Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Reynaldo Tia, a deep penetration agent of the SOG, reported of his A warrantless search of a moving vehicle is justified on the ground that it is
undercover activities on the suspected criminal syndicate led by Lo and not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved
Lim. Moreover, Tia informed his superior regarding their return to the out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.
country. Upon arrival in the Philippines, Lo and Tia rode in one taxi cab while
Lim rode in another. They were pursued by the members of the NARCOM
and were stopped. With permission of Lo and Tia, a tin can of tea was taken
out of the red travel bag and, upon examination by the PC-INP Crime
Laboratory, contained metamphetamine. Petitioner contend that a warrant
was needed.
Facts:
The Special Operations Group received a tip from one of its informers about
an organized group engaged in the importation of illegal drugs, smuggling of
contraband goods and gunrunning. As part of the operations, the
recruitment of confidential men and deep penetration agents was carried
out to infiltrate the crime syndicate. One of those recruited was Reynaldo
Tia.
Tia was introduced to Lim Cheng Huat (Antonio Lim) where the latter
expressed a desire to hire a male travel companion for his business trips
abroad. Tia offered his services and was hire. Together with Lim, Tia, in one
of the meetings in China, was introduced to Lo Ho Wing (Peter Lo) whom tia
found out to be the person he was to accompany to China in lieu of Lim.
Upon arrival in the Philippines, they were met by Lim. After Lim and Lo
finished their conversation, Lo hailed a taxicab. Lo and Tia boarded the
3rd Meeting: Consti2 Cases
Caballes vs. Court of Appeals [GR 136292, 15 January 2002] suspicion. Philippine jurisprudence is replete with cases where tipped
First Division, Puno (J): 4 concur information has become a sufficient probable cause to effect a warrantless
Facts: About 9:15 p.m. of 28 June 1989, Sgt. Victorino Noceja and Pat. Alex search and seizure. Unfortunately, none exists in the present case. Further,
de Castro, while on a routine patrol in Barangay Sampalucan, Pagsanjan, the evidence is lacking that Caballes intentionally surrendered his right
Laguna, spotted a passenger jeep unusually covered with "kakawati" leaves. against unreasonable searches. The manner by which the two police officers
Suspecting that the jeep was loaded with smuggled goods, the two police allegedly obtained the consent of Caballes for them to conduct the search
officers flagged down the vehicle. The jeep was driven by Rudy Caballes y leaves much to be desired. When Caballes' vehicle was flagged down, Sgt.
Taio. When asked what was loaded on the jeep, he did not answer, but he Noceja approached Caballes and "told him I will look at the contents of his
appeared pale and nervous. With Caballes' consent, the police officers vehicle and he answered in the positive." By uttering those words, it cannot
checked the cargo and they discovered bundles of 3.08 mm be said the police officers were asking or requesting for permission that they
aluminum/galvanized conductor wires exclusively owned by National Power be allowed to search the vehicle of Caballes. For all intents and purposes,
Corporation (NAOCOR). The conductor wires weighed 700 kilos and valued at they were informing, nay, imposing upon Caballes that they will search his
P55,244.45. Noceja asked Caballes where the wires came from and Caballes vehicle. The "consent" given under intimidating or coercive circumstances is
answered that they came from Cavinti, a town approximately 8 kilometers no consent within the purview of the constitutional guaranty. In addition, in
away from Sampalucan. Thereafter, Caballes and the vehicle with the high- cases where the Court upheld the validity of consented search, it will be
voltage wires were brought to the Pagsanjan Police Station. Danilo Cabale noted that the police authorities expressly asked, in no uncertain terms, for
took pictures of Caballes and the jeep loaded with the wires which were the consent of the accused to be searched. And the consent of the accused
turned over to the Police Station Commander of Pagsanjan, Laguna. Caballes was established by clear and positive proof. Neither can Caballes' passive
was incarcerated for 7 days in the Municipal jail. Caballes was charged with submission be construed as an implied acquiescence to the warrantless
the crime of theft in an information dated 16 October 1989. search. Casting aside the cable wires as evidence, the remaining evidence on
record are insufficient to sustain Caballes' conviction. His guilt can only be
During the arraignment, Caballes pleaded not guilty and hence, trial on the established without violating the constitutional right of the accused against
merits ensued. On 27 April 1993, Regional Trial Court of Santa Cruz, Laguna unreasonable search and seizure.
rendered judgment, finding Caballes, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of theft. In a resolution dated 9 November 1998, the trial court denied OBRA v. CA
Caballes' motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial FACTS
court decision on 15 September 1998. Caballes appealed the decision by Petitioner Benjamin Obra was Regional Director of the Bureau of Mines and
certiorari. Geo-Sciences (BMGS) in Baguio. On jun 26, 1985, Jeannette Grybos wrote
him a letter on behalf of the Gillies heirs complaining that private
Issue: Whether Caballes passive submission to the statement of Sgt. Noceja respondents (Sps. James and June Brett) had been conducting illegal
that the latter "will look at the contents of his vehicle and he answered in the mining activities in Bgy. Palasa-an, Mankayan, Benguet, belonging to Gillies
positive" be considered as waiver on Caballes part on warrantless search family. On the same day, Obra wrote Brig. Gen Tomas Dumpit1 requesting
and seizure. assistance in apprehending a truck2 allegedly used by Sps. Brett in illegal
mining. The next day, Obra wrote Sps Brett and Grybos informing them that
Held: Enshrined in our Constitution is the inviolable right of the people to be BMGS was going to conduct an ocular inspeciton and field investigation and
secure in their persons and properties against unreasonable searches and requesting them to be present so that all matters shall be gathered and
seizures, as defined under Section 2, Article III thereof. The exclusionary rule collated in order for this Office to take appropriate action. Elements of RUC
under Section 3(2), Article III of the Constitution bars the admission of under Maj. Densen seized the truck3 as it was entering Mamakar mining
evidence obtained in violation of such right. The constitutional proscription area. It was impounded by the military and prevented from leaving the area
against warrantless searches and seizures is not absolute but admits of except on mercy missions4. Private respondents filed a complaint for
certain exceptions, namely: (1) warrantless search incidental to a lawful injunction and damages with the RTC as the truck was seized without due
arrest recognized under Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and by provess in violation of their constitutional rights under Art. 32 of the Civil
prevailing jurisprudence; (2) seizure of evidence in plain view; (3) search of Code.
moving vehicles; (4) consented warrantless search; (5) customs search;
stop and frisk situations (Terry search); and (7) exigent and emergency ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners (Obra and Dumpit) were authorized to
circumstances. In cases where warrant is necessary, the steps prescribed by seize the vehicle in the absence of any finding of probably cause (PC).
the Constitution and reiterated in the Rules of Court must be complied with.
In the exceptional events where warrant is not necessary to effect a valid HELD: NO. Although peittioners have authority to order seizure and
search or seizure, or when the latter cannot be performed except without a confiscation via PD. 1281, Art IV, S3 of the 1973 Constitution merely
warrant, what constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or seizure is validated the grant by law to non-judicial officers of the power to issue
purely a judicial question, determinable from the uniqueness of the warrants but did not in any way exempt them from the duty of determining
circumstances involved, including the purpose of the search or seizure, the the existence of probable cause. Petitioner Obras letters to private
presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in which the search and respondents and Grybos clearly stated that an investigation was to be held
seizure was made, the place or thing searched and the character of the on July 2-5, 1985 to determine the veracity of the allegations of Grybos
articles procured. It is not controverted that the search and seizure complaint. His only basis was an alleged certification from the BMGS that no
conducted by the police officers was not authorized by a search warrant. The mining permit had been issued to the Sps. However, such certification was
mere mobility of these vehicles, however, does not give the police officers not presented in evidence. The seizure cannot be justified under the moving
unlimited discretion to conduct indiscriminate searches without warrants if vehicle doctrine as there is no existence of probable cause. The doctrine does
made within the interior of the territory and in the absence of probable not give police officers unlimited discretion to conduct warrantless searches
cause. Herein, the police officers did not merely conduct a visual search or of automobiles in the absence of PC. Therefore, the CA is correct in affirming
visual inspection of Caballes' vehicle. They had to reach inside the vehicle, lift the RTCs decision that petitioners are liable for damages (P100,000) and
the kakawati leaves and look inside the sacks before they were able to see attorneys fees (P10,000) in violation of the Sps. Rights under Art. 32 of the
the cable wires. It thus cannot be considered a simple routine check. Also, Civil Code.
Caballes' vehicle was flagged down because the police officers who were on
routine patrol became suspicious when they saw that the back of the vehicle
was covered with kakawati leaves which, according to them, was unusual People v. Malmstedt [GR 91107, 19 June 1991]
and uncommon. The fact that the vehicle looked suspicious simply because it En Banc, Padilla (J): 8 concur, 1 on leave
is not common for such to be covered with kakawati leaves does not
constitute "probable cause" as would justify the conduct of a search without Facts: Mikael Malmstedt, a Swedish national, entered the Philippines for the
a warrant. In addition, the police authorities do not claim to have received 3rd time in December 1988 as a tourist. He had visited the country sometime
any confidential report or tipped information that petitioner was carrying in 1982 and 1985. In the evening of 7 May 1989, Malmstedt left for Baguio
stolen cable wires in his vehicle which could otherwise have sustained their
3rd Meeting: Consti2 Cases
City. Upon his arrival thereat in the morning of the following day, he took a effects falls squarely under paragraph (1) of the foregoing provisions of law,
bus to Sagada and stayed in that place for 2 days. which allow a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest.
On 11 May 1989, Capt. Alen Vasco of NARCOM, stationed at Camp Dangwa,
ordered his men to set up a temporary checkpoint at Kilometer 14, Acop,
Tublay, Mountain Province, for the purpose of checking all vehicles coming Roan v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687
from the Cordillera Region. The order to establish a checkpoint in the said
area was prompted by persistent reports that vehicles coming from Sagada Beltran's column of Oct. 12, 1987 title "The Nervous Officials of the Aquino
were transporting marijuana and other prohibited drugs. Moreover, Administration": "If you recall, during the August 29 coup attempt, the
information was received by the Commanding Officer of NARCOM, that same President hid under her bed while the firing was going on - perhaps the first
morning that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had in his possession Commander-in-Chief to do so."
prohibited drugs.
Facts: In this case, upon the issue raised by petitioner Beltran, the
At about 1:30 pm, the bus where Malmstedt was riding was stopped. Sgt. constitutional provision on the issuance of warrants of arrest was called for
Fider and CIC Galutan boarded the bus and announced that they were an interpretation. Beltran wrote in the Philippine Star that during
members of the NARCOM and that they would conduct an inspection. the August 29 coup attempt, the President hid under her bed while the firing
During the inspection, CIC Galutan noticed a bulge on Malmstedt's waist. was going on. Due to this, the President filed a libel complaint against
Suspecting the bulge on Malmstedt's waist to be a gun, the officer asked for petitioners.
Malmstedt's passport and other identification papers. When Malmstedt
failed to comply, the officer required him to bring out whatever it was that Beltran argues that the addition of the word personally after the word
was bulging on his waist, which was a pouch bag. When Malmstedt opened determined and the deletion of the grant of authority by the 1973
the same bag, as ordered, the officer noticed 4 suspicious-looking objects Constitution to issue warrants to other responsible officers as may be
wrapped in brown packing tape, which turned out to contain hashish, a authorized by law. This interpretation convinced him that the Constitution
derivative of marijuana, when opened. Malmstedt stopped to get 2 travelling now requires the judge to personally examine the complainant and his
bags from the luggage carrier, each containing a teddy bear, when he was witnesses in his determination of probable cause for the issuance of warrants
invited outside the bus for questioning. It was observed that there were also of arrest.
bulges inside the teddy bears which did not feel like foam stuffing.
Malmstedt was then brought to the headquarters of the NARCOM at Camp Issue: Whether or not Beltrans constitution rights were violated when the
Dangwa for further investigation. respondent RTC judge issued a warrant of arrest without personally
examining the complainant and the witnesses to determine probable cause
At the investigation room, the officers opened the teddy bears and they were
found to also contain hashish. Representative samples were taken from the Ruling:
hashish found among the personal effects of Malmstedt and the same were 1. The judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his
brought to the PC Crime Laboratory for chemical analysis, which established witnesses. What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal
the objects examined as hashish. Malmstedt claimed that the hashish was responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of
planted by the NARCOM officers in his pouch bag and that the 2 travelling probable cause. Instead, he shall (a) personally evaluate the report and the
bags were not owned by him, but were merely entrusted to him by an supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of
Australian couple whom he met in Sagada. He further claimed that the probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or (b)
Australian couple intended to take the same bus with him but because there if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the
were no more seats available in said bus, they decided to take the next ride fiscals report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of
and asked Malmstedt to take charge of the bags, and that they would meet witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of
each other at the Dangwa Station. probable cause. This procedure should be followed, otherwise judges would
be unduly laden with the preliminary examinations and investigation of
An information was filed against Malmstedt for violation of the Dangerous criminal complaints instead of concentrating on hearing and deciding cases
Drugs Act. During the arraignment, Malmstedt entered a plea of "not guilty." filed before their courts.
After trial and on 12 October 1989, the trial court found Malmstedt guilty
beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 4, Article II of RA 6425 and 2. In making the required personal determination, a Judge is not precluded
sentenced him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P20,000. Malmstedt from relying on the evidence earlier gathered by responsible officers. The
sought reversal of the decision of the trial court. extent of the reliance depends on the circumstances of each case and is
subject to the Judges sound discretion.
