154. Salazar v.
Achcoso, 183 SCRA 145** **Doctrine:**
**Facts:**
- Rosalie Tesoro filed a sworn statement with the
POEA accusing petitioner Salazar of illegal
recruitment.
- Atty. Ferdinand Marquez directed Salazar to
appear before the POEA regarding the complaint.
- Public respondent Administrator Tomas
Achacoso issued Closure and Seizure Order No.
1205 to Salazar on the same day, seizing
documents and paraphernalia used for illegal
recruitment.
- The order was executed at Salazar's residence
without prior notice or hearing, leading to the
confiscation of various items.
**Issue:**
Whether the Secretary of Labor can validly issue
warrants of search and seizure under Article 38
of the Labor Code.
**Ruling:**
- The Supreme Court held that the Secretary of
Labor cannot issue warrants of search and
seizure.
- The new Constitution mandates that warrants
can only be issued by judges after determining
probable cause.
- Article 38 of the Labor Code, allowing the
Secretary of Labor to issue such warrants, was
declared unconstitutional.
- The power to order arrests is limited to
exceptional cases, and general warrants like the
one issued in this case are null and void.
specified by law, can issue search and seizure
The case emphasizes the constitutional
requirement that search and arrest warrants
must be issued by judges after determining
probable cause. Administrative officials, such as
the Secretary of Labor, do not have the authority
to issue such warrants. Additionally, warrants
must specifically identify the items to be seized,
and general warrants are deemed null and void.
155. Republic (PCGG) v. Sandiganbayan, 255
SCRA 438**
**Facts:**
- The PCGG issued orders for the sequestration of
private respondents Sipalay Trading Corporation
and Allied Banking Corporation.
- A "Search and Seizure Order" was issued by
PCGG against Allied Banking Corporation.
**Issue:**
Whether the PCGG may validly issue a search and
seizure order.
**Ruling:**
- The PCGG does not have the authority to issue
a search and seizure order.
- Only a "judge" or another authorized officer
under the FREEDOM CONSTITUTION can issue
such orders.
- The PCGG is not a judge, and Executive Order
No. 1 did not expressly or impliedly grant the
PCGG the power to issue search warrants/orders.
**Doctrine:**
This case reaffirms the principle that only a
"judge" or another authorized officer, as
orders. The PCGG, not being a judge and lacking
explicit authorization, cannot exercise this
power. This emphasizes the constitutional
requirement that search and seizure orders must
be issued by impartial judicial authorities or
those specifically authorized by law.
156. Morano v. Vivo, 80 SCRA 562**
**Facts:**
- A Chinese citizen and her son entered the
Philippines with a temporary visitor's visa for two
months but overstayed for thirty years with
several extensions.
- The Commissioner of Immigration ordered
them to leave the country, warning of a warrant
of arrest if they failed to comply.
**Issue:**
Whether the Commissioner of Immigration may
validly issue warrants of arrest.
**Ruling:**
- Yes, the Commissioner of Immigration can
validly issue warrants of arrest in deportation
proceedings.
- The constitutional limitation on warrants of
arrest applies to judicial power and criminal
prosecutions, not administrative actions like
deportation.
- Deportation is not a punishment, and the
determination of its propriety is not a criminal
prosecution.
- The constitutional guarantee of determining
probable cause by a judge does not extend to
deportation proceedings.

**Doctrine:**
This case establishes that the constitutional
guarantee requiring the determination of
probable cause by a judge applies to criminal
prosecutions and judicial power, not
administrative actions like deportation.
Deportation proceedings, being separate and
independent from criminal prosecutions, do not
require a judicial determination of probable
cause for the issuance of warrants by
administrative officials like the Commissioner of
Immigration.
157. Sy v. Domingo**
**Facts:**
Chiu Wan Hong, a Chinese citizen, entered the
Philippines as a non-immigrant in 1949.
Subsequently, on December 18, 1954, the
Commissioner of Immigration ordered the arrest
and deportation of petitioner Aurora Villamin Sy.
The grounds for deportation included allegations
of overstaying and assuming a false identity,
particularly securing Alien Certificate of
Registration and Immigrant Certificate of
Residence under a different name.
**Issue:**
The primary issue at hand is whether the
deportation warrant issued by the Commissioner
is legally valid.
**Ruling:**
The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. The
Court upheld the authority of the Bureau of
Immigration to issue deportation warrants. Such
warrants can be issued either upon the
culmination of a final decision regarding
deportation or when there is substantial
evidence demonstrating the guilt of the alien
involved.
In this case, the warrant for deportation was
deemed lawful as it was issued in accordance
with the decision of the Board of Commissioners
of Immigration. The Court acknowledged the
authority of the Board to conduct investigations
and make determinations regarding the truth of
the charges brought against an individual.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the
finding of the Board, particularly based on a
comparison of photographs, constitutes
substantial evidence. This evidence, prima facie,
supports the conclusion that the petitioner is
indeed the same person as Chiu Wan Hong.
**Doctrine:**
The case underscores the principle that the
Bureau of Immigration possesses the lawful
authority to issue deportation warrants. These
warrants are justified when they are based on
either a final decision regarding deportation or
when there exists sufficient evidence of the
alien's guilt. The decision also underscores the
role of substantial evidence in supporting
administrative determinations, particularly in
deportation proceedings.
158. Tron Van Nyhia v. Liway, 175 SCRA 318**
**Facts:**
- A complaint was filed with the Commission of
Immigration and Deportation (CID) against the
petitioner, a French national, for allegedly
committing acts inimical to public safety and
progress.
- The CID commissioner issued a warrant of
arrest after the petitioner twice refused to go to
the CID headquarters for status verification.
**Issue:**
Whether the warrant of arrest issued and
petitioner's subsequent arrest were valid and
legal.
**Ruling:**
- No, the warrant of arrest and the petitioner's
arrest were not valid and legal.
- The petitioner was "invited" by a combined
team of CID agents and police officers based on
a mission order and a sworn complaint from a
single individual.
- The essential requisite of probable cause was
conspicuously absent.
**Doctrine:**
This case underscores the importance of
probable cause as an essential requisite for the
issuance of arrest warrants. The absence of
probable cause renders warrants and
subsequent arrests invalid and illegal. Probable
cause ensures that there is a reasonable ground
to believe that the person to be arrested has
committed an offense, protecting individuals
from arbitrary arrests and safeguarding their
constitutional rights.
159. Board of Commissioners v. Judge De La
Rosa, 197 SCRA 853**
**Facts:**
- Santiago Gatchalian, recognized as a native-
born Filipino citizen, had a grandson, William
Gatchalian.
- In 1961, William, along with Santiago's
daughter and son, arrived in Manila from Hong
Kong, seeking admission as Filipino citizens.
- The Board of Special Inquiry admitted them as
Filipino citizens, but a review by the Board of
Commissioners led to a reversal of the decision.
- William Gatchalian faced deportation orders,
leading to legal proceedings.
**Issue:**
Whether or not William Gatchalian is to be
declared as a Filipino citizen.
**Ruling:**
- William Gatchalian is declared a Filipino citizen.
- The decision emphasizes that, as a legitimate
child, William follows the citizenship of his father,
a Filipino.
- The ruling recognizes William as belonging to a
class of Filipinos who are citizens of the
Philippines at the time of the adoption of the
constitution.
**Doctrine:**
This case highlights the principle that legitimate
children follow the citizenship of their father. The
determination of citizenship is crucial in cases
involving immigration and deportation, and it is
essential to consider the legal status at the time
of birth and relevant constitutional provisions. In
this context, recognizing William Gatchalian as a
Filipino citizen is based on the citizenship of his
Filipino father, as a legitimate child.
160. Harvey v. Santiago, 162 SCRA 840**
**Facts:**
- Petitioners Andrew Harvey, John Sherman, and
Adriaa van den Elshout were apprehended on
suspicion of being alien pedophiles after three
months of close surveillance by Commission on
Immigration and Deportation agents.
- Seized items included rolls of photo negatives
and explicit photos depicting child prostitutes in
salacious poses, as well as posters and literature
advertising child prostitutes.
**Issue:**
Whether the Immigration Commissioner violated
petitioners' constitutional right against
unreasonable searches and seizures.
**Ruling:**
- NO. The arrest was based on probable cause
determined after three months of close
surveillance.
- The existence of probable cause justified the
arrest and the seizure of photo negatives, explicit
photos, posters, and literature without a
warrant.
- These seized articles were considered
admissible as they were incident to a lawful
arrest.
