JEFFREY MIGUEL Y REMEGIO, Petitioner vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent
FACTS: ISSUE/S:
BB Bahoyo received a report that certain man (Miguel) was intoxicated and
showing off his private parts at Kaong St. Hence, BB Bahoyo and his fellow
Bantay Bayan operative went to the place and indeed saw BB Bahoyo urinating,
intoxicated and showing off his private parts.
Thereafter, Bantay Bayan asked him where he lived and the petitioner
claimed that he lived in the said area, but the Bantay bayan did not believe him
so they asked him again. Consequently, the petitioner emptied his pocket
revealing a pack of cigarette and a 2 roll of marijuana.
With that, the Bantay bayan arrested him and brought him to the police
station. Consequently, he was charged for the crime of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs.
The RTC ruled that the petitioner is guilty for the illegal possession of
dangerous drugs and that the warrantless arrest was valid as he was showing his
private parts in the public. And the search of marijuana and its seizure incident
to a lawful warrantless arrest is therefore valid.
The CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC that the arrest was lawful and that the
search of marijuana incident to a lawful warrantless arrest is also valid.
Hence, the petitioner filed an appeal before the SC claiming that his arrest
was unlawful as well as the search conducted incident to his arrest.
RULING:
WON the Bill of Rights 1. We must distinguish. The SC explained that the Bill of Rights cannot be
can be invoked against invoked against the acts of private individuals, however it may be applicable if such
private individuals? (in individual act under the color of state related function.
this case the Bantay In the case at bar, Bantay Bayan operatives are civilian volunteers who are force
Bayan operatives). multipliers to assist the law enforcement agency in maintaining the peace and
security in the community. And it has been upheld by the Court in various cases
mentioned that Bantay bayan Operatives, whose function is related to the
WON the arrest and preservation of peace and order in their respective areas have the color of a state
search of the petitioner related function. As such, they shall be deemed as law enforcement authorities for
is valid? the purpose of applying the Bill of Rights to them.
2. No, the arrest and the search is invalid. The SC explained that the Bill of
Rights mandates that for a person to be arrested or search a warrant must be secured
by the arresting officer predicated upon the finding of probable cause by the judge
issuing the warrant. Moreover, the said Bill of Rights also states that any
unreasonable searches and seizure must be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose
in any proceeding.
However, under Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, Sec 5 provides instances
when arrest without warrant is lawful.
1. When in his presence, the person to be arrested, is actually committing,
or is attempting to commit an offense (in flagrante delicto);
2. When an offense has just been committed and the arresting officer has
probable cause to believe based on his personal knowledge of facts and
circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it (hot pursuit
doctrine); and
3. When the person to be arrested was an escapee.
As regards the in flagrante delicto, 2 elements must concur: 1. There must be an
overt act; and 2. that the act must be done in the presence of the arresting officer.
In the case at bar, there is no showing that the petitioner committed overt act in
relation to the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs in the presence of the
arresting officers. The only act he was doing was that he was peeing in the public
intoxicated.
As regards the hot pursuit, it requires that:
1. At the time of the arrest the offense had just been committed;