Issue: Whether the personal effects of Malmstedt may be searched without
an issued warrant. Roan v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687
Roans house was searched by virtue of a search warrant and the said search
Held: The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in was performed by military authorities. During their search, the authorities
their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and found a Colt Magnum revolver and 18 live bullets which they confiscated and
seizures. However, where the search is made pursuant to a lawful arrest, served as bases for the charge of illegal possession of firearms. However, the
there is no need to obtain a search warrant. A lawful arrest without a application of said search warrant was based on the accounts of two
warrant may be made by a peace officer or a private person under the witnesses. The applicant did not have personal knowledge of said firearm.
following circumstances. Section 5 provides that a peace officer or a private
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person (a) When, in his presence, Facts:
the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is 1. A search warrant was issued by respondent judge (Gonzales) on May 10,
attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has in fact just been 1984.Application for the said search warrant was personally filed by PC Capt.
committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the Mauro Quillosa. Together with Quillosa were two witnesses (Esmael Morada
person to be arrested has committed it; and (c) When the person to be and Jesus Tohilida), who presented to respondent judge their respective
arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place affidavits. The application was not yet subscribed and sworn to, as such
where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is respondent Judge proceeded to examine Quillosa on the contents of the
pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to application to ascertain if he knew and understood the same. Afterwards,
another. In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person Quillosa subscribed and swore the said application before respondent.
arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police
station or jail, and he shall be proceeded against in accordance with Rule 2. Petitioners (Josefino Roan) house was searched two days after the
112, Section 7." Herein, Malmstedt was caught in flagrante delicto, when he issuance of the search warrant. The said search was performed by military
was transporting prohibited drugs. Thus, the search made upon his personal authorities. Despite none of the articles listed in the warrant was discovered,
the officers who conducted the search found one Colt Magnum revolver and
3rd Meeting: Consti2 Cases
18 live bullets which they confiscated. The said items served as bases for the relative thereto by voluntarily submitting to the seach and seizure. In People
charge of illegal possession of firearms against the petitioner. vs. Malasugui, 20 this Court ruled:
Issue: Whether or not a search warrant be annulled on the ground that it When one voluntarily submits to a search and consent to have it made of his
violates the privacy of one persons house person or premises, he is precluded from later complaining thereof. The right
to be secure from unreasonable seach may, like every right, be waived and
Ruling/Decision: such waiver may be made either expressly or impliedly.
1. To be valid, a search warrant must be supported by probable cause to be
determined by the judge or some authorized officer after examining the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce. There must be a specific Aniag vs. Commission on Elections [GR 104961, 7 October 1994]
description of the place to be searched and the things to be seized, to En Banc, Bellosillo (J): 6 concur, 3 on leave
prevent arbitrary and indiscriminate use of the warrant. Probable cause, as
described by Judge Escolin in Burgos v. Chief of Staff, refers to such facts Facts: In preparation for the synchronized national and local elections
and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man scheduled on 11 May 1992, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) issued
to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in on 11 December 1991 Resolution 2323 ("Gun Ban"), promulgating rules and
connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. The regulations on bearing, carrying and transporting of firearms or other deadly
probable cause must refer to only one specific offense. weapons, on security personnel or bodyguards, on bearing arms by members
of security agencies or police organizations, and organization or maintenance
2. The applicant (Capt. Quillosa) was asking for the issuance of the search of reaction forces during the election period.
warrant on the basis of mere hearsay and not of information personally
known to him as required by settled jurisprudence. Subsequently, on 26 December 1991 COMELEC issued Resolution 2327
providing for the summary disqualification of candidates engaged in
3. It is axiomatic that the magistrate must be probing and exhaustive, gunrunning, using and transporting of firearms, organizing special strike
not merely routinary or pro-forma, if the claimed probable cause is to be forces, and establishing spot checkpoints.
established. The examining magistrate must not simply rehash the contents
of the affidavit but must make his own inquiry on the intent and justification On 10 January 1992, pursuant to the "Gun Ban," Mr. Serapio P. Taccad,
of the application.4. Sergeant-at-Arms, House of Representatives, wrote Congressman Francisc B.
Aniag Jr., who was then Congressman of the 1st District of Bulacan
Prohibited articles may be seized but only as long as the search is valid. In requesting the return of the 2 firearms issued to him by the House of
this case, it was not because: (a) there was no valid search warrant; and (b) Representatives. Upon being advised of the request on 13 January 1992 by
absent such a warrant, the right thereto was not validly waived by the his staff, Aniag immediately instructed his driver, Ernesto Arellano, to pick up
petitioner. In short, the the firearms from his house at Valle Verde and return them to Congress.
Meanwhile, at about 5:00 p,.m. of the same day, the Philippine National
Police (PNP) headed by Senior Superintendent Danilo Cordero set up a
PEOPLE VS. TABAR checkpoint outside the Batasan Complex some 20 meters away from its
entrance. About 30 minutes later, the policemen manning the outpost
FACTS: flagged down the car driven by Arellano as it approached the checkpoint.
Respondent-accused was charged, together with her nephew, for violation of They searched the car and found the firearms neatly packed in their gun
the Dangerous Drugs Act in an information which provided that: That on or cases and placed in a bag in the trunk of the car. Arellano was then
about the 8th day of February 1989, at about 3:00 PM. in the City of Cebu, apprehended and detained. He explained that he was ordered by Aniag to
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said get the firearms from the house and return them to Sergeant-at Arms Taccad
accused, conniving and confederating together and mutually helping each of the House of Representatives. Thereafter, the police referred Arellano's
other, with deliberate intent, did then and there sell and deliver, without case to the Office of the City Prosecutor for inquest. The referral did not
authority of law, Three (3) sticks of marijuana cigarettes, a (sic) prohibited include Aniag as among those charged with an election offense. On 15
drugs, to a person who posted himself as a buyer, in Viol. of Sec. 4, Art. 11, of January 1992, the City Prosecutor ordered the release of Arellano after
RA 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous Act of 1972. The finding the latter's sworn explanation meritorious. On 28 January 1992, the
accused were then convicted of the offense charged against them in the trial City Prosecutor invited Aniag to shed light on the circumstances mentioned
court. in Arellano's sworn explanation. Aniag not only appeared at the preliminary
investigation to confirm Arellano's statement but also wrote the City
On appeal, respondent presented her argument that the lower court erred in Prosecutor urging him to exonerate Arellano. He explained that Arellano did
admitting the evidence against her when there wasnt any search warrant. not violate the firearms ban as he in fact was complying with it when
Therefore, violating the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable apprehended by returning the firearms to Congress; and, that he was Aniag's
searches and seizures. driver, not a security officer nor a bodyguard.
ISSUE: WON there was a violation against the constitutional guarantee of On 6 March 1992, the Office of the City Prosecutor issued a resolution which,
individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. among other matters, recommended that the case against Arellano be
dismissed and that the "unofficial" charge against Aniag be also dismissed.
RULING: The second assigned error is without merit. The evidence for the Nevertheless, on 6 April 1992, upon recommendation of its Law Department,
prosecution discloses that the appellant placed the packs of marijuana sticks COMELEC issued Resolution 92-0829 directing the filing of information
under the rolled pair of pants which she was then carrying at the time she against Aniag and Arellano for violation of Sec. 261, par. (q), of BP 881
hurriedly left her shanty after noticing the arrest of Rommel. When she was otherwise known as the Omnibus Election Code, in relation to Sec. 32 of RA
asked to spread it out, which she voluntary did, the package containing the 7166; and Aniag to show cause why he should not be disqualified from
packs of marijuana sticks were thus exposed in plain view to the member of running for an elective position, pursuant to COMELEC Resolution 2327, in
the team. A crime was thus committed in the presence of the policemen. relation to Secs. 32, 33 and 35 of RA 7166, and Sec. 52, par. (c), of BP 881.
Pursuant to Section 5, Rule 113 and Section 12 Rule 126 of the Revised Rules On 13 April 1992, Aniag moved for reconsideration and to hold in abeyance
of Court, she could lawfully be arrested and searched for anything which may the administrative proceedings as well as the filing of the information in
be used as proof of the commission of an offense without the corresponding court.
arrest and search warrants
On 23 April 1992, the COMELEC denied Aniag's motion for reconsideration.
Even assuming ex gratia argumenti that the seach and seizure were without Aniag filed a petition for declaratory relief, certiorari and prohibition against
a warrant, the appellant had effectively waived her constitutional right the COMELEC.
3rd Meeting: Consti2 Cases
Issue: Whether the search of Aniags car that yielded the firearms which the evidence against them. Trial ensued thereafter. Tudtud, denying the
were to be returned to the House of Representatives within the purview of charges against them, cried frame-up. Swayed by the prosecutions evidence
the exception as to the search of moving vehicles. beyond reasonable doubt, the RTC rendered judgment convicting both
accused as charged and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion
Held: As a rule, a valid search must be authorized by a search warrant duly perpetua and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
issued by an appropriate authority. However, this is not absolute. Aside from
a search incident to a lawful arrest, a warrantless search had been upheld in On appeal, Noel Tudtud and Dindo Bolong assign, among other errors, the
cases of moving vehicles and the seizure of evidence in plain view, as well as admission in evidence of the marijuana leaves, which they claim were seized
the search conducted at police or military checkpoints which we declared are in violation of their right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
not illegal per se, and stressed that the warrantless search is not violative of
the Constitution for as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its Issue: Whether the Tudtuds implied acquiescence (Tudtuds statement of
occupants subjected to a body search, and the inspection of the vehicle is its all right when the police officers requested that the box be opened) be
merely limited to a visual search. As there was no evidence to show that the considered a waiver.
policemen were impelled to do so because of a confidential report leading
them to reasonably believe that certain motorists matching the description Held: The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is secured by
furnished by their informant were engaged in gunrunning, transporting Section 2, Article III of the Constitution. The RTC justified the warrantless
firearms or in organizing special strike forces. Nor was there any indication search of appellants belongings under the first exception, as a search
from the package or behavior of Arellano that could have triggered the incident to a lawful arrest. A search incidental to a lawful arrest is sanctioned
suspicion of the policemen. Absent such justifying circumstances specifically by the Rules of Court. It is significant to note that the search in question
pointing to the culpability of Aniag and Arellano, the search could not be preceded the arrest. Recent jurisprudence holds that the arrest must
valid. The action then of the policemen unreasonably intruded into Aniag's precede the search; the process cannot be reversed. Nevertheless, a search
privacy and the security of his property, in violation of Sec. 2, Art. III, of the substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest if the
Constitution. Consequently, the firearms obtained in violation of Aniag's right police have probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search.
against warrantless search cannot be admitted for any purpose in any The question, therefore, is whether the police herein had probable cause to
proceeding. arrest Tudtud, et. al. The long-standing rule in this jurisdiction, applied with a
great degree of consistency, is that reliable information alone is not
People vs. Tudtud [GR 144037, 26 September 2003] sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest under Section 5 (a), Rule 113. The
Second Division, Tinga (J): 3 concur, 1 filed a separate dissenting opinion rule requires, in addition, that the accused perform some overt act that
Facts: would indicate that he has committed, is actually committing, or is
Sometime during the months of July and August 1999, the Toril Police attempting to commit an offense. For the exception in Section 5 (a), Rule
Station, Davao City received a report from a civilian asset named Bobong 113 to apply, this Court ruled, two elements must concur: (1) the person to
Solier about a certain Noel Tudtud. Solier related that his neighbors have be arrested must execute an overt act indicating he has just committed, is
been complaining about Tudtud, who was allegedly responsible for the actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt
proliferation of marijuana in their area. Reacting to the report, PO1 Ronald act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.
Desierto, PO1 Ramil Floreta and their superior, SPO1 Villalonghan, all Reliable information alone is insufficient. Thus, herein, in no sense can the
members of the Intelligence Section of the Toril Police Station, conducted knowledge of the arresting officers that Tudtud was in possession of
surveillance in Soliers neighborhood in Sapa, Toril, Davao City. For 5 days, marijuana be described as personal, having learned the same only from
they gathered information and learned that Tudtud was involved in illegal their informant Solier. Solier, for his part, testified that he obtained his
drugs. According to his neighbors, Tudtud was engaged in selling marijuana. information only from his neighbors and the friends of Tudtud. Soliers
information is hearsay. Confronted with such a dubious informant, the police
On 1 August 1999, Solier informed the police that Tudtud had headed to perhaps felt it necessary to conduct their own surveillance. This
Cotabato and would be back later that day with new stocks of marijuana. surveillance, it turns out, did not actually consist of staking out Tudtud to
Solier described Tudtud as big-bodied and short, and usually wore a hat. At catch him in the act of plying his illegal trade, but of a mere gathering of
around 4:00 p.m. that same day, a team composed of PO1 Desierto, PO1 information from the assets there. The police officers who conducted such
Floreta and SPO1 Villalonghan posted themselves at the corner of Saipon and surveillance did not identify who these assets were or the basis of the
McArthur Highway to await Tudtuds arrival. All wore civilian clothes. About latters information. Clearly, such information is also hearsay, not of personal
8:00 p.m., 2 men disembarked from a bus and helped each other carry a knowledge. Finally, there is an effective waiver of rights against unreasonable
carton marked King Flakes. Standing some 5 feet away from the men, PO1 searches and seizures only if the following requisites are present: (1) It must
Desierto and PO1 Floreta observed that one of the men fit Tudtuds appear that the rights exist; (2) The person involved had knowledge, actual or
description. The same man also toted a plastic bag. PO1 Floreta and PO1 constructive, of the existence of such right; (3) Said person had an actual
Desierto then approached the suspects and identified themselves as police intention to relinquish the right. Here, the prosecution failed to establish the
officers. PO1 Desierto informed them that the police had received second and third requisites. Records disclose that when the police officers
information that stocks of illegal drugs would be arriving that night. The man introduced themselves as such and requested Tudtud that they see the
who resembled Tudtuds description denied that he was carrying any drugs. contents of the carton box supposedly containing the marijuana, Tudtud said
PO1 Desierto asked him if he could see the contents of the box. Tudtud it was alright. He did not resist and opened the box himself. Tudtud's
obliged, saying, it was alright. implied acquiescence, if at all, could not have been more than mere passive
conformity given under coercive or intimidating circumstances and is, thus,
Tudtud opened the box himself as his companion looked on. The box yielded considered no consent at all within the purview of the constitutional
pieces of dried fish, beneath which were two bundles, one wrapped in a guarantee. Consequently, Tudtud's lack of objection to the search and
striped plastic bag and another in newspapers. PO1 Desierto asked Tudtud seizure is not tantamount to a waiver of his constitutional right or a voluntary
to unwrap the packages. They contained what seemed to the police officers submission to the warrantless search and seizure. As the search of Tudtud's
as marijuana leaves. The police thus arrested Tudtud and his companion, box does not come under the recognized exceptions to a valid warrantless
informed them of their rights and brought them to the police station. The search, the marijuana leaves obtained thereby are inadmissible in evidence.
two did not resist. The confiscated items were turned over to the Philippine And as there is no evidence other than the hearsay testimony of the
National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for examination. Forensic tests on arresting officers and their informant, the conviction of Tudtud, et. al. cannot
specimens taken from the confiscated items confirmed the police officers be sustained.
suspicion. The plastic bag contained 3,200 grams of marijuana leaves while
the newspapers contained another 890 grams. Noel Tudtud and his ----
companion, Dindo Bulong, were subsequently charged before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City with illegal possession of prohibited drugs. People vs. Compacion [GR 124442, 20 July 2001]
Upon arraignment, both accused pleaded not guilty. The defense, however, First Division, Kapunan (J): 4 concur
reserved their right to question the validity of their arrest and the seizure of Facts:
3rd Meeting: Consti2 Cases
Acting on a confidential tip supplied by a police informant that Armando trial court convicted Compacion of the crime charged, and sentenced him to
Compacio y Surposa was growing and cultivating marijuana plants, SPO1 reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
Gilbert L. Linda and SPO2 Basilio Sarong of the 6th Narcotic Regional Field
Unit of the Narcotics Command (NARCOM) of the Bacolod City Detachment Issue: Whether Compacion's right against unreasonable search and seizure
conducted a surveillance of the residence of Compacion who was then the was violated.
barangay captain of barangay Bagonbon, San Carlos City, Negros Occidental
on 9 July 1995. During the said surveillance, they saw 2 tall plants in the Held: Sections 2 and 3 [2], Article III of the 1987 Constitution are safeguards
backyard of Compacion which they suspected to be marijuana plants. SPO1 against reckless, malicious and unreasonable invasion of privacy and liberty.
