CHAPTER 4 THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROVISION, The requirements are: (1) the warrant must be issued upon probable cause; (2) the probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by the applicant or any other person; (3) in the determination of probable cause, the judge must examine, under oath or affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce; and (4) the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized. (UY VS. BIR, 344 SCRA 36) Constitutional provision: 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. (Section 2, Art. Il) Rule 126 (Search and Seizure) of the Rules of Court: Section 4, Requisites for issuing search warrant. — A search warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense 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 things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines. (3a) Section 8. Search of house, room, or premise to be made in presence of two witnesses. — No search of a house, room, or any other premise shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. Art ll Section 3 (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. Finally, a Circular issued by the Supreme Court requires that no warrant or warrant of arrest shalll be implemented during the night, week-ends or holidays, except in exceptional cases. Case SeuvivsipieisasseraggFacts Illegal things can be confiscated but cannot be used as evidence against the accused. FACTS: Rodrigo Abos, former Operating Chief of UNIFISH, reported to the BIR that 1) UNIFISH. is selling cartons of canned sardines without issuing a receipt. This is a violation of Sections 253 and 263 Internal Revenue Code. How? This grand scale tax fraud is perpetrated through the following scheme: (1) Uy Chin Ho a director of UNIFISH buys in bulk from the company; (2) Being a director, Uy Chin Ho has a lot of clout in the distribution of the canned sardines processed by UNIFISH; (3) Uy Chin Ho dictates the value of canned sardines that he orders and buys from UNIFISH without any receipt of his purchases; (4) The moment he has the quantity he wants, UNIFISH through Uy Chin Ho delivers to the different supermarkets such as White Gold, Gaisano, etc.; (5) Payments made by these tax evading establishments are made by checks drawn payable to cash and delivered to Uy Chin Ho; These payments are also not receipted (sic); (6) Uy Chin Ho will then pay UNIFISH for the quantity of sardines he had withdrawn from the corporation; 2) Another fraudulent practice is the sale of imported oil locally to differant customers. tax exemptions are granted by the government on the condition that the oil is to be used only in the processing of tuna for export and that itis not to be sold unprocessed as is to local customers. 3) Another fraudulent practice involves the sales of unused cans; UNIFISH also enjoys tax exemptions in its purchases of tin cans subject to the condition that these are to be used as containers for its processed tuna for export. Consequently, Nestor N. LABARIA, Assistant Chief of the Special Investigation Branch of the BIR, applied for search warrants to the RTC. After finding probable cause, Judge Gozo-Dadole of the RTC of Cebu issued three search warrants (Search Warrants A-1, A-2, B) which were used by the agents of the BIR and the members of the Philippine National Police to search the premises of Unifish. 1. Multiple sets of Books of Accounts; Ledgers, Journals, Columnar Books, Cash Register Books, Sales Books or Records; Provisional & Official Receipts; 2, Production Record Books/Inventory Lists [,] Stock Cards;3. Unregistered Delivery Receipts; 4, Unregistered Purchase & Sales Invoices; 5, Sales Records, Job Order; 6. Corporate Financial Records; and 7. Bank Statements/Cancelled Checks ISSUE: Was the search and seizure done to the premises of UNIFISH violative of the constitutional right to unreasonable search and seizure? Ruling RULING: The Search warrant was partly invalid ‘A search warrant must conform strictly to the requirements of the foregoing constitutional and statutory provisions. These requirements, in outline form, are: (1) the warrant must be issued upon probable cause; (2) the probable cause must be determined by the judge himseff and not by the applicant or any other person; (3) in the determination of probable cause, the judge must examine, under oath or affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce; and (4) the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized Inconsistencies in the description of the place to be searched, (Search Warrant A-1 indicates the address as "Hernan Cortes St., Cebu City” while Search Warrants A-2 and B states "Herman Cortes St., Mandaue City.") The Constitution requires, for the validity of a search warrant, that there be a particular description of "the place to be searched and the persons of things to be seized." The rule is that the description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer (with the warrant) can identify the place intended and distinguish it from other places in the community. In this case, even if Search Warrant A-1 did not correctly identify the city where the premises to be searched should be, the warrant is still valid as the officers had no problem locating UNIFISH. inconsistencies in the description of the persons named in the two warrants. (Search Warrant A-1 was issued solely to Frank Uy while Search Warrant A-2 was issued to "Frank Uy and Unifish Packing Corporation”) The search warrant was issued not for the search of the persons occupying the premisesbut for the search of the premises occupied by them. Thus, even if there are inconsistencies in the name of the occupants, there is no violation. ‘Iwo warrants issued at one time for one crime and one place, (Search Warrants A-1 and A-2 were issued for the same crime which is violation of "SEC. 253" of the National Internal Revenue Code). Search Warrant A-1 should be deemed superseded by Search warrant A-2. A-2 was merely an attempt by the RTC Judge to correct the inconsistencies found in Search Warrant A-1. He intended to be more precise on the description of the place to be issued as well as the name of the persons against whom the warrant is issued. ‘The alleged absence of probable cause, In the determination of probable cause, examination of the witnesses under oath is required. The witnesses, in turn, must testify under oath to facts of their own personal knowledge. The judge should then conduct an examination to determine the existence of probable cause. Nestor Labaria’s testimony is invalid because his knowledge of the alleged illegal activities was merely supplied by Abos. Even so, Abos's knowledge of the illegal activities of UNIFISH was obtained during his employment there. Thus, Abos's personal knowledge and the inquiries made by the judge are sufficient to justify the issuance of the search warrant. Alleged lack of particularity in the description of the things seized, ‘The search warrant described the things to be seized in the following manner: 1. Multiple sets of Books of Accounts; Ledgers, Journals, Columnar Books, Cash Register Books, Sales Books or Records; Provisional & Official Receipts; 2. Production Record Books/Inventory Lists [,] Stock Cards; 3. Unregistered Delivery Receipts; 4, Unregistered Purchase & Sales Invoices; 5. Sales Records, Job Order; 6. Corporate Financial Records; and 7. Bank Statements/Cancelled Checks Although the warrant was defective, it does not follow that it was invalid as a whole. Only the invalid portions of the warrant are severable. Those things not specifically mentionedin the warrants that were seized must be returned. May an MTC Judge issue a search warrant in connection with crimes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC? Yes. A search warrant may be issued by any court pursuant to Section 2, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and the resultant case may be filed in another court that has jurisdiction over the offense committed. What controls here is that a search warrant is merely a process, generally issued by a court in the exercise of its ancillary jurisdiction, and not a criminal action to be entertained by a court pursuant to its original jurisdiction. Thus, in. certain cases when no criminal action has yet been filed_any court may issue a search Case’ Facts FACTS: Judge Marcelo C. CABALBAG of the MTC of Gattaran, Cagayan issued Search Warrant The case was raffled to the RTC, Branch 6, Aparri, Cagayan, presided by respondent Judge CASTILLO. A motion to Quash Search Warrant was filed by RABINO on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction by the MTC court over the place to be searched. Judge Castillo granted the motion due to lack of jurisdiction of MIC over the offense. charged (R.A. 9165 or The Dangerous Drugs Act). The MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment of not more than 6 years. The minimum penalty of Illegal possession of Shabu is twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years, which is way beyond imprisonment of six (6) years. ISSUE: Can a municipal trial court issue a search warrant involving an offense in which it has no jurisdiction? Ruling RULING: Yes. the application for a search warrant was filed within the same judicial region where the crime was allegedly committed. For compelling reasons, the Municipal Trial Court of Gattaran, Cagayan has the authority to issue a search warrant to search and seize the dangerous drugs stated in the application thereof in Aparri, Cagayan, a place that is within the same judicial region. The fact that the search warrant was issued means that the MTC judge found probable cause to grant the said application after the latter was found by the same judge to have been filed for compelling reasons.Rule 126 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides: Sec. 2. Court where application for search warrant shall be filed. - An application for search warrant shall be filed with the following (a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed. {b) For compelling reasons stated in the application, any court within the judicial region where the crime was committed if the place of the commission of the crime is known, or any court within the judicial region where the warrant shall be enforced. However, if the criminal action has already been filed, the application shall only be made in the court where the criminal action is pending. In this case, the application for a search warrant was filed within the same judicial region where the crime was committed. In addition, the above-stated rule does not say that the court issuing a search warrant must also have jurisdiction over the offense . A search warrant may be issued by any court pursuant to Section 2, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and the resultant case may be filed in another court that has jurisdiction over the offense committed. What controls here is that a search warrant is merely a process, generally issued by a court in the exercise of its ancillary jurisdiction, and not a criminal action to be entertained by a court pursuant to its original jurisdiction, praviced that all the requirements for the issuance of such warrant are resent. a motion to quash a search warrant may be based on grounds extrinsic of the search warrant, such as (1) the place searched or the property seized are not those specified or described in the search warrant; and (2) there is no probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant. Case Facts Fae8!s/Insp PNP James Brillantes applied for search warrant before Branch 261, RTC of Quezon City against Mr. Azfar Hussain, who had allegedly in his possession firearms and explosives at Abigail Variety Store, Apt. 1207 Area F, Bagong Buhay Avenue, Sapang Palay, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan. The following day a search warrant was issued against Mr. Hussain was issued not at Abigail Variety Store but at Apt. No. 1, immediately adjacent (to) Abigail. Variety Store resulting in the arrest of four (4) Pakistani nationals and in the seizure of their personal belongings. three days after the warrant was served, there was no showing that lawful occupants were made to witness the search.private respondents upon arraignment submitted their “Extremely Urgent Motion (To Quash Search Warrant and to Declare Evidence Obtained Inadmissible, Judge Casanova granted the motion to quash search warrant on the following grounds: 4) That the residence of all the accused is at Apartment No. 1 which is adjacent to the Abigail's Variety Store; 2) That there is no such number as "1207" found in the building as it is correspondingly called only as “Apartment No. 1, 2, 3 and 4; 3) That Apartment No. 1 is separate from the Abigail's Variety Store; 4) That there are no connecting doors that can pass from Abigail's Variety Store to Apartment No. 1; 5) That Abigail's Variety Store and Apartment No. 1 have its own respective doors used for ingress and egress. There being no objection on the said observation of the Court, let the same be reduced on the records. The public prosecutor's claim — that the sketch submitted to Judge Bacalla relative to the application for a search warrant, actually depicted the particular place to be searched — was effectively confuted by Judge Casanova who pointed out that said “SKETCH was not dated, not signed by the person who made it and not even mentioned in the Search Warrant by the Honorable Judge Bacalla ‘1S8U6!