a. No presumption of regularity in Here, the prosecution failed to establish the the search warrants.

Citing such resolution,

search cases second and third requisites. Records disclose respondent judge granted the motion to quash
351. People v. Tudtud, GR that when the police officers introduced by the private respondents.
themselves as such and requested appellant
144037, Sept 26, 2003 that they see the contents of the carton box ISSUE: Whether or not the decision of
supposedly containing the marijuana, the Judge allowing the private respondents to
FACTS: Toril Police Station, Davao City appellant Tudtud said it was alright. He did not quash the search warrant is valid.
received a report from civilian asset Bobong resist and opened the box himself. The
Solier about a certain Noel Tudtud allegedly fundamental law and jurisprudence require RULING: Yes. A core requisite before a
engaged in selling illegal drugs, specifically more than the presence of these warrant shall validly issue is the existence
Marijuana. Upon information that Tudtud is circumstances to constitute a valid waiver of probable cause, that should be known by the
about to engaged in another transaction of the constitutional right against unreasonable one who wishes to obtain such warrant. In the
selling from Cotabato City, a team of police searches and seizures. The fact that a person case at bar, the answers of Agent Lavin and his
officers sought and cornered Tudtud and his failed to object to a search does not amount witnesses to the public respondents searching
company and asked if they can see the to permission thereto. questions, particularly those relating to how
contents of the box to which Tudtud said “it they knew that the compact discs they
was alright”. When the bundles were MP: Courts indulge every reasonable purchased or received were illegal,
unwrapped, there contained marijuana leaves. presumption against waiver of fundamental unauthorized or infringing, were based on
The police arrested Tudtud and his constitutional rights. certifications and not personal knowledge.
comapanion. They were charged with illegal The more decisive consideration
possession of prohibited drugs before the RTC determinative of whether or not a probable
of Davao City which convicted the accused. 352. Sony Music v. Judge
Espanol, GR 156804, March cause obtains to justify the issuance of a
Hence, this appeal by Tudtud. search warrant is that they had personal
14, 2005 knowledge that the discs were actually
ISSUE: Whether the search and arrest infringing, pirated or unauthorized copies.
conducted by the police officers were valid and FACTS: In a criminal complaint filed with Based as it were on hearsay and false
lawful. the Department of Justice (DOJ), the information, its issuance of the search warrant
Videogram Regulatory Board (VRB) charged was without probable cause and, therefore,
RULING: No. There was no waiver of herein private respondents James Uy, David invalid.
right on the part of the appellee. For a lawful Chung, Elena Lim and another officer of
waiver of right against unreasonable searches respondent Solid Laguna Corporation (SLC) for MP: To prevent stealthy
and seizures to be effective the following infringing on the petitioner Sony Music Inc.’s encroachment upon, or gradual depreciation
requisites must be present: (1) It must appear copyright as testified by the agent who of the right to privacy, a liberal construction in
that the rights exist; (2) The person involved conducted the preliminary investigation. search and seizure cases is given in favor of the
had knowledge, actual or constructive, of the A search warrant was issued by the respondent individual. Consistent with this postulate, the
existence of such right; (3) Said person had an judge and executed by the agents. A resolution presumption of regularity is unavailing in aid of
actual intention to relinquish the right. was issued by DOJ prompting private the search process when an officer undertakes
respondents to move anew for the quashal of to justify it.
 violation of this or the preceding section shall FACTS: One night, Enrique Manarang
a. Instances of warrantless be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in noticed the accused appellant’s car running
searches and seizures any proceeding. fast. After a while, a screech of tires was heard
Of course, there are certain cases where the and thus, made the officer run out and
353. People v. law itself allows a search even in the absence investigate. Not so long, the car continued to
Sevilla, 229 SCRA 625 of a warrant. Jurisprudence mentions the run, so a hot-pursuit took place. Manarang
following instances under which a warrantless then radioed the incident to the Police. When
FACTS: Both Adoracion Sevilla and Joel search and seizure may be effected, to wit: 1. the car was put to a stop, the driver rolled
Gaspar were arrested, and the bricks of dried Search which is incidental to a lawful arrest down the windows with his hands raised. The
marijuana leaves and flowering tops (Rule 126, Section 12, Rules of Court); 2. officers then noticed that it was the famous
confiscated without a warrant of arrest. The Seizure of evidence in plain view; 3. Search of actor, Robin Padilla. While apprehended,
prosecution claims that is incidental to the a moving vehicle; 4. Consented warrantless because of the hit-and-run incident, the police
lawful arrest of Adoracion Sevilla who had search; 5. Customs search; 6. Stop and Frisk; saw the revolver tucked in the left waist of
been long wanted by the police authorities, 7. Exigent and emergency circumstances. Robin. So, the police insisted that the gun be
and so, relying on the presumption that the shown in the office if it was legal. A magazine
arresting officers performed their official duties MP: Any evidence obtained in violation of clip of a rifle was also found in his possession
regularly and rejecting appellants defense of Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution or the which made the police suspect that there is a
denial, the trial court convicted appellants and preceding section shall be inadmissible in rifle inside the vehicle. Then the rifle was seen.
sentenced them to DEATH. evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. The other firearms were voluntarily
surrendered by Robin. Now, Robin’s defense
ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless was that his arrest was illegal and
i. Incidental to a lawful arrest
search and seizure was valid. consequently, the firearms and ammunitions
See also: Sec. 12, Rule 16 of the Rules
taken in the course thereof are inadmissible in
RULING: No. The Court is of the irresistible of Court evidence under the exclusionary rule.
conclusion that there was no probable cause
for conducting an extensive search in the Note: The requisites for a ISSUE: W/N the firearms and
house occupied by appellants. The Court warrantless search incidental to a ammunitions seized from petitioner without a
cannot also uphold the trial courts conclusion lawful arrest are as follows: search warrant is an inadmissible evidence
that the policemen regularly performed their
 Item to be searched was
duties as public officers Besides, the
presumption of regularity in the performance
within the arrestee’s custody RULING: NO. There are instances
or area of immediate control. warrantless search and seizure of property is
of official duty cannot by itself overcome the
 The search was valid, are as follows: 1. warrantless search
presumption of innocence nor constitute proof
incidental to a lawful arrest 2. seizure of
of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. contemporaneous with an
evidence in plain view; 3. search of a moving
The law attaches to the fundamental right of arrest. vehicle. 4. consented warrantless search, and
an individual against unreasonable searches
5. customs search. their seizure without a
and seizures under Article III, Section 3 of the 354. Padilla v. CA, GR search warrant nonetheless can still be
Constitution. Any evidence obtained in
121917 March 12, 1997 justified under a search incidental to a lawful
arrest (first instance). Once the lawful arrest bags of marijuana. Petitioner was brought to cellophane bags of marijuana seized at
was effected, the police may undertake a the police headquarters where he was charged petitioner’s house after his arrest at Pandacan
protective search of the passenger with possession of prohibited drugs. Petitioner and Zamora Streets do not fall under the said
compartment and containers in the vehicle was convicted of the crime charged by the trial exceptions.
which are within petitioner’s grabbing distance court, which he appealed to the CA. said court
regardless of the nature of the offense. This affirmed the decision of the TC thus this 356. People v. De Lara – 236
satisfied the two-tiered test of an incidental petition wherein petitioner contends that the SCRA 291
search: (i) the item to be searched (vehicle) trial and appellate courts erred in convicting
was within the arrestee’s custody or area of him on the basis that the pieces of evidence
FACTS: Appellant was arrested in a buy-
immediate control and (ii) the search was seized were inadmissible.
bust operation. During the investigation, he
contemporaneous with the arrest.
