Caballes v. CA (Jan.
15, 2002) One such form of search of moving vehicles is the "stop-and-search" without warrant at military or police checkpoints which
Sgt. Victorino Noceja and Pat. Alex de Castro, while on a routine
patrol in a Barangay in Laguna, spotted a passenger jeep
unusually covered with "kakawati" leaves. Suspecting that the
jeep was loaded with smuggled goods, the two police officers
flagged down the vehicle.
With appellant's alleged consent, the police officers checked
the cargo and they discovered bundles of galvanized conductor
wires exclusively owned by National Power Corporation (NPC).
Thereafter, appellant and the vehicle with the high-voltage
wires were brought to the Pagsanjan Police Station. Danilo
Cabale took pictures of the appellant and the jeep loaded with
the wires which were turned over to the Police Station
Commander of Pagsanjan, Laguna.
WON the search and seizure was valid? NO. ACQUITTED
Manalili v. CA (Oct. 9, 1997)
Pat. Romeo Espiritu and Pat. Anger Lumabas were patrolling
the vicinity of the Kalookan City Cemetery due to reports of
drug addicts roaming the area. They chanced upon a male who
seemed to be “high” on drugs in front of the cemetery. He was
observed to have reddish eyes and to be walking in a swaying
manner. When Manalili tried to avoid the policemen, the latter
has been declared to be not illegal per se, 21 for as long as it is warranted by the exigencies of public order and conducted in
a way least intrusive to motorists. A checkpoint may either be a mere routine inspection or it may involve an extensive
search.
Routine inspections are not regarded as violative of an individual’s right against unreasonable search. The search which is
normally permissible in this instance is limited to the following instances: (1) where the officer merely draws aside the curtain
of a vacant vehicle which is parked on the public fair grounds; (2) simply looks into a vehicle; (3) flashes a light therein
without opening the car’s doors; (4) where the occupants are not subjected to a physical or body search; (5) where the
inspection of the vehicles is limited to a visual search or visual inspection; and (6) where the routine check is conducted in a
fixed area.
None of the foregoing circumstances is obtaining in the case at bar. The police officers did not merely conduct a visual search
or visual inspection of herein petitioner’s vehicle. They had to reach inside the vehicle, lift the kakawati leaves and look inside
the sacks before they were able to see the cable wires. It cannot be considered a simple routine check
It cannot likewise be said that the cable wires found in petitioner’s vehicle were in plain view, making its warrantless seizure
valid.
Jurisprudence is to the effect that an object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly exposed to sight. Where the object
seized was inside a closed package, the object itself is not in plain view and therefore cannot be seized without a warrant.
However, if the package is such that an experienced observer could infer from its appearance that it contains the prohibited
article, then the article is deemed in plain view.
In case of consented searches or waiver of the constitutional guarantee against obtrusive searches, it is fundamental that to
constitute a waiver, it must first appear that (1) the right exists; (2) that person involved had knowledge, either actual or
constructive, of the existence of such right, and (3) said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right. In the case at
bar, the evidence is lacking that the petitioner intentionally surrendered his right against unreasonable searches.
WON the evidence seized during the stop and frisk is admissible? YES.
GR: Search and seizure must be validated by a previously secured judicial warrant. However, this is not absolute and
exceptions have been contemplated by the law:
1. Search incidental to a lawful rrest
2. Search of moving vehicles
3. Seizure in plain view
4. Customs search
approached him and asked what he was holding in his hands.
Manalili tried to resist, but the policemen were persistent until
he yielded his wallet which they examined and found to contain
crushed marijuana residue.
(In his defense, Manalili claimed that he was not
walking; that he was riding a tricycle until the three policemen
ordered the driver of the tricycle to stop because the driver and
passenger were allegedly under the influence of marijuana. He
claimed that he was searched and his pants were turned inside-
out but nothing was found. To some extent he implied that the
marijuana sample found in his entity was framed up by the
policemen.)
Malacat v. CA (Dec. 12, 1997)
Petitioner was arrested for having in his possession a hand
