Professional Documents
Culture Documents
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017037b5de0eddf68323003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/34
2/12/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 826
383
384
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017037b5de0eddf68323003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/34
2/12/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 826
385
386
387
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017037b5de0eddf68323003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/34
2/12/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 826
388
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017037b5de0eddf68323003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/34
2/12/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 826
389
LEONEN, J.:
Through this Petition for Review on Certiorari,1 Mario
Veridiano y Sapi (Veridiano) assails the Decision2 dated
November 18, 2011 and Resolution3 dated January 25,
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017037b5de0eddf68323003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/34
2/12/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 826
_______________
390
On October 9, 2008, Veridiano was arraigned. He
pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. Trial on the
merits ensued.7
During trial, the prosecution presented PO1 Guillermo
Cabello (PO1 Cabello) and PO1 Daniel Solano (PO1 Solano)
to testify.8
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017037b5de0eddf68323003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/34
2/12/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 826
_______________
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 Id., at p. 10.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Id.
391
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017037b5de0eddf68323003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/34
2/12/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 826
_______________
13 Id., at p. 11.
14 Id., at p. 34.
15 Id.
16 Id.
17 Id.
18 Id., at p. 66.
19 Id., at p. 11.
20 Id.
21 Id., at p. 35.
22 Id., at p. 11.
23 Id.
24 Id.
25 Id.
392
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017037b5de0eddf68323003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/34
2/12/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 826
_______________
26 Id.
27 Id.
28 Id.
29 Id.
30 Id., at pp. 11-12.
31 Id., at pp. 64-72. The Decision, docketed as Crim. Case No. 16976-
SP, was penned by Presiding Judge Agripino G. Morga of Branch 32,
Regional Trial Court of San Pablo City.
32 Id., at p. 72.
33 Id., at p. 37.
34 Id.
35 Id., at p. 41.
36 Id., at p. 88, Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee.
393
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017037b5de0eddf68323003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/34
2/12/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 826
41
possession. Assuming that he was illegally arrested,
Veridiano waived his right to question any irregularity that
may have attended his arrest when he entered his plea and
submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the
42
court. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals held that
Veridiano consented to the warrantless search because he
did not protest when the police asked him to remove the
contents of his pocket.43
Veridiano moved for reconsideration, which was denied
in the Resolution dated January 25, 2012.44
On March 16, 2012, Veridiano filed a Petition for Review
on Certiorari.45
Petitioner argues that the tea bag containing marijuana
leaves was seized in violation of his right against
unreasonable searches and seizures.46 He asserts that his
arrest was illegal.47 Petitioner was merely seated inside the
jeepney at
_______________
37 Id.
38 Id.
39 Id., at pp. 31-44.
40 Id., at p. 43.
41 Id., at p. 37.
42 Id., at p. 40.
43 Id.
44 Id., at pp. 46-47.
45 Id., at pp. 8-29.
46 Id., at pp. 14-18.
47 Id.
394
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017037b5de0eddf68323003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/34
2/12/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 826
_______________
48 Id., at p. 16.
49 Id.
50 Id., at p. 17.
51 CONST., Art. III, Sec. 2 provides:
Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things
to be seized.
52 CONST., Art. III, Sec. 3(2) provides:
Section 3.
. . . .
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section
shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
53 Rollo, pp. 17-18.
54 Id., at p. 19.
395
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017037b5de0eddf68323003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/34
2/12/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 826
_______________
396
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017037b5de0eddf68323003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/34
2/12/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 826
_______________
397
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017037b5de0eddf68323003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/34
2/12/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 826
To underscore the importance of an individual’s right
against unlawful searches and seizures, Article III, Section
3(2) of the Constitution considers any evidence obtained in
violation of this right as inadmissible.64
The Constitutional guarantee does not prohibit all forms
of searches and seizures.65 It is only directed against those
that are unreasonable.66 Conversely, reasonable searches
and seizures fall outside the scope of the prohibition and
are not forbidden.67
In People v. Aruta,68 this Court explained that the
language of the Constitution implies that “searches and
seizures are normally unreasonable unless authorized by a
validly issued
_______________
398
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017037b5de0eddf68323003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/34
2/12/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 826
_______________
399
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017037b5de0eddf68323003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/34
2/12/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 826
_______________
400
The first kind of warrantless arrest is known as an in
flagrante delicto arrest. The validity of this warrantless
arrest requires compliance with the overt act test79 as
explained in Cogaed:
Failure to comply with the overt act test renders an in
flagrante delicto arrest constitutionally infirm. In Cogaed,
the warrantless arrest was invalidated as an in flagrante
delicto arrest because the accused did not exhibit an overt
act within the view of the police officers suggesting that he
was in possession of illegal drugs at the time he was
apprehended.81
_______________
401
_______________
402
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017037b5de0eddf68323003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/34
2/12/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 826
_______________
92 Malacat v. Court of Appeals, 347 Phil. 462, 479; 283 SCRA 159, 174
(1997) [Per J. Davide, Jr., En Banc].