Linda and SPO2 Sarong reported the result of their surveillance to SPO4 A search and seizure, therefore, must be carried out through or with a
Ranulfo T. Villamor, Jr., Chief of NARCOM, Bacolod City, who immediately judicial warrant; otherwise, such search and seizure becomes "unreasonable"
formed a team composed of the members of the Intelligence Division within the meaning of the constitutional provision. Evidence secured
Provincial Command, the Criminal Investigation Command and the Special thereby, i.e., the "fruits" of the search and seizure, will be inadmissible in
Action Force. evidence for any purpose in any proceeding." The requirement that a
warrant must be obtained from the proper judicial authority prior to the
Two members of the media, one from DYWF Radio and another from DYRL conduct of a search and seizure is, however, not absolute. There are several
Radio, were also included in the composite team. On 12 July 1995, the team instances when the law recognizes exceptions, such as when the owner of
applied for a search warrant with the office of Executive Judge Bernardo the premises consents or voluntarily submits to a search; when the owner of
Ponferrada in Bacolod City. However, Judge Ponferrada informed them that the premises waives his right against such incursion; when the search is
he did not have territorial jurisdiction over the matter. The team then left incidental to a lawful arrest; when it is made on vessels and aircraft for
Bacolod City for San Carlos City. They arrived there around 6:30 p.m., then violation of customs laws; when it is made on automobiles for the purpose of
went to the house of Executive Judge Roberto S. Javellana to secure a search preventing violations of smuggling or immigration laws; when it involves
warrant. They were not able to do so because it was nighttime and office prohibited articles in plain view; when it involves a "stop and frisk" situation;
hours were obviously over. when the search is under exigent and emergency circumstances; or in cases
of inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of fire,
They were told by the judge to go back in the morning. Nonetheless, the sanitary and building regulations. In these instances, a search may be validly
team proceeded to barangay Bagonbon and arrived at the residence of made even without a warrant. Herein, the search and seizure conducted by
Compacion in the early morning of 13 July 1995. SPO4 Villamor knocked at the composite team in the house of accused-appellant was not authorized by
the gate and called out for Compacion. What happened thereafter is subject a search warrant, It does not appear either that the situation falls under any
to conflicting accounts. The prosecution contends that Compacion opened of the above mentioned cases. Consequently, Compacion's right against
the gate and permitted them to come in. He was immediately asked by SPO4 unreasonable search and seizure was clearly violated. As a general rule,
Villamor about the suspected marijuana plants and he admitted that he objects in the "plain view" of an officer who has the right to be in the
planted and cultivated the same for the use of his wife who was suffering position to have that view are subject to seizure without a warrant. It is
from migraine. SPO4 Villamor then told him that he would be charged for usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence against
violation of Section 9 of RA 6425 and informed him of his constitutional the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating
rights. The operatives then uprooted the suspected marijuana plants. SPO1 object. Thus, the following elements must be present before the doctrine
Linda conducted an initial field test of the plants by using the Narcotics Drug may be applied: (a) a prior valid intention based on the valid warrantless
Identification Kit. The test yielded a positive result. On 15 July 1995, the arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official
plants were turned over to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have
Laboratory, Bacolod City Police Command, particularly to Senior Inspector the right to be where they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately
Reah Abastillas Villavicencio. apparent; and (d) "plain view" justified were seizure of evidence without
further search. Here, there was no valid warrantless arrest. They forced their
Senior Inspector Villavicencio weighed and measured the plants, one was way into Compacion's premises without the latter's consent. It is undisputed
125 inches and weighed 700 grams while the other was 130 inches and that the NARCOM agents conducted a surveillance of the residence of
weighed 900 grams. Three (3) qualitative examinations were conducted, Compacion on 9 July 1995 on the suspicion that he was growing and
namely: the microscopic test, the chemical test, and the thin layer cultivating marijuana when they allegedly came in "plain view" of the
chromatographic test. All yielded positive results. On his part, Compacion marijuana plants. When the agents entered his premises on 13 July 1995,
maintains that around 1:30 a.m. on 13 July 1995 while he and his family were their intention was to seize the evidence against him. In fact, they initially
sleeping, he heard somebody knocking outside his house. He went down wanted to secure a search warrant but could not simply wait for one to be
bringing with him a flashlight. After he opened the gate, 4 persons who he issued. The NARCOM agents, therefore, did not come across the marijuana
thought were members of the military, entered the premises then went plants inadvertently when they conducted a surveillance and barged into
inside the house. It was dark so he could not count the others who entered Compacion's residence. As held in People v. Musa, the "plain view" doctrine
the house as the same was lit only by a kerosene lamp. One of the four men may not be used to launch unbridled searches and indiscriminate seizures
told him to sit in the living room. Some of the men went upstairs while the nor to extend a general exploratory search made solely to find evidence of
others went around the house. None of them asked for his permission to defendant's guilt. The "plain view" doctrine is usually applied where a police
search his house and the premises. After about 20 minutes of searching, the officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless
men called him outside and brought him to the backyard. One of the military inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. Hence, Compacion is
men said: "Captain, you have a (sic) marijuana here at your backyard" to acquitted of the crime to which he was charged.
which Compacion replied: "I do not know that they were (sic) marijuana
plants but what I know is that they are medicinal plants for my wife" who People vs. Valdez [GR 129296, 25 September 2000]
was suffering from migraine. After he was informed that the plants in his En Banc, Quisumbing (J): 13 concur, 1 on leave
backyard were marijuana, the men took pictures of him and themselves.
Thereafter, he was brought inside the house where he and the military men Facts: At around 10:15 a.m. of 24 September 1996, SPO3 Marcelo Tipay, a
spent the night. At around 10:00 a.m., they brought him with them to the member of the police force of Villaverde, Nueva Vizcaya, received a tip from
city hall. Compacion saw that one of the 2 service vehicles they brought was an unnamed informer about the presence of a marijuana plantation,
fully loaded with plants. He was later told by the military men that said allegedly owned by Abe Valdez y Dela Cruz at Sitio Bulan, Ibung, Villaverde,
plants were marijuana. Upon arrival at the city hall, the men met with the Nueva Vizcaya. The prohibited plants were allegedly planted close to Valdez's
mayor and then unloaded the alleged marijuana plants. A picture of him hut. Police Inspector Alejandro R. Parungao, Chief of Police of Villaverde,
together with the arresting team was taken with the alleged marijuana as Nueva Vizcaya then formed a reaction team from his operatives to verify the
back drop. Soon thereafter, he was taken to Hda. Socorro at the SAF report. The team was composed of SPO3 Marcelo M. Tipay, SPO2 Noel V.
Headquarters. A criminal complaint for violation of Section 9 of RA 6425, as Libunao, SPO2 Pedro S. Morales, SPO1 Romulo G. Tobias and PO2 Alfelmer I.
amended by RA 7659 was filed against Compacion. On 2 January 1996, the Balut. Inspector Parungao gave them specific instructions to "uproot said
marijuana plants and arrest the cultivator of same." At approximately 5:00
3rd Meeting: Consti2 Cases
a.m. the following day, said police team, accompanied by their informer, left apply, the following elements must be present: (a) a prior valid intrusion
for the site where the marijuana plants were allegedly being grown. After a based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present
three-hour, uphill trek from the nearest barangay road, the police operatives in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently
arrived at the place pinpointed by their informant. The police found Valdez discovered by the police who have the right to be where they are; and (c) the
alone in his nipa hut. They, then, proceeded to look around the area where evidence must be immediately apparent; and (d) plain view justified mere
Valdez had his kaingin and saw 7 five-foot high, flowering marijuana plants in seizure of evidence without further search. Herein, the police officers first
two rows, approximately 25 meters from Valdez's hut. PO2 Balut asked located the marijuana plants before Valdez was arrested without a warrant.
Valdez who owned the prohibited plants and, according to Balut, the latter Hence, there was no valid warrantless arrest which preceded the search of
admitted that they were his. The police uprooted the 7 marijuana plants, Valdez's premises. The police team was dispatched to Valdez's kaingin
which weighed 2.194 kilograms. The police took photos of Valdez standing precisely to search for and uproot the prohibited flora. The seizure of
beside the cannabis plants. Valdez was then arrested. One of the plants, evidence in "plain view" applies only where the police officer is not searching
weighing 1.090 kilograms, was sent to the Philippine National Police Crime for evidence against the accused, but inadvertently comes across an
Laboratory in Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya for analysis. Inspector Prevy Fabros incriminating object. Clearly, their discovery of the cannabis plants was not
Luwis, the Crime Laboratory forensic analyst, testified that upon microscopic inadvertent. Also, upon arriving at the area, they first had to "look around
examination of said plant, she found cystolitic hairs containing calcium the area" before they could spot the illegal plants. Patently, the seized
carbonate, a positive indication for marijuana. She next conducted a marijuana plants were not "immediately apparent" and a "further search"
chemical examination, the results of which confirmed her initial impressions. was needed. In sum, the marijuana plants in question were not in "plain
Valdez alleged otherwise. He claims that at around 10:00 a.m., 25 September view" or "open to eye and hand." The "plain view" doctrine, thus, cannot be
1996, he was weeding his vegetable farm in Sitio Bulan when he was called made to apply.
by a person whose identity he does not know. He was asked to go with the
latter to "see something." This unknown person then brought Valdez to the People vs. de Gracia [GR 102009-10, 6 July 1994] Second Division, Regalado
place where the marijuana plants were found, approximately 100 meters (J): 5 concur
away from his nipa hut. 5 armed policemen were present and they made him
stand in front of the hemp plants. He was then asked if he knew anything Facts: The incidents took place at the height of the coup d'etat staged in
about the marijuana growing there. When he denied any knowledge thereof, December, 1989 by ultra-rightist elements headed by the Reform the Armed
SPO2 Libunao poked a fist at him and told him to admit ownership of the Forces Movement-Soldiers of the Filipino People (RAM-SFP) against the
plants. Valdez was so nervous and afraid that he admitted owning the Government. At that time, various government establishments and military
marijuana. The police then took a photo of him standing in front of one of camps in Metro Manila were being bombarded by the rightist group with
the marijuana plants. He was then made to uproot 5 of the cannabis plants, their "tora-tora" planes. At around midnight of 30 November 1989, the 4th
and bring them to his hut, where another photo was taken of him standing Marine Battalion of the Philippine Marines occupied Villamor Air Base, while
next to a bundle of uprooted marijuana plants. The police team then brought the Scout Rangers took over the Headquarters of the Philippine Army, the
him to the police station at Villaverde. On the way, a certain Kiko Pascua, a Army Operations Center, and Channel 4, the government television station.
barangay peace officer of Barangay Sawmill, accompanied the police officers. Also, some elements of the Philippine Army coming from Fort Magsaysay
Pascua, who bore a grudge against him, because of his refusal to participate occupied the Greenhills Shopping Center in San Juan, Metro Manila. On 1
in the former's illegal logging activities, threatened him to admit owning the December 1989, Maj. Efren Soria of the Intelligence Division, National Capital
marijuana, otherwise be would "be put in a bad situation." At the police Region Defense Command, was on board a brown Toyota car conducting a
headquarters, Valdez reiterated that he knew nothing about the marijuana surveillance of the Eurocar Sales Office located at Epifanio de los Santos
plants seized by the police. Still, on 26 September 1996, Valdez was charged Avenue (EDSA) in Quezon City, together with his team composed of Sgt.
for the cultivation and culture of the 7 fully grown marijuana plants. On 15 Crispin Sagario, M/Sgt. Ramon Briones, S/Sgt. Henry Aquino, one S/Sgt.
November 1996, Valdez was arraigned and, with assistance of counsel, Simon and a Sgt. Ramos. The surveillance, which actually started on the night
pleaded not guilty to the charge. Trial on the merits then ensued. On 18 of 30 November 1989 at around 10:00 p.m., was conducted pursuant to an
February 1997, the Regional Trial Court of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, intelligence report received by the division that said establishment was being
Branch 27, in Criminal Case 3105, found Valdez guilty beyond reasonable occupied by elements of the RAM-SFP as a communication command post.
doubt for violating Section 9 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (RA 6425, as Sgt. Crispin Sagario, the driver of the car, parked the vehicle around 10 to 15
amended by RA 7659), and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death by meters away from the Eurocar building near P. Tuazon Street, S/Sgt. Henry
lethal injection. Hence, the automatic review by the Supreme Court. Aquino had earlier alighted from the car to conduct his surveillance on foot.
A crowd was then gathered near the Eurocar office watching the on-going
Issue: Whether the seizure of the marijuana plants was made pursuant to bombardment near Camp Aguinaldo. After a while a group of 5 men
warrantless search and seizure, based on the plain view doctrine. disengaged themselves from the crowd and walked towards the car of the
surveillance team. At that moment, Maj. Soria, who was then seated in front,
Held: The Constitution lays down the general rule that a search and seizure saw the approaching group and immediately ordered Sgt. Sagario to start the
must be carried on the strength of a judicial warrant. Otherwise, the search car and leave the area. As they passed by the group, then only 6 meters
and seizure is deemed "unreasonable." Evidence procured on the occasion of away, the latter pointed to them, drew their guns and fired at the team,
an unreasonable search and seizure is deemed tainted for being the which attack resulted in the wounding of Sgt. Sagario on the right thigh.
proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree and should be excluded. Such evidence Nobody in the surveillance team was able to retaliate because they sought
shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. Herein, cover inside the car and they were afraid that civilians or bystanders might
there was no search warrant issued by a judge after personal determination be caught in the cross-fire. As a consequence, at around 6:30 a.m. of 5
of the existence of probable cause. From the declarations of the police December 1989, searching them composed of F/Lt. Virgilio Babao as team
officers themselves, it is clear that they had at least 1 day to obtain a warrant leader, M/Sgt. Lacdao, Sgt. Magallion, Sgt. Patricio Pacatang, and elements of
to search Valdez's farm. Their informant had revealed his name to them. The the 16th Infantry Battalion under one Col. delos Santos raided the Eurocar
place where the cannabis plants were planted was pinpointed. From the Sales Office. They were able to find and confiscate 6 cartons of M-16
information in their possession, they could have convinced a judge that there ammunition, five bundles of C-4 dynamites, M-shells of different calibers,
was probable cause to justify the issuance of a warrant. But they did not. and "molotov" bombs inside one of the rooms belonging to a certain Col.
