1. When unreasonable
From his experience as a member of the Anti-
a. Manalili vs Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113447
(1997)
FACTS: Narcotics officers were doing surveillance and
chanced upon the accused in a cemetery who seemed
to be high on drugs. He tried to resist the police officers
and upon inquiry, found that the accused was
possessing what seemed to be crushed marijuana
leaves.
ISSUE: Whether evidence seized during a stop-and-frisk
is admissible.
The general rule is a search and seizure must be
validated by a previously secured judicial warrant;
otherwise, such a search and seizure is
unconstitutional and subject to challenge. Any
evidence obtained in violation of this constitutionally
guaranteed right is legally inadmissible in any
proceeding.
The exceptions to the rule are: (1) search incidental to a
lawful arrest, (2) search of moving vehicles, (3) seizure
in plain view, (4) customs search, and (5) waiver by the
accused of their right against unreasonable search and
seizure.
In these cases, the search and seizure may be made
only with probable cause. Probable cause being at
best defined as a reasonable ground of suspicion,
supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in
themselves to warrant a cautious man in the belief
that the person accused is guilty of the offense with
which he is charged; or the existence of such facts and
circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet
and prudent man to believe that an offense has been
committed and that the item(s), article(s) or object(s)
sought in connection with said offense or subject to
seizure and destruction by is in the place to be searched.
Additionally, stop-and-frisk has already been adopted as
another exception to the general rule against a search
without a warrant.
In the present case, petitioner effectively waived the
inadmissibility of the evidence illegally obtained when
he failed to raise the issue or object thereto during
the trial.
In the case at hand, Patrolman Espiritu and his
companions observed during their surveillance that
appellant had red eyes and was wobbling like a drunk
along the Caloocan City Cemetery, which according to
police information was a popular hangout of drug
addicts.
Narcotics Unit of the Caloocan City Police, such
suspicious behavior was characteristic of drug addicts
who were “high.” The policemen therefore had sufficient
reason to stop petitioner to investigate if he was actually
high on drugs. During such investigation, they found
marijuana in petitioner’s possession.
4. Requisites for Valid Issuance
 Probable Cause
 Personal determination by a judge
 Particularity of description
a. Rule 112, Rules of Court
b. Rule 126, Rules of Court
1) Stonehill vs Diokno, G.R. No. L-19550 (1967)
FACTS: Multiple judges issued 42 search warrants for
properties of individuals like Harry Stonehill. The
warrants aimed to seize documents related to alleged
law violations. Stonehill and co-petitioners objected,
claiming the warrants were overly broad. Respondents
argued the warrants were valid and any issues were
cured by consent. The Supreme Court initially granted a
preliminary injunction, later partially lifting it.
ISSUE: whether the search warrants violated
Constitutional protections against unreasonable
searches and seizures, potentially rendering the seized
properties inadmissible as evidence.
-Officers of certain corporations, from which
documents, papers and things were seized by means of
search warrants, have no cause of action to assail the
legality of the seizures because said corporations
have personalities distinct and separate from those
of said officers.
The legality of a seizure can be contested only by the
party whose rights have been impaired thereby. The
objection to an unlawful search is purely personal and
cannot be availed of by third parties.
2) People vs Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 94396 (1992)
FACTS: University of the Philippines-Iloilo (UP) bought
27 transformers from Varona Trading for $39,516.
Varona later claimed they had defects and retrieved
them. UP demanded their return, but Varona refused.
NBI obtained a search warrant, seizing the transformers
from Ruben Siao's warehouse. Siao, who said he bought
them from Varona, moved to quash the warrant. Initially
denied, the motion was later granted, leading to the
return of the transformers to Siao. UP pursued an estafa
case against Varona and Siao. Siao's case was
dismissed upon re-investigation. UP appealed the
quashing of the search warrant, but the Court of Appeals
upheld the trial court's decision.
ISSUE: Whether or not the search warrant was valid.
No, Search warrant issued by Judge Dayrit on
September 25, 1987, was null and void.
Probable cause is defined as referring to "such facts
and circumstances antecedent to the issuance of the
warrant that in themselves are sufficient to induce a
cautious person to rely on them, and to act in
pursuance thereof."
At the time he issued the search warrant, there was in
Judge Dayrit's view probable cause that a crime had
been committed by Siao, who had possession of the
subject properties. However, such probable cause no
longer exists now because the information for estafa
against Siao has already been dismissed by the
Regional Trial Court of Manila on motion of the
prosecution itself. Siao's guilt is no longer open for
conjecture.
What is whether the search warrant could be issued
against Siao, assuming he was an innocent purchaser
for value, in connection with the prosecution of Varona
for estafa. But this is a question we need not decide
here. It is clear that, even if it were resolved affirmatively,
the search warrant in question would still have to be
annulled for its failure to state therein the specific offense
for which it was being issued.
3) People vs Estrada, G.R. No. 124461 (1998)
FACTS: Pursuant to a tip received by BFAD that the
accused Aiden Lanuza was selling drugs without a
license, BFAD sought the assistance of NBI. An agent of
NBI conducted surveillance and did a test buy on
Lanuza. Thereafter, a search warrant was applied for
and granted by Judge Estrada. After the warrant was
executed, the accused Lanuza assailed the validity of
the warrant. The said judge granted Lanuza's motion to
quash stating that there were "grave defects" in the
search warrant issued.
ISSUE: Whether or not the search warrant was valid.
No, the search warrant was not valid.
Regarding the different names in the warrant, it was a
negligible defect since it was established that it was a
typographical error.
However, there are 2 serious grounds to quash the
search warrant:
1. There was по probable cause;
- The NBI agent failed to present the best evidence (a
certification from DOH) that could be obtained to
establish that the accused was selling without license.
Without such, it was mere allegation that the accused
had no license.
2. The placed to be searched had not been described
with sufficient particularity;
- The warrant stated that the things to be seized were in
the residence of the accused, however, private
respondent Aiden Lanuza's residence is actually located
at Lot No. 41, 516 San Jose de la Montana St., Mabolo,
Cebu City, while the drugs sought to be seized were
found in a warehouse at Lot No. 38 within the same
compound. The said warehouse is owned by a different
person.
5. Valid Warrantless Search and Seizure
a. Search of a Moving Vehicle
4) Epie, Jr. v. Ulat-Marredo ( 518 SCRA 641) People v.
Tuason (532 SCRA 152)
FACTS: Petitioners were caught to have in their
possession lumber and subsequently could not produce
any permit from the DENR for them to cut and transport
the same. Such incident happened after the police came
about a report of a vehicle transporting lumber without
permit and after which set up a roadblock to catch said
vehicle. After the described vehicle was spotted by the
police they intercepted it. They flagged it down but it did
not stop, forcing the police to chase it until it reached
Shilan, La Trinidad. A search of the vehicle disclosed
several pieces of Benguet pine lumber.
ISSUE: WON the police officers have a probable cause
to believe that the subject vehicle was loaded with illegal
cargo and that, therefore, it can be stopped and
searched without a warrant. (YES)
Here, the search involved a moving vehicle, an instance
where a warrantless search and seizure may be
conducted by peace officers. The only issue we should
determine is whether there was probable cause to justify
such warrantless search and seizure.
In People v. Vinecarao,10 we ruled that where a vehicle
sped away after noticing a checkpoint and even after
having been flagged down by police officers, in an
apparent attempt to dissuade the police from proceeding
with their inspection, there exists probable cause to
justify a reasonable belief on the part of the law
enforcers that the persons on board said vehicle were
officers of the law or that the vehicle contained objects
which were instruments of some offense. This ruling
squarely applies to the present case.
People v. Tuason (532 SCRA 152)
5) People v. Mariacos (621 SCRA 327)
FACTS: She was arrested after she was carrying a bag
alleged to have prohibited drugs inside. The bag, before
it came to her possession was found inside a passenger
jeepney with no owner so the policeman looked inside it
only to find packs of marijuana. The policeman was
acting on a report made about the bag by an agent of the
Barangay Intelligence Network.