**Doctrine:**
This case underscores that an arrest and seizure
without a warrant can be justified based on
probable cause. The three-month surveillance
period played a crucial role in establishing the
existence of probable cause, justifying the arrest
and seizure of evidence. The doctrine reinforces
the legal principle that arrests and seizures, even
without a warrant, can be lawful if there is a
reasonable belief in the commission of an
offense, ensuring a balance between law
enforcement needs and individual rights.
161. Ho vs. People – 280 SCRA 365**
**Facts:**
- The Anti-Graft League filed a complaint against
Teresa Ho, Rolando Narciso, and three others for
violating RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act).
- After submitting counteraffidavits, a resolution
recommended charges against Narciso, leading
to the issuance of a warrant of arrest by the
Sandiganbayan.
- Despite an unsuccessful motion for
reconsideration, both respondents filed a
petition with the Supreme Court.
**Issue:**
Whether a judge may determine probable cause
and issue a warrant of arrest solely based on the
prosecutor's resolution without having any of the
evidence before him.
**Ruling:**
- No. The respondent court allegedly displayed
grave abuse of discretion by automatically
issuing a warrant solely based on the
prosecutor's recommendation.
- The judge is required to personally evaluate
evidence before issuing a warrant, and probable
cause necessitates an independent assessment.
- While the judge is not obliged to scrutinize
preliminary investigation evidence at this stage,
reliance on sufficient proof is essential for
making an informed decision.
- The petitioner emphasizes the need for the
judge to render a sound decision, considering
evidence beyond the prosecutor's report.
**Doctrine:**
This case reinforces the principle that a judge
must exercise independent judgment in
determining probable cause for issuing a warrant
of arrest. While the judge may not need to
scrutinize all the evidence from the preliminary
investigation, a reliance on sufficient proof
beyond the prosecutor's recommendation is
necessary to ensure a fair and impartial decision.
The doctrine underscores the importance of the
judiciary's role in safeguarding individual rights
during the pre-trial stage of a criminal
proceeding.
162. Material Distributions v. Judge, 84 Phil 127
(1989)**
**Facts:**
- Sarreal filed a complaint against petitioners,
seeking a money judgment and access to
corporate records.
- Judge Natividad granted the motion for
production of documents, prompting petitioners
to challenge it.
- Petitioners argued against a "fishing expedition"
and invoked their right against self-incrimination,
particularly concerning potential falsification
charges.
- Respondents countered, asserting a sufficient
showing of good cause and that examining
corporate records wouldn't violate the
constitutional protection against self-
incrimination.
**Issue:**
Whether the court order for
production/inspection of documents is valid.
**Ruling:**
- Yes. Sarreal's motion specified the need to
inspect documents to investigate potential
forgery by Harry Lyons, fulfilling the requirement
for showing good cause under Rule 21.
- There is no indication of how the order would
lead to self-incrimination by the petitioners.
- The orders, based on Rule 21, pertain to civil
procedure, not unreasonable searches
prohibited by the Constitution.
- Even if considered a search warrant, the
procedure aligns with legal standards.
- Sarreal's interest in the documents and their
relevance to the issues justifies the court's order,
without violating the constitutional guarantee of
privacy.
**Doctrine:**
This case underscores the importance of
demonstrating good cause when seeking access
to documents through court orders. The ruling
reaffirms that such orders, rooted in civil
procedure rules, do not constitute unreasonable
searches prohibited by the Constitution.
Additionally, the decision highlights the
distinction between civil procedure and
constitutional rights, emphasizing the need to
balance the interests of parties involved in
litigation while respecting fundamental legal
protections.
163. Oklahoma Press v. Walling, 327 US 186**
**Facts:**
- Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), specifically §
11(a) and § 9, alleging a violation of the Fourth
Amendment's protection against unreasonable
searches and seizures.
- The FLSA applied to newspaper publishing and
distribution businesses like the petitioners,
leading to an investigation by the respondent.
- The petitioners argued that the inquiry and the
materials requested were overly broad and
violated their Fourth Amendment rights.
**Issue:**
Whether the Fair Labor Standards Act violates
the Fourth Amendment.
**Ruling:**
- No. The court held that the Fourth Amendment
safeguards against abuses related to
indefiniteness or breadth in inquiries.
- In this case, the inquiry was lawful, the
materials specified were relevant, and there was
no violation of the petitioners' Fourth
Amendment rights.
- Since both petitioners were corporations and
the records sought were corporate in nature,
there was no element of self-incrimination
claimed.
- The court found the records relevant to the
lawful inquiry authorized by § 11(a) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act to determine the
petitioners' compliance with the Act.
**Doctrine:**
This case emphasizes the balance between
regulatory oversight and constitutional
protections against unreasonable searches and
seizures. It underscores that lawful inquiries,
particularly those related to regulatory
compliance, must specify relevant materials and
not be overly broad or indefinite. Furthermore,
the ruling highlights that corporate records may
be subject to inspection and relevant to
determining compliance with regulatory
statutes, as long as the inquiry is lawful and
reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
164. Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 US 523
(1967)**
**Facts:**
- An inspector from the Department of Health
entered a home without a warrant to investigate
housing code violations.
- The Appellant, using part of his leasehold as a
residence, refused entry, insisting on the need
for a warrant.
- Despite a subsequent attempt by the inspector,
the Appellant continued to deny access.
- A complaint for Housing Code violation
followed, prompting the Appellant to file a writ
of prohibition.
**Issue:**
Whether the inspector may enter the building
without a search warrant.
**Ruling:**
- The court ruled that an inspector cannot access
the building without a search warrant, citing
Section 2 of the Bill of Rights protecting the right
to be secure against unreasonable searches and
seizures.
- Mere information gathered from a person is
insufficient as a reasonable ground for entry
without a search warrant.
- The right of inspection is limited in scope and
cannot be exercised under unreasonable
conditions.
**Doctrine:**
This case establishes the principle that searches
and inspections conducted by government
authorities must adhere to constitutional
protections against unreasonable searches and
seizures. It reaffirms the requirement of a search
warrant as a safeguard for individuals' privacy
rights. The decision underscores that the right of
inspection, while recognized, is not absolute and
must be exercised within the bounds of
reasonableness and respect for constitutional
rights.
165. People v. Aminuddin, 163 SCRA 402**
**Facts:**
- Idel Aminnudin was arrested in Iloilo City after
disembarking from the M/V Wilcon 9 when PC
officers, acting on a tip, inspected his bag and
discovered what appeared to be marijuana
leaves.
- Subsequent laboratory tests confirmed the
seized bundles to be 3 kilos of marijuana.
- Aminnudin contested the arrest, claiming it was
arbitrary and without a search warrant, alleging
mistreatment at the PC headquarters and
challenging the proper identification of the
confiscated marijuana bundles.
- The trial court's conviction led to the filing of
this petition.
**Issue:**
Whether the arrest was legal, and the evidence
admissible.
**Ruling:**
- The PC officers lacked a warrant and justified
Aminnudin's arrest and bag seizure solely based
on a tip from an informer about his alleged
possession of marijuana.
- No arrest or search warrant was obtained, and
no flagrante delicto situation existed to justify
the warrantless arrest under Rule 113.
- Despite having two days to secure a warrant,
the PC officers neglected to comply with legal
procedures, ignoring the Bill of Rights.
- The exclusion of the illegally seized marijuana,
considered the fruit of the poisonous tree, led to
insufficient evidence.
- The accused-appellant was discharged on the
presumption of innocence.
**Doctrine:**
Warrantless searches are allowable under
specific circumstances, including waiver of rights,
search incidental to a lawful arrest, seizure of
evidence in plain view, exigent and emergency
circumstances, search of a moving vehicle, stop
and frisk rule (Terry Search), customs search,
airport searches, checkpoint search, and
warrantless search by a private individual.
However, these exceptions must adhere to
certain requisites, including the existence of the
right, knowledge of the right, and the intention
to relinquish the right. The constitutional
immunity from unreasonable searches and
seizures cannot be waived except by the person
whose rights are invaded or by someone
expressly authorized to do so on their behalf. In
this case, the absence of a warrant and failure to
comply with legal procedures rendered the
arrest and evidence inadmissible, leading to the
discharge of the accused-appellant.
166. People v. Valdez, 341 SCRA 85**
**Facts:**
- SPO3 Marcelo Tipay received a tip about a
marijuana plantation allegedly owned by Abe
Valdez.
- A police team, led by Police Inspector Alejandro
Parungao, verified the report and found seven
marijuana plants near Valdez's hut.
- The police uprooted the plants, arrested Valdez,
and seized the plants as evidence.
- Valdez contended there was an unlawful
search, and the evidence was inadmissible.
**Issues:**
1. Was the search and seizure lawful?
2. Was the seized evidence admissible?
**Ruling:**
- The search was not lawful as there was no
search warrant issued after a personal
determination of probable cause.
