SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF LAW
MENDIOLA, MANILA

CASE DIGESTS

ADDITIONAL CASES FOR SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

SUBMITTED BY:
ALBA, ERIC JOSEPH MARFIL, OSCAR PEPIN
BASTO, MATTHEW JOSEPH MIRANDA, MIKHAIL ISAAC
ESBER, ANNA BIANCA REANDINO, STEVEN
FABIAN, MARY ABIGAIL SEBOLLENA, BIANCA
FERRIOL, NISSIEL SOLAS, LOREN CHRISTINE
GARCIA, DANIEL ALEXEI VILLANUEVA, JOHN FIEL

GROUP 1

SECTION 1-K

SUBMITTED TO
ATTY. JOSE ANGELO DAVID

FEBRUARY 12, 2019

ADDITIONAL CASES FOR SEARCHES AN SEIZURES

01. MARTIN VILLAMOR V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. NO. 200396, MARCH 22, 2017
FACTS
Policemen acting upon an unnamed informant arrested Villamor and Bonaobra, herein named as
petitioners, in violation of Section 3(c) of RA 9287 for collecting and soliciting bets for an illegal
numbers game locally known as "lotteng" and possessing a list of various numbers, a calculator, a
cellphone, and cash. Petitioners filed their respective Motions for Reinvestigation, which were both
granted by the RTC. The RTC of Virac, Catanduanes, Branch 43 rendered its Judgment finding
petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of committing illegal numbers game locally known as
''lotteng," a variant of the game Last Two, respectively as a collector or agent under Section 3(c), and as a
coordinator, controller, or supervisor under Section 3(d), of RA 9287. The RTC gave credence to the
testimonies of the arresting officers and held that petitioners were caught in flagrante delicto committing
an illegal numbers game locally known as "lotteng," a variant of Last Two. The RTC held that petitioners
were seen by the arresting officers in the act of counting bets before the arrest was made inside
Bonaobra's compound. The petitioners were also caught holding "papelitos," which contained the three
rows of two-number combinations. Since the winning combination in "lotteng" is taken from the first two
numbers of the winning combinations in the daily draw of the lotto in the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes,
the RTC held that the number combinations shown in the "papelitos" were meant to correspond to the
lotto results. The CA affirmed the RTC's Decision and brushed aside Bonaobra's argument that his right
to due process was violated when he was convicted of a crime different from that with which he was
charged. Furthermore, in the case of Villamor, the CA gave more weight and credence to the testimonies
of the arresting officers who were presumed to have acted regularly in the performance of their official
functions.

ISSUE
Whether the arrest of Villamor and Bonaobra constitutes a lawful warrantless arrest pursuant to
Rule 113, Sec. 5 of the Rules of Court

HELD
No. In warrantless arrests made pursuant to Section 5(a), Rule 113, two elements must concur,
namely "(a) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (b) such overt act is done in the presence or
within the view of the arresting officer." However, the Court found that there was no valid warrantless
arrest on petitioners. From the testimonies of the police officers gathered, they were situated 15 to 20
meters away from petitioners. Considering that 15 to 20 meters is a significant distance between the
police officers and the petitioners, the Court finds it doubtful that the police officers were able to
determine that a criminal activity was ongoing to allow them to validly effect an in flagrante
delicto warrantless arrest and a search incidental to a warrantless arrest thereafter.

