Determination of Probable Cause

(a)Placer v. Villanueva, 126 SCRA 463

Facts:
City Fiscal Nestorio M. Placer, along with his assistants and the People of the Philippines, filed several criminal
informations in the City Court of Butuan. These informations were certified by the investigating fiscals as having
reasonable ground to believe that the crimes charged had been committed and that the accused were probably guilty.
The judge ordered the submission of affidavits of witnesses and other documentary evidence to aid in his
determination of probable cause. The petitioners filed motions for reconsideration, arguing that their certification
should be sufficient for the issuance of warrants of arrest. The judge denied the motions and reiterated his order for
the submission of affidavits and documents.

Issue:
Whether the certification of the investigating fiscal in the information as to the existence of probable cause obligates
the judge to issue a warrant of arrest.

Ruling:
The judge is not bound by the fiscal's certification and has the discretion to require the submission of affidavits of
witnesses to aid in determining the existence of probable cause. The issuance of a warrant is not a mere ministerial
function but calls for the exercise of judicial discretion. The judge must satisfy himself of the existence of probable
cause before issuing a warrant or order of arrest. If the judge finds no probable cause on the face of the information,
he may disregard the fiscal's certification and require the submission of affidavits of witnesses.

Ratio:
The court's decision is based on the provisions of Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, which states that the
judge must satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause before issuing a warrant or order of arrest. The court
cites previous cases, U.S. vs. Ocampo and Amarga vs. Abbas, which established that the judge has the discretion to
require the submission of affidavits of witnesses to aid in determining the existence of probable cause. The court also
mentions the Rule on Summary Procedure in Special Cases, which requires the filing of affidavits of witnesses with
the court in certain criminal cases. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the court to determine whether to
dismiss the case outright or to require further proceedings.

Cruz: …it puts to rest the earlier indecisions of the SC on the question of who should determine probable
cause as a requirement for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.

…several informations were filed by the petitioning prosecutors who had certified that they had conducted
the required preliminary investigations. The judge asked them to submit the supporting affidavits so he
could determine WON the corresponding warrant of arrest should be issued, but the prosecutors refused,
arguing that they had the authority under PD911 to determine probable cause. The SC disagreed, ruling that
the issuance of the warrant of arrest was not a ministerial function of the judge who had the right to
determine for himself the existence of probable cause.

(b)Ho v. People, 280 SCRA 365

Facts:
The case involves two consolidated petitions for certiorari filed by Doris Teresa Ho and Rolando S. Narciso. The
Anti-Graft League of the Philippines filed a complaint against five individuals, including Ho and Narciso, for alleged
violation of Section 3(g) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The complaint was filed with the Office of the
Ombudsman. After a preliminary investigation, the Ombudsman approved the recommendation to charge Ho and
Narciso with violation of Section 3(e) of the same Act. The Sandiganbayan issued a warrant of arrest against Ho and
Narciso based solely on the information and resolution filed by the Ombudsman, without independently examining the
evidence to determine probable cause.
Issue:
Can a judge determine probable cause and issue a warrant of arrest solely based on the resolution of the prosecutor,
without having before him any of the evidence submitted during the preliminary investigation?

Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners and declared the warrant of arrest null and void.

Ratio:
The judge cannot rely solely on the report of the prosecutor in finding probable cause to justify the issuance of a
warrant of arrest. The judge must decide independently and have supporting evidence, other than the prosecutor's
report, upon which to legally sustain his own findings on the existence of probable cause. The judge's personal and
independent determination of probable cause is required by the Constitution. It is not required for the judge to
examine the complete records of the case during the preliminary investigation, but he must have sufficient supporting
documents to make his own judgment or verify the findings of the prosecutor. The prosecutor's report should not be
the sole basis for the judge's decision, and the judge should have access to the records and evidence submitted
during the preliminary investigation. The Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion by relying solely on the
prosecutor's findings without independently examining the evidence to determine probable cause.

Cruz:...The determination of probable cause for purposes of issuing a warrant of arrest is made by the judge.
The preliminary investigation proper - WON there is a reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty
of the offense charged - is the function of the investigating prosecutor. The task of the presiding judge when
the Information is filed with the court is first and foremost to determine the existence or non-existence of
probable cause for the arrest of the accused.

(c)Mendoza v. People, G.R. No. 197293

Facts:
Juno Cars, Inc. filed a complaint against Alfredo C. Mendoza for qualified theft and estafa. Alfredo, who was hired as
Trade-In/Used Car Supervisor, allegedly sold and released five cars without permission and failed to remit the
payments totaling P886,000. It was also alleged that Alfredo failed to turn over the files of two other cars. The
Provincial Prosecutor found probable cause and recommended the filing of an information against Alfredo. However,
the trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause after conducting an independent assessment of the
evidence. Juno Cars filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. They then filed a petition for certiorari with
the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court's decision and reinstated the case. Alfredo filed a petition for
review with the Supreme Court.

Issue:
Whether the trial court may dismiss an information filed by the prosecutor based on its own independent finding of
lack of probable cause.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Alfredo and dismissed the case. The court held that while the determination of
probable cause is the sole function of the prosecutor, the trial court may dismiss the case if, upon a personal
assessment of the evidence, it finds that the evidence does not establish probable cause. The court emphasized that
the trial court's role is limited to determining whether a warrant of arrest should be issued, and it does not have the
authority to review the prosecutor's determination of probable cause. However, once the information has been filed,
the court has the discretion to dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause. In
this case, the trial court made an independent assessment of the evidence and found that Juno Cars failed to prove
ownership of the cars and the exact value of the alleged office files, which are crucial elements of the charges against
Alfredo. Therefore, the trial court correctly dismissed the case.

Ratio:
The court clarified the difference between the executive determination of probable cause, made by the prosecutor
during the preliminary investigation, and the judicial determination of probable cause, made by the judge to determine
whether a warrant of arrest should be issued. The court emphasized that the trial court's role is limited to determining
whether a warrant of arrest should be issued and it does not have the authority to review the prosecutor's
determination of probable cause. However, the court also recognized that the trial court has the discretion to dismiss
the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause. In this case, the trial court made an
independent assessment of the evidence and found that Juno Cars failed to prove ownership of the cars and the
exact value of the alleged office files, leading to the dismissal of the case.

Cruz: …the SC said that Judge Capco-Umali “correctly dismissed the case” after she had “made an
independent assessment of the evidence on record and concluded that ‘the evidence adduced does not
support a finding of probable cause for the offenses of qualified theft and estafa.” The Court added though
that “although jurisprudence and procedural rules allow it, a judge must always proceed with caution in
dismissing cases due to lack of probable cause, considering the preliminary nature of the evidence before it.

(d)The Law Firm of Chavez Miranda and Aseoche v. Fria, GR No 183014

Facts:
The Law Firm of Chavez Miranda and Aseoche (The Law Firm) filed a petition to review the dismissal of Criminal
Case No. 46400 against Atty. Josejina C. Fria for lack of probable cause. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the
dismissal, stating that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the lower court. The main issue in the
case is whether or not the dismissal of the case for Open Disobedience against Atty. Fria was proper. On July 31,
2006, an Information was filed against Atty. Fria, charging her with the crime of Open Disobedience. The Law Firm,
acting as counsel for the plaintiff in a civil case, alleged that Atty. Fria refused to perform her duty of issuing a writ of
execution to enforce a judgment. Atty. Fria argued that she did not need to sign the draft writ since the presiding
judge had already ordered that he himself would sign and issue it. The prosecutor recommended that Atty. Fria be
indicted for Open Disobedience, and the case was filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC). The MTC
dismissed the case for lack of probable cause, stating that the nullification of the civil case proceedings due to lack of
jurisdiction worked retroactively to warrant the dismissal of the criminal case. The Law Firm filed a motion for
reconsideration, which was denied by the MTC. The Law Firm then filed a petition for review with the RTC, which
affirmed the dismissal of the case.

Issue:
Whether or not the dismissal of the case for Open Disobedience against Atty. Fria was proper.

Ruling:
The dismissal of the case was proper.