grenade after he was searched by a group of policemen when
he was said to be acting suspiciously when he was hanging
around Plaza Miranda with his eyes moving fast together with
other Muslim-looking men. When the policemen approached
the group of men, they scattered in all directions which
prompted the police to give chase and petitioner was then
apprehended and a search was made on his person.
He was then convicted under PD 1866 in the lower court.
Hence, the present petition wherein petitioner contended that
the lower court erred in holding that the search made on him
and the seizure of the hand grenade from him was an
appropriate incident to his arrest and that it erred in admitting
the hand grenade as evidence since it was admissible because it
was a product of an unreasonable and illegal search.
WON the evidence were admissible? NO.
People v. Musa (Jan. 27, 1993)
The said buy-bust operation was planned since a civilian
informer told that Mari Musa was engaged in selling marijuana
and therefore, a test-buy was conducted the day prior to the
Waiver by the accused themselves of their right against unreasonable search and seizure.
In the cited cases, the search and seizure may be made only with probable cause as essential requirement.
Probable cause (in relation to search and seizure): Existence of such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the item, article, or object sought in
connection with said offense or subject to seizure and destruction by law is in the place to be searched.
A “stop-and-frisk” operation is another exception to the general rule. In this case, probable cause was established with
Manalili’s suspicious behaviour.
In a search incidental to a lawful arrest, as the precedent arrest determines the validity of the incidental search, the legality
of the arrest is questioned. In this instance, the law requires that there first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made —
the process cannot be reversed.  At bottom, assuming a valid arrest, the arresting officer may search the person of the
arrestee and the area within which the latter may reach for a weapon or for evidence to destroy, and seize any money or
property found which was used in the commission of the crime, or the fruit of the crime, or that which may be used as
evidence, or which might furnish the arrestee with the means of escaping or committing violence
Other notable points of Terry are that 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.
Rule 126, Section 12 of the Rules of Court expressly authorizes a warrantless search and seizure incident to a lawful arrest,
but the "plain view" doctrine, which states that objects in the plain view of an officer who has the right to be in the position to
have that view are subject to seizure without warrant or search and seizure and may be presented in evidence, does not
apply under the circumstances of the case.
said buy-bust operation. During the buy-bust operation, after
Sgt. Ani handed the money to Musa, Musa entered his house to Sec. 12. Search incident to lawful arrest. — A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything
get the wrappings. Upon his return and with the inspection of which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant.
the wrappings, Musa was arrested, but the marked money used
as payment cannot be found with him, prompting the NARCOM The "plain view" doctrine may not, however, be used to launch unbridled searches and indiscriminate seizures nor to extend
agents to go inside his house. There, they could not find the a general exploratory search made solely to find evidence of defendant's guilt. The "plain view" doctrine is usually applied
marked money, but they found more marijuana leaves hidden where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an
in a plastic bag inside the kitchen.The leaves were confirmed as incriminating object. It may not be used to extend a general exploratory search from one object to another until something
marijuana . incriminating at last emerges.
The defense gave a different version of what happened on 14
December 1989 wherein he and his wife, Ahara Musa, served as The NARCOM agents in this case could not have discovered the inculpatory nature of the contents of the bag had they not
witnesses. forcibly opened it. The marijuana contained in the plastic bag was seized illegally and cannot be presented in evidence
pursuant to Article III, Section 3(2) of the Constitution.
They said that the NARCOM agents, dressed in civilian clothes,
got inside their house since the door was open, and upon
entering, declared that they were NARCOM agents and
searched the house, despite demands of the couple for a search
warrant. The agents found a red bag whose contents were
unknown to the Musas.