\whether or not a search warrant was validly issued as regards the apartment in which private respondents were then actually residing, or more explicitly, whether or not that particular apartment had been specifically described in the warrant. Ruling Ruling! The case at bar, however, does not deal with the correction of an “obvious typographical error” involving ambiguous descriptions of the place to be searched, but the search of a place different from that clearly and without ambiguity identified in the search warrant. In the instant case there is no ambiguity at all in the warrant. The ambiguity lies outside the instrument, arising absence of a meeting of minds as to the place to be searched between the applicants for the warrant and the Judge issuing the same; and what was done was to substitute for the place that the Judge had written down in the warrant, the premises that the executing officers had in their mind. This should not have been Indeed, following the officers’ theory, in the context of the facts of this case, all four (4) apartment units at the rear of Abigail's Variety Store would have been fair game for a search. ‘Such a chang proscribed by the Const ion which requires inter the search warrant to particularly describe the place to be searched as well as the persons or things tobe seized, It would concede to police officers the power of choosing the place to be searched, even if it not be that delineated in the warrant. It would open wide the door to abuse of the search process, and grant to officers executing a search warrant that discretion which the Constitution has precisely removed from them. The particularization of the description of the place to be searched may properly be done only by the Judge, and only in the warrant itself; it cannot be left to the discretion of the police officers conducting the search. ‘A search warrant must conform strictly to the requirements of the foregoing constitutional and statutory provisions. These requirements, in outline form, are: (1) the warrant must be issued upon probable cause; (2) the probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by the applicant or any other person; (3) in the determination of probable cause, the judge must examine, under oath or affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce; and (4) the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized Case a. Validity of a warrantless search and seizure as a result of an informer’s tip. Facts Fadis!/In the morning of December 13, 1988, the law enforcement officers received information from an informant named “Benjie" that a certain "Aling Rosa" would be leaving for Baguio City on December 14, 1988 and would be back in the aftemoon of the same day carrying with her a large volume of marijuana; (2) At 6:30 in the evening of December 14, 1988, accused-appellant alighted from a Victory Liner Bus carrying a traveling bag even as the informant pointed her out to the law enforcement officers; (3) The law enforcement officers approached her and introduced themselves as NARCOM agents; (4) When asked by Lt. Abello about the contents of her traveling bag, she gave the same tohim; (5) When they opened the same, they found dried marijuana leaves; (6) Accused-appellant was then brought to the NARCOM office for investigation. ‘18806! Whether the warrantless search and seizure was valid Ruling | RUNING: The following cases are specifically provided or allowed by law:1. Warranties search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence; 2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view," the elements of which are: (2) 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 had the right tobe where they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent, and (4) "plain view’ justified mere seizure of evidence without further search; 3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the government, the vehicle's inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares furishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity; 4, Consented warrantless search; 5, Customs search; 6. Stop and Frisk; and 7. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances. Although probable cause eludes exact and concrete definition, it generally signifies a reasonable Ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a Cautious man to believe that the person accused is gullty of the offense with which he is charged. It likewise refers to the existence of such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the item(s), article(s) or object(s) sought in connection with said offense or subject to seizure and destruction by law isin the place to be searched. In searches and seizures effected without a warrant, it is necessary for probable cause to be present. Absent any probable cause, the article(s) seized could not be admitted and used as evidence against the person arrested. Probable cause, in these cases, must only be based on reasonable ground of suspicion or belief that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed. In the instant case, the NARCOM agents were admittedly not armed with a warrant of attest. To legitimize the warrantless search and seizure of accused-appellant's bag, accused-appellant must have been validly arrested under Section 5 of Rule 113 which provides inter alia: Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant, when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actuallycommitting, or is attempting to commit an offense; Accused-appellant Aruta cannot be said to be committing a crime. Neither was she about to commit one nor had she just committed a crime. Accused-appellant was merely crossing the street and was not acting in any manner that would engender a reasonable ground for the NARCOM agents to suspect and conclude that she was committing a crime. It was only when the informant pointed to accused-appellant and identified her to the agents as the carrier of the marijuana that she was singled out as the suspect. The NARCOM agents would not have apprehended accused-appellant were it not for the furtive finger of the informant because, as clearly illustrated by the evidence on record, there was no reason whatsoever for them to suspect that accused-appellant was committing a crime, except for the pointing finger of the informant. This the Court could. Emphasis is to be laid on the fact that the law requires that the search be incidental to a lawful arrest, in order that the search itself may likewise be considered legal. Therefore, it is beyond cavil that a lawful arrest must precede the search of a person and his belongings. Where a search Is first undertaken, and an arrest effected based on evidence produced by the search, both such search and arrest would be unlawful, for being contrary to law In the absence of probable cause to effect a valid and legal warrantless arrest, the search and seizure of accused-appellant’s bag would also not be justified as seizure of evidence in “plain view" Under the second exception. The marijuana was obviously not immediately apparent as shown by the fact that the NARCOM agents still had to request accused-appellant to open the bag to ascertain its contents. Neither would the search and seizure of accused-appellant's bag be justified as a search of a moving vehicle. There was no moving vehicle to speak of in the instant case as accused-appellant was apprehended several minutes after alighting from the Victory Liner bus. In fact, she was accosted in the middle of the street and not while inside the vehicle. In the instant case, there was no observable manifestation that could have aroused the suspicion of the NARCOM agents as to cause them to “stop and frisk" accused-appeliant. To reiterate, accused- appellant was merely crossing the street when apprehended. Unlike in the abovementioned cases, accused-appeliant never attempted to fiee from the NARCOM agents when the latter identified themselves as such. Clearly, this is another indication of the paucity of probable cause that would sufficiently provoke a suspicion that accused-appellant was committing a crime. The existing circumstances sufficiently showed that a crime was being committed. In short, there was probable cause to effect @ warrantless search of the building. The same could not be said in the instant case.The only other exception that could possibly legitimize the warrantless search and seizure would be consent given by the accused-appeliant to the warrantless search as to amount to a waiver of her constitutional right. the act of herein accused-appellant in handing over her bag to the NARCOM agents could not be construed as voluntary submission or an implied acquiescence to the unreasonable search Had the NARCOM agents only applied for a search warrant, they could have secured one without too much difficulty, contrary to the assertions of the Solicitor General. The person intended to be searched has been particularized and the thing to be seized specified. The time was also sufficiently ascertained to be in the afternoon of December 14, 1988. "Aling Rosa" turned out to be accused- appellant and the thing to be seized was marijuana. The vehicle was identified to be a Vietory Liner bus. In fact, the NARCOM agents purposely positioned themselves near the spot where Victory Liner buses normally unload their passengers. Assuming that the NARCOM agents failed to particularize the vehicle, this would not in any way hinder them from securing a search warrant. The above particulars would have already sufficed. In any case, this Court has held that the police should particularly describe the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized, wherever and whenever itis feasible Case Facts PEOPLE VS. MONTILLA, 284 SCRA 703 ‘No search warrant warrant of arrest but with consent valid. ‘No search warrant/warrant of arrest but with no consent invalid Ruben Montilla was apprehended near a wailing shed located at Barangay Salitran, Dasmarias, Cavite by two members of the Cavite PNP Command. The officers testified in court that they were aided by an informer who had informed them the day before, or on June 19, 1994 at about 2:00 P.M., that a drug courier, whom said informer could recognize, would be arriving somewhere in Barangay Salitran, Dasmarias from Baguio City with an undetermined amount of marijuana. It was the same informer who pinpointed to the arresting officers the appellant when the latter alighted from a passenger jeepney on the aforestated day, hour, and place Montilla was charged for violating the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. Contention of Montilla: the marijuana bricks were confiscated in the course of an unlawful warrantless search and seizure. He contends that the law enforcers had the opportunity to procure the requisite warrant. ISSUE:Whether the warrantless search and seizure was valid Ruling, HELD: The search and seizure operation were valid. 