PART IV: WARRANTLESS ARRESTS IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO

1. Prescinding from Article III, Section 2 of 4. In the case of People v. Aminnudin, the
the 1987 Constitution, arrests may only be valid if Supreme Court highlighted the legal
they are done pursuant to a valid warrant. infirmity of an arrest for noncompliance with the
However, as a matter of exception, the Rules of requisites of an in flagante delicto
Court provide for limited instances when a valid exception.
arrest may be made even without a warrant.
Specifically, Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of People v Aminnudin
Court provides for three (3)
instances, thus:
Idel Aminnudin was arrested on June 25, 1984,
“Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. shortly after disembarking from the M/V Wilcon
— A peace officer or a private person may, 9 at about 8:30 in the evening, in Iloilo City. The
without a warrant, arrest a person: PC officers who waere in fact waiting for him
simply accosted him, inspected his bag and
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be finding what looked like marijuana leaves took
arrested has committed, is actually committing, him to their headquarters for investigation. The
or is attempting to commit an offense; two bundles of suspect articles were
confiscated from him and later taken to the
(b) When an offense has just been committed, NBI laboratory for examination. When they
and he has probable cause to believe based on were verified as marijuana leaves, an
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances information for violation of the Dangerous
that the person to be arrested has committed it; Drugs Act was filed against him. Later, the
and information was amended to include Farida Ali
y Hassen, who had also been arrested with
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner him that same evening and likewise
who has escaped from a penal establishment or investigated. Both were arraigned and
place where he is serving final judgment or is pleaded not guilty. Subsequently, the fiscal
temporarily confined while his case is pending or filed a motion to dismiss the charge against Ali
has escaped while being transferred from one on the basis of a sworn statement of the
confinement to another. arresting officers absolving her after a
"thorough investigation." 5The motion was
In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b)
granted, and trial proceeded only against the
above, the person arrested without a warrant
accused- appellant, who was eventually
shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police
convicted.
station or jail and shall be proceeded against in
accordance with section 7
of Rule 112.” In his defense, Aminnudin disclaimed the
marijuana, averring that all he had in his bag
2. While the Rules of Court only provide for was his clothing consisting of a jacket, two
three (3) instances, there is a fourth instance – shirts and two pairs of pants. He alleged that
when the right to contest the illegality of the he was arbitrarily arrested and immediately
arrest was waived. Each of which shall be handcuffed.|||
tackled in turn.
SC acquitted the accused
3. Before proceeding, take particular - Though the SC was not convinced by
notice as well that both a peace officer and a the defense, it didn’t stop them in
private person may carry out a warrantless arrest acquitting the accused. The prosecution
in any of the three (3) instances provided for obtained the evidence illegally
under Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court. because, fruit of a poisonous tree,
When a private person carries out the warrantless search warrant was not produced by the
arrest, such is called a “citizen’s arrest.” police. (they’re contending warrantless
arrest)
- The police, as per evidence, arrested the
accused because of the tip an
informant. However, they should have
secured a warrant because they
 gathered the information days before crime nor it was shown that he was about
the arrival of the accused, they could to do so or he has just done so. ( he was not
have persuaded a judge that there was caught in flagrante delicto )
probable cause, indeed, to justify the
issuance of a warrant. Yet they did vi. Must the seized marijuana be admitted in
nothing. No effort was made to comply evidence? Support your answer.
with the law.
- The accused, during the time of his arrest - No, That evidence cannot be admitted,
, was not committing a crime nor it was and should never have been considered
shown that he was about to do so or he by the trial court for the simple fact is that
has just done so. ( he was not caught in the marijuana was seized illegally.
flagrante delicto )

5. In the case of People v. Molina, the Supreme

i. What was the criminal charge against
Court explained whether a warrantless arrest
Aminnudin?
may be justified based on “reliable information”
sans any overt act indicating the commission of a
- Violation of the Dangerous drugs Act
crime.
ii. What were the circumstances surrounding the
arrest of Aminnudin? People v Molina and Mula

SPO1 Paguidopon was then with his informer

- Shortly after disembarking from the ship at when a motorcycle passed by. His informer
about 8:30 in the evening,. The PC officers pointed to the motorcycle driver, accused-
who were in fact waiting for him simply appellant Mula, as the pusher.
accosted him, inspected his bag and
finding what looked like marijuana leaves As to accused-appellant Molina, SPO1
took him to their headquarters for Paguidopon had no occasion to see him before
investigation. It was then verified as the arrest. Moreover, the names and addresses
marijuana. of the accused-appellants came to the
knowledge of SPO1 Paguidopon only after they
were arrested.
iii. Based on testimony, what impelled the
arresting officers to plan the arrest of In the morning of August 8, 1995, the PNP,
Aminnudin? How long were they sitting on such Precinct No. 3, Matina, Davao City, dispatched
information? tha team of Police Officers to proceed to the
house of SPO1 Marino Paguidopon, after the
- They had received a tip from a trusted latter received an information from his informer
informant. that an alleged marijuana pusher will be passing
- They had at least 2 days (the police were at that place anytime that morning. At around
inconsistent, some said 2 days, 3 days and 9:30, a "trisikad" carrying Nasario Molina and
even some said 1 week.) Gregorio Mula passed by. SPO1 Paguidopon then
pointed at Nasario and Gregorio as the pushers.
iv. Was there a sense of urgency in the case to The team then immediately boarded the vehicle,
forego with securing a warrant? overtook the "trisikad" and then requested it to
stop. Mula then handed the black bag, which he
- No there was no sense of urgency (they was holding to Molina. After introducing himself
had at least 2 days) as police officer, Pamplona requested Molina to
open the bag. Molina replied " Boss, if possible
v. Was there any overt act by Aminnudin which we will settle this." Pamplona however insisted on
may have been used to carry opening the bag, which revealed the marijuana
out a warrantless arrest? leaves inside.

- No there was not. The accused, during the

time of his arrest , was not committing a
SC acquitted the accused-appelants was doubtful since it was never proven that
such police officer established probable
- Accused-appellants manifested no cause since he only saw the accused
outward indication that would justify their once, when it was pointed out by his
arrest. In holding a bag on board a trisikad, informant.
accused-appellants could not be said to - On the day of the arrest, such police officer
be committing, attempting to commit or received an information from his informer
have committed a crime. It matters not that an alleged marijuana pusher will be
that accused-appellant Molina responded passing at that place anytime that
"Boss, if possible we will settle this" to the morning.
request of SPO1 Pamplona to open the - the accused-appellants were just holding a
bag. Such response which allegedly bag on board a trisikad and it could not be
reinforced the "suspicion" of the arresting said that they are about to commit a crime
officers that accused-appellants were etc.
committing a crime, is an equivocal
statement which standing alone will not iii. In the case, the Supreme Court cited the cases
constitute PROBABLE CAUSE to effect an in of People v. Chua Ho San, People v. Doria, and
flagrante delicto arrest. Note that were it People v. Aminnudin to explain the requirement
not for SPO1 Marino Paguidopon (who did of “probable cause” to carry out a warrantless
not participate in the arrest but merely arrest. What must be the basis of probable cause
pointed accused- appellants to the and how did the Supreme Court discuss the
arresting officers), accused-appellants same in the case?
could not be the subject of any suspicion,
reasonable or otherwise. - The arresting officer, therefore, must have
- While SPO1 Paguidopon claimed that he personal knowledge of such fact or, as
and his informer conducted a surveillance recent case law adverts to, personal
of accused-appellant Mula, SPO1 knowledge of facts or circumstances
Paguidopon, however, admitted that he convincingly indicative or constitutive of
only learned Mula's name and address probable cause (People v Chua Ho San)
after the arrest. What is more, it is doubtful if - The grounds of suspicion are reasonable
SPO1 Paguidopon indeed recognized when, in the absence of actual belief of
accused-appellant Mula. It is worthy to the arresting officers, the suspicion that the
note that, before the arrest, he was able to person to be arrested is probably guilty of
see Mula in person only once, pinpointed committing the offense, is based on actual
to him by his informer while they were on facts, i.e., supported by circumstances
the side of the road. sufficiently strong in themselves to create
the probable cause of guilt of the person to
be arrested. A reasonable suspicion
therefore must be founded on probable
cause, coupled with good faith on the part
of the peace officers making the arrest.
(People v Doria)
- As applied to in flagrante delicto arrests, it is
settled that "reliable information" alone,
i. What was the criminal charge against Molina? absent any overt act indicative of a
felonious enterprise in the presence and
- Violation of Section 8, of the Dangerous Drugs within the view of the arresting officers, are
Act of 1972 (Republic Act No. 6425), as not sufficient to constitute probable cause
amended by Republic Act No. 7659 that would justify an in flagrante delicto
arrest.
- To all appearances, he was like any of the
ii. What were the circumstances surrounding the
other passengers innocently disembarking
arrest of Molina?
from the vessel. It was only when the
informer pointed to him as the carrier of the
- It all started when a police officer marijuana that he suddenly became
(Paguidopon) received a tip from his suspect and so subject to apprehension
informant that the accused-appellant was (People v Aminnudin)
indeed a pusher. However, that information
 - In the case at bar, the overt acts of other witness presented by the prosecution was
committing such crime were absent. Danganan, who identified the subject weapon as
Therefore, it is not sufficient for it to be among the articles stolen from him during the
considered “probable cause”. Further, robbery in his house. He pointed to Mengote as
Paguidopon (who alleged that he one of the robbers. He had duly reported the
established probable cause because of robbery to the police, indicating the articles
the info he received from his informat) was stolen from him, including the revolver.
not the arresting officer, it was Pamplona.
For his part, Mengote made no effort to prove
iv. What are the two (2) requisites, highlighted by that he owned the firearm or that he was
the Supreme Court in the case, in order to carry licensed to possess it and claimed instead that
out a valid in flagrante delicto arrest? the weapon had been "planted" on him at the
time of his arrest.
- to constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest,
two requisites must concur: SC acquitted the accused-appellant

(1) the person to be arrested must execute an - These requirements have not been
overt act indicating that he has just committed, is established. the accused-appellant was
actually committing, or is attempting to commit merely "looking from side to side" and
a crime; and "holding his abdomen,". There was
apparently no offense that had just been
(2) such overt act is done in the presence or committed or was being actually
within the view of the arresting officer. committed or at least being attempted by
Mengote in their presence.
- The caller did not explain why he thought
v. Were these requisites complied with?
the men looked suspicious nor did he
elaborate on the impending crime.LL
-none of which were complied - The prosecution has not shown that at the
time of Mengote's arrest an offense had in
6. In the case of People v. Mengote, it can be fact just been committed and that the
read that a warrantless arrest may be justified on arresting officers had personal knowledge
the basis of ‘reasonable suspicion’ or ‘probable of facts indicating that Mengote had
cause’ that a crime is being committed. committed it. All they had was HEARSAY
However, such ‘reasonable suspicion’ or INFORMATION
‘probable cause’ must arise from overt acts - Without the evidence of the firearm taken
indicating the commission of a crime. from him at the time of his illegal arrest, the
prosecution has lost its most important
People v Mengote exhibit and must therefore fail. The
testimonial evidence against Mengote
(which is based on the said firearm) is not
The incident occurred Police District received a sufficient to prove his guilt beyond
telephone call from an informer that there were reasonable doubt of the crime imputed to
three SUSPICIOUS- LOOKING PERSONS at the him.
corner of Juan Luna and North Bay Boulevard in
Tondo, Manila. A surveillance team was
dispatched to the place. As later narrated at the
trial by Patrolmen, they there saw two men
"looking from side to side," one of whom was
holding his abdomen. i. What was the criminal charge against
Mengote?
They approached, whereupon the two tried to
run away but were unable to escape because - Illegal possession of firearms
the other lawmen had surrounded them. The
suspects were then searched. One of them, who
turned out to be the accused-appellant, was
found with a .38 caliber Smith and Wesson
revolver with six live bullets in the chamber. One
ii. What were the overt acts which impelled manager and gymnast instructor, respectively, of
the police officers to carry out a warrantless Glamour Modeling Agency owned by Lawrence
arrest? Wang. Redentor Teck and Joseph Junio did not
disclose their source of shabu but admitted that
- they there saw two men "looking from side they were working for Wang.
to side," one of whom was holding his
abdomen. They also disclosed that they knew of a
scheduled delivery of shabu early the following
iii. Was the arrest a valid in flagrante delicto morning , and that their employer (Wang) could
arrest? be found at the Maria Orosa Apartment in
Malate, Manila. The police operatives decided
to look for Wang. Police Inspector Cielito Coronel
In the landmark case of People v. Burgos
and his men then proceeded to Maria Orosa
(cited in the case of Mengote)
Apartment and placed the same under
surveillance. TCacIE
In arrests without a warrant under
Section 6(b), however, it is not enough
Prosecution witness testified that at about 2:10
that there is reasonable ground to
a.m. of 17 May 1996, Wang, who was described
believe that the person to be arrested
to the operatives, came out of the apartment
has committed a crime.
and walked towards a parked BMW car. On
nearing the car, he (witness) together with
- A crime must in fact or actually have been Captain Margallo and two other police officers
committed first. approached Wang, introduced themselves to
- That a crime has actually been committed him as police officers, asked his name and, upon
is an essential precondition. hearing that he was Lawrence Wang,
- It is not enough to suspect that a crime may immediately frisked him and asked him to open
have been committed. the back compartment of the BMW car. When
- The fact of the commission of the offense frisked, there was found inside the front right
must be undisputed. The test of reasonable pocket of Wang and confiscated from him an
ground applies only to the identity of the unlicensed AMT Cal. 380 9mm automatic Back-
perpetrator. (Emphasis supplied) up Pistol loaded with ammunitions. At the same
time, the other members of the operatives
In the case at bar, it was not a valid in flagrante searched the BMW car and found inside several
delicto arrest. There was apparently no offense sachets of shabu.
that had just been committed or was being
actually committed or at least being attempted. The respondent judge, Laguio, Jr., issued the
Resolution granting Wang's Demurrer to
7. The case of People v. Laguio is another case Evidence and acquitting him of all charges for
which illustrates an invalid arrest in flagrante lack of evidence,
delicto.
SC affirms the decision of the trial court judge
People v Laguio
Take note:
On 16 May 1996, Police operatives , arrested
SPO2 Vergel de Dios, Rogelio Anoble and a There are actually two (2) acts involved in this
certain Arellano, for unlawful possession of shabu. case, namely, the warrantless arrest and the
In the course of the investigation of the three warrantless search. There is no question that
arrested persons, Redentor Teck, alias Frank, and warrantless search may be conducted as an
Joseph Junio were identified as the source of the incident to a valid warrantless arrest. The law
drug. An entrapment operation was then set. requires that there be first a lawful arrest before a
search can be made; the process cannot be
That same date, Redentor Teck and Joseph reversed. However, if there are valid reasons to
Junio were arrested while they were about to conduct lawful search and seizure which
hand over another bag of shabu to SPO2 De Dios thereafter shows that the accused is CURRENTLY
and company. They informed the police committing a crime, the accused may be
operatives that they were working as talent lawfully arrested in flagrante delicto without
need for a warrant of arrest. v. What were the overt acts of Wang
surrounding his arrest? Were these acts
sufficient to carry out a warrantless
arrest?