Ratio:
The judge's power to immediately dismiss a criminal case is warranted when the lack of probable cause is clear. In
this case, the records clearly show the absence of the elements of the crime of Open Disobedience. The first
element, that the offender is a judicial or executive officer, is present. However, the second and third elements are
lacking. The second element requires that there is a judgment, decision, or order of a superior authority made within
the scope of its jurisdiction and issued with all legal formalities. However, all the proceedings in the civil case were
declared null and void due to lack of jurisdiction, therefore the second element does not exist. The third element
requires that the offender, without any legal justification, openly refuses to execute the said judgment, decision, or
order. However, without jurisdiction, there would be no legal order for Atty. Fria to implement or disobey. The court
concluded that no grave abuse of discretion can be attributed to the MTC in dismissing the case, and therefore, the
dismissal is sustained.

Cruz:... the SC “observed that the judge’s power to immediately dismiss a criminal case would only be
warranted when the lack of probable cause is clear.”
FULL CASE: The Board of Commissioners of The Bureau of Immigration and the Jail Warde v. Yuan Wenle,
GR No 242957

The Chinese Embassy sought the assistance of the Philippine Government for the deportation of Yuan Wenle, a
Chinese national staying in the Philippines. Shortly thereafter, Yuan Wenle was classified as an undocumented alien
who poses risks to the public. In July 2018, a Summary Deportation Order (SDO) was issued against Yuan Wenle by
the Board of Commissioners of the Bureau of Immigration. Yuan Wenle, by virtue of the SDO, was arrested in
August 2018. In September 2018, Yuan Wenle filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus with the Regional Trial Court of
Manila questioning the validity of his arrest. He argued that he was arrested without due process as the SDO was
issued without him being given the opportunity to be heard. The RTC of Manila granted the petition. The Office of the
Solicitor General, via Rule 45, questioned before the Supreme Court the propriety of the grant.

Issue:
1. Whether or not administrative warrants, like SDOs, are valid.

2. Whether or not a petition for habeas corpus is the proper remedy to question administrative warrants.

Ruling:
1. Yes. Administrative warrants are valid. The SC recognizes that administrative warrants or writs directing or
authorizing someone to do an act as they pertain to administrative enforcement are necessary and cannot be entirely
disregarded due to administrative agencies’ ability to address some specialized, exigent public need, just as the
existence of quasi-judicial bodies is imperative in addressing disputes involving technical matters which justifies the
exercise of adjudicative powers by agencies under the Executive branch.

However, the Supreme Court has laid down a set of conditions which must be present and strictly complied with in
order to justify the validity of administrative warrants and in order to prevent abuses:

Administrative Warrant Guidelines / Yuan Wenle Guidelines

a. The danger, harm, or evil sought to be prevented by the warrant must be imminent and must be greater than the
damage or injury which will be sustained by the one who shall be temporarily deprived of a right to liberty or property;

b. The warrant’s resultant deprivation of a right or legitimate claim of entitlement must be temporary or provisional,
aimed only at suppressing imminent danger, harm or evil, with such deprivation’s permanency strictly subjected to
procedural due process requirements;

c. The issuing administrative authority must be empowered by law to perform specific implementing acts pursuant to
regulatory purposes;

d. The issuing administrative authority must be necessarily authorized by law to pass upon and make final
pronouncements on conflicting rights and obligations of contending parties, as well as to issue warrants or orders that
are incidental to the performance of the executive or administrative duty entrusted to it;

e. The issuance of an administrative warrant must be based on tangible proof or probable cause and must state a
specific purpose or infraction allegedly committed, with particular descriptions of the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized;

f. The warrant issued must not pertain to a criminal offense or pursued as a precursor for the filing of criminal charges
and any object seized pursuant to such writ shall not be admissible in evidence in any criminal proceeding;

g. The person temporarily deprived of a right or entitlement by an administrative warrant shall be formally charged
within a reasonable time, if no such period is provided, and shall not be denied access to a competent counsel of his
or her choice. In cases where a person is deprived of liberty by virtue of an administrative warrant, the administrative
body which issued said warrant shall immediately submit a verified notice to the RTC nearest to the detained for
purposes of issuing a judicial commitment order; and

h. A violation of any item of these guidelines is a prima facie proof of usurpation of judicial functions, malfeasance,
misfeasance, nonfeasance, or graft and corrupt practices on the part of responsible officers.

2. No. A petition for habeas corpus cannot be resorted to question an administrative warrant. To allow an individual to
avail of habeas corpus to question administrative warrants is to disregard the doctrines of exhaustion of
administrative remedies and of primary jurisdiction for the sake of convenience. In this case, allowing Yuan Wenle to
directly resort to a habeas corpus proceeding before the regular courts will be to allow a preemption of the Bureau’s
statutory duty to determine for itself the issues of legality in all deportation cases specifically and supposedly under its
jurisdiction.

3. Examination of Applicant

(a)Alvarez v. Court of First Instance, 64 Phil 33

Facts:
Narciso Alvarez, a money-lender, challenges the legality of a search warrant and seizure of documents. The search
warrant was issued by the Court of First Instance of Tayabas based on an affidavit made by an agent of the
Anti-Usury Board. The warrant authorized the search of Alvarez's house and the seizure of accounting books,
documents, and papers used in his money-lending activities.

Issue:
Whether the search warrant and seizure of documents are legal.

Ruling:
The search warrant and seizure of documents are illegal.

Ratio:
The affidavit supporting the warrant was insufficient because the agent had no personal knowledge of the facts but
relied on hearsay information. The warrant was issued solely for the purpose of seizing evidence to be used in
criminal proceedings against Alvarez, which violates his constitutional rights against self-incrimination. The warrant
allowed for the search and seizure to be conducted at night, which is not authorized unless it is positively asserted in
the affidavit that the property is on the person or in the place to be searched. The warrant lacked a specific and
detailed description of the items to be seized, making it too general and vague. The Court emphasizes the
importance of protecting the constitutional rights of citizens, particularly the right to personal security and the
exemption of private affairs from inspection by others. The power to search and seize must be exercised without
transgressing these constitutional rights. The affidavit supporting the warrant was insufficient because it did not
contain the personal knowledge of the facts required to establish probable cause. The warrant was issued
unreasonably and without a specific description of the items to be seized. The seizure of the documents for the
purpose of using them as evidence in criminal proceedings against Alvarez is unconstitutional and violates his right
against self-incrimination. The search warrant and seizure of documents are declared illegal. The documents are
ordered to be immediately returned to Alvarez. The argument that Alvarez waived his constitutional rights by
proposing a compromise is rejected, as the compromise referred to the criminal proceedings, not the search and
seizure. An appeal would not be a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy for Alvarez, and therefore, his petition for
mandamus is appropriate.

Cruz:...the SC annulled a search warrant issued on the strength of an affidavit based on “reliable
information” which, according to the affiant, was “correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.” It was
noted that “he did not swear to the truth of his statements upon his own knowledge of the facts but upon the
information received by him from a reliable person.”

(b)Paper Industries Corp v. Asuncion, GR No 122092

Facts:
The case involves the invalidity of a search warrant issued against the management of Paper Industries Corporation
of the Philippines (PICOP) for alleged possession of firearms and explosives. The search warrant was applied for by
Police Chief Inspector Pascua and was issued by Judge Maximiano C. Asuncion of the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City. The warrant authorized the search of the PICOP compound in Bislig, Surigao del Sur. During the
search, several firearms, ammunitions, and explosives were seized by the police. The seized items were then used
as evidence in a complaint for illegal possession of firearms filed against the petitioners.

Issue:
Is the search warrant issued against the management of PICOP valid?

Ruling:
The court declares the search warrant as null and void due to procedural errors.

Ratio:
The requisites for a valid search warrant must be followed strictly to uphold the constitutional right against
unreasonable searches and seizures. The judge must personally examine the complainant and witnesses, who must
testify on facts personally known to them. The warrant must specifically describe the place to be searched and the
things to be seized. Failure to comply with these requirements renders the search warrant invalid.
As a result, the seized items are excluded as evidence in any proceeding.

Cruz:...the SC nullified a search warrant notwithstanding the issuing judge’s claims that “the court
propounded searching questions to the applicant and the witnesses in order to determine whether there was
a probable cause.” The Court said that the records “proclaim otherwise.” They showed that the hearing for
the issuance of the search warrant was limited only to the introduction of two witnesses, one of whom, the
applicant, merely stated his “name, age, civil status, occupation, address, and other personal
circumstances.” The Court noted that “he failed to even affirm his application.” The only other witness was
likewise shown not have had any personal knowledge of the facts alleged in the subject application,
particularly with respect to the specification in the subject warrant that the firearms listed therein were not
licensed.