1) Can secure search warrant prior: Thus, (1) customs searches;*? (2) searches of moving vehicles,“ (3) seizure of evidence in plain view;*(4) consented searches;** (5) searches incidental to a lawful arrest;? and (6) "stop and frisk” measures* have been invariably recognized as the traditional exceptions. In determining the opportunity for obtaining warrants, not only the intervening time is controlling but all the coincident and ambient circumstances should be considered, especially in rural areas. 2) On the defense argument that the warrantless search conducted on appellant invalidates the evidence obtained from him, still the search on his belongings and the consequent confiscation of the illegal drugs as a result thereof was justified as a search incidental to a lawful arrest under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. Under that provision, a peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. A legitimate warrantless arrest, as above contemplated, necessarily cloaks the arresting police officer with authority to validly search and seize from the offender (1) dangerous weapons, and (2) those that may be used as proof of the commission of an offense." On the other hand, the apprehending officer must have been spurred by probable cause in effecting an arrest which could be classified as one in cadence with the instances of permissible arrests set out in Section 5(a).” These instances have been applied to. arrests carried out on persons caught in flagrante delicto. The conventional view is that In the case at bar, as soon as appellant had alighted from the passenger jeepney the informer at once indicated to the officers that their suspect was at hand by pointing to him from the waiting shed. SPO1 Clarin recounted that the informer told them that the marijuana was likely hidden inside the traveling bag and carton box which appellant was carrying at the time. The officers thus realized that he was their man even if he was simply carrying a seemingly innocent looking pair of luggage for personal effects. Accordingly, they approached appellant, introduced themselves as policemen, and requested him to open and show them the contents of the traveling bag, which appellant voluntarily and readily did. Upon cursory inspection by SPO1 Clarin, the bag yielded the prohibited drugs, so, without bothering to further search the box, they brought appellant and his luggage to their headquarters for questioning. Here, there were sufficient facts antecedent to the search and seizure that, at the point prior to the search, were already constitutive of probable cause, and which by themselves could properly create in the minds of the officers a well-grounded and reasonable belief that appellant was in the act of violating the law. The search yielded affirmance both of that probable cause and the actuality thatappellant was then actually committing a crime by illegally transporting prohibited drugs. With these attendant facts, it is ineluctable that appellant was caught in flagrante delicto, hence his arrest and the search of his belongings without the requisite warrant were both justified, When an individual voluntarily submits to a search or consents to have the same conducted upon his person or premises, he is precluded from later complaining thereof. Montilla voluntarily opened his bag when the police officers approached him and requested him to open his bag. Section 2, Article III of the Constitution lays down the general rule that a search and seizure must be carried out through or on the strength of a judicial warrant, absent which such search and seizure becomes "unreasonable" within the meaning of said constitutional provision. Exceptions: (1) customs searches; (2) searches of moving vehicles, (8) seizure of evidence in plain vie (4) consented searches; (5) searches (6) "stop and frisk" measures. Case | PEOPLE VS. RACHO, GR No. 186529, August 3, 2010 |__| Noprobabletcause;nolpersonaliknowiedge Faas | FACTS: On May 19, 2003, a confidential agent of the police transacted through cellular phone with Jack Racho for the purchase of shabu. The agent later reported the transaction to the police authorities who immediately formed a team composed of members of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) \cidental to a lawful arrest; and The agent gave the police appellant's name, together with his physical description. He also assured them that the appellant would arrive in Baler, Aurora the following day. On May 20, 2003, at 11:00 a.m., appellant called up the agent and informed him that he was on board a Genesis bus and would arrive in Baler, Aurora, anytime of the day wearing a red and white striped T-shirt The team members then posted themselves along the national highway in Baler, Aurora. At around 3:00 p.m. of the same day, a Genesis bus arrived in Baler. When appellant alighted from the bus, the confidential agent pointed to him as the person he transacted with earlier. Having alighted from the bus, the appellant stood near the highway and waited for a tricycle that would bring him to his final destination. As the appellant was about to board a tricycle, the team approached him and invited him to the police station on suspicion of carrying shabu. Appellant immediately denied the accusation, but as he pulled out his hands from his pants’ pocket, a white envelope slipped therefrom which, when opened, yielded a small sachet containing the suspected drug. Appellant Racho assails the validity of the warrantless search. He likewise{questioned the admissibility of the confiscated sachet on the ground that it was the fruit of the poisonous tree. The RTC concluded that appellant was caught in flagrante delicto, declaring that he was caught in the act of actually committing a crime or attempting to commit a crime in the presence of the apprehending officers as he amived in Baler, Aurora bringing with him a sachet of shabu Consequently, the warrantless search was considered valid as it was deemed an incident to the lawful arrest. ISSUE: Whether the warrantless arrest was valid. Ruling HELD: Clearly, what prompted the police to apprehend appellant, even without a warrant, was the tip given by the informant that appellant would arrive in Baler, Aurora carrying shabu. This circumstance gives rise to another question: whether that information, by itself, is sufficient probable cause to effect a valid warrantless arrest. The ne canine rule in this jurisdiction is that "reliable information" alonelis not The rule requires, in addition, that ihSlaeeused perform some vert aal that would indicate that he has committed. is actually committing. or is attempting to commit an. Offense. We find no cogent reason to depart from this well-established doctrine. Neither did the arresting officers have personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested had committed, was committing, or about to commit an offense. At the time of the arrest, appellant had just alighted from the Gemini bus and was waling fora tricycle, KGB MaeinGRInguaniMGUSSROUETERRER tat would engender a reasonable ground for the police officers to suspect and conclude that he was committing or intending to commit a crime, Without the confiscated shabu, appellant's conviction cannot be sustained based on the remaining evidence. The 1987 Constitution states that a search and consequent seizure must be carried out with a judicial warrant; otherwise, it becomes unreasonable and any evidence obtained therefrom shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. Said proscription, however, admits of exceptions, namely: 1. Warranties search incidental to a lawful arrest; 2. Search of evidence in "plain view." 3. Search of a moving vehicle; 4. Consented warrantless search; 5. Customs search; 6. Stop and Frisk; and 7. Exigent and emergency circumstances The instant case is similar to People v. Aruta In all of these cases, we refused to validate the warrantless search precisely because there was no adequate probable cause, We required the showing of some overt act indicative of the criminal design.Case People v. Montilla, In these cases, the Court sustained the validity of the warrantless searches notwithstanding the absence of overt acts or suspicious circumstances that would indicate that the accused had committed, was actually committing, or attempting to commit a crime. But as aptly observed by the Court, except in Valdez and Gonzales, they were covered by the other exceptions to the rule against warrantless searches Facts FACTS: Patrolman Obita was detailed at Olongapo City. While on his way to Olongapo from Baguio City via Victory Liner, the accused Anita Claudio, sat in front of Pat. Obita but she placed her bag at the back of the seat of Pat. Obita. The act of the accused putting her bag behind Pat. Obifia's seat aroused his suspicion and made him feel (sic) nervous. With the feeling that there was something unusual, he had the urge to search the woven plastic bag. But it was only at San Fernando, Pampanga when he was able to g0 to the bag. He inserted one of his fingers in a plastic bag located at the bottom of the woven bag and smelt marijuana. The plastic woven bag appearing to contain camote tops on the top has a big bundle of plastic of marijuana at the bottom. He could recognize the smell of marijuana because he was assigned at that time at the ANTINARCOTICS Unit. When they reached the Caltex Gasoline Station in Sta. rita, Obita after identifying himself as a police officer, he searched the bag of anita because of the suspicion that she might be carrying marijuana. They went to the Police headquarters where the bag was searched in the presence of Investigator Cpl. Tiongco. They found a big bundle of plastic containing marijuana weighing about 1 ki ISSUE: Whether ornot the search, seizure andl apprehension were warantees and should be deemed unlawful. Ruling RULING: search and seizure was valid The applicable provisions on this issue are found in the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. Rule 113, Sec. 5(a) of the said Rules provides: A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person’ (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually ‘committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. 7 XK XK Meanwhile, its Rule 126, Sec. 12 provides: Section 12. Search incident to 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. (12a) Appellant Claudio was caught transporting prohibited drugs. Pat. Daniel Obifia did notneed a warrant to atrest Claudio as the latter was caught in flagrante delicto. The warrantless search being an incident to a lawful arrest is in itself lawful.Credence is accorded to the prosecution's evidence, more so as it consisted mainly of testimonies of policemen. Law enforcers are presumed to have regularly performed their duty in the absence of proof to the contrary (People v. De Jesus, 145 SCRA 521). We also find no reason from the records why the prosecution witnesses should fabricate their testimonies and implicate appellant in such a serious crime (See People v. Bautista, 147 SCRA 500) Case No probable cause because no personal knowledge, evidence is very weak but evidence against him Facts FACTS: ‘Aminnudin was accosted by police officers while disembarking from the M/V Wilcon in lloilo City. The officers inspected his bag and finding what looked like marijuana leaves took him to their headquarters for investigation. The apprehension was due to a received tip from one of their informers that the accused-appellant was on board a vessel bound for lloilo City and was carrying marijuana. Haneastdanthedliyiname: Acting on this tip, they waited for him in the evening of June 25, 1984, and approached him as he descended from the gangplank after the informer had pointed to him. They detained him and inspected the bag he was carrying. It was found to contain three Kilos of what were later analyzed as marijuana leaves. 