ISSUE: WON the warrantless search conducted was
valid. (NO)
At the time, when PO2 Pallayoc looked into the
contents of the suspicious bags, there was no
identified owner. He asked the other passengers atop
the jeepney but no one knew who owned the bags.
Thus, there could be no violation of the right when no
one was entitled thereto at that time.
Thirdly, x x x the search was conducted in a moving
vehicle. Time and again, a search of a moving vehicle
has been justified on the ground that the mobility of
motor vehicles makes it possible for the vehicle to move
out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant
must be sought. Thus, under the facts, PO2 Pallayoc
could not be expected to secure a search warrant in
order to check the contents of the bags which were
loaded on top of the moving jeepney. Otherwise, a
search warrant would have been of no use because the
motor vehicle had already left the locality.
NOTE: It is well to remember that in the instances we
have recognized as exceptions to the requirement of
a judicial warrant, it is necessary that the officer
effecting the arrest or seizure must have been impelled
to do so because of probable cause. The essential
requisite of probable cause must be satisfied before
a warrantless search and seizure can be lawfully
conducted. Without probable cause, the articles seized
cannot be admitted in evidence against the person
arrested.
b. Search incident to a valid arrest
Luz v. People (667 SCRA 421)
FACTS: PO2 Emmanuel L. Alteza stopped the accused
for not wearing a helmet while driving a motorcycle, a
violation of a municipal ordinance. The officer noticed the
accused acting uneasy and asked him to empty his
jacket pocket, fearing he might have a weapon. Among
the contents were a metal container, cellphones,
scissors, and a Swiss knife. Inside the container were
four plastic sachets, two empty and two containing
suspected shabu. The RTC convicted the petitioner of
illegal drug possession.
ISSUE: Whether the roadside questioning of a motorist,
pursuant to a routine traffic stop can be considered a
formal arrest.(NO)
There was no valid arrest. When the petitioner was
flagged down for committing a traffic violation, he
was not, by the fact itself (ipso facto) and solely for
this reason, arrested.
Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that
he or she may be bound to answer for the commission of
an offense. It is effected by an actual restraint of the
person to be arrested or by that person’s voluntary
submission to the custody of the one making the arrest.
Neither the application of actual force, manual touching
of the body, or physical restraint, nor a formal declaration
of arrest, is required. It is enough that there be an
intention on the part of one of the parties to arrest the
other, and that there be an intent on the part of the other
to submit, under the belief and impression that
submission is necessary.
There being no valid arrest, the warrantless search that
resulted from it was likewise illegal.
None of the instances when a warrantless search is
allowed, especially a search incident to a lawful
arrest, are applicable to this case. The subject items
seized during the illegal arrest are inadmissible. The
drugs are the very concrete evidence (corpus delicti) of
the crime illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Thus,
their inadmissibility precludes conviction and calls for the
acquittal of the accused
Ambre v. People (678 SCRA 552)
FACTS: a buy-bust operation was conducted by the
Caloocan Police Station targeting Abdullah Sultan and
his wife Ina Aderp for alleged drug selling. Aderp and
Moctar Tagoranao were arrested, while Sultan fled.
Pursuing officers led to Sultan's house, where they found
Ambre, Castro, and Mendoza in a suspected drug
session. Ambre was caught with a rolled-up foil
containing suspected shabu.
Ambre argues her arrest and search were illegal, as no
crime was being committed, and the officers lacked
judicial authorization to enter Sultan's dwelling. She
contends that the supposed "hot pursuit" leading to the
house was more imagined than real.
ISSUE: Whether the warrantless arrest of Ambre and the
search of her person was valid; (YES)
Yes, the Court held that the arrest and search done
against the petitioner is valid. Section 5, Rule 113 of the
Rules of Criminal Procedure, provides three (3)
instances when warrantless arrest may be lawfully
effected: (a) arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto; (b)
arrest of a suspect where, based on personal knowledge
of the arresting officer, there is probable cause that said
suspect was the perpetrator of a crime which had just
been committed; (c) arrest of a prisoner who has
escaped from custody serving final judgment or
temporarily confined during the pendency of his case or
has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.
In arrest in flagrante delicto, the accused is
apprehended at the very moment he is committing or
attempting to commit or has just committed an offense in
the presence of the arresting officer. Clearly, to
constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, two
requisites must concur: (1) the person to be arrested
must execute an overt act indicating that he has just
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the
presence or within the view of the arresting office
People v. Belocura (679 SCRA 318)
Bricks of Marijuana found on plaintiff’s car after being
flagged down by the police when he violated breach of
traffic rules and regulations.
NOTE: (There was a valid warrantless arrest) Belocura
was caught in flagrante delicto violating Section 31 of
Republic Act No. 4139 (The Land Transportation and
Traffic Code).21 In flagrante delicto means in the very
act of committing the crime. To be caught in flagrante
delicto necessarily implies the positive identification of
the culprit by an eyewitness or eyewitnesses.
ISSUE: What must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
is the fact of possession of the prohibited drug itself. This
may be done by presenting the police officer who
actually recovered the prohibited drugs as a witness,
being the person who has the direct knowledge of the
possession.
The Prosecution thereby failed to establish the
linkage between the bricks of marijuana supposedly
seized by PO2 Santos from Belocura’s jeep following his
arrest and the bricks of marijuana that the
Prosecution later presented as evidence in court.
That linkage was not dispensable, because the failure to
prove that the specimens of marijuana submitted to the
forensic chemist for examination were the same
marijuana allegedly seized from Belocura irreparably
broke the chain of custody that linked the confiscated
marijuana to the marijuana ultimately presented as
evidence against Belocura during the trial. Proof beyond
reasonable doubt demanded that unwavering exactitude
must be observed in establishing the corpus delicti – the
body of the crime whose core was the confiscated
prohibited substances. Thus, every fact necessary to
constitute the crime must be established.
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of
custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit
be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding
that the matter in question is what the proponent claims
it to be.
Martinez v. People (690 SCRA 656)
Facts: Police officers conducted a routine foot patrol in
Malate, Manila. They heard a man shouting profanities
and apprehended him for allegedly violating a city
ordinance. During a search, a sachet of suspected
shabu was found on Ramon. He was taken to the police
station and charged with drug possession.
Ramon denied the charge, claiming he was handcuffed
by a man in civilian clothing who identified himself as a
police officer. He alleged that the officer then asked for a
bribe of P20,000 for his release.
ISSUE: Whether or not Ramon could be convicted of the
crime of possession of dangerous drugs. (NO)
Ramon Martinez was acquitted since the subject shabu
purportedly seized is inadmissible in evidence for being
the proverbial fruit of the poisonous tree.
Section 3(2), Article III of the Constitution provides that
any evidence obtained in violation of Section 2, Article III
of the Constitution shall be inadmissible for any purpose
in any proceeding.
In the case at bar, PO2 Soque arrested Ramon for
allegedly violating Section 844 of the Manila City
Ordinance (Breaches of the Peace), however, it cannot
be said that the act of shouting in a thicklypopulated
place, would constitute any of the acts punishable under
such provision. The words he allegedly shouted are not
slanderous, threatening or abusive, and thus, could not
have tended to disturb the peace or excite a riot
considering that at the time of the incident. Thus,
evidence negates the presence of probable cause
when the police officers conducted their warrantless
arrest of Ramon.
In this regard, considering that the confiscated shabu is
the very corpus delicit of the crime charged, Ramon's
acquittal should therefore come as a matter of course.
People v. Rom (171 SCRA 147)
FACTS: Vice Control Section of the Cebu City Police
Office received a tip that Vicente Rom was involved in
illegal drug activities, including maintaining a drug den in
his residence. They conducted surveillance and
organized a buy-bust operation on August 31, 2000.
