If the object seized is in inside a closed package, is it seized in plain view?

The answer
to such question is found and People v. Nuevas. Supply the answer and give a
summary of the relevant facts in the foregoing cases. 

No. It can only be considered in plain view if it is plainly exposed to sight but if the object
was inside a closed package, the object itself is not in plain view and therefore cannot be
seized without a warrant.

In People v. Nuevas, accused-appellants Nuevas, Din and Inocencio were charged with
illegal possession of marijuana. They were caught by police officers Fami and Cabling
during a stationary surveillance and monitoring of illegal drug trafficking in Olongapo.
They came across Nuevas who they suspected to be carrying drugs. Upon inquiry,
Nuevas consented to be searched and showed the contents of the plastic bag,
marijuana leaves and bricks wrapped in a blue cloth. In an attempt to escape charges,
he then informed the police officers the whereabouts of Din and Inocencio who were
also making marijuana deliveries. However, records show that the dried marijuana
leaves were inside the plastic bags that accused-appellants Nuevas and Din were
carrying and were not readily apparent or transparent to the police officers. In Nuevas’
case, the dried marijuana leaves found inside the plastic bag were wrapped inside a blue
cloth. In Din's case, the marijuana found upon inspection of the plastic bag was "packed
in newspaper and wrapped therein." It cannot be therefore said the items were in plain
view which could have justified mere seizure of the articles without further search.

1. Another interesting case which laid down a jurisprudential principle pertaining to plain
view is the case of People v. Salanguit. Supply the answers to the following questions:

1. Is it possible for a search and seizure to be invalid if a prior search and seizure
was made pursuant to a lawful search warrant? 

Yes. Supreme Court ruled in People v. Salanguit that since the location of shabu was
indicated in the warrant then it is assumed that police found shabu first than the
marijuana. Once the valid portion of the search warrant has been executed, the plain
view doctrine can no longer provide any basis for admitting the other items subsequently
found. The only other justification for an intrusion by the police is the conduct of a search
pursuant to Salanguit’s lawful arrest for possession of shabu to which they failed to
allegethe time when the marijuana was found.

In this case, the marijuana allegedly found in the possession of accused-appellant was
in the form of two bricks wrapped in newsprint. Not being in a transparent container, the
contents wrapped in newsprint could not have been readily discernible as marijuana. Nor
was there mention of the time or manner these items were discovered. Accordingly, for
failure of the prosecution to prove that the seizure of the marijuana without a warrant
was conducted in accordance with the plain view doctrine, we hold that the marijuana is
inadmissible in evidence against accused-appellant. However, the confiscation of the
drug must be upheld.

2.  Then, inquire into the case of United Laboratories v. Isip. Expound the requirement of
inadvertence and the ‘immediately apparent’ test explained by the Supreme Court in
said case. 
 In the case of United Laboraties v. Isip, Supreme Court held that “the requirement of
inadvertence means that the officer must not have known in advance of the location of
the evidence and intend to seize it. Discovery is not anticipated.” This just means that
the incriminating nature of the evidence becomes apparent in the course of the search,
without the benefit of any unlawful search or seizure.

The ‘immediately apparent’ test does not require an unduly high degree of certainty as to
the incriminating character of evidence. It requires merely that the seizure be
presumptively reasonable assuming that there is probable cause to associate the
property with criminal activity; that a nexus exists between a viewed object and criminal
activity.

Thus, to be immediate, probable cause must be the direct result of the officer’s
instantaneous sensory perception of the object. The object is apparent if the executing
officer had probable cause to connect the object to criminal activity.

STOP AND FRISK OR TERRY SEARCH

3. Take this problem: suppose a police officer is on a routine patrol duty and he observes
two people outside a variety store. Both his experience and training tell him that their
acts are consistent with acts of people with criminal designs although he has no
concrete facts showing probable cause that a crime has been committed or that it is
actually being committed. He knows that mere suspicion is not sufficient to make a valid
arrest, but his instincts honed by years of experience in the streets tell him something
untoward is imminent. May he briefly stop the persons, ask them questions and engage
in a protective search for a concealed weapon short of a full-scale arrest? The Supreme
Court of the United States addressed a similar situation in 1968 in the landmark case of
Terry v. Ohio. Read the case and supply the answer to the question. Provide a
summary of the relevant facts and ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States of
America.

In the landmark case of Terry v. Ohio which was later known as the “stop and frisk”
case, Supreme Court of the United States of America upheld the constitutionality of the
“stop and frisk” procedure as long as the police officer is “justified in believing that the
individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is presently
dangerous to the officer or to others”.

Similar to the situation above, the case involved a police officer, Detective McFadden
who was on a downtown beat. He observed suspicious behavior from petitioner John
Terry and two other men, Chilton and Katz. He approached the three and identified
himself as a policeman, and asked their names to which the men “mumbled something”.
McFadden then spun Terry around and patted his outer clothing and found in his pocket,
a revolver. He also patted down outer clothing of Chilton and Katz and seized a revolver
from Chilton’s pocket. Terry and Chilton were charged with carrying concealed weapons.