Instead, they uprooted the plants and apprehended the accused on the Matillano which is located at the right portion of the building. St. Oscar
excuse that the trip was a good six hours and inconvenient to them. We need Obenia, the first one to enter the Eurocar building, saw Rolando De Gracia
not underscore that the protection against illegal search and seizure is inside the office of Col. Matillano, holding a C-4 and suspiciously peeping
constitutionally mandated and only under specific instances are searches through a door. De Gracia was the only person then present inside the room.
allowed without warrants. The mantle of protection extended by the Bill of A uniform with the nametag of Col. Matillano was also found. As a result of
Rights covers both innocent and guilty alike against any form of high- the raid, the team arrested de Gracia, as well as Soprieso Verbo and Roberto
handedness of law enforcers, regardless of the praiseworthiness of their Jimena who were janitors at the Eurocar building. They were then made to
intentions. The Court finds no reason to subscribe to Solicitor General's sign an inventory, written in Tagalog, of the explosives and ammunition
contention that it should apply the "plain view" doctrine. For the doctrine to confiscated by the raiding team. No search warrant was secured by the
3rd Meeting: Consti2 Cases
raiding team because, according to them, at that time there was so much Canton to bring out the packages but Canton refused, saying: Money,
disorder considering that the nearby Camp Aguinaldo was being mopped up money only. Cabunoc reported the matter to her supervisor on duty, SPO4
by the rebel forces and there was simultaneous firing within the vicinity of Victorio de los Reyes.
the Eurocar office, aside from the fact that the courts were consequently
closed. The group was able to confirm later that the owner of Eurocar office SPO4 de los Reyes instructed Cabunoc to call Customs Examiner Lorna Jalac
is a certain Mr. Gutierrez and that de Gracia is supposedly a "boy" therein. de and to bring Canton to a comfort room for a thorough physical examination.
Gracia was charged in two separate information for illegal possession of Upon further frisking in the ladies room, Cabunoc touched something in
ammunition and explosives in furtherance of rebellion, and for attempted front of Cantons sex organ and she directed Canton to remove her skirt,
homicide (Criminal Cases Q-90-11755 and Q-90-11756, respectively), which girdles and panty. Canton obliged and Cabunoc and Jalac discovered three
were tried jointly by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 103. packages (abdominal area, in front of her genital area, and right thigh)
During the arraignment, de Gracia pleaded not guilty to both charges. individually wrapped and sealed in gray colored packing tape, which Canton
However, he admitted that he is not authorized to posses any firearms, voluntarily handed to them.
ammunition and/or explosive. The parties likewise stipulated that there was
a rebellion during the period from November 30 up to 9 December 1989. On Cabunoc turned over the packages to SPO4 de los Reyes who then informed
22 February 1991, the trial court rendered judgment acquitting de Gracia of Police Superintendent Daniel Santos about the incident. Together with
attempted homicide, but found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the Canton, they brought the gray plastic packs to the customs examination
offense of illegal possession of firearms in furtherance of rebellion and table, opened them, and found white crystalline substances inside, which
sentenced him to serve the penalty of reclusion perpetua. De Gracia after laboratory examination yielded positive results for methamphetamine
appealed. hydrochloride or shabu, a regulated drug.
Issue: Whether the military operatives made a valid search and seizure For the defense, SPO2 Jerome Cause testified that no investigation was ever
during the height of the December 1989 coup detat. conducted on Canton. However, Canton signed a receipt of the following
articles seized from her: (1) 3 bags of methamphetamine hydrochloride or
Held: It is admitted that the military operatives who raided the Eurocar Sales shabu approximately 1,100 grams; (2) 1 American passport; (3) 1 Continental
Office were not armed with a search warrant at that time. The raid was Micronesia plane ticket; and (4) two panty girdles. SPO2 Cause said that he
actually precipitated by intelligence reports that said office was being used as informed Canton of her rights but admitted that she did not have a counsel
headquarters by the RAM. Prior to the raid, there was a surveillance when she signed the receipt.
conducted on the premises wherein the surveillance team was fired at by a RTC: found Canton guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 16
group of men coming from the Eurocar building. When the military Article III of RA 6425, and sentencing her to suffer the penalty of reclusion
operatives raided the place, the occupants thereof refused to open the door perpetua and to pay a fine of Php1million.
despite the requests for them to do so, thereby compelling the former to
break into the office. The Eurocar Sales Office is obviously not a gun store Issue: Whether or not the warrantless search made on Canton was valid. YES,
and it is definitely not an armory or arsenals which are the usual depositories it was valid.
for explosives and ammunition. It is primarily and solely engaged in the sale
of automobiles. The presence of an unusual quantity of high-powered Held/Ratio:
firearms and explosives could not be justifiably or even colorably explained. Cantons contentions Supreme Court
In addition, there was general chaos and disorder at that time because of TC erred in justifying the The search conducted on Canton was
simultaneous and intense firing within the vicinity of the office and in the warrantless search against her not incidental to a lawful arrest
nearby Camp Aguinaldo which was under attack by rebel forces. The courts based on the alleged existence of Cantons arrest did not precede the
in the surrounding areas were obviously closed and, for that matter, the probable cause search. When the metal detector
building and houses therein were deserted. Under the foregoing alarmed while Canton was passing
circumstances, the case falls under one of the exceptions to the prohibition through it, the lady frisker on duty
against a warrantless search. In the first place, the military operatives, taking made a pat down search on her. In the
into account the facts obtaining in this case, had reasonable ground to process, Cabunoc felt a bulge on
believe that a crime was being committed. There was consequently more Cantons abdomen. The strip search
than sufficient probable cause to warrant their action. Furthermore, under that followed was for the purpose of
the situation then prevailing, the raiding team had no opportunity to apply ascertaining what were the packages
for and secure a search warrant from the courts. The trial judge himself concealed on Cantons body.
manifested that on 5 December 1989 when the raid was conducted, his court TC erred in holding that she was Canton, having been flagrante delicto,
was closed. Under such urgency and exigency of the moment, a search caught in flagrante delicto and that was lawfully arrested without a warrant
warrant could lawfully be dispensed with. the warrantless search was Section 5, Rule 113 ROC provides that a
incidental to a lawful arrest peace officer or a private person may,
PEOPLE V. CANTON The arrest could not be said to without a warrant, arrest a person: (a)
People of the Philippines, appellee, vs. Susan Canton, appellant. have been made before the search When, in his presence, the person to be
Nature: Appeal from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, because at the time of the strip arrested has committed, is actually
Date: December 27, 2002 search, the arresting officers could committing, or is attempting to commit
Ponente: Davide, Jr., C. J. not have known what was inside an offense...
Doctrine: RA 6235 Sec. 9 is another exception to the proscription against the plastic containers hidden in her The present case falls under paragraph
warrantless searches and seizures. The provision clearly states that the body, which were wrapped and (a) of Section 5, Rule 113. The search
search, unlike in the Terry search, is not limited to weapons. Passengers are sealed. conducted on Canton resulted in the
also subject to search for prohibited materials or substances. They could not have determined discovery of shabu. Armed with the
whether Canton was actually knowledge that Canton was committing
Facts: committing a crime; the strip a crime, the airport security personnel
February 12, 1998 Susan Canton was at the NAIA, being a departing search was therefore nothing but a and police authorities were duty-bound
passenger bound for Saigon, Vietnam. When she passed through the metal fishing expedition to arrest her. Her subsequent arrest
detector booth, a beeping sound was emitted. Mylene Cabunoc, a civilian without a warrant was justified, since it
employee of the National Action Committee on Hijacking and Terrorism was effected upon the discovery and
(NACHT) and the frisker on duty at that time, called her attention and asked recovery of shabu in her person
her if she (Cabunoc) could search her (Canton). Upon frisking Canton, flagrante delicto.
Cabunoc felt something bulging at her abdominal area, and similar packages TC erred in not ruling that the The scope of a search pursuant to
in front of her genital area and thighs. According to Cabunoc, she noticed frisker went beyond the limits of airport security procedure is not
that the package contained what felt like rice granules. Cabunoc asked the Terry search doctrine confined only to search for weapons
3rd Meeting: Consti2 Cases
The stop and frisk search should under the Terry search doctrine should have been Katz v. United and are therefore admissible in
have been limited to the patting of The Terry search or stop and frisk States which upholds the 4th evidence against Johnson.
her outer garments in order to situation refers to a case where a police Amendment that protects people Cantons reliance on Katz v. United
determine whether she was armed officer approaches a person who is and not places. States is misplaced. The facts and
or dangerous. acting suspiciously for purposes of circumstances of that case are entirely
investigating possibly criminal behavior different from the case at bar.
in line with the general interest of
effective crime prevention and Dispositive: Canton guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the violation of
detection. He could validly conduct a Section 16 Article III of RA 6425, sentencing her to suffer the penalty of
carefully limited search of the outer reclusion perpetua and to pay the fine of Php 1 million. The appellants
clothing of such person to discover passport, plane ticket, and girdles are ordered to be returned to her.
weapons which might be used to
assault him. People v. Musa [GR 96177, 27 January 1993]
In the present case, the search was Third Division, Romero (J): 4 concur
made pursuant to routine airport
security procedure. RA 6235 Section 9 Facts:
provides: Every ticket issued to a On 13 December 1989, the Narcotics Command (NARCOM) in Zamboanga
passenger by the airline or air carrier City conducted surveillance and test buy on a certain Mari Musa of Suterville,
concerned shall contain among others Zamboanga City. Information received from civilian informer was that this
the following condition printed thereon: Mari Musa was engaged in selling marijuana in said place. The Narcom agent
Holder hereof and his hand-carried (Sgt. Ani) was able to buy one newspaper-wrapped dried marijuana for
luggage(s) are subject to search for, and P10.00, which was turned over to the Narcom office. The next day, a buy-
seizure of, prohibited materials or bust was planned with Sgt. Ani being the poseur-buyer. NARCOM teams
substances. Holder refusing to be proceeded to the target site in 2 civilian vehicles. Ani gave Musa the P20.00
searched shall not be allowed to board marked money.
the aircraft, which shall constitute a
part of the contract between the Musa returned to his house and gave Ani 2 newspaper wrappers containing
passenger and the air carrier. dried marijuana. The signal to apprehend Musa was given. The NARCOM
RA 6235 Sec. 9 is another exception to team rushed to the location of Ani, and a NARCOM officer (Sgt. Belarga)
the proscription against warrantless frisked Musa but did not find the marked money. The money was given to
searches and seizures. The provision Musas wife who was able to slip away. Later, Belarga found a plastic bag
clearly states that the search, unlike in containing dried marijuana inside it somewhere in the kitchen.
the Terry search, is not limited to
weapons. Passengers are also subject to Musa was placed under arrest and was brought to the NARCOM office.
search for prohibited materials or One newspaper- wrapper marijuana and the plastic bag containing more
substances. marijuana was sent to the PC Crime Laboratory, the test of which gave
The strip search in the ladies room was positive results for the presence of marijuana. On the other hand, Mari
justified under the circumstances. Musa alleged that the NARCOM agents, dressed in civilian clothes, got inside
TC erred in not ruling that Canton The constitutional right to counsel his house without any search warrant, neither his permission to enter the
was under custodial investigation afforded an accused under custodial house.
without counsel investigation was not violated
Canton alleges that from the In this case, no custodial investigation The NARCOM agents searched the house and allegedly found a red plastic
moment frisker Cabunoc felt a was conducted after Cantons arrest. bag whose contents, Mari Musa said, he did not know. He also did not know
package at her abdominal area, She affixed her signature to the receipt if the plastic bag belonged to his brother, Faisal, who was living with him, or
started inquiring about its of the articles seized from her, but his father, who was living in another house about ten arms-length away.
contents, detained her, and before she did so, she was told that she Mari Musa was handcuffed and was taken to the NARCOM office where he
stripped search her in the ladies had the option to sign or not to sign it. was joined by his wife. Musa claimed that he was subjected to torture when
room, she was under custodial Aside from this, no statement was he refused to sign the document containing details of the investigation. The
investigation without counsel. taken from her during her detention next day, he was taken to the fiscals office to which he was allegedly made
and used in evidence against her. to answer to a single question: that if he owned the marijuana. He allegedly
TC erred in admitting to the The admission of the medical report was not able to tell the fiscal that he had been maltreated by the NARCOM
records of the case the report of was erroneous. agents because he was afraid he might be maltreated in the fiscal's office.
Dr. Ma. Bernadette Arcena, which Canton assails the validity of the Mari Musa was brought to the City Jail. Still, an information against Musa
was not testified on or offered in medical report as evidence on the was filed on 15 December 1989. Upon his arraignment on 11 January 1990,
evidence, and using the same in ground that it violates the hearsay rule. Musa pleaded not guilty. After trial and on 31 August 1990, the RTC
determining her guilt The medical report contained the Zamboanga City (Branch XII) found him guilty of selling marijuana in violation
following: This is the first time I carried of Article II, Section 4 of RA 6425. Musa appealed to the Supreme Court.
shabu. I need the money.
