WILLIAM C. YAO, SR., LUISA C. YAO, RICHARD C. YAO, WILLIAM C. YAO JR., and ROGER C.

YAO, petitioners,
vs.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETRON CORPORATION and PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM
CORP., and its Principal, SHELL INT’L PETROLEUM CO. LTD., respondents.
G.R. No. 168306, June 19, 2007
FACTS:
This case is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court where herein
petitioners pray for the reversal of the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals affirming the
two Orders of the Regional Trial Court relative to Search Warrants. In the said Orders, the RTC denied
the petitioners’ Motion to Quash Search Warrant and Motion for the Return of the Motor Compressor
and Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) Refilling Machine.
The petitioners in this case are incorporators and officers of MASAGANA GAS CORPORATION
(MASAGANA), an entity engaged in the refilling, sale and distribution of LPG products; whereas the
private respondents are two of the largest bulk suppliers and producers of LPG in the Philippines.
NBI agent Oblanca filed two applications for search warrant with the RTC against herein petitioners for
the latter’s alleged violation of Section 170 of "The Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines." It was
alleged in the application for search warrant that the petitioners are actually producing, selling,
offering for sale and/or distributing LPG products using steel cylinders owned by, and bearing the trade
names, trademarks, and devices of private respondents Petron and Pilipinas Shell, without authority
and in violation of the rights of the said entities. The two affidavits filed by Oblanca further
corroborated the instances behind the application for search warrants.

After finding probable cause based on the preliminary examination on Oblanca and Alajar, the latter
being the one hired by private respondents to assist them in carrying out their Brand Protection
Program, RTC Judge Sadang issued Search Warrants.

The petitioners filed Motion to Quash the Search warrants citing among the grounds, the lack of
probable cause. Said Motion was denied. On appeal, CA affirmed the Decision of RTC. Hence, this
petition.

ISSUE:

WON there’s a probable cause for the issuance of the disputed search warrants.

RULING:

The Court held in the affirmative.

Pertinent laws provide that search warrant can be issued only upon a finding of probable cause.
Probable cause for search warrant means such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in
connection with the offense are in the place to be searched.

In this case, Oblanca and Alajar have personal knowledge of the fact that petitioners, through
MASAGANA, have been using the LPG cylinders bearing the marks GASUL and SHELLANE without
permission from the private respondents, a probable cause for trademark infringement. Both Oblanca
and Alajar were clear and insistent that they were the very same persons who monitored the activities
of MASAGANA; that they conducted test-buys thereon; and that in order to avoid suspicion, they used
different names during the test-buys. They also personally witnessed the refilling of LPG cylinders
bearing the marks GASUL and SHELLANE inside the MASAGANA refilling plant station and the
deliveries of these refilled containers to some outlets using mini-trucks.

Hence, aforesaid facts and circumstances attending to the commission of the offense are sufficient to
establish probable cause for the issuance of search warrants.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SUNDARAM MAGAYON Y FRANCISCO,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

G.R. No. 238873, September 16, 2020

FACTS:

This case involves appeal on the Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court's decision in
convicting appellant Magayon for violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act 9165 or the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Two separate Informations against appellant for violation of Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165 were filed by
the prosecution. The evidence of the prosecution provides that:

PO2 Maderal testified that he, together with several other police officers, conducted a buy-bust
operation on appellant residence. The appellant was arrested right after the police officers witnessed
the former handling teabag-sized packet of alleged marijuana in exchange for the marked money given
by the confidential asset.

SPO4 Amora informed appellant of the search warrant they had on his premises. They waited for
barangay officials and media personnel to arrive before they commenced the search. During the search,
seventy-four (74) small packets11 of marijuana, which were later on yielded positive for marijuana, in
different parts of the house including the store.

In the presence of the barangay officials and the appellant, he prepared the inventory of the seized
items. He further identified the pictures taken during the search including those of the seized items.