In this case, the Court ruled that the sole justification of the search is for the protection of
the police officer and others nearby, and it must therefore be confined in scope to an
intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden
instruments for the assault of the police officer.
 The scope of the search in this case presents no serious problem in light of these
standards. Officer McFadden patted down the outer clothing of petitioner and his two
companions. He did not place his hands in their pockets or under the outer surface of
their garments until he had felt weapons, and then he merely reached for and removed
the guns. Detective McFadden confined his search strictly to what was minimally
necessary to learn whether the men were armed and to disarm them once he discovered
the weapons. He did not conduct a general exploratory search for whatever evidence of
criminal activity he might find.

Hence, the revolver seized from Terry was properly admitted in evidence against him.
Such a search is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, and any weapons
seized may properly be introduced in evidence against the person from whom they were
taken.
 
.

4. Read the cases of People v. Chua and Esquillo v. People. Supply the answers to the
following questions:

1. What is/are the difference/s between a search incidental to a lawful arrest and a
terry search or a stop and frisk?

Search Incidental to a Lawful Arrest Terry Search/ Stop and Frisk

Requisite quantum of proof before it may Requisites:
validly be effected
1. The police officer should properly introduce
1. The person to be arrested must execute an himself and make initial inquiries, approach
overt act indicating that he has just committed, and restrain a person who manifests unusual
is actually committing, or is attempting to and suspicious conduct, in order to check
commit a crime the latter’s outer clothing for possibly
concealed weapons. (Allowable Scope)
2. Such overt act is done in the presence or
within the view of the arresting officer 2.The apprehendingpolice officer must have a
genuine reason, in accordance with the police
officer’s experience and the surrounding
conditions, to warrant the belief that the
person to be held has weapons or contraband
concealed about him. It should, therefore, be
emphasized that a search and seizure should
precede the arrest for the principle to apply
(Justification)
Probable cause is necessary Genuine reason must exist
The precedent arrest determines
the validity of the incidental search
 2. Is ‘probable cause’ similar with ‘genuine reason?’ What is required in order to
properly carry out a terry search?

‘Probable cause’ is similar with ‘genuine reason’ in a way that both are facts and circumstances
which would lead a cautious man to rely and act in pursuance thereof. Probable cause is
required in issuance of a valid search warrant while genuine reason is sufficient to carry out a
terry search.

The principle of “stop and frisk” search cannot be applied in the case of People v. Chua
wherein accused-appellant was first arrested before the search and seizure of the alleged illegal
items found in his possession. The police officers failed to make any initial inquiry into Chua’s
business or the contents of the juice box he was carrying. They only introduced themselves
when they had custody of Chua already. Chua did not also exhibit any manifest unusual and
suspicious conduct which can be a reasonable ground for his arrest. He was just alighting from
his car and about to enter a hotel when he was apprehended by the police officers.

For a terry search to be conducted, genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officer's
experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person who manifests
unusual suspicious conduct has weapons or contraband concealed about him. Such a "stop-
and-frisk" practice serves a dual purpose: (1) the general interest of effective crime prevention
and detection, which underlies the recognition that a police officer may, under appropriate
circumstances and in an appropriate manner, approach a person for purposes of investigating
possible criminal behavior even without probable cause; and (2) the more pressing interest of
safety and self-preservation which permit the police officer to take steps to assure himself that
the person with whom he deals is not armed with a deadly weapon that could unexpectedly and
fatally be used against the police officer.

Thus, Supreme Court held that a valid “stop and frisk operation” was conducted in the case of
Esquillo v. People. Police officers were on a surveillance operation when they saw petitioner
Esquillo place a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance in her cigarette case. As
he approached her, petitioner was exhibiting suspicious behavior. When PO1 Cruzin made
inquiries regarding the content of the cigarette case, Esquillo attempted to flee as the police
officer had identified himself. In this case, there is genuine reason for the “stop and frisk”
search.

OTHER EXCEPTIONS

5. As to the other exceptions, find at least two cases decided by the Supreme Court
explaining each of them respectively. Summarize the relevant facts and the relevant
discussion of the Supreme Court relating to such. 

Exigent and Existing Circumstances

In People v. de Gracia, Supreme Court held that absence of a judicial warrant is no legal
impediment on arresting or capturing persons committing overt acts of violence against
government forces, or any other milder acts but really in pursuance of the rebellious movement.
The raid of and the consequent seizure of firearms and ammunition in the Eurocar Sales Office
at the height of the December 1989 coup d’etat was held valid, considering the exigent and
emergency situation. The military operatives had reasonable ground to believe that a crime was
being committed, and they had no opportunity to apply for a search warrant from the courts
because the latter were closed. Under such, urgency and exigency, a search warrant could be
validly dispensed with.

In Guazon v. de Villa, Supreme Court upheld as a valid exercise of the military powers of the
President, the conduct of “areal target zoning” or “saturation drives”.