(c)Mata v. Bayona, 168 SCRA 388

Facts:
Petitioner Soriano Mata challenges the validity of a search warrant issued by respondent Judge Josephine K.
Bayona. Mata argues that the search warrant was based on an application and joint affidavit that were subscribed
and sworn to before the Clerk of Court, which is allegedly improper. Mata also claims that the necessary papers
related to the issuance of the search warrant were not attached to the records of the case.

Issue:
Whether the search warrant is valid or not due to the failure to comply with the constitutional and statutory
requirements for its issuance.

Ruling:
The search warrant is declared invalid due to the judge's failure to comply with constitutional and statutory
requirements.

Ratio:
The Constitution requires that no search warrant shall issue without probable cause determined by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and witnesses. The implementing rule, Section 4 of Rule
126, further specifies that the judge must personally examine the complainant and witnesses, take their depositions in
writing, and attach them to the record. Mere affidavits are not sufficient. In this case, the judge failed to comply with
these requirements. There was no "deposition in writing" attached to the records, and the certification of the
examination under oath was not found on the joint affidavit. The judge's claim that she did not take the deposition of
certain witnesses to prevent the subjects of the raid from disappearing is not a valid justification. The court
emphasizes that the legal requisites for the issuance of a search warrant must be strictly complied with to protect the
rights of individuals to personal security and privacy.

Conclusion:
The court declares the search warrant invalid due to the judge's failure to comply with constitutional and statutory
requirements. However, the seized items cannot be returned as possession of these items is prohibited, regardless of
the warrant's legality.

Cruz:...it was held that mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses were not enough to sustain the
issuance of a search warrant. The judge must take depositions in writing and attach them to the record as
these are necessary to enable the court to determine the existence of probable cause.

(d)PLDT v. HPS Software and Communication Corporation

Facts:
HPS Software and Communication Corporation (HPS Corporation) and Philippine Long Distance Telephone
Company (PLDT) filed consolidated petitions for review on certiorari. The case involves the issuance and subsequent
quashal of search warrants against HPS Corporation for alleged unauthorized sale of international long distance
calls. On October 20, 2000, the Philippine Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF) filed applications for search
warrants against HPS Corporation for violation of Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. The applications were
based on testimonies of witnesses who claimed that HPS Corporation was engaged in the unauthorized sale of
international long distance calls using a method called International Simple Resale (ISR). Witnesses testified that ISR
involves routing and completing international long distance calls using pre-paid cards, bypassing PLDT's monitoring
system and causing revenue loss to PLDT. The trial court issued two search warrants, which were immediately
implemented by the police. A preliminary investigation was conducted, and probable cause was found to exist.
However, the trial court later quashed the search warrants and ordered the immediate return of the seized items to
HPS Corporation. PLDT filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which granted the petition and set
aside the trial court's order for the immediate return of the seized items. HPS Corporation filed a motion for
reconsideration, but it was denied. Both parties then filed separate petitions for review on certiorari with the Supreme
Court, which were consolidated.

Issue:
Whether PLDT has the legal personality to file the petition for certiorari without the consent or approval of the Solicitor
General.

Whether PLDT's petition for certiorari should have been dismissed outright for failure to file a motion for
reconsideration.

Whether PLDT engaged in forum shopping.

Whether the search warrants were improperly quashed.

Whether the search warrants are in the nature of general warrants.

Whether the release of the seized items was proper.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of PLDT on all the issues.

Ratio:
The Court held that PLDT has the legal personality to file the petition for certiorari without the consent or approval of
the Solicitor General. The Court held that PLDT's petition for certiorari was properly given due course by the Court of
Appeals despite the non-filing of a motion for reconsideration. The Court held that PLDT did not engage in forum
shopping. The Court ruled that the search warrants were improperly quashed and that they are not in the nature of
general warrants. The Court held that the release of the seized items was not proper. The Court's ruling was based
on the determination that there was probable cause to issue the search warrants and that the trial court committed
grave abuse of discretion in quashing the warrants and ordering the immediate return of the seized items. The Court
considered the evidence presented by PLDT, including testimonies and documents, which supported the existence of
probable cause. The Court emphasized that the determination of probable cause does not require proof beyond
reasonable doubt, but only a reasonable belief that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought are in
the place to be searched.

Cruz:...a challenge against the participation of a private person in a search warrant proceeding on the ground
that, “all criminal actions either commenced by complaint or by any information shall be prosecuted under
the direction and control of a public prosecutor” was rejected by SC in this case. It was held that said rule, as
provided for in Section 5 of Rule 110 “does not apply.” The Court explained that a “private individual or a
private corporation complaining to the NBI or to a government agency charged with the enforcement of
special penal laws, such as the BFAD, may appear, participate and file pleadings in the search warrant
proceedings to maintain, inter alia, the validity of the search warrant issued by the court and the
admissibility of the properties seized in anticipation of a criminal case to be filed; such private party may do
so in collaboration with the NBI or such government agency. The party may file an opposition to a motion to
quash the search warrant issued by the court, or a motion for the reconsideration of the court order granting
such motion to quash.” It stressed that the “basic flaw in this reasoning is in erroneously equating the
application for and the obtention of a search warrant with the institution and prosecution of a criminal action
in a trial court,” and explained that a “search warrant is in the nature of a criminal process akin to a writ of
discovery. It is a special and peculiar remedy, drastic in its nature, and made necessary because of a public
necessity.”

4. Particularity of Description

(a)Del Castillo v. People, GR No 185128

Facts:
Ruben del Castillo was accused of possessing methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) without a license. The police
officers, led by SPO3 Bienvenido Masnayon, obtained a search warrant based on confidential information that del
Castillo was engaged in selling shabu. They conducted surveillance and a test-buy operation at del Castillo's house
before securing the search warrant. On September 13, 1997, the police officers went to del Castillo's house to serve
the search warrant. Upon arrival, someone shouted "raid," prompting them to disembark from the jeep they were
riding and go directly to del Castillo's house. Masnayon claimed to have seen del Castillo run towards a nipa hut in
front of his house. The police officers searched the house and the nipa hut, but found nothing. However, one of the
barangay tanods (village watchmen) was able to confiscate four plastic packs containing white crystalline substance
from the nipa hut. The confiscated items were sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination, which confirmed
the presence of shabu.

Issue:
Whether there was probable cause to issue the search warrant.
Whether the confiscated items found in the nipa hut are admissible as evidence.
Whether the prosecution established the element of possession beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court acquitted Ruben del Castillo due to the inadmissibility of the confiscated drugs and the lack of
evidence establishing his possession.

Ratio:
The court held that there was probable cause to issue the search warrant. The requisites for the issuance of a search
warrant were met, and the judge's determination of probable cause is given great deference as long as there was a
substantial basis for that determination.

The court ruled that the confiscated items found in the nipa hut are inadmissible as evidence. The search warrant
specifically described del Castillo's residence as the place to be searched, and the items were seized by a barangay
tanod in a nipa hut located 20 meters away from del Castillo's house. The presentation of the confiscated items as
evidence violated del Castillo's constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The court found that the prosecution failed to establish del Castillo's possession of the drugs beyond reasonable
doubt. The testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution did not provide sufficient proof that del Castillo owned or
had control over the nipa hut where the drugs were found. Without establishing del Castillo's control and dominion
over the place where the drugs were found, there is reasonable doubt as to his guilt. The prosecution must prove that
the accused had knowledge of the existence and presence of the drugs in the place under his control and dominion,
which was not proven in this case.

Cruz:... a search warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or things to
be seized in order for it to be valid.

(b)Republic Glass Corp v. Petron Corp, GR No 194062

Facts:
Parties involved: Republic Gas Corporation (REGASCO), Petron Corporation, Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation
(Shell) REGASCO is engaged in the refilling and sale of LPG Petron and Shell are suppliers and producers of LPG
with registered trademarks LPG Dealers Associations received reports of unauthorized refilling, sale, and distribution
of LPG cylinders bearing the trademarks of Petron and Shell National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) conducted an
investigation and found REGASCO engaged in unauthorized activities NBI conducted a test-buy operation and
confirmed REGASCO's illegal activities Search warrants were issued and LPG cylinders were seized from
REGASCO's premises REGASCO filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing lack of proof of trademark
infringement or unfair competition Assistant City Prosecutor recommended dismissal, affirmed by Secretary of the
Department of Justice REGASCO filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which granted the
petition and reversed the dismissal

Issue:
Should the petition for certiorari filed by REGASCO have been denied outright?
Is there sufficient evidence to prove trademark infringement and unfair competition?
Can individual petitioners be held liable for the offenses charged?