WON the marijuana in the plastic bag is admissible as

evidence? NO. But there are other evidence that will prove his
guilt. Musa -Convicted.

People v. Salanguit (April 19, 2001)

Two criminal cases were filed against Salanguit, the first for
possession/use of shabu, and the second, for possession/use of
marijuana.  Sr. Insp. Aguilar applied in the RTC of Cavite a
warrant to search the premises of Robert Salanguit for shabu
and shabu paraphernalias. He presented as a witness Edmund
Badua, an undercover officer, which transacted with Salanguit
for the purchase of shabu.
The application was granted and the team of Aguilar proceeded
to the premises of Salanguit in QC to serve the warrant. The
operatives proceeded to knock on Salanguit’s door but the
same was left unanswered. The operatives heard people
panicking inside the house and they began to force their way
inside the house. They indicated their authority to conduct the
WON the marijuana is admissible as evidence? No.
Because the location of the shabu was indicated in the warrant and thus known to the police operatives, it is reasonable to
assume that the police found the packets and shabu first.
Once the valid portion of the search warrant has been executed, the plain view doctrine can no longer provide basis for
admitting the other items subsequently found. The marijuana bricks were wrapped in newsprint. There was no apparent
illegality to justify their seizure. Not being in a transparent container, the contents wrapped in newsprint could not have been
readily discernible as marijuana. That being said, we hold that the marijuana is inadmissible in evidence against Salanguit.
Under the "plain view doctrine," unlawful objects within the "plain view" of an officer who has the right to be in the position
to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented in evidence. For this doctrine to apply, there must be: (a) prior
justification; (b ) inadvertent discovery of the evidence; and (c) immediate apparent illegality of the evidence before the
police.
search and began which yielded to the finding of clear plastic
bags with shabu and 2 bricks of dried marijuana leaves covered
in newspaper.
Salanguit refused to sign the receipt for the confiscated drugs.
During his arraignment, he gave stated that he never got the
chance to review the purported warrant that Aguilar and his
team has.
People v. Amminudin
The PC (Philippine Constabulary) officer received a tip from one
of their informers that the accused was on board a vessel
bound for Iloilo City and was carrying marijuana. He was
identified by name. Acting on this tip, they waited for him in the
evening and approached him as he descended from the
gangplank after the informer pointed at him. They detained him
and inspected the bag he was carrying. It was found to
contained three kilos of what were later analyzed as marijuana
leaves by the NBI forensic examiner. On the basis of the finding,
the corresponding charge was then filed against Aminnudin.
WON accused constitutional right against unreasonable serach
and seizure is violated? YES. SC: Acquitted
People v. Mariacos
She was arrested after she was carrying a bag alleged to have
prohibited drugs inside. The bag, before it came to her
possession was found inside a passenger jeepney with no
owner so the policeman looked inside it only to find packs of
marijuana. The policeman was acting on a report made about
the bag by an agent of the Barangay Intelligence Network.
WON the warrantless search conducted was valid? YES.
The mandate of the Constitution is clear that a valid search or arrest warrant shall be served first before the authorities can
check his personal properties or deprived him of his liberty.
In the many cases where this Court has sustained the warrantless arrest of violators of the Dangerous Drugs Act, it has always
been shown that they were caught red-handed, as a result of what are popularly called "buy-bust" operations of the narcotics
agents. Rule 113 was clearly applicable because at the precise time of arrest the accused was in the act of selling the
prohibited drug.
In the case at bar, the accused-appellant was not, at the moment of his arrest, committing a crime nor was it shown that he
was about to do so or that he had just done so. What he was doing was descending the gangplank of the M/V Wilcon 9 and
there was no outward indication that called for his arrest. To all appearances, he was like any of the other passengers
innocently disembarking from the vessel. It was only when the informer pointed to him as the carrier of the marijuana that he
suddenly became suspect and so subject to apprehension. It was the furtive finger that triggered his arrest. The Identification
by the informer was the probable cause as determined by the officers (and not a judge) that authorized them to pounce upon
Aminnudin and immediately arrest him.
Warrantless search of a moving vehicle has been justified on the ground that the mobility of motor vehicles makes it possible for the
vehicle to be searched to move out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. This is no way, however, gives the
police officers unlimited discretion to conduct warrantless searches of automobiles in the absence of probable cause when a vehicle is
stopped and subjected to an extension search, such a warrantless search has been held to be valid only as long as officers conducting the
search have reasonable or probable cause to believe before the search that they will find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a
crime, in the vehicle to be searched.
The essential requisite of probable cause must be satisfied before a warrantless search and seizure can be lawfully conducted
Law and jurisprudence have laid down the instances when a warrantless search is valid. These are:
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12 [now Section 13], Rule 126 of the Rules
of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence;
2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view," the elements of which are:
(a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of

