house and asked Ani what he wanted.

Ani said he wanted more marijuana

PEOPLE V. MUSA - 217 SCRA 597

and gave Musa the P20.00 marked money. Musa went into the house and
FACTS:
Accused

came back, giving Ani two newspaper wrappers containing dried marijuana.
seeks

the

reversal

of

his

conviction

for

violating

the

Ani opened and inspected it. He raised his right hand as a signal to the

Dangerous Drugs Act.

He was found guilty of selling marijuana
leaves to a police officer in an entrapment operation.

other NARCOM agents, and the latter moved in and arrested Musa inside

HELD:

marked money (gave it to his wife who slipped away). T/Sgt. Belarga and

There is no doubt that the warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest

authorizes the arresting officer to make a search upon the person
of the person arrested. Hence, in a buy-bust operation conducted
to entrap a drug-pusher, the law enforcement agents may seized the
marked
money
found on the person of the pusher immediately after the arrest even
without arrest or search warrants. Furthermore, it may extend beyond to
include the premises or surroundings under his immediate control.

the house. Belarga frisked Musa in the living room but did not find the

Sgt. Lego went to the kitchen and found a cellophane colored white and
stripe hanging at the corner of the kitchen. They asked Musa about its
contents but failed to get a response. So they opened it and found dried
marijuana

leaves

inside.

Musa

was

then

placed

under

arrest.

Issue: Whether or Not the seizure of the plastic bag and the marijuana
inside it is unreasonable, hence, inadmissible as evidence.

PEOPLE VS. MUSA [217 SCRA 597; G.,R. NO. 96177; 27 JAN 1993]
Held: Yes. It constituted unreasonable search and seizure thus it may not
Facts: A civilian informer gave the information that Mari Musa was engaged
in selling marijuana in Suterville, Zamboanga City. Sgt. Ani was ordered by
NARCOM leader T/Sgt. Belarga, to conduct a surveillance and test buy on
Musa. The civilian informer guided Ani to Musas house and gave the
description of Musa. Ani was able to buy one newspaper-wrapped dried
marijuana for P10.00.

be admitted as evidence. The warrantless search and seizure, as an

incident to a suspects lawful arrest, may extend beyond the person of the
one arrested to include the premises or surroundings under his immediate
control. Objects in the plain view of an officer who has the right to be in
the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented
as evidence. The plain view doctrine is usually applied where a police
officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless

The next day, a buy-bust was planned. Ani was to raise his right hand if he

inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. It will not justify the

successfully buys marijuana from Musa. As Ani proceeded to the house, the

seizure of the object where the incriminating nature of the object is not

NARCOM team positioned themselves about 90 to 100 meters away. From

apparent from the plain view of the object.

his position, Belarga could see what was going on. Musa came out of the

In the case at bar, the plastic bag was not in the plain view of the police.
They arrested the accused in the living room and moved into the kitchen in
search for other evidences where they found the plastic bag. Furthermore,
the marijuana inside the plastic bag was not immediately apparent from
the plain view of said object.
Therefore, the plain view does not apply. The plastic bag was seized
illegally and cannot be presented in evidence pursuant to Article III Section
3 (2) of the Constitution.

G.R. Nos. 133254-55. April 19, 2001

Yes. The warrant authorized the seizure of undetermined quantity of

shabu and drug paraphernalia. Evidence was presented showing probable

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROBERTO SALANGUIT y KO

FACTS:
A search warrant was shown to the accused-appellant and the police
operatives started searching the house. They found heat-sealed transparent
plastic bags containing a white crystalline substance, a paper clip box also
containing a white crystalline substance, and two bricks of dried leaves
which appeared to be marijuana. A receipt of the items seized was
prepared, but the accused-appellant refused to sign it. Charges against
Roberto Salanguit y Ko for violations of Republic Act (RA) 6425, i.e. for
possession of shabu and marijuana, (Criminal Cases Q-95-64357 and Q-9564358, respectively) were filed, and after hearing, the trial court convicted
him in Criminal Cases Q-95-64357 and Q-95-64358 for violation of Section
16 and 8, respectively.

cause of the existence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. The

fact that there was no probable cause to support the application for the
seizure of drug paraphernalia does not warrant the conclusion that the
search warrant is void. This fact would be material only if drug
paraphernalia was in fact seized by the police. The fact is that none was
taken by virtue of the search warrant issued. If at all, therefore, the search
warrant is void only insofar as it authorized the seizure of drug
paraphernalia, but it is valid as to the seizure of methamphetamine
hydrochloride as to which evidence was presented showing probable cause
as to its existence. In sum, with respect to the seizure of shabu from
Salanguits residence, Search Warrant 160 was properly issued, such
warrant being founded on probable cause personally determined by the
judge under oath or affirmation of the deposing witness and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized. With
respect to, and in light of the plain view doctrine, the police failed to

The accused-appellant contended that the evidence against him was

allege the time when the marijuana was found, i.e., whether prior to, or

inadmissible because the warrant used in obtaining it was invalid.

contemporaneous with, the shabu subject of the warrant, or whether it

was recovered on Salanguits person or in an area within his immediate

ISSUES:

control. Its recovery, therefore, presumably during the search conducted

after the shabu had been recovered from the cabinet, as attested to by

Whether the warrant was invalid for failure of providing evidence to

SPO1 Badua in his deposition, was invalid. Thus, the Court affirmed the

support the seizure of drug paraphernalia, and whether the marijuana

decision as to Criminal Case Q-95-64357 only.

may be included as evidence in light of the plain view doctrine.