- He was merely walking from the Maria

Orosa Apartment and was about to enter
the parked BMW car

i. Who were the accused in this case and SC said- The facts and circumstances
what were the criminal charges against surrounding the present case did not manifest
them? any suspicious behavior on the part of private
respondent Lawrence Wang that would
- SPO2 Vergel de Dios, Rogelio Anoble and a reasonably invite the attention of the police.
certain Arellano. Their source of the drugs
was Redentor Teck and Joseph Junio. He was not committing any visible offense then.
Lawrence Wang was the employer of Teck Therefore, there can be no valid warrantless
and Junio. The prosecution alleges that Mr. arrest in flagrante delicto It is settled that "reliable
Wang was their source. Violation of the information" alone, absent any overt act
Dangerous drugs acts, Illegal possession of indicative of a felonious enterprise in the
firearms, and violation of COMELEC presence and within the view of the arresting
gunban officers, is not sufficient to constitute probable
cause that would justify an in flagrante delicto
ii. What were the prior circumstances arrest.
which prodded the arrest of Wang?
8. The case of People v. Claudio is an example of
- Teck and Junio informed the Police that a case in which the Supreme Court upheld the
they are working for Wang. They also validity of the warrantless arrest in flagrante
disclosed that they knew of a scheduled delicto. What were the overt acts in this case
delivery of shabu early the following that prompted the police officer to carry out an
morning , and that their employer (Wang) arrest?
could be found at the Maria Orosa
Apartment People v Claudio

iii. What motion/s was/were filed by the

Obiña, a policeman, testified that while on board
Defense camp after the prosecution
the Victory Liner heading back to his home in
rested its case? Who was the judge of
Olongapo. Claudio boarded the same bus and
the RTC and how did he resolve the
took the seat in front of him after placing a
motion/s? What was his basis/es?
woven buri bag made of plastic containing
some vegetables she was carrying at the back of
- The respondent judge, Laguio, Jr., issued Obiña’s seat. With the feeling that there was
the Resolution granting Wang's Demurrer some unusual, he had the urge to
to Evidence and acquitting him of all search(secretly) the woven plastic bag so when
charges for lack of evidence, they reached San Fernando, Pampanga,
- he inserted one of his fingers in a plastic bag
located at the bottom of the woven bag and
iv. May a warrantless search be done smelt marijuana. He could recognize the smell of
pursuant to a lawful warrantless arrest? marijuana because he was assigned at that time
at the ANTI-NARCOTICS Unit. He did not,
- . There is no question that warrantless however, do anything after he discovered that
search may be conducted as an incident there was marijuana inside the plastic bag of the
to a valid warrantless arrest. The law accused until they reached Olongapo City and
requires that there be first a lawful arrest the accused alighted from the bus.
before a search can be made; the process Obina intercepted her and showed her his ID
cannot be reversed. Identifying himself as a policeman and told her
he will search her bag because of the suspicion
that she was carrying marijuana inside said bag.
Claudio replied, "Please go with me, let us settle and the reason why he was at the said place
this at home." However, the witness did not heed and he gave his name as Medel Tangliben and
her plea and instead handcuffed her right hand explained that he was waiting for a ride to
and with her, boarded a tricycle right away and Olongapo City to deliver the marijuana leaves;
brought the suspect to the police headquarters
with her bag appearing to contain SC said:
vegetables. At the police headquarters
Investigation Section, the bag was searched in
Accused was caught in flagrante, since he was
the presence of Investigator Cpl. Tiongco, Obiña,
carrying marijuana at the time of his arrest. This
Claudio and Sgt. Leoncio Bagang. I
case therefore falls squarely within the exception.
The warrantless search was incident to a lawful
arrest and is consequently valid.

- Appellant Claudio was caught transporting In this case before us presented urgency. The
prohibited drugs. Pat. Daniel Obiña did not need transcript of stenographic notes reveals that
a warrant to arrest Claudio as the latter was there was an informer who pointed to the
caught in flagrante delicto. The warrantless accused-appellant as carrying marijuana. Faced
search being an incident to a lawful arrest is in with such on-the-spot information, the police
itself lawful. officers had to act quickly. There was not enough
time to secure a search warrant. We cannot
Law enforcers are presumed to have regularly therefore apply the ruling in Aminnudin (the case
performed their duty in the absence of proof to about the police officers that should have
the contrary because in this case the accused secured warrant in the 2 -day window from which
was inconsistent in her positions to the briefs the info was obtained) to the case at bar. To
being submitted. require search warrants during on-the-spot
apprehensions of drug pushers, illegal possessors
9. Take particular notice, however, of the cases of firearms, jueteng collectors, smugglers of
of People v. Tangliben and People v. Maspil. In contraband goods, robbers, etc. would make it
both cases, the Supreme Court upheld the extremely difficult, if not impossible to contain the
validity of a warrantless arrest in flagrante delicto crimes with which these persons are associated.
pursuant to a tipped reliable information. This is in
stark contrast to the decision of the Supreme
Court in the case of People v. Aminnudin. What People v Maspil
facts were present in the cases of Tangliben and
Maspil which were not present in the case of A checkpoint was set up by the police to
Aminnudin? monitor, inspect and scrutinize vehicles on
the highway going towards Baguio City. This was
People v Tangliben done because of a confidential report by
informers that Maspil and Bagking, would be
transporting a large quantity of marijuana to
Late evening of March 2 1982, patrolmen
Baguio City. In fact, the informers were with the
together with tanods were conducting
policemen manning the checkpoint. As
surveillance mission at the Victory Liner Terminal
expected, at about 2 oclock in the early morning
compound located at San Nicolas, Pampanga. It
of November 1, 1986, a jeepney approached
was aimed not only against persons who may
the checkpoint, driven by Maspil, with Bagking as
commit misdemeanors at the said place but also
passenger. The officers stopped the vehicle and
on persons who may be engaging in the traffic of
saw that on it were loaded 2 plastic sacks, a jute
dangerous drugs based on informations supplied
sack, and 3 big round tin cans. When opened,
by informers; that it was around 9:30 in the
the sacks and cans were seen to contain what
evening that said Patrolmen noticed a person appeared to be marijuana leaves. The
carrying a red traveling bag who was acting
policemen thereupon placed Maspil and
suspiciously and they confronted him; that the
Bagking under arrest, and confiscated the leaves
person was requested by Patrolmen to open the
which, upon scientific examination, were verified
red traveling bag but the person refused, only to to be marijuana leaves.
accede later on when the patrolmen identified
themselves; that found inside the bag were
marijuana leaves and was asked of his name
 able to seek assistance because Santos
SC said: threatened to shoot him if he did. He also failed
to inform the police authorities about the
incident because the culprits has threatened him
The search was conducted within reasonable
and his family. He claimed exemption from
limits. There was information that a sizeable
criminal liability as he allegedly acted under the
volume of marijuana will be transported to take
compulsion of an irresistible force.
advantage of the All Saints Day holiday(no court
available) wherein there will be a lot of people
going to and from Baguio City. In fact, during the SC said
three day (October 30, 1986 to November 1,
1986) duration of the checkpoint, there were also -acquitted the accused because he is exempted
other drug related arrests made aside from that (compulsion of an irresistible force)
of the two appellants.
- there must be a large measure of immediacy
The appellants were caught in flagrante delicto between the time the offense was committed
since they were transporting the prohibited drugs and the time of the arrest, and if there was an
at the time of their arrest. appreciable lapse of time between the arrest
and the commission of the crime, a warrant of
In the Aminnudin case, the records showed that arrest must be secured. Aside from the sense of
there was sufficient time and adequate immediacy, it is also mandatory that the person
information for the PC officers to have obtained making the arrest must have personal knowledge
a warrant. The officers knew the name of the of certain facts indicating that the person to be
accused, that the accused was on board M/V taken into custody has committed the crime.
Wilcon 9, bound to Iloilo and the exact date of
the arrival of the said vessel. Again, the arrest of del Rosario does not comply
with these requirements since, as earlier
explained, the arrest came a day after the
On the other hand, in this case there was no
consummation of the crime and not immediately
information as to the exact description of the
thereafter. As such, the crime had not been "just
vehicle and no definite time of the arrival. A
committed'' at the time the accused was
jeepney cannot be equated with a passenger
arrested.
ship on the high seas. The ruling in the Aminnudin
case, is not applicable to the case at bar.
Likewise, the arresting officers had no personal
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to
be arrested had committed the offense since
they were not present and were not actual
HOT PURSUIT eyewitnesses to the crime, and they became
aware of his identity as the driver of the getaway
10. Survey the following cases: People v. Del tricycle only during the custodial investigation.
Rosario, People v. Samus, Go v. Court of Appeals,
People v. Gerente, Robin Padilla v. Court of
Appeals,and People v. Abriol.After which, supply People v Samus
the answers to the following questions:
Appellant was a farmer, the victims were the
People v Del Rosario neighbors of appellant's father at San Ramon de
Canlubang, Brgy. Canlubang, Calamba,
Accused Joselito Del Rosario was found guilty as Laguna. The Police was at his office when he
co-principal in the crime of Robbery with received an order from his superior to investigate
Homicide and he was sentenced to suffer the the murder of the two victims. Their office had
death penalty and to pay damages to the heirs received a telephone call from a local barangay
of the victim. official informing them of the victims' deaths.

Arriving at the victims’ residence, his team

Del Rosario alleged that he was just hired by conducted an investigation. They found a pair of
Virgilio Santos to drive him to a cockpit. He was maong pants, a white T-shirt, a handkerchief and
not aware of the plan of Santos and his two dirty slippers in the bathroom and roof of the
companions to rob and kill the victim. He was not house. A pair of earrings worn by victim was
likewise reported missing from her body. Transportation Office showed that the car was
On that same day, the accussed pawned the registered to one Elsa Ang Go.
earings to the wife of his friend(ponciano).
The following day, the police returned to the
On the same day, the criminal investigation scene of the shooting to find out where the
group received an information that the suspect had come from; The police obtained a
appellant was the principal suspect and that he facsimile or impression of the credit card used by
was sighted inside the residence of spouses Rolly petitioner from the cashier of the bake shop. The
and Josie Vallejo. The police then asked security guard of the bake shop was shown a
permission from the Vallejo spouses to enter the picture of petitioner and he positively identified
house, which was granted. Shortly thereafter, him as the same person who had shot Maguan.
they heard loud footsteps on the roof. Rushing Having established that the assailant was
outside, they saw appellant crawling on the roof. probably the petitioner, the police launched a
They ordered him to stop, but he suddenly manhunt for petitioner.
jumped from the roof and landed hard on the
ground, sustaining an injury on his ankle and
On 8 July 1991, petitioner presented himself
bruises on his left and right forearm. At that point,
before the San Juan Police Station to verify news
the police team closed in on appellant who,
reports that he was being hunted by the police;
while trembling and shaking, admitted the killings
he was accompanied by two (2) lawyers. The
upon a query from Rolly Vallejo.
police forthwith detained him. An eyewitness to
the shooting, who was at the police station at
that time, positively identified petitioner as the
SC said:
gunman. That same day, the police promptly
- It is undisputed that when the CIS team
filed a complaint for frustrated homicide 2against
went to the Vallejo residence on the
petitioner with the Office of the Provincial
evening of September 10, 1996, it had no
Prosecutor of Rizal. First Assistant Provincial
warrant of arrest against appellant. Yet,
Prosecutor Dennis Villa Ignacio ("Prosecutor")
they arrested him
informed petitioner, in the Presence of his
- Under sec 5 rule 113 of the rules of court,
lawyers, that he could avail himself of his right to
None of these circumstances was present
preliminary investigation but that he must first sign
when members of the Criminal
a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the
Investigation Group (CIG) arrested
Revised Penal Code. Petitioner refused to
appellant. He was not a prisoner. The killing
execute any such waiver.
of Dedicacion and John Ardee Balisi was
not done in the presence of the arresting
officers. Since it took place on September SC said:
2, 1996, it could not have been considered
as "having just been committed." Evidently, - Petitioner's "arrest" took place six (6) days
they unlawfully arrested appellant on after the shooting of Maguan. The
September 10, 1996. When they did so, we "arresting" officers obviously were not
cannot ascribe to them the presumption of present at the time petitioner had allegedly
regularity in the performance of official shot Maguan. Neither could the "arrest"
functions, contrary to the court a quo's effected six (6) days after the shooting be
finding. reasonably regarded as effected "when
Go v CA [the shooting had] in fact just been
committed" within the meaning of Section
According to the findings of the Police in their 5 (b). Moreover, none of the "arresting"
Investigation, At the corner of Wilson and J. Abad officers had any "personal knowledge" of
Santos Sts., petitioner's and Maguan's cars nearly facts indicating that petitioner was the
bumped each other. Petitioner alighted from his gunman who had shot Maguan.
car, walked over and shot Maguan inside his car. - The information upon which the police
Petitioner then boarded his car and left the acted had been derived from statements
scene. A security guard at a nearby restaurant made by alleged eyewitnesses to the
was able to take down petitioner's car plate shooting — one stated that petitioner was
number. The police arrived shortly thereafter at the gunman; another was able to take
the scene of the shooting and there retrieved an down the alleged gunman's car's plate
empty shell and one round of live ammunition for number which turned out to be registered
a 9mm caliber pistol. Verification at the Land in petitioner's wife's name. That information
 did not, however, constitute "personal inside a Restaurant in Sto. Kristo, Angeles City.
knowledge." While inside the restaurant, Manarang noticed a
- It is thus clear to the Court that there was vehicle, a Mitsubishi Pajero, running fast down
no lawful warrantless arrest of petitioner the highway prompting him to remark that the
within the meaning of Section 5 of Rule 113 vehicle might get into an accident considering
the inclement weather. True enough,
People v Gerente immediately after the vehicle had passed the
restaurant, Manarang and Perez heard a
screeching sound produced by the sudden and
Edna Reyes testified that, appellant Gabriel
hard braking of a vehicle running very fast
Gerente, together with Fredo Echigoren and
followed by a sickening sound of the vehicle
Totoy Echigoren, started drinking liquor and
hitting something. They went out to investigate
smoking marijuana in the house of the appellant
and immediately saw the vehicle occupying the
which is about six (6) meters away from her house
edge or shoulder of the highway giving it a slight
(they were neighbors) on that day. She
tilt to its side. Manarang, decided to report the
overheard the three men talking about their
incident to the Philippine National Police of
intention to kill Clarito Blace. She testified that she
Angeles City. He took out his radio and called
heard Fredo Echigoren saying, "Gabriel, the Viper, the radio controller of the Philippine
papatayin natin si Clarito Blace," and Totoy
National Police of Angeles City. By the time
Echigoren allegedly seconded Fredo's suggestion
Manarang completed the call, the vehicle had
saying: "Papatayin natin 'yan mamaya."
started to leave the place of the accident taking
Appellant allegedly agreed: "Sigue, papatayin
the general direction to the north.
natin mamaya."
"Manarang went to the location of the accident
and found out that the vehicle had hit
Fredo and Totoy Echigoren and Gerente carried somebody. Manarang Chased the vehicle.
out their plan to kill Clarito Blace on the same During the chase he was able to make out the
day. The prosecution witness, Edna Edwina plate number of the vehicle as PMA 777. He
Reyes, testified that she witnessed the killing. called the Viper through the radio once again
reporting that a vehicle heading north with plate
SC said: number PMA 777 was involved in a hit and run
accident. The Viper, in the person of SPO2 Ruby
- The policemen arrested Gerente only three (3) Buan, upon receipt of the second radio call
hours after Gerente and his companions had flashed the message to all units of PNP Angeles
killed Blace. They saw Blace dead in the hospital City with the order to apprehend the vehicle
and when they inspected the scene of the
crime, they found the instruments of death: a When he reached the Abacan bridge, he found
piece of wood and a concrete hollow block Mobile No. 3 and SPO2 Borja and SPO2 Miranda
which the killers had used to bludgeon him to watching all vehicles coming their way. He
death. The eye-witness, Edna Edwina Reyes, approached them and informed them that there
reported the happening to the policemen and was a hit and run incident. Upon learning that
pinpointed her neighbor, Gerente, as one of the the two police officers already knew about the
killers. Under those circumstances, since the incident, Manarang went back to where he
policemen had personal knowledge of the came from.
violent death of Blace and of facts indicating that
Gerente and two others had killed him, they "Soon the vehicle was within sight of SPO2 Borja
could lawfully arrest Gerente without a warrant. If and SPO2 Miranda of Mobile No. 3. SPO2
they had postponed his arrest until they could Miranda went to the vehicle with plate number
obtain a warrant, he would have fled the law as PMA 777 and instructed its driver to alight. The
his two companions did. driver rolled down the window and put his head
out while raising both his hands. They recognized
The warrantless arrest made by the police was the driver as Robin C. Padilla, when he alighted
valid. with both his hands raised, a gun tucked on the
left side of his waist was revealed, SPO2 Borja
made the move to confiscate the gun. When
the senior police officers arrived, they noticed
Robin Padilla v CA that a long magazine of a baby armalite was
tucked in appellants back. They searched the
Manarang and his compadre Danny Perez were car and they saw that, there were many guns
inside the Pajero. SC said:

SC said: - There are eight (8) instances where a

- Paragraph (a) sec5 rule 113 of RRCP warrantless search and seizure is valid. They
requires that the person be arrested (i) after are: (1) consented searches;(2) as an
he has committed or while he is actually incident to a lawful arrest;(3) searches of
committing or is at least attempting to vessels and aircraft for violation of
commit an offense, (ii) in the presence of immigration, customs, and drug laws;(4)
the arresting officer or private person. Both searches of moving vehicles; (5) searches
elements concurred here, as it has been of automobiles at borders or constructive
established that petitioner's vehicle figured borders; (6) where the prohibited articles
in a hit and run — an offense committed in are in "plain view;" (7) searches of buildings
the "presence" of Manarang, a private and premises to enforce fire, sanitary, and
person, who then sought to arrest building regulations; and (8) "stop and frisk"
petitioner. It must be stressed at this point operations.
that "presence" does not only require that - In this case, the warrantless search and
the arresting person sees the offense, but seizure of the subject handguns and
also when he "hears the disturbance ammunition is valid for two reasons. It was a
created thereby AND proceeds at once to search incidental to a lawful arrest. It was
the scene." made after a fatal shooting, and pursuit of
- He was also caught in flagrante delicto a fast-moving vehicle seeking to elude
with possession of an unlicensed firearm , pursuing police officers, and a more than
petitioner's warrantless arrest was proper as reasonable belief on the part of the police
he was again actually committing another officers that the seeing suspects aboard
offense (illegal possession of firearm and said vehicle had just engaged in criminal
ammunitions) and this time in the presence activity. The urgent need of the police to
of a peace officer take immediate action in the light of the
foregoing exigencies clearly satisfies the
requirements for warrantless arrests under
People v Abriol the Rules of Court. Moreover, when caught
in flagrante delicto with firearms and
On nearby Colon Street, SPO1 Eleazar Abrigana ammunition which they were not
and PO2 Romeo Abellana were cruising aboard authorized to carry, appellants were
patrol car No. 208, when they heard a radio actually violating P.D. No. 1866, another
message that the suspects in the shooting ground for valid arrest under the Rules.
incident were aboard a "Jiffy." As they turned left
at Leon Kilat Street, they saw the "Jiffy" heading
towards Carbon Market. They pursued the "Jiffy"
which stopped in front of the Don Bosco Building
near BBRC, when police car No. 205, with PO
i. In which cases did the Supreme Court
Eugenio Badrinas and PO2 Gerald Cue aboard,
find a valid warrantless arrest and in
blocked the "Jiffy's" path. Cue red a warning
which cases did it not?
shot and three persons alighted. The driver was
appellant Astellero, whom Cue had recognized
and seen before at the BBRC. Abrigana and Cue INVALID VALID
approached the trio who stood a meter away People v Del Rosario People v Gerente
from the "Jiffy." SPO1 Abrigana frisked Abriol and People v Samus Robin Padilla v CA
seized from his waist a .38 caliber revolver with Go v CA People v Abriol
serial number PO8485 with six (6) empty shells in
its cylinder. 11 Under Abriol's seat, the police also
found a .45 caliber pistol bearing serial number
PGO 13506 with nine (9) live rounds in its
magazine and another .45 caliber pistol with
serial number 52469 loaded with five (5) unfired
bullets.
 ii. What were the criminal charges against
the respective accused and what were
the circumstances surrounding the People Criminal Investigation Group (police
commission of their respective crimes? v Samus rapud ni sila) – 8 days from the
commission of the crime
People Robbery w/homicide - Del Rosario Go v Petitioner presented himself before
v Del alleged that he was just hired by CA the San Juan Police Station to verify
Rosario Virgilio Santos to drive him to a news reports that he was being
cockpit. He was not aware of the plan hunted by the police; he was
of Santos and his two companions to accompanied by two (2) lawyers. The
rob and kill the victim. He was not police forthwith detained him. It was 6
able to seek assistance because days after the commission of the
Santos threatened to shoot him if he crime.
did.

People Policeman – 3 hours after the incident

People Murder- the accussed killed and stole v
v Samus the earings of one of the victims. He Gerente
then pawned such earings to the wife Robin Policeman – within couple of hours
of his friend. Padilla
Go v Murder- petitioner's and Maguan's v CA
CA cars nearly bumped each other. People Policeman- within couple of hours
Petitioner alighted from his car, v Abriol
walked over and shot Maguan inside
his car. Petitioner then boarded his car
and left the scene.
People the accused was charged with
v Murder and Violation of Section 8,Art. iv. What were the circumstances leading
Gerente 2 of RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of from the commission of the crimes
1972) – the accused and his friends leading to the arrest?
were smoking weed and they
decided to kill one of their friends. People When the tricycle was identified by
They decided to kill his friend. The v Del the police, the accused was invited
witness in this case was the neighbor(6 Rosario for an interview(not arrest)(a day after
meters away) of the accused. the commission), The transcript reveals
Robin Illegal possession of firearms – the that during the encounter at Brgy.
Padilla accussed was involved in a hit and Dicarma, del Rosario was handcuffed
v CA run. Eventually he was caught by the by the police because allegedly they
police, and they noticed that the had already gathered enough
accussed was carrying with him some evidence against him and they were
high caliber weapons which doesn’t afraid that he might attempt to
have any permit. escape.
People murder and illegal possession of
v Abriol firearms – the accused-appellants
killed the victim and right after they People Criminal Investigation Group received
escaped the scene using a car v Samus information that appellant was the
principal suspect in the killing of the
two (2) victims and that he was
sighted inside the residence of a
iii. In each case, who arrested the accused certain couple. He then formed and
and how long since the commission of led the team and went to the Vallejo
the crime were the arrests made? residence where they saw the
appellant crawling on the roof. They
ordered him to stop, jumped from the
People Police officer - the arrest came a day roof and landed on the ground where
v Del after the consummation of the crime they team closed in on the accused
Rosario and not immediately thereafter. and that’s when he admitted the
 killings of the victim. Supreme Court found a valid warrantless
Go v the police arrived shortly after the arrest from those in which it did not?
CA shooting and found out where the
suspect had come from and there People It was not a valid warrantless arrest
obtained a facsimile of the credit v Del since ,under Sec. 5, par. (b), Rule 113
card used by the accused. A security Rosario of the RRCP, the crime the arrest
guard of the bakeshop was shown a came a day after the consummation
picture of the accused and positively of the crime and not immediately
identified as the same person who thereafter. As such, the crime had not
had shot the victim. The police been "just committed'' at the time the
launched a manhunt for the accused. accused was arrested. Likewise, the
People The policemen arrested Gerente only arresting officers had no personal
v some three (3) hours after Gerente knowledge of facts indicating that the
Gerente and his companions had killed Blace. person to be arrested had committed
They saw Blace dead in the hospital the offense since they were not
and when they inspected the scene present and were not actual
of the crime, they found the eyewitnesses to the crime, and they
instruments of death: a piece of wood became aware of his identity as the
and a concrete hollow block which driver of the getaway tricycle only
the killers had used to bludgeon him during the custodial investigation
to death. The eye-witness, Edna
Edwina Reyes, reported the
happening to the policemen and
pinpointed her neighbor, Gerente, as
People Considering that the arrest of the
one of the killers. Under those
v Samus accused was unlawful, he
circumstances, since the policemen
(defendant) did not make a timely
had personal knowledge of the
objection to the admissibility of the
violent death of Blace and of facts
said testimony made [ the prosecution
indicating that Gerente and two
presented a testimony made by the
others had killed him, they could
accused without a counsel,
lawfully arrest Gerente without a
confessing that he committed the
warrant.
crime ], the prosecution could have
Robin A private individual chased the
been warned of the need to present
Padilla v vehicle of padilla when it commited
additional evidence to support its
CA “hit and run”. Then it was reported the
case. It could not have been
police, and right after how many
admissible but because of the failure
hours, the police caught him. He was
to object, it was deemed that the
also caught in flagrante delicto for
defense waived the objection to its
illegal possession of firearms when the
inadmissibility.
police saw a gun tucked in his pants
when he was arrested for “hit and
run”
People A police officer he heard gunshots in P Go v Petitioner's "arrest" took place six (6)
v Abriol del rosario St Cebu, he saw “jiffy” CA days after the shooting of Maguan.
together with 3 people inside which is The "arresting" of cers obviously were
trying to escape. He radioed for not present, within the meaning of
assistance. Some police responded Section 5(a), at the time petitioner
and saw the suspects was riding a had allegedly shot Maguan. Neither
“JIFFY”. The jiffy was captured by the could the "arrest" effected six (6) days
police and the accused-appellants after the shooting be reasonably
tested positive in the paraffin test (gun regarded as effected "when [the
powder test in the skin shooting had] in fact just been
committed" within the meaning of
Section 5 (b). Moreover, none of the
"arresting" officers had any "personal
knowledge" of facts indicating that
v. What are the salient relevant differing petitioner was the gunman who had
nuances in the cases in which the shot Maguan. The information upon
 which the police acted had been For the illegal possession of firearms,
derived from statements made by he was caught (in flagrante deicto)
alleged eyewitnesses to the shooting then and there upon his arrest for the
hit and run
Indeed, petitioner was not arrested at
all. When he walked into the San Juan
Police Station, accompanied by two
(2) lawyers, he in fact placed himself
at the disposal of the police People A fatal shooting, and pursuit of a fast-
authorities. He did not state that he v Abriol moving vehicle seeking to elude
was "surrendering" himself. pursuing police officers, and a more
People The arrest was within the purview of than reasonable belief on the part of
v Sec 5 par B of rule 113 of the RCCP, the police officers that the seeing
Gerente the crime has just been commited suspects aboard said vehicle had just
(3hours) and the policemen had engaged in criminal activity. The
personal knowledge of the violent urgent need of the police to take
death of Blace when he when he immediate action in the light of the
inspected the scene of the crime, he foregoing exigencies clearly satisfies
found the instruments of death: a the requirements for warrantless
piece of wood and a concrete hollow arrests under the Rules of Court.
block which the killers had used to Moreover, when caught in flagrante
bludgeon him to death. The eye- delicto with firearms and ammunition
witness, Edna Edwina Reyes, reported which they were not authorized to
the happening to the policemen and carry, appellants were actually
pinpointed her neighbor. violating P.D. No. 1866, another
Robin Paragraph (a) requires that the person ground for valid arrest under the Rules.
Padilla v be arrested
CA
(i) after he has committed or while he
is actually committing or is at least
ARREST OF AN ESCAPEE
attempting to commit an offense, (

11. There is not much to be tackled here. The

ii) in the presence of the arresting
provision under the Rules of Court is to be taken
officer or private person.
as it is.