- The "plain view" doctrine was not applicable as
the elements were not present, particularly the
absence of a valid warrantless arrest preceding
the search.
- The police team was dispatched to search for
and uproot the marijuana plants, and there was
no inadvertent discovery.
- The evidence obtained through the illegal
search was inadmissible.
**Doctrine:**
- The "plain view" doctrine requires a prior valid
intrusion, the evidence's inadvertent discovery,
immediate apparentness, and plain view
justifying mere seizure without further search.
- In this case, the absence of a valid warrantless
arrest preceding the search and the police team's
specific mission to locate and uproot marijuana
plants rendered the "plain view" doctrine
inapplicable. The evidence obtained through an
illegal search was deemed inadmissible.
167. People v. Oliver Edano, GR No. 188133, 729
SCRA 255, July 7, 2014**
**Facts:**
- In an entrapment operation on August 6, 2002,
the appellant, Oliver Edano, arrived at the
parking area of McDonald's, West Avenue.
- The appellant, on board a vehicle driven by
Godofredo Siochi, was approached by an
informant.
- When a police officer approached, the
appellant attempted to run away but was
eventually apprehended.
- A plastic bag containing drugs and a gun were
recovered from the appellant's possession.
**Issue:**
- Whether the appellant's warrantless arrest was
valid.
**Ruling:**
- No. The appellant's warrantless arrest was not
valid as there was no ongoing crime (in flagrante
delicto) justifying such an arrest.
- The interaction between the appellant and the
informant did not involve the exchange of money
and drugs.
- The appellant's attempt to run away, without
additional circumstances, cannot be considered
evidence of guilt.
**Doctrine:**
- For a warrantless arrest to be valid, there must
be an ongoing crime (in flagrante delicto).
- Mere suspicion or an attempt to evade arrest,
without concrete evidence of a crime, is not
sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest.
- The circumstances surrounding the arrest must
clearly indicate the commission of an offense at
the time of the arrest.
168. Dale Grady v. North Carolina, March 30,
2015 (Use of GPS Tracker) CASE IN US**
**Facts:**
- Torrey Grady was convicted of two sexual
offenses between 1997 and 2006.
- Upon release for the second offense, Grady was
civilly committed to North Carolina's satellite-
based monitoring program for life.
- The program required wearing a GPS
monitoring bracelet to ensure compliance with
schedule and location requirements.
**Issue:**
- Whether wearing a GPS monitor constitutes a
search under the Fourth Amendment.
**Ruling:**
- Yes. The Supreme Court held that the state
conducts a search when attaching a device to a
person's body, without consent, for tracking
movements.
- The civil nature of North Carolina's monitoring
program doesn't alter the fact that attaching the
device constitutes a search.
- The Fourth Amendment prohibits only
unreasonable searches, and the case was
remanded to determine the program's
reasonableness as a search.
**Doctrine:**
- The Fourth Amendment protects individuals
from unreasonable searches and seizures.
- The method of information collection,
regardless of the government's purpose,
determines if a search is reasonable under the
Fourth Amendment.
- Courts must assess the reasonableness of
monitoring programs that involve attaching
devices to individuals' bodies without consent,
even in civil contexts.
169. Valmonte v. General de Villa – 178 SCRA
211 (Main) and 185 SCRA 655 (MR)**
**Facts:**
- Petition filed by Ricardo C. Valmonte and the
Union of Lawyers and Advocates for People's
Rights (ULAP).
- Challenge to checkpoints in Valenzuela, Metro
Manila, as unconstitutional.
- Allegations of fear and harassment among
residents, with regular searches of vehicles
without a search warrant or court order.
**Issue:**
- Whether the checkpoints are unconstitutional
as they violate the right against unreasonable
searches and seizures.
**Ruling:**
- Checkpoints are a security measure necessary
during abnormal times, such as insurgency
movements in urban centers.
- Right against unreasonable searches and
seizures is personal, requiring evidence of
violation.
- Petitioners failed to prove their rights were
infringed by the checkpoints.
- Occasional inconvenience is acceptable for
maintaining peace and order.
- Absence of a search warrant doesn't
automatically make checkpoint searches
unreasonable.
- Constitutionality of checkpoint searches is
determined on a case-by-case basis.
- Checkpoints in Valenzuela are constitutional,
serving a legitimate purpose.
**Doctrine:**
- Checkpoints are not illegal per se but can be
allowed under exceptional circumstances, such
as threats to government survival or people's
safety.
- Routine checkpoint stops are acceptable as long
as they don't include vehicle searches, body
searches, and are limited to visual inspections.
- Warrantless searches and seizures at
checkpoints are akin to those during warrantless
arrests during or after a crime.
- Searches at international airports are not
constitutionally objectionable, based on public
interest, safety, and necessity.
- Soldiers abusing authority at checkpoints are
criminally and civilly liable for their actions.
170. Valmonte v. General de Villa – 178 SCRA
211 (Main) and 185 SCRA 655 (MR)**
**Facts:**
- The case involves the legality of military and
police saturation drives in Metro Manila.
- Petitioners filed a petition to stop the saturation
drives, alleging constitutional rights violations
and human rights abuses.
- Respondents argued that the drives were
conducted with respect for human rights,
coordination with barangay officials, and media
coverage.
**Issue:**
- Whether the saturation drives are lawful and
legitimate.
**Ruling:**
- The case was remanded to the RTC for further
investigation due to the seriousness of human
rights abuse allegations.
- Petitioners should have the opportunity to
present evidence and identify specific erring
parties.
- Clear guidelines for police actions during civil
disturbances were called for.
**Dissenting Opinion:**
- Justice Sarmiento dissented, deeming
saturation drives per se unconstitutional for
violating the right to be secure in one’s person
and home.
- Disagreed with remanding the case and called
for an immediate writ of prohibition to halt the
drives.
**Doctrine:**
- Recognizes the need for further investigation
into human rights abuses during saturation
drives.
- Emphasizes the opportunity for petitioners to
present evidence and identify wrongdoers.
- Calls for clear guidelines governing police
actions in civil disturbances.
- Dissenting opinion argues saturation drives are
inherently unconstitutional, violating individual
rights.
171. People v. Tudtud, GR 144037, Sept 26,
2003**
**Facts:**
Upon receiving information from an informant,
the police targeted Tudtud, suspecting him of
transporting marijuana. When Tudtud and
another individual were seen alighting from a
bus carrying a carton, resembling the informant's
tip, the police confronted them. Tudtud denied
having any drugs, but upon inspection of the box,
marijuana bundles were found beneath dried
fish. Tudtud and the other individual did not
resist arrest.
**Issue:**
The central question revolves around the validity
of the search and seizure without a warrant.
**Ruling:**
No. The Supreme Court declared the search
invalid, rendering the marijuana leaves obtained
inadmissible as evidence. The Court emphasized
that the arresting officer lacked personal
knowledge of Tudtud's possession of marijuana.
The information was derived from a hearsay
source, compromising the reliability of the tip.
Additionally, Tudtud and the other individual
were not engaged in any overt acts or behaving
suspiciously, negating the presence of probable
cause to justify a warrantless search.
**Doctrine:**
The case reinforces the principle that for a
warrantless search and seizure to be valid, there
must be personal knowledge on the part of the
arresting officer regarding the possession of
illegal substances. Hearsay information, without
corroborating evidence or overt acts indicating
criminal activity, does not establish the requisite
probable cause. This decision underscores the
importance of adherence to constitutional
safeguards in ensuring the lawfulness of searches
and seizures.
172. Sony Music v. Judge Espanol, GR 156804,
March 14, 2005**
**Facts:**
Sony Music Entertainment (Phils.), Inc. reported
Solid Laguna Corporation for unauthorized
replication and distribution of Sony videograms
and CDs, violating PD 1987 and RA 8293
(Copyright Law). Agent Lavin, in securing search
warrants from Judge Español, relied on
information from an unnamed source regarding
pirated CDs at Solid Laguna's premises. The
search warrants were executed, resulting in the
seizure of items. However, Solid Laguna
presented certification authorizing their
activities from the Video Regulatory Board (VRB)
and sought to quash the warrants.
**Issue:**
The central question is whether the search
warrants were valid.
**Ruling:**
No. The Supreme Court held that the warrants
lacked probable cause. Judge Español
appropriately quashed them, considering the
absence of evidence showing Solid Laguna's
unauthorized activities. The reliance on
unnamed persons' information, without
firsthand testimonies, amounted to hearsay and
did not establish probable cause. The Court
clarified that the absence of master tapes, as
emphasized in previous cases, doesn't preclude
other forms of evidence. In this case, the
evidence, whether testimonial or documentary,
must be reliable and based on personal
knowledge.