On the other hand, the appellant stressed that he was not a pusher but only a user. He nonetheless
admitted that the packets of marijuana shown in the photographs were taken from the place where he
got arrested and the items were likewise marked and inventoried there. On the stand, the appellant
asserted that the house, where a store was attached, is leased by his girlfriend Che-Che, and it was the
latter’s former husband who left the drugs in the house.
Nevertheless, the RTC convicted the appellant of the crime charged. On appeal, CA affirmed the
decision of RTC. Hence, the appellant filed this present appeal praying for his acquittal.
ISSUE:
WON the search warrant was issued based on probable cause.
RULING:
The Court held in the affirmative.

Section 2, Article III of the Constitution provides that the right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and
for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation
of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Here, the probable cause was clearly established upon the Judge’s personal examination of the series of
evidences submitted by the prosecution indicating thereto the result of the buy-bust operation
conducted by the police officers where the latter have personally witnessed the act of the appellant
committing the charged crime. Thus, the judge correctly found probable cause to issue the search
warrant as it was applied for only after an earlier test buy yielded positive results.
 ARIEL C. VALLEJO, petitioner,
vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, Former SPECIAL FIFTEENTH DIVISION, JUDGE ISAAC R. DE
ALBAN, Regional trial Court, Ilagan, Isabela, Branch 16, and FRANKLIN M. JAVIER, NBI Head
Agent, Cagayan Valley Regional Office II, Ilagan, Isabela, respondents.

G.R. No. 156413, April 14, 2004

FACTS:

This is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended, to
review and reverse the Resolution of the Court of Appeals in dismissing the petitioner's petition as well
as its Resolution denying the motion to admit petition for certiorari.

Upon receipt of confidential information regarding the involved complaint, NBI Agent Javier applied
for the issuance of search warrant against the Office of the Registry of Deeds, Provincial Capitol,
Alibaga, Iligan, Isabela and the seizure of documents, the same being kept inside the said Office, which
are allegedly used or intended to be used in committing the crime of Falsification of Land titles under
Article 171 and Article 213 of RPC, and R.A. 3019.

Consequently, the RTC Judge issued the search warrant against the petitioner, who is a lawyer in the
Register of Deeds of the province of Isabela.

The petitioner filed a Motion to quash the search warrant on the ground that the said questioned
search warrant was in the form of a general warrant for failure to describe the persons or things to be
seized and was violative of the Constitution; hence, null and void. However, said Motion was denied by
RTC. The petitioner then filed Motion for Reconsideration but the same was also denied for lack of
merit. The petitioner then filed a motion to admit petition for certiorari but the same was denied by
CA. Hence, the instant petition.

ISSUE:

WON the disputed search warrant is valid.

RULING:

The Court held in the negative.

The Court clarified that technical precision of description is not required. "It is only necessary that
there be reasonable particularity and certainty as to the identity of the property to be searched for and
seized, so that the warrant shall not be a mere roving commission. Indeed, the law does not require
that the things to be seized must be described in precise and minute detail as to leave no room for
doubt on the part of the searching authorities. If this were the rule, it would be virtually impossible for
the applicants to obtain a warrant as they would not know exactly what kind of things to look for."

In this case, the disputed search warrant in question readily shows that it failed to pass this test of
particularity. The terms expressly used in the warrant were too all-embracing, with the obvious intent
of subjecting all the records pertaining to all the transactions of the petitioner's office at the Register of
Deeds to search and seizure. Such tenor of a seizure warrant contravenes the explicit command of the
Constitution that there be a particular description of the things to be seized. Further, the questioned
warrant in this case is a scatter-shot warrant for having been issued for more than one offense -
Falsification of Land Titles under Article 171 and Article 213 of the Revised Penal Code, and violation of
Rep. Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Hence, the search warrant is void and must be struck down.

