LO8

[G.R. No. 142295. May 31, 2001.]

VICENTE DEL ROSARIO y NICOLAS, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
FACTS:
Allegedly, sometime in May 1996, the police received a report that accused-appellant Vicente
del Rosario was in possession of certain firearms without the necessary licenses. Acting upon the
report, the PNP Criminal Investigation Group inquired from the PNP Firearms and Explosive
Division whether or not the report was true.
Before proceeding to the residence of the appellant, the police officers requested Barangay
Chairman and Barangay Councilman to accompany them in the implementation of the warrant.
When the appellant came out, P/Sr. Insp. Adique informed him that they had a search warrant
and that they were authorized to search his house. After appellant gave his permission, the police
officers conducted a search of the house. The search yielded the following items: (a) a caliber .45
pistol with Serial No. 703792 with five magazines of caliber .45 (Exhibits B and H) found at the
master's bedroom; (b) five magazines of 5.56 M-16 rifle and two radios (Exhibits C to C-4)
found in the room of appellant's daughter; and (c) a caliber .22 revolver with Serial No. 48673
(Exhibit F) containing 8 pieces of live ammunition (Exhibit M) found in the kitchen of the house.
When asked about his license to possess the firearms, the appellant failed to produce any. This
prompted the police officers to seize the subject firearms. However, after trial the trial court
rendered a judgment of conviction which decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE: Whether or not the seizure of items not mentioned in the search warrant was illegal.
RULING: NO.
Seizure is limited to those items particularly described in a valid search warrant. Searching
officers are without discretion regarding what articles they shall seize. Evidence seized on the
occasion of such an unreasonable search and seizure is tainted and excluded for being the
proverbial "fruit of a poisonous tree." In the language of the fundamental law, it shall be
inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding
In this case, the firearm was not found inadvertently and in plain view. It was found as a result of
a meticulous search in the kitchen of petitioner's house. This firearm, to emphasize, was not
mentioned in the search warrant.
CONCLUSION: Thus, the seizure is illegal.

People v Omaweng
G.R. No. 99050, 02 September 1992

FACTS:
Police officers put up a checkpoint and all vehicles that went through it were stopped and
checked. The officers flagged down the car driven by Omaweng and asked permission to inspect
the vehicle to which he acceded. When the officers peered into the rear of the vehicle, they saw a
travelling bag which was partially covered by the rim of a spare tire under the passenger seat on
the right side of the vehicle. The officers again asked permission to see the contents of the bag.
Omaweng consented to the request but told them that it only contained some clothes. Inside, the
 LO8

officers found 41 plastic packets of different sizes containing pulverized substances which was
later identified as marijuana.
ISSUE: Whether the constitutional rights of the accused against unreasonable search was
violated even if he consented the opening of the said bag.
RULING:
He willingly gave prior consent to the search and voluntarily agreed to have it conducted on his
vehicle and travelling bag. Thus, the accused waived his right against unreasonable searches and
seizures. It was held that when one voluntarily submits to a search or consents to have it made of
(sic) his person or premises, he is precluded from later complaining thereof. The right to be
secure from unreasonable search may, like every right, be waived and such waiver may be made
either expressly or impliedly." Since in the course of the valid search forty-one (41) packages of
drugs were found, it behooved the officers to seize the same; no warrant was necessary for such
seizure.

People v. Correa [GR 119246, 30 JANUARY 1998]

FACTS:
The police informant spotted Dulay’s vehicle at 3:00 am. The operatives tailed the subject
jeepney until they reached Bambang extension and Jose Abad Santos Avenue, where they
accosted the passengers of said jeepney. The team inspected a cylindrical tin can of El Cielo
Vegetable Cooking Lard, about two feet high, loaded in the vehicle of the appellants. The can
contained 8 bundles of suspected dried marijuana flowering tops wrapped in pieces of paper and
plastic tapes. The team seized the suspected contrabands and marked each bundle consecutively.
The 3 suspects were brought to the police headquarters at DEU-WPDC for investigation.
The defense, however, contends that the 3 accused were arrested without warrant. An
Information was filed with the RTC Manila indicting Antonio Correa y Cayton @ "Boyet," Rito
Gunida y Sesante @ "Dodong," and Leonardo Dulay y Santos @ "Boy Kuba" for having
violated Section 4, Article II of RA 6425, as amended. When arraigned, the 3 accused pleaded
not guilty. After trial and on 3 March 1995, the lower court found the appellants guilty as
charged and were sentenced to death and a fine of P10 million
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused are precluded from assailing the warrantless search and
seizure, due to waiver on their part?

