David v.

Arroyo
G.R No. 171396
May 3, 2006

FACTS:

In their presentation of the factual bases of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5, respondents stated that the
proximate cause behind the executive issuances was the conspiracy among some military officers, leftist
insurgents of the New People's Army, and some members of the political opposition in a plot to unseat
or assassinate President Arroyo. They considered the aim to oust or assassinate the President and take-
over the reins of government as a clear and present danger.

Petitioners David and Llamas were arrested without warrants on February 24, 2006 on their way to
EDSA. Meanwhile, the offices of the newspaper Daily Tribune, which was perceived to be anti-Arroyo,
was searched without warrant at about 1:00 A.M. on February 25, 2006. Seized from the premises in the
absence of any official of the Daily Tribune except the security guard of the building - were several
materials for publication. The law enforcers, a composite team of PNP and AFP officers, cited as basis of
the warrantless arrests and the warrantless search and seizure was Presidential Proclamation 1017
issued by then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in the exercise of her constitutional power to call out
the Armed Forces of the Philippines to prevent or suppress lawless violence.

ISSUE/S:

1. Were the warrantless arrests of petitioners David, et.al., made pursuant to PP1017, valid?
2. Was the warrantless search and seizure on the Daily Tribune’s offices conducted pursuant to PP
1017 valid?

RULING:

1. NO, the warrantless arrests of petitioners David, et al., made pursuant to PP 1017, were NOT
valid.
[Searches, seizures and arrests are normally unreasonable unless authorized by a validly issued
search warrant or warrant of arrest. Section 5,
Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides [for the following circumstances
of valid warrantless arrests]:
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.
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it;
and X X X.
Neither of the [provisions on in flagrante nor hot pursuit warrantless arrests] justifies petitioner
David's warranties arrest. During the inquest for the charges of inciting to sedition and violation
of BP 880, all that the arresting officers could invoke was their observation that some rallyists
were wearing t-shirts with the invective "Oust Gloria Now"and their erroneous assumption that
petitioner David was the leader of the rally. Consequently, the Inquest Prosecutor ordered his
 immediate release on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. He noted that petitioner David
was not wearing the subject t-shirt and even if he was wearing it, such fact is insufficient to
charge him with inciting to sedition.

2. NO, the warrantless search and seizure on the Daily Tribune's offices conducted pursuant to PP
1017 was NOT valid.

[T]he search [and seizure in the Daily Tribune premises] is illegal. Rule 126 of The Revised Rules
on Criminal Procedure lays down the steps in the conduct of search and seizure. Section 4
requires that a search warrant be issued upon probable cause in connection with one specific
offence to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of
the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. Section 8 mandates that the search of a
house, room, or any other premise be made in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or
any member of his family or in the absence of the latter, in the presence of two (2) witnesses of
sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. And Section 9 states that the warrant
must direct that it be served in the daytime, unless the property is on the person or in the place
ordered to be searched, in which case a direction may be inserted that it be served at any time
of the day or night. All these ruled were violated by the CIDG operatives.