4-5. Manalili v. CA

5. MANALILI v.
COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 113447
9 October 1997
Re: Stop and frisk (Terry Search)
FACTS. At about 2:10 P.M. of 11 April 1988, policemen from the Anti-Narcotics Unit of the
Kalookan City Police Station were conducting a surveillance along A. Mabini St., Kalookan City, in
front of the Kalookan City Cemetery. The policemen were Pat. Romeo Espiritu and Pat. Anger
Lumabas and a driver named Arnold Enriquez. The surveillance was being made because of
information that drug addicts were roaming the area in front of the Kalookan City Cemetery.
Upon reaching the Kalookan City Cemetery, the policemen alighted from their vehicle. They
then chanced upon a male person in front of the cemetery who appeared high on drugs. The male
person was observed to have reddish eyes and to be walking in a swaying manner. When this male
person tried to avoid the policemen, the latter approached him and introduced themselves as police
officers. The policemen then asked the male person what he was holding in his hands. The male
person tried to resist. Pat Espiritu asked the male person if he could see what said male person had
in his hands. The latter showed the wallet and allowed Pat. Espiritu to examine the same. Pat.
Espiritu took the wallet and examined it. He found suspected crushed marijuana residue inside. He
kept the wallet and its marijuana contents.
The male person was then brought to the Anti-Narcotics Unit of the Kalookan City Police
Headquarters and was turned over to Cpl. Wilfredo Tamondong for investigation. Pat. Espiritu also
turned over to Cpl. Tamondong the confiscated wallet and its suspected marijuana contents. The
man turned out to be the accused ALAIN MANALILI y DIZON. A forensic chemist verified that the
thing seized was marijuana.
ID., VERSION OF DEFENSE. The accused says that he was aboard a tricycle going to his
boarding house when the tricycle was stopped by the three policemen because the driver and his
other passenger were under the influence of marijuana. They were brought to the police car when
they were searched. When asked why he was being searched, the policemen allegedly said that he
was carrying marijuana. But none was found. He further alleged that he was the only one brought to
the police station.
When they arrived at the police station, the accused as asked to remove his pants. No
marijuana was found. He was led to a cell. Later, the policemen allegedly said that marijuana was
found in his pants.
ID., RULING OF THE LOWER COURTS. The trial court convicted petitioner of illegal
possession of marijuana residue largely on the strength of the arresting officers' testimony. On
appeal, the Court of Appeals found no proof that the decision of the trial court was based on
speculations, surmises or conjectures, thus affirming the trial court.
ISSUE. Was the frisking of the accused a valid search?
RULING. YES. In Terry v. Ohio (392 US 1 [1968]), where a police officer observes an unusual
conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may
be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous,
where in the course of investigating this behavior he identified himself as a policeman and makes
reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his
reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others
in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt
to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. Such a search is a reasonable search, and
any weapon seized may properly be introduced in evidence against the person from whom they
were taken.
In Philippine jurisprudence, the general rule is that a search and seizure must be validated
by a previously secured judicial warrant; otherwise, such search and seizure is unconstitutional and
subject to challenge. This right, however, is not absolute. Stop-and-frisk has already been adopted
as another exception to the general rule against a search without a warrant. According to the Court
in a previous case, it is reasonable for a police officer to stop a suspicious individual briefly in order
to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo while obtaining more information, rather
than to simply shrug his shoulders and allow a crime to occur.
In the case at hand, Pat. Espiritu and his companions observed during their surveillance that
appellant had red eyes and was wobbling like a drunk along the Caloocan City Cemetery, which
according to police information was a popular hangout of drug addicts. From his experience as a
member of the Anti-Narcotics Unit of the Caloocan City Police, such suspicious behavior was
characteristic of drug addicts who were "high." The policemen therefore had sufficient reason to
stop petitioner to investigate if he was actually high on drugs. During such investigation, they found
marijuana in petitioner's possession.
Thus, the frisking of the accused is valid. As a result, the marijuana seized from him is
admissible.

4-5. Manalili v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4-5. Manalili v. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

4-5. Manalili v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5. MANALILI v.

Re: Stop and frisk (Terry Search)

You might also like