Ruling:
Filing of a motion for reconsideration may be dispensed with since the questions raised in the petition were the same
as those already argued and passed upon by the Secretary of Justice There is sufficient evidence to warrant the
prosecution of REGASCO for trademark infringement and unfair competition Individual petitioners, as officers and
directors of REGASCO, can be held individually liable for the crimes committed by the corporation

Ratio:
The Court found that the questions raised in the petition for certiorari were already argued and passed upon by the
Secretary of Justice, therefore a motion for reconsideration is not necessary. The Court determined that there is
sufficient evidence to support the prosecution of REGASCO for trademark infringement and unfair competition. By
refilling and selling LPG cylinders bearing the registered marks of Petron and Shell, REGASCO is giving the goods
the general appearance of goods of another manufacturer, which may mislead consumers into believing that they are
buying the products of Petron and Shell. The Court held that the individual petitioners, as officers and directors of
REGASCO, can be held individually liable for the crimes committed by the corporation. This is based on the principle
of corporate criminal liability, where individuals who participate in or authorize the commission of a crime by a
corporation can be held personally liable for such offenses.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, finding REGASCO and its
directors and officers liable for trademark infringement and unfair competition.

Cruz:...a search warrant for trademark infringement and unfair competition was served at the premises of
REGASCO LPG Refilling Station, which was owned by the corporate petitioner. The SC held that the
individual petitioners, “being corporate officers and/or directors, through whose act, default or omission the
corporation commits a crime, may themselves be individually held answerable for the crime,” considering
that they, “being in direct control and supervision in the management and conduct of the affairs of the
corporation, must have known or are aware that the corporation is engaged in the act of refilling LPG
cylinders bearing the marks of the respondents without authority or consent from the latter which, under the
circumstances, could probably constitute the crimes of trademark infringement and unfair competition. The
existence of the corporate entity does not shield from prosecution the corporate agent who knowingly and
intentionally caused the corporation to commit a crime.”

(c)People v. Veloso, 48 Phil 169

Facts:
The case involves a club manager named Jose Ma. Veloso. Veloso resisted the police during a raid on the club.
Veloso claimed that the search warrant used was illegal. Veloso bit a policeman and resisted being placed in the
patrol wagon. Veloso was found guilty of resistance of the agents of authority.

Issue:
Whether Veloso's resistance of the police was justified due to the alleged illegality of the search warrant.

Ruling:
Veloso's resistance of the police was not justified. Veloso was found guilty of resistance of the agents of authority.

Ratio:
A search warrant must conform strictly to the requirements of the constitutional and statutory provisions under which
it is issued. The warrant will be construed strictly without requiring technical accuracy. The search warrant in this case
sufficiently described the place to be searched and the gambling apparatus to be seized. In a club or public place,
there would commonly be a varying occupancy, and the police could identify the person to be seized without difficulty.
The search warrant was valid. Veloso's resistance of the police was not justified.

Cruz:...that the warrant was valid although issued against John Doe only where it was shown that he was
described as occupying and in control of a building at a specified address.

(d)Paper Industries Corp v. Asuncion, GR No 122092

Facts:
The case involves the invalidity of a search warrant issued against the management of Paper Industries Corporation
of the Philippines (PICOP) for alleged possession of firearms and explosives. The search warrant was applied for by
Police Chief Inspector Pascua and was issued by Judge Maximiano C. Asuncion of the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City. The warrant authorized the search of the PICOP compound in Bislig, Surigao del Sur. During the
search, several firearms, ammunitions, and explosives were seized by the police. The seized items were then used
as evidence in a complaint for illegal possession of firearms filed against the petitioners.

Cruz:...the SC noted that the assailed search warrant identified only one place to be searched, to wit, “Paper
Industries Corp of the Philippines, located at PICOP Compound, Barangay Tabon, Bislig, Surigao del Sur,”
and authorized the search of “the aforementioned premises.” It was however shown that the compound
subject of the search warrant was “made up of 200 offices/buildings, 15 plants, 84 staff houses, 1 airstrip, 3
piers/wharves, 23 warehouses, 6 POL depots/quick service outlets and some 800 miscellaneous structures,
all of which are spread out over some 155 hectares.” The Court invalidated the warrant, observing that,
“obviously, the warrant gives the police officers unbridled and thus illegal authority to search all the
structures found inside the PICOP compound.”

IV. Properties Subject to Seizure

(a)Uy Kheytin v. Villareal

Facts:
On April 30, 1919, Ramon Gayanilo applied for a search warrant to search the house of Chino Uy Kheytin in Iloilo for
opium. The judge of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo issued the search warrant. M.S. Torralba, a lieutenant of the
Philippine Constabulary, conducted the search and found 60 small cans of opium and other items related to opium
use. The next day, they resumed the search and seized additional items, including books, letters, and personal
papers.

Issue:
Whether the search warrant and the subsequent seizure of property unrelated to opium were legal.

Ruling:
The search warrant was not illegal because it was issued to search for opium, which is a crime. The seizure of books,
letters, and other property unrelated to opium was a violation of the petitioners' constitutional rights.

Ratio:
A search warrant is not illegal if it is issued to search for property that is forbidden by law and constitutes a crime. A
search warrant should particularly describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized to prevent
unreasonable searches and seizures. Property that is not described in the search warrant cannot be seized. Books,
private documents, and private papers cannot be seized under a search warrant, especially if their seizure is for the
purpose of using them as evidence against the owner. Seizing a person's private papers to be used as evidence
against them is equivalent to compelling them to be a witness against themselves, which is prohibited by the law.

Conclusion:
The search warrant for opium was legal, but the seizure of books, letters, and other unrelated property was illegal.
The court ordered the return of the seized articles to the petitioners.

Cruz:...where the search and seizure is made only for the purpose of obtaining evidence to be used against
the accused, the warrant is unlawful as it would violate the constitutional right against self-incrimination. But
“search and seizure of a man’s private papers to be used in evidence for the purpose of convicting him of a
crime, recovering a penalty, or forfeiting his property, is totally different from the search and seizure of stolen
goods, dutiable articles on which the duties have not been paid, and the like, which rightfully belong to the
custody of the law.”
(b)Caterpillar Inc v. Samson, GR No 164605

Facts:
Caterpillar, Inc., a foreign corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing shoes and clothing items, filed a
petition for review on certiorari against Manolo P. Samson. The Regional Intelligence Investigation Division-National
Capital Region Police Office (RIID-NCRPO) filed search warrant applications against Samson for violations of unfair
competition. The trial court issued five search warrants against Samson and his business establishments. Various
merchandise bearing the trademarks owned by Caterpillar, Inc. were seized. Samson filed a motion to quash the
search warrants, but the trial court denied the motion and ordered the release of the seized items since no criminal
action had been filed against Samson.

Issue:
Whether the immediate return of the seized items was justified based on the absence of a criminal action filed against
the respondent. Whether the subsequent dismissal of the criminal complaints against the respondent justifies the
return of the seized items.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The court ruled that the
immediate return of the seized items was justified due to the lack of pending criminal and civil cases, and the articles
had little evidentiary value for the unfair competition charges. The court noted that the petitioner failed to allege that it
filed a petition for review before the Secretary of Justice to appeal the dismissal of the complaints. The court
explained that the seized articles were not crucial to the eventual prosecution of the respondent since the petitioner
had already identified the device employed by the respondent in deceiving the public and had obtained sufficient
samples and photographs of the merchandise. The court emphasized that there is no law prohibiting the trial court
from returning the seized articles before a case is actually filed in court, especially in cases where the return of the
items would better serve the purposes of justice and expediency. The court concluded that the trial court reasonably
exercised its discretion in ordering the return of the seized items.

Ratio:
The court's decision was based on the following arguments: The seized articles had little evidentiary value for the
unfair competition charges. The petitioner failed to appeal the dismissal of the complaints before the Secretary of
Justice. Sufficient samples and photographs of the merchandise were obtained, making the actual articles seized
unnecessary for the prosecution. There is no law prohibiting the trial court from returning the seized articles before a
case is filed in court, especially in cases where the return of the items would better serve the purposes of justice and
expediency. The trial court reasonably exercised its discretion in ordering the return of the seized items.