Interestingly, the police officers even admitted that the compound was surrounded by a bamboo
fence 5'7" to 5'9" in height, which made it harder to see what was happening inside the compound of
petitioner. It appears that the police officers acted based solely on the information received from the
Provincial Director Penaflor’s informant and not on the personal knowledge that a crime had just been
committed, was actually being committed, or was about to be committed in their presence. The
prosecution merely relied on the alleged illegal gambling paraphernalia found and confiscated inside the
house of Bonaobra and not on the specific overt acts that constitute the offense. The evidence purportedly
seized from the Bonaobra compound is inadmissible in evidence since it was obtained in violation of
Section 3(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution. Since the alleged illegal gambling paraphernalia is the
very corpus delicti of the crime charged, the Court acquits petitioners.
 02. PEOPLE VS. MANAGO
GR NO. 212340, AUGUST 17, 2016
FACTS
On March 15, 2007, P03 Antonio Din was waiting to get a haircut at a beauty parlor when 2
persons entered and declared a hold-up. The policer officer and 2 suspects exchanged gunshots, after the
shootout one suspect boarded a motorcycle, while the other boarded a Toyota Corolla. Plate numbers
were noted by P03 Din. P03 Din and S/Insp. Ylanan conducted a “hot pursuit” operation one day after the
robbery incident, setting up a checkpoint, prompting the police officers to stop the vehicle. The police
officers ordered Manago to disembark, searched the vehicle and frisked Manago resulting in the
discovery of 1 plastic sachet suspected to be Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu. Manago denied
the plastic pack recovered by the police officers. He requested for a lawyer and a copy of the warrant of
his arrest, but both requests was unheeded. He was granted bail, but the CA affirmed the RTC decision,
undaunted he moved for reconsideration which was denied. Hence the instant appeal.

ISSUE
Whether or not the warrantless arrest was validly exercised

HELD
No. Sec. 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution mandates that a search and seizure must be carried
out through or on the strength of a judicial warrant predicated upon the existence of probable
cause, absent which such search and seizure becomes "unreasonable" within the meaning of the
said constitutional provision. Sec 5, rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Under the
provision, there are three (3) instances when warrantless arrests may be lawfully effected. These are: (a)
an arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto; (b) an arrest of a suspect where, based on personal knowledge
of the arresting officer, there is probable cause that said suspect was the perpetrator of a crime which had
just been committed; and (c) an arrest of a prisoner who has escaped from custody serving final judgment
or temporarily confined during the pendency of his case or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another. In warrantless arrest made pursuant to sec. 5 (b) it is essential that the element of
personal knowledge must be coupled with the element of immediacy; otherwise, the arrest may be
nullified, and resultantly, the items yielded through the search incidental thereto will be rendered
inadmissible. The forgoing circumstances show that the element of personal knowledge was present, but
the required element of immediacy was not met. As the Court sees it, the information the police officers
had gathered therefrom would have been enough for them to secure the necessary warrants against the
robbery suspects. However, they opted to conduct a "hot pursuit" operation which, considering the lack of
immediacy, unfortunately failed to meet the legal requirements therefor. Thus, there being no valid
warrantless arrest under the "hot pursuit" doctrine, the CA erred in ruling that Manago was lawfully
arrested.
 03. RE: REQUEST OF POLICE DIRECTOR GENERAL AVELINO I. RAZON FOR
AUTHORITY TO DELEGATE THE ENDORSEMENT OF APPLICATION FOR SEARCH
WARRANT
A.M. NO. 08-4-4-SC : July 7, 2009

FACTS
P/Dir. Gen. Razon requested that he be allowed to delegate the endorsement of the application for
search warrant to the Director of the Directorate for Investigation and Detective Management, in view of
his inherent investigative functions and as Commander of the Task Force USIG and Anti-Illegal Drugs
Special Operations Task Force. Court Administrator Elepano recommended to Chief Justice Puno to
allow P/Dir. Gen. Razon to delegate the authority to endorse the applications for search warrant with the
following reasons: being the chief of the PNP, General Razon oversees the operations of the entire police
force all over the Philippines, and in the discharge of his duties and responsibilities, he is expected to be
very mobile. Such situation poses a problem in terms of expediting the filing of application for search
warrant by the PNP in the Regional Trial Courts of Manila and Quezon City as pursuant to Section 12 of
A.M. No. 03-8-02, entitled "Guidelines on the Selection and Appointment of Executive Judges and
Defining their Powers, Prerogatives and Duties," which dictates that the applications shall be personally
endorsed by the heads of such agencies and shall particularly describe therein the places to be searched
and/or the property or things to be seized as prescribed in the Rules of Court. The Executive Judges and
Vice-Executive Judges concerned shall issue the warrants, if justified, which may be served in places
outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said courts. The Court granted the request of P/Dir. Gen. Razon;
however, because of the denial of Police Chief Superintendent Bacalzo’s application for search warrant
by Executive Judge Reynaldo Ros of the Manila RTC, on the ground that the authority to delegate only
applies to the incumbency of Razon, Razon asked the Court for clarification regarding the construction on
the duration or effectivity of his grant of delegation .

