TERRY V OHIO

FACTS

A Cleveland detective (McFadden), observed two strangers (petitioner and another man, Chilton) on a street corner,
pausing to stare in the same store window, which they did for a total of about 24 times. The officer ordered the three
into the store. He removed petitioner's overcoat, took out a revolver, and ordered the three to face the wall with their
hands raised. He patted down the outer clothing of Chilton and Katz and seized a revolver from Chilton's outside
overcoat pocket. He did not put his hands under the outer garments of Katz (since he discovered nothing in his pat-
down which might have been a weapon), or under petitioner's or Chilton's outer garments until he felt the guns. The
three were taken to the police station.

ISSUE:

Are the weapons admissible in evidence even though they were obtained under a warrantless “stop and frisk” search?

HELD:

YES, The court ruled that despite the fact that the arresting police officer lacked probable cause to arrest petitioner at
the time he made the "stop and frisk" warrantless intrusion upon petitioner that produced the weapon at issue, the
search satisfied the conditions of U.S. Const. amend. IV: the officer had a reasonable suspicion, based upon his
experience, that petitioner and his companions were about to commit a daytime robbery, and his belief that petitioner
was presently armed, dangerous, and posed a threat to him and to others justified both the officer's "stop" of petitioner
and the "frisk," or pat-down, of petitioner's overcoat. Furthermore, the court ruled that the search of the outer clothing
of petitioner and his companions was properly limited in time and scope in order for him to determine the presence of
weapons and to neutralize the danger posed

POSADAS V CA

FACTS

Pat. Ursicio Ungab and Pat. Umbra Umpar, both members of the Integrated National Police (INP) of the Davao
Metrodiscom were conducting a surveillance along Magallanes Street, Davao City when spotted Romeo Posadas carrying
a "buri" bag and they noticed him to be acting suspiciously.

They approached the petitioner and identified themselves as members of the INP. Petitioner attempted to flee but his
attempt to get away was thwarted by the two notwithstanding his resistance. They then checked the "buri" bag of the
petitioner where they found one (1) caliber .38 Smith & Wesson revolver with Serial No. 770196 1 two (2) rounds of live
ammunition for a .38 caliber gun 2 a smoke (tear gas) grenade, and two (2) live ammunitions for a .22 caliber gun.

He was prosecuted for illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions in the Regional Trial Court of Davao City wherein
after a plea of not guilty and trial on the merits a decision was rendered on October 8, 1987 finding petitioner guilty of
the offense.

CA affirmed the appealed decision in toto. Hence, the petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether or not the warrantless search is valid.

HELD

Yes.

Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure provides as follows:

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;

At the time the peace officers in this case identified themselves and apprehended the petitioner as he attempted to flee
they did not know that he had committed, or was actually committing the offense of illegal possession of firearms and
ammunitions. They just suspected that he was hiding something in the buri bag. They did now know what its contents
were. The said circumstances did not justify an arrest without a warrant.
Thus, as between a warrantless search and seizure conducted at military or police checkpoints and the search thereat in
the case at bar, there is no question that, indeed, the latter is more reasonable considering that unlike in the former, it
was effected on the basis of a probable cause. The probable cause is that when the petitioner acted suspiciously and
attempted to flee with the buri bag there was a probable cause that he was concealing something illegal in the bag and
it was the right and duty of the police officers to inspect the same.

Clearly, the search in the case at bar can be sustained under the exceptions heretofore discussed, and hence, the
constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures has not been violated.

PEOPLE V SOLAYO

FACTS

SPO3 Jose Niño, narrated that at about 9:00 o’clock in the evening of July 9, 1992, with CAFGU members, they were to
conduct an intelligence patrol as required of them by their intelligence officer to verify reports on the presence of armed
persons roaming around the barangays. The team of Police Officer Niño proceeded to Barangay Onion where they met
the group of accused-appellant Nilo Solayao numbering five. The former became suspicious when they observed that
the latter were drunk and that accused-appellant himself was wearing a camouflage uniform or a jungle suit. Accused-
appellant’s companions, upon seeing the government agents, fled. Police Officer Niño told accused-appellant 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 know as “latong.”

ISSUE

Whether the court erred in admitting the confiscated firearm as evidence against the accused with no valid search and
arrest warrant

HELD

The court ruled that the search and seizure brought about by the suspicious conduct of the accused himself can be
likened to a “stop and frisk” situation. There was probable cause to conduct a search even before an arrest could be
made. In the present case, after SPO3 Niño told accused-appellant not to run away, the former identified himself as a
government agents. The peace officers did not know that he had committed, or was actually committing, the offense of
illegal possession of firearm.

MALACAT V CA

FACTS:

Four (4) police officers were conducting a patrol in Quiapo due to bomb threats that had been occurring in the area for
the last seven (7) days. They found two groups of Muslim-looking men standing on opposite sides of the Quezon
Boulevard corner who were acting suspiciously and their eyes were moving very fast. After thirty minutes of observing
the two groups, they decided to approach one of the groups. Upon seeing the policemen, the groups fled in all
directions. Fortunately, one of the men later identified as Malacat, was apprehended. Without a warrant, the police
officer searched him and found a grenade tucked inside his front waist line. Malacat was arrested and charged with
illegal possession of explosives.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the search and seizure conducted by the police was valid.

RULING:

YES.

The general rule as regards arrests, searches and seizures is that a warrant is needed in order to validly effect the same.
The Constitutional prohibition against unreasonable arrests, searches and seizures refers to those effected without a
validly issued warrant, subject to certain exceptions. As regards valid warrantless arrests, these are found in Section 5,
Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.
A warrantless arrest under the circumstances contemplated under Section 5(a) has been denominated as one "in
flagrante delicto," while that under Section 5(b) has been described as a "hot pursuit" arrest. Turning to valid
warrantless searches, they are limited to the following:

(1) customs searches;

(2) search of moving vehicles;

(3) seizure of evidence in plain view;

(4) consent searches;

(5) a search incidental to a lawful arrest; and

(6) a "stop and frisk.

The trial court confused the concepts of a "stop-and-frisk" and of a search incidental to a lawful arrest. These two types
of warrantless searches differ in terms of the requisite quantum of proof before they may be validly effected and in their
allowable scope.

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

Here, there could have been no valid in flagrante delicto or hot pursuit arrest preceding the search in light of the lack
of personal knowledge on the part of Yu, the arresting officer, or an overt physical act, on the part of petitioner,
indicating that a crime had just been committed, was being committed or was going to be committed.

MANALILI V CA