 HARRY S. STONEHILL, ROBERT P. BROOKS, JOHN J. BROOKS and KARL BECK, petitioners,
vs.
HON. JOSE W. DIOKNO, in his capacity as SECRETARY OF JUSTICE; JOSE LUKBAN, in his capacity
as Acting Director, National Bureau of Investigation; SPECIAL PROSECUTORS PEDRO D. CENZON,
EFREN I. PLANA and MANUEL VILLAREAL, JR. and ASST. FISCAL MANASES G. REYES; JUDGE
AMADO ROAN, Municipal Court of Manila; JUDGE ROMAN CANSINO, Municipal Court of Manila;
JUDGE HERMOGENES CALUAG, Court of First Instance of Rizal-Quezon City Branch, and JUDGE
DAMIAN JIMENEZ, Municipal Court of Quezon City, respondents.
G.R. No. L-19550, June 19, 1967

FACTS:

Upon application of the respondents, a total of 42 search warrants were issued against petitioners. Said
warrants provide for its purpose the search of the persons of the petitioners and the premises of their
offices, warehouses and/or residences, and the seizure and taking possession of personal properties as
the subject of the offense; stolen or embezzled and proceeds or fruits of the offense; or used or
intended to be used as the means of committing the offense. Further, it was stated in the application for
search warrants that the offense committed is adverted as "violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and
Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and the Revised Penal Code."
The petitioners questioned the validity of the search warrants citing among the grounds that the
aforementioned search warrants are in the nature of general warrants and that accordingly, the
seizures effected upon the authority there of are null and void.
On the other hand, the respondents contended that (1) that the contested search warrants are valid and
have been issued in accordance with law; (2) that the defects of said warrants, if any, were cured by
petitioners' consent; and (3) that, in any event, the effects seized are admissible in evidence against
herein petitioners, regardless of the alleged illegality of the aforementioned searches and seizures.
ISSUE:
WON the questioned search warrants are issued based on probable cause.
RULING:
The Court held in the negative.
Two points must be stressed in connection with this constitutional mandate relating to the conduct of
search and seizure, namely: (1) that no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined
by the judge in the manner set forth in said provision; and (2) that the warrant
shall particularly describe the things to be seized.
In the case at bar, the cited requirements for the validity of conduct of search and seizure are not
complied with. There was no allegation in the application for search warrant regarding specific acts
performed by herein petitioners. The averments thereof with respect to the offense committed
were abstract. As a consequence, it was impossible for the judges who issued the warrants to have
found the existence of probable cause, for the same presupposes the introduction of competent proof
that the party against whom it is sought has performed particular acts, or
committed specific omissions, violating a given provision of our criminal laws. As to the seizure, the
warrants sanctioned the seizure of all records of the petitioners and the aforementioned corporations,
whatever their nature, thus openly violating the requirement that the things to be seized
be particularly described. Clearly, there was a fishing expedition which is indicative of the absence of
evidence to establish a probable cause.
Hence, the questioned search warrants are invalid.
 20TH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, EDUARDO M. BARRETO, RAUL SAGULLO and FORTUNE
LEDESMA, respondents.