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. ISSUE: Whether Aminnudin was lawfully searched and arrested by virtue of an informer's tip Ruling Defense: This made the search also valid as incidental to a lawful arrest. In the case at bar, there was no warrant of arrest or search warrant issued by a judge after personal determination by him of the existence of probable cause. Contrary to the averments of the government, the accused-appellant was not caught in flagrante nor was a crime about to be Committed or had just been committed to justify the warrantless arrest allowed under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. ‘The present case presented no such urgency. From the conflicting declarations of the PC witnesses, itis clear that they had at least two days within which they could have obtained a warrant to arrest and search Aminnudin who was coming to Iloilo on the MV Wilcon 9. His name was known. The vehicle was Identified. The date of its arrival was certain. And from the information they had received, they could have persuaded a judge that there was probable cause, Indeed, to justify the issuance of a warrant. Yet they did nothing. No effort was made to comply with the law. The Bill of Rights was ignored altogether because the PC lieutenant who was the head of the arresting team, had determined on his own authority that a "search warrant was not necessary.” In the case at bar, the accused-appellant was not, at the moment of his arrest, committing a crime nor was it shown that he was about to do so or that he had just done so. What he was doing was descending the gangplank of the M/V Wilcon 9 and there was no outward indication that called for his arrest. To all appearances, he was like any of the other passengers innocently disembarking from the vessel. it was only when the informer pointed to him as the carrier of the marijuana that he suddenly became suspect and so subject to apprehension. It was the furtive finger that triggered his arrest. The Identification by the informer was the probable cause as determined by the officers (and not a judge) that authorized them to pounce upon Aminnudin and immediately arrest him, Case [PEOPLE VS. MALMSTEDT, 198SCRA40} Facts FACTS:Mikael Malmstedt, Swedish, entered the Philippines as a tourist. He went to Sagada and stayed there for two (2) days. On May 11, 1989, he took a bus to Baguio. On that same day, Capt. Alen Vasco of NARCOM stationed at Camp Dangwa ordered his men to set up a temporary checkpoint at Kilometer 14, Acop, Tublay, Mountain Province, for the purpose of checking all vehicles coming from the Cordillera Region. It is because of persistent reports that vehicles coming from Sagada were transporting marijuana and other prohibited drugs. Moreover, information was received that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had in his possession prohibited drugs. At about 1:30 pm, the bus Malmstedt was riding was stopped. Sgt. Fider and CIC Galutan boarded the bus and announced that they were members of the NARCOM and that they would conduct an inspection. During the inspection, CIC Galutan noticed a bulge on Malmstedt's waist. Suspecting the bulge on Malmstedt's waist to be a gun, the officer asked for Malmstedt's passport and other identification papers. When Malmstedt failed to comply, the officer required him to bring out whatever it was that was bulging on his waist, which was a pouch bag. When Malmstedt opened the same bag, as ordered, the officer noticed 4 suspicious-looking objects wrapped in brown packing tape, which turned out to contain hashish, a derivative of marijuana, when opened. Malmstedt stopped to get 2 travelling bags from the luggage carrier, each containing a teddy bear, when he was invited outside the bus for questioning, It was observed that there were also bulges inside the teddy bears which did not fe like foam stuffing. Malmstedt was then brought to the headquarters of the NARCOM at Camp Dangwa for further investigation. At the investigation room, the officers opened the teddy bears and they were found to also contain hashish. After the laboratory examination, it was established that the objects were indeed hashish. Maimstedt claimed that the hashish was planted by the NARCOM officers in his pouch bag and that the 2 travelling bags were not owned by him, but were merely entrusted to him by an Australian couple whom he met in Sagada. They were supposed to ride on the same bus but because there’s no more available seats, they took the next ride. The trial court found Malmstedt guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 4, Article Il of RA 6425 (Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Prohibited Drugs. ) ISSUE: WON the search of personal effects of Malmstedt was illegal because it was made without a search warrantRuling RULING: NO)/the Search is not illegal! It is true that the Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, where the search is made RUS , there is A lawful arrest ela a warrant may be made by a peace officer or a private person under the follo circumstances. Section 5 provides that “a peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person ‘Accused was searched and arrested while transporting prohibited drugs (hashish). A crime was actually being committed by the accused and he was caught in flagrante delicto. Thus, the search made upon his personal effects falls squarely under paragraph (1) of the foregoing provisions of law, which allow a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest. Even when the NARCOM officers were not armed with a oa ee search was made over the personal effects of accused, there was for said officers to believe that accused was then and there committing a crime. has been defined as such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonable, discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. 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. Aside from the persistent reports received by the NARCOM that vehicles coming from Sagada were transporting marijuana and other prohibited drugs, their Commanding Officer also received information that a Caucasian coming ftom Sagada on that particular day had prohibited drugs in his possession. Said information was received by the Commanding Officer of NARCOM the very same morning that accused came down by bus from Sagada on his way to Baguio City. It must be observed that, at first, the NARCOM officers merely conducted a routine check of the bus (where accused was riding) and the passengers therein, and no extensive search was initially made. Itwas only when one of the officers noticed a bulge on the waist of accused, during the course of the inspection, that accused was required to present his passport. The failure of accused to present his identification papers, when ordered to do so, only managed to arouse the suspicion of the officer that accused was trying to hide his identity. For is it not a regular norm for an innocent man, who has nothing to hide from the authorities, to reacily present his identification papers when required to do so?" a ed. In other words, the acts of te NARCOM officers in tequling the accused to open his pouch bag and in opening one of the wrapped objects found inside said bag (which was discovered to contain hashish) as well as the two (2) travelling bags containing two (2) teddy bears with hashish stuffed inside them, were prompted by accused's own attempt to hide his identity by refusing to present his passport, and by the information received by the NARCOM that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had prohibited drugs in his possession. To deprive the NARCOM agents of the ability and facility to act accordingly, Including, to search even without warrant, in the light of such circumstances, would be to sanction impotence and ineffectiveness in law enforcement, to the detriment of society. Case b. Warrantless search on a moving vehicle based on an anonymous tip. Facts FACTS: In January 1992, the Reaction Group of the National Bureau of Investigation (NEI) gathered an information regarding the drug, activities of accused Antolin Cuizon y Ortega and his wife, Susan Cuizon. A surveillance was conducted on them. NBI received a report from i that accused Cuizon, together with his wife, was arriving NAIA carrying with him a big quantity of "shabu". Arriving at the NAIA, Diflo positioned himself at the Arrival Area, while Yap and the other members of the team posted themselves at the parking area of the airport. accused Cuizon and his wife, who had just retumed from Hong Kong, after passing through the Immigration and Customs Areas at the NAIA, proceeded to the Arrival Area of the airport preparatory to their boarding a car. While there, acoused Cuizon, together with his wife, handed four (4) traveling bags to accused Steve Pua y Clofas and accused Paul Lee y Wong, who were at the vicinity of the Arrival Area. ‘Accused Pua and Lee loaded the bags in @ taxicab which they boarded in leaving the airport. ‘Accused Culzon and his wife took another vehicle Difio saw the handling of bags so he radioed the other members to apprehend Pua and Lee but the message was not received due the running short of battery power of their radio The team then proceeded to Manila Peninsula Hotel in Makati where Pua and Lee were proceeding, according to an earlier tip. Pua and Lee allowed the NBI agents and they saw 4 traveling bags inside the room (room 304). Upon the written permission of the 2 accused, the agents search their bags in the presence of the Chief Security Officer of the hotel. Three (3) of the four (4) bags each yielded a plastic package containing a considerable quantity of white crystalline substance suspected to be methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu". Pua and Lee were then apprehended by Difio and his companion. Later on that day, another laundry bag containing suspected "shabu" of more than five (5) kilos were discovered by a roomboy in Room 304. 16 kilos of shabu After that, Difio and the other members of the team proceeded to the house of accused Cuizon in Caloocan City, taking with them accused Pua and Lee and the bags with their contents of suspected dangerous drugs. They reached the place at about 5:50 in the afternoon of the same date of February 21, 1992. Retrieved from accused Cuizonin his residence was another bag also containing a white crystalline substance weighing 2.695 Kilos, likewise believed to be “shabu.” Laboratory examination of alleged substance proved that it was indeed shabu. The present three accused were charged in court. Trial court found the appellants guilty of violating Section 15 of RA. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. ISSUE: WON the the warrantless arrests and the warrantless searches conducted by the NBI legal and constitutional Ruling RULING: NO, where a person is searched without a warrant, and under circumstances other than those justifying a warrantless arrest, as discussed above, upon a mete suspicion that he has embarked on some criminal activity, and/or for the purpose of discovering if indeed a crime has been committed by him, then the search made of such person as well as his arrest are deemed illegal. the law requires that the search be incident to a lawful arrest, in order that the search itself may likewise be considered legal. Therefore, itis beyond cavil that a lawful arrest must precede the search of a person and his belongings. Were a search first undertaken, then an arrest effected based on evidence produced by the search, both such search and arrest would be unlawful, for being contrary to law. the warrantless arrests and searches are illegal. Scrutinizing the provisions of Sec. 5 of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court on lawful arrests without warrant, par. (c) of said section is obviously inapplicable, the appeliants not being escapees from a penal institution at the time of arrest. Par. (a) on the other hand requires that the person be arrested (i) after he has committed or while he is actually committing or is at least attempting to commit an offense, (ii) in the presence of the arresting officer(s). These at bench, for at the time of their arrest, appellants and appellant No offense had just been committed, or was actually committed or being attempted by any of the accused in the presence of the lawmen. Par. (b) of the same provision is likewise inapplicable since its equally exacting requirements have also not been met. The prosecution failed to establish that at the time of the arrest, an offense had in fact just been committed and the arresting officers had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the accused-appellants had committed it. Under the circumstances of the case, there was no sufficient probable cause for the arresting officers to believe that the accused were then and there committing a crime. The act per se of handing over the baggage, assuming the prosecution's version to be true; cannot in any way be considered a criminal act. Cuizon could not, by the mere act of handing over four pieces of luggage to the other two appellants, be considered to have committed the offense of "carrying and transporting" prohibited drugs. It was not even an act performed under suspicious circumstances as indeed, it took place in broad daylight, practically at high noon, and out in the open, in full view of the public. Furthermore, it can hardly be considered unusual, in an airport setting, for travellers andior their welcomers to be passing, handing over and delivering pieces of baggage, especially considering the somewhat obsessive penchant of our fellow countrymen for sending along ("pakikipadala”) things and gifts through friends and relatives.Moreover, one cannot determine from the external appearance of the luggage that they contained "shabu" hidden beneath some secret panel or false bottom. The only reason why such act of parting with luggage took on the color and dimensions of a felonious deed, at least as far as the lawmen were concerned, was the alleged tip that the NBI agents purportedly received that morning, to the effect that appellant Cuizon would be arriving that same day with a shipment of shabu. To quote from another decision of like import, "(A)11 they had was ieaeERRRTETER (rom the telephone caller), and about a crime that had yet to be committed.’ Case Facts Facts: On May 21, 1992, in the City of Surigao, Philippines, Roel Encinada, have in his possession, custody and control dried marijuana leaves weighing 800 grams, more or ae poe : : M/V Sweet Pearl, well knowing that such acts are expressly prohibited by law. In gross disregard of the prohibition of the provisions of Republic Act No. 6425 as amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 179. At around 4 p.m. of May 20,1992, SPO4 Nicolas Bolonia was in his house when he received a tip from an informant that Roel Encinada would be arriving in Surigao City from Cebu City in the morning of May 21, 1992 on board the M/V Sweet Pearl bringing with him marijuana, Bolonia was then Chief of the Vice Control Squad of the Surigao City Police. Bolonia already knew Encinada because the latter previously was engaged in illegal gambling known as buloy-buloy. lligan and other police officers deployed themselves to intercept Encinada. From their various positions, the police officers following Encinida immediately boarded a tricycle at Borromeo Street, still holding the plastic chairs. As the tricycle slowly moved forward,Bolonia chased it and ordered the driver. Bolonia asked Encinada to hand over the plastic chairs , to which the latter complied. Bolonia examined it closely and smelled the peculiar scent of marijuana. Making a small tear in the cellophane cover, Bolonia could see and smell what appeared to be marijuana, a prohibited drug. Encinada was brought to the central police station. Issue: Whether or not the warrantless search and the evidence is sufficient to convict Roel Encinada. Ruling Bolonia explained that he could not secure a warrant because the courts in Surigao City were already closed for the day. Thus, he and the other lawmen had no choice but to proceed the next morning to the port area. After appellant disembarked from the ship and rode a motorela, Bolonia stopped the motor vehicle and conducted the search, He rummaged through the two strapped plastic. baby chairs which were held by appellant and found inserted between them a package of marijuana wrapped in a small plastic envelope.circumstances, There is simply no sufficient evidence remaining to convict him. That the search disclosed a prohibited substance in appellants possession, and thus confirmed the police officers initial information and suspicion, did not cure its patent illegality. An illegal search cannot be undertaken and then an arrest effected on the strength of the evidence yielded by the search. PSI Bayan organized checkpoints in order "to intercept the suspect. member of the San Gabriel Police set up a checkpoint in the waiting area of passengers from San Gabriel bound for San Femando City. A passenger jeepney from Barangay Lun-Oy arrived. The jeepney driver disembarked and signalled to SPO1 Taracatac indicating the two male passengers who were carrying marijuana. Taracatac approached the two male passengers who were later identified as Victor RomanaCogaed and Santiago Sacpa Daya. Cogaed was carrying a blue bag and a sack while Dayao was holding a yellow bag. SPO1 Taracatac asked Cogaed and Dayao about the contents of their bags. After this exchange, Cogaed opened the blue bag, revealing three bricks of what looked like marijuana Cogaed then muttered, "nagloko daytoy nga Marvinen, kastoy met gayam ti nagyanna,"which translates to "Marvin is a fool, this is what [is] contained in the bag. "SPO1 Taracatac arrested Cogaed and company and brought them to the police station." Cogaed and Dayao "were still carrying their respective bags’ inside the station. The marijuana from Cogaed’s sack weighed 4,246.1 grams. The marijuana collected from Dayao’s bag weighed 5,092 grams. A total of 17,429.6 grams were collected from Cogaed’s and Dayao’s bags. Issue: WON a warrantless search and seizure as a result of an informers tip valid? Ruling Ruling: The search involved in this case was initially a "stop and frisk" search, but it did not comply with all the requirements of reasonability required by the Constitution "Stop and frisk" searches (sometimes referred to as Temysearches#) are necessary for law enforcement. That is, law enforcers should be given the legal arsenal to prevent the commission of offenses. However, this should be balanced with the need to protect the privacy of citizens The balance lies in the concept of'suspiciousness” present in the situation where the police officer finds himself or herself in. This may be undoubtedly based on the experience ofthe police officer. Experienced police officers have personal experience dealing with criminals and criminal behavior. Hence, they should have the ability to discern — based on facts that they themselves observe — whether an individual is acting in a suspicious manner. Clearly, a basic criterion would be that the police officer, with his or her personal knowledge, must observe the facts leading to the suspicion of an illicit act He was simply a passenger camying a bag and traveling aboarda jeepney. There was nothing suspicious, moreover, criminal, about riding a jeepney or camying a bag. The assessment ofsuspicion was not made by the police officer but by the jeepney driver. It was the driver who signalled to the police that Cogaed was “suspicious.” Itis the police officer who should observe facts that would lead to a reasonable degree of suspicion of a person. The police officer should not adopt the suspicion initiated by another person. This is necessary to justify that the person suspected be stopped and reasonably searched. = Anything less than this would be an infringementupon one’s basic right to security of one’s person and effects. There was not a single suspicious circumstance in this case, and there was no approximation for the probable cause requirement for warrantless arrest. The person searched was noteven the person mentioned by the informant. The informant gave the name of Marvin Buya, and the person searched was Victor Cogaed. Even ifit was true that Cogaed responded by saying that he was transporting the bag to Marvin Buya, this still remained only as one circumstance. This should not have been enough reason to search Cogaed and his belongings without a valid search warrant. There was not a single suspicious circumstance in this case, and The person searched was not even the person mentioned by the informant. The informant gave the name of Marvin Buya, and the person searched was Victor Cogaed. Even if it was true that Cogaed responded by saying that he was transporting the bag to Marvin Buya, this stil remained only as one circumstance. This should not have been enough reason to search Cogaed and his belongings without a valid search warrant. Footnote: RULES OF COURT, Rule 126, sec. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. — A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a ‘search warrant. Case P vs. Yanson, GR No. 238543, July 31, 2019 Facts Facts: Six (6) kilos of dried marijuana leaves/Indian Hemp, placed inside two (2) separate sacks, which is prohibited drugs. Jaime Sison, Leonardo Yanson, and Rosalie Bautista were accused of transporting along with them, in a vehicle Isuzu, colored Silver gray, with Plate No. SCC. 619, six (6) kilos of dried marijuana leaves placed inside two (2) separate sacks. The Municipal Police Station of M'lang, North Cotabato received a radio message about a silver gray Isuzu pickup—with plate number 619 and carrying three (3) people— that was transporting marijuana from Pikit. The Chief of Police instructed the alert team to set up a checkpoint on the riverside police outpost along the road from Matalam to Milang. The tipped vehicle reached the checkpoint and was stopped by the team of police officers on standby. The team leader asked the driver (Sison) about inspecting the vehicle. The driver alighted and, at an officer's prodding, opened the pickup's hood. Two (2) sacks of marijuana were discovered beside the engine. The Regional Trial Court sustained the search conducted on the tipped vehicle as a valid warranties search because, according to it, the accused consented anyway. Only Yanson appealed before the Court of Appeals. Yanson contended that theYanson asserted that searches at checkpoints, it Thus, he maintained that the further instruction for Sison to open the hood of their pickup amounted to an unreasonable intrusion and violation of privacy. Yanson added that Sison could never have freely consented to an extensive search The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's Joint Judgment. It ruled that there was. ptobable cause to conduct an extensive search since the information received by the police officers was sufficiently accurate, given how the pickup “was spotted in the place Where it was said to be coming from and was actually loaded with marijuana.” Issue: Whether or not a valid search and seizure was conducted on the pickup boarded by the accused. Ruling Ruling: No. There was no Valid Search and’ seizure ‘conducted. The accused were acquitted. A search of a moving vehicle is one (1) of the few permissible exceptions where warrantless searches can be made. ; i Ts remains imperative. Law enforcers do not enjoy unbridled discretion to conduct searches. In Caballes v. Court of Appeals: The mere mobility of these vehicles, however, does not give the police officers unlimited discretion to conduct indiscriminate searches without warrants if made within the interior of the territory and in the absence of probable cause. Still and all, the important thing is that there was probable cause to conduct the warrantless search, which must still be present in such a case. While probable cause does not demand moral certainty, or evidence sufficient to justify conviction, it requires the existence of "a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged tled and that th ought in nse a eto be searched" To maintain otherwise would be to sanction frivolity, opening the floodgates to unfounded searches. seizures, and arrests that may be initiated by sly informants. It cannot be said that Sison, the driver, consented to the search made by thearresting officers. Jurisprudence has settled that "mere passive conformity or silence to. all.” In any case, with evidence on corpus delici being inadmissible and placed beyond the Regional Trial