MARIO VERIDIANO Y SAPI, Petitioner vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent
FACTS:
The petitioner, Veridiano was charged for the crime of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs. A concerned citizen tipped the Nagcarlan Police Staion that a
certain alias baho who was later identified as Veridiano was on his way to San
Pablo City to obtain illegal drugs.
Acting on the said report, the police authorities set up a check point. For the
police officers they knew who was Veridiano, hence, when the jeep was coming
to the checkpoint and the police saw Veridiano on board said jeep, the said jeep
2. That the arresting officer must have personal knowledge indicating that
the accused had committed it.
In the case at bar, the arresting officer has no personal knowledge of the fact and
circumstances that the petitioner committed the crime, their basis are just merely
from a tip, which is a hearsay.
ISSUE/S: RULING:
WON there was a valid 1. No, the warrantless arrest was invalid. The SC held that as a general rule,
warrantless search pursuant to Bill of Rights, Article III, Section 2, requires that in order for a search
incident to a lawful and seizure to be valid, a warrant must be necessary otherwise any evidence
arrest? obtained in violation of the said provision shall be inadmissible in evidence.
However, the Court held that there are some circumstances in which warrant is
WON there was a valid not necessary. Those circumstances are as follows:
warrantless search 1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;
was flagged down and ordered the passengers including Veridiano to disembark.
At that time Veridiano was ordered to raise his t-shirt, and the police found a
tea bag containing the marijuana. Consequently, the petitioner was arrested.
The petitioner in his defense claimed that the arrest was illegal because he
did not perform any act that would give the police officers reasonable ground to
believe that he has committed or that he was committing a crime. And that the
seizure of the marijuana found in his possession was inadmissible in evidence
because if the arrest was illegal therefore the search incident to such illegal
arrest shall also be illegal.
The prosecution in their answer claimed that the illegality of arrest affects
only the jurisdiction of the court. But because he entered his plea before the
RTC, his right to question the illegality of arrest has been waived. As regards
the illegal search claim, the prosecution claimed that because of the petitioner’s
submissive deportment it constitutes consent to a warrantless arrest.
On Appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC claiming that the
petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto, and even assuming the arrest was
illegal but because of his entering his plea before the RTC it constitute as a
waiver of his right to question the validity of his illegal arrest.
Hence, the present case.
against the petitioners? 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
As regards the warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest, the Court 1 st
discussed WON the arrest was valid. According to the Court, as a GR: Warrant of
Arrest is necessary, however there are 3 exceptions: 1. Caught in flagrante delicto;
2. Hot Pursuit; and 3. When the person to be arrested was an escapee.
The first exemption, caught in flagrante delicto requires to circumstances
namely: 1. Overt Act; and 2. The crime has been committed, actually committed or
is attempted to be committed in the presence or within the view of the arresting
officer.
In the case at bar, the Court held that he cannot be caught in flagrante delicto as
the CA ruled because he did not perform any act (overt act) indicating that he
committed or is committing an offense. In fact he was just a mere passenger of the
jeep. The reliance of tip from a reliable source is insufficient, because in in flagrante
delicto, requires that the crime ahs been performed in the presence of within the
view of the arresting officer.
The 2nd exemption, Hot pursuit arrest is also inapplicable because in such
exemption it requires that the arresting officer has personal knowledge that the
crime has been committed, and that the crim has been indeed happened. In the case
at bar, the police officer has no personal knowledge of the fact and circumstances
because they just relied on the tip which they considered as reliable.
From the foregoing therefore, the warrantless arrest was invalid.
2. The warrantless search was therefore invalid. The SC explained that one of the
exception of warrantless arrest is the Stop and Frisk. This stop and Frisk is the act
of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street, interrogate him and then pat him
for any weapons or contrabands.
For the said Stop and Frisk to be valid, the law enforcer must have genuine
reason to believe based on his observation or experience and particular
circumstances that a crime may be afoot. Thus, reliance on one suspicious activity
alone cannot produce a reasonable search of stop and frisk.
In the case at bar, petitioner did not act that would cause the police officer to be
suspicious of him that he had drugs in his possession.
 As regards Consent to a warrantless Search, the SC held that the consent must
be uniequivocal, specific and intelligently given without the presence of coercion.
In the rpesent case, there can be no consented search because, although the
petitioner is submissive of the search conducted to him, that is because of the
presence of coercive force of the police officers. Hence, the consent was not validly
obtained.
As regards the Search of a moving Vehicle – whose variant is Checkpoint, the
SC held that checkpoint per se are valid. However, the checkpoint must be done by
the authorities in such a way that it is limited to visual search, that means the
person inside the vehicle must not be subjected to a body search neither the inside
of the vehicle. There is an exemption to this case, that is if there is probable cause to
believe that the vehicle passengers has committed the crime or when the vehicle
contains instrument of an offense.
From the foregoing discussion, therefore the warrantless search is invalid there
being no search warrant and that it cannot be said to be one of those exempted in
obtaining search warrants.
 MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, et.al., Petitioner vs HON. RAMON P. MAKASIAR, et.al., Respondents
FACTS: ISSUE/S:
The petitioners in this case raised several issues claiming WON they were WON the petitioners’
deprived due process of law when an information was filed before the Court constitutional right was
considering that the determination of prima faciae case was still pending before violated? (no warrant
the Secretary of Justice and Consequently by the President; WON the of arrest shall issue
petitioners’ constitutional rights were violated when the judge issued a warrant except upon probable
of arrest without personally examining the complainant and the witnesses; and cause to be determined
lastly, WON the president may initiate criminal proceedings against the personally by the judge
petitioners through filing a complaint-affidavit. after examination
Consequently, as regards the violation of his right to due process has been under oath)
rendered moot and academic when the DOJ and the Office of the President
affirmed that there exist prima faciae case against the petitioners. Hence, the
issue that must be resolved now is WON the petitioners’ constitutional right was
violated (no warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge after examination under oath?
RULING:
No, the Constitutional right of the petitioner was no violated. Under Art III,
Section 2 of the Constitution requires that no 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.
From the foregoing provision, the Judge is not actually required to personally
examine the complainant and his witnesses. It suffices the requirement of the
constitution if he:
1. Personally evaluate the reports and its supporting documents submitted by the
fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and he find indeed that there was
probable cause; or
2. If on the basis of such reports and supporting documents he finds no probable
cause; thus, he may disregard the report of the fiscal.
Thus, from the foregoing, the issuance of the judge of warrant of arrest based on
the reports submitted to him by the Fiscal suffices the requirement of the
constitution under Sec 2, Art III.
 VICENTE LIM, SR., et.al., Petitioner vs HON. NEMESIO S. FELIX, et.al., Respondents
FACTS:
In this case, Congressman Moises Espinosa, Sr. and 3 of his security guards
were killed in an assassination plot against the said congressman, and only one
of the guards were luckily survived on that plot.
Consequently, an investigation transpired and which cause the filing of
complaint against the herein petitioners. The petitioners were charged for the
crime of multiple murder and one frustrated murder.
During the preliminary examination, the court weighed the affidavits and
answers of the witnesses of the prosecution, thereby establishing probable cause
which thus necessitates the issuance of a warrant of arrest against the herein
petitioners. Consequently, this probable cause was affirmed by the Provincial
Fiscal.
However, the petitioners asked for the changed of venue from RTC Masbate
to RTC Makati to avoid miscarriage of justice. The SC granted the said petition.
Consequently, the petitioners filed several motions and manifestations which
prayed to the court to review the findings of RTC Masbate WON there is
probable cause for the issuance of warrant of arrest.
Subsequently, the RTC Makati denied said motions for lack of merit who
merely relied on the Provincial Prosecutor’s certification, without any attached
supporting documents, the said supporting documents are still in Masbate.
Hence, the petitioner filed a petition before the SC.
ISSUE/S: RULING:
WON the RTC of No. the Court cannot just rely on the Prosecutor’s certification and
Makati may issue a recommendation. The SC held that: A warrant of arrest may be issued if the judge is
warrant of arrest by satisfied from the preliminary examination conducted by him, or by the
simply relying on the investigating officer that there is reasonable ground to believe (probable cause) that
Prosecutor’s the offense has been committed and that the accused is the one who committed it.
certification and The Court also held that, although the Constitution requires that judges must
recommendation that a personally examine the complainant and the witnesses, but it does not necessarily
probable cause exists? mean that the judge himself must conduct an examination and interview of the
complainant and the witnesses what really suffices such constitutional requirement
is that:
1. Personally evaluate the reports and its supporting documents submitted by the
fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and he find indeed that there was
probable cause; or
2. If on the basis of such reports and supporting documents he finds no probable
cause; thus, he may disregard the report of the fiscal.
The Court also made differentiation between Preliminary Inquiry or examination
and Preliminary Investigation. The latter pertains to the function of the fiscal to
determine the probable cause that would justify the filing of the complaint or
information before the Courts. On the other hand, the former pertains to a judicial
function after an information or complaint ahs been filed before the court.
In the present case, the RTC Makati just relied on the certification and
recommendation of the Fiscal without personally examining the reports and its
supporting documents. These documents were still in Masbate when the Judge
issued warrant of Arrest.
 BACHE & CO., et.al., Petitioners vs HON. JUDGE VIVENCIO M. RUIZ, et.al., Respondents
FACTS:
Misael P.Vera, CIR request to the respondent judge for the issuance of
Warrant of Arrest against the petitioners for violating the NIRC,. Consequently,
De Leon, the revenue examiner as well as his witness went to the CFI and
brought several documents to secure the issuance of Warrant of Arrest and their
depositions.
At the time of application, the judge was on a hearing, hence the latter
ordered his clerk of court to take the said depositions, consequently, upon
request of the said Judge, the stenographer red to him her stenographic notes of
the depositions and thereafter asked the witness, Logronio to take oath and
warned him that if his deposition was found to be false, he would be liable for
perjury.
Consequently, the said Search warrant was served to the herein petitioners
which yielded 6 boxes of documents.
However, the petitioners filed a petition before the CFI to quash the said
search warrant on the ground that the respondent judge failed to personally
examine the complaint and the witness; the warrant was issued for more than
one specific offense (NIRC – Filing of income tax returns; withholding of
income taxes; unlawful pursuit of business or occupation; and failure to make a
return of receipts, sales etc.); and the search warrant does not particularly
describe the things to be seized.
Hence, the present case.
ISSUE/S: RULING:
WON the respondent Yes, the respondent judge failed to examine personally the complainant and his
judge failed to witness. The SC cited Sec 2, Art. III of the Constitution that: Xxx No warrants
personally examine the shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by a judge
complainant and the after examination under oath or affirmation by the complainant and the
witnesses? witnesses he may produce and particularly describing the place to be searched
and the persons or things to be seized.
These requirement of personal examination by a judge of the complainant and
WON the search his witnesses is necessary to enable him to determine the existence of probable
warrant was issued for cause. Probable cause is necessary for the issuance of warrant, without which no
more than one specific warrant shall be issued pursuant to the Constitution and revised Rules on Criminal
offense? Procedure. These personal examinations shall not be delegated to others because it
calls for the exercise of judgment by a judge.
In the case at bar, although the depositions were taken and were subscribed and
WON the search sworn to the respondent judge, the latter failed to personally examine the
warrant does not complainant and his witness, his only participation in the issuance of the search
particularly describe warrant is the listening to the stenographer’s reading of her notes and a few
the things to be seized? warnings to the witness that he may be held liable for perjury. The mere listening to
stenographic notes did not constitute personal examination, because the judge was
not able to observe the demeanor of the complainant and his witness, and to
propound questions to ascertain the validity of their claims.
2. Yes, the search warrant contains more than one specific offense. The SC, upon
perusal of the said law (NIRC) has determined that the Search Warrant was issued
for at least 4 distinct offenses under NIRC, namely: Filing of income tax returns;
withholding of income taxes; unlawful pursuit of business or occupation; and
failure to make a return of receipts, sales etc.
3. Yes, the SC held that upon perusal of the said Search warrant, it did not
particularly describe the things to be seized pursuant to the requirement of the
 Constitution and the Revised Rules of Court.
The SC explained that the purpose of particularly describing the things to be
searched is to:
1. Limit the things to be seized to those particularly described in the
warrant; and
2. leave the officers of the law no discretion regarding what articles they
shall seize.
A search warrant may be said to particularly described the things to be seized 1.
when the description therein is as specific as circumstances will ordinarily allow
OR; 2. when the things described are limited to those which bear direct relation to
the offense for which the warrant is being issued.
In the present case, the search warrant did not conform to any of the foregoing
tests the language used therein is so all-embracing as to include all conceivable
records of petitioner corporation, which if seized could possibly render its business
inoperative, as it involve both legal and illegal transactions.
The Search warrant in making description of the things to be seized must have
included the dates, amounts, persons and other pertinent data relevant to the receipts
of payments, etc.

JOSEFINO S. ROAN, Petitioner vs HON. ROMULO T. GONZALES, et.al., Respondents

FACTS: ISSUE/S: RULING:

The Military authorities has allegedly conduct and illegal search and seizure WON the search 1. Yes, it is not valid. First, the SC held that although the depositions of the
in the property of the petitioner. The search and seizure was conducted on the warrant issued by the complainant’s witnesses were taken by the respondent judge, however his basis for
basis that a search warrant was issued by the respondent Judge upon finding of
probable cause. However, during the seizure of the property of the petitioner,
none of the properties listed in the search warrant were seized, but because of
such warrant, a revolver was found and thus confiscated from the petitioner.
This is now the basis of the charge against the petitioner.
Consequently, the petitioner claimed that the search and seizure conducted
was illegal because the judge did not take the depositions of the complainant
and his witnesses, and thus the revolver confiscated and is now being used as
evidence against him for the crime of illegal possession of firearms be
inadmissible as evidence in the court.
respondent judge is not the issuance of search warrant was merely based on the affidavit, whose
valid? participation is just limited to ascertaining whether the complainant and the
witnesses know and understand the affidavit they provided.
According to the Court, affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are not
sufficient, a judge must take the depositions in writing of the complainant and his
witnesses for the search warrant to be valid.
Moreover, the judge himself admitted that the complainant (applicant) was
asking for the issuance of search warrant based his informations stated therein on
hearsays only, hearsay – because the information filed by the complainant is not
based on his personal knowledge. It is required that the complainant must have
information personally known to him so that he can be held liable for perjury in
case the complainant’s declarations are false.
Assuming that the depositions of the witnesses is enough for the issuance of the
search warrant and not of the applicant, however there is still question as to the
sufficiency of their depositions, because those depositions are just mere
restatements of their affidavits, it also appears that the Judge did not propound
questions to ascertain the validity of their claims.
As regards the claims of the SOLGEN that regardless of irregularity of search
warrant, the petitioner has voluntarily submitted himself to the search and this was
manifested in writing. However, the SC refute this claim, that there was no consent
at all, because he was coerced by the military.
As regards the claim that since the magnum pistol was prohibited (mala
prohibita), it must be confiscated even without the warrant. The SC disagreed and
claimed that prohibited articles (mala prohibita) may be seized as long as the search
warrant is valid. In the present case, the warrant is not valid, and the right against
unreasonable searches and seizure was not validly waived by the petitioner, hence,
the seizure of the pistol and the bullets is illegal. Even if the material to be seized is
prohibited, warrants are still necessary and must not be summarily seized. If the rule
were otherwise, then the military authorities could have just entered the premises of
the petitioner’s house without first securing a warrant.
The present case, does not also come under any exceptions of valid warrantless
search. From the foregoing, the search warrant was not valid.
 NARCISO ALVAREZ, Petitioner vs CFI TAYABAS, et.al., Respondents

FACTS: ISSUE/S: RULING:

The Anti Usury Board of the DOJ presented an affidavit before the Judge of WON the Search 1. The Search warrant is not valid because it is based on an affidavit that
CFI Tayabas alleging that the petitioner kept in his house several documents, Warrant is invalid on contains hearsay informations. The SC held that under Article III Section 2 of the
books and receipts used by him in connection with his activities as a money the ground that: Constitution requires that a search warrant shall not issue except upon probable
lender who is involved in imposing usurious rates of interests which is violative 1. the affidavit of the cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or
of the law. applicant contains mere affirmation by the complainant and his witnesses he may produce.
Relying on the said affidavit the Judge of CFI issued a search warrant which hearsay informations? From the foregoing, 2 requirements are necessary for the issuance of a search
also enumerates several articles to be seized by the authorities. The said warrant 2. that it is not warrant: 1. Finding of Probable Cause and 2. Its basis must be the oath of the
may also be served against the petitioner at any time of the day or night. supported by other applicant and his witnesses.
Consequently, the authorities served the search warrant which led to seizure affidavits? The Oath referred thereof must be based to the truth of the facts within the
of several artciles owned by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner protested 3. that it can be served personal knowledge of the petitioner OR his witnesses, because the purpose of the
against the seizure of his documents because search warrant issued is illegal on even at night? oath is to convince the committing magistrate that there exists a probable cause.
the ground that: 4. the articles to be In view of the foregoing, since the affidavits which served as the basis of search
 1. The basis of search warrant is the affidavit of the agent of Usury Board,
who admitted that he has no personal knowledge of the facts but his knowledge
thereof was just based on the information given to him by a reliable source;
2. The search warrant is not supported by other affidavits aside from the
affidavit made by the applicant;
3. The search warrant can be served even at night;
4. The search warrant is lacking of adequate description of the books and
documents to be searched and seized; and
5. The Search Warrant is illegal because it was only secured in order to seize
the articles and use them thereafter against him in a criminal case.
However, the CFI ruled the validity of the said search warrant. Hence, the
present case.
seized are not warrant is based on hearsay therefore the search warrant is illegal.
particularly described?
5. it is used as a means 2. Affidavits of the witnesses is not really necessary. The Court held that the
of obtaining evidence purpose of the Constitution requiring supporting affidavits other than the affidavit
that can be used against of the applicant is for the purpose of satisfying the committing magistrate that there
the petitioner in a exists probable cause for the issuance of a warrant.
criminal case? However, when the affidavit of the complainant contains sufficient facts within
his personal and direct knowledge, it is sufficient if the judge is satisfied that there
exists a probable cause, but when the applicant’s affidavit is a mere hearsay, the
affidavit of one or more witness having a personal knowledge of the acts is
necessary. However, in this case the affidavit of the applicant was just based merely
on hearsay information and no other affidavits has been proposed containing
personal and direct knowledge of the facts.
3. A Search warrant can be validly served even at night pursuant to general
Oder No. 58. However, since in the case at bar, the search warrant is illegal,
therefore its service at night is also illegal.
4. The Search Warrant, pursuant to the Constitution and General Order No. 58,
requires that it must contain particular description of the place to be searched and
the person or things to be seized. This requirement is mandatory and must be
complied with but where:
“by nature of the goods to be seized, their description must be rather general, it
is not required that a technical description be given, as this would mean that no
warrant could issue”.
In the case at bar, since it is clear that the enumerated and described articles to be
searched and seized can no longer be particularly described, and these articles were
described in such a way that it can be identified from other articles which are not
the subject of the search warrant, then the description made in the search warrant
has sufficiently complied with the requirement of the constitution and the laws.
5. The Search warrant is invalid. The SC held that the seizure of documents and
books by means of search warrant, for the purpose of using them as evidence in
criminal case against the person in whose possession they were found, is
unconstitutional because it makes the warrant unreasonable and equivalent to a
violation of the constitutional provision prohibiting the compulsion of an accused to

MICROSOFT CORP., et.al. Petitioners vs MAXICORP. INC., Respondent
FACTS:
NBI Agent Samiano filed several applications for the issuance of search
warrants before the RTC against the MaxiCorp for alleged violation of PD 49
Intellectual property and Unfair Competition under RPC. After conducting a
preliminary examination of the applicant and his witness the issued 4 search
warrants under the same date.
Consequently, the said search warrant was served by the nbi agents and
thereafter seized all the articles indicated in the said warrant. However, the
respondent filed its motion to quash on the ground that the warrant is a general
warrant and there was no probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant.
The RTC averred that the search warrant is based upon probable cause after
its examination of the applicant and his 2 witnesses, who testified that the
MaxiCorp is involved in the packaging, installing, marketing, etc of the
petitioner Microsoft’s products.
Consequently, the CA reversed the decision of the RTC claiming that the
applicant nad his witnesses failed to provide conclusive evidence during the
preliminary examination, that the MaxiCorp produced or sold the counterfeit
products of the Microsoft.
Hence, the present case.
testify against himself.
ISSUE/S: RULING:
WON there was Yes, there was probable cause for the issuance of search warrants. The SC held
probable cause to issue that a Probable Cause means such facts and circumstances that would lead a
search warrants? reasonably prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and the
objects sought in connection with that offense are in the place to be searched.
The judge as required by the constitution before he issue a search warrant must
WON the search determine the probable cause after personally examining under oath the
warrants are general complainant and his witnesses. The oath referred to must be based on the truth of
warrants? the facts within the personal knowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses because
the purpose thereof is to convince the committing magistrate that there exists
probable cause.
In the case at bar, the court during the preliminary examination examined the
applicant (nbi agent) and his 2 witnesses who testified and coupled with
documentary evidence that during their visit in the respondent’s place saw that they
are involved in an illegal production, sale and installment of the Microsoft’s
softwares.
With these testimonies and documentary evidence the Court held that they were
able to establish the existence of the probable cause. The Court also explained that
in determination of probable cause, it is not necessary that it be proved conclusively
or beyond reasonable doubt, the probable cause is only concerned with the
probability and not absolute or even moral certainty. The conclusive proof or proof
beyond reasonable doubt is only necessary during the trial.
2. NO, the search warrant is not a general warrant. The SC held that a search
warrant must state particularly the place to be search and the persons or thing to be
seized. The evident purpose of the law is to limit the seizure of the articles only to
those described in the search warrants. Moreover, these search warrants must also
be in connection with one specific offense. Thus, the articles described therein must
bear a DIRECT RELATION TO THE OFFENSE for which the warrant is issued.
The requirement that the search warrant must particularly described the articles
to be seized is required only if the circumstances will ordinarily allow. In the
present case, it is not par e which is general but paragraph c because its description
is all embracing because it covers property used for personal and other purpose not
related to the copyright infringement or unfair competition.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs MODESTO TEE, Accused-Appellant
FACTS:
The appellant was a Chinese national who resides in Baguio City.
Consequently, he asked Danilo Abratique to find him a place where he can store
his smuggled cigarettes, hence the latter helped him and brought him to his
friend’s house, however it was found out that these alleged cigarettes were not
cigarettes but marijuanas which has a weight of more or less 330 kg. Hence,
Abratique friend refused to rent the house to the appellant. Thereafter, with
Abratique’s help, the appellant was able to store the said marijuana in
Abratique’s Aunt, Nazarea.
However, Nazarea and Abratique were bothered about the stored marijuana
hence, they confided to Nazarea’s daughter about the marijuana, and
consequently she disclosed the same to his brother-in-law who was an NBI
agent.
The NBI acting on the said report, conducted a surveillance and there they
also found out that the PNP were also conducting their own surveillance, hence
the 2 law enforcement agencies decided to create a joint task force.
Consequently, these 330 kg of marijuana in the house of Nazarea was seized.
Consequently, the NBI agent together with Abratique as a witness applied for
search warrant. The Judge then questioned the applicant and his witness and
thereafter issued a search warrant directing the NBI to conduct a search to the
residence of the appellant.
The NBI and PNP armed with the said warrant went to the house of the
appellant and there they were able to seize more or less 500 kg of marijuana in
his residence. The appellant, in his defense claimed that the search is unlawful
because it pertains to an undetermined amount of marijuana which makes the
search warrant too general and vague. That his right to speedy disposition of the
case was also violated when the prosecution were allowed to reopen the case
when they were able to get the testimony of Abratique, after the latter has failed
to appear before the court 20 times. Hence, the present case.
ISSUE/S: RULING:
WON the Search Yes, the search warrant is valid. The Petitioner claim that the search warrant is
Warrant is valid? invalid because it is too general and not specific when it stated the phrase “an
undetermined amount of marijuana”. The petitioner insists that Abratique, who
assisted him in the storage of the said marijuana could have estimated the exact
amount of marijuana.
However, the SC refute this contention and claimed that the purpose why the
articles to be seized must be particularly described is because of the following
reasons:
a. To prevent the authorities from seizing items not described by the search
warrants; and
b. to prevent the law enforcers to have discretion as to what articles must be
seized.
If the articles to be seized whose by nature their description must be rather
general, technical description in the search warrant is not necessary, for if it is
required then no search warrant could be issued.
In the present case, the SC held that the phrase in question which makes the
search warrant general has in fact complied the requirement of the constitution that
the articles be particularly described. This is so because the description made was as
specific as the circumstances would allow; expresses a conclusion of fact which
guides the officers in making search and seizure; and limits the articles to be seized
only to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being
issued.
The appellant also claimed that the warrant is general because it stated that he
could be guilty of RA 6425 (dangerous drugs act). The petitioner claimed that this
law imposes several penalties with respect to illegal drugs, and the search warrant
must be issued only for one specific offense.
The SC refute this claim and held that the search warrant was issued for one
offense only, the illegal possession of marijuana.
As regards the allegation that the nbi agent who applied for the issuance of
search warrant merely based his information on a mere hearsay and therefore should
not have been credited.
However, the SC refute this claim and held that as regards Abratique, he has