G.R. Nos. 76649-51, August 19, 1988

FACTS:
Through its counsel, petitioner 20th Century Fox Film Corporation lodged a letter- complaint with the
NBI for violation of PD No. 49, as amended, and sought the latter’s assistance in their anti-film piracy
drive. Consequently, the agents of the NBI and private researchers made discreet surveillance on
various video establishments.
Upon the application of NBI, the Court issued three search warrants directed against video tape outlets
owned by the private respondents which allegedly were engaged in the unauthorized sale and renting
out of copyrighted films belonging to the petitioner pursuant to P.D. 49. In effecting said warrants, NBI,
accompanied by the petitioner's agents, raided the video outlets pinpointed by the petitioner and then
it also seized the items described therein. An inventory of the items seized was made and left with the
private respondents.
The private respondents filed a Motion to lift the Order of Search Warrant and the release of seized
properties. Acting on said motion, RTC lifted the 3 search warrants it issued while holding that said
properties could not be basis of any criminal prosecution and ordering further the return of the seized
properties to the possession of the rightful owners for the failure of NBI to deliver said items to the
Court, as required under the law.
Upon the denial by the lower court of the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the petitioner, the latter
then filed a petition for Certiorari with CA. However, said petition was dismissed. Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE:
WON the Search warrant was validly issued.
RULING:
The Court held in the negative.
Citing the case of Burgos, Sr. v. Chief of Staff, AFP (133 SCRA 800), the Court defined probable cause for a
valid search "as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man
to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the
offense are in the place sought to be searched." This constitutional provision also demands "no less
than personal knowledge by the complainant or his witnesses of the facts upon which the issuance of a
search warrant may be justified" in order to convince the judge, not the individual making the affidavit
and seeking the issuance of the warrant, of the existence of a probable cause.
Here, the Court lifted the search warrants it issued on the ground of the absence of probable cause that
that the offense was committed by the private respondents. As averred by the lower court, the NBI
agents, who applied for the issuance of said warrants, did not have personal knowledge of the subject
matter of their testimony that the private respondents violated P.D. 49, as amended. On the other hand,
the petitioner’s counsel, while stating that he had personal knowledge that the confiscated tapes
owned by the private respondents were pirated tapes taken from master tapes belonging to the
petitioner, the Court did not give much credence to his testimony due to the fact that the master tapes,
being necessary for the validity of search warrants, of the allegedly pirated tapes were not shown to the
court during the application.
Hence, the search warrants were not valid.

FRANK UY and UNIFISH PACKING CORPORATION, petitioners,

vs.
BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE and HON. MERCEDES GOZO-DADOLE, respondents.
G.R. No. 129651, October 20, 2000

FACTS:
A report of crime constituting violations of NIRC was received from certain Rodrigo Abos. Abos, a
former employee of petitioner Unifish Packing Corporation. In his Affidavit, Abos claimed that he has
personal knowledge that the petitioners engaged in fraudulent practices and activities which are
violative of NIRC.
The Assistant Chief of the Special Investigation Branch of the BIR, Nestor N. Labaria, applied for search
warrants before RTC of Cebu to seek permission to search the premises of Unifish. Consequently, three
warrants were issued after hearing the depositions of Labaria and Abos.
In effecting said warrants, the agents of BIR, accompanied by members of PNP, searched the premises
of petitioner Unifish Packing Corporation. Among the things seized were the records and documents of
the petitioner Corporation, and Labia returned the seized items with the RTC of Cebu.
Consequently, BIR filed a case before DOJ against the petitioners. The latter filed Motion to Quash the
subject search warrants on the grounds that: A) inconsistencies with the description of place to be
searched; B) inconsistencies with the names of the persons against whom the warrants were issued; C)
two warrants issued for the same crime, same place and same occasion; D) doubts as to existence of
probable cause; and E) doubts as to particularity of description of the things to be seized. However, said
motion was denied by RTC, thus causing the petitioner to file a petition for certiorari with CA but said
petition was also dismissed.
ISSUE:
WON the disputed search warrants were invalidly issued on the ground of its failure to comply with
requirement that its shall particularly describe the things to be seized.
RULING:
The Court upheld the validity of the search warrants authorizing the seizure of the unregistered
delivery receipts and unregistered purchase and sales invoices but reversed the decision of RTC with
respect to the rest of the articles subject of said warrants.

A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to be seized when the description
therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow (People vs. Rubio, 57 Phil, 384); or when
the description expresses a conclusion of fact - not of law - by which the warrant officer may be guided
in making the search and seizure (idem., dissent of Abad Santos, J.,); or when the things described are
limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued (Sec. 2,
Rule 126, Revised Rules of Court).

In the case at bar, most of the items listed in the warrants fail to meet the test of particularity,
especially since witness Abos had furnished the judge photocopies of the documents sought to be
seized. The issuing judge could have formed a more specific description of these documents from said
photocopies instead of merely employing a generic description thereof. Although the warrant was
defective, it does not follow that it was invalid as a whole. The search warrant is severable, and those
items not particularly described may be cut off without destroying the whole warrant.