In this case, petitioners sought to prohibit the military and police from conducting saturation
drives in places where the subversives are hiding. They claim that these drives follow a
common patter of human rights abuses and that more than 3,407 persons were arrested .
However, the validity of the search was not directly questioned. Supreme Court said that raised
in issue were the alleged abuses committed by the military personnel who conducted the
“saturation drives”.

In the absence of complainants and complaints against erring soldier or policeman, no

prohibition could be issued. However, the Court temporarily restrained the alleged banging of
walls, kicking of doors, herding of half-naked men for examination of tattoo marks, the violation
of residences, even if these are humble shanties of squatters, and the other alleged acts which
are shocking to the conscience. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for
reception of evidence on the alleged abuses.

PART VI: WARRANTLESS SEARCHES

1. By now, after reading all the foregoing cases, you must have already understood what
the ‘Exclusionary Rule’ is. Summarize the rules pertaining to such rule and provide legal
bases.

SECTION 3(2) OF ARTICLE III. Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding
section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

Exclusionary Rule

Evidence seized on the occasion of such an unreasonable search and seizure is tainted and
excluded for being the proverbial “fruit of a poisonous tree”. In the language of the fundamental
law, it shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. “ (Del Rosario v.
People)

a. Objections to legality of search warrant /arrest must be raised before trial

In People v. Chua, petitioner did not question early on her warrantless arrest before her
arraignment. Neither did she take steps to quash the information on such ground. Verily, she
raised the issue of warrantless arrest — as well as the inadmissibility of evidence acquired
on the occasion thereof — for the first time only on appeal before the appellate court. By
such omissions, she is deemed to have waived any objections on the legality of her arrest.

b. Property illegally seized may be in custodia legis

 The search warrant in Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines v. Asuncion was
procured in violation of the Constitution thus all the furearms, explosives and other materials
seized were "inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding." As the Court noted in an earlier
case, the exclusion of unlawfully seized evidence was "the only practical means of enforcing the
constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures." Verily, they are the "fruits
of the poisonous tree."

In Tambasen v. People, respondent cited the rulings of the Supreme Court in the case of Alih
v. Castro and Roan v. Gonzales, that pending the determination of the legality of the seizure of
the articles, they should remain in custodia legis.

People v. Nuevas

FACTS

1. Petitioner Nuevas and co-accused, Din and Inocencio, were charged with illegal
possession of marijuana

2. PO3 Fami testified that he and SPO3 Cabling conducted a stationary surveillance and
monitoring of illegaldrug trafficking along Brgy. Pag-Asa, Olongapo City. They received
information that a certain man was about to deliver marijuana in the area.

3. The saw petitioner Nuevas, carrying a plastic bag alight from a motorcycle. They identified
him based from information given. They accosted Nuevas and informed him that they were
police officers and asked where he was going to which he replied arrogantly.

4. Later on, Nuevas voluntarily pointed to the police officers the contents of the plastic bag
revealing marijuana dried leaves and bricks wrapped in a blue cloth. In his attempt to escape
charges, he disclosed where his two companions making delivery would be located.

5. They saw Din carrying a light blue plastic bag and when asked, he disclosed that the bag
belonged to Nuevas. Fami took the bag and upon inspection found marijuana wrapped in
newspaper. After confiscating the items, the three accused-appellants were brought to
police office.

6. RTC found the three guilty as charged. CA denied their appeal while Nuevas filed a motion
to withdraw his appeal.

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT

Before the CA, Din and Inocencio argued that the trial court erred: (1) in finding them guilty of
the crime charged on the basis of the testimonies of the arresting officers; and (2) in not
finding that their constitutional rights have been violated.

They maintain that there was no basis for their questioning and the subsequent inspection of
the plastic bags of Nuevas and Din, as they were not doing anything illegal at the time.
ISSUE:

W/N there was a valid search conducted

RULING

Supreme Court held that the searches and seizures conducted do not fall under the first
exception, warrantless searches incidental to lawful arrests. In this case, Nuevas, Din and
Inocencio were not committing a crime in the presence of the police officers. Moreover,
police officers Fami and Cabling did not have personal knowledge of the facts indicating that
the persons to be arrested had committed an offense. The searches conducted on the plastic
bag then cannot be said to be merely incidental to a lawful arrest. Reliable information alone
is not sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest under Section 5 (a), Rule 113. The rule
requires, in addition, that the accused perform some overt act that would indicate that he
"has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense

Neither could the searches be justified under the plain view doctrine. Records show that the
dried marijuana leaves were inside the plastic bags that Nuevas and Din were carrying and
were not readily apparent or transparent to the police officers. In Nuevas's case, the dried
marijuana leaves found inside the plastic bag were wrapped inside a blue cloth. In Din's
case, the marijuana found upon inspection of the plastic bag was "packed in newspaper and
wrapped therein.". It cannot be therefore said the items were in plain view which could have
justified mere seizure of the articles without further search.