LEON TAMBASEN, Petitioner vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, et.al., respondents
FACTS:
P/ Sgt. Natuel applied for the issuance of a search warrant alleging that the
petitioner had in his possession at his house various high caliber guns and
explosive devices. On the same day the search warrant was issued.
Armed with the said Search Warrant, the police team went to the house of the
petitioner and seized various documents and ict equipments. Consequently, the
petitioner filed a motion before the court to return the said seized documents, in
been declared to have personal knowledge of the fact because he is the one who
assisted the appellant, as regards the personal knowledge of the nbi agent, indeed he
has no personal knowledge and thus his information were just hearsay, but he had a
witness, Abratique, who has personal knowledge of the offense committed, hence
the search warrant is valid.
As regards the petitioner’s claim that the address indicated in the search warrant
did not clearly indicated the place to be searched. The SC refuted this claim and
held that a description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer serving
the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and
distinguish it from other places in the community. In the case at bar, the nbi were
able to submit a detailed sketch of the place to be searched which was prepared by
Abratique, thus ensuring that there would be no mistake.
ISSUE/S: RULING:
WON the search NO, the search warrant was not valid. The SC held that the said warrant violates
warrant was valid? the Revised Rules of Court which prohibits the issuance of search warrant for more
than one offense.
In the present case, it appears that the search warrant issued by the lower court
reflects 2 violations of special laws, namely: illegal possession of firearms,
munitions and explosives; and Anti-Subversion Law.
which the court granted. The P/Sgt. Natuel submitted a report to the court, but As regards the claim that the articles were seized although it is not described in
the petitioner filed a motion requesting that Sgt. Natuel submit a complete and the search warrant, the SC held that the police officers acted beyond the parameters
verified inventory of the seized articles. of their authority under search warrant.
Sgt. Natuel, in his manifestation claimed that although he is the one who The purpose why the articles in search warrant is required to be particularly
applied for the issuance of search warrant, he was not present when the said described pursuant to the Constitution is to limit the seizure to those articles
warrant was served. Consequently, the petitioner filed a motion before the court described in the said warrant, and to prevent the authorities to have discretion what
to declare the said search warrant illegal and that the seized articles be returned articles should be seized.
to him. However, the station commander Lt. Col. Torres, in his defense claimed The money seized is not indicated in the search warrant, hence its seizure is not
that the amount of 14,000 which was seized has been used as an earmark for the valid. Moreover, the presumption of regularity of the police officers in the
payment of the allowance of the Armed City Partisan (NPA). performance of their duty cannot prevail over the constitutional guarantees.
But the Court still directed Lt. Torres to return the said money to the
petitioner claiming that the seizure must be limited only to those described in
the search warrant.
SOLGEN, consequently, filed a petition to annul the said order of the Court
claiming that assuming the seizure of the money was illegal, the petitioner is not
entitled to its return while the determination of the legality of the seizure of the
articles are still pending, the said money should remain in custodia legis.
Moreover, a criminal complaint has been filed before the City Fiscal to
determine whether the money involved was used for subversive activities, and if
found to be used in the said activity, the same should be confiscated.
Subsequently, the RTC granted the petition of the SOLGEN on the ground
that since the determination of whether the money was used for subversive
activities was still pending the same must be in the custody of the MTCC.
Hence, the present case.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs JOSE MA. VELOSO, Defendant-Appellant

FACTS: ISSUE/S: RULING:

The City Police of Manila received an information from their reliable source WON the search Yes, the search warrant was valid. The SC held that pursuant to the Constitution
that the so-called parliamentary club was nothing more than a gambling house. warrant is valid? – The it requires that the place intended to be searched must be particularly described as
Consequently, the City Police applied for the issuance of search warrant, which defendant claimed that well as the persons or thing to be seized.
was thereafter granted to them. it was invalid because it Moreover, since search warrants can be likened to a warrant of arrest in so far as
In the said search warrant the name john doe was indicated because the name used the name John john doe warrants are concerned, the Wharton’s Criminal Procedure can be used as
of the owner of the parliamentary club is unknown, moreover, this john doe is Doe in its search authority in deciding the validity of the search warrant. In the said Procedure, the
the one who is claimed to be the owner of the said building, the name of the warrant, when Warrant is sufficient if the name is indicated therein, and if the name is unknown
building as well as the address has also been specifically stated in the said according to the laws, there must be a description of the person accused that will enable the officer to
warrant, moreover, it is john doe who keeps and conceals all the gambling the search warrant must identify him when found.
devices and effects. particularly described In the present case, the search warrant used the name John Doe because the
The City Police of Manila being armed with the search warrant went to the the person to be seized. owner of the house to be searched is unknown. Moreover, this John Doe is claimed
Parliamentary club and apprehended 50 persons therein. One of the apprehended to have the gambling apparatus in his possession as well as the control of the
persons was Veloso, and during the serving of search warrant the chief of police building. The Police officers upon serving of the search warrant, were able to
showed to Veloso the said warrant but Veloso claimed that he was identify John Doe as the petitioner, Jose Ma. Veloso without difficulty because he
representative Veloso and not the pseudonym John Doe as indicated in the said was the manager of the Parliamentary Club and when he was searched because of
warrant. his resistance to the police, several cards, chips and other gambling articles were
In the MTC of Manila, all of the persons arrested were acquitted for lack of found to be in his possession.
proof except Veloso, who was found guilty of maintaining a gambling house.
 Veloso, in his defense, claimed that the name Veloso did not appear in the
search warrant, but instead a pseudonym John Doe was used. As such, he has
the right to resist the police force.