ISSUE
Whether or not the request of P/Dir. Gen. Verzosa for leave to delegate to the Director of the
DIDM, PNP, the authority to endorse applications for search warrants to be filed before the RTCs of
Manila and Quezon City should be granted.

HELD
The Court acknowledges that, to be efficient in the campaign to fight crime, the PNP Chief must
not be tied to his desk so that he will be effective in the performance of several functions and
responsibilities attendant to his position. That being the case, there will be instances when documents
demanding the PNP Chief's immediate attention and signature will not be acted upon right away. It is,
therefore, evident that for the PNP to function more effectively and efficiently in its campaign against
criminality, it may be best for the Court to amend the guideline in Sec. 12, Chapter V of A.M. No. 03-8-
02-SC. It must be amended to delete the word "personally" in the second paragraph of Sec. 12, Chap. V
thereof. However, as to the proposal of the OCAT to insert the phrase "or their respective duly authorized
officials as provided by law," the Court is of the view that the abridged phrase "or their respective duly
authorized officials" is more than sufficient to serve the intended purpose. The phrase "as provided by
law" is a mere surplus since, as correctly pointed out by the OCAT, it may be presumed that the
delegation of authority by the head of the agency concerned is in accordance with law. The amendments
of Sec. 12, Chap. V of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, will not only enable the Chief of the PNP, but the heads of
the NBI and ACTAF of the AFP, as well, to delegate to their duly authorized representatives the duty to
endorse applications for search warrant to be filed before the RTCs of Manila and Quezon City.
 04. PETRON LPG DEALERS ASSOCIATION VS. NENA ANG
G.R. NO. 199371, 03 FEBRUARY 2016

FACTS
Petitioners Petron LPG Dealers Association and Total Gaz LPG Dealers Association, together with
other liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) dealer’s associations, filed a letter-complaint before the National
Bureau of Investigation requesting assistance in the surveillance, investigation, apprehension, and
prosecution of respondents Nena C. Ang, et al. for alleged illegal trading of LPG products and/or
underfilling, possession and/or sale of underfilled LPG products in violation of Sections 2(a) and (c), in
relation to Sections 3 and 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 33, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1865.
Acting on such, the NBI-IRO, through its agent De Jemil, conducted surveillance and test-buy operations.
Thus, on 24 November 2005, said agent and an undercover NBI asset, Antonio, proceeded to execute the
said operation.

On 07 December 2005, the NBI, through said agent, filed two Applications for Search Warrant to
conduct a search of the Magsingal LPG refiling plant, which were filed before the Regional Trial Court of
Bauang, La Union. Judge Fe of said RTC propounded the required search questions to which De Jemil
and Antonio provided the answers. The further submitted various documents and articles pertinent to such
allegation that the refiling was not authorized. The trial court then issued a search warrant which was
served on 08 December 2005, wherein the items so specified therein were seized and duly inventoried.

On 07 February 2006, respondents filed a Motion to Quash said search warrant, arguing that it did not
comply with the requirement for issued of a valid warrant. On 04 August 2006, the issuing court released
an Order quashing the subject warrants.

ISSUE
Whether or not there is a valid search warrant.