was apprised of his constitutional rights to
ISSUE: W/N the evidence seized by the remain silent and to have the assistance
MAIN POINT: Warrantless search policemen were admissible of counsel. When asked to give a written
incidental to a lawful arrest is recognized statement, he refused to do so pending arrival
under Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of RULING: The articles seized from of his lawyer. However, he was still forced to
Court and by prevailing jurisprudence. But the petitioner DURING HIS ARREST were valid sign the photocopy of the marked twenty-peso
tests for a valid warrantless search incidental under the doctrine of search made incidental bill, Receipt of Property Seized, and the
to a lawful arrest are: (1) the item to be to a lawful arrest. A peace officer may, without Booking and Information Sheet which were all
searched was within the arrestee’s custody or a warrant, arrest a person caught in flagranti as presented and admitted in evidence. He was
area of immediate control; (2) the search was a result of a buy-bust operation, and the subsequently convicted and sentenced to life
contemporaneous with the arrest. marijuana thereby seized after searching the imprisonment. Thus this appeal. In his appeal,
latter are admissible in evidence, being the appellant questions the legality of his arrest
355. Espano v. CA 288 fruits of the crime. The warrantless search and the seizure of prohibited drugs found
SCRA 558 (1998) made in his house, however, which yielded ten inside his house. Furthermore, he claims that
cellophane bags of marijuana became he was not assisted by counsel during his
unlawful since the police officers were not custodial interrogation
FACTS: Police operatives went to Zamora
armed with a search warrant at the time.
and Pandacan Streets, Manila to confirm
reports of drug pushing in the area. They saw ISSUE: W/N arrest and the seizure of
MAIN POINT: An exception rule of
petitioner Rodolfo Espano selling “something” prohibited drugs found inside his house was
freedom against unreasonable searches and
to another person. After the alleged buyer left, legal
seizures provided in Article III, Sec 2 of the
they approached petitioner, identified
Constitution is a warrantless search incidental
themselves as policemen, and frisked him. The
to a lawful arrest for dangerous weapons or RULING: YES. The SC finds that the police
search yielded two plastic cellophane tea bags
anything which may be used as proof of the operatives acted within the bounds of law.
of marijuana. When asked if he had more
commission of an offense. It may extend Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on
marijuana, he replied that there was more in
beyond the person of the one arrested to Criminal Procedure dealing with warrantless
his house. The policemen went to his residence
include the premises or surroundings under his arrests provides: A peace officer or a private
where they found ten more cellophane tea
immediate control. In the case at bar, the ten person may, without a warrant, arrest a
person; a) When, in his presence, the person drugs. Around 10 pm, Amidu and two other co- In the case at bar, appellants were arrested in
to be arrested has committed, is actually appellants entered Room 504 and Leangsiri Room 504 of the Las Palmas Hotel. The piece
committing, or is attempting to commit an gave them the drugs, before the appellants of paper bearing Leangsiri’s name was
offense; b) When an offense has in fact just leave the room, the NARCOM officers barged obtained through a warrantless search of
been committed and he has personal in and arrested the appellants. Amidu, told the Room 413 of the same hotel, and found tucked
knowledge of facts indicating that the person officers that he is staying in Rm 413 and that within the pages of appellant Amidu’s
to be arrested has committed it xxx. In the case the two others are in royal Palm Hotel. The telephone and address book. Clearly, the
at bench, appellant was caught red-handed in officers then went to the room of Amidu, warrantless search is illegal and the piece of
delivering two tin foils of marijuana to Pat. searching for evidence and subsequently paper bearing Leangsiri’s name cannot be
Orolfo, Jr., the poseur-buyer. Applying the confiscated a telephone address bearing the admitted as evidence against appellants. The
aforementioned provision of law, appellant’s name of Leangsiri, other possessions and inadmissibility of this evidence will not,
arrest was lawfully effected without need of a documents of Amidu were also confiscated. In however, exculpate appellants. Its exclusion
warrant of arrest. the case of the two other, the police does not destroy the prosecution’s case
confiscated a suit case and masking tape and against appellants. The remaining evidence still
MAIN POINT: A contemporaneous search empty transparent bag, allegedly will be use in established their guilt beyond reasonable
may be conducted upon the person of the transporting the drugs. The appellants were doubt
arrestee and the immediate vicinity where the charged and was convicted in conspiring to
arrest was made. The seizure of the plastic bag transport heroin violative of RA 6425. Hence 358. People v. Cuenco – GR
containing prohibited drugs was the result of this petition, alleging that the search is illegal 128277, Nov. 16, 1998
appellantÊs arrest inside his house. A being conducted not in the direct premises of
contemporaneous search may be conducted the arrest.
FACTS: After the conduct of surveillance
upon the person of the arrestee and the operations, a group of police officers reported
immediate vicinity where the arrest was made. ISSUE: W/N the piece of paper found the result of the same to their commanding
in Amidu’s hotel room, with the name officer who instructed them to apply for a
357. People v. Leangsiri – “SUCHINDA LEANGSIRI” written on it is search warrant. The police officers applied for
252 SCRA 213 admissible and were issued a search warrant. They then
returned to their commanding officer who
FACTS: Suchinda Leangsiri was arrested RULING: NO. The inadmissibility of hatched a plan that a buy-bust operation be
in the NAIA in the act of bringing into the evidence obtained in a warrantless search first conducted on the accused Cuenco before
country heroin. In his arrest, he informed the incident to a lawful arrest outside the the implementation of the search warrant. As
arresting officers that the heroin is meant to suspect’s person and the premises under his planned, the informant introduced PO1
deliver to three other people in Las Palmas immediate control admits of an exception. Camantigue to Cuenco who at that time was
Hotel in Manila. Immediately, the NARCOM The exception obtains when the Plain View standing by the door of his store which is just
formed a group for a follow up operation in Doctrine applies as explained in People vs. an extension of the house where he was
the said Hotel. In the accused’s cooperation, Musa, in this wise: “x x x Objects in the plain staying. Cuenco asked Camantigue how much
he was allowed to check in to Room 504, view of an officer who has the right to be in worth of marijuana was he buying to which the
where the others will meet him to give the the position to have that view are subject to latter replied he wanted to buy marijuana
seizure and may be presented as evidence.”.
worth P150.00. Cuenco got the money, called police authorities to falsely impute a serious 2 NARCOM officers suddenly forced their
his common-law wife, Florida Fajardo, and crime, the court will not allow their testimony way inside and searched the premises
instructed her to get marijuana worth P150.00. to be overcome by the self-serving and without search warrant.
Fajardo went inside the house and when she uncorroborated claim of ‘frame-up.’  Che Chun Ting was found guilty by the trial
returned, she handed Camantigue the court. He was meted two (2) death
marijuana. Camantigue then removed his cap MAIN POINT: In lawful arrests, it becomes sentences, for violation of the Dangerous
as a signal to his companions that the sale has both the duty and the right of the Drugs Act of 1972, as amended.
been consummated. The police officers apprehending officers to conduct a warrantless
arrested Cuenco and proceeded with the search not only on the person of the suspect ISSUE: Whether the search of Unit 122 is
search, in the course of which, SPO1 Sarmiento but also in the permissible area within his within the purview of the warrantless search
found a box which contained dried flowering reach, i.e., that point which is within the incidental to an arrest
tops of marijuana. The corresponding criminal effective control of the person arrested, or that
complaints were filed against the accused which may furnish him with the means of RULING: NO.
Ferdinand Cuenco and Florida Fajardo for the committing violence or of escaping The search in Unit 122 and the seizure therein
sale and possession of a prohibited drug. The of shabu were illegal for being violative of
trial court convicted both accused. Cuenco 359. People v. Che Chun one's basic constitutional right and guarantee
appealed questioning his conviction because of Ting – 328 SCRA 592 against unreasonable searches and seizures,
the illegality of the search made in his house. FACTS: and thus are inadmissible in evidence under
Appellant insinuates a frame-up.  NARCOM deployed a team of agents for the exclusionary rule. A warrantless search
the entrapment and arrest of Che Chun should be limited to the premises and
ISSUE: Whether or not the search of Ting, with the cooperation of Mabel surroundings that are under the immediate
the house consequent to a lawful arrest is Cheung Mei Po (a suspected drug courier control of the accused. Unit 122 is not even
valid. who was apprehended, and revealed the the house of the accused but that of his
source of the drugs) girlfriend.