Court's contemplation, the prosecution is left with a fatal handicap: it is insisting on the commission of the crime charged but is without evidence. Accused-appellant’s acquittal must ensue. Case P'vs. Gardon-Mentoy, GR No. 223140, September 42019 Facts Facts: 1,400 grams of Cannavis (sic) Sativa otherwise known as "MARIJUANA", The informant relayed to the team that the accused will be boarding a Charing 19 shuttle van with plate number VRA 698. The police officers flagged down the van as it approached them and declared that they were conducting a checkpoint, PO1 Rosales asked the passengers who among them was Rose and she presented herself. SPO2 Felizarte and PO1 Rosales, however, noticed that the accused-appellant transferred a block-shaped bundle, wrapped in yellow cellophane and brown tape, from the pink bag to a black one. SPO2 Felizarte and PO1 Rosales suspected this bundle to contain marijuana leaves. Rose then placed the black bag on a vacant seat beside her. SPO2 Felizarte also noticed that the accused-appellant panicked and tried to get down from the van, but he and PO1 Rosales restrained her. The RTC regarded the warrantless arrest of the accused-appellant as validly made upon probable cause and concluded that the State had established the corpus delicti of the crime by the testimonies of its witnesses. The CA rendered the assailed decision affirming the conviction of the acoused-appeliant. It opined that a search could precede an arrest if the police officers had probable cause to effect the arrest; that the warrantless search conducted on the personal effects of the accused-appeliant had been an incident of her lawful arrest; and that the Prosecution had adequately established the crucial links in the chain of custody. Issue: Whether or not there was a valid warrantless search and seizure. Ruling Ruling: No. There was no valid warrantless search and seizure. In holding that the warrantless search and seizure were without probable cause, the Court held that a tip, in the absence of other circumstances that would confirm theirWithout objective facts being presented here by which we can test the basis for not give unquestioned acceptance and belief to such testimony. The mere subjective conclusions of the officers concerning the existence of probable cause is never binding on the court whose duty remains to "independently scrutinize the objective facts to determine the existence of probable cause," for, indeed, "the courts have never hesitated to overrule an officer's determination of probable cause when none exists." But SPO2 Felizarte also claimed that it was about then when the accused- appellant panicked and tried to get down from the van, impelling him and PO1 Rosales to restrain her. For sure, the transfer made by the accused-appeliant of the block-shaped bundle from one bag to another should not be cited to justify the search if the search had earlier commenced at the moment PO1 Rosales required her to produce her baagage. A lawful arrest must precede a warrantless search conducted upon the personal. ‘effects of an individual. The process cannot be reversed. Hence, the search must rest on probable cause existing independently of the arrest. Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, clearly states that "[a] person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant." Accordingly, there should first be a. Jawiul_amest before the warrantless search can be made: the process cannot be reversed. As such, the search made against the accused-appellant would be valid only if Case Facts He checked all the baggage and personal effects of the passengers, but a small, gray-black pack bag on the seat at the rear of the bus caught his attention. He asked Who the owner of the bag was and he requested that the owner was Marcelo G. Saluday to board the bus and open the bag. Petitioner obliged and the bag revealed the following |‘SCAA Buco then asked the petitioner to produce proof of his authority to carry firearms and explosives. Unable to show any, petitioner was immediately arrested and informed of his rights The Office of the City Prosecutor for Davao City found probable cause to charge him with illegal possession of high-powered firearms, ammunition, and explosives under PD 1866. ISSUE: Whether or not the search conducted by Task Force Davao was illegal. Ruling RULING: In view of the foregoing, the bus inspection conducted by Task Force Davao at a_military_checknoint_constitutes_a_reasonable search. Bus No. 66 of Davao Metro Shuttle was a vehicle of public transportation where passengers have a reduced ‘expectation of privacy, Further, SCAA Buco merely lifted petitioner's bag. This visual and minimally intrusive inspection was even less than the standard x-ray and physical inspections done at the airport and seaport terminals where passengers may further be required to open their bags and luggage Considering the reasonableness of the bus search, Section 2, Article III of the Constitution finds no application, thereby precluding the necessity for a warrant. No. Section 2, Article Ill of the Constitution is not a blanket prohibition. Rather, it operates against "unreasonable" searches and seizures only. Conversely, when a search is "reasonable," Section 2, Article Ill of the Constitution does not apply. The prohibition of unreasonable search and seizure ultimately stems from a person's right to privacy. Hence, only when the State intrudes into a person's expectation of privacy, which society regards as reasonable, is the Fourth Amendment triggered. Conversely, where a person does not have an expectation of privacy or one's expectation of privacy is not reasonable to society, the alleged State intrusion is not a "search" within the protection of the Fourth Amendment. In Fortune Express, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, The Court held that ‘simple : : Concededly, a bus, a hotel and beach resort, and a shopping mall are all private property whose owners have every right to exclude anyone from entering. At the same time, however, because these private premises are accessible to the public, the State, Much like the owner, can impose non-intrusive security measures and filter those going in. The only difference in the imposition of security measures by an owner and the State is, the former emanates from the attributes of ownership under Article 429 of the Civil Code, while the latter stems from the exercise of police power for the promotion of public safety. Necessarily, a person's expectation of privacy is. diminished whenever he or she enters private premises that are accessible to the public. Bus No, 66 of Davao Metro Shuttle was a vehicle of public transportation where passengers have a reduced expectation of privacy. Further, in the conduct of bus searches, the Court lays down the following guidelines. Prior to entry, passengers and their bags and luggages can be subjected to a routine inspection akin to airport and seaport security protocol. In this regard, metal detectors and x-ray scanning machines can be installed at bus terminals. Passengers can also be frisked. In lieu of electronic scanners, passengers can be required instead toopen their bags and luggages for inspection, which inspection must be made in the passenger's presence. Should the passenger object, he or she can validly be refused entry into ‘the terminal. While in transit, a bus can still be searched by government agents or the security personnel of the bus owner in the following three instances. First, upon receipt of information that a passenger carries contraband or illegal articles, the bus where the passenger is aboard can be stopped en route to allow fot an inspection of the person and his or her effects. This is no different from an airplane that is forced to land upon receipt of information about the contraband or illegal articles carried by a passenger on board. Second, whenever a bus picks passengers en route, the prospective passenger can be frisked and his or her bag or luggage be subjected to the same routine inspection by government agents or private security personnel as though the person boarded the bus at the terminal. This is because unlike an airplane, a bus is able to stop and pick passengers along the way, making it possible for these passengers to evade the routine search at the bus terminal. Third, a bus can be flagged down at designated military or police checkpoints where State agents can board the vehicle for a routine inspection of the passengers andtheir bags or luggages. In both situations, the inspection of passengers and their effects prior to entry at the bus terminal and the search of the bus while in transit must also satisfy the following conditions to qualify as a valid reasonable search. First, as to the manner of the search, it must be the least intrusive and must uphold the dignity of the person or persons being searched, minimizing, if not altogether eradicating, any cause for public embarrassment, humiliation or ridicule. Second, neither can the search result from any discriminatory motive such as insidious profiling, stereotyping and other similar motives. In all instances, the fundamental rights of vulnerable identities, persons with disabilities, children and other similar groups should be protected. Third, as to the purpose of the search, it must be contined to ensuring public safety. Fourth, as to the evidence seized from the reasonable search, courts must be convinced that precautionary measures were in place to ensure that no evidence was planted against the accused ‘The search of persons in a public place is valid because the safety of others may be put at risk. Given the present circumstances, the Court takes judicial notice that public transport buses and their tenninals, just like passenger ships and seaports, are in that category. Aside from public transport buses, any moving vehicle that similarly accepts passengers at the terminal and along its route is likewise covered by these guidelines. Hence, whenever compliant with these guidelines, a routine inspection at the terminal or of the vehicle itself while in transit constitutes a reasonable search. Otherwise, the intrusion becomes unreasonable, thereby triggering the constitutional guarantee under Section 2, Article MI of the Constitution. To emphasize, the guidelines do not apply to privately-owned cars. Neither are they applicable to moving vehicles dedicated for private or personal use, as in the case of taxis, which are hired by only one or a group of passengers such that the vehicle can no longer be flagged down by any other person until the passengers on board alight from the vehicle. Case Facts FACTS:On July 4, 1988, at around 8:00 o'clock in the morning, the Narcotics Command (NARCOM) Detachment Office located at the Arix Building, Bokawkan Road, Baguio City, received information from one of its regular informants that acertain woman, 23. . Sats. Parajas ‘and Fider boarded the bus and thereupon Sgt. Parajas announced to the passengers that they were NARCOM agents and that they were going to search their baggage. At the back, Sgt. Parajas noticed a woman with curly hair seated at the right side (as one is facing the driver) of the last seat of the bus, with a travelling bag with black and orange stripes 4 on her lap. Sgt. Parajas inspected the bag and discovered three (3) bundles of marijuana leaves covered by assorted clothing. The bag and the contents thereof were confiscated and the woman arrested; she was later brought to the NARCOM office in Baguio City where she was booked and investigated. ISSUE: WON probable cause is present in the conduct of the warrantless search? WON the warrantless search is valid? Ruling HELD: The constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and seizures admits of certain exceptions. Aside from a search incident to a lawful arrest, a warrantless search had been upheld in cases of a moving vehicle, and the seizure of evidence in plain view, With regard to the search of moving vehicles, this had been justified on the ground that the mobility of motor vehicles makes it possible for the vehicle to be searched to move out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. This in no way, however, gives the police officers unlimited discretion to conduct warrantless searches of automobiles in the absence of probable cause. In the case at bar, the NARCOM officers had probable cause to stop and search all vehicles coming from the north at Acop, Tublay, Benguet in view of the confidential information they received from their regular informant that a woman having the same appearance as that of accused-appellant would be bringing marijuana from up north. They likewise have probable cause to search the accused-appellant's belongings since she fits the description given by the NARCOM informant.WHEREFORE, finding no error in the decision appealed from, the same is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. Case Facts Facts: This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court where in Medel Tangliben is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 4, Article Il of Republic Act 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 as amended) and sentencing him to life imprisonment, to pay a fine of P20,000 and to pay the costs. 