Both elements concurred here, as it

WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO QUESTION THE
has been established that petitioner's
ILLEGALITY OF THE ARREST
vehicle figured in a hit and run — an
offense committed in the "presence"
of Manarang, a private person, who 12. In essence, when the right is voluntarily
then sought to arrest petitioner. waived, then the illegality of the arrest may no
longer by invoked to effect the release of the
person arrested. The question then becomes:
That Manarang decided to seek the
how may an accused waive his right to question
aid of the policemen (who admittedly
the illegality of the arrest?
were nowhere in the vicinity of the hit
and run) in effecting petitioner's arrest,
did not in any way affect the In People v Cunanan - In any event,
propriety of the apprehension. It was jurisprudence is settled that "any irregularity
in fact the most prudent action attending the arrest of an accused should be
Manarang could have taken rather timely raised in a motion to quash the Information
than collaring petitioner by himself, at any time before arraignment, failing [in] which,
inasmuch as policemen are he is deemed to have waived" his right to
unquestionably better trained and question the regularity of his arrest.
well-equipped in effecting an arrest of
a suspect As the records show, except during the inquest
proceedings before the prosecutor's office,
appellant never objected to the regularity of his
arrest before his arraignment. In fact, he even brought to the EPD Headquarters.
actively participated in the trial of the case. With
these lapses, he is estopped from raising any SC said:
question regarding the same
Appellant was lawfully arrested after he was
In People v Cachola - the question of the legality caught in flagrante delicto selling an illegal drug
of the warrantless arrest of the appellants cannot in a buy-bust operation, and contrary to his
be raised for the first time before this Supreme contention, it was not inconceivable that he
Court. As arrests fall into the question of the would openly sell an illegal drug in public. The
exercise by the trial court of its jurisdiction over transaction made in the buy-bust operation
the person of the accused, the question should involved the illegal sale of dangerous drug. This
have been raised prior to their arraignment. was sufficiently shown by the prosecution
through its establishment of the following
Their claim that they requested an extension of elements of the offense: (1) the identity of the
time to file a motion to quash the information or buyer and the seller, object and consideration;
to dismiss the case, which the trial court and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
allegedly denied, cannot save the day for them. payment therefor.” Undoubtedly, appellant was
lawfully arrested after he was caught in flagrante
The fact remains that before arraignment, no delicto selling shabu in a buy-bust operation.
such motion was filed. Even assuming that their People v Cachola
arrest was illegal, their act of entering a plea
during their arraignment constituted a waiver of The family of Jessie Barnachea was slaughtered
their right to question their arrest by a group of men. They came into the house
riding a jeep with a marking of “el Shaddai” in
the front side. Aside from the marking in the front,
there is also a mark indicating, fruits and
vegetable dealer. The incident was immediately
13. The answer to the foregoing question is found
reported to the police, and the description of the
in the following cases, for instance: People v.
"El Shaddai" jeep used by the malefactors was
Cunanan15 and People v. Cachola.16
relayed through radio to the police stations in the
province of La Union. On the same day, the jeep
People v Cunanan was intercepted at a checkpoint set up in the
highway by the police force in Aringay, La Union.
A confidential informant (CI) went to the police On board were the eight appellants. No firearms
and informed PSI Abalos that a certain "Paeng were found in the vehicle. The jeep and the eight
Putol," later identified as the appellant, was appellants were thereafter brought to the
engaged in selling illegal drugs. Acting on the Aringay police station and then turned over to
information, PSI Abalos organized a buy-bust the Bauang police.
team to entrap appellant.
The eight appellants were thereafter subjected
Thereafter, the team proceeded to and arrived to paraffin test. But only the right hands of
at the target area. After receiving the marked Cachola and Amay yielded positive results for
money from PO1 Gunda, appellant entered a gunpowder nitrates
narrow alley and came back with a small plastic
sachet containing white crystalline substance SC said:
which he handed to PO1 Gunda.
The question of the legality of the warrantless
Thereupon, PO1 Gunda gave the pre-arranged arrest of the appellants cannot be raised for the
signal to inform the buy-bust team of the first time before the Court. As arrests fall into the
consummated transaction and arrested question of the exercise by the trial court of its
appellant. When asked to empty his pocket, jurisdiction over the person of the accused, the
recovered from appellant were the two marked question should have been raised prior to their
100-peso bills used as buy-bust money. Appellant arraignment. That the appellants objected to the
was then informed of his constitutional rights and arrests prior to the arraignment is
the nature of the accusation against him and unsubstantiated. Their claim that they requested
an extension of time to file a motion to quash the
information or to dismiss the case, which the trial
court allegedly denied, cannot save the day for
them. The fact remains that before arraignment,
no such motion was filed. Even assuming that
their arrest was illegal, their act of entering a plea
during their arraignment constituted a waiver of
their right to question their arrest.
 PART V: WARRANTLESS SEARCHES the contents of the bag. Appellant consented to the
request but told them that it only contained some
As in arrests, prescinding from Article III, Section clothes.
- When Layong opened the bag, he found that it
2 of the 1987 Constitution, searches and
contained forty-one (41) plastic packets of different
seizures may only be valid if they are done sizes containing pulverized substances. Layong gave
pursuant to a valid search warrant. However, a packet to his team leader, constable David Osborne
there are exceptions, such that even without a Fomocod, who, after sniffing the stuff concluded that it
warrant, searches and seizures may still be was marijuana.
upheld as validly made. Unlike arrests, - The PC constables, together with appellant, boarded
however, the instances of valid warrantless the latter’s Ford Fiera and proceeded to the Bontoc
poblacion to report the incident to the PC The
searches are not provided for by the Rules of
prohibited drugs were surrendered to the evidence
Court, but by jurisprudence, save for searches custodian, Sgt. Angel Pokling.
incidental to a lawful arrest. - Major Carlos Figueroa, a PC Forensic Chemist at
Camp Dangwa, La Trinidad, Benguet, who has
The following are instance of valid warrantless conducted more than 2500 professional examinations
searches: of marijuana, shabu and cocaine samples, conducted
two chemistry examinations of the substance
i. Consented Search contained in the plastic packets taken from appellant
and found them to be positive for hashish or
ii. Search incidental to a lawful arrest
marijuana.
iii. Plain View Doctrine
iv. Stop and Frisk or Terry Search
v. Search of vessels and aircrafts
 What were the criminal charges
vi. Search of moving vehicles
involved and who were indicted for
vii. Inspection of buildings and other premises
for the enforcement of fire, sanitary, and them?
building regulations
viii. Customs Search - Accused Conway B. Omaweng
ix. Exigent and emergency circumstances was originally indicted for the
violation of Section 4, Article II of
CONSENTED SEARCH = THE RIGHT AGAINST
Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise
UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES WAS
known as the Dangerous Drugs
VALIDLY WAIVED.
Act of 1972, as amended, in a
People v. Omaweng criminal complaint filed with the
Municipal Trial Court of Bontoc,
FACTS:
- In the morning of September 12, 1988, Joseph Mountain Province on 12
Layong, a PC constable with the Mt. Province PC September 1988. Accused was
Command at Bontoc, Mt. Province proceeded with prosecuted for the dispatching in
other PC soldiers to Barrio Dantay, Bontoc and, per
instruction of their officer, Capt. Eugene Martin, put up
transit or transporting of
a checkpoint at the junction of the roads, one going to prohibited drugs.
Sagada and the other to. They stopped and checked
all vehicles that went through the checkpoint. At about
 What were the items seized and who
9:15 A.M., Layong and his teammate, Constable
David Osborne Famocod (sic), saw and flagged down seized them?
a cream-colored Ford Fiera coming from the Bontoc
Poblacion and headed towards Baguio.
- 10¼ kilos of processed marijuana
- The vehicle was driven by appellant and had no
passengers. Layong and his companions asked in powder form contained in 41
permission to inspect the vehicle and appellant plastic bags of different sizes
acceded to the request. When they peered into the which were placed in a travelling
rear of the vehicle, they saw a travelling bag which
was partially covered by the rim of a spare tire under bag destained were seized from
the passenger seat on the right side of the vehicle. the accused. It was seized by
Layong and his companions asked permission to see Joseph Layong, a PC constable
 with the Mt. Province PC waiver may be made either
Command at Bontoc, Mt. expressly or impliedly."
Province together with other PC
soldiers. - Since in the course of the valid
search forty-one (41) packages
 How was the waiver/consent given? of drugs were found, it behooved
the officers to seize the same; no
- The accused willingly gave prior warrant was necessary for such
consent to the search and seizure. Besides, when said
voluntarily agreed to have it packages were identified by the
conducted on his vehicle and prosecution witnesses and later
travelling bag. Thus, the accused on formally offered in evidence,
waived his right against the accused did not raise any
unreasonable searches and objection whatsoever.
seizures. To note, the appellant
People v. Lacerna
consented to the request of FACTS:
Layong and the other PC - At about 2:00 p.m., appellant and co-accused, who
constable but told them that it were aboard a taxicab, passed by Police Officer 3
(PO3) Carlito P. Valenzuela’s place of assignment,
only contained some clothes. somewhere along the sides streets of Radial Road
When Layong opened the bag, near Moriones Street.
he found that it contained forty- - PO3 Valenzuela and his co-police officer asked
permission to search the vehicle of the accused. As
one (41) plastic packets of
the occupants readily agreed, the police officers went
different sizes containing about searching the luggages in the vehicle which
pulverized substances. When said consisted of a knapsack and a dark blue plastic
grocery bag. They asked appellant what the contents
packages were identified by the
of the plastic bag were. Co-accused Noriel Lacerna
prosecution witnesses and later immediately answered that the bag contained his
on formally offered in evidence, vomit.
the accused did not raise any - Skeptical of what appellant and co-accused disclosed
as regards the contents of the plastic bag, PO3
objection whatsoever. Valenzuela made a hole in the bag and peeped
inside. He found several blocks wrapped in
 May implied acquiescence be newspaper, with the distinct smell of marijuana
emanating from it. PO3 Valenzuela opened one of the
considered as consent freely given? boxes and saw dried marijuana leaves. He told
appellant and co-accused that the contents of the bag
- In People vs. Malasugui: were marijuana, which co-accused readily affirmed.
According to both Lacernas, the bag was a "padala"
of their uncle. Specifically, they claimed that the bag
“When one voluntarily submits to was sent by their uncle, who happened to be in
a search or consents to have it Baguio City, for shipment to Iloilo.
made of (sic) his person or
RULING: SC ruled that appellant and his baggage were validly
premises, he is precluded from searched, not because he was caught in flagrante delicto, but
later complaining thereof because he freely consented to the search. True, appellant
(Cooley, Constitutional and his companion were stopped by PO3 Valenzuela on mere
suspicion — not probable cause — that they were engaged in
Limitations, 8th ed., vol. I, page a felonious enterprise. But Valenzuela expressly sought
631.) The right to be secure from appellant's permission for the search. Only after appellant
unreasonable search may, like agreed to have his person and baggage checked did the actual
search commence. It was his consent which validated the
every right, be waived and such
search, waiver being a generally recognized exception to the
rule against warrantless search.
  May implied acquiescence be
 What were the criminal charges considered as consent freely given?
involved and who were indicted for
them? - In Aniag, Jr. vs. COMELEC
outlawed a search based on an
- The Information charged implied acquiescence, because
appellant Marlon Lacerna y such acquiescence was not
Aranador with "giving away to consent within the purview of the
another" prohibited drugs, a constitutional guaranty, but was
charge which was different from merely passive conformity to the
"delivery" defined under Section 2 search given under intimidating
(f) 13 of RA. 6245, as amended. and coercive circumstances.
- In the case-at-bar, consent was
 What were the items seized and who expressly given.
seized them?
Q: Are searches made pursuant to routine
- 18 blocks of marijuana, each airport security procedure valid? Supply the
wrapped in newspaper were answer and provide the relevant facts of the
seized by olice Officer 3 (PO3) case of People v. Susan Canton.
Carlito P. Valenzuela, a member PEOPLE V. SUSAN CANTON
of the Mobile Patrol Division of FACTS:
the Western Police District (WPD). - On February 12, 1998 at the Ninoy Aquino
International Airport the accused has in her
possession nine hundred ninety eight point two eight
 How was the waiver/consent given? hundred zero nine (998.2809) grams of
methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug,
- Appellant himself who was without the corresponding prescription or license.
- Appellant Susan Canton was charged before the
"urbanized in mannerism and Regional Trial Court of Pasay City with the violation of
speech" expressly said that he Section 16 of Article III of the Dangerous Drugs Act of
was consenting to the search as 1972 (Republic Act No. 6425), as amended.
- Unsatisfied with the decision of the trial court, Susan
he allegedly had nothing to hide imputed to the trial court the following errors: (1) in
and had done nothing wrong. In justifying the warrantless search against her based on
his brief, appellant explicitly, even the alleged existence of probable cause; (2) in holding
that she was caught flagrante delicto and that the
if awkwardly, reiterated this:
warrantless search was incidental to a lawful arrest;
"Confident that they [the (3) in not ruling that the frisker went beyond the limits
accused] have not done of the “Terry search” doctrine; (4) in not ruling that
Susan was under custodial investigation without
anything wrong, they allowed to
counsel; (5) in admitting to the records of the case the
be searched." This declaration of report of Dr. Ma. Bernadette Arcena, which was not
appellant is a confirmation of his testified on or offered in evidence, and using the
intelligent and voluntary same in determining her guilt; (6) in justifying under
the rule on judicial notice its cognizance of the
acquiescence to the search. The medical report that has not been offered in evidence;
marijuana bricks were, therefore, and (7) in applying the ruling in People v. Johnson.
obtained legally through a valid
ISSUE:
search and seizure. They were
admissible in evidence; there was WON made pursuant to routine airport security procedure
no poisonous tree to speak of. valid.
RULING:  What were the criminal charges
YES, the search made pursuant to routine airport security
involved and who were indicted for
procedure is allowed under Section 9 of Republic Act No. them?
6235, that every ticket issued to a passenger by the airline or
air carrier concerned shall contain among others the following
- Bonifacio Barros was charged
condition printed thereon: “Holder hereof and his hand-carried
luggage(s) are subject to search for, and seizure of, prohibited with violating Section 4 of R.A.
materials or substances. Holder refusing to be searched shall No. 6425, as amended (known as
not be allowed to board the aircraft,” which shall constitute a the Dangerous Drugs Act of
part of the contract between the passenger and the air carrier.
1972).

PEOPLE V. BARROS  What were the items seized and who

FACTS:
seized them?
- Both M/Sgt. Yag-as and S/Sgt. Ayan who were
seated at the back of a bus saw the accused carrying
a carton who boarded the same bus and seated - S/Sgt. Ayan and C2C Bongyao
himself on seat No. 18. Upon reaching Sabangan, seized a carton containing four 4
M/Sgt. Yag-as and S/Sgt. Ayan before they alighted
called C2C [Fernando] Bongyao to inspect the carton paper-wrapped packages of
under seat No. 18. dried marijuana.
- After C2C Bongyao inspected the carton, he found
out that it contained marijuana and he asked the
passengers whoever owns the carton, but nobody
 How was the purported
answered. waiver/consent given?
- Thereafter, C2C Bongyao alighted with the carton and
S/Sgt. Ayan and C2C Bongyao invited the accused to
- The consent waiver/consent was
the detachment for questioning as accused was the
suspected owner of the carton containing marijuana. not given. The police authorities
Both P.C. officers Yag-as and Ayan saw accused, had impermissibly extracted
Bonifacio Barros carrying that same carton when he confessions from the accused
boarded the bus at Chackchakan.
- Upon entering the detachment the carton was opened after two (2) hours of
in the presence of accused and accused Bonifacio interrogation, "under intimidating
Barros was asked if he owned the carton of marijuana circumstances," by four (4)
and accused denied this. When accused denied
ownership of the carton of marijuana, the P.C. officers
soldiers one after the other. The
called for the bus conductor who pinpointed to accused complains that he was
Bonifacio Barros as the owner of the carton of not informed of his rights to
marijuana. It was during the oral investigation of
remain silent and to counsel, that
accused that he finally admitted ownership of the
carton containing four 4 paper-wrapped packages of he had not waived his rights as
dried marijuana. an accused person, and that he
had signed a confession
RULING:
involuntarily and without the
As the constitutional guaranty is not dependent upon any assistance of counsel. He
affirmative act of the citizen, the courts do not place the citizen essentially contends that the
in the position of either contesting an officer's authority by
force, or waiving his constitutional rights; but instead they hold
confession is inadmissible as
that a peaceful submission to a search or seizure is not a evidence against him.
consent or an invitation thereto, but is merely a demonstration
of regard for the supremacy of the law.
 Why were they not considered by
SC applied the rule that: "courts indulge every reasonable
presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional the Supreme Court as valid waiver?
rights and that we do not presume acquiescence in the
loss of fundamental rights." (Johnson vs. Zerbts, 304 U.S.
- In Burgos, the SC Court ruled that
458)
the accused is not to be
 presumed to have waived the but is to be resolved according
unlawful search conducted on to the facts of each case.
the occasion of his warrantless
 Where, for example, the officer
arrest "simply because he failed
merely draws aside the curtain of
to object" — a vacant vehicle which is parked
on the public fair grounds, or
. . . To constitute a waiver, it must simply looks into a vehicle, or
appear first that the right exists; flashes a light therein, these do
secondly, that the person not constitute unreasonable
involved had knowledge, actual search. (Citations omitted)
or constructive, of the existence
 When, however, a vehicle is
of such a right; and lastly, that stopped and subjected to an
said person had an actual extensive search, such a
intention to relinquish the right warrantless search would be
(Pasion Vda. de Garcia vs. constitutionally permissible only if
Locsin, 65 Phil. 689). the officers conducting the
search have reasonable or
*NOTES: probable cause to believe,
 The general rule is that a search before the search, that either the
and seizure must be carried out motorist is a law-offender or the
through or with a judicial warrant; contents or cargo of the vehicle
otherwise such search and are or have been instruments or
seizure becomes "unreasonable" the subject matter or the
within the meaning of the above proceeds of some criminal
quoted constitutional provision. offense
The evidence secured thereby —
i.e., the "fruits" of the search and
seizure — will be inadmissible in ANIAG V. COMELEC
evidence "for any purpose in any FACTS:
- On 10 January 1992, pursuant to the "Gun Ban," Mr.
proceeding.
Serapio P. Taccad, Sergeant-at-Arms, House of
Representatives, wrote petitioner who was then Congressman
 In carrying out warrantless of the 1st District of Bulacan requesting the return of the two
searches of moving vehicles, (2) firearms3 issued to him by the House of Representatives.
however, peace officers are Upon being advised of the request on 13 January 1992 by his
limited to routine checks, that is, staff, petitioner immediately instructed his driver, Ernesto
the vehicles are neither really Arellano, to pick up the firearms from petitioner's house at
Valle Verde and return them to Congress.
searched nor their occupants
subjected to physical or body - Meanwhile, at about five o'clock in the afternoon of
searches, the examination of the the same day, the Philippine National Police (PNP) headed by
vehicles being limited to visual Senior Superintendent Danilo Cordero set up a checkpoint
inspection. outside the Batasan Complex some twenty (20) meters away
from its entrance. About thirty minutes later, the policemen
In Valmonte vs. De Villa, the manning the outpost flagged down the car driven by Arellano
Court stated: as it approached the checkpoint. They searched the car and
found the firearms neatly packed in their gun cases and placed

