrested with a crime of subversion, a person may be deemed as he was
committing an offense when arrested.

The Case- Terry v Ohio

FACTS-
The officer noticed the Petitioner talking with another individual on a street corner while
repeatedly walking up and down the same street. The men would periodically peer into a store
window and then talk some more. The men also spoke to a third man whom they eventually
followed up the street. The officer believed that the Petitioner and the other men were
“casing”� a store for a potential robbery. The officer decided to approach the men for
questioning, and given the nature of the behavior the officer decided to perform a quick search
of the men before questioning. A quick frisking of the Petitioner produced a concealed weapon
and the Petitioner was charged with carrying a concealed weapon.

ISSUE-
Does a search for weapons without probable cause for arrest is an unreasonable search
under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution?

RULING-.
An officer may perform a search for weapons without a warrant, even without probable
cause, when the officer reasonably believes that the person may be armed and dangerous.

Doctrine learned- it is the duty of the peace officer to inquire or confront a person when he
notices that a person may cause harm and danger to people specially in public places.
THE CASE -SUSAN ESQUILLO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. G.R. No. 182010. August 25,
2010.

FACTS-
Susan Esquillo was convicted of the violation of the Dangerous Drugs Acts. On the time
of the arrest, two police officers came to Esquillo and another person while they were
transacting. While the officers were coming, one of the officers saw Esquillo hide a transparent
plastic bag with white substance in it. When asked, she fled but was eventually caught.

Esquillo argues that the arrest was invalid and that the officers planted evidence
against her. The lower cause said that the officers had probable cause to search Esquillo under
the stop-and-frisk doctrine.

ISSUE-
Is the arrest was valid?

RULING-
NO. Firstly, the issue whether the arrest was valid was waived by the petitioner when
she did not quash it before arraignment. The issue was only raised the first time during appeal
on the appellate court.

On regards her arrest, when the officer saw the white substance from a distance, the
plain view doctrine was imposed. When searched the officers followed the definition and
requirements of a valid stop-and-frisk as stated in People v. Chua - that he should properly
introduce himself and make initial inquiries, approach and restrain a person who manifests
unusual and suspicious conduct, in order to check the latter’s outer clothing for possibly
concealed weapons.

Posadas v Court of Appeals; G.R. No. 89139; 02 Aug 1990; 188 SCRA 288
Published on 26 September 2017 in Legal Chyme by Claudine

FACTS:
While conducting a surveillance, the two policemen spotted petitioner carrying a “buri”
bag and acting suspiciously. He attempted to flee when the policemen approached him and
identified themselves but his attempt was thwarted. Found inside the “buri” bag were one
(1) caliber .38 Smith & Wesson revolver, a smoke (tear gas) grenade, and two (2) rounds live
ammunitions for a .22 caliber gun. Petitioner failed to show the necessary license or authority
to possess firearms and ammunitions found in his possession. He was subsequently
prosecuted for and found guilty of illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions
ISSUE-
Is there a probable cause to justify the warrantless search and arrest of the petitioner.
RULING-
YES. The probable cause is that when the petitioner acted suspiciously and attempted
to flee with the buri bag there was a probable cause that he was concealing something illegal in
the bag and it was the right and duty of the police officers to inspect the same.
DOCTRINE LEARNED-
As a rule search and seizure is only valid by virtue of a warrant issued by a judge.
However, herein case the supreme court held that it is too much indeed to require the police
officers to search the bag in the possession of the petitioner only after they shall have obtained
a search warrant for the purpose. Such an exercise may prove to be useless, futile and much
too late. Hence, warrant is not needed in instances where urgency of police action is present.

THE CASE- UNILAB, INC. vs. ERNESTO ISIP and/or SHALIMAR PHILIPPINES G.R. No.
163858. June 28, 2005

FACTS-
UNILAB hired a private investigator to investigate a place purported to be
manufacturing fake UNILAB products, especially Revicon multivitamins. The agent took some
photographs where the clandestine manufacturing operation was taking place. UNILAB then
sought the help of the NBI, which thereafter filed an application for the issuance of search
warrant in the RTC of Manila. After finding probable cause, the court issued a search warrant
directing the police to seize “finished or unfinished products of UNILAB, particularly REVICON
multivitamins.”
No fake Revicon was however found; instead, sealed boxes where seized, which, when
opened contained 60 ml bottles of Disudrin and 200mg tablets of Inoflox, both were brands
used by UNILAB. NBI prayed that some of the sized items be turned over to the custody of the
Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD) for examination. The court granted the motion. The
respondents then filed a motion to quash the search warrant or to suppress evidence, alleging
that the seized items are considered to be fruit of a poisonous tree, and therefore inadmissible
for any purpose in any proceeding, which the petitioners opposed alleging that the boxes of
Disudrin and Inoflox were seized under the plain view doctrine. The court, however, granted
the motion of the respondents.
ISSUE-
Does the seizure of the sealed boxes which, when opened, contained Disudrin syrup
and Inoflox, were valid under the plain view doctrine?

RULING-
It is true that things not described in the warrant may be seized under the plain view
doctrine. However, seized things not described in the warrant cannot be presumed as plain
view. The State must adduce evidence to prove that the elements for the doctrine to apply are
present, namely: (a) the executing law enforcement officer has a prior justification for
an initial intrusion or otherwise properly in a position from which he can view a particular
order; (b) the officer must discover incriminating evidence inadvertently; and (c) it must be
immediately apparent to the police that the items they observe may be evidence of a
crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure

It was thus incumbent on the NBI and the petitioner to prove that the items were seized
on plain view. It is not enough that the sealed boxes were in the plain view of the NBI agents.
However, the NBI failed to present any of officers who were present when the warrant was
enforced to prove that the the sealed boxes was discovered inadvertently, and that such boxes
and their contents were incriminating and immediately apparent. It must be stressed that only
the enforcing officers had personal knowledge whether the sealed boxes and their contents
thereof were incriminating and that they were immediately apparent. There is even no showing
that the NBI agents knew the contents of the sealed boxes before they were opened. In sum
then, the petitioner and the NBI failed to prove that the plain view doctrine applies to the seized
items.

DOCTRINE LEARNED-
The plain view doctrine is not an exception to the warrant. It merely serves to
supplement the prior justification whether it be a warrant for another object, hot pursuit,
search as an incident to a lawful arrest or some other legitimate reason for being present,
unconnected with a search directed against the accused. The doctrine may not be used to
extend a general exploratory search from one object to another until something incriminating
at last emerges.
THE CASE- Valmonte v de Villa; G.R. No. 83988; 29 Sep 1989; 178 SCRA 211

FACTS-
The National Capital Region District Command (NCRDC) was activated on January 20,
1987 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, maintain peace
and order, and providing an atmosphere conducive to the social, economic and political
development of the National Capital Region. The NCRDC installed checkpoints in various parts
of Valenzuela, Metro Manila.

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

RULING-
NO. The setting up of the questioned checkpoints 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. 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, the former should prevail.

DOCTRINE LEARNED-
In this case I learned that not all searches and seizures are prohibited. Those which are
reasonable are not forbidden. A reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed formula but
is to be resolved according to the facts of each case.