RULING: Yes. The search of the house is  Upon entrapment, the NARCOM agents
valid as the latter is still within the permissible immediately arrested Che Chun Ting in The inadmissibility of such however does not
area of search. The arrest of appellant has Unit 122 of Seafront Garden. A black bag totally exonerate the accused. His arrest was
been made in the course of a buy-bust with several plastic bags containing a lawful and the seized bag of shabu was
operation, thus, in flagrante delicto. When the white crystalline substance was seized. admissible in evidence, being the fruit of the
operation took place, it becomes advisable, for The accused and the evidence were crime.
the peace officers to forthwith undertake a brought to Camp Crame. The contents of
search of the house as being within the the bank were tested and found positive 360. People v.Chi Chan, G.R.
permissible area. The arrest was made in the for shabu. No. 189272, January 21, 2015
course of an entrapment, following a  The Defense denied the allegation. It
surveillance operation, normally performed by contended that that Unit 122 is owned by FACTS:
police officers in the apprehension of violators Nimfa Ortiz and that Che Chun Ting lived  SPO2 Paglicawan and SPO3 Yuzon, after
of the Dangerous Drugs Act. In the absence of at a house located at Parañaque. Further, receiving radio message from the
proof of any odious intent on the part of the
 Barangay Captain, headed towards Ambil bags containing the drugs were in plain view of 361. People v. Evaristo, 216
Island, Looc, Oriental Mindoro and noticed arresting officers, one of the judicially SCRA 413
2 boats anchored side by side, one of recognized exceptions to the requirement of
which was a fishing boat and the other, a obtaining a search warrant. FACTS:
speed boat. They noticed 1 person on the  Peace officers, while on routine patrol
fishing boat and 2 on the other, who were PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE duty, heard burst of gunfire. Proceeding to
transferring cargo from the former to the The objects falling in the plain view of the the approximate source of the same, they
latter. As they moved closer, the fishing officer, who has the right to be in the position saw one Baraquiel Rosillo who was firing
boat sped away. The officers were only to have that view, are subject to seizure and gun into the air. He ran to the nearby
able to reach the speed boat and found may be presented as evidence. house of Evaristo. Rosillo escaped thru the
the respondents with transparent, plastic Requisites: window.
bags containing shabu. Their identification a) The law enforcement officer in search  Carillo was found to have in possession a
papers were asked but respondents failed of the evidence has a prior calibre gun which was confiscated, and he
to do so. They didn’t know how to speak justification for an intrusion, or is in a was invited for questioning.
English, the officers had to get an position from which he can view a  As the patrol was still in pursuit of Rosillo,
interpreter to tell them of their Miranda particular area they investigated in the house of Evaristo
rights. b) The discovery of the evidence in the where they were given permission to
 The Trial Court found the respondents plain view is inadvertent, and enter. They accidentally discovered the
guilty and the CA affirmed the said It is immediately apparent to the officer that firearms in the latter’s possession.
decision. the item he observes may be evidence of a Accused-appellant found guilty of illegal
 Respondents’ contention: there was a crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to possession of firearms contended that the
violation of their constitutional rights seizure. seizure of the evidence is inadmissible
against unreasonable searches and because it was not authorized by a valid
seizures. The warrantless arrest and the i. Plain view warrant.
consequent search and seizure on their
persons and possessions are unjustified, ISSUE: Whether or not the evidence
hence, the confiscated bags of regulated
Note: The following are the
requisites for a valid plain view obtained without warrant in an accidental
drugs were inadmissible against them. discovery of the evidence is admissible.
search and seizure
ISSUE: Whether or not there was a  Prior valid intrusion; RULING: YES. The firearms seized was
violation of the respondents’ constitutional  Evidence was inadvertently valid and lawful for being incidental to a
right on unreasonable search and that the discovered by the police; lawful arrest. An offense was committed in
confiscated bags were inadmissible against  Illegality of the evidence is the presence or within the view of an
them.
immediately apparent; and officer, within the meaning of the rule
 Noticed without further authorizing an arrest without a warrant.
RULING: NO. The Court did not find the
consequent warrantless search and seizure search
UNREASONABLE in view of the fact that the
 What constitutional provisions prohibit placed the packs of marijuana sticks under without warrant, deemed waiver of one’s
are unreasonable searches and seizures. Yet, the rolled pair of pants which she was constitutional right relative thereto.
one of the exceptions is the plain view doctrine then carrying at the time she hurriedly left
which provides that objects inadvertently her shanty after noticing the arrest of 363. Roan v. Gonzales, 145
falling in the plain view of an officer who has Rommel. She was asked by the policement SCRA 687
the right to be in that view, are subject to to spread it out, then the package
seizure and may be introduced as evidence. containing the packs of marijuana sticks
FACTS:
were thus exposed.
 The challenged search warrant was issued
PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE  The accused were then convicted of the
by the respondent judge on a specific
The objects falling in the plain view of the offense charged against them in the trial
date. The petitioner's house was searched
officer, who has the right to be in the position court.
two days later but none of the articles
to have that view, are subject to seizure and  On appeal, respondent presented her
listed in the warrant was discovered.
may be presented as evidence. argument that the lower court erred in
However, the officers conducting the
Requisites: admitting the evidence against her when
search found in the premises one Colt
a) The law enforcement officer in search there wasn’t any search warrant.
Magnum revolver and eighteen live
of the evidence has a prior Therefore, violating the constitutional
bullets which they confiscated and were
justification for an intrusion, or is in a guarantee against unreasonable searches
used as the bases of the charge against
position from which he can view a and seizures.
the petitioner.
particular area
 Respondent Judge said that when a police
b) The discovery of the evidence in the ISSUE: Whether or not there was a
officer personally filed his application for a
plain view is inadvertent, and violation against the constitutional guarantee
search warrant, he appeared before him in
It is immediately apparent to the officer that of individuals against unreasonable searches
the company of his 2 witnesses.
the item he observes may be evidence of a and seizures.
crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to
ISSUE: Whether or not the search warrant
seizure RULING: NO. The accused, who
and seizure of illegal articles were violative of
voluntarily unrolled the pair of pants with the
constitutional guarantee.
362. People v. Tabar, 222 package containing packs of marijuana sticks,
SCRA 144 (1993) thereby exposing the same to the plain view
RULING: YES. The respondents cannot
of the police officers, could lawfully be
even claim that they stumbled upon the
arrested and searched without the
FACTS: revolver and the bullets for the fact is that
corresponding arrest and search warrants. A
 Respondent-accused, Carmelina Tabar, these things were deliberately sought and
crime was thus committed in the presence of
was charged, together with her nephew, were not in plain view when they were taken.
the policemen.
Rommel Arriesgado, for violation of the Hence, the rule having been violated and no
Further, when one voluntarily submits to a
Dangerous Drugs Act in an information exception being applicable, the conclusion is
search and consent to have it made of his
which provided that the said accused sold that the petitioner’s pistol and bullets were
person or premises, he is precluded from later
and delivered 3 sticks of marijuana confiscated illegally and therefore protected by
voluntary surrender to the search and seizure
cigarettes and prohibited drugs. She the exclusionary principle.
 the plain view doctrine. However, seized things searched for the marked bills that they used in
364. United Laboratories v. not described in the warrant cannot be buying said drugs which happened to be in the
Isip – GR 163858 (June 28, presumed as plain view. It is not enough that house of Gaddao, according to Doria. When
the sealed boxes were in the plain view of the they reached her house, the police officers
2005) NBI agents. However, the NBI failed came upon a box. He saw that one of the box's
to present any of officers who were flaps was open and inside the box was
FACTS: UNILAB hired a private investigator present when the warrant was enforced to something wrapped in plastic. The plastic
to investigate a place purported to be prove that the sealed boxes was discovered wrapper and its contents appeared similar to
manufacturing fake UNILAB products, inadvertently, and that such boxes and their the marijuana earlier "sold" to him by "Jun."
especially Revicon multivitamins. UNILAB then contents were incriminating and immediately His suspicion aroused and took hold of the box.
sought the help of the NBI, which thereafter apparent. It must be stressed that only the He peeked inside the box and found that it
filed an application for the issuance of search enforcing officers had personal knowledge contained ten (10) bricks of what appeared to
warrant. The warrant specifically authorized whether the sealed boxes and their contents be dried marijuana leaves. Both accused were
the officers only to seize counterfeit Revicon thereof were incriminating and that they were convicted of the crime charged. Hence, this
multivitamins, finished or unfinished, and the immediately apparent. There is even no present petition.