PO2 Martinez acted as the poseur-buyer and was given
marked money. He successfully purchased shabu from
Rom, which was witnessed by other officers. After the
transaction, the team moved in and apprehended Rom,
finding more shabu and the marked money on him.
ISSUE: Whether or not the search and the seizure made
in connection thereto were invalid. (NO)
- NO, the search and seizure made were valid.
- the SC pointed out that warrantless searches and
seizures have long been deemed permissible by
jurisprudence in the following instances:
(1) search of moving vehicles;
(2) seizure in plain view;
(3) customs searches;
(4) waiver or consented searches;
(5) stop and frisk situations (Terry search); and
(6) search incidental to a lawful arrest.
while as a rule, an arrest is considered legitimate if
effected with a valid warrant of arrest, the Rules of Court
recognizes permissible warrantless arrest, to wit: (1)
arrest in flagrante delicto; (2) arrest effected in hot
pursuit; and (3) arrest of escaped prisoners.
HELD: Here, the petitioner was caught in flagrante
delicto while in the act of delivering 1.15 grams and in
actual possession of another 10.78 grams of
methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) as a result of
an entrapment operation conducted by the police on the
basis of information received from Benito Marcelo
regarding petitioner's illegal drug trade. Petitioner's
arrest, therefore, was lawful and the subsequent seizure
of a bag of shabu inserted inside the cover of her
checkbook was justified and legal in light of the
prevailing rule that an officer making an arrest may take
from the person arrested any property found upon his
person in order to find and seize things connected with
the crime. The seized regulated drug is, therefore,
admissible in evidence, being the fruit of the crime.
People v. Casacop (780 SCRA 645)
FACTS: Upon receiving a tip that Edong was selling
shabu, Police Superintendent Sergio Dimandal formed a
team for surveillance. Senior Police Officer 4 Melchor
Dela Pena (SPO4 Dela Pena) prepared a pre-operation
report, which was sent to the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA). A buy-bust team was then
formed. During the operation, PO1 Signap acted as the
poseur-buyer. He handed marked money to appellant,
who provided a sachet of shabu. PO1 Signap signaled
the team, leading to appellant's arrest. A search yielded
paraphernalia and additional sachets. The seized items
were inventoried and sent for examination. The lab
confirmed the substances as shabu. Appellant claimed
innocence, stating that police officers forcibly entered his
house during the incident. He argued that evidence was
planted due to their failure to implicate him in a robbery
case.
HELD: For the successful prosecution of a case for
illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be
proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the
object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the
thing sold... and the payment therefor.[13] On the other
hand, in prosecuting a case for illegal possession of
dangerous drugs, the following elements must concur:
(1) the accused is in possession of an item or object,
which is identified as a prohibited drug; (2) such...
possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused
freely and consciously possessed the drug.
In this case, all the elements for the illegal sale of shabu
were established. POl Signap, the poseur-buyer,
positively identified appellant as the person who sold him
the white crystalline substance in one plastic sachet
which was later proven to be positive for... shabu. In
exchange for this plastic sachet; PO1 Signap handed the
marked money a.s payment. The delivery of the
contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the
seller of the marked money successfully consummated
the buy-bust transaction.
All the elements in the prosecution for illegal possession
of dangerous drugs and paraphernalia were likewise
established. Found in appellant's pocket after he was
caught in flagrante were two (2) more plastic sachets
containing shabu, an improvised glass tooter...
containing shabu residue and the rolled aluminum foil
with shabu residue. Under Rule 126, Section 13, a
person lawfully arrested may be searched for anything
which may have been used or constitute proof in the
commission of an offense without a warrant. There was
no showing that appellant had legal authority to possess
the shabu and its paraphernalia. Moreover, the fact that
these contraband were found in his physical
possession shows that he freely and consciously
possessed them.
c. Plain View Doctrine
People v. Calantiao (727 SCRA 20)
Edwin Lojera had a traffic dispute with a taxi on EDSA,
Balintawak, which escalated when the passengers of the
taxi, including Medario Calantiao (accused), fired guns.
Lojera reported the incident at a nearby police station.
Officers Mariano and Ramirez arrived at the scene,
where armed men from the taxi fired at them before
fleeing. The officers gave chase, apprehended the
suspects, and discovered a bag containing marijuana
and a firearm. The items and suspects were turned over
for investigation and analysis, which confirmed the
presence of marijuana. Calantiao now questions the
admissibility of the marijuana, citing illegal search or a
broken custodial chain.
ISSUE: WON the arrest is invalid. NO
HELD: Searches and seizure incident to a lawful
arrest are governed by the revised rules of criminal
procedure. In lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty
and the right of the apprehending officers to conduct a
warrantless search not only on the person of the
suspect, but also in the permissible area within the
latter’s reach. Otherwise stated, a valid arrest allows the
seizure of evidence or dangerous weapons either on the
person of the one arrested or within the area of his
immediate control.
black bag containg the marijuana was in Calantiao’s
possession, it was within the permissible area that the
apprehending officers could validly conduct a
warrantless search.
Cresencio v. People (741 SCRA 319)
d. Stop and Frisk
Revaldo v. People (G.R. No. 170589, April 16, 2009)
FACTS: The petitioner was charged with illegal
possession of premium hardwood lumber. It was alleged
that on June 17, 1992, the petitioner possessed 96.14
board feet of flat lumber without the required legal
documents, violating Section 68 of the Forestry Code.
The RTC convicted the petitioner, and upon appeal, the
Court of Appeals ruled that intent or motive was
irrelevant, as mere possession without proper
documents established criminal liability.
The petitioner argues that the warrantless search and
seizure conducted by the police officers were illegal.
They contend that the officers lacked a search warrant
when they visited the petitioner's house to investigate
the report of lumber possession without proper
documentation.
ISSUE: Whether or not the evidence obtained without
search warrant is admissible in court.
When the police officers arrived at the house of
petitioner, the lumber were lying around the vicinity
of petitioner’s house. The lumber were in plain view.
Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in “plain
view” of an officer who has a right to be in the
position to have that view are subject to seizure and
may be presented as evidence. When asked whether
he had the necessary permit to possess the lumber,
petitioner failed to produce one. Petitioner merely replied
that the lumber in his possession was intended for the
repair of his house and for his furniture shop. There was
thus probable cause for the police officers to confiscate
the lumber. There was, therefore, no necessity for a
search warrant.

In the case at bar, the marijuana was found in a black

bag in Calantiao’s possession and within his immediate
control. He could have easily taken any weapon from the
bag or dumped it to destroy the evidence inside it. As the
Posadas v. Court of Appeals (188 SCRA 288)
Facts: Pat. Ursicio Ungab and Pat. Umbra Umpar,
members of the INP, spotted the petitioner acting
suspiciously with a "buri" bag in Davao City. They
approached, identified themselves, and attempted to
search the bag. The petitioner resisted but was
apprehended. Upon inspection, they found firearms and
ammunition. The petitioner lacked proper documentation
for these items. He was subsequently convicted for
illegal possession of firearms and ammunition.
ISSUE: WON the search without warrant is valid.
YES it is valid.
RATIO: There are many instances where a warrant and
seizure can be effected without necessarily being
preceded by an arrest, foremost of which is the "stop
and search" without a search warrant at military or police
checkpoints. Thus, as between a warrantless search and
seizure conducted at military or police checkpoints and
the search thereat in the case at bar, there is no
question that, indeed, the latter is more reasonable
considering that unlike in the former, it was effected on
the basis of a probable cause. The probable cause is
that when the petitioner acted suspiciously and
attempted to flee with the buri bag there was a
probable cause that he was concealing something
illegal in the bag and it was the right and duty of the
police officers to inspect the same.