pursuant to Wharton’s Criminal Procedure, the Warrant is sufficient if the name is

indicated therein, and if the name is unknown there must be a description of the
person accused that will enable the officer to identify him when found.
Hence, John Doe Warrants which pertains to those warrants for the apprehension
of the person whose true name is unknown, by the name John Doe is void, unless
there are other and further description of the person to be apprehended.
In the case at bar, although the warrant involve pertains to search it can be
likened to the warrant of arrest in so far as the use of john doe is concerned. From
the foregoing, the affidavit executed by the police officers for the issuance of a
warrant of arrest has described the building to be searched, this description was
sufficient. It has been held by the Court that description of a place to be searched is
sufficient if the officer with the warrant can with reasonable effort ascertain and
identify the place intended.
 YOUSEF AL-GHOUL, et.al., Petitioners vs CA, et.al., Respondents
FACTS:
The Judge of RTC Caloocan issued 2 search warrants for the search and
seizures of certain items in Apartment No. 2 of the petitioners.
Consequently, the police officers went to the Apartment No. 8 and conducted
search thereto. From the said search, the police officers were able to seize 1
pistol gun. And on Apartment No. 2, several guns, ammunitions and articles
were confiscated.
Thereafter, the petitioners were charged for the crime of illegal possession of
firearms, ammunitions and explosives pursuant to PD 1866. Consequently, the
petitioners filed a motion to file bail, however the RTC denied such motion on
the ground that since the 2 criminal offense charged against them were
punishable by reclusion temporal to Reclusion Perpetua and pursuant to the
RRCP that no person charged with the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua or life
imprisonment shall be granted bail when the evidence of guilt is strong.
Subsequently, the petitioners filed an instant petition assailing the validity of
the search warrant on the ground that the articles indicated in the said warrant
were not particularly described; that the 2-witness requirement were ignored
when only one witness signed the receipt of the properties seized during the
search and the said witness was not presented during the trial.
For the State, the SOLGEN claimed that the search conducted to Apartment
2 was valid and the articles seized therein are admissible in evidence. However,
as regards Apartment No. 8 which is not covered by the said warrant, the search
conducted by the authorities were in violation of Art III Section 2 of the
Constitution.
ISSUE/S: RULING:
WON the search No, the search warrant was valid. The SC held that the articles seized during the
warrant is invalid on search of Apartment No. 2 are those articles enumerated in the search warrant. The
the ground that the articles seized were described with specificity.
search warrant was not The law does not require that the things to be seized must be described precisely
particularly described? for it would be otherwise impossible for a search warrant to be obtained.
The Court held that while it is true that the property to be seized under a warrant
must be particularly described. The description is required to be specific only in so
far as the circumstances will ordinarily allow. Where by nature of the goods, its
description must be rather general, it is not required that its technical description be
given, as this would mean no search warrant could issue.
However, as regards the search conducted on Apartment No. 8, the Police
officers committed gross violation of the law since the apartment no 8 is not
included in
the search warrant to be searched. Hence the gun that was seized therein shall be
inadmissible as evidence.
 FRANK UY, et.al., Petitioners vs BIR, et.al., Respondents
FACTS:
Nestor N. Labaria, Asst Chief of Special Investigation of BIR applied for the
issuance of Search Warrant against the herein respondents. In applying for the
said warrant, Labaria presented Rodrigo Abos as his witness. This Rodrigo
Abos was the former Operating Officer of the petitioner Unifish Packing
Corporation and Frank Uy.
In his affidavit, he alleged that the petitioners are engaged in activities in
which they attempt to commit tax fraud by smuggling oils and selling them
locally instead of exporting them from which they are only allowed and the use
cartons of canned sardines without issuing receipt, which constitutes violation
against the Section 253 and 263 of the NIRC.
Consequently, the respondent Judge conducted an examination and found
probable cause for the issuance of search warrants. Thus, the respondent judge
issued 2 search warrants, 2 warrants were issued because the 2 nd warrant was
made for the purpose of superseding the 1 st warrant to correct an error with
regard to the address of the petitioners. In the said search warrants it also
described the objects or things to be seized as well as the detailed location of the
place to be searched.
However, the petitioners assailed the validity of the said 2 warrants on
various grounds:
1. Inconsistencies in the description of the place to be searched;
2. Inconsistencies in the name of the persons mentioned in the warrants;
3. Search Warrant was issued for the same crime and the same place;
4. there was no probable cause, because the applicant has no personal
knowledge of the facts and circumstances; and
5. The items mentioned in the search warrants were not particularly
described thus violating the constitutional requirements.
Hence, the present case.
ISSUE/S: RULING:
WON the Search Yes, the search warrant was valid. The SC held that for a Search Warrant to be
Warrant issued by the valid the following requisites must be present:
respondent Judge was 1. The Warrant must be issued upon probable cause;
valid? 2. The probable cause must be personally determined by the Judge;
3. That in determining probable cause, the judge must examine, under oath the
complainant and the witness he may produce; and
4. The place to be searched and persons or things to be seized must be
particularly described.
Applying the foregoing requisites as regards the allegation that the Search
Warrant is inconsistent with regard to the description of the place to be searched,
the SC held that the description of the place is valid as long as it can distinguish the
place to be searched from other places in the community. In the case at bar, with the
description made by the witness the place can be particularly described.
As regards the claim of inconsistencies in the description of the persons named
in the warrant, the SC held that description of the name of the persons in Search
Warrants are not really necessary. In search warrants, what is important is the
particular description of the things or objects to be searched and seized.
As regards the claim that the 2 warrants were issued at one time for the same
crime and place, the SC held that the 2nd warrant was issued for the purpose of
correcting the 1st warrant because it made error as to the name and address of the
petitioners.
As regards the alleged absence of the probable cause, the SC held that upon
review of the examination made by the respondent judge it is true that Labaria’s
knowledge of the facts were mere hearsays because his knowledge of the facts are
based only on the knowledge of his witness. However, as far as his witness Abos is
concerned the latter has personal knowledge , because he was the former employee
of the petitioners, the evidence he adduced before the courts as well as the detailed
sketch of the place to be searched.
As regards the allegation that the Search warrants failed to particularly describe
the things to be searched, the SC agreed that the warrants failed to describe the
things to be searched, however it upholds its validity to some things which were
particularly described. The SC claimed that in order to determine whether a search