HELD
The Court grants the Petition. Petitioners claim that respondents are engaged in the illegal trading and
refilling of Shellane, Gasul, Total Gaz, Starflame, and Superkalan Gaz LPG cylinders, as they were not
their authorized dealers or refillers of their corresponding LPG companies, and accused respondents of
underfilling LPG cylinders. They further presented written certifications that Nation Gas was not an
authorized LPG refiller of the concerned LPG companies, and presented photographs as well as the
results of an examination of the refilled Starfalme LPG cylinder obtained in the test-buy. The
aforementioned are sufficient to prove probable cause; the issuing court and the CA thus patently erred in
quashing the search warrant.

In Ty v. NBI Supervising Agent De Jemil, the Court declared that what B.P. 33, as amended, prohibits
is the refilling and underfilling of a branded LPG cylinder by a refiller who has no written authority from
the brand owner. Such illegal refilling/underfilling may be proved by: 1.) Conduct of surveillance
operations; 2.) Conduct of a test-buy; 3.) Written certifications from LPG companies detailing and listing
the entities duly authorized to deal in or refill their respective LPG cylinders, and excluding a particular
LPG trader/refiller from the lists contained in said certifications; and 4.) Written report and findings on
the test and examination of the test-buy cylinder. Applying Ty in its entirety to the present case, the Court
finds that there exists probable cause for the issuance of search warrants as applied for by petitioners.

On the claim of lack of personal knowledge, the Court subscribes to petitioners’ argument that facts
discovered during surveillance conducted by De Jemil and Antonio constitute personal knowledge which
could form the basis for the issuance of a search warrant.
 05. PETRON GASUL LPG DEALERS ASSOCIATION v. ELENA LAO
G.R. NO. 205010, JULY 18, 2016

FACTS
In his separate Affidavits dated May 19, 2005, Darwin Lising, Supervising Agent of the National
Bureau of Investigation-Cordillera Administrative Region (NBI-CAR), stated that on March 1, 2005,
Atty. Genesis Adarlo, counsel of private complainants LPG Dealers Associations requested assistance
from NBI-CAR. for the investigation and if necessary, the prosecution of persons and/or establishments
in the Cordillera and Mountain Province engaged in illegal trade of petroleum products and/or sale of
underfilled liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) or possession of underfilled LPG cylinders in violation of BP
33, as amended.

Lising averred that upon his verification, among the suspected persons and/or establishments that
violated BP 33, as amended, were Benguet Gas, is located at Km. 14, Caponga, Tublay, Benguet, and
Baguio Gas, which is located at Km. 3, Naguilian Road, Irisan, Baguio City; based on their Articles of
Incorporation14 and General Information Sheet15 respectively, Benguet Gas is majority-owned and
controlled by Zenaida Co, Wilson Tan, Wilbert Tan, Norma Yao, Lino Sandil and Hermogenes Pacheco
(Benguet Gas owners); while Baguio Gas is majority-owned and controlled by Elena Lao, Imelda Lao,
Pompidou Golangco, Jeremy Wilson Golangco and Carmen Castillo (Baguio Gas owners). He added that
for several days in March 2005, he and other NBI-CAR operatives, particularly, Security Officer I
William A. Fortea, conducted surveillance on Benguet Gas and Baguio Gas, On April 1, 2005, he and
Fortea brought empty LPG cylinders with assorted brands and executed "test-buy" operations in both
Benguet Gas and Baguio Gas. On May 19, 2005, on behalf of the People of the Philippines, Lising filed
with the RTC-La Trinidad separate Applications for Search Warrant (SW) against Benguet Gas and its
owners; and Baguio Gas and its owners (respondents) for illegal trade of LPG products, and underfilling
of LPG products and/or possession of underfilled LPG cylinders.

ISSUE
Whether or not RTC-La Trinidad issuance of SW against Baguio Gas is invalid

HELD
No, the issuance of search warrant by RTC-La Trinidad against Baguio Gas is valid. In this
regard, Section 2(b) of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court provides for the proper court where an SW
application shall be filed, to wit: (b) For compelling reasons stated in the application, any court within the
judicial region where the crime was committed if the place of the commission of the crime is known, or
any court within the judicial region where the warrant shall be enforced. The foregoing provision is clear.
Generally, the SW application must be filed with the court which has territorial jurisdiction over the place
where the offense was alleged to be committed. This, however, is not an iron-clad rule. For compelling
reasons, which must be expressly stated in the application, an SW application may be filed in a court
other than the one having jurisdiction over the place where the purported offense was committed and
where the SW shall be enforced.