It is too much indeed to require the police officers to
search the bag in the possession of the petitioner only
after they shall have obtained a search warrant for the
purpose. Such an exercise may prove to be useless,
futile and much too late.
People v. Mengote (210 SCRA 14)
FACTS: Accused was apprehended in Tondo, Manila
based on a tip. He was found with a .38 caliber revolver.
A witness identified the weapon as stolen from a prior
robbery. Accused claims the firearm was planted. The
defense argues the seizure was illegal due to lack of a
warrant, and the arrest itself was unlawful. They also
contend that testimony regarding the prior robbery is
irrelevant.
ISSUE: WON the arrest was lawful. (NO)
NO. The Supreme court held that par(a) section 5 Rule
113 of rules of court requires that a person be arrested
after he has committed or while he is actually committing
or is at least attempting to commit an offense in the
presence of the arresting officer.
These requirements have not been established in the
case at bar. At the time of the arrest in question, the
accused was merely “looking from side to side” and
“holding his abdomen”. There was apparently no
offense that has just been committed or was being
actually committed or at least being attempted by
Mengote in their presence.
The Court takes note that there was nothing to support
the arresting officers' suspicion other than Mengote's
darting eyes and his hand on his abdomen. By no
stretch of the imagination could it have been inferred
from these acts that an offense had just been
committed, or was actually being committed, or was at
least being attempted in their presence.
As for the illegal possession of the firearm found on
Mengote's person, the policemen discovered this only
after he had been searched and the investigation
conducted later revealed that he was not its owners nor
was he licensed to possess it.
Before these events, the Peace officers had no
knowledge even of Mengote' identity, let alone the fact
(or suspicion) that he was unlawfully carrying a firearm
or that he was involved in the robbery of Danganan's
house.
Hence, accused-appellant is acquitted.
People v. Cogaed (731 SCRA 427)
Facts: Police received a tip that Marvin Buya would be
transporting marijuana. A checkpoint was set up,
and Victor Romana Cogaed and Santiago Sacpa Dayao
were found carrying bags. Marijuana was discovered in
Cogaed's bag. Both were arrested, and a significant
quantity of marijuana was found during further inspection
at the police station.
During the trial, Cogaed claimed he was unaware of
the bag's contents and was assisting Dayao as a
favor. He asserted ignorance of Dayao's conversation
with the police.
The trial court initially considered the arrest illegal but
deemed that Cogaed waived his objection by
voluntarily opening his bag. The Court of Appeals
upheld this ruling, stating that Cogaed waived his right
against warrantless searches. Cogaed filed this
appeal.
ISSUE: Whether there was a valid search and seizure of
marijuana as against the appellant; (NO)
No. The search was made without a warrant and
does not constitute a valid warrantless search.
The case of Cogaed was different. He was simply a
passenger carrying a bag and traveling aboarda
jeepney. There was nothing suspicious, moreover,
criminal, about riding a jeepney or carrying a bag.
The assessment of suspicion was not made by the
police officer but by the jeepney driver. It was the
driver who signalled to the police that Cogaed was
"suspicious."
[A] "stop-and-frisk" serves a two-fold interest: (1) the
general interest of effective crime prevention and
detection, which underlies the recognition that a police
officer may, under appropriate circumstances and in an
appropriate manner, approach a person for purposes of
investigating possible criminal behavior even without
probable cause; and (2) the more pressing interest of
safety and self-preservation which permit the police
officer to take steps to assure himself that the person
with whom he deals is not armed with a deadly weapon
that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against the
police officer.
None of the other exceptions to warrantless searches
exist to allow the evidence to be admissible. The facts of
this case do not qualify as a search incidental to a lawful
arrest.
e. Waiver
Veroy v. Layague (210 SCRA 92)
FACTS: Captain Reynaldo Obrero led a raid on the
residence of petitioner spouses in Davao City,
suspecting it to be a safehouse for rebel soldiers. Since
the owner was absent and there was no search warrant,
they didn't enter the house. After contacting Ma. Luisa,
one of the spouses, she agreed to allow the search in
the presence of a trusted military officer. The team
entered the yard and kitchen, and with the help of a
locksmith, accessed the children's room, where they
found incriminating items including a firearm and printed
materials related to the rebel group RAM-SFP.
ISSUE: Whether or not the officers violated the
petitioners' constitutional right against unreasonable
search and seizure. (YES)
- YES. The reason for searching the house of herein
petitioners is that it was reportedly being used as a
hideout and recruitment center for rebel soldiers.
While Capt. Obrero was able to enter the compound, he
did not enter the house because he did not have a
search warrant and the owners were not present. This
shows that he himself recognized the need for a search
warrant, hence, he did not persist in entering the house
but rather contacted the petitioners to seek permission to
enter the same. Permission was indeed granted by
petitioner to enter the house but only to ascertain the
presence of rebel soldiers. Under the circumstances, it
is undeniable that the police officers had ample time to
procure a search warrant but did not.
Petition is GRANTED and the criminal case against the
petitioners for illegal possession of firearms is
DISMISSED.
People v. Nuevas (516 SCRA 463)
FACTS: PO3 Teofilo B. Fami and SPO3 Cesar B.
Cabling conducted a surveillance for illegal drug
trafficking. They observed Jesus Nuevas, who matched
the suspect's description, carrying a plastic bag. They
approached Nuevas and identified themselves as police
officers. Nuevas disclosed the presence of marijuana
in the bag and voluntarily pointed to the location
where his associates, Din and Inocencio, would
make a drug delivery. The police officers proceeded to
the mentioned location and apprehended Din, who was
carrying a bag containing marijuana. The confiscated
items were duly documented and tested. All three
accused were arrested and charged.
ISSUE: Whether there was a valid warrantless search
against the petitioner.(NO)
The Court holds that the searches and seizures
conducted do not fall under the first exception,
warrantless searches incidental to lawful arrests.
A search incidental to a lawful arrest is sanctioned by
the Rules of Court. Recent jurisprudence holds that
the arrest must precede the search; the process
cannot be reversed as in this case where the search
preceded the arrest. Nevertheless, a search
substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can
precede the arrest if the police have probable cause to
make the arrest at the outset of the search.
Secondly, neither could the searches be justified under
the plain view doctrine.
An object is in plain view if it is plainly exposed to
sight. Where the object seized was inside a closed
package, the object itself is not in plain view and
therefore cannot be seized without a warrant.
However, if the package proclaims its contents, whether
by its distinctive configuration, its transparency, or if its
contents are obvious to an observer, then the contents
are in plain view and may be seized. In other words, if
the package is such that an experienced observer could
infer from its appearance that it contains the prohibited
article, then the article is deemed in plain view. It must
be immediately apparent to the police that the items that
they observe may be evidence of a crime, contraband or
otherwise subject to seizure.
People v. Uyboco (640 SCRA 146)
Facts: Nimfa and her wards were abducted. Nimfa
recognized one kidnapper as appellant. They demanded
a P26 Million ransom, eventually settling on P1.5 Million.
Appellant received the ransom at Magallanes
Commercial Center. Police officers captured him in
Makati after a scuffle, finding cash, jewelry, and a gun in
his possession.
ISSUE: Whether or not there was a valid arrest and
search without warrant.
-The arrest was validly executed pursuant to Section 5,
paragraph (b) of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, which
provides: "A peace officer or a private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person: xx x; (b) When an
offense has in fact been committed and he has personal
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be
arrested has committed it; and, (c) x x x." A search
incident to a lawful arrest is also valid under Section 13,
Rule 126 of the Rules of Court which states: "A person
lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous
weapons or anything which may have been used or
constitute proof in the commission of an offense without
a search warrant.
- Records show that both requirements are present in
the instant case. The police officers present in
Magallanes Commercial Center were able to witness the
pay- off which effectively consummates the crime of
kidnapping. Such knowledge was then relayed to the
other police officers stationed in Fort Bonifacio where
appellant was expected to pass by. Personal knowledge
of facts must be based on probable cause, which means
an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion.