93 In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Datukan Malang
Salibo v. Warden, Quezon City Jail Annex, BJMP Building, Camp Bagong
Diwa, Taguig City, 757 Phil. 630, 656; 755 SCRA 296, 326 (2015) [Per J.
Leonen, Second Division] citing the Dissenting Opinion of J. Teehankee
in Ilagan v. Enrile, 223 Phil. 561; 139 SCRA 349 (1985) [Per J. Melencio-
Herrera, En Banc].
94 Id.
95 292-A Phil. 34; 219 SCRA 756 (1993) [Per J. Griño-Aquino, First
Division].
96 Id., at p. 39; p. 760.
97 Id.
98 Id.
403
The policemen arrested Gerente only some three (3) hours after
Gerente and his companions had killed Blace. They saw Blace
dead in the hospital and when they inspected the scene of the
crime, they found the instruments of death: a piece of wood and a
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017037b5de0eddf68323003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/34
2/12/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 826
concrete hollow block which the killers had used to bludgeon him
to death. The eye-witness, Edna Edwina Reyes, reported the
happening to the policemen and pinpointed her neighbor,
Gerente, as one of the killers. Under those circumstances, since the
policemen had personal knowledge of the violent death of Blace
and of facts indicating that Gerente and two others had killed
him, they could lawfully arrest Gerente without a warrant. If they
had postponed his arrest until they could obtain a warrant, he
would have fled the law as his two companions did.99 (Emphasis
supplied)
The requirement that law enforcers must have personal
knowledge of facts surrounding the commission of an
offense was underscored in In Re Salibo v. Warden.100
In Re Salibo involved a petition for habeas corpus. The
police officers suspected Datukan Salibo (Salibo) as one (1)
of the accused in the Maguindanao Massacre.101 Salibo
presented himself before the authorities to clear his name.
Despite his explanation, Salibo was apprehended and
detained.102 In granting the petition, this Court pointed out
that Salibo was not restrained under a lawful court process
or order.103 Furthermore, he was not arrested pursuant to a
valid warrantless arrest:104
_______________
404
In this case, petitioner’s arrest could not be justified as
an in flagrante delicto arrest under Rule 113, Section 5(a)
of the Rules of Court. He was not committing a crime at the
checkpoint. Petitioner was merely a passenger who did not
exhibit any unusual conduct in the presence of the law
enforcers that would incite suspicion. In effecting the
warrantless arrest, the police officers relied solely on the
tip they received. Reliable information alone is insufficient
to support a warrantless arrest absent any overt act from
the person to be arrested indicating that a crime has just
been committed, was being committed, or is about to be
committed.106
The warrantless arrest cannot likewise be justified
under Rule 113, Section 5(b) of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure. The law enforcers had no personal
knowledge of any fact or circumstance indicating that
petitioner had just committed an offense.
A hearsay tip by itself does not justify a warrantless
arrest. Law enforcers must have personal knowledge of
facts, based on their observation, that the person sought to
be arrested has just committed a crime. This is what gives
rise to prob-
_______________
405
The warrantless search cannot be justified under the
reasonable suspicion requirement in “stop and frisk”
searches.
A “stop and frisk” search is defined in People v.
Chua107 as “the act of a police officer to stop a citizen on the
street, interrogate him, and pat him for weapon(s) or
contraband.”108 Thus, the allowable scope of a “stop and
frisk” search is limited to a “protective search of outer
clothing for weapons.”109
Although a “stop and frisk” search is a necessary law
enforcement measure specifically directed towards crime
prevention, there is a need to safeguard the right of
individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures.110
Law enforcers do not have unbridled discretion in
conducting “stop and frisk” searches. While probable cause
is not required, a “stop and frisk” search cannot be
validated on the basis of a suspicion or hunch.111 Law
enforcers must have a genuine reason to believe, based on
their experience and the particular circumstances of each
case, that criminal activity may be afoot.112 Reliance on one
(1) suspicious activity alone, or none at all, cannot produce
a reasonable search.113
_______________
406
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017037b5de0eddf68323003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/34
2/12/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 826
_______________
114 345 Phil. 632; 280 SCRA 400 (1997) [Per J. Panganiban, Third
Division].