In this case, Using cited the foregoing compelling reasons on why the two separate SW
applications against respondents were filed with the RTC-La Trinidad instead in RTC-Baguio City, to
wit: The 'compelling reasons of urgency, subject, time and place' in the instant applieation[s] are: (a)
Time is absolutely of the essence in the case; (b) Tine brisk sales of the subject LPG cylinders might
result in the depletion of available stocks, leaving nothing to be seized in case a search warrant be issued
but on a later date; (c) The immediate hearing on and issuance of the search warrant applied for are
precautions against possible leakage of information to respondents. The Court reiterates that RTC-La
Trinidad took cognizance of and initially granted the SWs against respondents based on its determination
of probable cause as well as its finding of compelling reasons in the applications.
 06. EDMUND BULAUITAN VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. NO. 218891, SEPTEMBER 19, 2016
FACTS
On October 3, 2003, the PNP of Solana, Gagayan constituted a team headed by P/Insp. Kevin
Bulayungan as leader, with SPO2 Lito Baccay (SPO2 Baccay) and PO3 Elizalde Tagal (PO3 Tagal) as
search officer and investigator, respectively, to implement a search warrant issued by Executive Judge
Vilma T. Pauig to search Bulauitan's residence. Before going to the target residence, the search team first
went to the house of Barangay Chairman Jane Busilan, who in turn, assigned Kagawad Jerry Soliva and
Kgd. Herald de Polonia as search witnesses. Upon arriving at Balauitan's residence, they were met by his
2 children and house keeper which stated that he was no at home. The police then explained the very
purpose of the search warrant, Baccay then proceeded to Bulauitan's room and there, discovered three (3)
heat-sealed plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance. The search team showed the sachets to
the children and housekeeper and photographed the same. SPO2 Baccay then gave the sachets to P/Insp.
Bulayungan, who in turn, handed them over to PO3 Tagal who wrapped the confiscated items with a
piece of paper for transport to the Solana PNP Station.

When Balauitan arrived at his residence, the police effected his arrest and took him to the police
station, tongether with the seized items.The accused appellant contended that he was the owner of the
seized items, and at the morning of the day of the search he was at Tuguegarao with his wife to tend to
their meatshop. Then he received a call from one of her daughters that a search was being done in their
house. That prompted him to return to his residence. Bulauitan averred that Joseph Juan, the person who
executed the affidavit in support of the application for search warrant wanted to get even with him as his
wife testified against Juan in a theft case.

ISSUE
Whether or not Bulauitan's conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, defined and
penalized under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, should be upheld.

HELD
No, the appeal in this case is meritorious. As a stated under section 2,Article III of the 1987
Constitution mandates that a search and seizure must be carried out through or on the strength of a
judicial warrant predicated upon the existence of probable cause, absent which such search and seizure
becomes "unreasonable" within the meaning of the said constitutional provision. The evidence obtained
from such unreasonable search and seizure is admissible in evidence for any purpose or proceeding.
Furthermore, under Section 8, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court, No search of a house, room, or
any other premise shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of
his family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the
same locality. It must be stressed that it is only upon their absence that their presence may be replaced by
two (2) persons of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.