Section 5, Rule 113 does not require the arresting
officers to personally witness the commission of the
offense with their own eyes. It is sufficient for the
arresting team that they were monitoring the pay-off
for a number of hours long enough for them to be
informed that it was indeed appellant, who was the
kidnapper. This is equivalent to personal knowledge
based on probable cause.
Likewise, the search conducted inside the car of
appellant was legal because the latter consented to
such. Even assuming that appellant did not give his
consent for the police to search the car, they can still
validly do so by virtue of a search incident to a lawful
arrest under Section 13, Rule 126.
f. Exigency
People v. De Gracia (233 SCRA 716)
FACTS: RAM-SFP staged a coup against the
Government. Efren Soria conducted surveillance on
Eurocar Sales Office, suspecting it as a rebel
communication post. On December 1, 1989, as they left
the area, a group fired at them, injuring the driver. On
December 5, 1989, a search team raided Eurocar and
found weapons and explosives. No search warrant was
obtained due to the chaotic situation caused by the rebel
forces.
ISSUE: Whether there was a valid search and seizure in
this case.
YES, there was a valid search and seizure in this case.
It is admitted that the raiding team was not armed with a
search warrant at that time. It was actually precipitated
by intelligence reports that said office was being used as
headquarters by the RAM. Prior to the raid, there was a
surveillance conducted on the premises wherein the
surveillance team was fired at by a group of men
coming from the Eurocar building. When the military
operatives raided the place, the occupants thereof
refused to open the door despite requests for them to do
so, thereby compelling the former to break into the office.
The Eurocar Sales Office is obviously not a gun
store and it is definitely not an armory or arsenal
which are the usual depositories for explosives and
ammunition. It is primarily and solely engaged in the sale
of automobiles. The presence of an unusual quantity
of high-powered firearms and explosives could not
be justifiably or even colorably explained.
In addition, there was general chaos and disorder at
that time because of simultaneous and intense firing
within the vicinity of the office and in the nearby
Camp Aguinaldo which was under attack by rebel
forces. The courts in the surrounding areas were
obviously closed and, for that matter, the building and
houses therein were deserted.
Under circumstances, SC considered that the instant
case falls under one of the exceptions to the
prohibition against a warrantless search.
In the first place, the military operatives, taking into
account the facts obtaining in this case, had reasonable
ground to believe that a crime was being committed.
There was consequently more than sufficient
probable cause to warrant their action. Furthermore,
in the prevailing situation, the raiding team had no
opportunity to apply for and secure a search warrant
from the courts. The trial judge himself manifested that
on December 5, 1989 when the raid was conducted,
his court was closed. Under such urgency and
exigency of the moment, a search warrant could lawfully
be dispensed with.
g. Search and seizure by private persons
People v. Marti ( 193 SCRA 57)
Facts: the appellant informed Anita Reyes that he was
sending packages to a friend in Zurich, Switzerland,
claiming they contained books, cigars, and gloves. Anita
requested to inspect them, but he refused. Prior to
delivery, Mr. Job Reyes opened the boxes for final
inspection and noticed a peculiar odor. He extracted a
sample, reported the shipment to the NBI, and requested
a laboratory examination. Upon investigation, they
discovered the boxes contained dried marijuana leaves
ISSUE: Whether the search and seizure committed by
the private individual inviolate the constitutional right of
the accused.
- No, The constitutional proscription against
unlawful searches and seizures therefore
applies as a restraint directed only against the
government and its agencies tasked with the
enforcement of the law. Thus, it could only be
invoked against the State to whom the restraint
against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of
power is imposed.
Waterous Drug Corp. v. NLRC (280 SCRA 735)
FACTS: Antonia Melodia Catolico, employed as a
pharmacist by Waterous Drug Corp., was involved in a
pricing discrepancy with YSP Inc., a medicine supplier. It
was found that Catolico had received an overpriced
refund from YSP. Though Catolico denied receiving it, a
clerk at Waterous confirmed seeing an open envelope
with a check made out to Catolico. Catolico was
subsequently terminated for dishonesty.
NLRC dismissed the petition, citing the constitutional
right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Petitioners argue that this protection doesn't apply to
acts committed by private individuals.
ISSUE: W/N the check is admissible as evidence.(YES)
Ratio: (People vs. Marti) Marti ruling: The Bill of Rights
does not protect citizens from unreasonable searches
and seizures perpetrated by private individuals.
It is not true, as counsel for Catolico claims, that the
citizens have no recourse against such assaults. On the
contrary, and as said counsel admits, such an invasion
gives rise to both criminal and civil liabilities. Despite
this, the SC ruled that there was insufficient evidence of
cause for the dismissal of Catolico from employment
Suspicion is not among the valid causes provided by the
Labor Code for the termination of Employment.
People v. Bongcarawan (384 SCRA 525)
FACTS: The accused, Basher Bongcarawan, was
convicted of violating Section 16, Article III of Republic
Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act). The case arose
when, on March 11, 1999, while M/V Super Ferry 5 was
about to dock at the port of Iligan City, a passenger
reported missing jewelry, suspecting a co-passenger at
cabin no. 106. The security officer and team conducted a
search, leading them to Bongcarawan. Bongcarawan
consented to a search but no jewelry was found. Upon
further inspection, a suitcase with suspected "shabu"
was discovered.
Bongcarawan argues that the search and seizure were
conducted without his consent, violating his
constitutional rights. He contends that any evidence
obtained through this unlawful search should be deemed
inadmissible.
ISSUE: WON the conviction was valid (YES)
- The right against unreasonable search and seizure is a
fundamental right protected by the Constitution.
Evidence acquired in violation of this right shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
Whenever this right is challenged, an individual may
choose between invoking the constitutional protection or
waiving his right by giving consent to the search and
seizure. It should be stressed, however, that protection
is against transgression committed by the
government or its agent. The constitutional
proscription against unlawful searches and seizures
applies as a restraint directed only against the
government and its agencies tasked with the
enforcement of the law. Thus, it could only be
invoked against the State to whom the restraint
against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of
power is imposed.
In the case before us, the baggage of the accused-
appellant was searched by the vessel security
personnel. It was only after they found “shabu” inside the
suitcase that they called the Philippine Coast Guard for
assistance. The search and seizure of the suitcase and
the contraband items was therefore carried out without
government intervention, and hence, the constitutional
protection against unreasonable search and seizure
does not apply.
h. Airport Security
Sales v. People (690 SCRA 141)
Facts: Don Djowel Sales was scheduled to board a
Cebu Pacific flight to Kalibo, Aklan. He arrived at the old
Manila Domestic Airport and underwent routine security
checks. During a body search, security personnel Daniel
Soriano felt a bulge in Sales' pocket. When asked to
reveal it, Sales hesitated. After a struggle, he produced
two rolled paper sticks containing dried marijuana
leaves. Sales was subsequently charged with illegal
possession of marijuana.
ISSUE: W/N the search was valid.
Such search was made pursuant to routine airport
security procedure, which is allowed under Section 9 of
R.A. No. 6235. Said provision reads:
SEC. 9. Every ticket issued to a passenger by the airline
or air carrier concerned shall contain among others the
following condition printed thereon: "Holder hereof and
his hand-carried luggage(s) are subject to search for,
and seizure of, prohibited materials or substances.
Holder refusing to be searched shall not be allowed to
board the aircraft," which shall constitute a part of the
contract between the passenger and the air carrier.
People v. Cadidia (707 SCRA 494)
FACTS: Manila Domestic Airport, Marilyn Trayvilla, a
female police officer, conducted a frisking on Hadji
Cadidia. Trayvilla noticed an unusual thickness in
Cadidia's buttocks area and, upon inquiry, Cadidia
claimed it was her sanitary napkin. Unconvinced,
Trayvilla and her colleague, Leilani Bagsican,
accompanied Cadidia to the restroom for further
inspection. There, they discovered two sachets of shabu
in Cadid. Cadidia's defense was that Trayvilla and
Bagsican targeted her due to her Muslim identity,
assuming she had valuables. They allegedly demanded
money, and when she couldn't provide it, they planted
the drugs on her.