in a bag in the trunk of the car. Arellano was then apprehended
Not all searches and seizures are and detained. He explained that he was ordered by petitioner
prohibited. Those which are to get the firearms from the house and return them to
reasonable are not forbidden. A Sergeant-at-Arms Taccad of the House of Representatives.
reasonable search is not to be
determined by any fixed formula
 What were the criminal charges Arellano was then apprehended
involved and who were indicted for and detained. He explained that
them? he was ordered by petitioner to
get the firearms from the house
- Petitioner Congressman and return them to Sergeant-at-
Francisco B. Aniag, Jr. and his Arms Taccad of the House of
driver, Ernesto Arellano were Representatives.
charged for violation of Sec. 261,
par. (q), of B.P. Blg. 881 otherwise - Petitioner strongly protests
known as the Omnibus Election against the manner by which the
Code, in relation to Sec. 32 of PNP conducted the search.
R.A. No. 7166;7 and petitioner to According to him, without a
show cause why he should not warrant and without informing
be disqualified from running for the driver of his fundamental
an elective position, pursuant to rights the policemen searched his
COMELEC Resolution No. 2327, in car. The firearms were not tucked
relation to Sec. 32, 33 and 35 of in the waist nor within the
R.A. 7166, and Sec. 52, par. (c), of immediate reach of Arellano but
B.P. Blg. 881. were neatly packed in their gun
cases and wrapped in a bag
 What were the items and who seized kept in the trunk of the car. Thus,
them? the search of his car that yielded
the evidence for the prosecution
- The Philippine National Police was clearly violative of Secs. 2
headed by Senior Superintendent and 3, par. (2), Art. III, of the
Danilo Cordero seized two (2) Constitution.
firearms.
 Why were they not considered by
 How was the purported the Supreme Court as valid waiver?
waiver/consent given?
- In the case of petitioner, only his
- At about five o'clock in the driver was at the car at that time
afternoon of the same day, the it was stopped for inspection. As
Philippine National Police (PNP) conceded by COMELEC, driver
set up a checkpoint outside the Arellano did not know the
Batasan Complex some twenty purpose of the checkpoint. In the
(20) meters away from its face of fourteen (14) armed
entrance. About thirty minutes policemen conducting the
later, the policemen manning the operation, driver Arellano being
outpost flagged down the car alone and a mere employee of
driven by Arellano as it petitioner could not have
approached the checkpoint. marshalled the strength and the
They searched the car and found courage to protest against the
the firearms neatly packed in extensive search conducted in
their gun cases and placed in a the vehicle. In such scenario, the
bag in the trunk of the car. "implied acquiescence," if there
 was any, could not be more than McArthur Highway to await. Tudtud’s arrival.
All wore civilian clothes.
a mere passive conformity on - About 8:00 pm, 2 men disembarked from a
Arellano's part to the search, and bus and helped each other carry a carton
"consent" given under marked “King Flakes.” Standing some 5 feet
away from the men, PO1 Desierto and PO1
intimidating or coercive
Floreta observed that one of the men fit
circumstances is no consent Tudtud’s description. The same man also
within the purview of the toted a plastic bag.
constitutional guaranty. - PO1Floreta and PO1 Desierto then
approached the suspects and identified
themselves as police officers. PO1 Desierto
*NOTES:
informed them that the police had received
 An extensive search without information that stocks of illegal drugs would
warrant could only be resorted to be arriving that night. The man who
resembled Tudtud’s description denied that
if the officers conducting the
he was carrying any drugs. PO1 Desierto
search had reasonable or asked if he could see the contents of the
probable cause to believe box.
before the search that either the - Tudtud then said “it was alright” and let them
see the box which contained bundles of
motorist was a law offender or dried fish, one wrapped in a plastic bag and
that they would find the another in newspapers. When the bundles
instrumentality or evidence were unwrapped, there contained marijuana
leaves.
pertaining to the commission of a
- The police arrested Tudtud and his
crime in the vehicle to be comapanion. They were charged with illegal
searched. possession of prohibited drugs before the
RTC of Davao City which convicted the
 The existence of probable cause
accused.
justifying the warrantless search is
determined by the
 What were the criminal charges
facts of each case.
involved and who were indicted for
PEOPLE V. TUDTUD them?
FACTS:
- Noel Tudtud y Paypa and his
- Sometime during the months of July and
August 1999, the Toril Police Station, Davao companion Dindo Bulong were
City received a report from a “civilian asset” charged before the Regional Trial
named Bobong Solier about a certain Noel Court (RTC) of Davao City with
Tudtud.
- Solier related that his neighbours have been
illegal possession of prohibited
complaining about Tudtud, who was drugs.
allegedly responsible for the proliferation of
marijuana in their area. Relating to the
 What were the items seized and who
report, the police conducted surveillance in
Solier’s neighbourhood in Sapa, Toril, Davao seized them?
City. For 5 days, they gathered information
and leared that Tudtud was involved in illegal - PO1 Floreta and PO1 Desierto
drugs. According to his neighbours, Tudtud
was engaged in selling marijuana. seized a plastic bag containing
3,200 grams of marijuana leaves
- Solier informed the police that Tudtud had and another 890 grams wrapped
headed to Cotabato and would be back later
that day with new stocks of marijuana. Solier
in newspaper.
described Tudtud as big bodied and short,
and usually wore a hat. At around 4:00 pm
that same day, a team of policemen posted
themselves at the corner of Saipon and
 How was the purported introduced themselves as such
waiver/consent given? and requested appellant that
they see the contents of the
- PO1 Floreta and PO1 Desierto carton box supposedly
then approached the suspects containing the marijuana,
and identified themselves as appellant Tudtud said it was
police officers. PO1 Desierto alright. He did not resist and
informed them that the police opened the box himself.
had received information that Acquiescence in the loss of
stocks of illegal drugs would be fundamental rights is not to be
arriving that night. The man who presumed. The fact that a person
resembled Tudtud's description failed to object to a search does
denied that he was carrying any not amount to permission thereto.
drugs. PO1 Desierto asked him if
he could see the contents of the *NOTES:
box. Tudtud obliged, saying, "it
 There is an effective waiver of rights
was alright." Tudtud opened the
box himself as his companion against unreasonable searches and
looked on. seizures if the following requisites are
present:
a. It must appear that the rights exist;
 Why were they not considered by
the Supreme Court as valid waiver? b. The person involved had knowledge,
actual or constructive, of the existence
of such right;
- The right against unreasonable
searched and seizures is secured c. Said person had an actual intention to
by Sec. 2, Art. 3 of the relinquish the right.
Constitution. Appellants implied
acquiescence, if at all, could not PEOPLE V. DAMASO
have been more than mere
passive conformity given under Q: Supply the relevant facts of the case
coercive or intimidating relating to such pronouncement of the
circumstances and is, thus, Supreme Court and the reasoning made by it.
considered no consent at all
FACTS:
within the purview of the
constitutional guarantee. - On June 18, 1988, Lt. Candido
Consequently, appellants lack of Quijardo, a Philippine
objection to the search and Constabulary officer connected
seizure is not tantamount to a with the 152nd PC Company at
waiver of his constitutional right or Lingayen, Pangasinan, and some
a voluntary submission to the companions were sent to verify
warrantless search and seizure. the presence of CPP/NPA
members in Barangay
- The prosecution failed to Catacdang, Arellano-Bani,
establish the second and third Dagupan City.
requisites. Records disclose that - In said place, the group
when the police officers apprehended Gregorio
 Flameniano, Berlina Aritumba, group, as well as the Barangay
Revelina Gamboa and Captain, saw radio sets,
Deogracias Mayaoa. When pamphlets entitled "Ang Bayan,"
interrogated, the persons xerox copiers and a computer
apprehended revealed that machine. They also found
there was an underground persons who were companions of
safehouse at Gracia Village in Luz Tanciangco (namely, Teresita
Urdaneta, Pangasinan. After Calosa, Ricardo Calosa, Maries
coordinating with the Station Calosa, Eric Tanciangco and
Commander of Urdaneta, the Luzviminda Morados).
group proceeded to the house in - The group requested the persons
Gracia Village. They found in the house to allow them to look
subversive documents, a radio, a around. When Luz Tanciangco
1 x 7 caliber .45 firearm and other opened one of the rooms, they
items. saw books used for subversive
- After the raid, the group orientation, one M-14 rifle, bullets
proceeded to Bonuan, Dagupan and ammunitions, Kenwood
City, and put under surveillance radio, artificial beard, maps of
the rented apartment of the Philippines, Zambales,
Rosemarie Aritumba, sister of Mindoro an(d) Laguna and other
Berlina Aritumba whom they items. They confiscated the
earlier arrested. They interviewed articles and brought them to their
Luzviminda Morados, who guided headquarters for final inventory.
the group to the house rented by They likewise brought the persons
appellant. When they reached found in the house to the
the house, the group found that it headquarters for investigation.
had already been vacated by Said persons revealed that
the occupants. Since Morados appellant was the lessee of the
was hesitant to give the new house and owned the items
address of Bernie Mendoza, the confiscated therefrom.
group looked for the Barangay
SC:
Captain of the place and
requested him to point out the - Waiver must be given by the
new house rented by appellant. person whose right is violated.
The group again required - The constitutional immunity from
Morados to go with them. When unreasonable searches and
they reached the house, the seizures, being personal one,
group saw Luz Tanciangco cannot be waived by anyone
outside. except the person whose rights
- They told her that they already are invaded or one who is
knew that she was a member of expressly authorized to do so in
the NPA in the area. At first, she his or her behalf (De Garcia v.
denied it, but when she saw Locsin, 65 Phil. 689, 695).
Morados she requested the - In the case at bar, the records
group to go inside the house. show that appellant was not in his
Upon entering the house, the house at that time Luz
 Tanciangco and Luz Morados, his PEOPLE V. CALANTIAO
FACTS:
alleged helper, allowed the - Appellant was apprehended at around 4:00
authorities to enter it. A.M. of June 20, 1994 near a waiting shed
- There was no evidence that located at Barangay Salitran, Dasmariñas,
Cavite by SPO1 Concordio Talingting and
would establish the fact that Luz
SPO1 Armando Clarin, both members of the
Morados was indeed the Cavite Philippine National Police Command
appellant's helper or if it was true based in Dasmariñas.
that she was his helper, that the - Appellant, according to the two officers, was
caught transporting 28 marijuana bricks
appellant had given her authority contained in a traveling bag and a carton
to open his house in his absence. box, which marijuana bricks had a total
The prosecution likewise failed to weight of 28 kilos.
- These two officers later asserted in court that
show if Luz Tanciangco has such they were aided by an informer in the arrest
an authority. Without this of appellant. That informer, according to
evidence, the authorities' Talingting and Clarin, had informed them the
day before, or on June 19, 1994 at about
intrusion into the appellant's
2:00 P.M., that a drug courier, whom said
dwelling cannot be given any informer could recognize, would be arriving
color of legality. While the power somewhere in Barangay Salitran,
to search and seize is necessary Dasmariñas from Baguio City with an
undetermined amount of marijuana. It was
to the public welfare, still it must the same informer who pinpointed to the
be exercised and the law arresting officers the appellant when the
enforced without transgressing latter alighted from a passenger jeepney on
the aforestated day, hour, and place.
the constitutional rights of the - On the other hand, appellant disavowed
citizens, for the enforcement of ownership of the prohibited drugs. He
no statute is of sufficient claimed during the trial that while he indeed
came all the way from Baguio City, he
importance to justify indifference
traveled to Dasmariñas, Cavite with only
to the basic principles of some pocket money and without any
government (Rodriguez v. luggage. His sole purpose in going there was
to look up his cousin who had earlier offered
Evangelista, 65 Phil. 230, 235).
a prospective job at a garment factory in said
locality, after which he would return to
Baguio City. He never got around to doing so
as he was accosted by SPO1 Talingting and
SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO A LAWFUL ARREST SPO1 Clarin at Barangay Salitran.

This exception is authorized by Rule 126,

 Who is the accused and what was
Section 13 of the Rules of Court which
the criminal charge against him?
provides:

―Rule 126, Section 13. A person lawfully - Accused-appellant Medario

arrested may be searched for dangerous Calantiao y Dimalanta
weapons or anything which may have been (Calantiao) was charged fkor
used or constitute proof in the commission of violating Section 11, Article II of
an offense without a search warrant.‖ Republic Act No. 9165 or the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002.
 What were the circumstances the same was positive for
surrounding his arrest and the marijuana.
subsequent search and seizure?
 Was the warrantless search and
- Edwin Lojera narrated that while seizure valid?
driving a towing truck and - YES
traversing along EDSA,
Balintawak, Quezon City, he had  According to the Supreme Court,
a traffic dispute (gitgitan) with a what is the purpose of allowing a
white taxi cab prompting him to warrantless search and seizure as an
follow said vehicle until they incident to a lawful arrest?
reached along 8th avenue street.
Thereat, one of the passengers of - The purpose of allowing a
said taxicab, Medario Calantiao warrantless search and seizure
(accused), alighted and fired incident to a lawful arrest is "to
their guns. Surprised, Lojera could protect the arresting officer from
not do anything but continued being harmed by the person
his driving until he reached a arrested, who might be armed with a
police station nearby where he concealed weapon, and to prevent
reported the incident. By this, the the latter from destroying evidence
officers on duty, PO1 Mariano within reach." It is therefore a
and PO3 Ramirez immediately reasonable exercise of the State‘s
proceeded to the scene where police power to protect (1) law
they found the white taxi. While enforcers from the injury that may be
approaching said vehicle, two inflicted on them by a person they
armed men alighted therefrom, have lawfully arrested; and (2)
fired their guns towards them evidence from being destroyed by
(police officers) and ran away. the arrestee. It seeks to ensure the
The officers chased them and safety of the arresting officers and
recovered from the armed men the integrity of the evidence under
a black bag containing two the control and within the reach of
cricks of marijuana and a the arrestee.
magazine of super 38 stainless
with ammos, and recovered from In People v. Valeroso, the Supreme
Calantiao‘s companion, Rommel Court had the occasion to reiterate
Reyes, a .38 revolver. The two the permissible reach of a valid
suspects and the confiscated warrantless search and seizure
items were then turned over to incident to a lawful arrest, viz:
SPO3 Temena, police investigator
at Bagong Barrio Police Station When an arrest is made, it is
for investigation and markings of reasonable for the arresting officer to
the seized items and forwarded search the person arrested in order
to the PNP Crime Laboratory for to remove any weapon that the
chemical analysis. The result of latter might use in order to resist
the examination revealed that arrest or effect his escape.
Otherwise, the officer‘s safety might
 well be endangered, and the arrest - In the case-at-bar, the Plain View
itself frustrated. In addition, it is Doctrine finds no applicability in
entirely reasonable for the arresting Calantiao‘s situation because
officer to search for and seize any the police officers purposely
evidence on the arrestee‘s person in searched him upon his arrest. The
order to prevent its concealment or police officers did not
destruction. inadvertently come across the
black bag, which was in
 What does the phrase “within the Calantiao‘s possession; they
area of his immediate control” deliberately opened it, as part of
mean? the search incident to
Calantiao‘s lawful arrest.
- The phrase ―within the area of his immediate
control‖ means that it was within the PEOPLE V. MONTILLA
permissible area that the apprehending
officers could validly conduct a warrantless  In the case of People v. Montilla,
search.
who is the accused and what was
*NOTES: the criminal charge against him?

 The Plain View Doctrine is actually the - Accused-Appellant Ruben

exception to the inadmissibility of Montilla y Gatdula alias "Joy,"
evidence obtained in a warrantless was charged on August 22, 1994
search incident to a lawful arrest outside for violating Section 4, Article II of
the suspect‘s person and premises the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972,
under his immediate control. Republic Act No. 6425, as
- This is so because objects in the amended by Republic Act No.
‗plain view‘ of an officer who has 7659.
the right to be in the position to
have that view are subject to  What were the circumstances
seizure and may be presented as surrounding his arrest and the
evidence. subsequent search and seizure?
- The doctrine is usually applied
where a police officer is not - Two officers were aided by an
searching for evidence against informer who had informed them
the accused, but nonetheless the day before, or on June 19,
inadvertently comes across an 1994 at about 2:00 P.M., that a
incriminating object. It serves to drug courier, whom said informer
supplement the prior justification could recognize, would be
– whether it be a warrant for arriving somewhere in Barangay
another object, hot pursuit, Salitran, Dasmariñas from Baguio
search incident to lawful arrest, or City with an undetermined
some other legitimate reason for amount of marijuana. It was the
being present unconnected with same informer who pinpointed to
a search directed against the the arresting officers the
accused – and permits the appellant when the latter
warrantless seizure. alighted from a passenger
 jeepney on the aforestated day, was in the act of violating the
hour, and place. As soon as law. The search yielded
appellant had alighted from the affirmance both of that probable
passenger jeepney, the informer cause and the actuality that
at once indicated to the officers appellant was then actually
that their suspect was at hand by committing a crime by illegally
pointing to him from the waiting transporting prohibited drugs.
shed. SPO1 Clarin recounted that With these attendant facts, it is
the informer told them that the ineluctable that appellant was
marijuana was likely hidden caught in flagrante delicto,
inside the traveling bag and hence his arrest and the search
carton box which appellant was of his belongings without the
carrying at the time. The officers requisite warrant were both
thus realized that he was their justified.
man even if he was simply
carrying a seemingly innocent - Furthermore, that appellant also
looking pair of luggage for consented to the search is borne
personal effects. Accordingly, out by the evidence. Appellant
they approached appellant, readily acceded, presumably or
introduced themselves as in all likelihood resigned to the
policemen, and requested him to fact that the law had caught up
open and show them the with his criminal activities. When
contents of the traveling bag, an individual voluntarily submits
which appellant voluntarily and to a search or consents to have
readily did. Upon cursory the same conducted upon his
inspection by SPO1 Clarin, the person or premises, he is
bag yielded the prohibited drugs, precluded from later
so, without bothering to further complaining thereof. he
search the box, they brought spontaneously performed
appellant and his luggage to affirmative acts of volition by
their headquarter for questioning. himself opening the bag without
being forced or intimidated to do
 What made the warrantless search so, which acts should properly be
and seizure valid, that is to say what construed as a clear waiver of his
made the arrest preceding the right.
search valid?

- There were sufficient facts

antecedent to the search and
seizure that, at the point prior to
the search, were already
constitutive of probable cause,
and which by themselves could
properly create in the minds of
the officers a well grounded and
reasonable belief that appellant
 Suppose the Supreme Court found *NOTES:
that the exception of search
incidental to a lawful arrest cannot  What is a probable cause?
be countenanced, could there have - The conventional view is that
been another exception to anchor probable cause, while largely a
the validity of the search and seizure relative term the determination of
on? which must be resolved
according to the facts of each
- A search incidental to a lawful case, is understood as having
arrest is ound under Section 5(a), reference to such facts and
Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. circumstances which could lead
Under the provision, a peace a reasonable, discreet, and
officers or a private person may, prudent man to believe and
without a warrant, arrest a person conclude as to the commission of
when, in his presence, the person an offense, and that the objects
to be arrested has committed, is sought in connection with the
actually committing, or is offense are in the place sought
attempting to commit an to be searched.
offense.

