3. POSADAS vs. COURT OF APPEALS (Dizon)
Petitioner’s contention: The items in evidence against him are
G.R. No. 89139; August 2, 1990
Nature of the Case: validity of a warrantless search on a person
Mode of Appeal: Petition for Review (of the CA decision)
Petitioners: Illinois
Respondents: Gates
Background Facts: Posadas is below 18 years old when the offense of illegal
possession of firearms and ammunitions was committed.
Doctrine/s and Relevant Provisions:
1. Not all searches and seizures are prohibited. Those which are reasonable
are not forbidden. A reasonable search is not to be determined by any
fixed formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of each case.”
2. Between the inherent right of the state to protect its existence and
promote public welfare and an individual’s right against a warrantless
search which is however reasonably conducted, the former should
prevail.
Facts:
1. October 16, 1986, about 10AM: Pat. Ursicio Ungab and Pat. Umbra
Umpar, members of the Integrated National Police (INP) of the Davao
Metrodiscom assigned with the Intelligence Task Force, were conducting
a surveillance in Davao City.
2. While within the premises of Rizal Memorial Colleges, they spotted
petitioner carrying a “buri” bag and noticed him to be acting suspiciously.
3. They approached petitioner and identified themselves as members of the
INP. Petitioner attempted to flee but was thwarted by the two despite his
resistance.
4. They checked the bag and found 1 caliber .38 Smith & Wesson revolver, 2
rounds of live ammunition for a .38 caliber gun, a smoke (tear gas)
grenade and 2 live ammunitions for a .22 caliber gun.
5. They brought petitioner to the police station for further investiation.
Petitioner was asked to show necessary license/authority to possess
firearms but he failed to do so.
6. Petitioner was taken to the Davao Metrodiscom Office and the prohibited
articles recovered from him were indorsed to M/Sgt. Didoy (officer on
duty).
7. Petitioner was prosecuted for illegal possession of firearms and
ammunitions in the RTC of Davao City. After a plea of not guilty and
trial on meriots, a decision was rendered finding him guilty of offense
charged. Petitioner, below 18 years old at time of commission of offense,
is sentenced to indeterminate penalty from 10 years and 1 day prision
mayor to 12 year, 5 month and 11 days of reclusion temporal, and to pay
costs.
8. Petitioner appeal to the CA. Decision affirmed the RTC decision. Thus,
this petition for review.
9.
inadmissible for having been confiscated with no lawful arrest or search
and seizure.
10. Solicitor General’s contentions: Under Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules
of Court, a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous
weapons or anything used as proof of a commission of an offense without
a search warrant. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal
Procedure, further supported this by stating the circumstances where an
arrest without warrant is lawful. According to the SolGen, petitioner’s
arrest without a warrant was lawful because when the policemen
approached petitioner, he was actually committing/had just committed
the offense of illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions in the their
presence and the search and seizure of contraband was incidental to the
lawful arrest.
Issue/s: Whether the warrantless search is valid. Yes.
Ratio:
1. There are many instances where a warrant and seizure can be done
without being preceded by an arrest, which is the “stop and search”
without a search warrant at military or police checkpoints. “Not all
searches and seizures are prohibited. Those which are reasonable are not
forbidden. A reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed
formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of each case.”
(Valmonte v. de Villa)
2. EX: Merely drawing aside curtain of a vacant vehicle parked on public
grounds; simply looking into vehicle/flashes light therein; checkpoints –
security measure to maintain peace and order for the benefit of the
public (provided: conducted within reasonable limits.
3. Between the inherent right of the state to protect its existence and
promote public welfare and an individual’s right against a warrantless
search which is however reasonably conducted, the former should
prevail.
4. Between a search and seizure conducted at checkpoints and the search in
the case at bar, the latter is more reasonable considering that unlike in
the former, it was effected on basis of probable cause.
5. At the time the policemen identified themselves and apprehended
petitioner as he attempted to flee, they did not know that he had
committed/was actually committing the offense charged herein – they
just suspected that he was hiding something in the bag.
6. The probable cause is that petitioner acted suspiciously and attempted to
flee with the bag. There was probable cause that he was concealing
something illegal and it was the right of the policemen to inspect the
same.
7. Searching the bag in possession of petitioner only after obtaining a
search warrant may be useless, futile and too late.
8. GENERAL RULE: In ordinary cases where warrant is indispensably
necessary, the mechanics prescribed by the Constitution and reiterated
in the Rules of Court must be followed and satisfied.
 9. EXCEPTIONS: Extraordinary events where warrant is not necessary to
effect a valid search or seizure, or when the latter cannot be performed
except without warrant, what constitutes reasonable or unreasonable
search or seizure becomes purely a judicial question, determinable from
the uniqueness of the circumstances involved (including purpose of seach
and seizure, presence or absence of probable cause, manner in which
search was made, place/thing searched, and character of articles
procured).
10. The assailed search and seizure may be justified as akin to a “stop and
frisk” whose object is either to determine the identity of a suspicious
individual or to maintain the status quo momentarily while the
policemen seeks to obtain more information, as illustrated in Terry v.
Ohio.
11. The search herein can be sustained under the exceptions, and hence, the
constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures has
not been violated.

Dispositive Portion: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED with costs against

petitioner.