RULING:
YES. Antonio Correa y Cayton @ "Boyet," Rito Gunida y Sesante @ "Dodong," and Leonardo
Dulay y Santos @ "Boy Kuba" are precluded from assailing the warrantless search and seizure
when they voluntarily submitted to it as shown by their actuation during the search and seizure.
They never protested when the police officer opened the tin can loaded in their vehicle, nor when
he opened one of the bundles, nor when they, together with their cargo of drugs and their vehicle,
were brought to the police station for investigation and subsequent prosecution. When one
voluntarily submits to a search or consents to have it made on his person or premises, he is
precluded from later complaining thereof The right to be secure from unreasonable search may,
like every right, be waived and such waiver may be made either expressly or impliedly."
Further, they effectively waived their constitutional right against the search and seizure by their
voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the trial court, when they entered a plea of not guilty
upon arraignment and by participating in the trial.

People v Ramos GR 85401-02, 4 June 1990

 LO8

FACTS:
FACTS:
On 29 November 1982, a civilian informer came to the Narcotics Command Office in Olongapo
City and reported that a cigarette vendor by the name of "Mama Rose" (Rosalinda Ramos) was
selling marijuana at the corner of 3rd Street and Rizal Avenue in Olongapo City. Tests buys were
made using marked money. The Narcotics Command (NARCOM) team proceeded to the place
where appellant was selling cigarettes, and arrested the latter for illegal peddling of marijuana.
Ramos was requested to take out the contents of her wallet. The four marked five-peso bills used
in the test buys were found among her possessions and were confiscated after the serial numbers
were confirmed. Search of Ramos’ stall yielded 20 sticks of marijuana cigarettes in a trash can
placed under the small table where Ramos displayed the wares she was selling.
Two informations were filed against Ramos, one for sale and the other for possession of
marijuana. After trial, the RTC Olongapo City (Branch 73) found her guilty beyond reasonable
doubt RA 6425. Ramos sought reversal of the decisions with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Ramos waived her right against the warrantless search of the trash can, where
illegal drugs were found, under her control.

RULING:
YES. The trash can (where the contraband were found) was found under the table where her
legitimate wares were being sold. Ramos he was the only person who had access to the trash can.
The same was under her immediate physical control. She had complete charge of the contents of
the trash can under the table to the exclusion of all other persons.
In law, actual possession exists when the thing is in the immediate occupancy and control of the
party. But this is not to say that the law requires actual possession. In criminal law, possession
necessary for conviction of the offense of possession of controlled substances with intent to
distribute may be constructive as well as actual. It is only necessary that the defendant must have
dominion and control over the contraband. These requirements are present in the situation
described, where the prohibited drugs were found inside the trash can placed under the stall
owned by Ramos.

In fact, the NARCOM agents who conducted the search testified that they had to ask Ramos to
stand so that they could look inside the trash can under Ramos' papag. The trash can was
positioned in such a way that it was difficult for another person to use the trash can. The trash
can was obviously not for use by her customers. Therefore, the twenty sticks of marijuana are
admissible in evidence and the trial court's finding that Ramos is guilty of possession is correct.

People vs. Barros G.R. No. 90640, March 29, 1994

FACTS:
While aboard a bus, two peace officers saw Barros carrying a carton, board the bus and seated
himself under seat No. 18 after putting the carton under his seat. Before the two peace officers
alighted, it being their station, they called peace officer Bongyao to inspect the carton under seat
No. 18. After Bongyao inspected the carton, he found out that it contained marijuana and he
asked the passengers who the owner of the carton was but nobody answered. Thereafter,
Bongyao alighted with the carton and invited the Barros to the detachment for questioning as he
 LO8

was the suspected owner of the carton containing marijuana. Barros was convicted of violation
of Dangerous Drugs Act.
ISSUE: Whether Barros presumed to have waived the unlawful search by his failure to object.
RULING:
The accused is not to be presumed to have waived the unlawful search conducted on the occasion
of his warrantless arrest "simply because he failed to object". To constitute a waiver, it must
appear first that the right exists; secondly, that the person involved had knowledge, actual or
constructive, of the existence of such a right; and lastly, that said person had an actual intention
to relinquish the right.