**Doctrine:**
The decision underscores the necessity of
establishing probable cause in search warrant
applications for copyright infringement cases.
The Court reiterates that while the production of
master tapes is ideal, alternative evidence can be
accepted if reliable and based on personal
knowledge. This reaffirms the flexibility in
presenting evidence, emphasizing that the
evidentiary value should outweigh the potential
delay, inconvenience, or expense of producing
object evidence.
173. People v. Sevilla, 229 SCRA 625**
**Facts:**
Adoracion Sevilla, a suspected drug dealer, was
subject to arrest based on a warrant. The
Narcotics Command, acting on information from
confidential agents, formed a team to effect the
arrest. During the operation, conflicting
testimonies arose regarding the search, the
arrest, and subsequent events. Sevilla and her
companion were found with alleged marijuana,
leading to legal proceedings.
**Issues:**
1. Validity of the search.
2. Effect of conflicting testimonial evidence.
3. Adequate apprisal of the accused's
constitutional rights.
**Ruling:**
1. The search was deemed illegal as there was no
probable cause for an extensive search. Doubts
arose about the truthfulness of facts, suggesting
a pre-planned operation. Consequently,
evidence obtained during the search was
excluded.
2. Conflicting testimonies and improbabilities in
the witnesses' narrations raised doubts about
their credibility. Following precedent (People vs.
Noay), where key witnesses' testimonies cannot
align, the possibility of falsehood emerges,
leading to the indication of acquittal.
3. The accused were not adequately informed of
their constitutional rights during arrest and
investigation. The court emphasized that
conveying meaningful information and ensuring
a full understanding of rights is crucial, going
beyond a mere ceremonial recitation.
**Doctrine:**
The case reinforces the principle that probable
cause is necessary for a lawful search. Conflicting
testimonies and doubtful circumstances can cast
doubt on the credibility of witnesses, warranting
acquittal. Additionally, effective communication
of constitutional rights involves more than a
formal recitation; it requires ensuring the full
understanding of the accused.
174. **Rule of Court: Sec. 12, Rule 16 - Delivery,
Return, and Proceedings on Seized Property**
**Summary:**
Section 12 outlines the procedure for handling
seized property after a search warrant is
executed. The officer must promptly deliver the
seized property, along with a verified inventory,
to the judge who issued the warrant. Within ten
days, the judge checks for the return of the
property and, if absent, summons the warrant
recipient to explain the delay. Once the return is
made, the judge ensures compliance with Rule
11 and demands the delivery of the seized items.
The custodian of the log book records these
details, and any violation of this section
constitutes contempt of court.
**Doctrine:**
This rule emphasizes the importance of a
systematic process in handling seized property
post-search. It ensures judicial oversight,
requiring judges to verify returns, assess
compliance, and maintain a record. Contempt
consequences underscore the seriousness of
adhering to these procedures, promoting
accountability in the execution of search
warrants.
175. Padilla v. CA**
**Facts:**
Enrique Manarang reported a hit-and-run
incident to the police, providing information
about the suspect's vehicle. The police, acting on
this report, identified the vehicle's owner as
Robin C. Padilla. When apprehending Padilla, the
police discovered firearms in his possession,
including a pistol and an Armalite rifle. Padilla
admitted to owning the firearms but lacked the
necessary permits or licenses for their
possession.
**Issues:**
1. Whether the arrest, search, and seizure
conducted by the police were valid.
2. Whether the evidence obtained during the
arrest is admissible in court.
3. Whether Padilla's possession of firearms
constitutes a crime.
**Ruling:**
1. The court deemed the arrest valid, relying on
the "plain view" doctrine. Warrantless arrests are
permissible when an individual is caught in the
act of committing an offense. In this case,
Padilla's arrest for illegal firearm possession was
justifiable since it occurred in the presence of a
peace officer.
2. The search and seizure of firearms were
considered lawful under the "plain view"
doctrine. The police inadvertently discovered the
firearms during Padilla's arrest, justifying their
confiscation without the need for a warrant. The
court upheld the admissibility of the evidence
obtained through this lawful search.
3. The court affirmed that illegal possession of
firearms requires proof of ownership without
corresponding permits. Padilla's admission to
owning the firearms without proper
documentation satisfied this requirement,
establishing the criminal offense.
**Doctrine:**
The "plain view" doctrine allows law
enforcement to seize evidence without a warrant
if it is immediately visible during a lawful
intrusion. In cases of illegal firearm possession,
the absence of permits or licenses constitutes a
criminal offense, necessitating proof of
ownership and legality of possession. The court's
ruling reinforces the legality of warrantless
arrests and searches when conducted within the
bounds of law enforcement duties and
constitutional rights.
176. People v. Che Chun Ting**
**Facts:**
In a buy-bust operation, Mabel Cheung Mei Po, a
suspected drug courier, was apprehended. Upon
cooperation, she revealed Che Chun Ting as the
drug source. NARCOM agents arrested Che Chun
Ting in an entrapment operation at Unit 122,
subsequently coordinating with the security
guard for a search.
**Issue:**
Whether the warrantless search conducted in
Unit 122 is valid.
**Ruling:**
No, the warrantless search in Unit 122 is deemed
invalid. The court held that it violated the
constitutional right against unreasonable
searches and seizures. Consequently, items
seized during this illegal search are inadmissible
as evidence under the exclusionary rule.
**Doctrine:**
The ruling underscores the importance of
upholding an individual's constitutional right
against unreasonable searches and seizures. The
exclusionary rule prohibits the admission of
evidence obtained through illegal searches,
emphasizing the need to respect constitutional
safeguards even in law enforcement operations.
This case reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to
protecting individual rights while addressing
criminal activities.
177. People v. Chi Chan**
**Facts:**
Police Officers Lazaro Paglicawan and Isagani
Yuzon received information about a suspicious
boat near Ambil Island. Upon reaching the
location, they observed two boats transferring
plastic bags with a white substance, later
identified as 46.6 kilograms of shabu. The
appellants were caught, attempting to bribe the
officers, and subsequently turned over to
authorities after the investigation.
**Issue:**
Whether there was a violation of the appellants'
constitutional rights to unreasonable search and
seizure.
**Ruling:**
No, there was no violation of constitutional rights
against unreasonable searches and seizures. The
appellants were caught in flagrante delicto,
actively committing a crime, with the illegal
drugs plainly visible to the arresting officers.
These circumstances qualify as judicially
recognized exceptions to the requirement of
obtaining a search warrant.
**Doctrine:**
The case reinforces the recognized exceptions to
the search warrant requirement when
individuals are caught in flagrante delicto,
actively committing a crime. In such situations,
law enforcement officers are justified in making
arrests and conducting searches without prior
judicial authorization, emphasizing the balance
between individual rights and the state's interest
in crime prevention and law enforcement.
178. People v. Evaristo**
**Facts:**
During a police patrol, officers heard gunfire,
investigated, and encountered Rosillo firing a gun
into the air. Rosillo fled to Evaristo's house,
prompting a pursuit by the police. Upon
encountering Evaristo and Carillo, the officers
noticed a bulge around Carillo's waist, conducted
a frisk, and found a .38 revolver. Evaristo granted
permission to search his house, leading to the
discovery of firearms and paraphernalia used in
firearm repair and manufacture.
**Issue:**
Whether the evidence obtained without a
warrant in the accidental discovery of firearms is
admissible.
**Ruling:**
Yes. The general rule requires searches and
seizures to be supported by a valid warrant.
However, there are exceptions, and one such
exception is the seizure of evidence in plain view.
In this case, the police officers had a lawful right
to be in a position where they inadvertently
discovered the firearms. The discovery was
accidental, justifying the admissibility of the
seized firearms as evidence.
The seizure of the firearm from Carillo is also
deemed valid under the rule of authorized
warrantless arrests. The officers had personal
knowledge of facts indicating Carillo's
commission of an offense, making the seizure
incidental to a lawful arrest. The court dismissed
the argument that the statute on illegal
possession of firearms doesn't cover non-
functional or unserviceable firearms, stating that
the law makes no such distinction, and
possession of any part of a firearm falls within its
prohibitive scope.
**Doctrine:**
The case upholds the exception of the seizure of
evidence in plain view, justifying the admissibility
of accidentally discovered firearms without a
warrant. It also affirms that the rule on
authorized warrantless arrests applies when
officers have personal knowledge of facts
indicating an individual's commission of an
offense, allowing for the seizure of relevant
evidence.
179. People v. Tabar**
**Facts:**
Respondent-accused and her nephew were
charged with violating the Dangerous Drugs Act
for selling and delivering three sticks of
marijuana cigarettes without legal authority. The
trial court convicted them. On appeal, the
respondent argued that the admission of
evidence without a search warrant violated the
constitutional guarantee against unreasonable
searches and seizures.