On the other hand, the Court finds that the search conducted in Nuevas's case was made
with his consent. In Din's case, there was none. There is reason to believe that Nuevas
indeed willingly submitted the plastic bag with the incriminating contents to the police officers.
It can be seen that in his desperate attempt to exculpate himself from any criminal liability,
Nuevas cooperated with the police, gave them the plastic bag and even revealed his
'associates,' offering himself as an informant. His actuations were consistent with the
lamentable human inclination to find excuses, blame others and save oneself even at the
cost of others' lives. Thus, the Court would have affirmed Nuevas's conviction had he not
withdrawn his appeal.

Appellants Din and Inocencio are acquitted of the crime charged.

People v. Salanguit
FACTS
1. Roberto Salanguit was found guilty by RTC of violation of Sec. 16 and Sec.8 of RA 6425
or the Dangerous Drugs Act and charged separately for possession of shabu and marijuana.
2. Sr. Insp. Aguilar applied for a warrant to search residence of respondent Roberto
Salanguit on Binhagan St., Novaliches, Quezon City. He presented as his witness SPO1
Badua who testified that as a poseur-buyer, he was able to purchase 2.12 grams of shabu
from Salanguit and that the shabu was taken from a cabinet inside his room. Aguilar’s
application was granted and a search warrant was issued by Judge Dolores Espanol.
3. Prosecution’s Version: At about 10:30 p.m. of December 26, 1995, a group of about 10
policemen, along with one civilian informer, went to the residence of accused-appellant to
serve the warrant. The police operatives knocked on accused-appellant’s door, but nobody
opened it. They heard people inside the house, apparently panicking. The police operatives
then forced the door open and entered the house. After showing the search warrant to the
occupants of the house, Lt. Cortes and his group started searching the house. They found 12
small heat-sealed transparent plastic bags containing a white crystalline substance, a paper
clip box also containing a white crystalline substance, and two bricks of dried leaves which
appeared to be marijuana wrapped in newsprint having a total weight of approximately 1,255
grams. A receipt of the items seized was prepared, but Salanguit refused to sign it.
4. Version of Defense: On the night of December 26, 1995, as they were about to leave
their house, they heard a commotion at the gate and on the roof of their house. Suddenly,
about 20 men in civilian acre, brandishing long firearms, climbed over the gate and
descended through an opening in the roof. When accused-appellant demanded to be shown
a search warrant, a piece of paper inside a folder was waved in front of him. As Salanguit
fumbled for his glasses, however, the paper was withdrawn and he had no chance to read it.
Salanguit claimed that he was ordered to stay in one place of the house while the policemen
conducted a search, forcibly opening cabinets and taking his bag containing money, a
licensed .45 caliber firearm, jewelry, and canned goods.

RESPONDENT
1. Salanguit contested his conviction on three grounds: (1) admissibility of the shabu
allegedly recovered from his residence as evidence against him on the ground that the
warrant used in obtaining it was invalid, (2) admissibility in evidence of marijuana allegedly
seized from him pursuant to “plain view” doctrine and (3) employment of unnecessary force
by the police in the execution of the warrant
2. He also assailed the validity of the warrant on three grounds: (1) that there was no
probable cause to search for drug paraphernalia; (2) that the search warrant was issued for
more than one specific offense; and (3) that the place to be searched was not described with
sufficient particularity.

ISSUE
W/N search warrant is valid;
W/N marijuana seized falls under the plain view doctrine

RULING

Contention has no merit. Accused Salanguit is found guilty of possession of illegal drugs
under Sec. 16 of RA 6425 however he is acquitted of the other violation of possession of
prohibited drugs under Sec. 8 of RA 6425.

SPO1 Edmund Badua who acted as a poseur-buyer that when he went inside the house of
the accused, he saw the accused get the shabu in the cabinet which is in the room of the
accused. Hence, there was probable cause as to the shabu but no testimony was offered in
regards to the drug paraphernalia. This does not mean however that the search warrant as a
whole is void or invalid. Accordingly, it was held that the first part of the search warrant,
authorizing the search of accused-appellant’s house for an undetermined quantity of shabu,
is valid, even though the second part, with respect to the search for drug paraphernalia, is
not. The marijuana found was covered with newspaper and thus does not fall under the
doctrine of plain view. What was in plain view were the newspaper and not the marijuana.
Accordingly, the marijuana is inadmissible in evidence but the confiscation is valid and must
be upheld.
The Court held that one warrant would suffice since all acts were covered under Republic Act
No. 6425, a special law that deals specifically with dangerous drugs which are subsumed into
“prohibited” and “regulated” drugs and defines and penalizes categories of offenses which
are closely related or which belong to the same class or species.

