Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

the right of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street, interrogate him, and pat him for weapon(s). In
allowing such a search, the interest of effective crime prevention and detection allows a police officer to
approach a person, in appropriate circumstances and manner, for purposes of investigating possible criminal
behavior even though there is insufficient probable cause to make an actual arrest. What justified the limited
search was the more immediate interest of the police officer in taking steps to assure himself that the person
with whom he was dealing was not armed with a weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against
him. It did not, however, abandon the rule that the police must, whenever practicable, obtain advance judicial
approval of searches and seizures through the warrant procedure, excused only by exigent circumstances. In
Philippine jurisprudence, the general rule is that a search and seizure must be validated by a previously
secured judicial warrant; otherwise, such search and seizure is unconstitutional and subject to challenge.
Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, gives this guarantee. This right, however, is not absolute. The
recent case of People vs. Lacerna enumerated five recognized exceptions to the rule against warrantless
search and seizure, viz.: "(1) search incidental to a lawful arrest, (2) search of moving vehicles, (3) seizure in
plain view, (4) customs search, and (5) waiver by the accused themselves of their right against unreasonable
search and seizure." In People vs. Encinada, the Court further explained that in these cases, the search and
seizure may be made only with probable cause as the essential requirement. Stop-and-frisk has already been
adopted as another exception to the general rule against a search without a warrant. In Posadas vs. Court of
Appeals, the Court held that there were many instances where a search and seizure could be effected without
necessarily being preceded by an arrest, one of which was stop-and-frisk. To require the police officers to
search the bag only after they had obtained a search warrant might prove to be useless, futile and much too
late under the circumstances. In such a situation, it was reasonable for a police officer to stop a suspicious
individual briefly in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo while obtaining more
information, rather than to simply shrug his shoulders and allow a crime to occur. Herein, Patrolman Espiritu
and his companions observed during their surveillance that Manalili had red eyes and was wobbling like a
drunk along the Caloocan City Cemetery, which according to police information was a popular hangout of
drug addicts. From his experience as a member of the Anti-Narcotics Unit of the Caloocan City Police, such
suspicious behavior was characteristic of drug addicts who were "high." The policemen therefore had
sufficient reason to stop Manalili to investigate if he was actually high on drugs. During such investigation,
they found marijuana in his possession. The search was valid, being akin to a stop-and-frisk.
184 Malacat vs. Court of Appeals [GR 123595, 12 December 1997]
En Banc, Davide Jr. (J): 11 concur
Facts: On 27 August 1990, at about 6:30 p.m., allegedly in response to bomb threats reported seven days
earlier, Rodolfo Yu of the Western Police District, Metropolitan Police Force of the Integrated National
Police, Police Station No. 3, Quiapo, Manila, was on foot patrol with three other police officers (all of them in
uniform) along Quezon Boulevard, Quiapo, Manila, near the Mercury Drug store at Plaza Miranda. They
chanced upon two groups of Muslim-looking men, with each group, comprised of three to four men, posted at
opposite sides of the corner of Quezon Boulevard near the Mercury Drug Store. These men were acting
suspiciously with "their eyes moving very fast." Yu and his companions positioned themselves at strategic
points and observed both groups for about 30 minutes. The police officers then approached one group of men,
who then fled in different directions. As the policemen gave chase, Yu caught up with and apprehended
Sammy Malacat y Mandar (who Yu recognized, inasmuch as allegedly the previous Saturday, 25 August
1990, likewise at Plaza Miranda, Yu saw Malacat and 2 others attempt to detonate a grenade). Upon searching
Malacat, Yu found a fragmentation grenade tucked inside the latter's "front waist line." Yu's companion, police
officer Rogelio Malibiran, apprehended Abdul Casan from whom a .38 caliber revolver was recovered.
Malacat and Casan were then brought to Police Station 3 where Yu placed an "X" mark at the bottom of the
grenade and thereafter gave it to his commander. Yu did not issue any receipt for the grenade he allegedly
recovered from Malacat. On 30 August 1990, Malacat was charged with violating Section 3 of Presidential
Decree 1866. At arraignment on 9 October 1990, petitioner, assisted by counsel de officio, entered a plea of
not guilty. Malacat denied the charges and explained that he only recently arrived in Manila. However, several
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 74 )