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; that 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 information supplied by informers On March 2, 1982, in the municipality of San Fernando, Province of Pampanga, Philippines MEDEL TANGLIBEN, knowing fully well that Marijuana is a prohibited drug, have in his possession, (1) bag of dried marijuana leaves with an approximate weight of one (1) kilo and to transport (sic) the same to Olongapo City, without authority of law to do so, itis contended that the marijuana allegedly seized from the accused was a product of an unlawful search without a warrant and is therefore inadmissible in evidence. 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. Meanwhile, Rule 113, Sec. 5(a) provides that a peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. 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. Issue: WON the lower court erred in admitting as evidence the package of marijuana allegedly seized from Medel Tangliben as it was a product of an unlawful search without @ warrant. Ruling No, the search and seizure were valid. 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. Meanwhile, Rule 113, Sec. 5(a) provides: ‘A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person’ (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, /s actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. ‘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. In contrast, the case before us presented urgency. there was an informer who pointed to the accused-appellant as carrying marijuana, Faced with such on-the-spot information, the police officers hhad to act! uty There was not gic time to secure a search warrant, Facts: This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio where in Moises Maspil is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 4, Article Il of Republic Act 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 as amended) and sentencing him to life imprisonment, to pay a fine of P20,000 and to pay the costs. That on or about the 1st day of November, 1986, at Sayangan, Municipality of Atok, Province of Benguet, Maspil, transport and carry in transit from Sinto, Bauko, Mt. Province to Atok, Benguet One Hundred Eleven Kilos and Nine Grams (111.9 kilos), more or less, of dried marijuana leaves. Commanding Officer, Maj. Basilio Cablayan, had been earlier tipped off by some confidential informers that the herein accused Maspil and Bagking would be transporting a large volume of marijuana to Baguio City. The informers went along with the operatives to Sayangan. Maspil declared that on October 31, 1986, at the burned area along Lakandula Street, Baguio City, a certain Mrs. Luisa Mendoza hired the jeep of Maspil to transport her stock of dried fish and canned goods contained in cartons to Abatan, Buguias. They left Baguio City at about 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon and arrived at Abatan at 6 pm After unloading their cargo, Maspil and Bagking repaired to a restaurant for their dinner before undertaking the trip back to Baguio City. While eating, they were approached by two persons, one of whom they would learn later on to be a certain Danny Buteng Buteng inquired if they were going to Baguio City and upon being given an affirmative answer, he said that he would ride with them and that he has some cargo. Upon reaching Sayangan, Atok, Benguet, Maspil stopped at the Marosan Restaurant where they intended to take coffee. Their remaining passengers - Buteng and a companion - alighted and went to the restaurant. However, a soldier waved at Maspil to drive to where he was, which Maspil did. The soldier secured Maspil's permission to inspect their cargo after which he grabbed Maspil on the latter's left shoulder and asked who owned the cargo. Maspil told the soldier that the cargo belonged to their passengers who went to the restaurant. The soldier called for his companions and they went to look for Maspil's passengers in the restaurant, Later on, they returned and placed Maspil andBagking under arrest since their cargo turned out to be marijuana. Issue: WON that the marijuana allegedly seized was a product of an unlawful search without a warrant? Ruling: The Court affirmed the appeal finding Moises Maspil is found guilty. The search was conducted within reasonable limits. There was information that a sizable volume of marijuana will be transported to take advantage of the All Saints Day holiday wherein there will be a lot of people going to and from Baguio City. In fact, during the three day (October 30, 1986 to November 1, 1986) duration of the checkpoint, there were also other drug related arrests made aside from that of the two appellants. But even without the Valmonte ruling, the search would still be valid, This case involves a search incident to a lawful arrest which is one of the exceptions to the general tule requiring a search warrant. This exception is embodied in Section 12 of Rule 126 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure which provides: "SEC. 12. Search incident to 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." This case falls squarely within the exceptions. The appellants were caught in flagrante delicto since they were transporting the prohibited drugs at the time of theit arrest. (People v. Tangliben, G.R. No. 63630, April 6, 1990) A crime was actually being committed. ‘People vsiGuebral621Philz26(2009) + This case is about the requirement of authentication of seized prohibited drugs and the conduct of warrantless search of a suspect by the roadside based on probable cause. FACTS: The provincial prosecutor of Bulacan charged the accused Zenaida Quebral, Eusebio Quebral, Fernando Lopez, and Michael Salvador before the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan, in violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. PO3 Cecilio Galvez of the police force of Balagtas, Bulacan testified that the Chief of the Drug Enforcement Unit called him and other police officers to a briefing regarding a police informer's report that two men and a woman on board an owner type jeep with a specific plate number would deliver shabu, on the following day at a Petron Gasoline Station in Balagtas to Michael Salvador, a drug pusher in the police watch list. After a short briefing, PO3 Galvez and six other police officers went to the North Luzon Expressway Balagtas Exit, watching out for the owner type jeep mentioned. At around 4:00 p.m., a jeep with the reported plate number and with two men and a woman on board, came out of the Balagtas Exit.Galvez identified the two men as accused Eusebio Quebral, who drove the jeep, and accused-appellant Fernando Lopez and the woman as accused-appellant Zenaida Quebral. The police trailed the jeep as it proceeded to the town proper of Balaatas and entered a Petron gas station along the McArthur Highway.After a few minutes, a Tamaraw FX arrived from which accused- appellant Michael Salvador alighted. He walked towards the jeep and talked to accused Zenaida Quebral, who then handed a white envelope to him.On seeing this, PO3 Galvez, who was watching from about 15 meters in a tinted car, signaled his back-up team to move.The police officers surrounded the jeep. Galvez took the envelope from Michael, and saw five plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance which he believed was shabu. The Bulacan Provincial Crime Laboratory Office later examined and confirmed that it was shabu or methamphetamine hydrochloride. Appellants claimed that PO3 Galvez and his fellow police officers merely framed them up. RIC found all four accused guilly of the crime and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of PS million. While the CA was reviewing the case on appeal, accused Eusebio Quebral died, prompting it to dismiss the case against him, CA rendered judgment, entirely affirming the decision of the RTC. ISSUE: Whether or not there was an illegal arrest of the accused and that the police officers’ subsequent search of their persons incident to such arrest was also illegal. RULING: ‘The accused claim that since the police did not have valid grounds to arrest them, their subsequent search of them was illegal and the evidence of the seized shabu cannot be admitted in evidence against them. With the exclusion of the seized drugs, there would not be proof that they were passing them. The accused-appellants invoke the rule that a person may be arrested even without a warrant only: a) if he is caught in the act of committing a crime, b) if he has just committed a crime and the arresting officer pursued him, or ©) if he escaped from a legal confinement. It was more of a search preceding an arrest.The police officers had information that two men and a woman on board an owner type jeep would arrive in Balagtas and hand over a consignment of shabu at a gas station in town to a known drug dealer whose name was on the police watch list. When these things unfolded before their eyes as they watched from a distance, the police came down on those persons and searched them, resulting in the discovery and seizure of a quantity of shabu in their possession. In such a case, the search is a valid search justifying the arrest that came after it.The police acted on reasonable ground of suspicion or belief supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed. Since the seized shabu resulted from a valid search, it is admissible in evidence against the accused. It would have been impractical for the police to apply with the appropriate court for a search warrant since their suspicion found factual support only at the moment_ accused Eusebio Quebral, Fernando Lopez, and Zenaida_Quebralrendezvoused with Michael Salvador at the Petron gas station for the hand over of the drugs. An immediate search was warranted since they would have gone away by the time the police could apply for a search warrant. The drugs could be easily transported and concealed with impunity. infoumation_that-a-Gemin car bearing plate umber PFC ate ‘would delier_an . Acting on said tip, Antipolo City Chief of Police Major Rene Quintana dispatched a team of policemen to the area to conduct a surveillance. When the team arrived in Marville Subdivision, they saw the said Gemini car and immediately flagged it down. The driver of the car pulled to a stop and opened a window of said vehicle giving the policemen the opportunity to identify themselves as members of the Antipolo City Police Station. It was then that PO1 Manuel Padian (PO1 Padlan) saw a gun tucked on the appellant's waist. PO1 Padian inquired about the gun and Tuazon allegedly replied it did not belong to him nor could he produce any pertinent document relating to said firearm. This prompted PO3 Bueno to order Tuazon to get down from the car. As soon as Tuazon stepped down from the vehicle, PO3 Bueno saw five plastic sachets on the driver's seat, the contents of which Tuazon allegedly admitted to be shabu. Appellant was thereafter immediately brought to the police station. ISSUE: Whether or not there was an illegal warrantless arrest by PO3 Bueno on Tuazon. RULING: None. PO3 Bueno establishes beyond reasonable doubt Tuazon’s culpability. When a vehicle is flagged down and subjected to an extensive search, such a warrantless search has been held to be valid as long as the officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe prior to the search that they would find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle to be searched. We hold that the police had probable cause to effect the warrantless search of the Gemini car driven by appellant. No less than our Constitution recognizes the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. This right is encapsulated in Article Ill, Section 2 of the Constitution which states SEC. 