Consequently, the Court ordered the return to petitioners all items seized from the subject premises
and belonging to petitioners since the issuance of warrants with respect to said items is invalid except
the unregistered delivery receipts and unregistered purchase and sales invoices which the Court held
that the warrant is validly issued on the latter items.

BENJAMIN V. KHO and ELIZABETH ALINDOGAN, Petitioners, v. HON. ROBERTO L. MAKALINTAL and
NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Respondents.

G.R. No. 94902-06. April 21, 1999

FACTS:

Two search warrants were respectively applied for by different NBI agents with the same herein
respondent Judge, with said warrants subsequently issued by the respondent Judge for the personal
surveillance and investigation on the two separate houses of petitioner Kho which were allegedly being
used as storage centers for unlicensed firearms and chop-chop vehicles. Respondent NBI sought for the
issuance of search warrants in anticipation of criminal cases to be instituted against petitioner Kho.

In effecting said warrants, two teams of NBI agents separately searched the premises of the first house
of the petitioner where said team recovered various high-powered firearms and hundreds of rounds of
ammunition. On the other hand, the other team of NBI agents conducted at the other house of the
petitioner where the team yielded several high-powered firearms with explosives and more than a
thousand rounds of ammunition. The simultaneous searches also resulted in the confiscation of various
radio and telecommunication equipment, two units of motor vehicles (Lite-Ace vans) and one
motorcycle. Upon verification with the Firearms and Explosives Unit in Camp Crame, the NBI agents
found out that no license has ever been issued to any person or entity for the confiscated firearms and
the subject radio agents. Likewise, the radio tranceivers recovered and motor vehicles seized turned
out to be unlicensed and unregistered per records of the government agencies concerned.

Each of the raiding teams submitted the return of the seized items to the Respondent Judge who then
requested that said items be in the continued custody of the NBI. On the other hand, the petitioners
filed before the respondent Judge a Motion to Quash the search warrants on many grounds, among
others, the lack of probable cause in the issuance of said warrants, since the surveillance and
investigation made by the NBI agents were not sufficient to vest in the applicants personal knowledge
of facts and circumstances showing or indicating the commission of a crime by the herein petitioners .

However, the respondent Judge denied said Motion causing the petitioners to file this petition for
Certiorari.

ISSUE:

WON the disputed search warrants were valid.

RULING:

The Court held in the affirmative.

In the case of Central Bank v. Morfe (20 SCRA 507), this Court ruled that the question of whether or not a
probable cause exists is one which must be determined in light of the conditions obtaining in given
situations. In Luna v. Plaza (26 SCRA 310), it held that the existence of a probable cause depends to a large
extent upon the finding or opinion of the judge who conducted the required examination of the applicants
and the witnesses.

In contrast to the contention of the petitioners invoking the invalidity of the search warrant due to lack of
probable cause, records show that the NBI agents and their witnesses
Have personally witnessed the weapons being carried to and unloaded at the two houses searched, and
motor vehicles and spare parts were stored therein. It can then be inferred from the testimonies of the
witnesses and the NBI agents that the latter’s application for search warrants emanated from their
personal knowledge and thereby sufficient enough to establish the presence of probable cause in the
valid issuance of said warrants by the respondent Judge.

Hence, the disputed search warrants were validly issued based on probable cause.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
MODESTO TEE a.k.a. ESTOY TEE, accused-appellant

G.R. Nos. 140546-47, January 20, 2003

FACTS:

For automatic review is the consolidated judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City, in
Criminal Cases Nos. 15800-R and 15822-R, involving violations of Section 8, Article II, of the Dangerous
Drugs Law.

NBI and PNP NARCOM received a tip which caused them to raid the premises allegedly leased by herein
appellant and at his residence where huge quantities of marijuana were yielded.