ROLITO GO y TAMBUNTING, Petitioner vs CA, et.al., Respondents
FACTS:
The herein petitioners were driving his car in opposite or in wrong direction
along a certain Street in San Juan, Manila. Consequently, the petitioner’s and
Eldon Maguan’s vehicle nearly bumped each other. Thereafter, the petitioner
alighted from his car and went to Maguan’s vehicle and shot Maguan.
Thereafter, the petitioner left. This incident was witnessed by a security guard
who was able to identify the plate number of the petitioner’s vehicle.
The police arrived shortly thereafter and conducted investigation. Upon
investigation the police authorities has confirmed that probably it was the
warrant was particularly described the following tests must be made:
1. When the descriptions made therein is as specific as the circumstances will
ordinarily allow;
2. When the description expresses a conclusion of facts and not conclusions of
law – such that it will guide the authorities in making search and seizure;
and
3. When the things described in the warrant are limited to those which bear
direct relation to the offense for which the warrant was being issued.
In the present case, there are some things which was stated in the warrants which
are not particularly described hence, it is not valid, but there are some items which
were able to satisfy the constitutional and statutory requirement of particularly
describing the items to be searched and seized. The Court also held that the warrant
shall be partially valid if some parts of it were defective.
ISSUE/S: RULING:
WON there is a lawful 1. No, there was no lawful warrantless arrest. The SC held that the petitioner was
warrantless arrest not arrested at all, he went to the Police Station to verify the man hunt made against
conducted by the police him. Certainly, the Rule 112, Sec 7 of ROC, cannot be invoked in the case at bar,
authorities? because the accused was not caught committing the crime when he was allegedly
arrested, neither that the crime has just been committed when he was arrested nor
the police officers allegedly arresting the petitioner has personal knowledge of the
crime allegedly perpetrated by the petitioner.
petitioner who was the assailant. Thus, they conducted a manhunt operation.
However, the petitioner went to the police station of San Juan to verify the
news report that he was being hunted by the police officers. Consequently, the
accused was charged for the crime of murder which was originally a frustrated
homicide, but because the victim died it was amended to Murder.
Thereafter, an information for Murder was filed before the RTC, and also
stated therein that Preliminary investigation was not made because the petitioner
did not execute a waiver of his right under Art 125 of the RPC. Consequently,
the petitioner filed his omnibus motion for immediate release and conduct of
preliminary investigation, alleging that warrantless arrest of the petitioner was
unlawful and that no Preliminary investigation has been conducted before the
information was filed by the prosecutor.
The RTC thereafter issued a Commitment Order and arraigned the petitioner,
however the latter refused to enter his plea. Consequently, acting on the 2
motions field by the petitioners, the CA, rendered its decision declaring that the
petitioner was validly arrested because the offense has been freshly committed
by him; and that the petitioner’s act of posting a bail constitutes a waiver of any
irregularity of his arrest.
Hence, the petitioner filed a petition for Review before the SC.
WON the petitioner 2. No, the petitioner did not waive his right to preliminary investigation. In fact,
waived his right to from the very beginning, after an information was filed before the RTC charging the
preliminary petitioner for the crime of murder, the petitioner filed his Omnibus Motion for
investigation? immediate release and conduct preliminary investigation.
As regards the contention of SOLGEN, that such Omnibus Motion should have
been filed with the RTC and not to the Prosecutor, the Court held that since the
Preliminary Investigations are conducted by the fiscal for the purpose of
determining probable cause to file information, such Omnibus Motion should be
submitted before the fiscal, hence, what has been done by the petitioner is correct.
Moreover, the Court held that Preliminary Investigations, although they are not
constitutional rights because they are rights established by statues shall still be
considered as a component part of due process.
Now, after it has been established that the petitioner did not waived his right to
preliminary investigation, is the petitioner still allowed to invoke his right to
Preliminary Investigation when he was already arraigned? The SC held that since
the rule is that:
“The right to preliminary investigation is waived when the accused fails to
invoke such right before or at the time of entering a plea at arraignment.”
In the present case, it has been shown that the petitioner invoke his right to P.I.
before his arraignment.
As regards the contention that since the 4 witnesses has already been presented
by the prosecution, it affects the rt of Preliminary Investigation of the petitioner as
well as his right to bail.
The SC held that, if the right to P.I. is invoked, the trial must be suspended and
the fiscal must conduct an investigation as to the existence of probable cause. And
if no probable cause exist then, the petitioner must be granted release and the case
be terminated. As regards the bail, the Court held that he is entitled from such as a
matter of right. However, it may be cancelled upon determination of strong
reasonable belief by the said fiscal that the accused was probably guilty for the
crime charged.
 ROBIN CARINO PADILLA, Petitioner vs CA, et.al., Respondents
FACTS:
The herein petitioner got involved in a hit and run incident, thereafter, he was
chased by Enrique Manarang, a private citizen who was able to hear and to
respond at once in the place of the incident of hit and run. He was able to
identify the plate no of the vehicle involved in the said incident, and the police
officers were able to track down and apprehend the petitioners. During the
arrest, the police officers discovered that the petitioner has in his possession
various firearms, in which the latter claimed is covered by legal papers.
Moreover, he also claimed that those firearms were in his possession because he
was a confidential agent under a Mission Order and Memorandum receipt.
As such, he was arrested and an information was filed against him for illegal
possession of firearms under PD 1866.
The petitioner in his defense, claimed that :
1. His arrest was illegal and thus the seized firearms are inadmissible in
evidence;
2. That he is a confidential agent; and
3. That the penalty imposed upon him for simple illegal possession of
firearms constitutes cruel and excessive punishment.
Hence, the present case.
ISSUE/S: RULING:
WON the petitioner Yes, he was legally arrested without a warrant of arrest. The SC held that
was legally arrested pursuant to Section 5, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, a warrantless arrest executed
without a warrant of by a peace officer or private person is valid on the following grounds:
arrest? 1. Caught in flagrante delicto
2. When an offense has just been committed, and the arresting officer has
personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and
3. When the person is an escapee from a penal institution.
The SC held that, the warrantless arrest happened in the case at bar is within
par. a of Sec 5, such that an offense has been committed (hit and run) and that the
petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto by Manarang, a private person who heard
the disturbance created by the petitioner. The said sec 5(a) of Rule 112 is not only
applicable on those offense committed in the presence of the arresting person it
may also include those who hears the disturbance thereby and proceed at once in
the scene.
As regards the allegation of the petitioner that the arrest was illegal because it
was made by the police officers and not Manarang, because the police officers
were not in the scene of the hit and run,, the SC ruled that the arrest was still valid,
because Manarang has called upon the authorities to aid him in arresting the
petitioner who are better trained and well equipped in effecting an arrest.
The warrantless arrest of the petitioner may also be justified under Sec. 5(b) of
the same law because the crime has just been committed and the police officers has
personal knowledge of the facts that the crime has been indeed committed. They
have personal knowledge of the facts because there was no supervening or
considerable lapse of time between the hit and run and the actual apprehension.
Moreover, the police officers were able to determine that the Pajero driven by the
petitioner was indeed the vehicle which was involved in the hit and run.
As regards the allegation that the seizure of the firearms were unlawful, the SC
held that one of the exemptions for warrantless search is the search and seizure of
evidence IN PLAIN VIEW.
Plain view may be done by doing search without undertaking active search,
which means prying into hidden places for that which is concealed. The SC held
that the police officers were able to seize the firearms because they came within
plain view without resorting to active search. The case also falls within the
exemption of Warrantless Search incidental to a lawful arrest. Since it has been
established before that the arrest was lawful, the seizure is also lawful as an
incident to the arrest.
 RODOLFO ESPANO, Petitioner vs CA, et.al., Respondents
FACTS:
Police Officers of Western Police District received reports that there is drug
pushing happening in the area of Zamora and Pandacan Streets of Manila.
Hence, they went there to confirm the said report.
In the said street they saw the petitioner selling something to a buyer, and
when the said buyer left, the police officers approached him, identified
themselves and frisked him. As such, they found 5.5 grams of Marijuana in his
possession. Police also asked him if he had more marijuana, he replied in
affirmative and told them that he also have marijuana in his house. Hence, the
police also seized the said marijuana.
The petitioner was then brought to the police station and was charged for
violating the Dangerous Drugs Act.
In his defense, the petitioner claimed that he was sleeping in his house when
the police authorities went to his home and handcuffed him. This defense was
corroborated by his wife.
But the trial court ruled against the petitioner claiming that his defense was
just a mere afterthought. Consequently, an appeal was made to the CA but the
latter affirmed the decision of the lower court and declared that the marijuana
seized from the petitioner be forfeited in favor of the government.
Hence, the present case.
ISSUE/S: RULING:
WON the seizure of Yes, the seizure of Marijuana was admissible in evidence arising from a
Marijuana was warrantless search incidental to a lawful order.
admissible in evidence The SC held that under Rule 113 Section 5(a) of the ROC provides that a peace
there being from a valid officer or private person may arrest a person without a warrant when in his
warrantless search presence, the person to be arrested is committing, is actually committing, or is
incidental to a lawful attempting to commit an offense.
arrest? In the present case, the Court held that the accused was caught in flagrante
delicto as a result of the buy bust operation conducted by the police officers on the
basis of the information that a drug pushing is happening in the streets of Zamora
and Pandacan. The police officers saw the petitioner handing over something to an
alleged buyer and when the said buyer left, they searched him and discovered
marijuana in his possession.
Therefore, his arrest was lawful. And the seizure of marijuana incident to the
said arrest is therefore admissible in evidence. However, the Court held that in so
far as the marijuana seized inside the house of the petitioner is concerned, it is
ruled that it is inadmissible in evidence on the view that warrantless search
incidental to a lawful arrest may only conducted up to the extent where the person
to be arrested has immediate control of the premises or surroundings.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILS, Petitioner vs RODOLFO MENGOTE, Respondent
FACTS:
Western Police District received a call from an informer that there were 3
suspicious looking persons at the corner of Juan Luna and North bay Blvd in
Tondo, Manila.
As such, the police authorities sent a team of plain clothesmen to the said
place. At the said place, the authorities saw the respondent and the other one
looking from side to side while one of whom holding his abdomen.
The police approached this person and identified themselves as police, the 2
men attempted to escape but failed. At that time, the suspects were searched and
a pistol gun and a piece of knife was found in their possession.
Because the pistol gun is not licensed, the herein respondent was charged for
the crime of illegal possession of firearm. During the trial, a witness named
Rigoberto Danganan was presented as the witness of the prosecution who
testified that the pistol gun found in possession of the respondent was stolen
from him by the respondent.
In his defense, the respondent claimed that the pistol gun found in his
possession is inadmissible in evidence because there was no valid search
warrant was issued, that it was not even a warrantless search incidental to a
lawful order. Moreover, the testimony of the witness of the prosecution is
irrelevant in the case of illegal possession of firearms.
The SOLGEN, on the other hand claimed that there was valid arrest and
search pursuant to Section 5, Rule 113 of the ROC.
Hence, the present case.
ISSUE/S: RULING:
WON the seizure of the No, the said revolver is inadmissible in evidence. The SC held that upon
revolver were lawful examination of Section 5, Rule 113 of the ROC, par. c thereof cannot be applied
and admissible in because clearly, the respondent was not an escapee.
evidence? Under par. a which speaks of in flagrante delicto arrest, the Court held that in
order to invoke this provision, the following must concur:
1. The person to be arrested ahs committed, is actually committing or is about
to commit a crime; and
2. And that it should be done in the presence of an arresting officer.
The Court, applying this provision of ROC held that the respondent by looking
from side to side and holding his abdomen does not commit any offense. The claim
of SOLGEN that these acts of the respondent created a reasonable suspicion on the
part of the arresting officer to induce them to a belief that an offense has been
committed. However, the Court averred that what offense could possibly a person
have committed by merely looking from side to side and holding his abdomen?
There can also be no sinister acts because at the time of the arrest of the
respondent it was 11:30 in the morning and in a crowded street. Hence, defeating
the claim that respondents act created a reasonable suspicion.
Under par b. which provides that a crime has just been committed and that the
arresting officer has personal knowledge of the facts that the person to be arrested
has committed it.
In the case at bar, it is unknown what offense has been committed. Moreover, the
knowledge of the arresting officer in this case are just based on hearsay and thus
cannot be considered personal knowledge contemplated by the law.
The fact that the said revolver was stolen from the witness of the prosecution has
been established only after the searched has been made and not before the search
 RUDY CABALLES Y TAINO, Petitioner vs CA, et.al., Respondents