In the present case, the policemen who conducted the search of Balauitan's residence did not
comply with Section 8 of Rule 126. They conducted the search without the presence of the Balauiatan,
although lawful occupants were present and did not violate his right per se, the policemen in this case
prevented his daughter from witnessing the seearch conducted at room of his father. Maria was kept in the
living room with P03 Tagal to search and were asked numerous questions, which kept here occupied
while the door of the room was half closed. Such a procedure, whereby the witnesses prescribed by law
are prevented from actually observing and monitoring the search of the premises, violates both the spirit
and letter of the law. Testimonies prove that Balauitan was not at his residence when the search was
conducted and his daughter was prevented from witnessing the search of his father's room and Kagawads
Polonia and Soliva were outside the residence, and was also able to witness the search.
 07. ELMER G. SINDAC VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. NO. 220732, SEPTEMBER 6, 2016
FACTS
The prosecution alleged that the Philippine National Police (PNP) conducted surveillance
operations on Sindac’s alleged trade. That around 7 in the morning of April 17, 2007, the PNP conducted
a briefing and went to Barangay Ungos. PO3 Penamora and PO1 Asis saw Sindac meet with a certain
Canon who handed a plastic sachet to him. The police suspected that the plastic contains shabu, they then
rushed to them and introduced themselves as police officers. The police were able to apprehend Sindac
but Canon escaped. Sindac was ordered by the police to empty his pocket and it contained a small plastic
sachet containing white crystalline substance. The police then arrested Sindac and seized the said item
and it was later on confirmed that it contained shabu.

Sindac in his defense alleged that he do not possessed illegal drugs. He claimed that PO3
Penamora ordered him to get off from the tricycle and invited him to the police station. He was made to
undress and was frisked by PO3 Penamora. He alleged that the latter left with Sindac’s wallet and mobile
phone and when he returned a sachet of shabu was found. He alleged that he was made to sign a blank
piece of paper which happened to be a receipt for the evidence seized. He pleaded not guilty on his
arraignment.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Sindac guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the illegal
possession of drugs, and held that the policemen committed a valid in flagrante delicto warrantless arrest
pursuant to Section 5 Rules 113 of the Rules of Court. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision
of Sindac. A motion for reconsideration was filed but was denied. Hence, this case.

ISSUE
Whether or not there is a lawful warrantless arrest

HELD
No, there was no lawful warrantless arrest. Section 5 Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure states that A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant arrest a 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 offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe
based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed 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 is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped
while being transferred from one confinement to another.

It is important that the personal knowledge of the facts of the commission of the offense is
essential however in the present case the Supreme Court finds it highly doubtful that the arresting officer
were able to ascertain the criminal activity conducted by Sindac. Since it was admitted by PO3 Penamora
that he was about five to ten meters away from the activity conducted by Sindac and Canon. The act of
talking and receiving something from Canon does not conclude that Sindac and Canon committed an
illegal act or is committing or is about to commit such act.

Section 5(b) Rule 113 of ROC cannot also be applied since PO3 Penamora and PO1 Asis does
not have the personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances that a criminal act was committed since it
was based solely on account of information retrieved from the previous surveillance operation in relation
to the alleged drug dealing activities of the petitioner. A reliable information does not justify the
warrantless arrest, it is important that the arresting officers must have personal knowledge that a criminal
act has been committed.
 08. RAMON MARTINEZ VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. NO. 198694 FEBRUARY 13 2013
FACTS
At around 9:15 in the evening of December 29, 2007, PO2 Roberto Soque (PO2 Soque), PO2
Alejandro Cepe (PO2 Cepe) and PO3 Edilberto Zeta (PO3 Zeta), who were all assigned to the Station
Anti-Illegal Drugs (SAID) Section of the Malate Police Station 9, conducted a routine foot patrol along
Balingkit Street, Malate, Manila. In the process, they heard a man shouting "Putanginamo!
Limangdaannabaito?” Thereby violating Section 844 of the Revised Ordinance of the City of Manila
(Manila City Ordinance) which punishes breaches of the peace.

Ramon was apprehended and asked to empty his pockets. In the course thereof, the police officers
were able to recover from him a small transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance
suspected to be shabu. Consequently, Ramon was charged with possession of dangerous drugs. Ramon
denied the charge he was immediately handcuffed by the man who eventually introduced himself as a
police officer. Together, they boarded a tricycle (sidecar) where the said officer asked him if he was
carrying illegal drugs. Despite his denial, he was still brought to a precinct to be detained.