- A legitimate warrantless arrest,

necessarily cloaks the arresting
police officer with authority to
validly search and seize from the
offender (1) dangerous weapons,
and (2) those that may be used
as proof of the commission of an
offense. On the other hand, the
apprehending officer must have
been spurred by probable cause
in effecting an arrest which could
be classified as one in cadence
with the instances of permissible
arrests set out in Section 5(a).
These instances have been
applied to arrests carried out on
persons caught in flagrante
delicto.
Issuance of a valid warrantless arrest search and seizure
incidental to a lawful arrest

PEOPLE v. LUISITO GO vi. What were the circumstances surrounding his arrest and the
subsequent search and seizure of the gun? How about the
FACTS: Police civilian Panuringan reported to SPO1 Piamonte drug paraphernalia?
and SPO3 Liquido that he saw Lusito Go also known as “King
 When the police officers conducted an “Operation
Louie” enter the Flamingo Disco House. He said that he spotted
Bakal” where they searched for illegally possessed
a gun tucked in Lusito Go’s waist. The police officers proceeded firearms. The gun was tucked in appellant’s waist when
to the Disco House and conducted an “Operation Bakal” he stood up. The Gun was plainly visible.
where they search for illegally possessed firearms. The
policemen saw the gun tucked in his waist. The police officer  When accused-appellant opened the door, the police
asked for the license but was unable to produce any. Police officers saw pieces of glass tooters and tin foils on the
officers accompanied accused –appellant to his car. Through backseat and floor of the car. When asked why he had
these items, he did not say anything.
the windshield they notice a PNP ID Card hanging from the
rearview. They asked Go for his driver’s license and the  Accused-appellant took out an attaché case from the
registration papers of the vehicle but was unable to produce it. car and opened it. There were two black clutch bags
Also, the police officers saw pieces of glass tooters and tin foils inside. Accused-appellant opened the first bag, which
on the backseat and floor of the car. contained shiny white substance wrapped in cellophane.
The second bag contained P120,000.00 in cash.
Accused-appellant took out an attaché case from the car and
opened it. There were two black clutch bags inside. Accused-
vii. What made the warrantless search and seizure valid, that
appellant opened the first bag, which contained shiny white is to say what made the arrest preceding the search valid?
substance wrapped in cellophane. The second bag contained
P120, 000.00 in cash. The gun was plainly visible. No search was conducted as
none was necessary. Accused-appellant could not show any
license for the firearm, whether at the time of his arrest or
SC HELD: the gun was tucked in appellant's waist when he stood
thereafter. Thus, he was in effect committing a crime in the
up. The gun was plainly visible. No search was conducted as presence of the police officers. No warrant of arrest was
none was necessary. Accused-appellant could not show any necessary in such a situation, it being one of the recognized
license for the firearm, whether at the time of his arrest or exceptions under the Rules.
thereafter. Thus, he was in effect committing a crime in the
presence of the police officers. No warrant of arrest was As a consequence of appellant's valid warrantless arrest, he
necessary in such a situation, it being one of the recognized may be lawfully searched for dangerous weapons or
exceptions under the Rules. anything which may be used as proof of the commission of
an offense, without a search warrant, as provided in Rule 126,
Section 12. The seized items do not fall within the
As a consequence of appellant's valid warrantless arrest, he
exclusionary clause, which states that any evidence
may be lawfully searched for dangerous weapons or anything
obtained in violation of the right against warrantless arrest
which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, cannot be used for any purposes in any proceeding. Hence,
without a search warrant, as provided in Rule 126, Section 12. not being fruits of the poisonous tree, so to speak, the objects
This is a valid search incidental to the lawful arrest. The found at the scene of the crime are admissible.
subsequent discovery in his car of drug paraphernalia and the
crystalline substance, which was later identified as shabu,
viii. Suppose the Supreme Court found that the exception of
though in a distant place from where the illegal possession of
search incidental to a lawful arrest cannot be
firearm was committed, cannot be said to have been made countenanced, could there have been another exception
during an illegal search. As such, the seized items do not fall to anchor the validity of the search and seizure on?
within the exclusionary clause, which states that any evidence
obtained in violation of the right against warrantless arrest CONSENTED SEARCH is another exception to anchor the
cannot be used for any purposes in any proceeding. Hence, validity of the search and seizure. It has been held that
drugs discovered as a result of a consented search is
not being fruits of the poisonous tree, so to speak, the objects
admissible in evidence. In the present case, the accused-
found at the scene of the crime, such as the firearm, the shabu appellant willingly took out an attaché case from the car
and the drug paraphernalia, can be used as evidence against and opened it which signifies consent to the search
appellant. Besides, it has been held that drugs discovered as a conducted by the police officers.
result of a consented search is admissible in evidence.

v. Who is the accused and what was the criminal charge

against him?

The accused is Luisito Go aka “King Louie” and is criminally

charged with violation of Article III of R.A. 6452 (Dangerous
Drugs Act) and of PD 1866
23. Compare the two (2) immediately foregoing cases to the
i. Who is the accused and what was the criminal charge
case of People v. Aruta in which the Supreme Court invalidated against him?
the search and seizure made purportedly incidental to a lawful
arrest. The accused is Rosa Aruta Y. Menguin. She was arrested and
charged with violating Section 4, Article II of the Republic Act
PEOPLE V. ARUTA No. 6425 or the Dangerous Drugs Act.

FACTS: In the morning of December 13, 1988, the law ii. What were the circumstance surrounding the arrest and the
enforcement officers received information from an informant subsequent search and seizure?
named "Benjie" that a certain "Aling Rosa" would be leaving for
Baguio City on December 14, 1988 and would be back in the  Accused-appellant was merely crossing the street and
was not acting in any manner that would engender a
afternoon of the same day carrying with her a large volume of
reasonable ground for the NARCOM agents to suspect
marijuana; At 6:30 in the evening of December 14, 1988,
and conclude that she was committing a crime.
accused-appellant alighted from a Victory Liner Bus carrying a
travelling bag even as the informant pointed her out to the law  The NARCOM agents would not have apprehended
enforcement officers. The law enforcement officers accused-appellant were it not for the furtive finger of the
approached her and introduced themselves as NARCOM informant because, as clearly illustrated by the evidence
agents. When asked by Lt. Abello about the contents of her on record, there was no reason whatsoever for them to
suspect that accused-appellant was committing a crime,
travelling bag, she gave the same to him. When they opened
except for the pointing finger of the informant.
the same, they found dried marijuana leaves. Accused-
appellant was then brought to the NARCOM office for  Having ascertained that accused-appellant was "Aling
investigation. Rosa," the team approached her and introduced
themselves as NARCOM agents. When P/Lt. Abello asked
SC HELD: The NARCOM agents were admittedly not armed "Aling Rosa" about the contents of her bag, the latter
with a warrant of arrest. To legitimize the warrantless search and handed it to the former. Upon inspection, the bag was
found to contain dried marijuana leaves packed in a
seizure of accused-appellant's bag, accused-appellant must
plastic bag marked "Cash Katutak." The team
have been validly arrested under Section 5 of Rule 113. confiscated the bag together with the Victory Liner bus
ticket to which Lt. Domingo affixed his signature.
Accused-appellant Aruta cannot be said to be committing a
crime. Neither was she about to commit one nor had she just
iii. Why was the warrantless search and seizure valid, that is to
committed a crime. Accused-appellant was merely crossing say what made the arrest preceding the search invalid?
the street and was not acting in any manner that would
engender a reasonable ground for the NARCOM agents to To legitimize the warrantless search and seizure of accused-
suspect and conclude that she was committing a crime. It was appellant's bag, accused-appellant must have been validly
only when the informant pointed to accused-appellant and arrested under Section 5 of Rule 113. However, in the present
case the Accused-appellant Aruta cannot be said to be
identified her to the agents as the carrier of the marijuana that
committing a crime. Neither was she about to commit one nor
she was singled out as the suspect. The NARCOM agents would had she just committed a crime. Consequently, there was no
not have apprehended accused-appellant were it not for the legal basis for the NARCOM agents to effect a warrantless
furtive finger of the informant because, as clearly illustrated by search of accused-appellant's bag, there being no probable
the evidence on record, there was no reason whatsoever for cause and the accused-appellant not having been lawfully
them to suspect that accused-appellant was committing a arrested.
crime, except for the pointing finger of the informant.
24. In a valid warrantless search and seizure incidental to a
This Court could neither sanction nor tolerate as it is a clear lawful arrest, what is the permissible area of the search?
violation of the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable The answer to such questions may be found in the cases of
search and seizure. Neither was there any semblance of any People v. Che Chun Ting and People v. Cubcubin.
compliance with the rigid requirements of probable cause and
warrantless arrests. PEOPLE V. CHE CHUN TING

Consequently, there was no legal basis for the NARCOM agents FACTS: Following a series of buy-bust operations, the
to effect a warrantless search of accused-appellant's bag, elements of the Special Operation Unit, Narcotics
there being no probable cause and the accused-appellant not Command, apprehended a suspected drug courier,
having been lawfully arrested. Stated otherwise, the arrest Mabel Cheung Mei Po, after she delivered a transparent
being incipiently illegal, it logically follows that the subsequent plastic bag containing a white crystalline substance to an
search was similarly illegal, it being not incidental to a lawful informant, in full view of NARCOM agents. When
arrest. The constitutional guarantee against unreasonable questioned, Mabel Cheung Mei Po cooperated with the
search and seizure must perforce operate in favor of accused- government agents and revealed the name of accused
appellant. As such, the articles seized could not be used as Che Chun Ting as the source of the drugs. The narcotics
evidence against accused-appellant for these are "fruits of a command deployed a team of agents for the entrapment
poisoned tree" and, therefore, must be rejected, pursuant to and arrest of Che Chun Ting. Mabel received a call from
Article III, Sec. 3(2) of the Constitution. the accused that he was ready to deliver the stuff. Mabel
went to UNIT 122. When the 2 NARCOM agents, saw the
door of the unit open as a man went out to hand Mabel a
transparent plastic bag containing white crystalline
substance.
 ii. What pieces of evidence were considered by the SC as
The NARCOM agents immediately alighted and arrested the
seized outside the immediate control of the accused?
surprised man who was positively identified by Mabel as Che
Chun Ting. Then the agents radioed their superiors in the other
With respect to the time and place of the warrantless search,
car and coordinated with the security guard on duty at the
it must be contemporaneous with the lawful arrest. Stated
Roxas Seafront Garden to make a search of Unit 122. During
otherwise, to be valid, the search must have been
the search SPO3 Campanilla seized a black bag with several
conducted at about the time of the arrest or immediately
plastic bags containing a white crystalline substance in an
thereafter and only at the place where the suspect was
open cabinet at the second floor.
arrested, or the premises or surroundings under his immediate
control.
CHE CHUN TING alias "DICK," a Hong Kong national, was found
guilty by the trial court on 22 August 1997 of delivering, PEOPLE V. CUBCUBIN
distributing and dispatching in transit 999.43 grams
of shabu; and, having in his custody, possession and control FACTS: Desk officer of the Cavite City police station received
5,578.68 grams of the same regulated drug. He was meted two a call that a person had been shot near the cemetery. A
(2) death sentences, one for violation of Sec. 15 and the other police team responded to the call and found Henry P.
for violation of Sec. 16, both of Art. III, of RA 6425 Piamonte slumped dead on his tricycle which was then
(The Dangerous
Rrrr Drugs Act of 1972, as amended). parked on the road. A tricycle driver testified that the
accused-appellant and the victim were last seen together
Accused Che Chun Ting now contends that the trial court coming out of the Sting Café. Another tricycle driver told the
erred: (a) in convicting him on the basis of the shabu seized police officers that a person known as alias “Jun Dulce” fitted
inside Unit 122, which was constitutionally inadmissible as the description. The former who knew where the accused-
evidence since it was seized without a search warrant appellant lived, led the police officers to the accused-
appellant’s house in Garcia Extension. The police operatives
SC HELD: The search in Unit 122 and the seizure therein of some identified themselves and informed him that he was being
5,578.68 grams of shabu do not fall within the exception, sought in connection with the shooting near the cemetery.
hence, were illegal for being violative of one's basic Accused-appellant denied involvement in the incident. Upon
constitutional right and guarantee against unreasonable the conduct of their search, the police officers found a white
searches and seizures. t-shirt bearing the brand name “Hanes” and the two bullet
shells. SPO1 Malinao, Jr. then asked accused-appellant to go
The accused was admittedly outside unit 22 and in the act of
with them to Sting Cafe for purposes of identification. There,
delivering to Mabel Cheung Mei Po a bag of shabu when he
accused-appellant was positively identified by Danet
was arrested by the NARCOM operatives. Moreover, it is borne
Garcellano as the victim's companion. The police
by the records that Unit 122 was not even his residence but
investigators asked the accused-appellant where the fatal
that of his girlfriend Nimfa Ortiz, and that he was merely
gun is. However, the latter refused to tell them where he hid
a sojourner therein. Hence, it can hardly be said that the inner
the gun so the Police officers sought his permission to go back
portion of the house constituted a permissible area within his
to his house to conduct a further search. Inside the house,
reach or immediate control, to justify a warrantless search
they on top of a drum outside the bathroom a homemade
therein.
smith and Wesson caliber .38 revolver (six shooter), without a
serial number and found the gun loaded with 5 bullets.
The lawful arrest being the sole justification for the validity of
the warrantless search under the exception, the same must be
Accused-appellant contends that neither he nor his son gave
limited to and circumscribed by the subject, time and place of
permission to the arresting police officers to search his house
the arrest. As to subject, the warrantless search is sanctioned
and, therefore, the "Hanes" t-shirt, the two spent slugs, and the
only with respect to the person of the suspect, and things that
.38 caliber revolver allegedly found in his house are
may be seized from him are limited to "dangerous weapons" or
inadmissible in evidence. The prosecution, on the other hand,
"anything which may be used as proof of the commission of
insists that accused-appellant consented to the search of his
the offense." With respect to the time and place of the
house
warrantless search, it must be contemporaneous with the
lawful arrest. Stated otherwise, to be valid, the search must SC HELD: The search cannot be justified as incidental to a
have been conducted at about the time of the arrest or valid arrest. A valid arrest allows only the seizure of evidence
immediately thereafter and only at the place where the or dangerous weapons either in the person of the one
suspect was arrested, or the premises or surroundings under his arrested or within the area of his immediate control. The
immediate control. rationale for such search and seizure is to prevent the person
arrested either from destroying evidence or from using the
i. Where were the accused arrested and what was the scope of weapon against his captor. It is clear that the warrantless
the search made by the arresting officers? search in this case cannot be justified on this ground. For
neither the t-shirt nor the gun was within the area of accused-
The accused was admittedly outside unit 22 and in the act of appellant's immediate control. In fact, according to the
delivering to Mabel Cheung Mei Po a bag of shabu when he was prosecution, the police found the gun only after going back
arrested by the NARCOM operatives. They made a search of Unit to the house of accused-appellant.
122 and seized a black bag with several plastic bags containing a
white crystalline substance in an open cabinet at the second
floor. It is borne by the records that Unit 122 was not even his
residence but that of his girlfriend Nimfa Ortiz and that he was
merely a sojourner therein.
i. Where were the accused arrested and what was the scope
SC Held: In the instant case, the appellant was arrested and
of the search made by the arresting officers?
his person searched in the living room. Failing to retrieve the
marked money which they hoped to find, the NARCOM
Upon the conduct of their search, the police officers found a
agents searched the whole house and found the plastic
white t-shirt bearing the brand name “Hanes” and the two
bag in the kitchen. The plastic bag was, therefore, not within
bullet shells. SPO1 Malinao, Jr. then asked accused-appellant
their "plain view" when they arrested the appellant as to
to go with them to Sting Cafe for purposes of identification.
justify its seizure. The incriminating nature of the contents of
There, accused-appellant was positively identified by Danet
the plastic bag was not immediately apparent from the
Garcellano as the victim's companion. The police investigators
"plain view" of said object. It cannot be claimed that the
asked the accused-appellant where the fatal gun is. However,
plastic bag clearly betrayed its contents, whether by its
the latter refused to tell them where he hid the gun so the
distinctive configuration, its transparency, or otherwise, that
Police officers sought his permission to go back to his house to
its contents are obvious to an observer.
conduct a further search. Inside the house, they found on top
of a drum outside the bathroom a homemade smith and
Wesson caliber .38 revolver (six shooter), without a serial i. Who is the accused and what was the criminal charge
number and found the gun loaded with 5 bullets. against him?

ii. What pieces of evidence were considered by the SC as The accused is Mari Musa and was charged with violating
seized outside the immediate control of the accused? Article II, Section 4 of R.A No. 6425, as amended, otherwise
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.
A valid arrest allows only the seizure of evidence or dangerous
weapons either in the person of the one arrested or within the ii. What item was purported to have been seized in plain view
area of his immediate control. The rationale for such search and what are the circumstances surrounding the seizure?
and seizure is to prevent the person arrested either from
destroying evidence or from using the weapon against his In the instant case, the appellant was arrested and his person
captor. It is clear that the warrantless search in this case cannot searched in the living room. Failing to retrieve the marked
be justified on this ground. For neither the t-shirt nor the gun was money which they hoped to find, the NARCOM agents
within the area of accused-appellant's immediate control. In searched the whole house and found the plastic bag in the
fact, according to the prosecution, the police found the gun kitchen. When the NARCOM agents saw the plastic bag
only after going back to the house of accused-appellant. hanging in one corner of the kitchen, they had no clue as to its
contents. They had to ask the appellant what the bag
PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE contained. When the appellant refused to respond, they
opened it and found the marijuana.