FACTS: ISSUE/S: RULING:

Sgt Noceja and De Castro while on their routine patrol spotted a jeepney WON the evidence No, the evidence was inadmissible in evidence.
unusually covered with “kakawati leaves”. These 2 policemen suspecting that (conductor wires) taken The SC held that under Sec 2 of Art 3 of the Philippine Constitution it guarantees
the jeep was loaded with smuggled goods, flagged down the said jeepney. The from the petitioner the inviolable right of the people to be secure in their persons and properties against
driver of the said jeepney was the petitioner. without search warrant unreasonable searches and seizures.
The 2 policemen asked what was loaded in the jeepney and the petitioner did was admissible in However, these rights guaranteed by the Constitution has some exemptions:
not answer and he appeared pale and nervous. Thus, the policemen checked the evidence? 1. Warrantless Arrest incident to a lawful arrest;
cargo and they discovered bundles of conductor wires exclusively owned by the 2. Consented Search;
NPC.
Consequently, the petitioner was brought to the police station where he was
incarcerated in the Municipal jail for r7 days.
The petitioner, in his defense claimed that the said conductor wires was not
his. In fact, while he was driving his passenger jeepney he was stopped by
certain Resty Fernandez and asked him to load into his jeepney the wires in
question. Consequently, because the petitioner was a member of the NARCOM,
although his id was expired, he told his superior that something is unlawful was
going to happen about the wires he is about to load in his jeepney, thus his
superior directed him to continue the loading of the wires and the former will act
as his back-up that will intercept the vehicle upon reaching the Sambat patrol
Base, Pagsanjan.
After receiving instructions, the petitioner claimed that he proceeded with the
loading of the wires but upon crossing a bridge he was intercepted by Sgt
Noceja and De Castro, where the 2 policemen found out the existence of wires,
and despite his explanation that the said wires were not his he was still ordered
to proceed to the headquarters.
Consequently, the trial court ruled against the petitioner and convicted him
for the crime of theft. On appeal, the CA affirmed the said decision.
Hence, the present case.
3. Search of Moving Vehicles;
4. Seizure of Evidence in plain view;
5. Customs Search;
6. Stop and Frisk and
7. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances.
In the case at bar, the SC ruled that the search of moving vehicle is not
applicable in this case.
SEARCH OF MOVING VEHICLE is justified on the ground that it is not
practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the
locality or jurisdiction of the court. Hence, searches without warrant of automobiles
are allowed for the purpose of preventing violations of smuggling and immigration
laws.
But not because warrantless search is allowed it does not necessarily mean that
authorities may conduct indiscriminate searches without warrants. In doing so, there
must exist a probable cause, and according to the court PROBABLE CAUSE is the
existence of such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably prudent
man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the items, articles or
things sought to be searched and seized is in the place to be searched.
The SC further discussed that SEARCH OF A MOVING VEHICLE has one
form and that is: STOP AND SEARCH (Checkpoint). This STOP AND SEARCH
is valid as long as it is warranted by the exigencies of public order and conducted
in least intrusive to motorists.
There are 2 kinds of STOP and SEARCH (Checkpoint), namely they are:
1. Routine Inspection; and
2. Extensive Search
Routine Inspections are permissible however, they are limited only to instances
where: 1. The officer merely draws aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle parked; 2.
simply looks into the vehicle; 3. Inspections through visual search; and 4. Where
the routine check is conducted in a fixed area.
In the case at bar, the police officers did not merely conduct a visual search of
the petitioner’s vehicle but they had to reach the inside of the vehicle and lift the
kakawati leaves and look inside the sacks before they were able to see the wires.
Extensive searches are also permissible, provided that there exists a probable
cause to believe that before the search, that the motorist is a law offender or they
will find instrumentality of the crime.
In the case at bar, the vehicle of the petitioner was flagged down because the
policemen who were on routine patrol became suspicious when they saw the back
of the vehicle was covered with Kakawati leaves, which according to them was
unusual and uncommon. – This suspicion of the policemen involved does not
constitute probable cause as to justify the conduct of warrantless search.
The SC also held that the exemption under PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE was
inapplicable in this case, because the said doctrine requires that the object itself is
plainly exposed to sight.
In the case at bar, the wires were not exposed to sight because they were placed
in sacks and covered with leaves. And the articles were neither transparent nor
immediately apparent to the police authorities.
The SC also held that the exemption under CONSENTED SEARCH is also not
applicable here.
The Court explained that implied acquiescence is not a consent at all. In the
present case the Court ruled that there was no evidence that the petitioner intended
to surrender his right (consented). The police officers were shown that when they
asked the petitioner they were not really asking him but informing him or imposing
upon him that they will search the vehicle.
Moreover, during direct examination, the police answered that when they have
stopped the vehicle they removed the cover of the vehicle and saw the aluminum
wires. Thus, clearly showing that the police officers did not really acquired the
consent of the petitioner.
 ALAIN MANALILI Y DIZON, Petitioner vs CA, et.al., Respondents
FACTS:
The policemen from Anti-Narcotics Unit of the Kalookan City police were
conducting surveillance along Mabini Street this is due to the information that
they received that drug addicts were roaming in the area in front of Kalookan
City Cemetery. And upon reaching the said cemetery they chanced upon the
petitioner Alain, who appeared high on drugs and upon their observation, the
petitioner has red eyes.
Consequently, the policemen approached the petitioner, who intended to
escape but failed. Then, the policemen asked the petitioner what was he holding
in his hands but the petitioner resist, but thereafter showed to them a wallet. The
policemen opened the wallet and discovered a crushed marijuana.
As such, the petitioner was brought to Kalookan City Police and was charged
for possession of illegal drugs.
In his defense, the petitioner claimed that he was riding a tricycle when the
police officers stop the tricycle and told him that he was under the influence of
marijuana. Thereafter the police officers bodily searched him but found nothing,
hence he was brought to the station and further search was made, thereafter the
police declared that a marijuana was found in his possession. In his defense he
also claimed that he was trumped by the police.
Consequently, the Trial Court found the petitioner guilty for illegal
possession of marijuana and the defense that the petitioner was merely trumped
up by the police was disbelieved by the Court because the petitioner should have
resorted to any legal action, but none was made.
Upon appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the Lower Court. Hence, the
ISSUE/S: RULING:
WON the evidence Yes, the evidence seized during the Stop and Frisk was admissible in evidence.
seized during the stop The SC held that in GR the search and seizure must be validated by a previously
and frisk of the secured judicial warrant, otherwise such search is unconstitutional, pursuant to the
petitioner was guarantee provided by the Constitution under Section 2, Art 3. And pursuant to Sec
admissible in evidence? 3(2) of Art 3 of the Constitution, any evidence obtained in violation of the
preceding section shall be inadmissible in evidence as a fruit of the poisonous tree.
However, there are some exceptions which the Court has held:
1. Search incidental to a lawful arrest;
2. Search of a moving vehicle;
3. Seizure in plain view;
4. Customs search; and
5. Waiver of the right guaranteed by the Constitution.
In all these exceptions probable cause must exist. According to the Court,
probable cause exist when there exist such facts and circumstances which would
lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and
the articles or objects sought in connection with the said offense is in the place
sought to be searched.
The Court also held that STOP AND FRISK is also an exception to the GR.
In the case at bar, the police officers observed during their surveillance the
appellant had red eyes and was wobbling like a drunk along the Kalookan City
Cemetery which according to the information the police received it was a popular
hangout of drug addicts. And because of their experience as member of Anti
Narcotics Unit of Kalookan police, they had sufficient reason to stop petitioner to
present case.
SAMY MALACAT Y MANDAR, Petitioner vs CA, et.al., Respondents
FACTS:
Rodolfo Yu of WPD, Quiapo, Manila responded to a bon v threat reported 7
days earlier, he was on foot patrol with other police officers when they saw the
petitioner at the corner of Quezon Blvd.
They claimed that the petitioner was suspicious with their eyes moving very
fast.