**Issue:**
Whether there was a violation of the
constitutional guarantee against unreasonable
searches and seizures.
**Ruling:**
No. The evidence seized without a search
warrant is deemed admissible. The admissibility
arises from the fact that the evidence was
discovered in plain view when Carmelina (the
accused) voluntarily opened the pants she was
carrying. Carmelina effectively waived her
constitutional right against unreasonable search
and seizure by voluntarily submitting to the
search.
**Doctrine:**
The case emphasizes the concept of "plain view,"
justifying the admissibility of evidence
discovered without a search warrant when it is
readily visible to law enforcement officers.
Additionally, it highlights the principle that
individuals may waive their constitutional rights,
including the right against unreasonable search
and seizure, through voluntary actions such as
consenting to a search.
180. Roan v. Gonzales**
**Facts:**
A search warrant issued by respondent Judge
Romulo T. Gonzales was executed at Roan's
house by military authorities. Despite not finding
the articles listed in the warrant, the officers
confiscated a Colt Magnum revolver and 18 live
bullets, leading to a charge of illegal possession
of firearms against Roan.
**Issue:**
1. Whether the search warrant is valid.
2. Whether the seized items are admissible as
evidence.
**Ruling:**
No, the search warrant is invalid, and the seized
items are inadmissible as evidence. The search
warrant lacked probable cause as determined by
the judge. The examination conducted by the
judge was insufficient to establish probable
cause, and the warrant lacked specific
descriptions of the place to be searched and the
items to be seized. Consequently, the items
seized were confiscated illegally and are
protected by the exclusionary principle.
**Doctrine:**
This case underscores the importance of
adhering to constitutional safeguards in issuing
search warrants, including the requirement of
probable cause and specificity in describing the
place to be searched and items to be seized. It
upholds the principle that evidence obtained
through illegal searches or seizures is
inadmissible in court proceedings, aiming to
prevent violations of individuals' rights against
unreasonable searches and seizures.
181. United Laboratories Inc. vs. Isip**
**Facts:**
Rolando H. Besarra, a Special Investigator III of
the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI),
applied for a search warrant to seize counterfeit
REVICON multivitamins and related items in the
Shalimar Building owned by Ernesto Isip. During
the execution of the warrant, NBI agents found
sealed boxes containing Disudrin and Inoflox
products instead of the specified items.
**Issue:**
Whether the seized Disudrin and Inoflox
products are admissible as evidence.
**Ruling:**
No, the seized Disudrin and Inoflox products are
not admissible as evidence. A search warrant
must particularly describe the place to be
searched and the items to be seized. The items
seized were not included in the search warrant,
violating the specificity requirement.
Additionally, the seized items did not meet the
criteria of the plain view doctrine. Therefore, the
evidence obtained from the search is deemed
inadmissible.
**Doctrine:**
This case emphasizes the importance of strict
adherence to the requirements of a search
warrant, specifically the need for a particular
description of the place to be searched and the
items to be seized. The plain view doctrine is also
invoked, emphasizing that items not covered by
the warrant should not be seized unless they
meet the criteria of being immediately apparent
as evidence of a crime.
182. People vs. Doria y Bolado**
**Facts:**
Florencio Doria y Bolado and Violeta Gaddao y
Catama were arrested for the sale and delivery of
marijuana in a buy-bust operation. Following the
arrest, a warrantless search was conducted in
Gaddao’s house, revealing a box containing
additional bricks of marijuana.
**Issues:**
1. Whether the arrest of Doria is lawful.
2. Whether the search of Gaddao’s house and the
seizure of marijuana are lawful.
**Rulings:**
1. Yes, the arrest of Doria is lawful under the "in
flagrante delicto" rule, allowing warrantless
arrests when a person is caught in the act of
committing a crime.
2. No, the search of Gaddao’s house and the
seizure of marijuana were unlawful because
there was no warrant, and the "plain view"
doctrine did not apply.
**Doctrine:**
The "in flagrante delicto" rule permits law
enforcement to make warrantless arrests when
individuals are caught in the act of committing a
crime. However, for a warrantless search and
seizure to be lawful, it must fall under recognized
exceptions, such as the "plain view" doctrine,
which requires that the items in plain sight are
immediately apparent as evidence of a crime. In
this case, the absence of a warrant and the
failure to meet the criteria of the "plain view"
doctrine rendered the search and seizure
unlawful.
183. Del Rosario y Nicolas vs. People**
**Facts:**
The petitioner appeals his conviction for illegal
possession of firearms, asserting that the search
at his residence was illegal, and he possessed a
valid license for the seized firearm.
**Issues:**
1. Whether Del Rosario had a valid license for the
seized firearm.
2. Whether the search and seizure were valid.
**Rulings:**
1. Yes, Del Rosario had a valid license for the .45
caliber pistol seized in his bedroom. He
presented a printed computerized copy of the
license.
2. No, the seizure of the .22 caliber revolver,
magazine for a 5.56mm caliber Armalite rifle, and
two 2-way radios was illegal, as these items were
not mentioned in the search warrant. The seizure
violated the requirement that a search warrant
must particularly describe the items to be seized.
**Doctrine:**
The validity of a search and seizure is contingent
on adherence to the specificity requirement in
the search warrant. A search warrant must
particularly describe the items to be seized, and
any deviation from this requirement renders the
seizure illegal. Additionally, the presentation of a
valid license for a seized firearm is a crucial factor
in determining the legality of possession charges.
184. Hizon, et al. vs. CA**
**Facts:**
Petitioners Hizon and others were charged with
violating PD 704 for allegedly fishing with a
poisonous substance (sodium cyanide). The
police conducted random sampling of fish from
their boat, with initial positive results for sodium
cyanide. However, a second set of fish samples
yielded negative results.
**Issues:**
1. Whether the fish samples seized without a
search warrant are admissible in evidence.
2. Whether Hizon and others were guilty of illegal
fishing.
**Rulings:**
1. Yes. Search and seizure without search
warrants of vessels and aircraft for violations of
customs laws have been recognized exceptions
to the constitutional requirement of a search
warrant. This exception applies to seizures of
fishing vessels and boats breaching fishery laws.
2. No. The only basis for the charge of fishing
with poisonous substances was the result of the
first NBI laboratory test, which showed positive
for sodium cyanide. However, the apprehending
officers did not find any trace of the poison in the
possession or on the boat.
**Doctrine:**
Exceptions to the constitutional requirement of a
search warrant exist, especially in cases involving
vessels and aircraft for violations of customs and
fishery laws. However, the validity of charges
must be supported by substantial evidence, and
discrepancies in test results can affect the
credibility of the accusations.
185. Bagalihog vs. Fernandez**
**Facts:**
In the aftermath of the shooting death of Rep.
Moises Espinosa at Masbate Airport, the
petitioner's house, in close proximity to the
crime scene, was searched with consent but
yielded no results. Two days later, Capt. Julito
Roxas and his men from the Philippine
Constabulary seized the petitioner's motorcycle
without a warrant, suspecting it to be linked to
the crime. The motorcycle was impounded and
later used as evidence in criminal cases against
the petitioner for multiple murder and frustrated
murder.
**Issue:**
Whether the warrantless seizure of the
motorcycle was a violation of the petitioner’s
constitutional right to be secure against
unreasonable searches and seizures.
**Ruling:**
Yes. The Supreme Court held that the warrantless
seizure of the motorcycle violated the
petitioner's constitutional right to be secure in
his person, house, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures. The
heinous nature of the crime and the victim's
status did not justify disregarding constitutional
guarantees. The court emphasized that the end
does not justify the means in the Philippine
system of criminal justice.
**Doctrine:**
The constitutional guarantee against
unreasonable searches and seizures applies even
in cases involving heinous crimes, and the
seriousness of the offense does not justify the
disregard of individual rights. The end does not
justify the means in the Philippine criminal
justice system.
186. People vs. Lacerna y Cordero**
**Facts:**
Noriel and Marlon Lacerna were inside a taxi
signaled to stop by Police Officer Carlito
Valenzuela at a police checkpoint. The officers
requested permission to search the vehicle, and
during the search, they discovered 18 blocks
wrapped in newspaper containing dried
marijuana leaves. Marlon admitted to giving the
package to Noriel but claimed ignorance about
its contents, stating it was a gift from their uncle.
**Issue:**
Whether Marlon's right against warrantless
search and seizure was violated during the police
checkpoint search.
**Ruling:**
No. The search conducted on Marlon was
deemed valid because he freely consented to it,
despite lacking probable cause at the checkpoint
stop. Marlon's voluntary consent acted as a
waiver, and the search was considered lawful
under this exception to the rule against
warrantless searches.