The address stated in the warrant is merely “Binhagan St., San Jose, Quezon City,” the trial
court took note of the fact that the records of Search Warrant contained several documents
which identified the premises to be searched, to wit: 1) the application for search warrant
which stated that the premises to be searched was located in between No. 7 and 11 at
Binhagan Street, San Jose, Quezon City; 2) the deposition of witness which described the
premises as “a house without a number located at Binhagan St., San Jose, Quezon City; and
3) the pencil sketch of the location of the premises to be searched. In fact, the police officers
who raided appellant’s house under the leadership of Police Senior Inspector Rodolfo Aguilar
could not have been mistaken as Inspector Aguilar resides in the same neighborhood in
Binhagan where appellant lives and in fact Aguilar’s place is at the end of appellant’s place in
Binhagan. Moreover, the house raided by Aguilar’s team is undeniably the house of the
accused and it was really the accused who was the target. The raiding team even first
ascertained through their informant that appellant was inside his residence before they
actually started their operation.

United Laboratories v. Isip

FACTS

1. NBI Special Investigator Besarra filed an application for issuance of search warrant
concerning the first and second floors of the Shalimar Building owned by Ernesto Isip for
alleged violation of RA 8203 (An Act Prohibiting Counterfeit Drugs).

2. The court granted the application and issued search warrant directing any police officer of
the law to conduct a search of the first and second floors of the Shalimar Building located at
No. 1571, Aragon Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila. The court also directed the police to seize the
following items:

a. Finished or unfinished products of UNITED LABORATORIES (UNILAB),

particularly REVICON multivitamins;
b. Sundry items such as tags, labels, boxes, packages, wrappers, receptacles,
advertisements and other paraphernalia used in the offering for sale, sale
and/or distribution of counterfeit REVICON multivitamins;
c. Sales invoices, delivery receipts, official receipts, ledgers, journals,
purchase orders and all other books of accounts and documents used in recording the
manufacture and/or importation, distribution and/or sales of counterfeit REVICON
multivitamins.

3. The search warrant was implemented by NBI agents Besarra and Divinagracia, in
coordination with UNILAB employees. No fake Revicon multivitamins were found; instead,
there were sealed boxes containing bottles of Disudrin and Inoflox which were opened by the
NBI agents in the presence of respondent Isip. Respondents filed Urgent Motion to Quash
Search Warrant to Suppress Evidence.
4. Trial court granted respondent’s motion on ground that things seized were not those
described in the search warrant. Thus, seized articles cannot be admitted in evidence.

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT

The petitioner asserts that the description in the search warrant of the products to be seized
— "finished or unfinished products of UNILAB"— is sufficient to include counterfeit drugs
within the premises of the respondents not covered by any license to operate from the BFAD,
and/or not authorized or licensed to manufacture, or repackage drugs produced or
manufactured by UNILAB. Citing the ruling of this Court in Padilla v. Court of Appeals , the
petitioner asserts that the products seized were in plain view of the officers; hence, may be
seized by them. The petitioner posits that the respondents themselves admitted that the
seized articles were in open display; hence, the said articles were in plain view of the
implementing officers.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT

The respondents maintain that the raiding team slashed the sealed boxes so fast even
before respondent Isip could object. They argue that the seizure took place at No. 1524-A,
Lacson Avenue, Sta. Cruz, Manila, and not at No. 1571, Aragon Street, Sta. Cruz, as stated
in the search warrant. They conclude that the petitioner failed to prove the factual basis for
the application of the plain view doctrine

ISSUE: W/N the search conducted by the NBI officers and the seizure of the sealed boxes
were valid

RULING

Supreme Court finds that petitioner and the NBI failed to prove the essential requirements for
the application of the plain view doctrine

Objects, articles or papers not described in the warrant but on plain view of the executing
officer may be seized by him. However, the seizure by the officer of objects/articles/papers
not described in the warrant cannot be presumed as plain view. The doctrine may not be
used to extend a general exploratory search from one object to another until something
incriminating at last emerges. It is a recognition of the fact that when executing police officers
comes across immediately incriminating evidence not covered by the warrant, they should
not be required to close their eyes to it, regardless of whether it is evidence of the crime they
are
investigating or evidence of some other crime. It would be needless to require the police
to obtain another warrant

The immediate requirement means that the executing officer can, at the time of discovery of
the object or the facts therein available to him, determine probable cause of the object's
incriminating evidence. The requirement of inadvertence, on the other hand, means that the
officer must not have known in advance of the location of the evidence and intend to seize it.
Discovery is not anticipated.

In this case, Disudrin and/or Inoflox were not listed in the search warrant issued by
the court a quo as among the properties to be seized by the NBI agents. The warrant
specifically authorized the officers only to seize "counterfeit Revicon multivitamins,
finished or unfinished, and the documents used in recording, manufacture and/or importation,
distribution and/or sale, or the offering for sale, sale and/or distribution of the said vitamins."
The implementing officers failed to find any counterfeit Revicon multivitamins, and instead
seized sealed boxes which, when opened at the place where they were found, turned out to
contain Inoflox and Disudrin.

Petitioner and the NBI failed to present any of the NBI agents who executed the warrant, or
any of the petitioner's representative who was present at the time of the enforcement of the
warrant to prove that the enforcing officers discovered the sealed boxes inadvertently, and
that such boxes and their contents were incriminating and immediately apparent. It must be
stressed that only the NBI agent/agents who enforced the warrant 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.