SC held that this contention is Issue: Whether the contents of the red plastic bag found in the kitchen may
meritorious. The admission of the be admitted as evidence as evidence acquired incidental to a lawful arrest.
questioned document was erroneous
because it was not properly identified. Held: Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest authorizes the arresting
TC erred in applying the ruling in The ruling in People v. Johnson is officer to make a search upon the person of the person arrested. An officer
People v. Johnson applicable to the instant case making an arrest may take from the person arrested and money or property
Canton questions the applicability The Johnson case, which involves found upon his person which was used in the commission of the crime or was
of the doctrine in the Johnson case similar facts and issues, finds the fruit of the crime or which might furnish the prisoner with the means of
because of its sweeping statement application to the present case. The committing violence or of escaping, or which may be used as evidence in the
allowing searches and seizures of court ruled that the packs of trial of the cause. Hence, in a buy-bust operation conducted to entrap a drug-
departing passengers in airports in methamphetamine hydrochloride pusher, the law enforcement agents may seize the marked money found on
view of the gravity of the safety seized during the routine frisk at the the person of the pusher immediately after the arrest even without arrest
interests involved. airport was acquired legitimately and search warrants. The warrantless search and seizure, as an incident to a
She argues that the applicable case pursuant to airport security procedures suspect's lawful arrest, may extend beyond the person of the one arrested to
3rd Meeting: Consti2 Cases
include the premises or surroundings under his immediate control. Objects in Held: The Fourth Amendment bars prosecution of a person who has refused
the "plain view" of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have to permit a warrantless code-enforcement inspection of his personal
that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence. When residence. The basic purpose of the Fourth Amendment, which is enforceable
the discovery of the evidence did not constitute a search, but where the against the States through the Fourteenth, through its prohibition of
officer merely saw what was placed before him in full view, the warrantless "unreasonable" searches and seizures is to safeguard the privacy and security
seizure of the object was legal on the basis of the "plain view" doctrine and of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials. With
upheld the admissibility of said evidence. The "plain view" doctrine, certain carefully defined exceptions, an unconsented warrantless search of
however, may not be used to launch unbridled searches and indiscriminate private property is "unreasonable." Administrative searches of the kind at
seizures nor to extend a general exploratory search made solely to find issue here are significant intrusions upon the interests protected by the
evidence of defendant's guilt. The "plain view" doctrine is usually applied Fourth Amendment, that such searches when authorized and conducted
where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but without a warrant procedure lack the traditional safeguards which the Fourth
nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. What the Amendment guarantees to the individual, and that the reasons put forth in
'plain view' cases have in common is that the police officer in each of them Frank v. Maryland and in other cases for upholding these warrantless
had a prior justification for an intrusion in the course of which he came searches are insufficient to justify so substantial a weakening of the Fourth
inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The Amendment's protections. Contrary to the assumption of Frank v. Maryland,
doctrine serves to supplement the prior justification whether it be a Fourth Amendment interests are not merely "peripheral" where municipal
warrant for another object, hot pursuit, search incident to lawful arrest, or fire, health, and housing inspection programs are involved whose purpose is
some other legitimate reason for being present unconnected with a search to determine the existence of physical conditions not complying with local
directed against the accused and permits the warrantless seizure. Of ordinances. Those programs, moreover, are enforceable by criminal process,
course, the extension of the original justification is legitimate only where it is as is refusal to allow an inspection. Warrantless administrative searches
immediately apparent to the police that they have evidence before them; the cannot be justified on the grounds that they make minimal demands on
'plain view' doctrine may not be used to extend a general exploratory search occupants; that warrants in such cases are unfeasible; or that area inspection
from one object to another until something incriminating at last emerges. programs could not function under reasonable search-warrant requirements.
The "plain view" doctrine neither justify the seizure of the object where the Probable cause upon the basis of which warrants are to be issued for area
incriminating nature of the object is not apparent from the "plain view" of code- enforcement inspections is not dependent on the inspector's belief
the object. Thus, the exclusion of the plastic bag containing marijuana does that a particular dwelling violates the code but on the reasonableness of the
not, however, diminish, in any way, the damaging effect of the other pieces enforcement agency's appraisal of conditions in the area as a whole. The
of evidence presented by the prosecution to prove that the appellant sold standards to guide the magistrate in the issuance of such search warrants
marijuana, in violation of Article II, Section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of will necessarily vary with the municipal program being enforced. Nothing
1972. By virtue of the testimonies of Sgt. Ani and T/Sgt. Belarga and the two here is intended to foreclose prompt inspections, even without a warrant,
wrappings of marijuana sold by Musa to Sgt. Ani, among other pieces of that the law has traditionally upheld in emergency situations. On the other
evidence, the guilt of Musa of the crime charged has been proved beyond hand, in the case of most routine area inspections, there is no compelling
reasonable doubt. urgency to inspect at a particular time or on a particular day. Moreover, most
citizens allow inspections of their property without a warrant. Thus, as a
practical matter and in light of the Fourth Amendment's requirement that a
---- warrant specify the property to be searched, it seems likely that warrants
should normally be sought only after entry is refused unless there has been a
Camara vs. Municipal Court of the City and Country of San Francisco [387 citizen complaint or there is other satisfactory reason for securing immediate
US 523, 5 June 1967]White (J) entry. Similarly, the requirement of a warrant procedure does not suggest
any change in what seems to be the prevailing local policy, in most situations,
Facts: of authorizing entry, but not entry by force, to inspect. Herein, Camara has
On 6 November 1963, an inspector of the Division of Housing Inspection of been charged with a crime for his refusal to permit housing inspectors to
the San Francisco Department of Public Health entered an apartment enter his leasehold without a warrant. There was no emergency demanding
building to make a routine annual inspection for possible violations of the immediate access; in fact, the inspectors made three trips to the building in
city's Housing Code. The building's manager informed the inspector that an attempt to obtain Camara's consent to search. Yet no warrant was
Camara, lessee of the ground floor, was using the rear of his leasehold as a obtained and thus appellant was unable to verify either the need for or the
personal residence. Claiming that the building's occupancy permit did not appropriate limits of the inspection. No doubt, the inspectors entered the
allow residential use of the ground floor, the inspector confronted Camara public portion of the building with the consent of the landlord, through the
and demanded that he permit an inspection of the premises. Camara building's manager, but the City/County does not contend that such consent
refused to allow the inspection because the inspector lacked a search was sufficient to authorize inspection of Camara's premises. Assuming the
warrant. The inspector returned on November 8, again without a warrant, facts to be as the parties have alleged, camara had a constitutional right to
and Camara again refused to allow an inspection. A citation was then mailed insist that the inspectors obtain a warrant to search and that appellant may
ordering Camara to appear at the district attorney's office. When Camara not constitutionally be convicted for refusing to consent to the inspection. It
failed to appear, two inspectors returned to his apartment on November 22. appears from the opinion of the District Court of Appeal that under these
They informed Camara that he was required by law to permit an inspection circumstances a writ of prohibition will issue to the criminal court under
under 503 of the Housing Code. Camara nevertheless refused the inspectors California law.
access to his apartment without a search warrant. Thereafter, a complaint
was filed charging him with refusing to permit a lawful inspection in violation In RE: Umil, Umil vs. Ramos [GR 81567, 9 July 1990]; also Roque vs. de Villa
of 507 of the Code. Camara was arrested on December 2nd released on bail. [GR 84581-82],
When his demurrer to the criminal complaint was denied, Camara filed the
petition for a writ of prohibition in a California Superior Court alleging that he In RE: Anonuevo. Anonuevo vs. Ramos [GR 84583-84], In RE: Ocaya. Ocaya
was awaiting trial on a criminal charge of violating the San Francisco Housing vs. Aguirre [GR
Code by refusing to permit a warrantless inspection of his residence, and that
a writ of prohibition should issue to the criminal court because the ordinance 83162], In RE: Espiritu. Espiritu vs. Lim [GR 85727], and In RE: Nazareno.
authorizing such inspections is unconstitutional on its face. The Superior Nazareno vs. Station Commander of Muntinlupa Police Station [GR 86332]
Court denied the writ, the District Court of Appeal affirmed, and the Supreme En Banc, Per Curiam: 11 concur
Court of California denied a petition for hearing.
Facts: [GR 81567] On 1 February 1988, the Regional Intelligence Operations
Issue: Whether Camara can validly refuse the inspection of his dwelling by Unit of the Capital Command (RIOU-CAPCOM) received confidential
the Division of Housing Inspection. information about a member of the NPA Sparrow Unit (liquidation squad)
being treated for a gunshot wound at the St. Agnes Hospital in Roosevelt
Avenue, Quezon City.
3rd Meeting: Consti2 Cases
Upon verification, it was found that the wounded person, who was listed in At the scene, it was Juan de la Cruz whom Arcoy first negotiated with on the
the hospital records as Ronnie Javelon, is actually Rolando Dural, a member purchase and when Arcoy told De la Cruz that he was buying P10.00 worth of
of the NPA liquidation squad, responsible for the killing of 2 CAPCOM soldiers marijuana, De la Cruz instructed Reynaldo Beltran to give one aluminum foil
the day before, or on 31 January 1988, in Macanining Street, Bagong Barrio, of marijuana which Beltran got from his pants' pocket and delivered it to
Caloocan City. In view of this verification, Dural was transferred to the Arcoy.
Regional Medical Services of the CAPCOM, for security reasons. While After ascertaining that the foil of suspected marijuana was really marijuana,
confined thereat, or on 4 February 1988, Dural was positively identified by Arcoy gave the prearranged signal to his teammates by scratching his head
eyewitnesses as the gunman who went on top of the hood of the CAPCOM and his teammates who were strategically positioned in the vicinity,
mobile patrol car, and fired at the 2 CAPCOM soldiers seated inside the car converged at the place, identified themselves as NARCOM agents and
identified as T/Sgt. Carlos Pabon and CIC Renato Manligot. As a consequence effected the arrest of De la Cruz and Beltran.
of this positive identification, Dural was referred to the Caloocan City Fiscal The P10.00 marked bill used by Arcoy was found in the possession of Juan de
who conducted an inquest and thereafter filed with the Regional Trial Court la Cruz together with two aluminum foils and containing marijuana. Juan de
of Caloocan City an information charging Rolando Dural alias Ronnie Javelon la Cruz y Gonzales and Reynaldo Beltran y Aniban were charged in Criminal
with the crime of "Double Murder with Assault Upon Agents of Persons in Case 87-54417 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila with violation of
Authority." (Criminal Case C-30112; no bail recommended). Section 4, Art. II, in relation to Section 21, Article IV of Republic Act 6425, as
amended.
On 15 February 1988, the information was amended to include, as The court, on 15 March 1988, found Dela Cruz and Beltran guilty beyond
defendant, Bernardo Itucal, Jr. who, at the filing of the original information, reasonable doubt and sentenced each of them to suffer the penalty of
was still unidentified. Meanwhile, on 6 February 1988, a petition for habeas reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties provided by law; to pay a
corpus was filed with the Supreme Court on behalf of Roberto Umil, Rolando fine of P20,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency,
Dural, and Renato Villanueva. The Court issued the writ of habeas corpus on and each to pay one-half of the costs.
9 February 1988 and Fidel V. Ramos, Maj. Gen. Renato de Villa, Brig. Gen. From this decision, de la Cruz and Beltran appealed.
Ramon Montano, and Brig. Gen. Alexander Aguirre filed a Return of the Writ In a letter of the Warden, Manila City Jail, dated 3 March 1989, the Court was
on 12 February 1988. Thereafter, the parties were heard on 15 February informed of the death of de la Cruz on 21 February 1989.
1988. Thus, the criminal case against de la Cruz was dismissed in the Supreme
Court resolution of 25 September 1989.
On 26 February 1988, however, Umil and Villanueva posted bail before the The present appellate proceeding is limited only to Beltran.
Regional Trial Court of Pasay City where charges for violation of the Anti-
Subversion Act had been filed against them, and they were accordingly Issue: Whether the warrantless seizure incidental to the buy-bust operation
released. violates Beltrans constitutional rights against unreasonable search and
seizure.
Issue: Whether Dural can be validly arrested without any warrant of arrest
for the crime of rebellion. Held: A buy-bust operation is the method employed by peace officers to trap
and catch a malefactor inflagrante delicto. It is essentially a form of
Held: Dural, it clearly appears that he was not arrested while in the act of entrapment since the peace officer neither instigates nor induces the
shooting the 2 CAPCOM soldiers nor was he arrested just after the accused to commit a crime. Entrapment is the employment of such ways and
commission of the said offense for his arrest came a day after the said means for the purpose of trapping or capturing a lawbreaker from whose
shooting incident. Seemingly, his arrest without warrant is unjustified. mind the criminal intent originated. Oftentimes, it is the only effective way of
However, Dural was arrested for being a member of the New Peoples Army apprehending a criminal in the act of the commission of the offense. While it
(NPA), an outlawed subversive organization. Subversion being a continuing is conceded that in a buy-bust operation, there is seizure of evidence from
offense, the arrest of Rolando Dural without warrant is justified as it can be one's person without a search warrant, needless to state a search warrant is
said that he was committing an offense when arrested. The crimes of not necessary, the search being incident to a lawful arrest. A peace officer
rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and may, without a warrant, arrest a person when, in his presence, the person to
crimes or offenses committed in furtherance thereof or in connection be arrested has committed, is actually committing or is attempting to commit
therewith constitute direct assaults against the State and are in the nature of an offense. It is a matter of judicial experience that in the arrest of violators
continuing crimes. The arrest of persons involved in the rebellion whether as of the Dangerous Drugs Act in a buy-bust operation, the malefactors were
its fighting armed elements, or for committing non-violent acts but in invariably caught red-handed. There being no violation of the constitutional
furtherance of the rebellion, is more an act of capturing them in the course right against unreasonable search and seizure, the confiscated articles are
of an armed conflict, to quell the rebellion, than for the purpose of admissible in evidence.
immediately prosecuting them in court for a statutory offense. The arrest,
therefore, need not follow the usual procedure in the prosecution of In RE Harvey v. Defensor-Santiago,GR 82544 (Case Digest)
offenses which requires the determination by a judge of the existence of Focus Topics: Acts of the State; Sovereignty; Elements; State
probable cause before the issuance of a judicial warrant of arrest and the
granting of bail if the offense is bailable. Obviously, the absence of a judicial FACTS
warrant is no legal impediment to arresting or capturing persons committing American nationals Andrew Harvey and John Sherman, 52 and 72 years,
overt acts of violence against government forces, or any other milder acts respectively, and Adriaan Van Elshout, 58, a Dutch citizen, are all residing at
but equally in pursuance of the rebellious movement. The arrest or capture is Pagsanjan, Laguna. Commissioner Miriam Defensor Santiago issued Mission
thus impelled by the exigencies of the situation that involves the very Orders to the Commission of Immigration and Deportation (CID) to
survival of society and its government and duly constituted authorities. apprehended petitioners at their residences.
