ALAIN MANALILI v.

COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS:
 This case is about the alleged violation of Manalili of RA 6425 or the illegal possession of
marijuana.
 However, Manalili was approved to file bail bond. After trial, the RTC found Manalili
guilty of the charge against him.
 Based on the prosecution:
o A surveillance was made in front of the Kalookan City Cemetery because of an
information that drug addicts were roaming there.
o Manalili was observed to have reddish eyes and to be walking in a swaying
manner.
o Policemen asked him about the thing that he was holding in his hands, but
Manalili resisted to show. Eventually, the latter showed his wallet and there was
found suspected crushed marijuana residue.
o Manalili was apprehended and the wallet was confiscated.
 Based on the defense:
o Manalili was not walking in the area but was in fact aboard a tricycle when the
policemen stopped him.
o The policemen bodily searched the accused and the tricycle driver. The tricycle
driver was allowed to go. Manalili was brought to the headquarters
 RTC and CA found Manalili guilty.

ISSUE:
1. W/N the search conducted was reasonable/valid
2. W/N the evidence of the prosecution is inadmissible

RULING:
 YES
 The search conducted, even though warrantless, was valid. It is in the form of STOP-
AND-FRISK. This refers to the right of the police to stop a citizen on the street,
interrogate him, and pat him for weapons (where the subject person is behaving
unsually)
 This type of search is an exception to the general rule that a search warrant must be
procured first. Along with this exception are the following: (1) search incidental to lawful
arrest, (2) search of moving vehicle, (3) seizure in plain view, (4) customs search, and (5)
waiver by the accused of his right against unreasonable search.
 Moreover, the petitioner already waived the inadmissibility of any evidence illegally
obtained when he failed to raise this issue during the trial. A valid waiver of this right
requires the following:
1. Right to be waived existed
2. Person waiving it had knowledge thereof
3. He had an actual intention to relinquish the right.
  Manalili was convicted.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARI MUSA

FACTS:
 A buy-bust operation was conducted by Sgt. Ani due to an information that a certain
Musa is engaged in the selling of marijuana. The operation was able to prove the claim.
 The following day, another buy-bust was planned. This time the objective was to arrest
Musa and confiscate the subject articles. The marked money (P20.00) was nowhere to
be found as Musa stated that he handed it over to his wife, who was able to slip away.
 Sgt. Belarga, the team leader, also found a plastic bag containing dried marijuana inside
it somewhere in the kitchen. This plastic bag was also confiscated.
 The trial court found Musa guilty of the crime.

ISSUE: W/N the plastic bag containing marijuana found in the kitchen can be seized and be
admitted as evidence against Musa

RULING:
 NO
 There is no doubt that warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest authorizes the
arresting officer to make a search upon the person of the person arrested. Law
enforcement agents may seize the marked money and the narcotics at the possession of
the accused.
 Objects in the plain view of the officer are subject to seizure and may be presented as
evidence. However, the plain view doctrine applies only when if the object was
immediately apparent to the police
 In this case, the agents searched the person and the entire house (including the kitchen
where they found the plastic bag containing marijuana). The plastic bag was NOT
within their plain view, as it was deliberately sought. Also, the plastic bag did not clearly
show its content. The content was not obvious to an observer, therefore cannot be
justified by the plain view doctrine.
 The plastic bag containing marijuana cannot be admitted as evidence, but the marijuana
confiscated in the buy-bust operation will not be affected.
 Still, Musa was found guilty.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROBERTO SALANGUIT

FACTS:
 Salanguit was charged with a violation of Sec. 16, RA 6425 (possession of shabu)
 This was based on a search warrant applied for by Sr. Insp. Aguilar. The application was
granted.
 During the search, the operatives went to the residence of the accused. They knocked
three times, but nobody opened it, so they forced to open the door and entered the
house
 They found plastic bags containing white crystalline substance and bricks of dried leaves
(marijuana) wrapped in newsprint. The accused was also arrested.
 During trial, the accused said that the operatives entered his premises by force and
opened his cabinets.
 Still the trial court found Salanguit guilty of violating Sec. 16 (shabu) and Sec. 8
(marijuana)

ISSUES:
1. W/N the search warrant issued was valid
2. W/N the 2 bricks of marijuana may be admitted as evidence
3. W/N policemen employed excessive force in enforcing the warrant

RULING:
1. YES. The search warrant issued was for the search and seizure of shabu and drug
paraphernalia. Even though there was no probable cause to support the application for the
seizure of drug paraphernalia (as the information during application was only for shabu),
the fact that no drug paraphernalia was seized will still uphold the validity of the warrant.
Moreover, if it is to be argued that the warrant is void on the part of the drug
paraphernalia, it won’t render the warrant void as a whole.

On the matter that the warrant is issued for more than one offense, the contention still
holds no water. The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 is a special law that deals with dangerous
drugs which are subsumed into “prohibited” and “regulated” drugs. The items cited in the
warrant belong to the same class. Thus, 1 search warrant may be validly issued.

On the matter of particularity of the place in the warrant, still the contention of accused is
without merit. The rule is that a description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the
officer with the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place to be
searched. Insp. Aguilar resided in the same neighborhood where the accused lives.

2. NO. The warrant only authorized the seizure of shabu and not of marijuana. The plain view
doctrine will not apply as the valid portion of the search warrant (for shabu) was already
executed. The time of discovery of the marijuana was also not alleged by the prosecution.
Also, it was wrapped in a newsprint (NOT TRANSPARENT), therefore there was no apparent
illegality to justify the seizure.
3. NO. The occupants refused to open the door after the police knocked several (3) times.