ISSUE: Whether Cadidia's contention that the lower
courts erred in the application in the presumption of
regularity in the performance of duties of the witnesses is
correct. (NO)
- No. In People v. Unisa,se this Court held that "in cases
involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act,
credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are
police officers for they are presumed to have
performed their duties in a regular manner, unless
there is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill-
motive on the part of the police officers."
In this case, the prosecution witnesses were unable to
show ill-motive for the police to impute the crime against
Cadidia. Trayvilla was doing her regular duty as an
airport frisker when she handled the accused who
entered the x-ray machine of the departure area. There
was no pre-determined notice to particularly search the
accused especially in her private area. The unusual
thickness of the buttocks of the accused upon frisking
prompted Trayvilla to notify her supervisor SPO3
Appang of the incident. The subsequent search of the
accused would only show that the two female friskers
were just doing their usual task when they found the
illegal drugs inside accused’s underwear. This is
bolstered by the fact that the accused on the one hand
and the two friskers on the other were unfamiliar to each
other. Neither could they harbour any ill-will against each
other. The allegation of frame-up and denial of the
accused cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of
three prosecution witnesses who corroborated on
circumstances surrounding the apprehension.
Dela Cruz v. People (779 SCRA 34)
FACTS: Dela Cruz was an on-the-job trainee of an inter-
island vessel. He was at a pier of the Cebu Domestic
Port to go home to Iloilo. While buying a ticket, he
allegedly left his bag on the floor with a porter. Dela Cruz
then proceeded to the entrance of the terminal and
placed his bag on the x-ray scanning machine for
inspection. The operator of the x-ray machine saw
firearms inside Dela Cruz’s bag. Dela Cruyz consented
to Igot’s manual inspection of the bag. Due to Dela
Cruz’s affirmation that he was indeed the owner of the
bag containing firearms, he was then charged of illegal
possession under RA. 8294.
ISSUE: Are routine baggage inspections conducted by
port authorities, although done without search warrants,
unreasonable searches? (NO)
- No. Routine baggage inspections conducted by port
authorities, although done without search warrants, are
not unreasonable searches per se. Constitutional
provisions protecting privacy should not be so literally
understood so as to deny reasonable safeguards to
ensure the safety of the traveling public. Port security
measures are consistent with the country’s aim to
develop transportation and trade in conjunction with
national and economic growth.
The Philippine Ports Authority was subsequently
given police authority through Executive Order No.
513, which provides:
Sec. 2. Section 6 is hereby amended by adding a new
paragraph to read as follows:
Section 6-c. Police Authority – The Authority shall have
such police authority within the ports administered by it
as may be necessary to carry out its powers and
functions and attain its purposes and objectives, without
prejudice to the exercise of the functions of the Bureau
of Customs and other law enforcement bodies within the
area.
i. Check points
Valmonte v. De Villa (170 SCRA 256)
FACTS: NCRDC set up checkpoints in different areas,
including Valenzuela, Metro Manila.
Atty. Ricardo Valmonte, a Valenzuela resident, and the
Union of Lawyers and Advocates for People's Rights
(ULAP) filed a petition questioning the
constitutionality of these checkpoints. They argued
that the checkpoints granted the respondents, including
Renato De Villa and the NCRDC, broad authority to
conduct searches and seizures without the need for
a search warrant or court order, which they believed
was a violation of the Constitution.
ISSUE: Do the military and police checkpoints violate the
right of the people against unreasonable search and
seizures? (NO)
The setting up of the questioned checkpoints in
Valenzuela (and probably in other areas) may be
considered as a security measure to enable the NCRDC
to pursue its mission of establishing effective territorial
defense and maintaining peace and order for the benefit
of the public. Checkpoints may also be regarded as
measures to thwart plots to destabilize the
government, in the interest of public security. In this
connection, the Court may take judicial notice of the shift
to urban centers and their suburbs of the insurgency
movement, so clearly reflected in the increased killings in
cities of police and military men by NPA “sparrow units,”
not to mention the abundance of unlicensed firearms and
the alarming rise in lawlessness and violence in such
urban centers, not all of which are reported in media,
most likely brought about by deteriorating economic
conditions – which all sum up to what one can rightly
consider, at the very least, as abnormal times. Between
the inherent right of the state to protect its existence
and promote public welfare and an individual's right
against a warrantless search which is however
reasonably conducted, the former should prevail.
People v. Exala (221 SCRA 494)
Facts: a private jeep driven by accused-appellant
Restituto B. Bocalan was stopped at a police checkpoint
in Cavite City for routine inspection regarding unlicensed
firearms and other prohibited items. With Bocalan were
his co-accused Jaime P. Fernandez and Rodelio C.
Exala. Pfc. Ricardo Galang, a member of the inspection
team, asked the occupants if there were firearms inside.
They answered in the negative. Pfc. Galang then
proceeded to inspect the vehicle and noticed a black
leather bag with bulging sides. He asked what it
contained, but nobody answered. The three accused
became fidgety and appeared nervous. Suspicious, Pfc.
Galang ordered the bag opened and found marijuana
inside.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is correct in his
contention that the evidence is inadmissible since it was
obtained through a warrantless arrest.
- The issue was never raised in the proceedings in the
lower court. Bocalan never objected to the admissibility
of the evidence on the ground that the same was
obtained in a warrantless search.
Consequently, he is deemed to have waived his
objection on the legality of the search and the
admissibility of the evidence obtained in the course
thereof. In view of such waiver, the court is bound to
admit the evidence. But even assuming arguendo that
there was no waiver, still appellant's contention deserves
scant consideration.
There are indeed instances where search and seizure
can be effected without necessarily being preceded by
an arrest. An illustration would be the "stop-and-
search" without a warrant at military or police
checkpoints, the constitutionality of which has already
been upheld by this Court. Vehicles are generally
allowed to pass through these checkpoints after a
routine inspection and answering a few questions. If
vehicles are stopped and extensively searched it is
because of some probable cause which justifies a
reasonable belief of those manning the checkpoints
that either the motorist is a law-offender or the
contents of the vehicle are or have been instruments
in the commission of an offense. However, lest it be
misunderstood, this doctrine is not intended to do away
with the general rule that no person shall be subjected to
search of his person, personal effects and belongings, or
his residence except of virtue of a search warrant or on
the occasion of a lawful arrest. The case before us is an
incident to or an offshoot of a lawful "stop-and-search" at
a military or police checkpoint.
Their submissive stance after the discovery of the bag of
marijuana, as well as the absence of any protest on their
part when arrested, not only casts serious doubts on
their professed innocence but also confirms their
acquiescence to the search. Clearly then, there was
waiver of the right against unreasonable search and
seizure.
Abenes v. Court of Appeals (515 SCRA 690)
FACTS: Rodolfo Abenes, a barangay chairman, was
charged with illegal possession of a high-powered
firearm and its ammunitions during the election period.
He faced two charges: (1) illegal possession of firearms
and its ammunitions; and (2) violation of the Omnibus
Election Code. The firearm was confiscated from Abenes
at a checkpoint when his vehicle was stopped for routine
inspection. The police noticed the firearm tucked in his
waist and asked him to produce a license for it. Abenes
couldn't produce one, leading to the confiscation of the
firearm.
1. Whether the checkpoint was legally set up. (YES)
2. Whether Abenes’ constitutional right against unlawful
search and seizure had been violated. (NO)
-1. The production of a mission order is not necessary in
view of the fact that the checkpoint was established
three days before the May 11, 1998 elections; and the
circumstances under which the policemen found the gun
warranted its seizure without a warrant pursuant to
plainview doctrine.