People vs. dela Cruz [GR 83260, 18 April 1990] The Operation Report read that Andrew Harvey was found together with
Second Division, Regalado (J): 4 concur two young boys. Richard Sherman was found with two naked boys inside his
room. While Van Den Elshout in the after Mission Report read that two
Facts: children of ages 14 and 16 has been under his care and subjects confirmed
After receiving a confidential report from Arnel, their informant, a "buy-bust" being live-in for some time now. Seized during the petitioners apprehension
operation was conducted by the 13th Narcotics Regional Unit through a team were rolls of photo negatives and photos of suspected child prostitutes
composed of T/Sgt. Jaime Raposas as Team Leader, S/Sgt. Rodelito Oblice, shown in scandalous poses as well as boys and girls engaged in sex. Posters
Sgt. Dante Yang, Sgt. Vicente Jimenez, P/Pfc. Adolfo Arcoy as poseur-buyer and other literature advertising the child prostitutes were also found.
and Pat. Deogracias Gorgonia at Maliclic St., Tondo, Manila at around 2:30
p.m. of 4 May 1987 to catch the pusher/s. P/Pfc. Adolfo Arcoy acted as the Petitioners were among the twenty-two (22) suspected alien pedophiles who
poseur-buyer with Arnel as his companion to buy marijuana worth P10.00 were apprehended after three months of close surveillance by CID agents in
from the two accused, Juan de la Cruz and Reynaldo Beltran. Pagsanjan, Laguna. Only the three petitioners have chosen to face
3rd Meeting: Consti2 Cases
deportation. Warrants of Arrest were issued by respondent against INP Kalibo, Aklan) to monitor the activities of Edison Sucro, because of
petitioners for violation of Sections 37, 45 and 46 of the Immigration Act and information gathered by Seraspi that Sucro was selling marijuana.
Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code.Tthe Board of Special Inquiry
III commenced trial against petitioners. Petitioners filed a Petition for Bail As planned, at about 5:00 P.M. on said date, Pat. Fulgencio positioned
which the CID denied. Andrew Harvey filed a Manifestation/Motion stating himself under the house of a certain Arlie Regalado at C. Quimpo Street.
that he had finally agreed to a self-deportation and praying that he be Adjacent to the house of Regalado, about 2 meters away, was a chapel.
provisionally released for at least 15 days and placed under the custody of Thereafter, Pat. Fulgencio saw Sucro enter the chapel, taking something
Atty. Asinas before he voluntarily departs the country. However, it appears which turned out later to be marijuana from the compartment of a cart
that on the same date that the aforesaid Manifestation/ Motion was filed, found inside the chapel, and then return to the street where he handed the
Harvey and his co-petitioners had already filed the present petition. same to a buyer, Aldie Borromeo. After a while Sucro went back to the
Petitioners availed of this Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. A Return of chapel and again came out with marijuana which he gave to a group of
the Writ was filed by the Solicitor General and the Court heard the case on persons. It was at this instance that Pat. Fulgencio radioed P/Lt. Seraspi and
oral argument on 20 April 1988. A Traverse to the Writ was presented by reported the activity going on P/Lt. Seraspi instructed Pat. Fulgencio to
petitioners to which a Reply was filed by the Solicitor General. continue monitoring developments. At about 6:30 P.M., Pat. Fulgencio again
called up Seraspi to report that a third buyer later identified as Ronnie
ISSUES Macabante, was transacting with Sucro. At that point, the team of P/Lt
Whether or not the Philippine Immigration Act clothed the Commissioner Seraspi proceeded to the area and while the police officers were at the Youth
with any authority to arrest and detain petitioners pending determination of Hostel at Maagma St., Pat. Fulgencio told P/Lt. Seraspi to intercept
the existence of a probable cause leading to an administrative investigation. Macabante and Sucro. P/ Lt. Seraspi and his team caught up with Macabante
at the crossing of Mabini and Maagma Sts. in front of the Aklan Medical
HELD : AFFIRMATIVE. [The Court] reject petitioners contentions and uphold Center. Upon seeing the police, Macabante threw something to the ground
respondents official acts ably defended by the Solicitor General. The Petition which turned out to be a tea bag of marijuana. When confronted, Macabante
is dismissed and the Writ of Habeas Corpus is hereby denied. readily admitted that he bought the same from Sucro in front of the chapel.
The police team was able to overtake and arrest Sucro at the corner of C.
There can be no question that the right against unreasonable searches and Quimpo and Veterans Sts. The police recovered 19 sticks and 4 teabags of
seizures guaranteed by the Constitution is available to all persons, including marijuana from the cart inside the chapel and another teabag from
aliens, whether accused of crime or not. One of the constitutional Macabante. The teabags of marijuana were sent to the PC-INP Crime
requirements of a valid search warrant or warrant of arrest is that it must be Laboratory Service, at Camp Delgado, Iloilo City for analysis. The specimens
based upon probable cause. were all found positive of marijuana. Sucro was charged with violation of
Section 4, Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Upon arraignment, Sucro,
In this case, the arrest of petitioners was based on probable cause assisted by counsel, entered a plea of "not guilty" to the offense charged.
determined after close surveillance for three (3) months during which period Trial ensued and a judgment of conviction was rendered, finding Sucro guilty
their activities were monitored. The existence of probable cause justified the of the sale of prohibited drug and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life
arrest and the seizure of the photo negatives, photographs and posters imprisonment, and pay a fine of P20,000, and costs. Sucro appealed.
without warrant. [The fact that] petitioners were not caught in the act
does not make their arrest illegal. Issue: Whether the arrest without warrant of the accused is lawful and
consequently, whether the evidence resulting from such arrest is admissible.
The deportation charges instituted by respondent Commissioner are in
accordance with Section 37(a) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, in Held: Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides for the
relation to Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code. The requirement instances where arrest without warrant is considered lawful. The rule states
of probable cause, to be determined by a Judge, does not extend to that "A peace officer or private person may, without warrant, arrest a
deportation proceedings. person: (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
What is essential is that there should be a specific charge against the alien offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of
intended to be arrested and deported, that a fair hearing be conducted with facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it;" An offense
the assistance of counsel, if desired, and that the charge be substantiated by is committed in the presence or within the view of an officer, within the
competent evidence. meaning of the rule authorizing an arrest without a warrant, when the officer
The denial by respondent Commissioner of petitioners release on bail, also sees the offense, although at a distance, or hears the disturbances created
challenged by them, was in order because in deportation proceedings, the thereby and proceeds at once to the scene thereof. The failure of the police
right to bail is not a matter of right but a matter of discretion on the part of officers to secure a warrant stems from the fact that their knowledge
the Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation. As deportation acquired from the surveillance was insufficient to fulfill the requirements for
proceedings do not partake of the nature of a criminal action, the the issuance of a search warrant. What is paramount is that probable cause
constitutional guarantee to bail may not be invoked by aliens in said existed. Still, that searches and seizures must be supported by a valid
proceedings. warrant is not an absolute rule. Among the exceptions granted by law is a
search incidental to a lawful arrest under Sec. 12, Rule 126 of the Rules on
Every sovereign power has the inherent power to exclude aliens from its Criminal Procedure, which provides that a person lawfully arrested may be
territory upon such grounds as it may deem proper for its self-preservation searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of
or public interest. The power to deport aliens is an act of State, an act done the commission of an offense, without a search warrant. Herein, police
by or under the authority of the sovereign power. It is a police measure officers have personal knowledge of the actual commission of the crime
against undesirable aliens whose continued presence in the country is found when it had earlier conducted surveillance activities of the accused. Under
to be injurious to the public good and the domestic tranquility of the people. the circumstances (monitoring of transactions) there existed probable cause
Particularly so in this case where the State has expressly committed itself to for the arresting officers, to arrest Sucro who was in fact selling marijuana
defend the tight of children to assistance and special protection from all and to seize the contraband. Thus, as there is nothing unlawful about the
forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions arrest considering its compliance with the requirements of a warrantless
prejudicial to their development (Article XV, Section 3[2]). Respondent arrest; ergo, the fruits obtained from such lawful arrest are admissible in
Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation, in instituting deportation evidence.
proceedings against petitioners, acted in the interests of the State
People vs. Rodrigueza [GR 95902, 4 February 1992]
People vs. Sucro [GR 93239, 18 March 1991] Second Division, Regalado (J): 4 concur
Third Division, Gutierrez Jr. (J): 4 concur Facts: [Prosecution] At around 5:00 p.m. of 1 July 1987, CIC Ciriaco Taduran
Facts: On 21 March 1989, Pat. Roy Fulgencio, a member of the INP, Kalibo, was in their headquarters at the Office of the Narcotics Regional Unit at
Aklan, was instructed by P/Lt. Vicente Seraspi, Jr. (Station Commander of the Camp Bagong Ibalon, Legaspi City, together with S/Sgt. Elpidio Molinawe, CIC
3rd Meeting: Consti2 Cases
Leonardo B. Galutan and their commanding officer, Major Crisostomo M. NARCOM agents in the house of Jovencio Rodrigueza was not authorized by
Zeidem, when a confidential informer arrived and told them that there was any search warrant. It does not appear, either, that the situation falls under
an ongoing illegal traffic of prohibited drugs in Tagas, Daraga, Albay. Major any of the aforementioned cases. Hence, Rodrigueza's right against
Zeidem formed a team to conduct a buybust operation, which team was unreasonable search and seizure was clearly violated. The NARCOM agents
given P200.00 in different denominations to buy marijuana. These bills were could not have justified their act by invoking the urgency and necessity of the
treated with ultraviolet powder at the Philippine Constabulary Crime situation because the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses reveal that
Laboratory (PCCL). Sgt. Molinawe gave the money to Taduran who acted as the place had already been put under surveillance for quite some time. Had it
the poseur buyer. He was told to look for a certain Don, the alleged seller of been their intention to conduct the raid, then they should, because they
prohibited drugs. Taduran went to Tagas alone and, while along the road, he easily could, have first secured a search warrant during that time. Further,
met Samuel Segovia. He asked Segovia where he could find Don and where the inconsistencies made by prosecution witnesses give more credibility to
he could buy marijuana. Segovia left for a while and when he returned, he the testimony of Don Rodrigueza. While it is true that Rodrigueza's defense
was accompanied by a man who was later on introduced to him as Don amounts to an alibi, and as such is the weakest defense in a criminal
Rodrigueza. prosecution, there are, nonetheless, some evidentiary aspects pointing to
the truth in his testimony. Firstly, the Joint Affidavit of Arrest corroborates
After agreeing on the price of P200.00 for 100 grams of marijuana, Don his testimony that he was not among those who were arrested on the night
halted a passing tricycle driven by Antonio Lonceras. He boarded it and left of 1 July 1987. His co-accused Segovia also testified that Rodrigueza was not
Taduran and Segovia. When he came back, Don gave Taduran "a certain with them when they were apprehended by the NARCOM agents. Hence,
object wrapped in a plastic" which was later identified as marijuana, and Rodrigueza is acquitted of the crime charged, due to the failure of the
received payment therefor. Thereafter, Taduran returned to the prosecution to establish its cause.
headquarters and made a report regarding his said purchase of marijuana.
Based on that information, Major Zeidem ordered a team to conduct an PEOPLE V. MENGOTE
operation to apprehend the suspects. In the evening of the same date, CIC Facts: The Western Police District received a telephone call from an informer
Galutan and S/Sgt. Molinawe proceeded to Regidor Street, Daraga, Albay and that there were three suspicious looking persons at the corner of Juan Luna
arrested Rodrigueza, Antonio Lonceras and Samuel Segovia. The constables and North Bay Boulevard in Tondo, Manila. A surveillance team of
were not, however, armed with a warrant of arrest when they apprehended plainclothesmen was forthwith dispatched to the place. The patrolmen saw
the three accused. The arrests were brought to the headquarters for two men looking from side to side, one of whom holding his abdomen. They
investigation. Thereafter, agents of the Narcotics Command (NARCOM) approached the persons and identified themselves as policemen, whereupon
conducted a raid in the house of Jovencio Rodrigueza, Don's father. Taduran the two tried to run but unable to escape because the other lawmen
did not go with them. During the raid, they were able to confiscate dried surrounded them. The suspects were then searched. One of them the
marijuana leaves and a plastic syringe, among others. The search, however, accused-appellant was found with a .38 caliber with live ammunitions in it,
was not authorized by any search warrant. The next day, Jovencio while his companion had a fan knife. The weapons were taken from them
Rodrigueza was released from detention but Don Rodrigueza was detained. and they were turned over to the police headquarters for investigation.
Information was filed before the RTC convicting the accused of illegal
[Defense] Don Rodrigueza, on the other hand, claimed that on said date he possession of firearm arm. A witness testified that the weapon was among
was in the house of his aunt in San Roque, Legaspi City. He stayed there the articles stolen at his shop, which he reported to the police including the
overnight and did not leave the place until the next day when his brother revolver. For his part, Mengote made no effort to prove that he owned the
arrived and told him that their father was taken by some military men the fire arm or that he was licensed to possess it but instead, he claimed that the
preceding night. Rodrigueza went to Camp Bagong Ibalon and arrived there weapon was planted on him at the time of his arrest. He was convicted for
at around 8:00 a.m. of 2 July 1987. When he arrived, he was asked if he violation of P.D.1866 and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. In his appeal
knew anything about the marijuana incident, to which question he answered he pleads that the weapon was not admissible as evidence against him
in the negative. Like Segovia, he was made to hold a P10.00 bill and was because it had been illegally seized and therefore the fruit of a poisonous
brought to the crime laboratory for examination. From that time on, he was tree.
not allowed to go home and was detained inside the camp. He was also
tortured in order to make him admit his complicity in the alleged sale of Issue: Whether or not the warrantless search and arrest was illegal.
marijuana.