Terry v. Ohio

FACTS

1. Detective McFadden, on a downtown beat which he had been patrolling for many years
observed two strangers (Terry and Chilton) on a street corner. He saw them proceed
alternately back and forth along an identical route and was later on joined by a third man,
Katz.

2. Suspecting the men of “casing a job, stick-up”, Detective McFadden followed them around.
He approached the three, identified himself as a policeman and asked for their names. The
men “mumbled something”, to which Mcfadden spun Terry around to face the other two and
patted-down the outside of Terry's overcoat. McFadden felt what he believed to be a pistol.
He removed petitioner’s overcoat and ordered the three to face a wall with their hands raised.
He patted down the outer clothing of the other two men and found a revolver in Chilton’s
outside pocket. He did not put his hands under outer garments of Katz since he discovered
nothing in his patdown. The three were taken to the police station.

3. Petitioner Terry and Chilton were charged with carrying concealed weapons. Trial court
denied the motion to suppress and admitted the weapons into evidence on the ground that
McFadden had reasonable cause for the search upon petitioner. Both were found guilty to
which the intermediate appellate court affirmed the decision. Supreme Court dismissed
appeal on ground that “no substantial question” was involved.

PETITIONER:

The defense moved to suppress the weapons and question the admissibility of the evidence
uncovered by the search and seizure.

ISSUE

Whether the admission of the revolvers in evidence violated the petitioner’s constitutional
rights
RULING

Supreme Court affirmed decision of lower court and held the revolver seized from petitioner
as properly admitted in evidence against him.

The crux of this case, however, is not the propriety of Officer McFadden's taking steps to
investigate petitioner's suspicious behavior,but rather, whether there was justification for
McFadden's invasion of Terry's personal security by searching him for weapons in the course
of that investigation

Supreme Court held that when an officer is justified in believing that the individual whose
suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to
the
officer or to others, it would appear to be clearly unreasonable to deny the officer the power
to take necessary measures to determine whether the person is in fact carrying a weapon
and to neutralize the threat of physical harm.

The sole justification of the search in the present situation is the protection of the police
officer and others nearby, and it must therefore be confined in scope to an intrusion
reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the
assault of the police officer.

The scope of the search in this case presents no serious problem in light of these standards.
Officer McFadden patted down the outer clothing of petitioner and his two companions. He
did not place his hands in their pockets or under the outer surface of their garments until he
had felt weapons, and then he merely reached for and removed the guns. He never did
invade Katz' person beyond the outer surfaces of his clothes, since he discovered nothing in
his pat-down which might have been a weapon. Officer McFadden confined his search
strictly to what was minimally necessary to learn whether the men were armed and to disarm
them once he discovered the weapons. He did not conduct a general exploratory search for
whatever evidence of criminal activity he might find.

People v. Chua

FACTS

1. Binad Sy Chua was charged with violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law and with Illegal
Possession of Ammunition. After trial, he was acquitted of Illegal Possesion of Firearms but
convicted of illegal possession of shabu.

2. SPO2 Nulud and PO2 Nunag received a report from informant that Chua was about to
deliver drugs. On the basis of this lead, police formed a team and positioned themselves
across Thunder Inn Hotel.

3. Around 11:45 in the evening, informant pointed to a car driven by Chua which just arrived
and parked in front of the hotel. Chua alighted from the car carrying a sealed juice box.
Police officers hurriedly accosted and introduced themselves as police officers. As Chua
pulled out his wallet, a small transparent plastic bag with crystalline substance protruded
from his back pocket. SPO2 Nulud subjected him to a body search which yielded 20 pieces
of live .22 caliber firearm bullets. The initial field test conducted at the PNP Headquarters
revealed that the seized items contained shabu.

4. Chua denied accusation against him and narrated a different version of the incident. Chua
alleged that on the night in question, he was driving the car of his wife to follow her and his
son to Manila. He felt sleepy, so he decided to take the old route along McArthur Highway.
He stopped in front of a small store near Thunder Inn Hotel in Balibago, Angeles City to buy
cigarettes and candies. While at the store, he noticed a man approach and examine the
inside of his car. When he called the attention of the onlooker, the man immediately pulled
out a .45 caliber gun and made him face his car with raised hands. The man later on
identified himself as a policeman. During the course of the arrest, the policeman took out his
wallet and instructed him to open his car. He refused, so the policeman took his car keys and
proceeded to search his car. At this time, the police officer's companions arrived at the scene
in two cars. PO2 Nulud, who just arrived at the scene, pulled him away from his car in a
nearby bank, while the others searched his car.

5. RTC found Chua guilty of illegal possession of shabu but acquitted for illegal possession of
ammunitions.

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT

Chua maintains that the warrantless arrest and search made by the police operatives was
unlawful; that in the light of the testimony of SPO2 Nulud that prior to his arrest he has been
under surveillance for two years, there was therefore no compelling reason for the haste
within which the arresting officers sought to arrest and search him without a warrant; that the
police officers had sufficient information about him and could have easily arrested him.
Accused-appellant further argues that since his arrest was null and void, the drugs that were
seized should likewise be inadmissible in evidence since they were obtained in violation of
his constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizures and arrest.