documents used in recording, manufacture showing that the NBI agents knew the
and distribution of the said vitamins. The contents of the sealed boxes before they were ISSUE: WON the warrantless arrest of
implementing officers failed to find any opened. In sum then, the petitioner and the Gaddao, the search of her person and house,
counterfeit Revicon multivitamins, and instead NBI failed to prove that the plain view doctrine and the admissibility of the pieces of evidence
seized sealed boxes which, when opened at applies to the seized items. obtained therefrom was valid under the plain
the place where they were found, turned out MAIN POINT: The doctrine is not an exception view doctrine.
to contain Inoflox and Disudrin. The to the warrant. It merely serves to supplement
respondents then filed a motion to quash the the prior justification — whether it be a RULING: NO.  Accused-appellant Gaddao
search warrant or to suppress evidence, warrant for another object, hot pursuit, search was not caught red-handed during the buy-
alleging that the seized items are considered to as an incident to a lawful arrest or some other bust operation to give ground for her arrest.
be fruit of a poisonous tree, legitimate reason for being present, She was not committing any crime. This brings
and therefore inadmissible for any purpose in unconnected with a search directed against us to the question of whether the trial court
any proceeding, which the petitioners opposed the accused. It would be needless to require correctly found that the box of marijuana was
alleging that the boxes of Disudrin and Inoflox the police to obtain another warrant. in plain view, making its warrantless seizure
were seized under the plain view doctrine. valid. The marijuana was not in plain view and
365. People v. Doria – GR its seizure without the requisite search warrant
ISSUE: Whether or not the seizure of the was in violation of the law and the
sealed boxes which, when opened, contained 125299, Jan. 22, 1999
Constitution. In other words, if the package is
Disudrin syrup and Inoflox, were valid under such that an experienced observer could infer
the plain view doctrine. FACTS: A buy-bust operation was
from its appearance that it contains the
conducted by the police which caught accused
prohibited article, then the article is deemed in
RULING: NO. It is true that things not Doria red-handed of selling prohibited drugs
plain view.  
described in the warrant may be seized under and during the operation, the police officers
 MAIN POINT: Where the object seized ISSUE: Whether or not the seizure of items
was inside a closed package, the object itself is not mentioned in the search warrant was 367. Hizon v. Court of
not in plain view and therefore cannot be illegal. Appeals, 265 SCRA 517 (1996)
seized without a warrant. However, if the
package proclaims its contents, whether by its RULING: YES. The Supreme Court said that
FACTS: On the strength of the report
distinctive configuration, its transparency, or if the search warrant was no authority for the
submitted by the Task Force Bantay Dagat, the
its contents are obvious to an observer, then police officers to seize the firearm which was
PNP Maritime Group boarded and inspected a
the contents are in plain view and may be not mentioned, much less described with
big fishing boat with the consent of the boat
seized. particularity, in the warrant. In this case, the
captain. In the course of the inspection, the
firearm was not found unintentionally and in
police discovered a large aquarium full of live
366. Del Rosario v. People, plain view. It was found as a result of a
lapu-lapu and assorted fish weighing
GR 142295, May 31, 2001 meticulous search in the kitchen of petitioner’s
approximately one ton at the bottom of the
house. This firearm, to emphasize, was not
boat. Some of the fishes were tested to
mentioned in the search warrant. Hence, the
FACTS: Petitioner Vicente del Rosario contain cyanide. The petitioners primarily
seizure was illegal.  True that as an exception,
appeals via certiorari from a decision of the question the admissibility of the evidence
the police may seize without warrant illegally
Court of Appeals affirming with modification against petitioners in view of the warrantless
possessed firearm or any contraband for that
the decision of the Regional Trial Court-Branch search of the fishing boat and the subsequent
matter, inadvertently found in plain view. 
20 and finding him guilty beyond reasonable arrest of petitioners. More concretely, they
doubt of violation of P. D. No. 1866, as contend that the NBI finding of sodium cyanide
Main Point: Plain view applies only in the
amended by Republic Act No. 8294 (illegal in the fish specimens should not have been
seizure of evidence when the police officer is
possession of firearms). Petitioner submits that admitted and considered by the trial court
not searching for evidence against the accused,
the search conducted at his residence was because the fish samples were seized from the
but unintentionally comes across an
illegal as the search warrant was issued in F/B Robinson without a search warrant.
incriminating object. Specifically, seizure of
violation of the Constitution and consequently,
evidence in plain view is justified when there
the evidence seized was inadmissible. He also
is: (a) a prior valid intrusion in to a place; ISSUE: Whether or not the search of the
submits that he had a license for the .45
(b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered fishing boat was lawful.
caliber firearm and ammunition seized in his
by the police who had the right to be where
bedroom. The other firearm, a .22 caliber
they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately
revolver seized in a drawer at the kitchen of his RULING: YES. Search and seizure without
apparent, and (d) plain view justified mere
house, a magazine for 5.56 mm. cal. Armalite search warrant of vessels and aircrafts for
seizure of evidence without further search
rifle, and two 2-way radios found in his violations of customs laws have been the
daughter’s bedroom, were either planted by traditional exception to the constitutional
the police or illegally seized, as they were not i.Moving vehicle (Note: There must be requirement of a search warrant. It is rooted
mentioned in the search warrant. a highly reasonable suspicion on the recognition that a vessel and an aircraft,
amounting to probable cause that the like motor vehicles, can be quickly moved out
occupant committed a criminal of the locality or jurisdiction in which the
activity.) search warrant must be sought and secured.
The same exception ought to apply to seizures ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless was violative of Section 2 Article III of the
of fishing vessels and boats breaching our search and seizure of the motorcycle was Constitution
fishery laws. These vessels are normally lawful.
powered by high-speed motors that enable ISSUE: Whether or not the extensive
them to elude arresting ships of the Philippine search at a checkpoint was violative of the
RULING: NO. The Supreme Court ruled
Navy, the Coast Guard and other government Constitutional proscription against
that the confiscation, without warrant, was
authorities enforcing our fishery laws. unreasonable searches and seizures
unlawful. The constitutional provision protects
not only those who appear to be innocent but
RULING: Yes. An extensive search without
Main Point: A fishing vessel found to be also those who appear to be guilty but are
warrant could only be resulted to if the officers
violating fishery laws may be seized without a nevertheless presumed innocent until the
conducting the search had reasonable cause to
warrant on two grounds: firstly, because they contrary is proved. The necessity for the
believe before the search that either the
are usually equipped with powerful motors immediate seizure of the motorcycle had not
motorist was a law offender or that they would
that enable them to elude pursuit, and been established; neither can the vehicle be
find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining
secondly, because the seizure would be an detained on the ground that it is a prohibited
to the commission of a crime in the vehicle to
incident to a lawful arrest. article.
be searched. The existence of probable cause
justifying the warrantless search is determined
368. Bagalihog v. Fernandez 369. Aniag, Jr v. COMELEC, by the facts of the case. In the case at bar,
– 198 SCRA 614 237 SCRA 424 (1994) records did not show that the manner by
which the package was bundled led the PNP to
FACTS: Petitioner was the owner of a FACTS: Pursuant to the COMELEC Gun suspect that it contained firearms.
motorcycle suspected to be the get-away Ban, petitioner (Congressman of the 1st District
vehicle of the assailant of the late Rep. Moises of Bulacan) instructed his driver to return the MAIN POINT: A warrantless search is not
Espinosa who was shot shortly after two firearms issued to him to the Sergeant-at- violative of the Constitution for as long as the
disembarking at the airport. Witnesses said Arms of the House of Representative. The vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants
that one of the gunmen fled on a motorcycle. driver was apprehended by the PNP at a subjected to a body search, and the inspection
Petitioner’s house was searched with his checkpoint outside the Batasan Complex after of the vehicle is merely limited to a visual
consent but the search proved fruitless by the PNP searched the car and found two firearms search.