Held: Evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure
On 10 July 1987, Don Rodrigueza, Samuel Segovia and Antonio Lonceras, for inadmissible in any proceeding for any purpose as provided by Art. III sec 32
possession of 100 grams of marijuana leaves and for selling, in a buy-bust of the Constitution. Rule 113 sec.5 of the Rules of Court, provides arrest
operation, said 100 grams of dried marijuana leaves for a consideration of without warrant lawful when: (a) the person to be arrested has committed, is
P200.00. During the arraignment, all the accused pleaded not guilty to the actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense, (b) when the
charge against them. The Regional Trial Court of Legaspi City, Branch 10, offense in fact has just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of
found Don Rodrigueza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 4, the facts indicating the person arrested has committed it and (c) the person
Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (Republic Act 6425, as to be arrested has escaped from a penal establishment or a place where he is
amended) and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or
to pay a fine of P20,000.00 and costs. The court, however, acquitted Segovia has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
and Lonceres. Rodrigueza appealed. These requirements have not been established in the case at bar. At the time
of the arrest in question, the accused appellant was merely looking from side
Issue: Whether the time of Don Rodriguezas arrest is material in to side and holding his abdomen, according to the arresting officers
determining his culpability in the crime charged. themselves. There was apparently no offense that has just been committed
or was being actually committed or at least being attempt by Mengote in
Held: As provided in the present Constitution, a search, to be valid, must their presence. Moreover a person may not be stopped and frisked in a
generally be authorized by a search warrant duly issued by the proper broad daylight or on a busy street on unexplained suspicion. Judgment is
government authority. True, in some instances, the Court has allowed reversed and set aside. Accused-appellant is acquitted
government authorities to conduct searches and seizures even without a
search warrant. Thus, when the owner of the premises waives his right
against such incursion; when the search is incidental to a lawful arrest; when Go vs. Court of Appeals [GR 101837, 11 February 1992]
it is made on vessels and aircraft for violation of customs laws; when it is En Banc, Feliciano (J): 5 concur
made on automobiles for the purpose of preventing violations of smuggling Facts: On 2 July 1991, Eldon Maguan was driving his car along Wilson St., San
or immigration laws; when it involves prohibited articles in plain view; or in Juan, Metro Manila, heading towards P. Guevarra St. Rolito Go y Tambunting
cases of inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of entered Wilson St., where it is a one- way street and started traveling in the
fire, sanitary and building regulations, a search may be validly made even opposite or "wrong" direction. At the corner of Wilson and J. Abad Santos
without a search warrant. Herein, however, the raid conducted by the Sts., Go's and Maguan's cars nearly bumped each other. Go alighted from his
3rd Meeting: Consti2 Cases
car, walked over and shot Maguan inside his car. Go then boarded his car and The trial court then set the criminal case for continuous hearings on 19, 24
left the scene. A security guard at a nearby restaurant was able to take down and 26 September; on 2, 3, 11 and 17 October; and on 7, 8, 14, 15, 21 and 22
Go's car plate number. The police arrived shortly thereafter at the scene of November 1991. On 27 August 1991. Go filed a petition for habeas corpus in
the shooting and there retrieved an empty shell and one round of live the Court of Appeals. On 30 August 1991, the Court of Appeals issued the
ammunition for a 9mm caliber pistol. Verification at the Land Transportation writ of habeas corpus. The petition for certiorari, prohibition and
Office showed that the car was registered to one Elsa Ang Go. The following mandamus, on the one hand, and the petition for habeas corpus, upon the
day, the police returned to the scene of the shooting to find out where the other, were subsequently consolidated in the Court of Appeals. The Court of
suspect had come from; they were informed that Go had dined at Cravings Appeals, on 2 September 1991, issued a resolution denying Go's motion to
Bake Shop shortly before the shooting. The police obtained a facsimile or restrain his arraignment on the ground that motion had become moot and
impression of the credit card used by Go from the cashier of the bake shop. academic. On 19 September 1991, trial of the criminal case commenced. On
The security guard of the bake shop was shown a picture of Go and he 23 September 1991, the Court of Appeals rendered a consolidated decision
positively identified him as the same person who had shot Maguan. Having dismissing the 2 petitions on the grounds that Go's warrantless arrest was
established that the assailant was probably Go, the police launched a valid and Go's act of posting bail constituted waiver of any irregularity
manhunt for Go. On 8 July 1991, Go presented himself before the San Juan attending his arrest, among others. On 3 October 1991, the prosecution
Police Station to verify news reports that he was being hunted by the police; presented three (3) more witnesses at the trial. Go's Counsel also filed a
he was accompanied by two (2) lawyers. The police forthwith detained him. "Withdrawal of Appearance" with the trial court, with Go's conformity. On 4
An eyewitness to the shooting, who was at the police station at that time, October 1991, Go filed the present petition for Review on Certiorari. On 14
positively identified Go as the gunman. October 1991, the Court issued a Resolution directing Judge Pelayo to held in
abeyance the hearing of the criminal case below until further orders from the
That same day, the police promptly filed a complaint for frustrated homicide Supreme Court.
against Go with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal. First Assistant
Provincial Prosecutor Dennis Villa Ignacio ("Prosecutor") informed Go, in the Issue: Whether Go was arrested legally without warrant for the killing of
Presence of his lawyers. that he could avail himself of his right to preliminary Maguan, and is thus not entitled to be released pending the conduct of a
investigation but that he must first sign a waiver of the provisions of Article preliminary investigation.
125 of the Revised Penal Code. Go refused to execute any such waiver. On 9
July 1991, while the complaint was still with the Prosecutor, and before an Held: Go's warrantless "arrest" or detention does not fall within the terms of
information could be filed in court, the victim, Eldon Maguan, died of his Section 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure which
gunshot wound(s). Accordingly, on 11 July 1991, the Prosecutor, instead of provides that "A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant,
filing information for frustrated homicide, filed information for murder arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be created has
before the Regional Trial Court. No bail was recommended. At the bottom of committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b)
the information, the Prosecutor certified that no preliminary investigation When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal
had been conducted because the accused did not execute and sign a waiver knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed
of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. it; and (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
In the afternoon of 11 July 1991, Go's counsel filed with the prosecutor an temporarily confined while his case is pending or has escaped while being
omnibus motion for immediate release and proper preliminary investigation, transferred from one confinement to another. In cases falling under
alleging that the warrantless arrest of Go was unlawful and that no paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested without a warrant shall be
preliminary investigation had been conducted before the information was forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail, and he shall be
filed. On 12 July 1991, Go filed an urgent ex-parte motion for special raffle in proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112, Section 7." Go's "arrest"
order to expedite action on the Prosecutor's bail recommendation. The case took place 6 days after the shooting of Maguan. The "arresting" officers
was raffled to the sala of Judge Benjamin V. Pelayo (Branch 168, RTC of Pasig obviously were not present, within the meaning of Section 5(a), at the time
City), who, on the same date, approved the cash bond posted by Go and Go had allegedly shot Maguan. Neither could the "arrest" effected 6 days
ordered his release. Go was in fact released that same day. On 16 July 1991, after the shooting be reasonably regarded as effected "when [the shooting
the Prosecutor filed with the Regional Trial Court a motion for leave to had] in fact just been committed" within the meaning of Section 5 (b).
conduct preliminary investigation and prayed that in the meantime all Moreover, none of the "arresting" officers had any "personal knowledge" of
proceedings in the court be suspended. On the said date, the trial court facts indicating that Go was the gunman who had shot Maguan. The
issued an Order 9 granting leave to conduct preliminary investigation and information upon which the police acted had been derived from statements
cancelling the arraignment set for 15 August 1991 until after the prosecution made by alleged eyewitnesses to the shooting -- one stated that Go was the
shall have concluded its preliminary investigation. gunman another was able to take down the alleged gunman's car's plate
number which turned out to be registered in Go's wife's name. That
On 17 July 1991, however, the Judge motu proprio issued an Order, (1) information did not, however, constitute "personal knowledge." It is thus
recalling the 12 July 1991 Order which granted bail: petitioner was given 48 clear to the Court that there was no lawful warrantless arrest of Go within
hours from receipt of the Order to surrender himself: (2) recalling and the meaning of Section 5 of Rule 113. It is clear too that Section 7 of Rule 112
cancelling the 16 July 1991 Order which granted leave to the Prosecutor to is also not applicable. Indeed, Go was not arrested at all. When he walked
conduct preliminary investigation: (3) treating Go's omnibus motion for into the San Juan Police Station, accompanied by two (2) lawyers, he in fact
immediate release and preliminary investigation dated 11 July 1991 as a placed himself at the disposal of the police authorities. He did not state that
petition for bail and set for hearing on 23 July 1991. he was "surrendering" himself, in all probability to avoid the implication he
was admitting that he had slain Eldon Maguan or that he was otherwise
On 19 July 1991, Go filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus guilty of a crime.
before the Supreme Court assailing the 17 July 1991 Order. Go also moved
for suspension of all proceedings in the case pending resolution by the When the police filed a complaint for frustrated homicide with the
Supreme Court of his petition: this motion was, however, denied by Judge Prosecutor, the latter should have immediately scheduled a preliminary
Pelayo. On 23 July 1991, Go surrendered to the police. By a Resolution dated investigation to determine whether there was probable cause for charging
24 July 1991, the Supreme Court remanded the petition for certiorari, Go in court for the killing of Eldon Maguan. Instead, as noted earlier, the
prohibition and mandamus to the Court of Appeals. On 16 August 1991, Prosecutor proceeded under the erroneous supposition that Section 7 of
Judge Pelayo issued an order in open court setting Go's arraignment on 23 Rule 112 was applicable and required Go to waive the provisions of Article
August 1991. On 19 August 1991, Go filed with the Court of Appeals a 125 of the Revised Penal Code as a condition for carrying out a preliminary
motion to restrain his arraignment. On 23 August 1991, Judge Pelayo issued investigation. This was substantive error, for Go was entitled to a preliminary
a Commitment Order directing the Provincial Warden of Rizal to admit Go investigation and that right should have been accorded him without any
into his custody at the Rizal Provincial Jail. On the same date, Go was conditions. Moreover, since Go had not been arrested; with or without a
arraigned. In view, however, of his refusal to enter a plea, the trial court warrant, he was also entitled to be released forthwith subject only to his
entered for him a plea of not guilty. appearing at the preliminary investigation.
3rd Meeting: Consti2 Cases
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. IDEL AMINNUDIN y AHNI Issue: Whether or not the warrantless arrest of Mengote was constitutional?
FACTS: Aminnudin claimed his business was selling watches but he was
nonetheless arrested, tried and found guilty of illegally transporting Ruling: the appealed decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The accused-
marijuana. He was arrested on June 25, 1984, shortly after disembarking appellant is ACQUITTED and ordered released immediately unless he is
from the M/V Wilcon 9 in Iloilo City. The PC officers who were in fact waiting validly detained for other offenses. No costs.
for him simply accosted him, in sp ected h is bag an d find ing w hat
looked liked marijua na leaves took h im to th eir headqu arters RD: As provided in Sec. 5 of the bill of rights, A peace officer or private
for investigation. The two bundles of suspect articles were confiscated from person may, without a warrant, arrest a person; (a) When, in his presence,
him and later taken to the NBI laboratory for examination. When they were the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
verified as marijuana leaves, an information for violation of the Dangerous attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has just been
Drugs Act was filed against him. committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the
person to be arrested has committed it. At the time of the arrest, the
Later, the information was amended to include Farida Aliy Hassen, who had accused-appellant was merely "looking from side to side" and "holding his
also been arrested with him that same evening and likewise investigated. abdomen." There was no offense that had just been committed or actually
According to the prosecution, the PC officers had earlier received a tip from committed or being attempted in their presence. The arresting officers had
one of their informers that the accused-appellant was on board a vessel no personal knowledge of facts indicating that Mengote had committed
bound for Iloilo City and was carrying marijuana. neither mengotes identity. All they had was hearsay information from the
telephone caller&about a crime that had yet to be committed. A crime must
He was identified by name. Acting on this tip, they waited for him in the in fact or actually have been committed first. That a crime has actually been
evening of June 25, 1984, and approached him as he descended from the committed is an essential precondition. It is not enough to suspect that a
gangplank after the informer had pointed to him. They detained him and crime may have been committed. The fact of the commission of the offense
inspected the bag h e was carrying. It wa s found to con tain th ree must be undisputed. The test of reasonable ground applies only to the
kilos of wh at were la ter ana lyzed a s marijuan a leaves by an NBI forensic identity of the perpetrator.
examiner.
People v. Manlulu
ISSUE: WON the marijuana allegedly found in his possession is inadmissible FACTS:
in evidence arrested because he was searchedwithoutwarrant Alfaro, a NARCOM agent, was stabbed and shot in a drinking spree. His
drinking companions, Manlulu and Samson were arrested nineteen hours
HELD: Yes [Sec. 2, Art. III of the Constitution]. In the case at bar, there was no after the incident. Patrolman Perez arrested Manluluon the information
warrant of arrest or search warran t is sued b y a judge after personal given by Manlapaz, who was also drinking with the accused and the
determination by him of th e ex is ten ce of probab le cau se. victim. Patrolman Perez seized from Manlulu the .45 cal. Pistol and Casio
Contrary to the averments of the government, the accused-appellant was not wristwatch said to belong to Alfaro, without a warrant and without informing
caught Manlulu of his right to counsel.
in flagrante
nor wasa crime ab ou t to b e committed or had jus t b een ISSUE: Whether or not the arrest and seizure of the gun and the watch was
committed to ju stify the warrantles s a rrest a llow ed. F rom the valid.
con flicting decla ra tions of th e PC witnes ses, it is clea r that
they h ad a t lea st 2 d ays within which they could have obtained a HELD: The warrantless arrest was invalid. The killing took place at one oclock
warrant to arrest and search Aminnudin who was coming to Iloilo on the M/V in the morning. The arrest and the consequent search and seizure came at
Wilcon 9. His name was known. The vehicle was identified. The date of its around seven oclock that evening, some nineteen hours later. This instance
arrival was certain. And from the information they had received, they could cannot come within the purview of a valid warrantless arrest. Paragraph (b)
have persuaded a judge that there was probable cause, indeed, to justify the Sec. 5,Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that the
issuance of a warrant. Yet they did nothing. No effort was made to comply arresting officer must have personal knowledge nor was the offense in
with the law. The Bill of Rights was ignored altogether because the PC fact just been committed. While Pat. Perez may have personally gathered
lieutenant who was the head of the arresting team, had determined on his the information which led to the arrest of Manlulu that is not enough. The
own authority that a "search warrant was not necessary." In the case at bar, law requires personal knowledge. Obviously, personal gathering of
the accused-appellant was not, at the moment of his arrest, committing a information is different from personal knowledge. The rule requires that the
crime nor was it shown that he was about to do so or that he had just done arrest immediately follows the commission of the offense, not some
so. nineteen hours later. However, the flaw, fatal as it may be, becomes moot
in view of the eyewitness account of Manlapaz which the Court found
credible. In spite of the nullification of the arrest of accused Manlulu, and the
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROGELIO MENGOTE y TEJASCRUZ, J. exclusion of
Facts:
Shortly before noon of August 8, 1987, the Western Police District received a PEOPLE vs. ANTHONY ESCORDIAL
telephone call from an informer that there were 3 suspicious-looking persons Petition: Review from the decision of RTC finding him guilty of robbery with
at the corner of Juan Luna & North Bay Boulevard. A surveillance team rape.