ISSUE: W/N the search conducted upon Chua and confiscation of shabu allegedly found on
him were done in a valid and lawful manner

RULING

Supreme Court acquitted Chua on the crime charged against him.

In the case at bar, neither the in flagrante delicto nor the "stop and frisk" principles is
applicable to justify the warrantless arrest and consequent search and seizure made by the
police operatives on Chua..

The record reveals that when Chua arrived at the vicinity of Thunder Inn Hotel, he merely
parked his car along the McArthur Highway, alighted from it and casually proceeded towards
the entrance of the Hotel clutching a sealed Zest-O juice box. Chua did not act in a
suspicious manner. There was no overt manifestation that accused-appellant has just
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime. However,
notwithstanding the absence of any overt act strongly manifesting a violation of the law, the
group of SPO2 Nulud "hurriedly accosted" Chua and later on "introduced themselves as
police officers." Chua was arrested before the alleged drop-off of shabu was done. Probable
cause in this case was more imagined than real. Thus, there could have been no in
flagrante delicto arrest preceding the search, in light of the lack of an overt physical act
on the part of accused-appellant that he had committed a crime, was committing a crime or
was going to commit a crime.

There was no valid "stop-and-frisk" in this case. The apprehending police operative failed
to make any initial inquiry into accusedappellant's business in the vicinity or the contents of
the Zest-O juice box he was carrying. The apprehending police officers only introduced
themselves when they already had custody of accused-appellant. Besides, at the time of his
arrest, accused-appellant did not exhibit manifest unusual and suspicious conduct
reasonable enough to dispense with the procedure outlined by jurisprudence and the law.
There was, therefore, no genuine reasonable ground for the immediacy of accused-
appellant's arrest.

Furthermore, we entertain doubts whether the items allegedly seized from Chua were the
very same items presented at the trial of this case. The record shows that the initial field test
where the items seized were identified as shabu, was only conducted at the PNP
headquarters of Angeles City. The items were therefore not marked at the place where they
were taken.

Esquillo v. People

FACTS

1. Susan Esquillo was charged for violation of RA 9165 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for
possession of shabu

2. During trial, Esquillo admitted the genuineness and due execution of the documentary
evidence of the prosecution, particularly the Dangerous Drugs and Toxicology Reports
issued by NBI which identified substance as shabu and found petitioner positive under said
substance.

3. On basis of an informant’s tip, police conducted surveillance on the activities of an alleged

notorious snatcher operating in the area known as “Ryan”. As PO1 Cruzin alighted from the
car, he glanced at Esquillo’s direction who was standing three meters away and seen placing
inside a cigarette case what appeared to be a small transparent plastic sachet containing
white substance. PO1 Cruzin became suspicious when Esquillo started acting strangely as
he began to approach her. He introduced himself as a police officer and inquired Esquillo
about the plastic sachet. Instead of replying, Esquillo attempted to flee to her house nearby
but was restrained by the police officer who then requested her to take out the plastic sachet.
To which PO1 Cruzin confiscated the sachet and marked Esquillo’s initials.

4. Esquillo, however, gave a different version of the incident. According to her:

At around 1:00 to 2:00 p.m. of the date in question, while she was sick and resting at
home, several policemen in civilian garb with guns tucked in their waists barged in and
asked her whether she knew one named "Ryan" who they claimed was a notorious
 snatcher operating in the area, to which she replied in the negative. The police officers
then forced her to go with them to the Pasay City Police Station-SOG office where she
was detained. While she was under detention, the police officers were toying with a
wallet which they claimed contained shabu and recovered from her. Petitioner claimed
that the evidence against her was "planted," stemming from an all too obvious attempt
by the police officers to extort money from her and her family. Two other witnesses for
the defense, petitioner's daughter Josan Lee and family friend Ma. Stella Tolentino,
corroborated petitioner's account. They went on to relate that the police officers never
informed them of the reason why they were taking custody of petitioner.

5. RTC found Esquillo guilty of the crime charged. Before the CA, she questioned as illegal
her arrest without warrant to thus render any evidence obtained on the occasion thereof
inadmissible.

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT

Petitioner assails the appellate court's application of the "stop-and-frisk" principle in light of
PO1 Cruzin's failure to justify his suspicion that a crime was being committed, he having
merely noticed her placing something inside a cigarette case which could hardly be deemed
suspicious. To petitioner, such legal principle could only be invoked if there were overt acts
constituting unusual conduct that would arouse the suspicion.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT

Respondent, through the Office of the Solicitor General, prays for the affirmance of the
appealed decision but seeks a modification of the penalty to conform to the pertinent
provisions of R.A. No. 9165.