-2. NO. The law enforcement officers lawfully made
an initial intrusion because of the enforcement of the
Gun Ban and were properly in a position from which
they particularly viewed the area. In the course of
such lawful intrusion, the policemen came inadvertently
across a piece of evidence incriminating Abenes where
they saw the gun tucked into his waist. The gun was in
plain view and discovered inadvertently when Abenes
alighted from the vehicle. However, there is insufficient
evidence that the firearm Abenes carried had no license.
Thus, for failure of the prosecution to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that Abenes was carrying a firearm
without prior authority, license or permit, the latter must
be exculpated from criminal liability under the illegal
possession of firearms law. However, Abenes is still
convicted for violation of the Comelec Gun Ban.
6. Valid Warantless Arrests
a. Rule 113, Rules of Court
People v. Villareal (693 SCRA 532)
FACTS: Police Officer Renato de Leon was riding his
motorcycle when he spotted the appellant, Villareal,
holding a plastic sachet of shabu from a distance of 8 to
10 meters. Upon realizing he was being observed,
Villareal attempted to flee but was apprehended by de
Leon. Villareal was then taken to the police station where
he was placed under arrest, and the alleged shabu was
submitted as evidence. The substance, weighing 0.03
grams of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug, was verified through testing.
ISSUE: Whether or not there was a valid warrantless
arrest based on the police officer’s personal
knowledge of the criminal record of the appellant.
- No, there was no valid warrantless arrest. A lawful
warrantless arrest exists when either of the following
circumstances are present: (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 he person to be arrested
has committed it, and (c) when the person to be arrested
is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is service final
judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is
pending, or has escaped while being transferred from
one confinement to another.
In the case at bar, based on the distance and the
amount of the powdery substance it is insufficient to
conclude, even with clear vision that such substance
constitutes as shabu. The act of the appellant of
examining the substance is not tantamount to arouse
suspicion of a commission or possible commission of a
crime even if he has previous criminal history on the
same offense.
Personal knowledge is not defined as knowledge of
a person’s criminal record, but personal knowledge
as to the actual commission of the crime. The act of
running away from authority also does not automatically
imply guilt on the accused. There are various reasons to
run away from authority, and commission of a crime is
just one of the possible reasons. Because there is an
absence of overt act there is no justification for the
appellant’s warrantless arrest. Hence, it cannot be
presented as evidence in court as it is a fruit of the
poisonous tree.
People v. Collado (698 SCRA 628)
FACTS: PO2 Noble received information from a civilian
informant implicating spouses Marcelino and Myra in
shabu distribution. The informant also disclosed that
drug users, including out-of-school youth, frequented
their residence for drug sessions. A buy-bust operation
team was assembled, and the informant introduced
Noble to Marcelino as a regular buyer. Myra accepted
the money and Marcelino handed over a sachet of white
crystalline substance.
Simultaneously, SPO2 Cruz and another officer entered
the residence, where they found Apelo, Cipriano,
Ranada, Abache, Sumulong, Madarang, and Latario with
drug paraphernalia.
ISSUE: Whether or not irregularities attended the arrest.
(NO)
- The arrest of the appellants was an arrest in flagrante
delicto made in pursuance of Sec. 5(a), Rule 113 of the
Rules of Court. The arrest was effected after Marcelino
and Myra performed the overt act of selling to PO2
Noble the sachet of shabu and Ranada of having in his
control and custody illegal drug paraphernalia.
As for the specimen, the failure of the police officers to
inventory and photograph the confiscated items are not
fatal to the prosecution's cause, provided that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized substance
were preserved, as in this case.
- In Rañada’s case, he was actually caught having
custody and control of the confiscated drug paraphenalia
intended for smoking, injecting, etc. into one's body. It
was also indubitably shown that he failed to present
authority to possess the prohibited articles, much less,
an explanation of his possession thereof. However, as
regards the other accused who were seen in the
company of Rañada, the evidence of conspiracy
against them was insufficient. They were in close
proximity to Rañada at the time and place of the incident.
But mere presence at the scene of the crime does not
imply conspiracy. The prosecution failed to show specific
overt acts that would link these accused to Ranada's
possession of the said contrabands. The CA erred in
ruling that they were accessories to the crime.
Antiquera v. People (712 SCRA 339)
FACTS: Police officers were conducting a police visibility
patrol in Pasay City when they saw two unidentified men
rush out of a house and boarded a jeep. Believing that
there was a crime, the police officers approached the
house. When they peeked through the partially opened
door, they saw Antiquera and Cruz engaged in a pot
session. The police officers entered the house,
introduced themselves and arrested Antiquera and Cruz.
While inspecting the vicinity, PO1 Cabutihan saw a
jewellery box which contained shabu and unused
paraphernalia.
ISSUE: Whether or not the arrest was invalid.
HELD: Yes, there was unlawful arrest because the
circumstances here do not make out a case of arrest
made in flagrante delicto. Admittedly, the police officers
did not notice anything amiss going on in the house from
the street where they stood. Indeed, even as they
peeked through its partially opened door, they saw no
activity that warranted their entering it. Clearly, no crime
was plainly exposed to the view of the arresting officers
that authorized the arrest of accused Antiquera without
warrant under the above-mentioned rule. Considering
that his arrest was illegal, the search and seizure that
resulted from it was likewise illegal.
People v. Miranda (760 SCRA 578)
FACTS: The case involves a buy-bust operation led by
P/CI Chica, where the appellant was apprehended for
allegedly selling shabu. The operation was based on a
tip from a confidential informant. The defense claimed
that the arrest was a set-up, asserting that appellant had
just come from work and could not have been involved.
Despite this, the trial court found the appellant guilty, a
decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. They raised
concerns about inconsistencies in testimonies and the
legitimacy of the operation, but the CA upheld the trial
court's decision, deeming the inconsistencies minor and
affirming the operation's validity.
HELD: The Court gives full faith and credence to the
testimonies of the police officers and upholds the
presumption of regularity in the apprehending
officers’ performance of official duty. It is a settled
rule that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous
Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses
who are police officers, for they are presumed to have
performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there
is evidence to the contrary.
On the other hand, appellant failed to present clear
and convincing evidence to overturn the
presumption that the arresting officers regularly
performed their duties. Except for his bare allegation of
denial, nothing supports his claim that the police officers
were impelled by improper motives to testify against him.
In fact, in his cross-examination, appellant cannot think
of any reason why the police officers would fabricate
stories against him and charge him with two serious
offenses.
Saraum v. People (781 SCRA 661)
FACTS: a phone call was received regarding illegal drug
activities in Sitio Camansi, Barangay Lorega, Cebu City.
A buy-bust team was formed, composed of P03 Larrobis,
PO1 Jumalon, P02 Nathaniel Sta. Ana, PO1 Roy
Cabahug, and PO1 Julius Aninon. They targeted an
individual known as "Pata."
During the operation, "Pata" attempted to flee towards
his shanty and eluded arrest. Inside the house, the team
encountered Saraum and Peter Esperanza, who were in
possession of drug paraphernalia, apparently preparing
for a "shabu" pot session. Saraum was found with a
lighter, rolled tissue paper, and aluminum tin foil (used
as a tooter). P03 Larrobis confiscated the items and
made initial markings. The items were later turned over
to the property custodian of the Office of City Prosecutor.
ISSUE: Whether the arrest is valid. (YES)
HELD: Valid In flagrante delicto arrest. Saraum was
arrested during the commission of a crime, which
instance does not require a warrant in accordance with
Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure. In arrest in flagrante delicto, the accused is
apprehended at the very moment he is committing or
attempting to commit or has just committed an offense in
the presence of the arresting officer.
To constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, two
requisites must concur: (1) the person to be arrested
must execute an overt act indicating that he has just
committed ,is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the
presence or within the view of the arresting officer.