members of the Philippine Constabulary. The in the trunk of the car. When prosecuted, 370. People v. Aminuddin,
motorcycle was seized two days after the petitioner questioned the manner which PNP 163 SCRA 402
killing and impounded the same on the conducted the search. He contended, among
suspicion that it was one of the vehicles used others, that the firearms were not tucked in FACTS: Petitioner was arrested by PC
by the killers. There was no warrant for the the waist nor within the immediate reach of officers after disembarking from M/V Wilcon 9
seizure obtained by the respondent. When his driver but instead neatly packed in their at 8:30PM in Iloilo City. The PC officers (had
petitioner sought to recover the vehicle, police gun cases and wrapped in a bag kept in the earlier received a tip from their informer) who
claimed that it was needed for the trunk of the car. Hence, the search of his car were in fact waiting for him simply accosted
prosecution. that yielded the evidence for the prosecution him, inspected his bag, and finding what
looked like marijuana leaves, took him to their 371. People v. Malmstedt, ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless
headquarters for investigation. The two GR 91107, June 19, 1991 search was legal
bundles of suspected articles were confiscated
and taken to the NBI laboratory for FACTS: Due to persistent reports that RULING: Yes. Accused was searched and
investigation. When prosecuted, he claimed vehicles coming from Sagada were arrested while transporting prohibited drugs
that he was arrested and searched without transporting marijuana and other prohibited hence, the search made upon his personal
warrant, making the marijuana allegedly found drugs, checkpoints were set-up at Tublay effects falls under paragraph 1 of warrantless
in his possession inadmissible as evidence Mountain Province. Furthermore, an search incidental to a lawful arrest (i.e when in
against him under the Bill of Rights. information was received by the Commanding his presence, the person to be arrested has
Officer of Narcotics Command (NARCOM) that committed, is actually committing, or is
ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless a Caucasian coming from Sagada had in his attempting to commit an offense). The
arrest and search upon the person of the possession prohibited drugs. The bus where information received by NARCOM plus
petitioner is legal respondent Mikael Malmstedt (Swedish respondent’s suspicious failure to produce his
national) was riding was stopped for passport led the officers to believe that he was
RULING: No. The petitioner was not inspection. NARCOM officer noticed a bulge on hiding something illegal. There was probable
caught in flagrante nor was a crime about to respondent’s waist. Suspecting it to be a gun, cause which justified the warrantless search
be committed or had just been committed to he was asked to present his passport and made on the personal effects of the
justify the warrantless arrest allowed under identification papers but he failed to do so. He respondent. Dissenting opinions of Justice
Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. Even was then required to bring out whatever it was Narvasa and Justice Cruz say otherwise
expediency could not be invoked to dispense bulging on his waist which turned out to be a
with the obtention of the warrant as PC pouch bag containing hashish (derivative of 372. People v. Lo Ho Wing,
officers received the tip from their informant marijuana) wrapped in brown packing tape. He GR 88017, Jan 21, 1991
two days before the arrest within which they was invited outside the bus for questioning.
can persuade the judge that there was But before he alighted, he got two travelling FACTS: Special Operations Group received
probable cause to justify the issuance of the bags from the luggage carrier which upon a tip from one of its informers about an
warrant of arrest and search. The Bill of Rights inspection of the officer contained two teddy organized group, of which the respondent was
was ignored and the head of the arresting bears stuffed with hashish. He was brought to a member, engaged in the importation of
team had determined on his own authority the headquarters for further investigation. illegal drugs. Respondent, together with the
that such search warrant was not necessary. Seeking the reversal of the trial court’s deep penetration agent hired by the
decision finding him guilty of violation of operatives, arrived in Manila from China. They
MAIN POINT: The warrantless arrest did not Dangerous Drugs Act, he argued that the rode a taxicab from the airport but were
come under the exceptions allowed by the search of his personal effects was illegal intercepted by the readily awaiting operative
Rules of Court hence, the warrantless search because it was made without a search warrant team. The taxi driver was asked to open the
was also illegal and the evidence obtained and therefore, the prohibited drugs discovered back compartment of the vehicle and the
thereby was inadmissible. in his custody were inadmissible as evidence. operatives requested permission from the
respondent and his companion to search the
luggage contained therein. Tin cans containing
56 teabags of Metamphetamine (shabu) were not possible for the NARCOM agents and the
found inside the luggage. On appeal after FACTS: NARCOM agents had conducted a Coastguard Officers to obtain a judicial search
conviction, he contended that the warrantless test-buy which confirmed that Saycon was warrant or warrant of arrest given that it was
search and seizure made against him was engaged in transporting and selling of “shabu”. only in the morning of his arrival that the
illegal. That the anti-narcotics agents had both The police authorities did not arrest him on specific information confirming his arrival was
time and opportunity to secure a search that occasion but his identity as drug courier or received by authorities.
warrant given that they were informed of the distributor was established. A confidential
date and time of his arrival two days prior. information that he would probably board MV MAIN POINT: Warrantless search and
Doña Virginia from Manila to Dumaguete City arrest would be constitutionally permissible
ISSUE: Whether or not the search and was received by the officers on the same only if the officer conducting the search had
seizure made against the respondent is illegal morning he arrived. Pursuant to this, a reasonable or probable cause to believe that
checkpoint was set at the Pier where Saycon the accused was violating some law.
RULING: No. The circumstances of the was identified by NARCOM police officer. He
case showed that the search in question was was invited to Coast Guard Headquarter where 374. People v. CFI – 101
made as regards as moving vehicle. Therefore, he was asked to open his bag which was found SCRA 86
a valid warrant was not necessary to effect the to contain a Marlboro pack containing
search on respondent and his co-accused. suspected “shabu”. He was then arrested FACTS: A light blue Dodge car speed away after
Warrantless search of a moving vehicle is without warrant and brought to the NARCOM giving the toll receipt. The Regional
justified on the ground that it is not practicable office, together with his bag and the suspected Anti-Smuggling Action Center (RASAC)
to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be shabu which was later brought to PNP Crime gave a chase, overtook them and
quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction Laboratory for examination. In seeking reversal ordered them to stop but Sgt. Hope
in which the warrant must be sought. Based on of the trial court’s conviction of him, he argued made a U-turn and tried to escape. An
intelligence reports gathered from surveillance that the search of his bag was illegal due to inspection of the dodge car revealed
activities, the authorities had reasonable lack of warrant thus, the shabu discovered in boxes containing more or less 4,441
ground to believe that respondent would his possession was inadmissible as evidence. wrist watches and more or less 11,075
attempt to bring contraband and transport it
watch bracelets which were all
within the country. ISSUE: Whether or not the arrest and untaxed. At the time Hope and
search upon the person of the respondent is Medina were apprehended, the
MAIN POINT: Warrantless search of a moving illegal RASAC Agents were not armed with a
vehicle is justified on the ground that it is not
warrant of arrest and seizure.
practicable to secure a warrant because the RULING: No. There was probable cause
vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality for the authorities to believe that Saycon ISSUE/S: Whether items seized in a moving
or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be would be carrying or transporting prohibited vehicle without a warrant of seizure
sought. drugs upon arriving in Dumaguete City. are admissible for evidence
Probable cause in the case at bar consisted of
373. People v. Saycon – 236 two parts, the test-buy conducted by police RULING: Yes, searches and seizures
SCRA 329 authorities and the confidential information without warrant are valid if made upon
received on the day of his arrest. Also it was
probable cause. The RASAC agents were offender or the contents or cargo of the
vested with authority under the Tariff and vehicle are or have been instruments or the 377. People v. Lacerna – 278
Customs Code, they did not exceed such subject matter or the proceeds of some SCRA 561
authority. The Court also held that there were criminal offense.
rare cases which can be exempted from the
FACTS: Noriel and Marlon Lacerna were inside
requirement of a warrant, such as that of a 376. Mustang Lumber v. CA a taxi when a group of police signaled
moving vehicle. It not being practicable to – 257 SCRA 430 them to park on the side of the road
secure a judicial warrant before searching a
for inspection. The police officers
vehicle, since such vehicle can be quickly
FACTS: Petitioner's truck with Plate No. CCK- went about searching the luggages
moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in
322 was coming out from the and found several blocks of
which the warrant may be sought.
petitioner's lumberyard loaded with marijiuana. They claimed that the bag
lauan and almaciga lumber of was sent by their uncle
375. People v. Barros – 231 different sizes and dimensions which
SCRA 557 were not accompanied with the ISSUE/S: Whether or not the search seizure
required invoices and transport was lawfully conducted
FACTS: Bonifacio Barros was charged with documents, the truck together with
violating the Dangerous Drugs Act of its cargo and impounded at the DENR. RULING: Yes, though probable cause
1972 for possession of four (4) kilos of is not evident, we hold that appellant and his
marijuana while being a passenger to ISSUE/S: Whether or not the seizure was baggage were validly searched. The police
Baguio City. Petitioner now questions lawfully conducted. expressly sought appellants permission for the
the judgment for ignoring manifest search. Only after appellant agreed to have his
absence of the mandatory warrant in RULING: Yes, the seizure of such truck and its person and baggage checked did the actual
the arrest and search. cargo was a valid exercise of the power vested search commence. It was his consent which
upon a forest officer or employee. The search validated the search, waiver being a generally
ISSUE/S: Whether items seized in a moving was conducted on a moving vehicle. Search of recognized exception to the rule against
vehicle without a warrant of seizure a moving vehicle is one of the five doctrinally warrantless search
are admissible for evidence accepted exceptions to the constitutional
mandate that no search or seizure shall be i. Consent or
RULING: No, record failed to show probable made except by virtue of a warrant issued by a waiver
cause for the peace officers to search the judge after personally determining the
carton box allegedly owned by appellant existence of probable cause.