of plainclothesmen was forthwith dispatched to the place. As later narrated
there were 2men "looking from side to side," 1 of whom was holding his Facts:
abdomen. They approached these persons and id en tified th emselves as Michelle, Erma and Teresa were living in a boarding house. While they were
policemen, wh ereupon the two tried to run away bu t w ere asleep in the evening of December 27, 1996, Erma was awakened by the
unab le to escape becaus e th e other lawmen ha d su rroun ded presence of a man who had covered his head with a t-sh irt to p revent
them. The su spects w ere then s earched. On e of them, w ho identifica tion a nd ca rried a knife. He threatened her so
turned ou t to be th e accus ed- appella nt, w as fou nd w ith a . 38 Michelle a nd Teresa were also awakened. After getting their money, the
caliber. Smith & Wess on revolver w/ 6 live bullets in the chamber. man gave a t-shirt to Erma to blindfold Teresa and another to Michelle to
The weapons were taken from them. Mengote & others were turned over to blindfold Erma. He blindfolded Michelle himself and then raped her. He told
police headquarters for investigation by the Intelligence Division.-Said Michelle that he used to call her a beautiful girl whenever she passed by his
accused did then and there unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession place but she had ignored him.
and under his custody and control 1 caliber 38 without first having secured
the necessary license or permit. Mengote was then con victed of illegal Michelle said that although she was blindfolded and could not see, she could
poss ess ion of firea rms. App ellan t con tend s tha t the revolver feel that the man had no cover on his fa ce wh en h e was rap ing
shou ld not have b een admitted in evidence because of its illegal seizure. her. She felt th at h is ch est w a s rough and had s ome scars. When
No warrant therefor having been previously obtained. he placed her hands on his nape, she felt that it was also rough. On the
3rd Meeting: Consti2 Cases
other hand, Erma claimed she was able to see through her blindfold and that her daughter and did not immediately report the incident to the police
she saw the mans face because of th e light coming from the la mp authorities because she was afraid.
pos t ou ts ide th e board ing house. Th eir b edroom win dow h ad Charlies father, Marciano, reported the crime to the police and since the
panes through which the light filtered in. victim could not be interviewed as he was then undergoing operation, they
proceeded to the crime scene to get information about the incident but their
Mark tes tified tha t h e was in his bed room on the secon d floor, effort was fruitless as no one in the area would volunteer to identify the
when he saw from his bed room wind ow a man w earing den im culprits. A relative of the victim informed the police that David was one
shorts coming out of the boarding h ous e and id entified of the suspects in the crime.
Anthony Escordial as the man he saw that night. Charlie died the following day because of hemorrhage secondary to the stab
wound on the anterior chest wall. The medical report showed that Charlie
When the policemen arrived, Michelle told them that she could only identify sustained, aside from the stab wound on the chest, another stab wound on
his voice and his eyes. The women w/ the police looked for the man but did the left forearm and an incised wound on the left wrist.
not find him. Tancinco, one of the police who responded to the report Marciano went back to Police Station to inform the authorities that his son
shortly after the commission of the crime, also testified to the had died. He was advised to report the matter to the Homicide Section of the
prosecution. Tancinco learned from Fidel Hinolan, the owner of Coffee Break Western Police District where advance information was prepared indicating
Corner and employer of the accused, that the latter had gone home to that 4 unidentified persons perpetrated the crime.
Negros Occidental. Michelle, Allan and Pacita Aguillonwent to Negros On November 15, 1990 at about 4:35 in the afternoon, Police Station No.4
Occidental and found him w/ the help of the police. received a complaint that David was creating a commotion along Miguel in
Street. He was thereby taken in custody by Pat. Celso Tan and two other
Michelle executed an affidavit, identifying Anthony as the person who had policemen who later found out that he was a suspect in the killing of Charlie.
robbed and raped her. She testified that she had gone to the Coffee Break Later that day, he was turned over to the WPD.
Corner and usually passed by there when going home and Anthony would Milagros, upon being informed that David was transferred to the WPD,
often whistle at her and call her a beautiful girl. went to the station where she executed a sworn statement implicating David
to the crime. In a police line-up, she pinpointed David as the person who
Anthony testified that on the way to Bacolod City, Tancinco began beating stabbed Charlie. Thereafter, Pat. Amores prepared a booking sheet and
him and hitting him with the butt of a shotgun to force him to admit liability arrest order which David signed.
for the crime. Because he refused to do so, he was taken to a lodging house
where he was tortured. Tancinco put a knife to his neck, telling him that he Issue: WoN the warrantless arrest is valid. (It was an illegal arrest but it is not
would be killed if he refused to admit that he was the culprit. Tancinco took a sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment.)
Anthony to a house so that he could be identified by another complainant
but she likewise said that he was not the assailant, as the latter had a heavier Decision: AFFIRMED.
build and longer hair. RD:
His arrest on suspicion that he was involved in the killing of Charlie was made
On January 6, 1997, Gemarino, Dojillo, and Villaspen, together with almost three monthsafter the commission of the crime and only after he had
Anthonys grandfather, a certain Inspector Tamayo, and reporters from been taken in police custody for a minor offense.
Bombo Radyo, went to the Bacolod police station to visit Anthony and found
him tied to a chair. He had a limp because his feet were injured so they As such, because no warrant had been obtained during the 3-month
brought him to the hospital for treatment. intervening period between
thecommission of the crime and his apprehension, his arrest would have ordi
Issue: WoN the warrantless arrest was lawful. (Unlawful) narily been renderedunconstitutional and illegal. The element of immediacy
between the time of the commission of the offenseand the time of the arrest
Decision: REVERSED and the accused is ACQUITTED on the ground of had not been complied with. While these arguments may be valid, his
reasonable doubt. claimthat the case against him should be dismissed for violation of his
constitutional rights, must fail becausehe is estopped from questioning the
RD: The arrest of Anthony does not fall under Rule 113; Section 5 w/c legality of his arrest considering that he never raised this beforeentering his
enumerates the circumstances wherein a person may arrest another w/o a plea, thus, the objection is deemed waived.From her testimony, it is clear
warrant. At the time of his arrest, accused was watching a game in a that although Milagros did not know appellants name, sheremembered his
basketball court and was not committing or attempting to commit a crime features and recognize him as the perpetrator of the crime. Indeed, she
when he was arrested by the police on that day. The police officers neither could not have failed to identify him because she was only eight meters away
had personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that would lead them to when the assault occurred. Visibility was not a problem because while there
believe that he had just committed a crime. The crime took place on were some pedestrians in the area, traffic light was light and could not have
December27, 1996 but Anthony was arrested only on January 3, 1997. As the obstructed Milagros view. Furthermore, it was 4:30 in the afternoon when
arresting officers were not present when the crime was committed, they the day was still bright
could not have personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances of the
commission of the crime so as to be justified in the belief that he was guilty PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ZENAIDA BOLASA Y NAKOBOAN and
of the crime. The arresting officers had no reason for not securing a warrant. ROBERTO DELOS REYESG.R. No. 125754 December 22, 1999
Held: The Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and Malacat vs. Court of Appeals [GR 123595, 12 December 1997]
seizures, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, En Banc, Davide Jr. (J): 11 concur
"protects people, not places," and therefore applies as much to the citizen on
the streets as well as at home or elsewhere. The issue in this case is not the Facts: On 27 August 1990, at about 6:30 p.m., allegedly in response to bomb
abstract propriety of the police conduct but the admissibility against threats reported seven days earlier, Rodolfo Yu of the Western Police
petitioner of the evidence uncovered by the search and seizure. The District, Metropolitan Police Force of the Integrated National Police, Police
exclusionary rule cannot properly be invoked to exclude the products of Station No. 3, Quiapo, Manila, was on foot patrol with three other police
legitimate and restrained police investigative techniques; and this Court's officers (all of them in uniform) along Quezon Boulevard, Quiapo, Manila,
approval of such techniques should not discourage remedies other than the near the Mercury Drug store at Plaza Miranda. They chanced upon two
exclusionary rule to curtail police abuses for which that is not an effective groups of Muslim-looking men, with each group, comprised of three to four
sanction. The Fourth Amendment applies to "stop and frisk" procedures such men, posted at opposite sides of the corner of Quezon Boulevard near the
as those followed here. Whenever a police officer accosts an individual and Mercury Drug Store. These men were acting suspiciously with "their eyes
restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person within the moving very fast." Yu and his companions positioned themselves at strategic
meaning of the Fourth Amendment. A careful exploration of the outer points and observed both groups for about 30 minutes. The police officers
surfaces of a person's clothing in an attempt to find weapons is a "search" then approached one group of men, who then fled in different directions. As
under that Amendment. Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the policemen gave chase, Yu caught up with and apprehended Sammy
the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others Malacat y Mandar (who Yu recognized, inasmuch as allegedly the previous
is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person Saturday, 25 August 1990, likewise at Plaza Miranda, Yu saw Malacat and 2
believed by him to be armed and dangerous regardless of whether he has others attempt to detonate a grenade). Upon searching Malacat, Yu found a
probable cause to arrest that individual for crime or the absolute certainty fragmentation grenade tucked inside the latter's "front waist line." Yu's
that the individual is armed. Though the police must whenever practicable companion, police officer Rogelio Malibiran, apprehended Abdul Casan from
secure a warrant to make a search and seizure, that procedure cannot be whom a .38 caliber revolver was recovered. Malacat and Casan were then
followed where swift action based upon on-the-spot observations of the brought to Police Station 3 where Yu placed an "X" mark at the bottom of the
officer on the beat is required. The reasonableness of any particular search grenade and thereafter gave it to his commander. Yu did not issue any
and seizure must be assessed in light of the particular circumstances against receipt for the grenade he allegedly recovered from Malacat. On 30 August
the standard of whether a man of reasonable caution is warranted in 1990, Malacat was charged with violating Section 3 of Presidential Decree
believing that the action taken was appropriate. The officer here was 1866. At arraignment on 9 October 1990, petitioner, assisted by counsel de
performing a legitimate function of investigating suspicious conduct when he
3rd Meeting: Consti2 Cases
officio, entered a plea of not guilty. Malacat denied the charges and with a deadly weapon. None was visible to Yu, for as he admitted, the alleged
explained that he only recently arrived in Manila. However, several grenade was "discovered" "inside the front waistline" of Malacat, and from
other police officers mauled him, hitting him with benches and guns. all indications as to the distance between Yu and Malacat, any telltale bulge,
Petitioner was once again searched, but nothing was found on him. He saw assuming that Malacat was indeed hiding a grenade, could not have been
the grenade only in court when it was presented. In its decision dated 10 visible to Yu. What is unequivocal then are blatant violations of Malacat's
February 1994 but promulgated on 15 February 1994, the trial court ruled rights solemnly guaranteed in Sections 2 and 12(1) of Article III of the
that the warrantless search and seizure of Malacat was akin to a "stop and Constitution.
frisk," where a "warrant and seizure can be effected without necessarily
being preceded by an arrest" and "whose object is either to maintain the
status quo momentarily while the police officer seeks to obtain more
information"; and that the seizure of the grenade from Malacat was
incidental to a lawful arrest. The trial court thus found Malacat guilty of the
crime of illegal possession of explosives under Section 3 of PD 1866, and
sentenced him to suffer the penalty of not less than 17 years, 4 months and 1
day of Reclusion Temporal, as minimum, and not more than 30 years of
Reclusion Perpetua, as maximum. On 18 February 1994, Malacat filed a
notice of appeal indicating that he was appealing to the Supreme Court.
However, the record of the case was forwarded to the Court of Appeals (CA-
GR CR 15988). In its decision of 24 January 1996, the Court of Appeals
affirmed the trial court. Manalili filed a petition for review with the Supreme
Court.
Held: The general rule as regards arrests, searches and seizures is that a
warrant is needed in order to validly affect the same. The Constitutional
prohibition against unreasonable arrests, searches and seizures refers to
those affected without a validly issued warrant, subject to certain exceptions.
As regards valid warrantless arrests, these are found in Section 5, Rule 113 of
the Rules of Court. A warrantless arrest under the circumstances
contemplated under Section 5(a) has been denominated as one "in flagrante
delicto," while that under Section 5(b) has been described as a "hot pursuit"
arrest. Turning to valid warrantless searches, they are limited to the
following: (1) customs searches; (2) search of moving vehicles; (3) seizure of
evidence in plain view; (4) consent searches; (5) a search incidental to a
lawful arrest; and (6) a "stop and frisk." The concepts of a "stop-and-frisk"
and of a search incidental to a lawful arrest must not be confused. These two
types of warrantless searches differ in terms of the requisite quantum of
proof before they may be validly affected and in their allowable scope. In a
search incidental to a lawful arrest, as the precedent arrest determines the
validity of the incidental search. Here, there could have been no valid in
flagrante delicto or hot pursuit arrest preceding the search in light of the lack
of personal knowledge on the part of Yu, the arresting officer, or an overt
physical act, on the part of Malacat, indicating that a crime had just been
committed, was being committed or was going to be committed. Plainly, the
search conducted on Malacat could not have been one incidental to a lawful
arrest. On the other hand, while probable cause is not required to conduct a
"stop and frisk," it nevertheless holds that mere suspicion or a hunch will not
validate a "stop and frisk." A genuine reason must exist, in light of the police
officer's experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that
the person detained has weapons concealed about him. Finally, a "stop-and-
frisk" serves a two-fold interest: (1) the general interest of effective crime
prevention and detection, which underlies the recognition that a police
officer may, under appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner,
approach a person for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior
even without probable cause; and (2) the more pressing interest of safety
and self-preservation which permit the police officer to take steps to assure
himself that the person with whom he deals is not armed with a deadly
weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against the police
officer. Here, there are at least three (3) reasons why the "stop-and-frisk"
was invalid: First, there is grave doubts as to Yu's claim that Malacat was a
member of the group which attempted to bomb Plaza Miranda 2 days
earlier. This claim is neither supported by any police report or record nor
corroborated by any other police officer who allegedly chased that group.
Second, there was nothing in Malacat's behavior or conduct which could
have reasonably elicited even mere suspicion other than that his eyes were
"moving very fast" an observation which leaves us incredulous since Yu
and his teammates were nowhere near Malacat and it was already 6:30 p.m.,
thus presumably dusk. Malacat and his companions were merely standing at
the corner and were not creating any commotion or trouble. Third, there was
at all no ground, probable or otherwise, to believe that Malacat was armed