Cruz:...should there be no ensuing criminal prosecution in which the personal property seized is used as
evidence, its return to the person from whom it was taken, or to the person who is entitled to its possession
is but a matter of course,...

V. Admissibility of Illegally Seized Evidence

(a)Luz v. People, GR No 197788

Facts:
Rodel Luz y Ong was charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs. On March 10, 2003, PO2 Emmanuel L.
Alteza, a traffic enforcer, flagged down the accused for not wearing a helmet while driving a motorcycle. While issuing
a citation ticket, PO2 Alteza noticed that the accused was acting uneasy and kept getting something from his jacket.
Suspecting that the accused may have a weapon, PO2 Alteza asked him to empty the contents of his jacket pocket.
The accused complied and revealed a metal container containing plastic sachets of suspected shabu. The accused
was then arrested and charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
Issue:
Whether or not there was a valid arrest of the accused.
Whether or not the warrantless search that led to the discovery of the drugs was legal.
Whether or not the evidence obtained from the illegal arrest and search is admissible in court.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, Rodel Luz y Ong, and acquitted him of the charge of illegal
possession of dangerous drugs.

The Court found that there was no valid arrest of the accused, as he was not under arrest when he was flagged down
for a traffic violation.

The Court also held that the warrantless search that resulted from the invalid arrest was illegal.

Therefore, the evidence obtained from the illegal arrest and search, including the drugs, is inadmissible in court. As a
result, the accused was acquitted.

Ratio:
The accused was not under arrest when he was flagged down for a traffic violation. The act of flagging down a
motorist for a traffic violation does not automatically constitute an arrest. The requirements for a valid arrest were not
complied with. The arresting officer failed to inform the accused of the reason for his arrest and did not show him a
warrant of arrest, if any. The warrantless search that resulted from the invalid arrest was illegal. The evidence seized
was not in plain view and the accused did not give valid and intelligent consent to the search. The evidence obtained
from the illegal arrest and search is inadmissible in court. The Constitution prohibits the use of evidence obtained in
violation of a person's rights. Based on these reasons, the Court concluded that the accused should be acquitted and
the evidence seized during the illegal arrest should be excluded.

Cruz:...the SC acquitted an accused charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs due to the
inadmissibility of the evidence seized from him after what it considered to be an unlawful warrantless search,
which was conducted after he was stopped for a traffic violation, driving a motorcycle without a helmet. It
decreed that “there was no valid arrest of the petitioner. When he was flagged down for committing a traffic
violation, he was not, ipso facto and solely for this reason, arrested.” Accordingly, it ruled that, “there being
no valid arrest, the warrantless search that resulted from it was likewise illegal,” and proceeded to acquit the
accused, despite his failure to object to the illegality of his arrest at the earliest opportunity, stressing that “a
waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not, however, mean a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence
seized during the illegal warrantless arrest.”

(b) People v. Exala, 221 SCRA 494

Facts:
Accused-appellant Restituto B. Bocalan was caught in possession of marijuana during a routine inspection at a police
checkpoint in Cavite City. Bocalan was driving a private jeep with his co-accused Jaime P. Fernandez and Rodelio C.
Exala. During the inspection, a police officer noticed a black leather bag inside the vehicle with its sides bulging. The
occupants remained silent when asked about the bag's contents. The bag was opened and found to contain
marijuana. The accused were arrested and charged with violating the Dangerous Drugs Act.

Issue:
Is the evidence obtained through a warrantless search admissible?

Ruling:
The evidence obtained through the warrantless search is admissible.

Ratio:
Search and seizure can be conducted without a warrant in certain instances, such as the "stop-and-search" without a
warrant at military or police checkpoints. In this case, the search was conducted at a lawful checkpoint and there was
probable cause to believe that the accused were involved in criminal activity. The accused did not object to the
search, indicating their acquiescence and waiver of their right against unreasonable search and seizure. The arrest of
the accused was lawful as it was made upon the discovery of the prohibited drug in their possession. There was no
need for a warrant as the arrest was made while a crime was being committed.

Conclusion:
The court affirms the decision of the trial court, finding the accused-appellant guilty of violating the Dangerous Drugs
Act. The court upholds the admissibility of the evidence obtained through the warrantless search conducted at a
lawful checkpoint. The court emphasizes the constitutionality of "stop-and-search" without a warrant at military or
police checkpoints.

Cruz:... it has been held though that where the accused did not raise the issue of the admissibility of the
evidence against him on the ground that it had been illegally seized, such omission constituted a waiver of
the protection granted by this section, and the illegally seized evidence could then be admitted against him.

(c) People v. Tuazon, GR No 175783

Facts:
Bernardo Tuazon y Nicolas was convicted for illegal possession of drugs. On March 7, 1999, the Antipolo City Police
Station received a confidential tip about a Gemini car delivering shabu in Marville Subdivision, Antipolo City. Acting on
the tip, the police conducted surveillance and flagged down the Gemini car. Upon searching the car, they found
plastic sachets containing shabu. Tuazon was arrested and charged with illegal possession of drugs.

Issue:
Is Tuazon's arrest valid and is the evidence against him admissible?
Did the police have probable cause to conduct a warrantless search?
Should the police have conducted prior surveillance and obtained a search warrant before arresting Tuazon?

Ruling:
The court ruled in favor of the prosecution and affirmed Tuazon's conviction. The court found that the testimony of the
arresting police officer was clear and unequivocal, which should prevail over Tuazon's defense of denial. Tuazon's
claim of being framed by unidentified men was rejected by the court, as it has become a standard line of defense in
drug-related cases. The court held that the police had probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the car
based on the confidential tip and the discovery of a gun tucked in Tuazon's waist. Tuazon's failure to timely object to
the admissibility of the evidence waived his objection.

Ratio:
The police had probable cause to effect the warrantless search of the car based on the confidential tip and the
discovery of a gun. The defense of denial is weak and must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability. The
trial court's decision substantially complied with the constitutional requirement to clearly and distinctly state the facts
and the law on which it is based.

Cruz:... when an appellant failed to timely object to the admissibility of the evidence against him on the
ground that the same was obtained through a warrantless search, his failure amounts to a waiver of the
objection on the legality of the search and the admissibility of the evidence obtained by the police.

(d) Anonymous Letter-Complaint against Atty. Miguel Morales, AM No P-08-2519

Facts:
Two anonymous complaints were filed against employees of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) in Manila,
specifically Atty. Miguel Morales, Clerk of Court of Branch 17, and other court personnel. The first complaint alleges
that Atty. Morales used his working hours to attend to personal cases and administrative cases against employees in
his old sala. It also alleges that he used office supplies, equipment, and utilities for personal use. The second
complaint accuses Atty. Morales, along with Isabel Siwa (Court Stenographer, Branch 16), William Calda
(Administrative Officer III, Office of the Clerk of Court), Amie Grace Arreola (Branch Clerk of Court, Branch 4), and
Atty. Henry P. Favorito (Clerk of Court VI, Office of the Clerk of Court), of various offenses, including leaving the office
during working hours, playing computer games, engaging in lending and rediscounting activities, and extorting money
from sureties. During a spot investigation, a hidden plastic box containing cash and checks was discovered in Siwa's
possession. The case was referred to the Executive Judge of the MeTC, Manila for investigation. The Investigating
Judge found no substantial evidence to prove the charges against Atty. Morales, Atty. Favorito, Calda, and Arreola.
However, she recommended that Siwa be directed to explain why she still had pending stenographic notes for
transcription despite her retirement. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) disagreed with some of the findings
and recommended that Atty. Morales and Siwa be found guilty of gross misconduct, Atty. Favorito be held liable for
neglect of duty, and the charges against Arreola, Calda, and Atty. Favorito on extortion be dismissed. The Court
partially adopted the OCA's findings and recommendations.

Issue:
Whether Atty. Morales and Siwa should be found guilty of misconduct.
Whether Atty. Favorito should be held liable for neglect of duty.
Whether the charges against Arreola, Calda, and Atty. Favorito on extortion should be dismissed.