People v. Aruta ( April 03, 1998)
On Dec. 13, 1988, P/Lt. Abello was tipped off by his informant
that a certain “Aling Rosa” will be arriving from Baguio City with
a large volume of marijuana and assembled a team. The next
day, at the Victory Liner Bus terminal they waited for the bus
coming from Baguio, when the informer pointed out who “Aling
Rosa” was, the team approached her and introduced
themselves as NARCOM agents. When Abello asked “aling
Rosa” about the contents of her bag, the latter handed it out to
the police. They found dried marijuana leaves packed in a
plastic bag marked “cash katutak”.
WON search and seizure was valid/lawful? NO.
People v. Malmstedt
Mikael Malmstedt, a Swedish national, was found, via a routine
NARCOM inspection at Kilometer 14, Acop, Tublay Mountain
Province, carrying Hashish, a derivative of Marijuana. RTC La
Trinidad found him guilty for violation of the Dangerous Drugs
Act. The accused filed a petition to the Supreme Court for the
reversal of the decision arguing that the search and the arrest
made was illegal because there was no search warrant.
WON the search and arrest made without a warrant was valid?
their official duties;
(b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are;
(c) the evidence must be immediately apparent[;] and;
(d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further search.
3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the government, the vehicle's inherent mobility reduces expectation of
privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable
cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity;
4. Consented warrantless search;
5. Customs search;
6. Stop and Frisk; and
7. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances.
Consequently, there was no legal basis for the NARCOM agents to effect a warrantless search of accused-appellant's bag,
there being no probable cause and the accused-appellant not having been lawfully arrested. Stated otherwise, the arrest
being incipiently illegal, it logically follows that the subsequent search was similarly illegal, it being not incidental to a lawful
arrest. The constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure must perforce operate in favor of accused-
appellant. As such, the articles seized could not be used as evidence against accused-appellant for these are "fruits of a
poisoned tree" and, therefore, must be rejected, pursuant to Article III, Sec. 3(2) of the Constitution
In People v. Malmstedt, there was no reasonable time to obtain a search warrant, especially since the identity of the suspect
could not be readily ascertained. His actuations also aroused the suspicion of the officers conducting the operation. The Court
held that in light of such circumstances, to deprive the agents of the ability and facility to act promptly, including a search
without a warrant, would be to sanction impotence and ineffectiveness in law enforcement, to the detriment of society.
Note, however, the glaring differences of Malmstedt to the instant case. In present case, the police officers had reasonable
time within which to secure a search warrant. Second, Aruta's identity was priorly ascertained. Third, Aruta was not acting
suspiciously. Fourth, Malmstedt was searched aboard a moving vehicle, a legally accepted exception to the warrant
requirement. Aruta, on the other hand, was searched while about to cross a street
Probable cause has been defined as such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonable, discreet and prudent man
to believe that an offense has been committed, and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place
sought to be searched.8 The required probable cause that will justify a warrantless search and seizure is not determined by
any fixed formula but is resolved according to the facts of each case
The receipt of information by NARCOM that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had prohibited drugs in his possession, plus the
suspicious failure of the accused to produce his passport, taken together as a whole, led the NARCOM officers to reasonably
believe that the accused was trying to hide something illegal from the authorities. From these circumstances arose a  probable
cause which justified the warrantless search that was made on the personal effects of the accused. 
Sec. 5 Arrest without warrant; when lawful. –– 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
YES
Papa v. Mago
Mago, the owner of the goods that were seized, when the truck
transporting the goods was intercepted by the BOC, questioned
the validity of the search conducted by them since it was made
without any search warrant and whether the BOC has
jurisdiction over the forfeited good
WON the search conducted by the BOC valid? Yes
People v. Lo Ho Wing
Lo with Tia (government’s agent) went to China where they
secured the shabu to be brought to the Philippines. Upon their
arrival in the Philippines, Lim met them. The authorities relying
on the intelligence reports gathered from surveillance activities
on the suspected syndicate apprehended them in a taxicab and
offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be
arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving
final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person 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 112, Section 7. (6a 17a).
Accused was searched and arrested while transporting prohibited drugs (hashish). A crime was actually being committed by
the accused and he was caught in flagrante delicto. Thus, the search made upon his personal effects falls squarely under
paragraph (1) of the foregoing provisions of law, which allow a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest.
Petitioner had authority to effect the seizure without any search warrant issued by a competent court. The Tariff and
Customs Code does not require said warrant in the instant case.
The Code authorizes persons having police authority under Section 2203 of the Tariff and Customs Code to enter, pass
through or search any land, inclosure, warehouse, store or building, not being a dwelling house; and also to inspect, search
and examine any vessel or aircraft and any trunk, package, or envelope or any person on board, or to stop and search and
examine any vehicle, beast or person suspected of holding or conveying any dutiable or prohibited article introduced into the
Philippines contrary to law, without mentioning the need of a search warrant in said cases. 
But in the search of a dwelling house, the Code provides that said "dwelling house may be entered and searched only upon
warrant issued by a judge or justice of the peace. . . ." 
It is our considered view, therefor, that except in the case of the search of a dwelling house, persons exercising police
authority under the customs law may effect search and seizure without a search warrant in the enforcement of customs
laws.
The guaranty of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures is construed as recognizing a necessary difference
between a search of a dwelling house or other structure in respect of which a search warrant may readily be obtained and a
search of a ship, motorboat, wagon, or automobile for contraband goods, where it is not practicable to secure a warrant
because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.
Three (3) well-recognized exceptions
[1] a search incidental to an arrest,
[2] a search of a moving vehicle, and
[3] seizure of evidence in plain view
thereafter were searched. The authorities found shabu inside
the tin cans which are supposed to contain tea. They were
charged with a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The trial
court then convicted them based on the factual findings
WON the warrantless search and seizure was valid? YES.
People v. Marti
Andre Marti and his wife went to Manila Packing and Export
Forwarders, carrying with them four gift wrapped packages to
be delivered to a friend in Zurich, Switzerland. Before delivery
to Bureau of Customs/Posts, the proprietor Job Reyes,
following standard operating procedure, opened the boxes for
final inspection. Upon opening the package, a suspicious odor
emitted therefrom. He made an opening on one of the
cellophane wrappers and took several grams of the contents.
He brought the sample to the NBI and informed them that the
rest of the shipment was still in his office. In the presence of the
NBI agents, Job Reyes took out the cellophane wrappers and
dried marijuana leaves were found.
The circumstances of the case clearly show that the search in question was made as regards a moving vehicle. Therefore, a
valid warrant was not necessary to effect the search on appellant and his co-accused. A warrant could be obtained, the place,
things and persons to be searched must be described to the satisfaction of the issuing judge—a requirement which borders
on the impossible in the case of smuggling effected by the use of a moving vehicle that can transport contraband from one
place to another with impunity.
WON the evidence had been obtained in violation of his constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure?NO.
The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures therefore applies as a restraint directed only against
the government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. It is not meant to be invoked against acts of private
individuals.
Evidence sought to be excluded was primarily discovered and obtained by a private person, acting in a private capacity and
without the intervention and participation of State authorities. In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties
guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked against the State.

