Case No.

Manalili vs Court of Appeals

Facts:

Police officer Espiritu and Lumabas together with their driver Enriquez conducted
surveillance along the front of Kalookan Cemetery based on the information that drug
addicts were present in the area. They saw Manalili who was wobbling like a drunk and
had red eyes. As a member of the Anti-Narcotics Unit of Caloocan City Police, such
suspicious behavior was characteristic of drug addicts who were “high.”  They stopped
Manalili to investigate and found marijuana in his possession.

Issue:

Whether or not the search made to petitioner Manalili was a valid search.

Ruling:

The Court hold that the search was valid, being akin to a stop-and-frisk. 
Stop-and-frisk has already been adopted as another exception to the general rule
against a search without a warrant. In Posadas vs. Court of Appeals, the Court held that
there are many instances where a search and seizure can be effected without
necessarily being preceded by an arrest, one of which is stop-and-frisk. In upholding the
legality of the search, the Court said that to require the police officers to search the bag
only after they had obtained a search warrant might prove to be useless, futile and
much too late under the circumstances.  In such a situation, it was reasonable for a
police officer to stop a suspicious individual briefly in order to determine his identity or to
maintain the status quo while obtaining more information, rather than to simply shrug his
shoulders and allow a crime to occur.
In the case at hand, the policemen therefore had sufficient reason to stop
petitioner to investigate if he was actually high on drugs.  
Case No. 2

People of the Philippines vs Edison Sucro

Facts:

On March 21 1989, in Poblacion, Kalibo, Aklan, the accused, Edison Sucro acted
as a pusher in the business of selling, administering, delivery, giving away to another/
distributing prohibited drugs. Pat. Fulgencio as instructed by Vicente Seraspi, Jr.
positioned himself about 2 meters away from the chapel where Sucro kept his cart
loaded with marijuanas which he gave to some buyer and a group of persons. On the 3 rd
buyer, the team of Seraspi proceeded to the area and when Macabante saw the police
he threw the tea bag of Marijuana but also admitted that he brought the marijuana from
Sucro in front of the chapel. They then arrest appellant and recovered 19 sticks and 4
teabags of marijuana from the cart found inside the chapel. The teabags were examined
at PC-INP Crime Laboratory Service and found out all were positive of marijuana.

Issue:

Whether or not the arrest without a warrant of the accused is constitutional.

Ruling:
There are several instances when a warrantless search and seizure can be
effected without necessarily being preceded by an arrest provided the same is effected
on the basis of probable cause. Between warrantless searches and seizures at
checkpoints and in the case at bar the latter is more reasonable considering that unlike
in the former, it was effected on the basis of probable cause. Under the circumstances,
there existed probable cause for the arresting officers, to arrest appellant who was in
fact selling marijuana and to seize the contraband. That searches and seizures must be
supported by a valid warrant is not an absolute rule (Manipon, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan,
143 SCRA 267 [1986]). Among the exceptions granted by law is a search incidental to a
lawful arrest under Sec. 12, Rule 126 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, which
provides that a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or
anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search
warrant. (People v. Castiller, G.R. No. 87783, August 6, 1990)
There is nothing unlawful about the arrest considering its compliance with the
requirements of a warrantless arrest. Ergo, the fruits obtained from such lawful arrest
are admissible in evidence.
Case No. 3

People of the Philippines vs Abe Valdes

Facts:

Acting on a tip made by an unnamed informer, the Nueva Vizcaya police team
went to the site where the marijuana plants were allegedly being grown. The police
found appellant alone in his nipa hut. They, then, proceeded to look around the area
where appellant had his kaingin and saw seven (7) five-foot high, flowering marijuana
plants in two rows, approximately 25 meters from appellant's hut. The police uprooted
the seven marijuana plant and took photos of appellant standing beside the cannabis
plants. RTC found appellant Valdez guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section
9 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (R.A. No. 6425), as amended by R.A. No. 7659.

Issue:

Whether or not the “plain view” doctrine is applicable in the case at bar.

Ruling:

We find no reason to subscribe to Solicitor General's contention that we apply the

"plain view" doctrine. For the doctrine to apply, the following elements must be present:
(a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police
are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties;
(b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right to
be where they are; and
(c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and
(d) plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search.
The seizure of evidence in "plain view" applies only where the police officer is
not searching for evidence against the accused, but inadvertently comes across an
incriminating object. Clearly, the discovery of the cannabis plants was not inadvertent.
We note the testimony of SPO2 Tipay that upon arriving at the area, they first had to
"look around the area" before they could spot the illegal plants. Patently, the seized
marijuana plants were not "immediately apparent" and a "further search" was needed.
In sum, the marijuana plants in question were not in "plain view" or "open to eye and
hand." The "plain view" doctrine, thus, cannot be made to apply.
Case No. 4

People of the Philippines vs Chua Ho San

Facts:

Chua Ho San Tsay Ho San’s speedboat landed on Barangay Tammocalao, San

Fernando, La Union. As he walked towards the road, Chua suddenly changed direction
and broke into a run upon seeing the approaching officers, Chief of Police Cid, SPO1
Badua and Brgy. Captain Almoite. Badua, however, prevented him from fleeing by
holding on to his right arm. Cid introduced themselves as police officers and motioned
him to open his bag. A search of the bag yielded several transparent plastic packets
containing yellowish crystalline substances. The Regional Trial Court found Chua guilty
of transporting, without appropriate legal authority, the regulated substance
methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Issue:

Whether or not the search made was a search incidental to an arrest.