Veroy v Layague [GR 95630, 18 June 1992]

FACTS:
FACTS:
Capt. Reynaldo Obrero, acting upon a directive, raided the Davao City residence of petitioner
spouses who were already residing in Quezon City on information that the said residence was
being used as a safehouse of rebel soldiers. The team did not enter the house since the owner was
not present and they did not have a search warrant. When contacted by Obrero to ask permission
to search the house, Ma. Luisa relented if the search would be conducted in the presence of
longtime family friend, a ranking military officer. The team gained entry into the yard and the
kitchen. With the help of a locksmith, the team entered the children’s room and conducted the
search with resulted in the recovery of several articles which include a firearm and jute sacks
containing printed materials of RAM-SFP.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the officers violated the petitioners’ constitutional right against unreasonable
search and seizure.

RULING:
YES. The reason for searching the house of herein petitioners is that it was reportedly being used
as a hideout and recruitment center for rebel soldiers. While Capt. Obrero was able to enter the
compound, he did not enter the house because he did not have a search warrant and the owners
were not present. This shows that he himself recognized the need for a search warrant, hence, he
did not persist in entering the house but rather contacted the petitioners to seek permission to
enter the same. Permission was indeed granted by petitioner to enter the house but only to
ascertain the presence of rebel soldiers. Under the circumstances, it is undeniable that the police
officers had ample time to procure a search warrant but did not.

Petition is GRANTED and the criminal case against the petitioners for illegal possession of
firearms is DISMISSED.

G.R. No. 93516 August 12, 1992

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILLIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
BASILIO DAMASO @ Bernardo/BERNIE MENDOZA @ KA DADO, accused-appellant.
 LO8

FACTS:
The group of Lt. Quijardo were sent to verify the presence of CPP/NPA members in Dagupan
City.
They interviewed Morados, a visitor of Rosemarie, who stated that she worked with Damaso, the
appellant.
Together with Morados, they reached the house of Damaso where they saw Luz Tanciangco, a
helper. Tanciangco then allowed the group to enter inside the house.
The group of Lt. Quijardo entered the dwelling of Damaso without a valid warrant when the
latter was absent. In one of the rooms, they saw subversive materials which they confiscated.
They likewise brought the persons found in the house to the headquarters for investigation and
the persons revealed that Damaso was the lessee of the house and owned the items confiscated.
Based on this, Damaso was charged with illegal possession of firearms.
ISSUE: Whether there was waiver on the part of Damaso to allow the warrantless search of his
house.
RULING:
NO. The constitutional immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures, being a personal one,
cannot be waived by anyone except the person whose rights are invaded or one who is expressly
authorized to do so in his or her behalf. Being a helper, she does not qualify as a person
authorized to waive such right in representation of her employer.
Decision appealed from is REVERSED and the appellant is ACQUITTED.

G.R. No. L-27968 December 3, 1975

JOSE G. LOPEZ and TOMAS VELASCO, petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
FACTS:
Petitioner Tomas Velasco was not inside their rented hotel room when a team of agents raided
their room and seized documents and papers. They were allowed entry inside said room by a
woman who appeared to be petitioner’s wife but turned out to be a manicurist.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there was consent to allow the warrantless search and seizure of Velasco’s rented
hotel room.
HELD:
YES. Where, at the time the government agents entered and searched the hotel room then being
rented by petitioner, a woman who appeared to be the wife of petitioner was inside the room,
and, upon being informed of the purpose of the search, invited the petitioners to enter and search
the room and even voluntarily gave the documents and things requested by the officers, even if
the said woman, who could be aptly described as the wrong person, at the wrong place, at the
wrong time, was not the wife of petitioner, but a mere manicurist by occupation, the officers of
the law could not be blamed if they acted on the appearances. There was a person inside who for
all indications was ready to accede to their request. Even common courtesy alone would have
precluded them from inquiring too closely as to why she was there. Under said circumstances,
there was consent sufficient in law to dispense with the need for a search warrant.
Petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus is DISMISSED.