**Doctrine:**
Voluntary consent can validate a search even in
the absence of probable cause, serving as an
exception to the rule against warrantless
searches and seizures. When an individual
willingly allows a search, their act of consent can
legitimize an otherwise questionable search
conducted by law enforcement.
187. De Garcia vs. Locsin**
**Facts:**
The house and store of petitioner Leona Pasion
Viuda de Garcia were searched by an Anti-Usury
Board agent based on a search warrant obtained
from the justice of the peace of Tarlac, Tarlac. The
warrant was issued solely on the agent's
affidavit, without the judge personally examining
the applicant or witnesses. Documents seized
during the search were used as evidence in a case
against the petitioner for violating the Anti-Usury
Law.
**Issue:**
Whether the search warrant was validly issued.
**Ruling:**
No. A valid search warrant must be issued upon
probable cause determined by the judge, who
should personally examine the complainant and
witnesses under oath or affirmation.
Additionally, the warrant must particularly
describe the place to be searched and the items
to be seized. In this case, the judge did not fulfill
these requirements, rendering the search
warrant illegally issued.
**Doctrine:**
A valid search warrant must be issued upon
probable cause determined by the judge, who
must personally examine the complainant and
witnesses under oath or affirmation. The warrant
must also specifically describe the place to be
searched and the items to be seized. Failure to
adhere to these requirements renders the search
warrant invalid.
188. Case Summary: Caballes vs. CA**
**Facts:**
Sgt. Victorino Nocejo and Pat. Alex de Castro,
during a routine patrol, stopped a passenger jeep
covered with "kakawati" leaves, suspecting it
might be carrying smuggled goods. The driver,
Rudy Caballes, appeared nervous, and with his
consent, the police officers inspected the cargo.
They found bundles of aluminum/galvanized
conductor wires owned by the National Power
Corporation. Caballes was charged with theft.
**Issue:**
Whether the warrantless search and seizure
conducted by the police officers were valid, and
if the obtained evidence is admissible.
**Ruling:**
No. The Supreme Court ruled that warrantless
searches of moving vehicles are permissible at
borders or checkpoints. However, mere suspicion
based on the vehicle's appearance does not
constitute probable cause for a search. In this
case, the officers stopped Caballes' vehicle
because they found it unusual, but this alone did
not establish probable cause. The cable wires
were not in plain view, being concealed in sacks
covered with leaves. Additionally, there was no
clear evidence that Caballes consented to the
search.
**Doctrine:**
Warrantless searches of moving vehicles can be
allowed at borders or checkpoints, but there
must be probable cause for such searches. Mere
suspicion is not sufficient, and the items to be
seized should be in plain view. Consent to a
search must also be established clearly.
189. Papa vs. Mago**
**Facts:**
Martin Alagao, head of the counter-intelligence
unit of the Manila Police Department, seized two
trucks and their cargo at the port of Manila
without a search warrant. The trucks were
suspected of carrying misdeclared and
undervalued personal effects. A person claiming
ownership presented a document from the
Bureau of Customs, but some bales had already
been opened before a restraining order was
received. Private respondents, feeling
prejudiced, filed a petition for mandamus with a
request for a preliminary injunction.
**Issue:**
Whether a search warrant issued by a judge is
required to search and seize a moving cargo or
vehicle.
**Ruling:**
No. The Tariff and Customs Code does not
require a search warrant in this case. The Code
authorizes persons with police authority under
Section 2203 to enter, pass through, or search
any land, enclosure, warehouse, store, or
building (excluding dwelling houses). It also
allows the inspection, search, and examination of
any vessel, aircraft, or any vehicle suspected of
holding or conveying dutiable or prohibited
articles contrary to law, without mentioning the
need for a search warrant in such cases.
**Doctrine:**
The Tariff and Customs Code grants authority to
individuals with police authority to search and
seize vehicles suspected of carrying dutiable or
prohibited articles without the necessity of a
search warrant, as long as the search is
conducted within the parameters defined by the
Code.
190. Pacis vs. Pamaran**
**Facts:**
Respondent Ricardo Santos owned a Mercury
automobile that was brought into the country
without paying customs duty and taxes. The
petitioner, acting on information that the car was
a "hot car" and after investigating insufficient
customs duty payments, issued a warrant of
seizure and detention. The car was then taken by
authorized agents. Santos requested the release
of the car, arguing that the warrant was
unauthorized and threatened to file a criminal
complaint for violation of the Revised Penal
Code.
**Issue:**
Whether Pacis, as the Acting Collector of
Customs, had the authority to issue the warrant
of seizure and detention for Santos's automobile.
**Ruling:**
Yes. The court held that, for violations of customs
laws, the power to issue a warrant of seizure and
detention is conceded. Therefore, Pacis, as the
Acting Collector of Customs, had the requisite
authority to issue the warrant for Santos's
automobile. The court emphasized that while the
constitutional right to be free from unreasonable
search and seizure must be upheld, in the case of
customs laws, the power to effect search and
seizure without a warrant is recognized.
**Doctrine:**
In cases involving violations of customs laws, the
power to issue a warrant of seizure and
detention is recognized, allowing authorities to
conduct searches and seizures without a
warrant. This exception is justified by the need to
enforce customs regulations and ensure
compliance with duties and taxes on imported
goods.
191. People v. Gatward**
**Facts:**
Nigel Richard Gatward and U Aung Win were
convicted of drug trafficking in the Philippines
based on an erroneous interpretation of the law
by the trial court. U Aung Win, arriving at the
Ninoy Aquino International Airport, left abruptly
before customs inspection, leading to the
discovery of heroin in his luggage. He implicated
Gatward and Zaw Win Naing as drug couriers.
Gatward, apprehended with heroin-laden
luggage, pleaded not guilty, while U Aung Win
pleaded guilty. The trial court imposed penalties
of reclusion perpetua on both, considering it as a
divisible penalty.
**Issue:**
What is the correct penalty to be imposed on the
accused?
**Ruling:**
The correct penalty for both accused is reclusion
perpetua in its entire duration. The trial court's
imposition of penalties based on the erroneous
interpretation of reclusion perpetua as divisible
is rectified. Reclusion perpetua remains an
indivisible penalty, and the imposed penalties,
consisting of aliquot one-third portions, are
deemed self-contradictory and unknown in penal
law. The court affirms the judgment but modifies
the penalties, ordering the forfeiture of the
heroin to the government.
**Doctrine:**
Reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty, and
any attempt to divide or impose aliquot portions
as penalties is erroneous and unknown in penal
law. A judgment prescribing a penalty that
doesn't exist in the penal code is void and cannot
become final and executory. The correct penalty
must be reclusion perpetua in its entire duration.
192. People v. Susan Canton**
**Facts:**
Susan Canton was charged with violating the
Dangerous Drugs Act for possessing
methamphetamine hydrochloride without a
prescription or license at the Ninoy Aquino
International Airport. Susan appealed, citing
several errors by the trial court, including
justifying the warrantless search, claiming she
was caught in flagrante delicto, and disputing the
admissibility of certain evidence.
**Issue:**
Whether the warrantless search, seizure, and
arrest of Susan violated her constitutional rights.
**Ruling:**
No, the search was conducted according to
routine airport security procedures permitted
under Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6235. This
law states that passengers and their hand-carried
luggage are subject to search for prohibited
materials, and refusal to be searched can result
in denial of boarding. The court upheld the
legality of the search based on this provision,
dismissing Susan's claims of constitutional
violations.
**Doctrine:**
Routine airport security searches, conducted in
accordance with established procedures and
legal provisions, do not violate constitutional
rights. Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6235
authorizes such searches as part of the contract
between passengers and airlines. This case
reinforces the constitutionality of routine
searches in airport security protocols.
193. People v. Johnson**
**Facts:**
Leila Johnson, a naturalized American citizen,
was convicted of possessing methamphetamine
hydrochloride (shabu) found during a routine
airport frisk. She appealed, claiming the search
and seizure were illegal, her subsequent arrest
without a warrant was unjustified, and the
prosecution needed to prove she did not have a
license for shabu possession.
**Issues:**
1. Legality of the search and seizure.
2. Justification for Leila Johnson's arrest without
a warrant.
3. Requirement for the prosecution to prove the
absence of a license for shabu possession.
**Ruling:**
1. The search and seizure were legal, conducted
according to airport security procedures, which
are considered reasonable and not violating
constitutional rights.
2. The arrest without a warrant was justified as it
occurred in flagrante delicto upon discovering
shabu in her person during the routine frisk.