HELD:

People vs. Aminnudin [GR L-74860, 6 July 1988]

Cruz (J):

and a third "weeks before June 25." There was no warrant of arrest or
search warrant issued by a judge after personal determination by him of

Facts: Idel Aminnudin y Ahni was arrested on 25 June 1984, shortly after

the existence of probable cause. Contrary to the averments of the

disembarking from the M/V Wilcon 9 at about 8:30 p.m., in Iloilo City. The

government, Aminnudin was not caught in flagrante nor was a crime about

PC officers who were in fact waiting for him simply accosted him,

to be committed or had just been committed to justify the warrantless

inspected his bag and finding what looked liked marijuana leaves took him

arrest allowed under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. Even expediency could

to their headquarters for investigation. The two bundles of suspect articles

not be invoked to dispense with the obtention of the warrant. The present

were confiscated from him and later taken to the NBI laboratory for

case presented no urgency. From the conflicting declarations of the PC

examination. When they were verified as marijuana leaves, an information

witnesses, it is clear that they had at least two days within which they

for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act was filed against him. Later, the

could have obtained a warrant to arrest and search Aminnudin who was

information was amended to include Farida Ali y Hassen, who had also been

coming Iloilo on the M/V Wilcon 9. His name was known. The vehicle was

arrested with him that same evening and likewise investigated. Both were

identified. The date of its arrival was certain. And from the information

arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Subsequently, the fiscal filed a motion to

they had received, they could have persuaded a judge that there was

dismiss the charge against Ali on the basis of a sworn statement of the

probable cause, indeed, to justify the issuance of a warrant. Yet they did

arresting officers absolving her after a "thorough investigation." The motion

nothing. No effort was made to comply with the law. The Bill of Rights was

was granted, and trial proceeded only against Aminnudin, who was

ignored altogether because the PC lieutenant who was the head of the

eventually convicted, and sentenced to life imprisonment plus a fine of

arresting team, had determined on his own authority that "search warrant

P20,000.00.

was not necessary."

Issue: Whether there was ample opportunity to obtain a warrant of arrest

against Aminnudin, for alleged possession and transport of illegal drugs.
Held: It is not disputed, and in fact it is admitted by the PC officers who
testified for the prosecution, that they had no warrant when they arrested
Aminnudin and seized the bag he was carrying. Their only justification was
the tip they had earlier received from a reliable and regular informer who
reported to them that Aminnudin was arriving in Iloilo by boat with
marijuana. Their testimony varies as to the time they received the tip, one
saying it was two days before the arrest (this was the declaration of the
chief of the arresting team, Lt. Cipriano Querol, Jr.), another two weeks

G.R. No. 120915. April 3, 1998]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. ROSA ARUTA y MENGUIN
ROMERO, J.:
Search and Seizure Informers Tip
In the morning of 13 Dec 1988, the law enforcement officers received
information from an informant named Benjie that a certain Aling Rosa
would be leaving for Baguio City on 14 Dec 1988 and would be back in the
afternoon of the same day carrying with her a large volume of marijuana;
At 6:30 in the evening of 14 Dec 1988, Aruta alighted from a Victory Liner
Bus carrying a travelling bag even as the informant pointed her out to
the law enforcement officers; NARCOM officers approached her and
introduced themselves as NARCOM agents; When asked by Lt. Abello about
the contents of her travelling bag, she gave the same to him; When they
opened the same, they found dried marijuana leaves; Aruta was then
brought to the NARCOM office for investigation.
ISSUE: Whether or not the conducted search and seizure is constitutional.
HELD: The SC ruled in favor of Aruta and has noted that some drug
traffickers are being freed due to technicalities. Aruta cannot be said to be
committing a crime. Neither was she about to commit one nor had she just
committed a crime. Aruta was merely crossing the street and was not
acting in any manner that would engender a reasonable ground for the
NARCOM agents to suspect and conclude that she was committing a crime.
It was only when the informant pointed to Aruta and identified her to the
agents as the carrier of the marijuana that she was singled out as the
suspect. The NARCOM agents would not have apprehended Aruta were it
not for the furtive finger of the informant because, as clearly illustrated by
the evidence on record, there was no reason whatsoever for them to
suspect that accused-appellant was committing a crime, except for the