25. In the case of People v. Musa, the Supreme Court iii. Was such item legally seized by the police officers? Why or
surveyed American Jurisprudence, and in which cases, the Why not?
earlier applications of the plain view doctrine were made.
The plastic bag containing marijuana leaves was illegally
seized by the police officers. Because it was not within their
PEOPLE V. MUSA "plain view" when they arrested the appellant as to justify its
seizure.
FACTS: Sgt. Amado Ani conducted surveillance and test
buy on a certain Mari Musa of Suterville, Zamboanga City. iv. What American Jurisprudence was used by the Supreme
Information received from civilian informer was that this Court to compare the present case? What were the
Mari Musa was engaged in selling marijuana in said place. distinctions drawn by the SC?
Amado Ani was able to buy one newspaper-wrapped
dried marijuana Sgt. Ani returned to the NARCOM office In the present case: Ker v. California
and turned over the newspaper-wrapped marijuana to The NARCOM agents in this Unlike Ker vs. California,
T/Sgt. Jesus Belarga. Sgt. Belarga inspected the stuff turned case went from room to where the police officer had
over to him and found it to be marijuana. room with the obvious reason to walk to the
intention of fishing for more doorway of the adjacent
The next day a buy-bust was planned. Sgt. Amado Ani was evidence. kitchen and from which
assigned as the poseur buyer for which purpose he was position he saw the
marijuana.
given P20.00. A pre-arranged signal was arranged
The NARCOM agents in this Unlike Ker v. California,
consisting of Sgt. Ani's raising his right hand, after he had
case could not have where the marijuana was
succeeded to buy the marijuana. Ani gave Mari Musa the discovered the inculpatory visible to the police officer's
P20.00 marked money. After receiving the money, Mari nature of the contents of eyes.
Musa went back to his house and came back and gave the bag had they not
Amado Ani two newspaper wrappers containing dried forcibly opened it
marijuana. Sgt. Belarga frisked Mari Musa but could not find
the P20.00 marked money with him. Mari Musa was then v. May the plain view doctrine be used for exploratory
asked where the P20.00 was and he told the NARCOM searches? Why or why not?
team he has given the money to his wife (who had slipped
NO. The "plain view" doctrine may not be used to extend a
away). Sgt. Belarga also found a plastic bag containing
general exploratory search from one object to another until
dried marijuana inside it somewhere in the kitchen. Mari
something incriminating at last emerges.
Musa was then placed under arrest and brought to the
NARCOM office.
 26. In the more recent case of People v. Sarap, the iv. Was such item legally seized by the police officers? Why or
Supreme Court clearly identified the requisites that must be Why not?
complied with for a proper application of the plain view
doctrine. In the absence of probable cause to effect a valid
PEOPLE V. SARAP warrantless arrest, the search of Sarap’s bag was also not
justified as seizure of evidence in plain view under the fourth
FACTS: Armed with search warrant, the police officers exception. The marijuana fruiting tops contained in the green
raided the house of Conrado Ricaforte, relative to the plastic bag carried by Sarap were not clearly visible.
reported sale of marijuana by its occupants. The 2
occupants were apprehended for illegal possession of
marijuana. In the course of their investigation, the police v. Was the warrantless arrest valid in the case? Why or why
learned that a certain Melly from Capiz and one Roger not?
were the suppliers of marijuana. On March 4, 1996, the
The warrantless arrest was invalid. In the instant case, Sarap
caretaker of the house informed Guarino that there were
cannot be said to be committing a crime. Neither was she
2 strangers looking for the Duran sisters. Accordingly
about to commit one nor had she just committed a crime.
Guarino and Navida recorded the report in the police
She was merely walking in the alley near the house of
blotter and proceeded to the house of Conrado Ricaforte,
Conrado Ricaforte. It was only when Janet Iguiz led Sarap
which is more or less three hundred meters away from the
downstairs and identified her as Melly that she was singled
police station. When they arrived there, Guarino saw a
out as the suspect. Guarino would not have apprehended
woman, who turned out to be accused-appellant Melly
Sarap were it not for Janet Iguiz’s identification. Moreover,
Sarap, walking in the alley near the house. Accused-
the evidence on record clearly illustrated that it was only
appellant saw Guarino and Navida in police uniform and
after Janet Iguiz pointed to Sarap as Melly that Guarino
immediately threw away her black canvass bag, which
suspected that the bag she was holding contained
her companion Roger Amar picked up. Guarino blocked
marijuana.
Sarap’s path and grabbed from her the green plastic bag
she was holding. Upon inspection, the plastic bag was 27. Take the case of People v. Figueroa for example. Here,
found to contain two blocks of marijuana fruiting tops. the Supreme Court found that there was a valid seizure in
plain view of a pistol, a magazine and seven rounds of
SC held: In the absence of probable cause to affect a ammunition. What were the circumstances surrounding the
valid warrantless arrest, the search of Sarap’s bag was also seizure of said items and why were they validly seized in
not justified as seizure of evidence in plain view under the plain view?
fourth exception. The marijuana fruiting tops contained in
the green plastic bag carried by Sarap were not clearly
PEOPLE V. FIGUEROA
visible.
FACTS: The Executive Officer of the 215th PC Company,
and his men arrived at the residence of accused Arturo
i. Who is the accused and what was the criminal charge Figueroa at Barangay San Juan, San Francisco
against him? Subdivision, General Trias, Cavite, to serve a warrant for
his arrest issued. While serving the warrant of arrest, the
The accused is Melly Sarap y Arcangeles guilty beyond officers noticed, strewn around, aluminum foil packages
reasonable doubt of violation of Section 4 of Republic Act of different sizes in the sala. Suspecting thus the presence
No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act, of "shabu" in the premises, the arresting officers requested
appellant, as well as his brother and sister, to acquiesce
ii. What item was purported to have been seized in plain
view and what are the circumstances surrounding the to a search of the house. The search yielded a .45 caliber
seizure? pistol, a magazine, seven live ammunitions, and a match
box containing an aluminum foil package with "shabu."
Guarnino not armed with a search warrant saw Melly Sarap,
walking in the alley near the house. Accused-appellant saw SC held: The .45 caliber pistol, magazine and rounds of
Guarino and Navida in police uniform and immediately ammunition were not unlawfully obtained. While we
threw away her black canvass bag, which her companion might concede difficulty in readily accepting the
Roger Amar picked up. Guarino blocked Sarap’s path and statement of the prosecution that the search was
grabbed from her the green plastic bag she was holding. conducted with consent freely given by appellant and
Upon inspection, the plastic bag was found to contain two members of his household, it should be pointed out, in
blocks of marijuana fruiting tops. any case, that the search and seizure was done
admittedly on the occasion of a lawful arrest.
iii. What are the requisites of plain view?

(a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless

arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of
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.
28. If the object seized is in inside a closed package, is it seized 29. Another interesting case which laid down a
in plain view? The answer to such question is found in the jurisprudential principle pertaining to plain view is the case of
cases of Caballes v. CA and People v. Nuevas. Supply the People v. Salanguit.
answer and give a summary of the relevant facts in the
foregoing cases. PEOPLE V. SALANGUIT

CABALLES V. CA FACTS: Sr. Insp. Aguilar applied for a warrant He presented

as his witness SPO1 Edmund Badua, who testified that as a
FACTS: Sgt. Victorino Noceja and Pat. Alex de Castro, while poseur-buyer, he was able to purchase 2.12 grams
on a routine patrol in Barangay Sampalucan, Pagsanjan, of shabu from accused-appellant. The sale took place in
Laguna, spotted a passenger jeep unusually covered with accused-appellant's room, and Badua saw that
"kakawati" leaves. Suspecting that the jeep was loaded the shabu was taken by accused-appellant from a
with smuggled goods, the two police officers flagged cabinet inside his room. The application was granted, and
down the vehicle. The jeep was driven by appellant. When a search warrant issued. The police officers along with
asked what was loaded on the jeep, he did not answer; he one civilian informer went to the residence of the
appeared pale and nervous. With appellant's consent, the accused appellant to serve the warrant. They found 12
police officers checked the cargo and they discovered small heat-sealed transparent plastic bags containing a
bundles of 3.08 mm aluminum/galvanized conductor wires white crystalline substance, a paper clip box also
exclusively owned by National Power Corporation (NPC). containing a white crystalline substance, and two bricks
of dried leaves which appeared to be marijuana
SC held: It cannot likewise be said that the cable wires
wrapped in newsprint. The warrant authorized the seizure
found in petitioner's vehicle were in plain view, making its
of "undetermined quantity of shabu and drug
warrantless seizure valid. Jurisprudence is to the effect that
paraphernalia." No drug paraphernalia was seized.
an object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly
exposed to sight. It is clear from the records of this case Accused-appellant contends, however, that the search
that the cable wires were not exposed to sight because warrant issued is void because no evidence was
they were placed in sacks and covered with leaves. They presented showing the existence of drug paraphernalia
had no clue as to what was hidden underneath the leaves and the same should not have been ordered to be seized
and branches. As a matter of fact, they had to ask by the trial court
petitioner what was loaded in his vehicle.
SC held: The fact that there was no probable cause to
support the application for the seizure of drug
PEOPLE V. NUEVAS paraphernalia does not warrant the conclusion that the
search warrant is void. This fact would be material only if
FACTS: Fami and Cabling conducted a stationary drug paraphernalia was in fact seized by the police. The
surveillance and monitoring of illegal drug trafficking along fact is that none was taken by virtue of the search
Perimeter Street, Barangay Pag-asa, Olongapo City. They warrant issued. The search warrant is void only insofar as it
had received information that a certain male person, more authorized the seizure of drug paraphernalia, but it is valid
or less 5’4" in height, 25 to 30 years old, with a tattoo mark as to the seizure of methamphetamine hydrochloride as
on the upper right hand, and usually wearing a sando and to which evidence was presented showing probable
maong pants, would make a delivery of marijuana dried cause as to its existence.
leaves. While stationed thereat, they saw a male person
Is it possible for a search and seizure to be invalid if a prior
who fit the description, carrying a plastic bag, later
search and seizure was made pursuant to a lawful search
identified as Jesus Nuevas (Nuevas), alight from a motor
warrant?
vehicle. Nuevas voluntarily pointed to the police officers a
plastic bag which, when opened, contained marijuana
YES, it is possible for a search and seizure to be invalid if an
dried leaves and bricks wrapped in a blue cloth. Shortly, in
ITEM wherein there was no probable cause to support the
his bid to escape charges, Nuevas disclosed where the
application was seized by the police.
two (2) other male persons would make the delivery of
marijuana weighing more or less five (5) kilos. 30. Then, inquire into the case of United Laboratories v. Isip.
Expound the requirement of inadvertence and the
SC held: The search could not be justified under the plain immediately apparent test explained by the SC in said case.
view doctrine. An object is in plain view if it is exposed to
The immediate requirement means that the executing officer
sight. Records show that the dried marijuana leaves were
can, at the time of discovery of the object or the facts
inside the plastic bags that Nuevas and Din were carrying
therein available to him, determine probable cause of the
and were not readily apparent or transparent to the police
object’s incriminating evidence. In other words, to be
officers. In Nuevas’s case, the dried marijuana leaves
immediate, probable cause must be the direct result of the
found inside the plastic bag were wrapped inside a blue
officer’s instantaneous sensory perception of the object. The
cloth.
object is apparent if the executing officer had probable
cause to connect the object to criminal activity. The
incriminating nature of the evidence becomes apparent in
the course of the search, without the benefit of any unlawful
search or seizure. A NEXUS EXISTS BET. A VIEWED OBJECT AND
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
The requirement of inadvertence, on the other hand, means
i. What is/are the difference/s between a search incidental to
that the officer must not have known in advance of the
a lawful arrest and a terry search or a stop and frisk?
location of the evidence and intend to seize it. Discovery is
not anticipated.
Search incidental to a Terry search or a stop and
lawful arrest frisk
STOP AND FRISK OR TERRY SEARCH Require that a crime be Conducted to prevent the
committed in flagrante occurrence of a crime
delicto
31. Take this problem: suppose a police officer is on routine A lawful arrest must precede Seizure must precede the
patrol duty and he observes two people outside a variety the search and seizure. arrest
store. Both his experience and training tell him that their acts
are consistent with acts of people with criminal designs ii. What is the justification for allowing a terry search?
although he has no concrete facts showing probable cause
that a crime has been committed or that it is actually being (1) The general interest of effective crime prevention and
committed. He knows that mere suspicion is not sufficient to detection, which underlies the recognition that a police officer
make a valid arrest, but his instincts honed by years of may, under appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate
experience in the streets tell him something untoward is manner, approach a person for purposes of investigating
imminent. May he briefly stop the persons, ask them possible criminal behavior even without probable cause; and
questions and engage in a protective search for a
concealed weapon short of a full-scale arrest? The Supreme (2) The more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation
Court of the US addressed a similar situation in 1968 in the which permit the police officer to take steps to assure himself
landmark case of Terry v. Ohio. Read the case and supply that the person with whom he deals is not armed with a
the answer to the question. Provide a summary of the deadly weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used
relevant facts and ruling of the SC of the United States of against the police officer
America.
iii. What is the allowable scope of a stop and frisk?

YES the police officer’s interrogation was warranted and that

Stop a citizen on the street, interrogate him, and pat him for
for his own protection had the right to pat down the 2
weapon(s) or contraband.
suspected individuals ‘ outer clothing having reasonable
cause to believe that they might be armed. Like in the
landmark case of Terry v. Ohio, wherein McFadden on a iv. Is ‘probable cause’ similar with ‘genuine reason’?
downtown beat which he had been patrolling for many
years, observed two strangers on a street corner. Suspecting
the two men of “casing a job, a stick-up,” The officer PROBABLE CAUSE GENUINE REASON
decided to approach the three for questioning, and given A reasonable ground of It refers to as what a
the nature of the behavior the officer decided to perform a suspicion supported by reasonable person, or a
quick search of the men before questioning. A quick frisking circumstances sufficiently normal, average person
of the Petitioner produced a concealed weapon and the strong in themselves to would consider
Petitioner was charged with carrying a concealed weapon. warrant a cautious man to suspicious.
The SC HELD pursuant to the Fourth Amendment right against believe that the person
unreasonable searches and seizures- a reasonably prudent accused is guilty of the
officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in offense with which he is
believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he charged.
may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person
iv. What is required in order to properly carry out a TERRY
believed by him to be armed and dangerous regardless of
SEARCH?
whether he has probable cause to arrest that individual fro
crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed.
A genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officer's
Though the police must whenever practicable secure a
experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief
warrant to make a search and seizure, that procedure
that the person detained has weapons concealed about him.
cannot be followed where swift action based upon on-the-
spot observations of the officer on the beat is required.

32. Read the cases of People v. Chua and Esquillo v. People.

Supply the answers to the ff. questions:
 v. What are the relevant facts in the foregoing cases in
relation to the answer to the previous questions?