3. The prosecution was not obliged to prove the
absence of a license for shabu possession; the
burden of proof lies with the accused to show
legal possession.
**Doctrine:**
Airport security procedures, when reasonable
and minimally intrusive, do not violate
constitutional rights against unreasonable
searches and seizures. In flagrante delicto
situations justify arrests without a warrant, and
the burden of proof regarding the possession of
licenses or permits rests with the accused, not
the prosecution. This case underscores the
legality of routine searches in public
transportation facilities and the burden of proof
in drug possession cases.
194. The Malacat doctrine, as articulated, asserts
that a police officer is justified in conducting a
limited search of an individual's outer clothing if
the officer observes unusual conduct that
reasonably leads to the conclusion of potential
criminal activity and a perceived threat. The
officer must identify himself, make reasonable
inquiries, and, if the initial stages of the
encounter do not dispel the officer's reasonable
fear for safety, the search is conducted for self-
protection and the protection of others in the
vicinity. The search is aimed at discovering
weapons that could pose a threat to the officer
or others.
195. In the Malacat (1997) doctrine, it is clarified
that probable cause is not a prerequisite for a
police officer to conduct a search. However, mere
suspicion or a hunch is deemed insufficient. The
doctrine emphasizes that there must be a
genuine reason based on the police officer's
experience and the surrounding conditions,
warranting a belief that the detained person has
concealed weapons.
196. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)**
**Facts:**
Detective McFadden in Cleveland observed Terry
and Chilton acting suspiciously, potentially casing
a store. Approaching them, he asked for their
names, and upon receiving mumbled responses,
conducted a frisk, discovering weapons on both
individuals. Terry and Chilton were charged with
carrying concealed weapons.
**Issue:**
Whether a police officer could conduct a limited
search for weapons without probable cause.
**Ruling:**
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that in situations
where an officer reasonably believes a suspect is
armed and dangerous, a limited "stop-and-frisk"
search is permissible. This is to protect the officer
and others nearby. Such searches must be based
on specific facts indicating potential danger, and
they must be limited to finding weapons. Any
weapons seized during these searches can be
used as evidence in legal proceedings.
**Doctrine:**
The Terry v. Ohio decision established the "stop-
and-frisk" exception to the Fourth Amendment's
protection against unreasonable searches and
seizures. It permits police officers to conduct
limited searches for weapons if they have a
reasonable belief that the individual may be
armed and pose a danger. The search must be
based on specific, articulable facts and is limited
to ensuring the safety of the officer and those in
the vicinity.
197. Posadas v. CA, GR NO. 89139, August 2,
1990**
**Facts:**
Police officers Pat. Ursicio Ungab and Pat. Umbra
Umpar observed the petitioner acting
suspiciously with a "buri" bag during surveillance
in Davao City. They approached, identified
themselves, and attempted to stop him from
fleeing. Upon inspecting the bag, they found a
revolver, ammunition, and a smoke grenade. The
petitioner was charged with illegal possession of
firearms.
**Issue:**
Whether the arrest made without a warrant was
valid.
**Ruling:**
The arrest was deemed valid. Despite the lack of
prior knowledge of the petitioner's offense, his
suspicious behavior and attempt to flee provided
probable cause for the arrest. The Supreme
Court affirmed the decision of the lower courts,
citing precedents that allow police officers to
stop and investigate individuals based on
reasonable suspicion, even without probable
cause, in appropriate circumstances.
**Doctrine:**
Posadas v. CA reinforces the principle that in
certain situations, police officers can make a
warrantless arrest based on reasonable suspicion
when individuals exhibit suspicious behavior.
This aligns with the legal concept that law
enforcement, in appropriate circumstances, may
act promptly to prevent potential criminal
activities.
198. People v. Solayao, 202 SCRA 255 (1996)**
**Facts:**
SPO3 Jose Niño, accompanied by CAFGU
members, conducted an intelligence patrol to
verify reports of armed individuals in barangays.
In Barangay Onion, they encountered Nilo
Solayao and his companions. Solayao, appearing
drunk and wearing camouflage attire, was
stopped after his companions fled. Niño seized
the coconut leaves Solayao carried and
discovered a homemade firearm, to which
Solayao admitted having no license.
**Issue:**
Was the admission of the confiscated firearm as
evidence justified, given the absence of a valid
search and arrest warrant?
**Held:**
The court ruled that the search, akin to a "stop
and frisk" situation, was prompted by the
suspicious conduct of the accused. The officers
had probable cause to conduct a search before
making an arrest. Their attention was drawn to
the suspicious group, and upon identifying
themselves, they found the firearm wrapped in
coconut leaves. Given the circumstances,
obtaining a search warrant beforehand was
impractical. Consequently, there was no violation
of the constitutional guarantee against
unreasonable searches and seizures, and the trial
court's admission of the firearm as evidence was
not erroneous.
**Doctrine:**
People v. Solayao reinforces the principle that, in
situations resembling a "stop and frisk," law
enforcement officers may conduct a warrantless
search when confronted with suspicious
conduct, ensuring public safety and preventing
potential criminal activities. This aligns with the
legal concept that the practicality of obtaining a
search warrant in specific circumstances may
justify a warrantless search.
199. Malacat v. CA, 283 SCRA 159 (1997)**
**Facts:**
The petitioner was arrested in Plaza Miranda
after being found in possession of a hand
grenade. He was among a group of Muslim-
looking men who scattered when approached by
the police, leading to his apprehension. The
subsequent search of his person uncovered the
hand grenade. The petitioner was convicted
under PD 1866 in the lower court.
**Issues:**
Was the search and seizure conducted by the
police valid?
**Ruling:**
No. The search was deemed invalid. The absence
of a valid in flagrante delicto or hot pursuit arrest
preceding the search, due to the lack of personal
knowledge or overt physical act indicating a
crime, rendered the search not incidental to a
lawful arrest. The court emphasized the
necessity of a lawful arrest before a search can
be conducted without a warrant, emphasizing
the principle that a valid warrantless search
requires a preceding lawful arrest.
**Doctrine:**
Malacat v. CA underscores the importance of a
valid in flagrante delicto or hot pursuit arrest
preceding a warrantless search. The lack of
personal knowledge or overt physical act
indicating a crime diminishes the validity of the
arrest, rendering any subsequent search as not
incidental to a lawful arrest. This case reaffirms
the requirement that a lawful arrest is a crucial
prerequisite for a valid warrantless search and
seizure.
200. Manalili v. CA, GR 113447, October 7,
1997**
**Facts:**
In April 1988, Kalookan City police conducted
surveillance near a cemetery due to reports of
drug activity. They encountered the petitioner,
who displayed signs of drug influence. After
initial resistance, the petitioner allowed officers
to examine his wallet, which contained
suspected marijuana residue. The officers
confiscated it, leading to the petitioner's
investigation and subsequent conviction for
illegal possession of marijuana residue.
**Issue:**
Whether the search and seizure of the suspected
marijuana are unreasonable and inadmissible as
evidence.
**Held:**
No, the evidence is admissible.
The general rule mandates that a search and
seizure must be validated by a judicial warrant,
and evidence obtained in violation of this right is
inadmissible. However, there are exceptions,
including search incidental to a lawful arrest,
search of moving vehicles, seizure in plain view,
customs search, and waiver by the accused.
These exceptions require probable cause,
defined as reasonable grounds of suspicion
supported by circumstances sufficient to warrant
belief in the accused's guilt.
In this case, the petitioner effectively waived the
inadmissibility of the evidence by failing to raise
the issue during the trial. The Supreme Court
affirmed with modifications the ruling of the
Court of Appeals.
**Doctrine:**
Manalili v. CA underscores the importance of
raising objections to the admissibility of evidence
obtained through unreasonable search and
seizure during trial. Failure to do so may be
deemed a waiver, allowing the admission of such
evidence. The case reiterates the exceptions to
the warrant requirement, emphasizing that
probable cause is crucial even in situations falling
under these exceptions.
201.
202.
203.
204.
205.
206. Pimentel, Jr v. COMELEC, GR 161658,
November 3, 2008**
**Facts:**
Congress enacted RA 9165, the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, which mandates
candidates for public office, including those in
local government positions, to undergo
mandatory drug testing. Senator Pimentel, a
senatorial candidate in the 2004 synchronized
elections, challenged Section 36(g) of the law,
arguing that it imposes an unconstitutional
additional qualification on candidates for
Senator.
**Issue:**
Is the mandatory drug testing of candidates for
public office an unconstitutional imposition of
additional qualification on Senatorial
candidates?
**Ruling:**
Yes, the mandatory drug testing requirement for
candidates for public office, as mandated by
Section 36(g) of RA 9165, is unconstitutional. The
Constitution outlines specific qualifications for
Senatorial candidates, including citizenship,
voter registration, literacy, age, and residency.