pointing finger of the informant. The SC could neither sanction nor tolerate
as it is a clear violation of the constitutional guarantee against
unreasonable search and seizure. Neither was there any semblance of any
compliance with the rigid requirements of probable cause and warrantless
arrests. Consequently, there was no legal basis for the NARCOM agents to
effect a warrantless search of Arutas bag, there being no probable cause
and the accused-appellant not having been lawfully arrested. Stated
otherwise, the arrest being incipiently illegal, it logically follows that the
subsequent search was similarly illegal, it being not incidental to a lawful
arrest. The constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and
seizure must perforce operate in favor of accused-appellant. As such, the
articles seized could not be used as evidence against accused-appellant for
these are fruits of a poisoned tree and, therefore, must be rejected,
pursuant to Article III, Sec. 3(2) of the Constitution.

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a
penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another.
The People of the Philippines vs Mikael Malmstedt
People v Malmstedt 198 SCRA 401 6.19.91
The Swedish National with Hashish Case
F: Accused is a Swedish national arrested for carrying Hashish, a form of
marijuana during a NARCOM inspection. He was tried and found guilty in
violation of Dangerous Drugs Act. He contends that the arrest was illegal
without the search warrant.
I: WON the arrest made was illegal in the absence of a search warrant.

R: NARCOM operation was conducted with a probable cause for a

Facts:
Mikael Malmstedt, a Swedish national, was found, via a
r o u t i n e N A R C O M i n s p e c t i o n a t K i l o m e t e r 1 4 , A c o p , Tub l a
y Mountai n Pro vince, car ryi ngHa shish, ad e r i v a t i v e o f
Ma ri j ua na . RTC L a Tri ni d ad fo un d hi m gu il t y fo r v
i o l a t i o n o f t h e Dangerous Drugs Act. The accused filed a petition
to the Supreme Court for the reversal of the decision arguing that the
search and the arrest made was illegal because there was no search
warrant.
Issue:

warrantless search upon information that prohibited drugs are in the

passport.

Whether or not the decision of the trial court should be

reversed (or affirmed) because the accused argues that the search and
arrest was made without a warrant

A warrantless arrest may be lawfully made:

Held:

possession of the accused and he failed to immediately present his

(a) when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed is

actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed
it; and

The RTC decision is affirmed.

Ratio:
The constitution states that a peace officer or a private person may arrest
a person w i t h o u t a w a r r a n t w h e n i n h i s p r e s e n c e t h e
p e r s o n t o b e a r r e s t e d h a s c o m m i t t e d , i s actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. The offense was
recognized with the warrantless search conducted by NARCOM prompted by
probable
cause:
the
receipt of information by NARCOM that a Caucasi

a n c o m i n g f r o m S a g a d a h a d prohibited
drugs
in
his
possession and (2) failure of the accused to immediately
present his passport.

People vs Marti
G.R. No. 81561 January 18, 1991
PEOPLE
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee
MARTI, accused-appellant.

vs.

ANDRE

Facts: The proprietors of Manila Packing and Export Forwarders, following

standard operating procedure, opened four gift wrapped boxes from which
emerged a peculiar odor. They reported this to the NBI on the same day,
and in the presence of said agents, opened the boxes which contained
marijuana. The NBI filed an information against appellant for violation of
RA 6425, Dangerous Drugs Act, but appellant contended that the evidence
had been obtained in violation of consti rights against unreasonable search
and seizure and privacy of communication.
Issue: May an act of a private individual without the intervention and
participation of the State, and allegedly in violation of appellants
constitutional rights, be invoked against the State?
Held: No. It was the proprietor of the forwarding agency who made
search/inspection of the packages, not the NBI, as appellant would have
the Court believe. Said inspection was reasonable and a standard
operating procedure on the part of the proprietor as a precautionary
measure before delivery of packages to the Bureau of Customs or the
Bureau of Posts. Second, the mere presence of the NBI agents did not

convert the reasonable search the proprietor effected into a warrantless

search and seizure proscribed by the Constitution. Merely to observe and
look at that which is in plain sight is not a search.

Outlawed is any unwarranted intrusion by the government, which is called

upon to refrain from any invasion of his dwelling and to respect the
privacies of his life. However, in the absence of governmental interference,
the liberties granted by the Constitution cannot be invoked against the
State. As held in Bernas vs. US, the Fourth Amendment and the law
applying to it do not require exclusion of evidence obtained through a
search by a private citizen; rather the amendment only proscribes
government action. To agree with appellant that an act of a private
individual in violation of the Bill of Rights should also be construed as an
act of the State would result in serious legal complications and an absurd
interpretation of the constitution.
The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures
therefore applies as a restraint directed only against the government
and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. Thus, it could
only be invoked against the State to whom the restraint against arbitrary
and unreasonable exercise of power is imposed.