Later, NBI and PNP NARCOM applied for search warrant. The search was witnessed by the appellant, his
family members, the barangay officials, and the members of the media where photographs were taken
during the actual search. Thereafter, the appellant was arrested.

Appellant Tee moved to quash the search warrant on the grounds that the physical evidence of the
prosecution was illegally obtained, being the products of an unlawful search, hence inadmissible.
Appellant insisted that the search warrant was too general and the process by which said warrant was
acquired did not satisfy the constitutional requirements for the issuance of a valid search warrant.
Moreover, Abratique’s testimony, which was heavily relied upon by the judge who issued the warrant,
was hearsay.

ISSUES:

1. WON the search warrant satisfies requirement on particularity of description.

2. WON the search warrant satisfies the requirement that it shall be issued based on probable cause,
that is, upon personal examination of the Judge on the accused and his witnesses.

3. WON the search warrant satisfies the requirement on particularity of place to be searched.

RULING 1:

The Court held in the affirmative.

What the Constitution seeks to avoid under the requirement on valid search warrants are broad or
general characterization or sweeping descriptions, which will authorize police officers to undertake a
fishing expedition to seize and confiscate any and all kinds of evidence or articles relating to an offense.
However, it is not required that technical precision of description be required, particularly, where by
the nature of the goods to be seized, their description must be rather general, since the requirement of
a technical description would mean that no warrant could issue.

In the case at bar, what is to be seized in the instant case is property of a specified character, i.e.,
marijuana, an illicit drug. By reason of its character and the circumstances under which it would be
found, said article is illegal. A further description would be unnecessary and ordinarily impossible,
except as to such character, the place, and the circumstances. Thus, this Court has held that the
description "illegally in possession of undetermined quantity/amount of dried marijuana leaves and
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu) and sets of paraphernalia" particularizes the things to be
seized.

RULING 2:

The Court held in the affirmative.

Before a valid search warrant is issued, both the Constitution and the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure require that the judge must personally examine the complainant and his witnesses under
oath or affirmation. The personal examination must not be merely routinary or pro forma, but must be
probing and exhaustive.

In this case, NBI Special Investigator Lising’s knowledge of the illicit drugs stored in appellant’s house
was indeed hearsay. But he had a witness, Danilo Abratique, who had personal knowledge about said
drugs and their particular location. Abratique’s statements to the NBI and to Judge Reyes contained
credible and reliable details. As the NBI’s witness, Abratique was a person on whose statements Judge
Reyes could rely. His detailed description of appellant’s activities with respect to the seized drugs was
substantial. In relying on witness Abratique, Judge Reyes was not depending on casual rumor
circulating in the underworld, but on personal knowledge Abratique possessed.

RULING 3:

The Court held in the affirmative.

A description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer serving the warrant can, with
reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it from other places in the
community. A designation or description that points out the place to be searched to the exclusion of all
others, and on inquiry unerringly leads the peace officers to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement
of definiteness.

Here, the OSG points out that the address stated in the warrant is as specific as can be. The NBI even
submitted a detailed sketch of the premises prepared by Abratique, thus ensuring that there would be
no mistake.

Hence, the validity of search warrant issued is upheld.

 SR. INSP. JERRY C. VALEROSO, Petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

G.R. No. 164815, September 3, 2009

FACTS:

Herein petitioner was charged with violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866. Upon arraignment, the
petitioner entered a plea of not guilty, and thereby trial on the merits ensued.

During the trial, the testimonies of the prosecution stated that SPO1 Disuanco received a Dispatch
Order from the desk officer directing him and three (3) other policemen to serve a Warrant of Arrest
against Valeroso for a case of kidnapping with ransom. Valeroso was then brought to the police station
for questioning. Upon verification in the Firearms and Explosives Division in Camp Crame, Deriquito
presented a certification that the subject firearm was not issued to Valeroso, but was licensed in the
name of a certain Raul Palencia Salvatierra.