Ruling:
Atty. Morales was found guilty of simple misconduct for having pleadings for private cases in his personal computer.
The evidence obtained from Atty. Morales's computer was deemed inadmissible due to the violation of his right to
privacy. Siwa was found guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and was fined. Atty. Favorito
was reprimanded for his failure to supervise Siwa's activities. The extortion charges against Atty. Favorito and Calda
were dismissed. The charges against Arreola and Calda were also dismissed. The OCA was directed to conduct an
audit investigation on Siwa's transcription of stenographic notes.

Ratio:
Atty. Morales was found guilty of simple misconduct because he had pleadings for private cases in his personal
computer, which is a violation of the rules and regulations governing the conduct of court personnel. However, the
evidence obtained from Atty. Morales's computer was deemed inadmissible due to the violation of his right to privacy.
The court recognized that even court employees have a right to privacy, and the investigators' actions in seizing his
personal computer without proper authorization violated this right. Siwa was found guilty of conduct prejudicial to the
best interest of the service because she was found in possession of a hidden plastic box containing cash and checks
during the spot investigation. This conduct undermines the integrity and impartiality of the court. Atty. Favorito was
reprimanded for his failure to supervise Siwa's activities. As a Clerk of Court, it is his duty to ensure that court
personnel under his supervision are performing their duties properly and ethically. The extortion charges against Atty.
Favorito and Calda were dismissed due to lack of evidence. The court found that there was no substantial evidence
to prove their involvement in extorting money from sureties. The charges against Arreola and Calda were also
dismissed due to lack of evidence. The court found that there was no substantial evidence to prove their involvement
in the alleged offenses. The OCA was directed to conduct an audit investigation on Siwa's transcription of
stenographic notes to ensure that there are no irregularities or misconduct in her work. This is necessary to maintain
the integrity and credibility of the court's records.

Cruz:... to constitute a valid consent or waiver of the constitutional guarantee against obtrusive searches, it
must be shown that (1) the right exists; (2) that the person involved had knowledge, either actual or
constructive, of the existence of such right; and (3) the said person had an actual intention to relinquish the
right
VI. Warrantless searches, when applicable

FULL CASE: People v. Guerrero, GR No 244045

Facts:
Case: People v. Sapla y Guerrero
Accused-appellant: Jerry Sapla y Guerrero

Charged with violating Section 5, Article II of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act Police officers conducted a
search on a passenger jeepney based on an unverified tip from an anonymous informant Search resulted in the
discovery of four bricks of marijuana in a blue sack allegedly owned by the accused-appellant. Lower courts found the
accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt

Issue:
Whether there was a valid search and seizure conducted by the police officers

Ruling:
The search was invalid due to lack of a search warrant and probable cause
The Court reversed the decision and ordered the accused-appellant's immediate release

Ratio:
Emphasized the importance of the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures and the
presumption of innocence. Highlighted the need for objective facts and independent verification before conducting a
warrantless search based on information from an informant. While warrantless searches and seizures are allowed in
certain instances, there must still be probable cause to justify an extensive and intrusive search. The search
conducted on the accused-appellant was not a valid search of a moving vehicle because the target of the search was
the person who matched the description given by the informant, not the vehicle or its contents. The unverified tip from
the anonymous informant did not provide probable cause for the search. Some cases have upheld the validity of
warrantless searches based solely on tipped information, but these cases involved additional circumstances or
personal observations by the authorities that heightened suspicion and provided probable cause. A solitary tip,
without other suspicious circumstances or personal observations, is not enough to create probable cause for a
warrantless search. The search and seizure conducted on the accused-appellant were invalid due to lack of a search
warrant and probable cause. The Court emphasized the importance of the constitutional right against unreasonable
searches and seizures and the presumption of innocence. Highlighted the need for objective facts and independent
verification before conducting a warrantless search based on information from an informant

Conclusion:
The search and seizure conducted on the accused-appellant were invalid due to lack of a search warrant and
probable cause. The Court emphasized the importance of the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and
seizures and the presumption of innocence. Highlighted the need for objective facts and independent verification
before conducting a warrantless search based on information from an informant

VII. Warrantless arrests, when applicable

(a) People v. Tan, GR No 191069

Facts:
Accused-appellant Sulpicio Sonny Boy Tan y Phua was charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Accused-appellant was found in possession of 120 tablets of Valium
10 mg, a dangerous drug, without the corresponding license or prescription. Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty but
later filed a motion to withdraw his plea and for reinvestigation of the case, which was granted by the Regional Trial
Court (RTC). After the reinvestigation, accused-appellant re-entered his plea of not guilty. During the trial, the
prosecution presented witnesses and evidence to establish accused-appellant's guilt, while the defense presented
accused-appellant as its sole witness. The RTC eventually found accused-appellant guilty of the crime charged.

Issue:
Whether the prosecution failed to establish every link in the chain of custody of the seized drugs.
Whether the warrantless search and arrest of accused-appellant were illegal.

Ruling:
The court affirmed the decision of the lower court, ruling that the chain of custody was properly established and the
warrantless search and arrest were legal and valid.

Ratio:
Regarding the chain of custody, accused-appellant argued that the police officers failed to properly mark, inventory,
and photograph the seized drugs. However, the court held that there was substantial compliance with the law and the
integrity of the drugs seized was preserved. The testimony of the police officer who seized the drugs established the
manner by which the drugs were handled from the moment of seizure up to their turnover to the crime laboratory for
examination. The court emphasized that non-compliance with the requirements of the law does not render an
accused's arrest illegal or make the seized items inadmissible, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved. Regarding the warrantless search and arrest, accused-appellant argued that
they were illegal since none of the instances where a search and seizure may be done without a warrant were
present.

However, the court held that accused-appellant waived his right to question the legality of his arrest by failing to raise
the issue before his arraignment. Furthermore, the court found that the police officers had sufficient probable cause to
make the arrest as accused-appellant was actually committing a crime in their presence. The court emphasized that a
reasonable suspicion must be founded on probable cause, and in this case, the police officers heard
accused-appellant offering to sell prohibited drugs, which prompted them to ask him what he was selling and
eventually led to his arrest. Overall, the court found that the prosecution successfully established all the elements of
the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, and therefore affirmed the decision of the lower court finding
accused-appellant guilty.

Cruz:...the arresting officers had sufficient probable cause to make the arrest in view of the fact that they
themselves heard accused-appellant say, “Hey Joe, want to buy Valium 10, Cialis, Viagra?” which, in turn,
prompted them to ask accused-appellant what he was selling. When accused-appellant showed them the
items, they identified 120 tablets of Valium 10, a regulated drug. The police officers then became obligated to
arrest accused-appellant, as he was actually committing a crime in their presence - possession of a
dangerous drug, a violation of Sec. 11, Art II of RA 9165. Therefore, it is without question that the warrantless
search and arrest of accussed-appellant are legal and valid.

(b) People v Uyboco, GR No 178039

Facts:
Ernesto Uyboco y Ramos was found guilty of three counts of kidnapping for ransom. On December 20, 1993,
Uyboco, along with Colonel Wilfredo Macias and several John Does, kidnapped Jepson Kevin Dichaves, Jeson Kirby
Dichaves, and Nimfa Celiz. They demanded a ransom of P1.5 million, which was eventually paid by Jepson
Dichaves. The victims were held captive in a house in Merville Subdivision, Parañaque. During the trial, Nimfa Celiz
testified that they were abducted by Uyboco and his accomplices and held captive in the house in Merville
Subdivision. Jepson Dichaves testified that he negotiated with Uyboco for the release of his children and paid the
ransom as instructed. The trial court found Uyboco guilty of kidnapping for ransom and ordered him to pay moral
damages to Jepson Dichaves. The court also confiscated the weapons and car used in the commission of the crime.

Issue:
Whether Uyboco's conviction for three counts of kidnapping for ransom should be affirmed.

Ruling:
Uyboco's conviction for three counts of kidnapping for ransom should be affirmed.

Ratio:
The testimonies of the witnesses, particularly Nimfa Celiz and Jepson Dichaves, were credible and consistent.
Uyboco's claims of inconsistencies in the testimonies and police frame-up were rejected due to lack of evidence.
Uyboco's financial status as a well-off businessman did not negate his motive to commit the crime. Kidnapping for
ransom is often driven by greed and not necessarily financial need. The prosecution has proven beyond reasonable
doubt that Uyboco was guilty of kidnapping for ransom.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed Uyboco's conviction for three counts of kidnapping for ransom based on the credible
testimonies of the witnesses and the evidence presented by the prosecution. The court rejected Uyboco's arguments
of inconsistencies in the testimonies and police frame-up, stating that there was no basis for these claims.