Barros. When, a vehicle is stopped and Note: The following are the
subjected to an extensive search, such a requisites of consent or waiver:
warrantless search is permissible only if the  It must appear that the right
officers conducting the search have reasonable exists;
or probable cause to believe, before the  The person involved had
search, that either the motorist is a law- knowledge, either actual or
 constructive, of the existence have objected the legality of the search for 7 days in the Municipal jail. In defense,
of the right. warrant when the search was conducted appellant interposed denial and alibi. Thus, the
without her presence because she was such, court rendered judgment finding the accused
 The person had actual
but no objection was made. Since the guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
intention to relinquish the constitutional right against unreasonable Theft. On appeal, the Court of Appeals
right. search and seizure is a personal one, it can be affirmed the judgment of conviction
waived, expressly or impliedly.
378. De Garcia v. Locsin, 65 Issue: W/N the warrantless search without
PHIL 689 It is well-settled that to constitute a waiver of consent is valid?
a constitutional right, it must appear, first,
Facts: Leona de Garcia’s office were that the right exists; secondly, that the Ruling: NO. The Court ruled that in case of
searched, and some packages of records and persons involved had knowledge, either consented searches or waiver of the
documents were seized by Mariano Almeda, actual or constructive, of the existence of constitutional guarantee against obtrusive
an agent of the Anti-Usury Board. He such right; and, lastly, that said person had an searches, it is fundamental that to constitute
conducted the search and seizure with a actual intention to relinquish the right. a waiver, it must first appear that (1) the right
warrant. The search warrant was issued upon exists; (2) that person involved had
the affidavit executed by Almeda saying that 379. Caballes v. Court of knowledge, either actual or constructive, of
he had a probable cause to believe that Leona Appeals, GR 136292, Jan 15, the existence of such right, and (3) said
de Garcia keeps and conceals in her house and person had an actual intention to relinquish
2002 the right. The evidence is lacking that the
office certain books, receipts and other
pertinent papers relating to her activities as a petitioner intentionally surrendered his right
Facts: Sgt. Victorino Noceja and Pat. Alex against unreasonable searches.
usurer, all of which is contrary to the Anti- de Castro, while on a routine patrol, spotted a
Usury Law. passenger jeep unusually covered with
"kakawati" leaves. Suspecting that the jeep
After the seizure, Leona de Garcia on was loaded with smuggled goods, the two 380. People v. Agbot, 106
several occasions, demanded from the Anti- police officers flagged down the vehicle. With SCRA 325
Usury Board the return of her documents. appellant's alleged consent, the police officers
When 6 criminal cases were initiated against checked the cargo and they discovered Facts: Antonio Agbot was charged and
her, she challenged the legality of the search bundles of galvanized conductor wires convicted of murder for the death of her sister
warrant. The trial judge denied her motion exclusively owned by National Power Leona Agbot-Subat. When the police officers
because there was a waiver on her part. Corporation (NPC). Thereafter, appellant and went to the scene of the crime, took the
the vehicle with the high-voltage wires were “paltik” gun as well as brought him to the
Issue: W/N there has been a waiver on the brought to the Pagsanjan Police Station. Danilo station. He admitted the crime and thus, he
part of Leona de Garcia. Cabale took pictures of the appellant and the was convicted. He appealed his case asserting
jeep loaded with the wires which were turned that there was no search warrant when the
Ruling: YES. There was implied waiver on over to the Police Station Commander of gun was taken from the house and cannot be
her constitutional immunity against Pagsanjan, Laguna. Appellant was incarcerated used as an evidence against him.
unreasonable search and seizure. She could
 search conducted is violative of the its being hearsay, immaterial or irrelevant and
Issue: W/N the seizure was valid constitution (2) illegal for lack of a search warrant.

Ruling: YES. The Supreme Court said that Issue: W/N there was consent on the part Issue: W/N the search was valid and
Agbot’s admission is an express consent. His of the person who was the occupant of the the evidence seized can be admissible in
admission does not constitute a violation of hotel room when the police officers took the Court to convict Damaso
the constitutional guarantee against documents owned by Mr. Velasco
inadmissibility of illegally seized objects as Ruling: No. There is no substantial and
evidence against an accused. Also, the Ruling: No. Without proper search credible evidence to establish the fact that the
Supreme Court found that the confession warrant, no public official has the right to appellant is allegedly the same person as the
itself can only be supplied by the accused only enter the premises of another without his lessee of the house where the M-14 rifle and
and the police officers cannot make up such consent for the purpose f search and seizure. other subversive items were found or the
stories according to their imaginations. It does not admit of doubt therefore that a owner of the said items. The right against
search or seizure cannot be stigmatized as unreasonable searches and seizures is a
381. Lopez v. Commissioner unreasonable and thus offensive to the personal right. The constitutional immunity
of Customs, 68 SCRA 320 Constitution if consent be shown. This from unreasonable searches and seizures,
immunity from unwarranted intrusion is a being personal one, cannot be waived by
(1975) personal right which may be waived either anyone except 1) the person whose rights are
expressly or impliedly. invaded or 2) one who is expressly authorized
Facts: M/V Jolo Lema had been under to do so in his or her behalf.
strict surveillance by the combined team
agents due to the suspicion that the vessel 382. People v. Damaso, 212
loaded copra and coffee beans from Indonesia. SCRA 457
Various merchandise were brought from the 383. People v. Asis, GR
Philippines using the vessel which were Facts: The group of Lt. Quijardo entered 142531, October 15, 2002
exchanged and bartered for the identified the dwelling of Damaso without a valid
items which were then taken to Davao. The warrant when the latter was absent. They FACTS: Upon arriving at his uncle’s store,
vessel was searched and discovered that the requested the persons in the house to allow George Huang discovered the body of his dead
vessel is carrying smuggled copra and coffee them to look around. In one of the rooms, they uncle, Yu Hing Guan. RTC then charged
which was charted by Tomas Velasco. Another saw subversive materials respondents for the crime of Robbery with
combined task force headed Velasco's room to which they confiscated. They likewise brought homicide although there was no witness to the
ask for said document but Velasco was not in the persons found in the house to the actual killing presented, the circumstantial
the room when they entered. There was no headquarters for investigation and the persons evidence including the recovery of
clear evidence as to the consent in allowing revealed that Damaso was the lessee of the bloodstained clothing from both accused
the operatives inside the room or whether the house and owned the items confiscated. The proved that the two committed the crime.
officers forcibly opened the luggages and counsel for the accused-appellant interposed Aggrieved, respondents appealed contending
seized the documents. A special civil action for his objections to the admissibility of the that the search was illegally done, making the
certiorari is filed to determine whether the prosecution’s evidence on the grounds of (1) obtainment of the pair of shorts illegal and
taints them as inadmissible. The prosecution, the supervision of a certain Edna Soguilon who contacted the Veroys to seek permission to
on the other hand, contends that it was the only has the key to the kitchen were the circuit enter the same. Permission was indeed
wife of appellant who voluntarily surrendered breakers are in case of emergency. Capt. granted by Ma. Luisa Veroy to enter the house
the bag that contained the bloodstained Orbero of the Talomo Patrol Station raided the but only to ascertain the presence of rebel
trousers of the victim. Her act, it claims, said house upon an information that it was soldiers and not to take items which are
constituted a valid consent to the search used as a safe house of rebel soldiers. They products of an illegal search. Under the
without a warrant. were able to enter the yard with the help of circumstances it is undeniable that the police
the caretakers but did not enter the house officers had ample time to procure a search
ISSUE: W/N the waiver can come from any since the owner was not present and they did warrant but did not.
other person. not have a search warrant. Capt. Orbero then
contacted petitioner Luisa for permission to MAINPOINT: The recognized exceptions
RULING: No. In the present case, the search the house for the said information thereto are: (1) a search incidental to an
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses show which she agreed only if it would be conducted arrest; (2) a search of a moving vehicle; and (3)
that at the time the bloodstained pair of shorts in the presence of Major Macaset. The next seizure of evidence in plain view
was recovered, Appellant Formento, together day, the search was conducted leading to the
with his wife and mother, was present. Being discovery and confiscation of hand guns and
the very subject of the search, necessarily, he magazines in certain rooms. The petitioners
himself should have given consent. Since he question the admissibility in evidence of the
was physically present, the waiver could not articles seized in violation of their
have come from any other person. constitutional right against unreasonable
search and seizure.