On the other hand, the testimonies of the defense held that herein petitioner was awakened by 4 armed
men in civilian attire, who pointed their guns at him and pulled him out of the room. The raiding team
tied his hands and placed him near the faucet (outside the room) then went back inside, searched and
ransacked the room, and even unlocked cabinets and drawers. Disuanco informed Valeroso that there
was a standing warrant for his arrest. However, the raiding team was not armed with a search warrant.

Nevertheless, RTC convicted the petitioner on the crime charged. On appeal, the CA affirmed the
decision of RTC. The petitioner then filed Motion for Reconsideration but the same was also denied.
Hence, this Letter-Appeal was filed by the petitioner praying that the decision and resolution of RTC
and CA, respectively, be set aside on the ground that his constitutional rights against unreasonable
search and seizure were breached and thus a new one be entered acquitting him of the crime of illegal
possession of firearm and ammunition.

ISSUE:

WON the warrantless search and seizure of the firearm and ammunition valid.

RULING:

The Court held in the negative.

Jurisprudence provides that 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.

In the case at bar, there was no comparable justification to search through all the desk drawers and
cabinets or the other closed or concealed areas in that room itself. The search was made in the locked
cabinet which cannot be said to have been within Valeroso’s immediate control. Thus, the search
exceeded the bounds of what may be considered as an incident to a lawful arrest. Clearly, the search
made was illegal, a violation of Valeroso’s right against unreasonable search and seizure. Consequently,
the evidence obtained in violation of said right is inadmissible in evidence against him.

Without the illegally seized firearm, Valeroso’s conviction cannot stand. Hence, the Court granted the
petitioner’s letter-appeal acquitting the latter from the crime charged.

RODOLFO ESPANO, accused-petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

G.R. No. 120431, April 1, 1998

FACTS:

This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed in toto the judgment
of the Regional Trial Court convicting petitioner Rodolfo Espano for violation of Article II, Section 8 of
Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act.

The testimony Pat. Romeo Pagilagan provides that he and other 3 police officers went to Zamora and
Pandacan Streets, Manila to confirm reports of drug pushing in the area. Upon arriving in said place,
the officers saw petitioner selling "something" to another person. From thereon, the officers
approached petitioner, identified themselves as policemen, and frisked him. Upon search, two plastic
cellophane tea bags of marijuana were yielded from petitioner and 10 more cellophanes marijuana
were found in the petitioner’s residence after the latter confessed when asked if he had more
marijuana. Consequently, the petitioner was brought to the police headquarters where he was charged
with possession of prohibited drugs.

By way of defense, petitioner denied the testimony of Pat. Pagiligan. However, the trial court rejected
petitioner’s, defense as a "mere afterthought" and found the version of the prosecution "more credible
and trustworthy”.

Consequently, the petitioner appealed before CA but the latter affirmed in toto the judgment of RTC.
Hence, this petition for review was filed.

ISSUE:

WON the seized marijuana are all admissible for evidence.

RULING:

The Court held in the negative.

An exception to the rule against unreasonable searches and seizures is a warrantless search incidental
to a lawful arrest for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of
an offense. It may extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include the premises or
surroundings under his immediate control.

In the case at bar, the petitioner’s arrest was lawful since he was caught in flagrante, the same not
requiring warrant of arrest for it to be valid. As to the validity of the seizure made on the items, the two
cellophane bags of marijuana found at the time of the petitioner’s arrest were lawfully seized under the
doctrine of search made incidental to a lawful arrest. However, the warrantless search made in his
house where ten cellophane bags of marijuana were yielded became unlawful since the police officers
were not armed with a search warrant at the time. Moreover, it was beyond the reach and control of
petitioner.
In sum, the Court found the petitioner guilty as charged with modification on his penalty by virtue of
passage of Act No. 7659 where the imposable penalty shall now depend on the quantity of drugs
recovered. Hence, the petitioner is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of TWO (2) months
and ONE (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum to TWO (2) years, FOUR (4) months and ONE (1) day
of prision correccional, as maximum.