Cruz:... the SC declared that “it is sufficient for the arresting team that they were monitoring the pay-off for a
number of hours long enough for them to be informed that it was indeed appellant who was the kidnapper.
This is equivalent to personal knowledge based on probable cause.”

(c) People v. Pagkalinawan, GR No 184805

Facts:
Victorio Pagkalinawan was convicted of violating the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 after being
caught in a buy-bust operation where he sold and possessed shabu, a dangerous drug, in the Municipality of Taguig,
Metro Manila, Philippines. The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) and the decision of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) was affirmed. On July 20, 2004, a confidential informant reported the illegal activities of a certain "Berto"
to the police. A buy-bust operation was immediately formed, with PO1 Memoracion acting as the poseur-buyer. The
informant introduced PO1 Memoracion to Berto as a taxi driver who wanted to buy shabu. Berto took the buy-bust
money and showed three plastic sachets containing shabu to PO1 Memoracion. Once PO1 Memoracion took hold of
the shabu, the rest of the team closed in and arrested Berto, who was later identified as Victorio Pagkalinawan. The
confiscated shabu was tested and found to be methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. During the trial,
the prosecution presented witnesses who testified to the events of the buy-bust operation. The defense presented
witnesses who claimed that the police officers barged into the house without a search warrant and planted the drugs.
The RTC found Pagkalinawan guilty of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of Php500,000 for the violation
of Section 5, and imprisonment ranging from 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 21 days, and a fine of Php300,000
for the violation of Section 11.

Issue:
The main issues raised in the appeal were the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the sufficiency of the
evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court upheld Pagkalinawan's conviction, ruling that the buy-bust operation was valid and that the
prosecution was able to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court also applied the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duty by law enforcement agents.

Ratio:
The Court found that the prosecution witnesses were credible and their testimonies were consistent with each other.
The defense's argument of instigation was dismissed by the CA, stating that what happened was a valid buy-bust
operation. The Court held that there was substantial compliance with the custody and disposition requirements of the
seized drugs. The Court applied the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by law enforcement
agents, stating that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption stands. The Court emphasized that
the burden of proof lies with the accused to prove that the police officers planted the drugs, and in this case, the
defense failed to present sufficient evidence to support their claim. The Court concluded that the prosecution was
able to prove the guilt of Pagkalinawan beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore, his conviction was upheld.

Cruz:... The SC has further ruled that a police officer’s act of soliciting drugs during a buy-bust operation, or
what is known as the “decoy solicitation”, is not prohibited by law and would not invalidate that buy-bust
operation.

(d) People v. Abedin, GR No 179936

Facts:
Jamad Abedin y Jandal was convicted of violating the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Abedin was
charged with selling and possessing illegal drugs in Pasig City. The prosecution presented witnesses who testified
that Abedin sold a sachet of white crystalline substance to a police poseur-buyer during a buy-bust operation. The
substance was later confirmed to be methamphetamine hydrochloride. Abedin denied the charges and claimed that
he was framed by the police officers.

Issue:
Whether the prosecution was able to prove Abedin's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the offenses of selling and
possessing illegal drugs.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court upheld Abedin's conviction, finding the prosecution's evidence credible. The court ruled that the
prosecution was able to establish all the essential elements of the crimes charged. The testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses, particularly the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation, were found to be straightforward and
consistent. There was no evidence to support Abedin's claim of being framed by the police officers.

Ratio:
For the successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of drugs, it is necessary to establish the identity of
the prohibited drug, the absence of authorization to sell the drug, and the willful and unlawful act of selling the drug.
In cases of illegal possession of drugs, it must be shown that the accused is in possession of a prohibited drug, the
possession is not authorized by law, and the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. The prosecution
was able to prove Abedin's guilt beyond reasonable doubt by presenting witnesses who positively identified Abedin
as the person who sold and possessed the illegal drugs. The testimonies of the police officers involved in the
buy-bust operation were given weight, as they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. The
failure to strictly comply with procedural requirements, such as coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency (PDEA) and prior surveillance, did not invalidate the arrest and seizure of the drugs. The preservation of the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items is of utmost importance.

Additional Information:
The court affirmed Abedin's conviction and imposed the appropriate penalties for the offenses committed.

Cruz:... (not sure if this is correct)That no test buy was conducted before the arrest is of no moment for there
is no rigid or text-book method of conducting buy-bust operations.

(e) People v. Doria, GR No 125299

Facts:
Accused-appellants Florencio Doria y Bolado and Violeta Gaddao y Catama were charged with violation of Section 4,
in relation to Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. Doria and Gaddao were arrested for
the sale and delivery of marijuana. A confidential informant contacted Doria, who agreed to sell one kilo of marijuana
to an undercover police officer, PO3 Manlangit. At the pre-arranged meeting, Doria handed over the marijuana to
Manlangit and was subsequently apprehended. Gaddao, who was present at the meeting, was also arrested. The
police officers testified that they found a box containing additional bricks of marijuana in Gaddao's house.

Issue:
Is the arrest of Doria lawful?
Is the search of Gaddao's house and the seizure of the marijuana lawful?

Ruling:
The arrest of Doria is lawful. The search of Gaddao's house and the seizure of the marijuana are unlawful.

Ratio:
The court ruled that the arrest of Doria was lawful under the "in flagrante delicto" rule, which allows for warrantless
arrests when a person is caught in the act of committing a crime. The court found that the search of Gaddao's house
and the seizure of the marijuana were unlawful because there was no warrant and the "plain view" doctrine did not
apply. The court emphasized that warrantless arrests should only be allowed in limited circumstances, such as when
a person is caught in the act of committing a crime or when there is an immediate threat to public safety. The court
also emphasized that warrantless searches should only be allowed when there is probable cause and when there are
exigent circumstances that justify the search. The court found that the arrest of Doria was lawful because he was
caught in the act of selling marijuana. However, the court found that the search of Gaddao's house and the seizure of
the marijuana were unlawful because there was no probable cause and no exigent circumstances that justified the
search. As a result, the court acquitted Gaddao and reduced the penalty for Doria to reclusion perpetua and a fine of
P500,000. The court emphasized the importance of protecting individual rights and ensuring that law enforcement
officers adhere to the proper procedures when conducting arrests and searches.

Cruz:... The SC noted that the accused was “not caught red-handed during the buy-bust operation to give
ground for her arrest under Section 5 (a) of Rule 113. She was not committing any crime. Contrary to the
finding of the trial court, there was no occasion

(f) People v. Racho, GR No 186529

Facts:
Appellant Jack Racho y Raquero was charged with Violation of Section 5, Article II of the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002. The case stemmed from a transaction between Racho and a confidential agent of the police for
the purchase of shabu. The agent reported the transaction to the police authorities, who formed a team to apprehend
Racho. The team members positioned themselves along the national highway in Baler, Aurora, and when Racho
arrived, the agent pointed him out to the team. As Racho was about to board a tricycle, the team approached him and
invited him to the police station on suspicion of carrying shabu. During the arrest, a white envelope containing a small
sachet of suspected shabu slipped out of Racho's pocket. Racho was then brought to the police station for
investigation, and the confiscated sachet tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Issue:
The main issue in the case is the validity of Racho's arrest and the subsequent warrantless search and seizure of the
drugs.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Racho and acquitted him of the drug charges. The Court held that while Racho
can no longer question the validity of his arrest due to his failure to raise the issue before his arraignment, the sachet
of shabu seized from him during the warrantless search is inadmissible as evidence against him. The Court found
that the police officers did not have probable cause to effect a valid warrantless arrest. The information given by the
informant was not sufficient to justify the arrest, as there was no showing of any overt act indicative of Racho's
criminal intent. The Court also noted that the police had ample opportunity to apply for a warrant but failed to do so.
Therefore, the search and seizure of the drugs were deemed unlawful, leading to insufficient evidence for Racho's
conviction.

Ratio:
The Court emphasized that the protection of individuals' rights is crucial in the administration of justice. It stated that
condoning illegal search and seizure in the name of law enforcement only fosters the breakdown of the justice system
and the denigration of society. The Court reiterated the importance of adhering to the parameters set by the
Constitution and the law in conducting searches and seizures. In this case, the Court found that the warrantless
search and seizure violated Racho's constitutional rights, leading to the exclusion of the seized drugs as evidence. As
a result, Racho was acquitted due to insufficient evidence.