MAIN POINT: Primarily, the constitutional
right against unreasonable searches and ISSUE: W/N the admissibility in evidence
seizures, being a personal one, cannot be of the articles seized is a violation of their
waived by anyone except the person whose constitutional right against unreasonable
rights are invaded or who is expressly search and seizure.
authorized to do so on his or her behalf
RULING: Yes. None of the exceptions
384. Spouses Veroy v. pertains to the case at bar. The reason for
Layague, GR 95632, June 18, searching the house of the petitioners is that it
was reportedly being used as a hideout and
1992 recruitment center for rebel soldiers. While
Capt. Obrero was able to enter the compound,
FACTS: Petitioner Spouses owns a house in he did not enter the house because he did not
Davao City. Upon his promotion to the position have a search warrant and the owners were
of Assistant Administrator of the SSS, Leopoldo not present. This shows that he recognized the
and his family transferred to Quezon City and need for a search warrant, hence, he did not
left the house to two house boys and under persist in entering the house but rather
 bag. Thus, the accused waived his right against ISSUE: W/N the evidence allegedly
385. People v. Omaweng, unreasonable searches and seizures. confliscated is inadmissible being the fruit of
213 SCRA 462 an illegal search conducted without any search
MAIN POINT: When one voluntarily warrant.
submits to a search or consents to have it
FACTS: Accused Conway B. Omaweng was
made of his person or premises, he is RULING: No. The appellants never
originally indicted for the violation of Section 4,
precluded from later complaining thereof. The protested when SPO3 Jesus Faller, after
Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise
right to be secure from unreasonable search identifying himself as a police officer, opened
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as
may, like every right, be waived and such the tin can loaded in the appellants’ vehicle
amended, in a criminal complaint filed with the
waiver may be made either expressly or and found 8 bundles. And when Faller opened
Municipal Trial Court of Bontoc, Mountain
impliedly. one of the bundles, it smelled of marijuana.
Province on 12 September 1988. Upon his
The NBI later confirmed the eight 8 bundles to
failure to submit counter-affidavits despite the
386. People v. Correa, 285 be positive for marijuana. Again, the appellants
granting of an extension of time to do so, the
SCRA 679 did not raise any protest when they, together
court declared that he had waived his right to a
with their cargo of drugs and their vehicle,
preliminary investigation and, finding probable
were brought to the police station for
cause against the accused, ordered the FACTS: Accused Antonio Correa, Rito
investigation and subsequent prosecution.
elevation of the case to the proper court. MTC Gunida and Leonardo Dulay conspired
ruled that the accused is guilty of the said law. together, not being authorized by law to
MAIN POINT: When one voluntarily
Aggrieved, he then appealed to the RTC. possess, sell, deliver, and transport 8 bundles
submits to a search or consents to have it
ISSUE: W/N the contraband subject of the of dried flowering tops of Marijuana wrapped
made of his person or premises, he is
instant case is inadmissible in evidence for in pieces of papers and plastic tapes. An
precluded from later complaining thereof. The
having been obtained in violation of the Information was filed with the RTC Manila
right to be secure from unreasonable search
constitutional right of the accused against indicting appellants for having violated Section
may, like every right, be waived and such
unreasonable search (sic) and seizure.” 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as
waiver may be made either expressly or
amended. The defense, however, contends
impliedly.
RULING: No. Accused was not subjected that the 3 accused were arrested without
to any search which may be stigmatized as a warrant in Camarin D, Caloocan City, enroute
violation of his Constitutional right against to Dulay’s house to get the things of his child 387. People v. Ramos, 222
unreasonable searches and seizures. If one had allegedly rushed previously to the SCRA 557
been made, this Court would be the first to Metropolitan Hospital, for an alleged charge of
condemn it “as the protection of the citizen trafficking on 'shabu,' and were brought to the FACTS: Following a tip from an informer,
and the maintenance of his constitutional WPDC headquarters at U.N. Avenue, where police operatives patrolled Miranda
rights is one of the highest duties and they were detained. The lower court found the Subdivision for a possible engagement with the
privileges of the Court.” He willingly gave prior appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt. suspects of a series of armed robbery
consent to the search and voluntarily agreed to Hence, this petition. incidents. Accompanied by one of the victims,
have it conducted on his vehicle and travelling the lawmen chanced upon petitioner Felimon
Ramos who the victim identified as one of the
armed men he encountered during the waiver may be made either expressly or passive conformity given under coercive or
robbery. When accosted and frisked by the impliedly. intimidating circumstances and is, thus,
lawmen, Ramos yielded in his waistline a .38 considered no consent at all within the
caliber snub nosed “paltik” revolver loaded 388. People v. Tudtud, GR purview of the constitutional guarantee.
with two (2) live bullets. At the police 144037, Sept 26, 2003 Consequently, appellant’s lack of objection to
headquarters, Ramos admitted involvement in the search and seizure is not tantamount to a
the robbery incidents and identified all his waiver of his constitutional right or a voluntary
FACTS
cohorts, one of home is Antonio Contreras. submission to the warrantless search and
Tudtud was reported to have been
seizure.
allegedly responsible for the proliferation of
ISSUE: W/N there was a violation of the
marijuana in their area. Police gathered
constitutional right against unreasonable MAIN POINT
information and learned that Tudtud was
search and seizure. The Bill of Rights is the bedrock of
involved in illegal drugs. A man who identified
constitutional government. If people are
himself as a police officer approached him,
RULING: No. The evidence for the stripped naked of their rights as human beings,
pointing a gun. Tudtud raised his arms and
prosecution clearly discloses that accused democracy cannot survive and government
asked, Sir, what is this about. The man
Ramos voluntarily allowed himself to be becomes meaningless. This explains why the
answered that he would like to inspect the
frisked and that he gave the gun to Pat. Bill of Rights, contained as it is in Article III of
plastic bag Tudtud was carrying, and instructed
Alfredo Rodillas. This evidence remained the Constitution, occupies a position of
Tudtud to open the bag, which revealed
unrebutted by Ramos because his testimony primacy in the fundamental law way above the
several pairs of pants. On appeal, Tudtud
on cross-examination was, as earlier noted, articles on governmental power.
assigned, among other errors, the admission in
stricken off from the records. Moreover, his
evidence of the marijuana leaves, which they
counsel did not object to any of the questions 389. People v. Tabar – 222
claim were seized in violation of their right
asked during the direct examination of witness SCRA 144
against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Lardizabal concerning the frisking of Ramos
The RTC justified the warrantless search of
and the recovery from him of the gun.On
appellant’s belongings under the first FACTS: Tabar was charged with the selling of
cross-examination, counsel for Ramos did not
exception, as a search incident to a lawful marijuana sticks, cigarettes and drugs to
suggest or insinuate, even obliquely, that
arrest. people. The trial court discredited the bare
Ramos did not voluntarily allow himself either
denials of Tabar and unfavorably considered
to be frisked or dispossessed of the gun by Pat.
ISSUE/S against her an admission that she had been
Rodillas.