Ruling:

In a search incidental to a lawful arrest, as the precedent arrest determines the

validity of the incidental search, the legality of the arrest is questioned in a large majority
of these cases, e.g., whether an arrest was merely used as a pretext for conducting a
search.  In this instance, the law requires that there be first a lawful arrest before a
search can be made - the process cannot be reversed. To reiterate, the search was not
incidental to an arrest.  There was no warrant of arrest and the warrantless arrest did
not fall under the exemptions allowed by the Rules of Court as already shown.  From all
indications, the search was nothing but a fishing expedition.  It is worth mentioning here
that after introducing themselves, the police officers immediately inquired about the
contents of the bag.  What else could have impelled the officers from displaying such
inordinate interest in the bag but to ferret out evidence and discover if a felony had
indeed been committed by CHUA -- in effect to "retroactively establish probable cause
and validate an illegal search and seizure."
Case No. 5

People of the Philippines vs Migel Tangliben

Facts:
Patrolmen Silverio Quevedo and Romeo L. Punzalan of the San Fernando Police
Station, together with Barangay Tanod Macario Sacdalan, were conducting surveillance
mission at the Victory Liner Terminal compound located at Barangay San Nicolas, San
Fernando, Pampanga. The surveillance was aimed not only against persons who may
commit misdemeanors at the said place but also on persons who may be engaging in
the traffic of dangerous drugs based on informations supplied by informers. The said
Patrolmen noticed a person caring a traveling bag who was acting suspiciously and they
confronted him. The person was requested to open the red traveling bag but the person
refused only to accede later on when the patrolmen identified themselves. Inside the
bag were marijuana leaves wrapped in a plastic wrapper. The person was asked of his
name and the reason why he was at the said place and he gave his name as Medel
Tangliben and explained that he was waiting for a ride to Olongapo City to deliver the
marijuana leaves.

Issue:
Whether or not the warrantless search was valid.

Ruling:

One of the exceptions to the general rule requiring a search warrant is a search
incident to a lawful arrest. Thus, Section 12 of Rule 126 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
Procedure provides:
“Section 12. Search incident to a lawful arrest. A person lawfully arrested may be
searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the
commission of an offense, without a search warrant.”
Accused was caught in flagrante, since he was carrying marijuana at the time of
his arrest. This case therefore falls squarely within the exception. The warrantless
search was incident to a lawful arrest and is consequently valid.
Case No. 6

People of the Philippines vs Leila Johnson

Facts:

Methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu” was found in the possession of the

accused-appellant pursuant to the frisked made by airport personnel at Ninoy Aquino
International Airport departure area.

Issue:
Whether the search made was in violation of the accused-appellant’s right
against unreasonable search and seizure.

Ruling:

Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause by exposure of
their persons or property to the public in a manner reflecting a lack of subjective
expectation of privacy, which expectation society is prepared to recognize as
reasonable. Such recognition is implicit in airport security procedures. With increased
concern over airplane hijacking and terrorism has come increased security at the
nation’s airports. Passengers attempting to board an aircraft routinely pass through
metal detectors; their carry-on baggage as well as checked luggage are routinely
subjected to x-ray scans. Should these procedures suggest the presence of suspicious
objects, physical searches are conducted to determine what the objects are. There is
little question that such searches are reasonable, given their minimal intrusiveness, the
gravity of the safety interests involved, and the reduced privacy expectations associated
with airline travel. Indeed, travelers are often notified through airport public address
systems, signs, and notices in their airline tickets that they are subject to search and, if
any prohibited materials or substances are found, such would be subject to seizure.
These announcements place passengers on notice that ordinary constitutional
protections against warrantless searches and seizures do not apply to routine airport
procedures.
Case No. 7

People of the Philippines vs Mikael Malmstedt

Facts:

Information was received by NARCOM that a Caucasian coming from Sagada

had prohibited drugs in his possession. Thereafter, checkpoints was set up in the area.
The bus were appellant was riding as the sole foreigner was stopped for inspection.
During the inspection, CIC Galutan noticed a bulge on accused's waist. Suspecting the
bulge on accused's waist to be a gun, the officer asked for accused's passport and
other identification papers. When accused failed to comply, the officer required him to
bring out whatever it was that was bulging on his waist. The bulging object turned out to
be a pouch bag and when accused opened the same bag, as ordered, the officer
noticed four (4) suspicious-looking objects wrapped in brown packing tape, prompting
the officer to open one of the wrapped objects. The wrapped objects turned out to
contain hashish, a derivative of marijuana.

Issue:

Whether or not the warrantless search was legal.

Ruling:

While it is true that the NARCOM officers were not armed with a search warrant
when the search was made over the personal effects of accused, however, under the
circumstances of the case, there was sufficient probable cause for said officers to
believe that accused was then and there committing a crime. The required probable
cause that will justify a warrantless search and seizure is not determined by any fixed
formula but is resolved according to the facts of each case. 
The receipt of information by NARCOM that a Caucasian coming from Sagada
had prohibited drugs in his possession, plus the suspicious failure of the accused to
produce his passport, taken together as a whole, led the NARCOM officers to
reasonably believe that the accused was trying to hide something illegal from the
authorities. From these circumstances arose a probable cause which justified the
warrantless search that was made on the personal effects of the accused.
Agnes C. Mejica
JD – 1