People v. Bongcarawan
Bongcarawan was a passenger in an interisland passenger ship,
M/V Super Ferry 5, sailed from Manila to Iligan City. One of his
co-passenger complained and reported a missing jewelry for
which the other passengers, including Bongcarawan was
searched. Bongcarawan’s samsonite bag was searched with his
consent from which shabu was later found by the vessels’
security perosonnel. Bongcarawan was turned over by the
vessel security personnel to to the PAOCTF Headquarters.
GR: The right against unreasonable search and seizure is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution.Evidence acquired
in violation of this right shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
Ex: The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures applies as a restraint directed only against the
government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. Thus, it could only be invoked against the State to
whom the restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power is imposed.
The vessel security officer in the case at bar is a private employee and does not discharge any governmental function.

WON the drugs seized by the security personnel and turned

over to PAOCTF were admissible in evidence against
Bongcarawan? Yes.

People. Canton Canton, having been flagrante delicto, was lawfully arrested without a warrant
Section 5, Rule 113 ROC provides that a peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: ( a) When,
Canton was charged for violation of Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972. She was caught in possession of metamphetamine
hydrochloride (shabu) without prescription or license. Susan
was bound to Saigon, Vietnam. Prior to her flight, she passed
through the metal detector and beeped. A civilian inspector of
the airport searched her and upon frisking, she felt something
that is bulging in the abdomen of Susan. They were able to
recover packets that were wrapped with packing tape.
WON the warrantless search and seizure of regulated drugs, as
well as the arrest of Susan violate her constitutional rights? NO.
in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense...
The search conducted on Canton resulted in the discovery of shabu. Armed with the knowledge that Canton was committing
a crime, the airport security personnel and police authorities were duty-bound to arrest her. Her subsequent arrest without a
warrant was justified, since it was effected upon the discovery and recovery of shabu in her person flagrante delicto.
The interdiction against warrantless searches and seizures is not absolute. The recognized exceptions established by
jurisprudence are:
(1) search of moving vehicles;
(2) seizure in plain view;
(3) customs searches;
(4) waiver or consented searches;
(5) stop and frisk situations (Terry search);
(6) search incidental to a lawful arrest.
The scope of a search pursuant to airport security procedure is not confined only to search for weapons under the Terry
search doctrine.
The Terry search or the stop and frisk situation refers to a case where a police officer approaches a person who is acting
suspiciously, for purposes of investigating possibly criminal behavior in line with the general interest of effective crime
prevention and detection. To assure himself that the person with whom he is dealing is not armed with a weapon that could
unexpectedly and fatally be used against him, he could validly conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such
person to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.
In the present case, the search was made pursuant to routine airport security procedure. RA 6235 Sec. 9 is another exception
to the proscription against warrantless searches and seizures. The provision clearly states that the search, unlike in the Terry
search, is not limited to weapons. Passengers are also subject to search for prohibited materials or substances.