ISSUE: W/N Esquillo’s warrantless arrest is valid and thus rendering any evidence obtained
as inadmissible

RULING

Esquillo’s conviction still stands but with modification with regard to penalty imposed

Petitioner did not question early on her warrantless arrest before her arraignment. Neither did
she take steps to quash the information on such ground. Verily, she raised the issue of
warrantless arrest — as well as the inadmissibility of evidence acquired on the occasion
thereof — for the first time only on appeal before the appellate court. By such omissions, she
is deemed to have waived any objections on the legality of her arrest.

The Court finds that the questioned act of the police officers constituted a valid "stop-and-
frisk" operation. The search/seizure of the suspected shabu initially noticed in petitioner's
possession — later voluntarily exhibited to the police operative — was undertaken after she
was interrogated on what she placed inside a cigarette case, and after PO1 Cruzin
introduced himself to petitioner as a police officer. And, at the time of her arrest, petitioner
was exhibiting suspicious behavior and in fact attempted to flee after the police officer had
identified himself.

.
People v. de Gracia

FACTS

1. Reform the Armed Forces Movement-Soldiers of the Filipino People (RAM-SFP) staged a
coup d’etat on Dec. 1989 against the government.

2. Major Soria conducted a surveillance of the Eurocar Sales Office in EDSA, Quezon City
pursuant to an intelligence report that the said establishment was being occupied by the
elements of the RAM-SFP as communication command post.

3. When the team arrived in the area, a crowd was gathered near the Eurocar office watching
the ongoing bombardment near Camp Aguinaldo. After a while, a group of five men
disengaged themselves from the crowd and walked towards the car of the surveillance team.
Major Soria ordered the driver, Sgt. Sagario, to leave the area. As they passed by the group,
the latter pointed to them and started firing their guns at the team. Nobody in the surveillance
team was able to retaliate.

4. As a consequence, a new searching team raided the Eurocar Sales Office and was able to
arrest De Gracia, who was the only person present in the room.

3. No search warrant was secured by the raiding team because, according to them, there
was so much disorder considering that the nearby Camp 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 that the courts were consequently closed.

ISSUE: W/N there was a valid search and seizure

RULING

Supreme Court held that the instant case falls under one of the exceptions to the prohibition
against a warrantless search.

There was consequently more than sufficient probable cause to warrant the raid.
Furthermore, under the situation then prevailing, the raiding team had no opportunity to apply
and secure a search warrant from the courts. The trial judge himself manifested that when
the raid was conducted, his court was closed. Under such urgency and exigency of the
moment, a search warrant could lawfully be dispensed with.

Guazon v. De Villa

FACTS
1. Petitioners are residents of Metro Manila and taxpayers seeking to prohibit the military and
police officers from conducting “Areal Target Zonings” or “Saturation Drives”.

2. The saturation drives are in critical areas pinpointed by the military and police as places
where the subversives are hiding

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT

Petitioners claim that the saturation drives follow a common pattern of human rights abuses.
In all these drives, it is alleged that the following were committed:

1. Petitioners alleged that there is no specific target house to search and that there is no
search warrant or warrant of arrest served.
2. Most of the policemen are in their civilian clothes and without nameplates or identification
cards.
3. The residents were rudely roused from their sleep by banging on the walls and windows of
their houses.
4. The residents were at the point of high-powered guns and herded like cows.
5. Men were ordered to strip down to their briefs for the police to examine their tattoo marks.
6. The residents complained that the raiders ransacked their homes, tossing their belongings
and destroying their valuables. Some of their money and valuables had disappeared after the
operation.
7. The residents also reported incidents of maulings, spot-beatings, and maltreatment. Those
who were detained also suffered mental and physical torture to extract confessions and
tactical information.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT

Respondents argue that they have legal authority to conduct saturation drives. They allege
that the accusations of the petitioners about a deliberate disregard for human rights are total
lies

ISSUE: W/N the saturation drives are lawful and the arrests

RULING

Supreme Court upheld as a valid exercise of the military powers of the President, the
conduct of “areal target zoning” or “saturation drives”.

Where there is large scale mutiny or actual rebellion, the police or military may go in force to
the combat areas, enter affected residences or buildings, round up suspected rebels and
otherwise quell the mutiny or rebellion without having to secure search warrants and without
violating the Bill of Rights. The aerial target zonings in this petition were intended to flush out
subversives and criminal elements particularly because of the blatant assassinations of
public officers and police officials by elements supposedly coddled by the communities where
the "drives" were conducted.

Based on the facts stated by the parties, it appears to have been no impediment to securing
search warrants or warrants of arrest before any houses were searched or individuals roused
from sleep were arrested. There is no showing that the objectives sought to be attained by
the “aerial zoning” could not be achieved even as the rights of the squatters and low income
families are fully protected.

The Court believes it is highly probable that some violations were actually committed. In the
circumstances of this taxpayers’ suit, there is no erring soldier or policeman whom the court
can order prosecuted. In the absence of clear facts, no permanent relief can be given.

In the meantime where there is showing that some abuses were committed, the court
temporarily restrain the alleged violations which are shocking to the conscience. Petition is
remanded to the RTC of Manila.