PEOPLE V. CHUA ESQUILLO V. PEOPLE

FACTS: SPO2 Mario Nulud and PO2 Emmeraldo Nunag FACTS: On the basis of an informant’s tip, PO1 Cruzin, together
received a report from their confidential informant that with PO2 Angel Aguas (PO2 Aguas) Bayanihan St., Malibay,
accused-appellant was about to deliver drugs that night at Pasay City to conduct surveillance on the activities of an
the Thunder Inn Hotel in Balibago, Angeles City. The police alleged notorious snatcher operating in the area known only
officers conducted their operation. Their informer pointed to a as "Ryan." As PO1 Cruzin alighted from the private vehicle that
car driven by the accused-appellant. After the accused brought him and PO2 Aguas to the target area, he glanced in
alighted from the car carrying a sealed Zest-O juice box, SPO2 the direction of petitioner who was standing three meters
Nulud and PO2 Nunag hurriedly accosted him and introduced away and seen placing inside a yellow cigarette case what
themselves as police officers. As accused-appellant pulled out appeared to be a small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet
his wallet, a small transparent plastic bag with a crystalline containing white substance. While PO1 Cruz was not sure what
substance protruded from his right back pocket. Forthwith, the plastic sachet contained, he became suspicious when
SPO2 Nulud subjected him to a body search which yielded petitioner started acting strangely as he began to approach
twenty (20) pieces of live .22 caliber firearm bullets from his left her. He then introduced himself as a police officer to petitioner
back pocket. When SPO2 Nunag peeked into the contents of and inquired about the plastic sachet she was placing inside
the Zest-O box, he saw that it contained a crystalline her cigarette case. Petitioner assails the appellate court’s
substance. SPO2 Nulud instantly confiscated the small application of the "stop-and-frisk" principle in light of PO1
transparent plastic bag, the Zest-O juice box, the twenty (20) Cruzin’s failure to justify his suspicion that a crime was being
pieces of .22 caliber firearm bullets and the car used by committed, he having merely noticed her placing something
accused-appellant. inside a cigarette case which could hardly be deemed
suspicious.
Accused-appellant maintains that there was no compelling
reason for the haste within which the arresting officers sought SC held: The Court finds that the questioned act of the police
to arrest and search him without a warrant. officers constituted a valid "stop-and-frisk" operation. The
search/seizure of the suspected shabu initially noticed in
SC held: There was no valid "stop-and-frisk" in the case of petitioner’s possession - later voluntarily exhibited24 to the
accused-appellant. To reiterate, accused-appellant was first police operative - was undertaken after she was interrogated
arrested before the search and seizure of the alleged illegal on what she placed inside a cigarette case, and after PO1
items found in his possession. The apprehending police Cruzin introduced himself to petitioner as a police officer. And,
operative failed to make any initial inquiry into accused- at the time of her arrest, petitioner was exhibiting suspicious
appellant’s business in the vicinity or the contents of the Zest-O behavior and in fact attempted to flee after the police officer
juice box he was carrying. The apprehending police officers had identified himself.
only introduced themselves when they already had custody of
accused-appellant. Besides, at the time of his arrest, accused-
appellant did not exhibit manifest unusual and suspicious
conduct reasonable enough to dispense with the procedure
outlined by jurisprudence and the law. There was, therefore,
no genuine reasonable ground for the immediacy of accused-
appellant’s arrest.
Other Exceptions Search and seizure without search
warrant of vessels and aircrafts for
32. As to the other exceptions, find at violations of customs laws have been the
least two cases decided by the Supreme traditional exception to such a
Court explaining each of them requirement. It is rooted on the
respectively. Summarize the relevant recognition that a vessel and an aircraft,
facts and the relevant discussion of the like motor vehicles, can be quickly
Supreme Court relating to such. moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in
which the search warrant must be
SEARCH OF VESSELS AND AIRCRAFTS sought and secured. Yielding to this
reality, judicial authorities have not
Hizon v. CA required a search warrant of vessels and
265 SCRA 517 G.R. No. 119619 aircrafts before their search and seizure
can be constitutionally effected. The
Petitioners were charged with violation same exception ought to apply to
of the Fisheries Decree of 1975. Fishing seizures of fishing vessels and boats
boat F/B Robinson, owned by a breaching our fishery laws. These vessels
domestic corporation represented by are normally powered by high-speed
Richard Hizon, was the vessel used in motors that enable them to elude
catching fish using the poisonous arresting ships of the Philippine Navy, the
substance sodium cyanide. Coast Guard and other government
In response to reports, the PNP Maritime authorities enforcing our fishery laws.
Command organized a task force which
later reported to them fishing by “muro
ami” in Brgy San Rafael, Puerto Princesa.
The police boarded the F/B Robinson People v. Saycon
and inspected the boat with the 236 SCRA 325 G.R. No. 110995
acquiescence of the boat captain. Alvaro Saycon was charged with
The NBI tested fish samples and violating R.A. No. 6425 as amended for
confirmed the use of sodium cyanide. transporting 4 grams of shabu from
Thus the trial court found the accused Manila to Dumaguete City. The
guilty and ordered the confiscation of Coastguard personnel received
their boat, sampans, and 1 ton of fish information from an agent that a
caught. The CA affirmed the RTC ruling. suspected "shabu" courier as on board
On appeal, the petitioners contend that the vessel MV Doña Virginia , which was
the fish samples were illegally seized in arriving at that moment in Dumaguete
view of a warrantless search of the fishing City
boat and thus should have been held as NARCOM agents and Philippine
inadmissible basis for their conviction. Coastguard personnel awaited Saycon
at the gate of Pier 1. They claim that
SC Ruling Saycon willing went with them and
As a general rule, any evidence willingly opened his bag. Inside Saycon’s
obtained without a judicial warrant is wallet was shabu. After the NARCOM
inadmissible for any purpose in any agents arrested him without a warrant,
proceeding. The rule is, however, the PNP's Forensic Analyst confirmed the
subject to certain exceptions. substance in Saycon’s wallet was shabu.
The RTC convicted him of the crime.
Saycon denied ownership of the shabu. had reasonable or probable cause to
He claimed he was held at gunpoint and believe, before the search, that Saycon
he protested the search of his bag. In his was violating some law or that the
appeal, Saycon contends that the contents of his luggage included some
search of his bag was illegal because it instrument or the subjects matter or the
had been made without a search proceeds of some criminal offense.
warrant and that, therefore, the "shabu"
discovered during the illegal search was There did exist reasonable or probable
inadmissible in evidence against him. cause to believe that appellant Alvaro
Saycon would be carrying or
SC Ruling transporting prohibited drugs upon
The requirement that a judicial warrant arriving in Dumaguete. First, three weeks
must be obtained prior to the carrying prior, Saycon was confirmed through a
out of a search and seizure is not test-buy operation that he was a drug
absolute. In the case at bar, the distributor. Second, the NARCOM officers
pertinent exception is that relating to the did not enough time to obtain a search
search of moving vehicles. In People v. warrant or a warrant of arrest because
Barros, the Court held it is not it not they were uncertain as to the precise
practicable to secure a judicial warrant date and time and only learned a few
before searching a vehicle, since such hours earlier before Saycon’s ship
vehicle can be quickly moved out of the docked where he would be specifically.
locality or jurisdiction. In People v. Bagista
and People v. Lo Ho Wing, routine
checks limited to visual inspection are
valid warrantless searches. In Valmonte
v. De Villa, the Court said: “A reasonable SEARCH OF MOVING VEHICLES
search is not to be determined by any
fixed formula but is to be resolved Valmonte v. De Villa
according to the facts of each case.” 178 SCRA 211 G.R. No. 83988
Mere visual inspections do not constitute
unreasonable searches. However, an Petitioner Ricardo C. seeks the
extensive search without a warrant is declaration of checkpoints in
constitutionally permissible only if the Valenzuela, Metro Manila as
officers conducting the search have unconstitutional. The National Capital
reasonable or probable cause to Region District Command was activated
believe, before the search, that either with the mission of conducting security
the motorist is a law-offender or the operations for maintaining peace and
contents or cargo of the vehicle are or order and it installed checkpoints as part
have been instruments or the subject of its duty.
matter or the proceeds of some criminal Petitioners argue that the said
offense. checkpoints gave the respondents a
blanket authority to make searches or
By analogy, Saycon is like a driver seizures without a warrant in violation of
subjected to an extensive search. the Constitution.
Saycon’s warrantless search and arrest
would be constitutionally permissible SC Ruling
only if the officer conducting the search
Petitioners have not shown the necessary at bar is not mere visual inspection but
proof that the military committed includes detention and extensive
specific violations of petitioners' right searching. Thus, instead of the petitioners
against unlawful search and seizure. burden of providing details of the
Valmonte must state the details which violation of their rights, the State has the
amount to the such a violation instead of burden of at least providing proof of
making general allegations. probable cause if not a warrant. The
Not all searches and seizures are absence alone of a search warrant
prohibited. Those which are reasonable makes checkpoint searches
are not forbidden. A reasonable search unreasonable and thus invalid.
is not to be determined by any fixed
formula but is to be resolved according Caballes v. CA
to the facts of each case. G.R No. 136292, January 15, 2002

The setting up of checkpoints may be The CA affirmed the trial court finding
considered a reasonable security petitioner Caballes guilty of theft for
measure in the interest of public security. stealing aluminum cable conductors
The Court takes judicial notice of the shift from the National Power Corporation.
to urban centers and their suburbs of the Two police officers on routine patrol
insurgency movement reflected in the flagged down appellant’s jeep upon
increased killings of police and military suspecting it was loaded with smuggled
men by NPA “sparrow units” and the goods.
abundance of unlicensed firearms. One
can rightly consider these as abnormal In defense, appellant interposed denial
times. The state protecting its existence and alibi. Petitioner argues that his
and promoting public welfare prevails constitutional right was violated when
over the individual’s right against a the police officers searched his vehicle
warrantless search. and seized the wires without a warrant.

True, the manning of checkpoints by the SC Ruling

military is susceptible of abuse by the In the exceptional events where warrant
men in uniform, in the same manner that is not necessary to effect a valid search
all governmental power is susceptible of or seizure, or when the latter cannot be
abuse. At the cost of occasional performed except without a warrant,
inconvenience, discomfort and even what constitutes a reasonable or
irritation to the citizen, the checkpoints unreasonable search or seizure is purely
during these abnormal times, when a judicial question, determinable from
conducted within reasonable limits, are the uniqueness of the circumstances
part of the price we pay for an orderly involved, including the purpose of the
society and a peaceful community. search or seizure, the presence or
absence of probable cause, the manner
Dissent in which the search and seizure was
The majority’s sweeping statements made, the place or thing searched and
threaten individual liberty. The Bill of the character of the articles procured.
Rights was intended precisely to limit the
authority of the State even if asserted on Before obtaining a warrant from the
the ground of national security. The case issuing judge, the place, things and
persons to be searched must be INSPECTION OF BUILDINGS AND OTHER
described to his satisfaction. This PREMISES FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF FIRE,
requirement borders on the impossible in SANITARY, AND BUILDING REGULATIONS
the case of the use of a moving vehicle
that can quickly move out of the locality This is an exercise of police power of the
or jurisdiction. Such warrantless searches State, and would not require a search
are also allowed to prevent violations of warrant. These are routine inspections
smuggling or immigration laws, provided which, however, must be conducted
such searches are made at borders or during reasonable hours.
‘constructive borders’ like checkpoints
near the boundary lines of the State.
CUSTOMS SEARCH
Routine inspections, limited to
circumstances involving only visual People vs CFI
inspection or conducted in a fixed area, G.R. No. L-41686
are valid and reasonable warrantless
searches. The case at bar is not a routine Regional Anti-Smuggling Action Center
inspection but an extensive search agents, informed by that a shipment of
because they intruded into the car, lifted highly dutiable goods would be
the leaves and looked inside the sacks. transported to Manila from Angeles City
on a blue Dodge car, stationed
This is a warrantless extensive search of a themselves at a toll gate. On the same
vehicle and requires probable cause to day, the informant personally identified
believe that the motorist is a law- the car. The agents chased it and
offender or that they will find evidence obtained in the course of a warrantless
pertaining to a crime. In the case at bar, search and seizure four boxes on the
the officers merely noticed that the jeep back seat. The boxes were opened and
covered with leaves was uncommon. revealed some "4,441 more or less wrist
The vehicle looking suspicious because watches of assorted brands; 1,075 more
of the leaves does not constitute or less watch bracelets of assorted
"probable cause" as would justify the brands" supposedly untaxed.
conduct of a search without a warrant.
Tipped information has been considered The ASAC Chairman requested the
sufficient probable cause but none exists Bureau of Customs to issue a Warrant of
in this case. Seizure and Detention against the
articles including the Dodge car. In
Respondents cannot avail of the plain conjunction with the Warrant of Seizure
view doctrine because the wires were and Detention issued by the Collector of
covered and thus not exposed to sight. Customs, seizure proceedings were
Neither was there consented search instituted.
because in the case of herein petitioner,
the statements of the police officers The substantive issue as urged in the
were not asking for his consent; they petition is whether or not the seizure of
were declaring to him that they will look the merchandise in a moving vehicle by
inside his vehicle authorized agents commissioned to
enforce customs laws without warrant of
seizure breaches the constitutional
immunity against unreasonable search The circumstances of the case at bar
and seizure and therefore, such undoubtedly fall squarely within the
merchandise are inadmissible in privileged area where search and
evidence. seizure may lawfully be effected without
the need of a warrant.
SC Ruling
Under the law, the authority of persons People v. Wong Chuen Ming
duly commissioned to enforce tariff and 256 SCRA 182 G.R. Nos. 112801-11
customs laws is quite exceptional when it
pertains to the domain of searches and Apellants were charged with unlawfully
seizures of goods suspected to have transporting into the country. After
been introduced in the country in passing through and obtaining
violation of the customs laws. clearance from immigration officers at
the NAIA, Wong Chuen and his tour
In order to discharge their official duties group proceeded to have their
more effectively, these persons having baggages examined. The customs
police authority under Section 2203 of examiner found shabu hidden inside
the Tariff and Customs Code may cereal boxes in one of Ming’s
exercise specific searching functions companions. Duty Collector Zenaida
(Section 2208, 2210 and 2211) without Reyes Bonifacio made the accused sign
needing a search warrant unlike the the bundles cereal boxes allegedly
function defined in Section 2209 which recovered from their respective
involves searching a dwelling house. luggages. A field test on a sample of the
Aware of this delineation, the Court in substances confirmed they were shabu.
the case of Papa v. Mago expressed the The trial court found the accused guilty.
considerd view that "except in the case The accused argues that the evidence
of the search of a dwelling house, presented against them is inadmissible
persons exercising police authority under because they were not made aware of
the customs law may effect search and their fundamental constitutional rights
seizure without a search warrant in the during the investigation.
enforcement of customs laws.
SC Ruling
Searches and seizures without warrant The Court holds that the signatures of
are valid if made upon probable cause. accused on the boxes, as well as on the
The records show that the officers only plastic bags containing "shabu", are
had general knowledge that some inadmissible in evidence. These
highly dutiable goods would be signatures of accused are tantamount to
transported. Lacking the essential an uncounselled extra-judicial
determination of exactitude, the agents confession which is not sanctioned by
could not have possibly secured a valid the Bill of Rights.
warrant. The agents also acted not on
the basis of a mere hearsay but on a
confirmed information worthy of belief
and probable cause enough for them to
adopt measures to freeze the fleeting
event.
EXIGENT AND EMERGENCY
CIRCUMSTANCES

People v. De Gracia
233 SCRA 716 [1994]

This case took place during the height of

the coup d' etat staged in December,
1989 by ultra-rightist elements headed by
the Reform the Armed Forces
Movement-Soldiers of the Filipino People.
There were intelligence reports that the
Eurocar Sales Office building was being
used as headquarters by the RAM during
a coup detat. A surveillance team was
fired at by a group of armed men
coming out of the building and the
occupants of said building refused to
open the door despite repeated
requests. 4 days later they raided the
building and found there were large
quantities of explosives and ammunitions
inside it. Nearby courts were closed and
general chaos and disorder prevailed
thus the raiding team did not secure a
search warrant.
SC Ruling
The instant case falls under one of the
exceptions to the prohibition against a
warrantless search. First, the existing
circumstances sufficiently showed that a
crime was being committed. In short,
there was probable cause to effect a
warrantless search of the building.
Second, the raiding team had no
opportunity to apply for and secure a
search warrant from the courts.
 PART VI. WARRANTLESS SEARCHES

EXCLUSIONARY RULE

34. By now, after reading all the foregoing cases, you must have already understood what the ‘Exclusionary
Rule’ is. Summarize the rules pertaining to such rule and provide legal bases.

Evidence obtained in violation of Section 2, Article III, shall be inadmissible for any purposes in any
proceeding (Section 3 (2), Article III) because it is “the fruit of the poisoned tree.”

a. To come under the exclusionary rule, however, the evidence must be obtained by government agents
and not by private individuals acting on their own. (People v. Marti)

b. The specific incorporation of the rule into the constitutional text produces two other consequences.

1. It divorces the rule from the self-incrimination clause. Now, evidence obtained in violation of the
search and seizure clause, whether or not it is also self-incriminating testimonial evidence, is
inadmissible.

2. By making such evidence inadmissible “for any purpose in any proceeding,” the Constitution has
closed the door for any judicial temptation to erode the rule by distinguishing and splitting hair.

c. Failure of the accused to object to the admissibility of the evidence obtained through an unlawful arrest
and search, In the case of People v. Diaz, It was held that the accused deemed to have waived their
right against their admissibility. Amidst a waiver, the trial court did not err in admitting the evidence.

d. However, even if the accused were illegally arrested, such arrest does not invest eye-witness accounts
with constitutional infirmity as “fruits of the poisonous tree”: thus, where the conviction could be secured
on the strength of testimonial evidence given in open court, the illegality of the arrest cannot be
invoked to reverse the conviction. (People v. Salazar)

e. The inadmissibility of the evidence, however, does not mean that it must be returned where it came
from. If the object is not a prohibited object it, it must be returned. But if contraband, it can be
confiscated. (Tambasen v. People)