Caballes v CA
 LO8

GR No. 136292 January. 15, 2002

FACTS:
On or about the 28th day of June, 1989, in the Municipality of Pangasinan, and/or elsewhere in
the Province of Laguna, and within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, the above
mentioned accused with intent to gain and without the knowledge and consent of the owner
thereof, the National Power Corporation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
take, steal and carry away about 630 kg of Aluminium cable conductors, valued at Php 27,
450.00, belonging to and to the damage and prejudice of said owner National Power
Corporation, in the aforesaid amount.

ISSUE: WON the warrantless search without consent is valid?

RULING:
In case of consented searches or waiver of the constitutional guarantee against obtrusive
searches, it is fundamental that to constitute a waiver, it must first appear that (1) the right exists;
(2) that person involved had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the existence of such
right, and (3) said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right.
In the case at bar, the evidence is lacking that the petitioner intentionally surrendered his right
against unreasonable searches.
WHEREFORE, the impugned decision is reversed and set aside, and accused Rudy Caballes is
hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged.

G.R. No. 142531. October 15, 2002

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. DANILO ASIS y FONPERADA
FACTS:
On or about February 10, 1998, in the City of Manila, Philippines, Asis and Formento,
conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping each other, by then and there
stabbing one Roy Ching with a bladed instrument on the different parts of the body and
thereafter robbed the victim against his will. As a result thereof, he sustained mortal stab wounds
which were the direct and immediate cause of his death. When arraigned, both appellants
pleaded not guilty. Found to be deaf-mutes, they were assisted, not only by a counsel de oficio,
but also by an interpreter from the Calvary Baptist Church. After due trial, appellants were found
guilty and sentenced to death. On appeal, two things stand out: first, there were no eyewitnesses
to the robbery or to the homicide; and second, none of the items allegedly stolen were recovered
or presented in evidence. Appellants argued that the pieces of circumstantial evidence submitted
by the prosecution are insufficient to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution
counters that these pieces of evidence, taken together, necessarily lead to their conviction.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the evidences of the Prosecution is sufficient to warrant conviction.
RULING:
The appeal is meritorious. The prosecution’s evidence does not prove the guilt of appellants
beyond reasonable doubt; hence, their constitutional right to be presumed innocent remains and
must be upheld. Circumstantial evidence that merely arouses suspicions or gives room for
conjecture is not sufficient to convict. It must do more than just raise the possibility, or even the
probability, of guilt. It must engender moral certainty. Otherwise, the constitutional presumption
of innocence prevails, and the accused deserves acquittal.
 LO8

People v. Tudtud, GR 144037, 26 September 2003

FACTS:
Sometime during the months of July and August 1999, the Toril Police Station, Davao City
received a report from a “civilian asset” named Bobong Solier about a certain Noel Tudtud.
Solier informed the police that Tudtud had headed to Cotabato and would be back later that day
with new stocks of marijuana. Solier described Tudtud as big bodied and short, and usually wore
a hat. The man who resembled Tudtud’s description denied that he was carrying any drugs. PO1
Desierto asked if he could see the contents of the box. Tudtud then said “it was alright” and let
them see the box which contained bundles of dried fish, one wrapped in a plastic bag and another
in newspapers. When the bundles were unwrapped, there contained marijuana leaves.
The police arrested Tudtud and his comapanion. They were charged with illegal possession of
prohibited drugs before the RTC of Davao City which convicted the accused.
ISSUE: Whether or not Tudtud’s implied acquiescence (Tudtud’s statement of “it’s alright”) is
considered a waiver.
RULING:
NO. The right against unreasonable searched and seizures is secured by Sec. 2, Art. 3 of the
Constitution. Appellants implied acquiescence, if at all, could not have been more than mere
passive conformity given under coercive or intimidating circumstances and is, thus, considered
no consent at all within the purview of the constitutional guarantee. Consequently, appellants
lack of objection to the search and seizure is not tantamount to a waiver of his constitutional
right or a voluntary submission to the warrantless search and seizure.