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.‘Complementing this provision is the so-called exclusionary rule embodied in Section 3(2) of the same article — (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. It_is recognized, however, that these constitutional provisions against warrantless (1) warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence; (2) seizure of evidence in plain view; (3) search of a moving vehicle; (4) consented warrantless search; (8) customs search; (6) stop and frisk; and (7) exigent and emergency circumstances. In the case of People v. Lo Ho Wing, this Court suciiated on the ‘ationale for the thus: [The rules governing search and seizure have over the years been steadily liberalized whenever a moving vehicle is the object of the search on the basis of practicality. This is so considering that before a warrant could be obtained, the place, things and persons to be searched must be described to the satisfaction of the issuing judge — a requirement which borders on the impossible in the case of smuggling affected by the use of a moving vehicle that can transport contraband from one place to another with impunity. We might add that a warrantless search of a moving vehicle is justified on the ground that “itis not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.” Nevertheless, the exception from securing a search warrant when it comes to moving vehicles does not give the police authorities unbridled discretion to conduct a warranties search of an automobile. To do so would render the aforementioned constitutional stipulations inutile and expose the citizenry to indiscriminate police distrust which could amount to outright harassment. Surely, the policy consideration behind the exemption of search of moving vehicles does not encompass such arbitrariness on the part of the police authorities. In recognition of the possible abuse, jurisprudence dictates that at all times, it is required that probable cause exist in order to justify the warrantless search of a vehicle. "When dealing with a rapidly unfolding and potentially criminal situation in the city streets where unarguably there is no time to secure an arrest or a Search warrant, policemen should employ limited, flexible responses — like "stop-and-frisk” — which are graduated in relation to the amount of information they possess, the lawmen being ever vigilant to respect and not to violate or to treat cavalierly the citizen's constitutional rights against unreasonable arrest, search and seizure.” FACTS:‘At about 2:10 PM on April 11, 1988, Police Anti-Narcotics Unit of Kalookan City conducted surveillance along A. Mabini Street, in front of the Kalookan City Cemetery. This was done after receiving information that drug addicts were roaming around said area. Upon reaching the cemetery, the policemen chanced upon a Manalil, the petitioner, in front of the cemetery who appeared high on drugs. Manalili had reddish eyes and was walking in a swaying manner. Manalili was trying to avoid the policemen, but the officers were able to introduce themselves and asked him what he was holding in his hands. Manallli resisted. Policeman Espiritu asked him if he could see what the petitioner had in his hands. Manali showed his wallet and allowed the officer to examine it. Policeman Espiritu found suspected crushed marijuana residue inside. He kept the wallet and its marijuana contents and Manaiili to headquarters to be further investigated. ISSUE: Whether the search and seizure of the suspected marijuana is unreasonable, and hence inadmissible as evidence. RULING: In Philippine jurisprudence, the general rule is that a search and seizure must be validated by a previously secured judicial warrant; otherwise, such search and seizure is unconstitutional and subject to challenge. Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, gives this guarantee: Sec. 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. Any evidence obtained in violation of the mentioned provision is legally inadmissible in evidence as a “fruit of the poisonous tree," falling under the exclusionary rule: Sec. 3... (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of . . . the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. This right, however, is not absolute. The recent case of People vs. Lacerna enumerated five recognizes In these cases, the search and seizure may be made only with probable cause. Probable cause being at best defined as a reasonable ground of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man in the belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged; or the existence of such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the item(s), article(s) or object(s) sought in connection with said offense or subject to seizure and destruction by is in the place to be searched. Additionally, stop-and-frisk has already been adopted as another exception to the general rule against a search without a warrant.The elements of illegal possession of marjuana are: (a) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug: (b) such possession is not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. In the present case, petitioner effectively waived the inadmissibility of the evidence illegally obtained when he failed to raise the issue or object thereto during the trial The Supreme Court affirmed with modifications the trial court's decision to convict petitioner of illegal possession of marijuana residue largely on the strength of the arresting officers’ testimony. FACTS: That on or about 8 July 1992, at about 6:00 in the morning, the Coastguard personnel received information from NARCOM agent Ruben Laddaran that a suspected "shabu" courier by the name of Alvaro Saycon was on board the MV Dofia Virginia, which was arfiving at that moment in Dumaguete City. Upon receipt of the information, the Coastguard chief officer CPO Tolin, instructed them to intercept the suspect. A combined team of NARCOM agents and Philippine Coastguard personnel consisting of CPO Tolin, a certain Miagme, and Senior Police Officers Ruben Laddaran and Winifredo Noble of NARCOM posted themselves at the gate of Pier 1. ‘The MV Dofia Virginia docked at 6:00 a.m. that same morning at Pier 1 in Dumaguete City. Alvaro Saycon alighted from the boat carrying a black bag and went through the checkpoint manned by the Philippine Coastguard where he was identified by police officer Winiftedo Noble of NARCOM. Saycon was then invited to the Coastguard Headquarters at the Pier area. He willingly went with them. At the headquarters, the coastguard asked Saycon to open his bag, and the latter willingly obliged. In it were personal belongings and a maong wallet. Inside that maong wallet, there was a Marlboro pack containing the suspected "shabu'. When police officer Winifredo Noble asked Saycon whether the Marlboro pack containing the suspected "shabu" was his, Saycon merely bowed his head. Then Saycon, his bag and the suspected "shabu" were brought to the NARCOM office for bookin. ISSUE: ‘Whether the search of the accused's bag, without warrant, was illegal. RULING: Pine of the "black bag’ of appellant Saycon. It follows that the warrantless arrest of appellant Saycon which ensued forthwith, was also valid and lawful, since the police had determined, he was in fact carrying or transporting "shabu." The requirement that a judicial warrant must be obtained prior to the carrying out of a search and seizure is, however, not absolute.Clearly, the NARCOM Agents had to act quickly but there was not enough time to obtain a search warrant or a warrant of arrest. It was realistically not possible for either the NARCOM Agents or the Coastguard Officers to obtain a judicial search warrant or warrant of arrest in the situation presented by the case at bar. FACTS: At about 9:00 o'clock in the evening of July 9, 1992, SPO3 Jose Nifio, with CAFGU went to Barangay Caulangohan, Caibiran, Biliran to verify reports on the presence of armed persons roaming around the barangays of Caibiran. They met the group of Nilo Solayao who were drunk. The others except Solayao fled. SPOS Nifio told Solayao not to run away and introduced himself as "PC," after which he seized the dried coconut leaves which the latter was carrying and found wrapped in it a 49-inch long homemade firearm locally known as “latong.” Thereupon, SPOS Nifio confiscated the firearm and turned him over to the custody of the policemen of Caibiran who subsequently investigated him and charged him with illegal possession of firearms. RTC- guilty of illegal possession of firearms. Henee, this appeal. ISSUE: Whether or not the shotgun admitted in evidence was a product of an unlawful warrantless search. HELD: No, it is not a product of an unlawful warrantless search. Hence, there was no violation of unreasonable searches and seizures. In the case at bar, Solayao and his companions’ drunken actuations aroused the suspicion of SPO3 Nifio's group, as well as the fact that he himself was attired in a camouflage uniform or a jungle suit and that upon espying the peace officers, his companions fled. It should be noted that the peace officers were precisely on anintelligence mission to verify reports that armed persons were roaming around the barangays of Caibiran. Hence, there was probable cause to conduct a search even before an arrest could be made. In the present case, after SPO3 Nifio told accused-appellant not to run away, the former identified himself as a government agent. The peace officers did not know that he had committed, or was actually committing, the offense of illegal possession of firearms Under the circumstances, the government agents could not possibly have procured a search warrant first. FACTS: PO1 Fagcayang received information from his asset that a sale of marijuana was about to take place, he conducted a surveillance on the intended place and saw both appellants packing the suspected marijuana leaves into a brown bag with the markings “Tak Tak Tak Ajinomoto"; that appellants had physical possession of the subject brown bag from the time they left the house at Sitio Bugnay, Tinglayan, Kalinga until they boarded a Ford Fiera; that both appellants rode the Red Eagle Bus with body number 2008 bound for Baguio; that when the policemen conducted a search of the same bus at Sabangan, they found a pregnant woman with the same brown bag located in front of her under the driver's seat; that upon inspection, the bag was found to contain suspected marijuana leaves which when examined yielded positive for marijuana; that when appellant Daisy was invited by the police, appellant Luis went with her to the municipal hall. Appellants contend that the warrantless arrest and search made by the police officers was unlawful for lack of probable cause. The arrest was effected based on a radio message that "a pregnant woman accompanied by a man" was transporting marijuana, without any other description or identifying features of the appellants. They further contend that the prohibited articles were the fruits of an illegal search and seizure and are, therefore, inadmissible in evidence. ISSUE: Whether there was a violation of the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures. HELD: None. Even if the message, as regards the identities of the appellants, was merely relayed through a radio, there was a clear description of them to enable the policemen to identify appellants. Under these circumstances, the policemen had reasonable grounds to believe that appellants were dealing or transporting prohibited