Here, the Court is unconvinced with Saraum's statement
that he was not committing a crime at the time of his
arrest. P03 Larrobis described in detail how they were
able to apprehend him who was then holding a
disposable lighter in his right hand and a tin foil and a
rolled tissue paper in his left hand, while they were in the
course of arresting somebody.
The case is clearly one of hot pursuit of "Pata," who, in
eluding arrest, entered the shanty where Saraum and
Esperanza were incidentally caught In possession of the
Illegal items. Saraum did not proffer any satisfactory
explanation with regard to his presence at the vicinity of
the buy-bust operation and his possession of the
11elzeditems that he claims to have "countless, lawful
uses.”
b. Waiver of Illegality of Arrest
People v. Racho (626 SCRA 633)
a confidential agent arranged to buy shabu from the
appellant. The police formed a team for his arrest. When
the appellant got off a bus, the agent identified him.
During the apprehension, a sachet of shabu fell from his
pocket. Lab tests confirmed it.
Legal Proceedings:
 Appellant was charged with drug-related
offenses.
 He pleaded not guilty.
 He was convicted of transporting drugs but
acquitted of possession.
 The Court of Appeals upheld the decision.
ISSUE: Whether or not the appellant has a ground to
assail the validity of his arrest. (YES)
HELD: The long standing rule in this jurisdiction is that
"reliable information" alone is not sufficient to justify a
warrantless arrest.
The rule requires, in addition, that the accused perform
some overt act that would indicate that he has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense. We find no cogent reason to depart
from this well-established doctrine.
Appellant herein was not committing a crime in the
presence of the police officers. Neither did the arresting
officers have personal knowledge of facts indicating that
the person to be arrested had committed, was
committing, or about to commit an offense.
At the time of the arrest, appellant had just alighted from
the Gemini bus and was waiting for a tricycle. Appellant
was not acting in any suspicious manner that would
engender a reasonable ground for the police officers to
suspect and conclude that he was committing or
intending to commit a crime. Were it not for the
information given by the informant, appellant would not
have been apprehended and no search would have
been made, and consequently, the sachet of shabu
would not have been confiscated.
Neither was the arresting officers impelled by any
urgency that would allow them to do away with the
requisite warrant. As testified to by Police Officer 1
Aurelio Iniwan, a member of the arresting team, their
office received the "tipped information" on May 19, 2003. Valdez v. People (538 SCRA 611)
They likewise learned from the informant not only the
appellant’s physical description but also his name. FACTS: Petitioner Arsenio Valdez was found guilty by
Although it was not certain that appellant would arrive on the lower courts for the violation of Section 11 of RA
the same day (May 19), there was an assurance that he 9165 after dried marijuana leaves were found in his
would be there the following day (May 20). Clearly, the
possession by three barangay tanods who made a
police had ample opportunity to apply for a warrant.
search on him. In this appeal, petitioner prays for his
c. Effects of Declaration of Illegality of Arrest acquittal and asserts that his guilt of the crime charged
had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. He
People v. Biyoc (532 SCRA 528) argues, that the warrantless arrest effected against him
by the barangay tanod was unlawful and that the
FACTS: Rodolfo Biyoc, having moral ascendancy over warrantless search of his bag that followed was likewise
the complainant,[AAA], who is a minor, 11 years old, the contrary to law.
latter being his daughter by means of force, coercion and
intimidation had a sexual intercourse with her against her ISSUE: Whether the warrantless arrest was validly made
will. The sister of AAA witnessed the incident and and that the warrantless search of his bag
hurriedly reported it to her mother and they reported it to that followed was likewise valid. (NO)
the DSWD. They were accompanied by a Social Worker
to report the incident to the police station. PO1 Javier, HELD:
together with AAA, her sister and mother proceeded to
When petitioner was arrested without a warrant, he was
the family home, and on their way, they met Biyoc. PO1
neither caught in flagrante delicto committing a crime nor
Javier at once informed him of his rights, arrested him,
was the arrest effected in hot pursuit. Moreover, it cannot
and brought him to the police station. Biyoc denied the
therefore be reasonably argued that the warrantless
allegations imputed against him and he was aware of the
search conducted on petitioner was incidental to a lawful
gravity of the offense lodged against him, thus, he made
arrest. Furthermore, To determine the admissibility of the
no attempt to escape which is an indicative of his
seized drugs in evidence, it is indispensable to ascertain
innocence. The regional trial court found him guilty
whether or not the search which yielded the alleged
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, which
contraband was lawful. The search, conducted as it was
was also affirmed by the Court of Appeals. In his brief,
without a warrant, is justified only if it were incidental to a
he raised several issues contending that the trial court
lawful arrest. In evaluating the evidence on record in its
erred in giving such judgment. One argument he raised
totality, the reasonable conclusion is that the arrest of
was that the trial court failed to consider the fact that the
petitioner without a warrant is not lawful as well.
accused’s arrest was legally objectionable. Appellant
Wherefore, the decision of lower court was reversed and
claims that his arrest was illegal because a "warrantless
that herein petitioner Arsenio Valdez was acquitted
arrest was effected even before the statement of the
based on reasonable doubt.
private complainant was taken."
People v. Santos (555 SCRA 578)
ISSUE: Whether accused-appellant Biyoc is illegally
arrested. (NO) FACTS: Charmaine Mamaril is a kindergarten pupil in
Quezon City. When her mother, Raquel, fetched her at
HELD: No, accused-appellant Biyoc was not illegally
school, Charmaine’s teacher met and asked the mother
arrested. The Court ruled that an accused may be
if the child was able to reach home safely in which
estopped from assailing the illegality of his arrest if he
Raquel replied that the child did not know the way home.
fails to move for the quashing of the information against
They continued to look for Charmaine in school until
him before his arraignment. And since the legality of an
someone informed her that a woman had earlier fetched
arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the
her daughter. Raquel then immediately reported the
person of the accused, any defect in his arrest may be
matter to the police authorities and the National Bureau
deemed cured when he voluntarily submitted to the
of Investigation. Five days later, Raquel stated that a
jurisdiction of the trial court as what was done by the
police sergeant informed her that a child named
appellants in the instant case. Not only did they enter
Charmaine was with a Barangay Kagawad Aida
their pleas during arraignment, but they also actively
Bautista. Raquel immediately went to Bautista with some
participated during the trial which constitutes a waiver of
identification papers of Charmaine, and the child was
any irregularity in their arrest. Objections to the legality of
turned over to her after showing the birth certificate.
arrests must, however, be made prior to the entry of plea
at arraignment; otherwise, they are considered waived.
Two days later, Bautista called Raquel to tell her that a
woman named Mercy Santos has returned to her place
to claim Charmaine. Raquel then notified police
authorities and proceeded to arrest Santos. However,
appellant Santos denied the prosecution’s allegations
and insisted that her extrajudicial confession was
extracted in violation of her constitutional rights.

HELD: A confession is not admissible in evidence unless

the prosecution satisfactorily shows that it was obtained
within the limits imposed by the 1987 Constitution.
Section 12, Article III thereof, provides:
(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of
an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right
to remain silent and to have competent and independent
counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person
cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be
provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except
in writing and in the presence of counsel. (3) Any
confession or admission obtained in violation of this or
section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence
against him.

People v. Edaño (729 SCRA 255)

d. When to raise illegality of arrest

Roallos v. People (712 SCRA 593)

People v. Vasquez (714 SCRA 78)

People v. Manlulu (G.R. No. 102140; April 22, 1994)

NOTE: A lawful warrantless arrest requires that the

arrest immediately follows the commission of the offense
and not some nineteen (19) hours later. Paragraph (b),
Sec. 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
Procedure provides that the arresting officer must have
“personal knowledge” of an offense which “has in fact
just been committed.”