Thus, the police officers observed the petitioner for almost 30 mins.,
thereafter they decided to approach the group of the petitioner, who then fled in
different directions. As the policemen give chase, Yu caught up the petitioner.
Upon searching of the petitioner, Yu found a grenade tucked inside the
petitioner’s waist line.
Thereafter, the petitioner was brought to the police station and the alleged
grenade was marked.
During investigation, the police officer Yu, testified that he recognized the
petitioner as the person who attempted to detonate a grenade whom they tried to
chase but failed. And on the day that the petitioner was brought to the police
station he admitted that the petitioner did not create commotion and they
approached him solely because the petitioner is acting suspiciously.
One of the police officer who conducted the inquest of the petitioner
admitted that they have informed them their miranda rights but the petitioner
still manifested his wiliness to answer the question of the police.
In his defense, the petitioner claimed that he was just standing when the
police officers searched him and nothing was found from him. However, he
was still arrested and detained. There he was accused of having shot a police
officer and as regards the grenade he claimed that he just saw the grenade only
in the court when it was presented.
Consequently, the trial court found the petitioner guilty and ruled that the
warrantless search and seizure was equivalent to a stop and frisk where a seizure
can be effected without necessarily being preceded by a valid arrest. The trial
court also held that the police officers were confronted with an emergency, in
which the delay necessary to obtain warrant, threatens the destruction of the
evidence and thus the officers have to act in haste.
investigate if he was really high on drugs.
ISSUE/S: RULING:
WON the arrest of the Yes, the arrest and seizure of the grenade was invalid. The SC held that as
petitioner as well as the regards arrests, searches and seizures, the constitution requires that a valid warrant
seizure of the grenade must be issued first. However, there are some exemptions:
were invalid? As regards arrest, Sec. 5, Rule 113 is an exemption. As regards the warrantless
search and seizure, it is limited only to the following:
1. Customs Searches
2. search of a moving vehicle
3. Seizure of evidence in plain view
4. Consented searches
5. search incidental to a lawful arrest; and
6. Stop and Frisk
In Search incidental to a lawful arrest, wherein a valid arrest should have been
made before a search and seizure is effected. In the case at bar, the Court ruled that
the petitioner cannot be caught in flagrante delicto and caught in hot pursuit because
of lack of personal knowledge on the part of the arresting officer or lack of overt act
on the part of the petitioner indicating that the crime has been committed, is about
to commit or is committing the crime. Thus, in this case there can be no search
incidental to a lawful arrest.
In Stop and Frisk, which is a limited protective search of outer clothing for
weapons, whose purpose is to: 1. Achieve general interest of crime prevention
and detection; and 2. The more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation
of police officers for any possible weapons that may be used against them.
Stop and frisk does not require probable cause that an offense has been
committed or that there be a suspicion. What Stop and Frisk requires is that there
should be a genuine reason, in light of the police officers experience and
surrounding conditions to warrant a belief that the person to be detained has
weapons concealed about him.
In the case at bar, the Court ruled that stop and frisk could not be validly effected
because:
1. The claim of the police officer Yu that petitioner attempted to bomb the plaza is
not supported by any police report nor corroborated by other police officers who
 The trial court’s decision was appealed to the CA but the latter court affirmed
the said decision. Thus an appeal was filed to the SC.
The SC held that the CA acted without jurisdiction because pursuant to the
Judiciary Reorganization Act, those criminal case whose maximum penalty
imposed if reclusion perpetua should be appealed directly to the SC. In the case
at bar, the maximum penalty impose by the trial court was reclusion perpetua,
thus it should have been appealed to the SC not CA. Thus, the ruling of the CA
should be set aside for they had acted without jurisdiction.
Hence, the present case.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs MARI MUSA Y HANTATALU, Accused-Appellant
FACTS:
Police authorities conducted a buy bust operation against the herein accused,
Mari Musa. The police operatives claimed that Sgt. Amado Ani was authorized
by his superior to conduct a test buy of illegal drugs in Suterville, Zamboanga
City upon an information that Mari Musa was engaged in selling marijuana.
Sgt. Ani was able to buy a marijuana and this was reported by him to his
superior. Upon confirmation that the accused is involved in selling the
marijuana, they conducted a buy but operation against the accused. During the
chased the group.
2. The petitioners did not commit any act which would infer suspicion on the part of
the police officers. Also, the claim that the petitioner’s eyes were moving very fast
upon observation by the police was incredulous because at that time it was already
6;30 pm and thus presumably dusk. The petitioner was merely standing and did not
in fact made any commotion.
3. There was no probable cause to believe that the petitioner was armed with a
grenade because non was visible to the arresting officer.
ISSUE/S: RULING:
WON the arrest of the Yes, the arrest was valid. The SC belied the claim of the petitioner that he did
accused was valid? not personally know Sgt. Ani, thus he could not have transacted with him. The
Court held that Sgt. Ani was able to conduct a test buy of marijuana from the
WON the evidence accused and this was corroborated by the testimony of Sgt. Ani’s superior.
obtained by the police Moreover, the Court held that in a transaction parties may be strangers and what
is inadmissible in matters is the agreement and the act constituting the sale and delivery of marijuana.
evidence? As regards the claim of the petitioner that T/Sgt. Belarga was not able to witness
operation, Sgt. Ani went to the house of the accused and asked for marijuana,
which the latter gave. Thereafter, the police operatives upon, receiving a signal
from the poseur buyer Sgt. Ani proceeded to the house of the accused and
arrested him.
Moreover, during the said arrest, they also searched the house and as such
they found a red plastic bag hanging and when they opened the bag, they
discovered dried marijuanas.
The accused was then charged for the crime of selling marijuana prohibited
under RA No. 6425.
The accused in his defense, claimed that they were just residing in their
home together with his wife, cousin, and his 1 year old child when the Police
operatives suddenly came inside their home, searched the house and when they
saw a red plastic bag, which the accused claimed that he was unfamiliar with, he
was arrested. He also claimed that eh was maltreated by the police and no
Miranda rights was conferred to him when he was being arrested.
The Trial Court ruled convicting the accused for the selling of illegal drugs
(marijuana). Thus, the accused appealed to the SC assailing the validity of his
arrest and the alleged marijuanas in red plastic bag found inside his house.
Hence, the present case.
the alleged sale of marijuana, the Court held that indeed T/Sgt. Belarga did not
positively claimed that he saw the accused handed over a marijuana to Sgt. Ani. The
Direct evidence given by Sgt. Ani and corroborated by the testimony of T/Sgt.
Belarga proved the consummation of the sale of prohibited drugs.
NO, the evidence obtained by the police authorities is inadmissible in evidence.
When the accused was being arrested the police operatives conducted a search
inside the house this was due to the fact that they were looking for the money they
have given to the accused in exchange of marijuana they had bought from him.
However, during the search, they found a red plastic bag hanging in the kitchen, and
when they opened it, they discovered that it contains marijuana.
The SC cited the Sec 2 of Art III of the Constitution which guarantees the right
of the people against unreasonable searches and seizures, and such requires a valid
warrant for the said searches and seizures to be valid.
However, the Court held that search incident to a lawful arrest is an exemption
thereto. In Search incident to a lawful arrest, a warrantless search is allowed
provided that it is incidental to a lawful arrest. And the search may be effected
beyond the person of one person to be arrested provided that the premise pr
surrounding is hunder his immediate control. However, in doing so the search must
be done pursuant to plain view doctrine. Plain view doctrine is usually applied
where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused but
inadvertently come across an incriminating object, thus the plain view doctrine will
not justify the seizure of the incriminating object when its position is not apparent in
plain view.
In the case at bar, the red plastic was not in plain view when they a rrested the
accused. In fact, the NARCOM has to move from one portion of the house to the
other before they sighted the plastic bag. In fact assuming that the plastic was in
plain view, however the marijuana was not in plain view because the police officers
has to open the plastic before they could know that it contained marijuanas.