Congress cannot alter or modify these
qualification standards as they are enshrined in
the Constitution. Any law or administrative rule
that violates the Constitution is null and void. The
three branches of government must adhere to
the commands of the Constitution, and any limits
it imposes must be respected.
**Doctrine:**
Pimentel, Jr v. COMELEC reinforces the principle
that constitutional provisions outlining
qualifications for public office cannot be
modified or augmented by legislative
enactments. The ruling underscores the
supremacy of the Constitution and the obligation
of all branches of government to abide by its
mandates.
207. In accordance with Section 5, Rule 113 of
the Rules of Court, a peace officer or a private
person is authorized to make an arrest without a
warrant under the following circumstances:
1. When the person to be arrested has
committed, is currently committing, or
attempting to commit an offense in the presence
of the arresting individual.
2. When an offense has already occurred, and
the arresting person possesses personal
knowledge of facts indicating the commission of
the offense by the individual to be arrested.
3. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner
who has escaped from a penal establishment, a
place where they are serving a final judgment, or
temporarily confined while their case is pending,
or has escaped during the process of being
transferred from one confinement to another.
208. People v. De La Cruz, GR 83260, April 18,
1990**
**Facts:**
Miguel L. Dela Cruz y Libucan, a plumber, was
accused of selling shabu (methamphetamine
hydrochloride) based on reports received by the
Anti-Narcotics Unit of the San Juan Police Station.
A "buy-bust" operation was conducted, where
Patrolman Cesar B. Turingan posed as a buyer
and successfully purchased shabu from Dela
Cruz. Dela Cruz was subsequently arrested, and
the substance was confirmed to be shabu by a
forensic chemist. Dela Cruz claimed that the
drugs were planted by the police officers.
**Issue:**
Is Dela Cruz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of illegal sale of shabu?
**Ruling:**
Yes, the Regional Trial Court found Dela Cruz
guilty beyond reasonable doubt. He was
sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of
thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00). The Court
rejected Dela Cruz's defense of being framed by
the police officers.
**Doctrine:**
The Court ruled that it is not absurd for a drug
pusher to sell shabu to a complete stranger in an
open, public place, as drug pushers often sell
their prohibited wares to anyone with money,
regardless of familiarity. Discrepancies in the
recording of marked bill serial numbers were
considered clerical errors and did not indicate a
frame-up. The decision affirmed the Regional
Trial Court's correct analysis and assessment of
the evidence.
209. People v. Doria, GR 125299, January 22,
1999**
**Facts:**
The PNP Narcotics Command conducted a buy-
bust operation targeting "Jun" (Doria) for alleged
involvement in illegal drug activities. After
arresting Jun, he led the police to the house of
his associate "Neneth" (Gaddao) where the
marked bills were left. The police, upon entering
Neneth's house without a warrant, observed a
carton box under the dining table containing
what appeared to be dried marijuana leaves.
They seized the box, arrested Neneth, and found
the contents to be marijuana. Both Doria and
Gaddao were charged with drug-related
offenses.
**Issue:**
Whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) correctly
found that the box of marijuana was in plain
view, justifying its warrantless seizure.
**Ruling:**
No, the RTC's finding was incorrect. Gaddao's
warrantless arrest was deemed illegal because it
was solely based on Doria's identification, which
did not establish her involvement in the drug
business. Identification alone does not imply
conspiracy in drug offenses. Since Gaddao's
arrest was illegal, the subsequent search of her
person and home, as well as the seizure of the
marked bills and marijuana, cannot be
considered legal as an incident to her arrest.
**Doctrine:**
For a warrantless arrest to be valid, the arresting
officer must have knowledge of facts implicating
the person arrested in the commission of a
criminal offense. Mere identification without a
showing of the arrestee's involvement in the
crime is insufficient to justify a warrantless
arrest. In this case, the lack of evidence linking
Gaddao to the drug offense rendered her arrest
and the subsequent search and seizure illegal.
210. Rizaldy Sanchez Y Cajili v. People, G.R. No.
204589, November 19, 2014**
**Facts:**
Rizaldy Sanchez y Cajili was charged with
violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No.
9165 for possessing 0.1017 grams of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride ("shabu").
During the trial, evidence was presented that
Sanchez was seen leaving the house of a known
drug dealer and was later found in possession of
the illegal drug. The Regional Trial Court (RTC)
convicted Sanchez, leading to his imprisonment
and a fine.
**Issues:**
1. Whether Sanchez was caught in flagrante
delicto, justifying a warrantless arrest and
search.
2. Whether the failure to comply with the chain
of custody requirement renders the seized drugs
inadmissible as evidence.
**Ruling:**
The Supreme Court reversed Sanchez's
conviction, acquitting him on reasonable doubt.
The Court held that the warrantless arrest and
search were unlawful as there was no valid arrest
preceding the discovery of the drugs. The search
did not fall under the plain view doctrine, and
there were lapses in the chain of custody, casting
doubt on the identity and integrity of the seized
drugs. Consequently, the seized drugs were
deemed inadmissible as evidence.
**Doctrine:**
1. A search must be incidental to a lawful arrest,
and the process cannot be reversed. In this case,
the search preceded the arrest, making it
unlawful.
2. The stop-and-frisk principle is distinct from a
search incidental to a lawful arrest, and each has
specific requirements that must be met.
3. The chain of custody requirement is crucial in
preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of
seized items. Failure to establish an unbroken
chain of custody raises doubts about the identity
and integrity of seized items, rendering them
inadmissible as evidence.
211. Go v. CA – 206 SCRA 138**
**Facts:**
While traveling in the wrong direction on a one-
way street, the petitioner almost collided with
another vehicle. He then shot the driver of the
other vehicle and fled. An eyewitness reported
the incident to the police, who ordered a
manhunt for the petitioner. Six days later, the
petitioner presented himself at the police
station, accompanied by lawyers, and was
detained. A criminal charge was filed against him,
and he posted bail. The prosecutor commenced
trial without a preliminary investigation, citing
the petitioner's waiver due to posting bail and
the lawful warrantless arrest.
**Issues:**
1. Whether the warrantless arrest of the
petitioner was lawful.
2. Whether the petitioner effectively waived his
right to a preliminary investigation.
**Held:**
The Court held that the petitioner's arrest was
not lawful as the arresting officers did not
witness the incident and lacked personal
knowledge. The rules on warrantless arrests did
not apply in this case. Furthermore, the
petitioner was not considered to have been
arrested when he voluntarily presented himself
at the police station without expressing
surrender or guilt.
The prosecutor erred in not conducting a
preliminary investigation, which is required to
determine probable cause. The petitioner is
entitled to a preliminary investigation, and trial
for the criminal case is suspended pending its
result. The petitioner is ordered released upon
posting bail.
**Doctrine:**
1. Warrantless arrests must comply with legal
requirements, including personal knowledge by
arresting officers or circumstances justifying such
arrests.
2. The right to a preliminary investigation is not
waived simply by posting bail. It remains a
procedural safeguard to determine probable
cause in criminal cases. Failure to conduct a
preliminary investigation when required
constitutes a substantive error.
212. People v. Rabang – 187 SCRA 682**
**Facts:**
Maximo (Dagit) Rabang, Jr. appealed the decision
of the Regional Trial Court convicting him of
murder. He challenged the credibility of the
prosecution's witness, who identified him as the
assassin, and questioned the finding of treachery
as a qualifying circumstance. Rabang also
presented the defense of alibi.
**Issues:**
1. Whether the identification of Rabang by the
prosecution witness is credible.
2. Whether the finding of treachery as a
qualifying circumstance is valid.
3. Whether the defense of alibi is valid.
**Ruling:** 219.
The appeal was not meritorious. The trial court's 220.
assessment of witness credibility is accorded
great weight. The positive identification by the 221.
eyewitness was deemed sufficient to establish 222.
Rabang as the perpetrator. The defense of alibi
was considered weak, and the eyewitness's 223.
identification prevailed.
The trial court correctly determined the
presence of treachery in the crime. The essence
of treachery involves a swift and unexpected
attack on an unsuspecting victim without
provocation.
**Doctrine:**
1. The trial court's evaluation of witness
credibility is given great weight.
2. Positive identification by a credible eyewitness
can be sufficient to establish the accused's guilt.
3. The defense of alibi is weak, and the accused
must demonstrate that it was physically
impossible for them to be at the crime scene.
4. Treachery exists when the means employed
ensure the execution of the crime without risk to
the offender, involving a swift and unexpected
attack on an unsuspecting victim without
provocation.
213.
214.
215.
216.
217.
218.