RTC convicted Ramon of the crime of possession of dangerous drugs as charged, finding all its
elements tohave been established through the testimonies of the prosecution’s disinterested witnesses.
The CA sustained the validity of the body search made on Ramon as an incident of alawful warrantless
arrest for breach of the peace which he committed in the presence of the police officers It did not give
credence to Ramon’s claim of extortion as his asseverationsfailed to overcome the presumption of
regularity in the performance

ISSUE
Whether or not there is a valid warrantless arrest

HELD
It cannot be said that the act of shouting in a thickly-populated place, with many people
conversing with each other on the street, would constitute any of the acts punishable under Section 844 of
the Manila City Ordinance. There is no presence of probable cause when the police officers conducted
their warrantless arrest of Ramon. Ramon was not making or assisting in any riot, affray, disorder,
disturbance, or breach of the peace; he was not assaulting, beating or using personal violence upon
another; and, the words he allegedly shouted – "Putanginamo! Limangdaannabaito?" –are not slanderous,
threatening or abusive, and thus, could not have tended to disturb the peace. Thus, the subject shabu
purportedly seized from Ramon is inadmissible in evidence for being the proverbial fruit of the poisonous
tree
 09. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS ROMY LIM
G.R. NO. 231989 - SEPTEMBER 4, 2018

FACTS
In an information dated October 21, 2010, Lim was charged with illegal possession of shabu. On
the evening of October 19, 2010, based on a report of a confidential informant that a certain Romy has
been engaged in a sale of prohibited drugs in Zone 7, Cabina, Bonbon, Cagayan de Oro City, Lt. Layese
directed IO1 Orellan and his teammates to gather for a buy bust operation. The team prepared a marked
Php500.00 bill as a buy busy money. Using the service vehicle, the team arrived near Romy’s house
around 10pm. The CI and IO1 Carin went to the house and upon entering the house, introduced Carin as a
shabu buyer. Lim nodded and told Gorres, his stepson, one inside the bedroom. When Gorres came back,
he handed a small medicine box to Lim. The latter took a small heat sealed transparent plastic of shabu
and handed it over to Carin, and in exchange, he was paid with the buy bust money. Upon the exchange,
IO1 Carin gave the signal to IO1 Orellan and they immediately rushed to Lim’a house. IO1 Orellan
conducted a body search and found a plastic box with another plastic sachet of white substance and a
lighter. They then marked the two plastic sachets. However, despite exerting efforts in securing the
attendance of the media and/or barangay officials, nobody arrived to witness the inventory taking.

ISSUE
Whether or not there is unreasonable searches and seizures since there is absence of any elected public
officials and representatives of the DOJ and the media to witness the inventory of the seized items

HELD
Yes, there is an unreasonable searches and seizures. It must be alleged and proved that the
presence of the three witnesses to the physical inventory and photograph of the illegal drug seized was not
obtained due to reason/s such as: (1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a
remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an
immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected
official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to
secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within the period
required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting
officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency
of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers
from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape.32

Here, the team leader IO2 Orcales negates any effort on the part of the buy-bust team to secure
the presence of a barangay official during the operation, on his basis that they do not trust them wholly,
since they believe that they might leak information. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses also
failed to establish the details of an earnest effort to coordinate with and secure presence of the required
witnesses. In the concurring opinion of Justice Leonen, “the failure of law enforcement officers to comply
with the chain of custody requirements spelled out in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 (otherwise
known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), as amended, coupled with a failure to show
justifiable grounds for their non- compliance engenders reasonable doubt on the guilt of persons from
whom illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia were supposedly seized. Acquittal must then ensue. This is
especially true in arrests and seizures occasioned by buy-bust operations, which, by definition, are
preplanned, deliberately arranged or calculated operations.” Hence, Lim’s acquittal.