115 Id., at p. 638; p. 405.
116 Id.
117 Id.
118 Id.
119 Id.
120 Id., at p. 647; pp. 414-415.
121 330 Phil. 811; 262 SCRA 255 (1996) [Per J. Romero, Second
Division].
122 Id., at pp. 814-815; p. 257.
123 Id.
124 Id.
125 Id.
407
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017037b5de0eddf68323003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 26/34
2/12/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 826
The “stop and frisk” searches in these two (2) cases were
considered valid because the accused in both cases
exhibited overt acts that gave law enforcers genuine reason
to conduct a “stop and frisk” search. In contrast
with Manalili and Solayao, the warrantless search
in Cogaed127 was considered as an invalid “stop and frisk”
search because of the absence of a single suspicious
circumstance that would justify a warrantless search.
In Cogaed, the police officers received information that a
certain Marvin Buya would be transporting marijuana.128
A passenger jeepney passed through the checkpoint set up
by the police officers. The driver then disembarked and
signaled that two (2) male passengers were carrying
marijuana.129 The police officers approached the two (2)
men, who were later identified as Victor Cogaed (Cogaed)
and Santiago Dayao, and inquired about the contents of
their bags.130
Upon further investigation, the police officers discovered
three (3) bricks of marijuana in Cogaed’s bag.131 In holding
that the “stop and frisk” search was invalid, this Court
reasoned that “[t]here was not a single suspicious
circumstance” that gave the police officers genuine reason
to stop the two (2) men and search their belongings.132
Cogaed did not exhibit any overt act indicating that he was
in possession of marijuana.133
Similar to Cogaed, petitioner in this case was a mere
passenger in a jeepney who did not exhibit any act that
would give police officers reasonable suspicion to believe
that he had drugs in his possession. Reasonable persons
will act in a
_______________
126 Id.
127 Supra note 62.
128 Id., at p. 221; p. 433.
129 Id.
130 Id.
131 Id., at pp. 221-222; p. 434.
132 Id., at p. 234; pp. 446-447.
133 Id., at pp. 236-237; pp. 451-452.
408
_______________
134 Caballes v. Court of Appeals, 424 Phil. 263, 286; 373 SCRA 221,
239 (2002) [Per J. Puno, First Division].
135 Id. See also People v. Nuevas, supra note 76 at p. 373; p. 479.
136 Id.
137 Id.
138 Id., at p. 285; p. 239; People v. Cogaed, supra note 62 at pp. 239-
240; p. 452.
139 Supra note 62.
409
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017037b5de0eddf68323003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 28/34
2/12/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 826
_______________
410
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017037b5de0eddf68323003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 29/34
2/12/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 826
_______________
411
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017037b5de0eddf68323003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 30/34
2/12/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 826
_______________
155 G.R. No. 205823, August 17, 2015, 767 SCRA 40 [Per J. Carpio,
Second Division].
156 Id., at p. 65.
157 Id.
158 Id.
159 Id., at p. 64.
160 635 Phil. 315; 621 SCRA 327 (2010) [Per J. Nachura, Second
Division].
161 Id., at pp. 322-323; p. 333.
162 Id.
412
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017037b5de0eddf68323003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 31/34
2/12/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 826
_______________
163 Id.
164 Id., at p. 325; p. 336.
165 Id., at p. 331; pp. 339-340.
166 People v. Ayangao, 471 Phil. 379; 427 SCRA 428 (2004) [Per J.
Corona, Third Division].
167 443 Phil. 506; 395 SCRA 407 (2003) [Per J. Puno, Third Division].
168 Id., at p. 517; p. 415.
169 People v. Ayangao, supra at p. 384; p. 430.
170 266 Phil. 306; 188 SCRA 288 (1990) [Per J. Gancayo, First
Division].
413
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017037b5de0eddf68323003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 32/34
2/12/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 826
_______________
414
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017037b5de0eddf68323003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 34/34