Cruz:... the Court stressed that, “at the time of his arrest, appellant has just alighted from the Gemini bus and
was waiting for a tricycle. Appellant was not acting in any suspicious manner that would engender a
reasonable ground for the police officers to suspect and conclude that he was committing or intending to
commit a crime. Were it not for the information given by the informant, appellant would have not been
apprehended and no search would have been made, and consequently, the sachet of shabu would not have
been confiscated. Neither were the arresting officers impelled by any urgency that would allow them to do
away with the requisite warrant.”

People v. Leng Haiyun, GR No 242889

Facts:
On May 28, 2013, a gasoline boy named Michael Claveria noticed a silver gray Toyota Previa parked at a gasoline
station in Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte. Claveria saw someone alight from the vehicle and break two bottles at the driver's
side. Claveria reported the incident to the police, who followed him back to the gasoline station. Upon arrival, the
police officers spotted the Toyota Previa, but the accused-appellants noticed their presence and fled. The police
officers gave chase and requested assistance from other officers at a COMELEC checkpoint to intercept the fleeing
vehicle. When the vehicle stopped at the checkpoint, the police officers approached and saw the accused-appellants
inside.They also noticed several plate numbers scattered on the floor behind the driver's seat. The
accused-appellants failed to show their passports or other documents pertaining to their entry and stay in the country.
They were subsequently arrested and a search of the vehicle revealed firearms, explosives, and other contraband.

Issue:
Whether there was a valid warrantless arrest, search, and seizure conducted by the police officers.

Ruling:
The appeal is unmeritorious and the validity of the warrantless arrest and search is upheld. The accused-appellants
are found guilty of illegal possession of explosives and violation of the election gun ban.

Ratio:
The court found that the police officers had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the accused-appellants had
committed an offense. The seizure of the contraband was in "plain view" and as an incident to a lawful arrest.
The court rejected the accused-appellants' arguments regarding animus possidendi and the admissibility of the
seized evidence.

People v. Bonafe, GR No 244842

People v. Marquesses, GR No 248529

People v. Ting GR No 250307

Facts:
Accused-appellant Robert Uy y Ting was charged with illegal possession and delivery of dangerous drugs. The case
involved two incidents: the November 10, 2003 incident where accused-appellant allegedly transported and delivered
10 kg. of shabu, and the November 11, 2003 incident where a search was conducted in a warehouse and illegal
drugs were seized. In the first incident, accused-appellant was charged with Violation of Section 5, in relation to
Section 26 (b), and of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The prosecution failed to establish
accused-appellant's possession over the seized items or the warehouse itself. The prosecution also failed to establish
the corpus delicti in both incidents. The police officers did not comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 21
of Republic Act No. 9165.

Issue:
Did the prosecution prove the identity and maintain the chain of custody of the seized items?
Did the prosecution establish the corpus delicti in both incidents?

Ruling:
Accused-appellant was acquitted of charges of illegal possession and delivery of dangerous drugs.
The prosecution failed to prove the identity and maintain the chain of custody of the seized items.
The prosecution also failed to establish the corpus delicti in both incidents.

Ratio:
The court found that accused-appellant's knowledge of the contents of the warehouse did not equate to constructive
possession.

The police officers did not comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, which
pertains to the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and surrendered dangerous drugs.

The failure to comply with the requirements of Section 21 cannot be excused unless there are justifiable reasons and
proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence were maintained.

The prosecution failed to provide justifiable reasons and proof of the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items.

Strict compliance with the requirements of the law is necessary in drug-related cases, regardless of the quantity of
drugs involved.

The court emphasized the need for law enforcement agencies and the prosecution to strictly comply with the
requirements of the law and to exercise prudence and care in the administration of justice.

People v. Gabionsa, GR No 248395

Facts:
On January 20, 2017, Police Superintendent Leo Tayabas Ajero applied for a search warrant against Roberto Rey E.
Gabiosa, Sr. The application was based on information received from an informant that Gabiosa was selling illegal
drugs in his house. The application included an affidavit from Police Officer 1 Rodolfo M. Geverola, who stated that
he conducted surveillance and a test buy operation, during which he purchased illegal drugs from Gabiosa. Judge
Arvin Sadiri B. Balagot issued Search Warrant No. 149-2017 based on this affidavit. Gabiosa filed a Motion to Quash
the search warrant, claiming that it violated his constitutional and human rights. The Regional Trial Court (RTC)
denied the motion, ruling that the judge was not required to personally examine both the applicant and the witness, as
long as probable cause was established. Gabiosa sought reconsideration, but the RTC denied his motion. Gabiosa
then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging that the RTC gravely abused its discretion
in denying his motion to quash.
The CA granted Gabiosa's petition, declaring the search warrant null and void and the evidence gathered from the
search inadmissible. The CA based its decision on the interpretation of the constitutional provision on searches and
seizures, which it believed required the personal examination of both the applicant and the witness by the judge. The
People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a motion for reconsideration, which
the CA denied. The OSG then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court.

Issue:
Whether the CA erred in granting Gabiosa's Petition for Certiorari.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the OSG, holding that the CA erred in invalidating the search warrant. The Court
emphasized that the purpose of the examination by the judge is to determine probable cause. It is not necessary for
the judge to personally examine both the applicant and the witness. As long as the judge is convinced that there is
probable cause, the examination of either the applicant or the witness is sufficient. The Court also found that the
questions propounded by Judge Balagot during the examination were probing and not superficial or perfunctory.
Therefore, the Supreme Court granted the OSG's petition, set aside the CA's decision, and reinstated the RTC's
resolution denying Gabiosa's motion to quash the search warrant. The evidence gathered from the search was
deemed admissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

Ratio:
The purpose of the examination by the judge is to determine probable cause.
It is not necessary for the judge to personally examine both the applicant and the witness.
As long as the judge is convinced that there is probable cause, the examination of either the applicant or the witness
is sufficient.
The questions propounded by Judge Balagot during the examination were probing and not superficial or perfunctory.

Fernando v. St Scholastica’s College, GR No 161107

Dreza v. People, GR No 253090

Facts:

Bobby Carbonel, also known as "Edgar," was found guilty of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. The
incident occurred on December 8, 2015, in Barangay Lennec, Guimba, Nueva Ecija. Police officers observed
Carbonel rushing towards a group of children and drawing something from his waist. The police officers discovered a
.38 caliber revolver tucked in Carbonel's waist. Carbonel was arrested and brought to the police station, where the
firearm and ammunition were confiscated. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Carbonel guilty of the crime. The
Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision with a modification on the penalty.

Issue:
Whether the CA correctly affirmed Carbonel's conviction for the crime charged.

Ruling:
Carbonel's arrest was valid. The search and seizure of the firearm and ammunition fell under the plain view doctrine.
The prosecution successfully established all the elements of the crime of illegal possession of firearms and
ammunition. Carbonel's conviction was upheld. Carbonel should be sentenced to an indeterminate period of nine to
eleven years of imprisonment.

Ratio:
Carbonel argued that his warrantless arrest was invalid and that the search and seizure of the firearm and
ammunition were unlawful. The court ruled that Carbonel's arrest was valid and that the search and seizure fell under
the plain view doctrine. The police officers had reasonable suspicion to arrest Carbonel based on his suspicious
behavior. The firearm was immediately apparent to the police officers when they approached Carbonel.
Therefore, the search and seizure were deemed lawful. The prosecution successfully established all the elements of
the crime of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. Carbonel was caught with an unlicensed firearm loaded
with ammunition. The certification from the Firearms and Explosives Office confirmed that Carbonel had no authority
to possess a firearm. Carbonel's conviction was upheld. Carbonel should be sentenced to an indeterminate period of
nine to eleven years of imprisonment. The court applied Section 28 (e) (1) of the law, which imposes a higher penalty
for the unlawful possession of a firearm loaded with ammunition.

Conclusion:
Carbonel's conviction for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition was affirmed.
His arrest and the subsequent search and seizure were valid under the plain view doctrine.
The prosecution successfully established all the elements of the crime.
Carbonel was sentenced to an indeterminate period of nine to eleven years of imprisonment.