Whether or not the warrantless arrested before by the CANU for possession of
search and seizure in the case at bar is marijuana, was charged for the violation of
MAIN POINT: When one voluntarily
constitutional as it is part of one of the Section 8, Article II of R.A. No. 6425 and was
submits to a search or consents to have it
exceptions convicted therein, but is now on probation.
made of his person or premises, he is
Tabar challenged the decision of the trial court
precluded from later complaining thereof. The
RULING on grounds that evidence was seized from her
right to be secure from unreasonable search
No. Appellant’s implied acquiescence, without any warrant.
may, like every right, be waived and such
if at all, could not have been more than mere
 ISSUE/S: Whether or not the trial the service vehicle of the police and was been more than mere passive conformity given
court erred in admitting the evidence brought to the PNP Police Station. Encinada under intimidating or coercive circumstances
was openly protesting to the action taken by and is thus considered no consent at all within
RULING: No. The evidence for the the police authorities and demanded from the the purview of the constitutional guarantee.
prosecution discloses that the appellant placed apprehending officers a copy of a search Appellants silence should not be lightly taken
the packs of marijuana sticks under the rolled warrant and/or warrant of arrest for the as consent to such search.
pair of pants which she was then carrying at search made and for his apprehension; In the
the time she hurriedly left her shanty after police headquarters, the accused was made to
noticing the arrest of Rommel(accomplice). undergo custodial investigation for which a
When she was asked to spread it out, which plastic bag was presented to him allegedly
she voluntary did, the package containing the containing the subject marijuana leaves.
packs of marijuana sticks were thus exposed in
plain view to the member of the team. A crime ISSUE/S: Whether or not the lower court
was thus committed in the presence of the erred in finding that search and the arrest of
policemen. the accused without a warrant would fall
under the doctrine of warrantless search as
MAIN POINT: When one voluntarily incident to a lawful arrest
submits to a search and consent to have it
made of his person or premises, he is RULING: No. In this case, appellant was
precluded from later complaining. The right to not committing a crime in the presence of the
be secure from unreasonable search may, like Surigao City policemen. Moreover, the lawmen
every right, be waived and such waiver may be did not have personal knowledge of facts
made either expressly or impliedly. indicating that the person to be arrested had
committed an offense. The search cannot be
390. People v. Encinada – said to be merely incidental to a lawful arrest.
280 SCRA 72 Raw intelligence information is not a sufficient
ground for a warrantless arrest. Bolonias’
receipt of the intelligence information
FACTS: SPO4 Bolonia received a tip from
regarding the culprit’s identity, the particular
an informant that Encinada would be arriving
crime he allegedly committed and his exact
in Surigao bringing with him marijuana. Upon
whereabouts underscored the need to secure
arrival, he was forcibly stopped by persons
a warrant for his arrest. But he failed or
who ordered the passengers to disembark.
neglected to do so. Such failure or neglect
Thereafter, all the baggage of the passengers
cannot excuse him from violating a
and the driver were ordered to stand in a line
constitutional right of the appellant.
for which a body search was made individually.
After the search was made, the accused was
MAIN POINT: The implied acquiescence to
singled out in the line and ordered to board
the search, if there was any, could not have
 a crime. It was only when the informant be released the following day from the
391. People v. Aruta – 288 pointed to accused-appellant and identified customs zone of the port and loaded on two
SCRA 626 her to the agents as the carrier of the trucks, police officers intercepted and seized
marijuana that she was singled out as the said trucks.
suspect. The NARCOM agents would not have
FACTS: Accused-appellant was arrested
apprehended accused-appellant were it not for ISSUE/S: Whether or not the search
and charged with violating Act No. 6425. Lt.
the furtive finger of the informant because, as conducted by the BOC is valid
Abello was tipped off by his informant that a
clearly illustrated by the evidence on record,
certain Aling Rosa would be arriving from
there was no reason whatsoever for them to RULING: Yes. Except in the case of the
Baguio City the following day with a large
suspect that accused-appellant was search of a dwelling house, persons exercising
volume of marijuana. Acting on said tip, he
committing a crime, except for the pointing police authority under the customs law may
formed a team that led to the search and
finger of the informant. effect search and seizure without a search
seizure of Aruta. Aruta claimed that
warrant in the enforcement of customs laws.
immediately prior to her arrest, she had just
MAIN POINT: Unreasonable searches and
come from Choice Theater. In the middle of
seizures are the menace against which the MAIN POINT: The guaranty of freedom
the road, Lt. Abello and Lt. Domingo arrested
constitutional guarantees afford full from unreasonable searches and seizures is
her and asked her to go with them to the
protection. While the power to search and construed as recognizing a necessary
NARCOM Office. Moreover, she added that no
seize may at times be necessary to the public difference between a search of a dwelling
search warrant was shown to her by the
welfare, still it may be exercised and the law house or other structure in respect of which a
arresting officers. After the prosecution made
enforced without transgressing the search warrant may readily be obtained. A
a formal offer of evidence, the defense filed a
constitutional rights of the citizens, for the search of a ship, motorboat, wagon, or
Comment and/or Objection to Prosecutions
enforcement of no statute is of sufficient automobile for contraband goods, where it is
Formal Offer of Evidence contesting the
importance to justify indifference to the basic not practicable to secure a warrant because
admissibility of the items seized as they were
principles of government the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the
allegedly a product of an unreasonable search
locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant
and seizure.
i. Customs search must be sought.
ISSUE/S: Whether or not the trial 392. Papa v. Mago, 22 SCRA
court erred in not finding that the warrantless 857 393. Pacis v. Pamaran, 56
search resulting to the arrest of accused- SCRA 16
appellant violated the latter’s constitutional FACTS: Mago, the owner of the goods that
rights were seized, when the truck transporting the FACTS: Respondent Ricardo Santos is an
goods was intercepted by the BOC who was owner of a car which he bought from a tax-
RULING: Yes. Accused-appellant was acting under a tip, questioned the validity of exempt individual. He paid P311.00 for
merely crossing the street and was not acting the search conducted by them since. He also customs duty and taxes. Pedro Pacis, the
in any manner that would engender a questioned if the BOC had jurisdiction over the Acting Collector of Customs, received a letter
reasonable ground for the NARCOM agents to forfeited goods. The items were allegedly stating that Santos' car was a hot car. The
suspect and conclude that she was committing misdeclared and undervalued and was said to amount collectible was P2,500.00, not just
P311.00. Based on such discrepancy, Pacis 394. People v. Gatward, 267 RULING AND MAIN POINT: YES. While no
instituted seizure proceedings and issued a SCRA 785 search warrant had been obtained for that
warrant of seizure and detention. The car was purpose, when Gatward checked in his bag as
taken by agents who were authorized to do so FACTS: In 30 August 1994, U Aung Win, a his personal luggage as a passenger of KLM
by virtue of the said warrant. Santos wrote to Passenger of the Thai Airways which had just Flight 806 he thereby agreed to the inspection
Pacis about the seizure. Santos also filed a arrived from Bangkok, Thailand, presented his thereof in accordance with customs rules and
case of usurpation of judicial authority of luggage for examination to Customs Examiner regulations, an international practice of strict
against Pacis. Manuel Pamaran, an Assistant Busran Tawano. When opened, the bag observance, and waived any objection to a
Fiscal, proceeded with the charge against revealed two packages containing the warrantless search. His subsequent arrest,
Pacis. substance neatly hidden in between its although likewise without a warrant, was
partitions. Representative samples of the justified since it was effected upon the
ISSUE: May petitioner effect the seizure substance were examined by 2 chemists of the discovery and recovery of the heroin in his bag,
without any search warrant issued by a Crime Laboratory Service of the Philippine or in flagrante delicto. The conviction of U
component court? National Police (PNP) and concluded that the Aung Win is likewise unassailable. The
entire substance, with a total weight of evidence thus presented convincingly proved
RULING: YES. The Tariff and Customs 5,579.80 grams, is heroin. During the his having imported into this country the
Code does not require said warrant in the investigation of U Aung Win, the agents of the heroin found in his luggage which he
instant case. The Code authorizes persons Customs Police and the Narcotics Command presented for customs examination upon his
having police authority under Section 2203 of (NARCOM) gathered the information that U arrival at the international airport
the Tariff and Customs Code to such search Aung Win had a contact in Bangkok and that
and seizure. Except in the case of the search of there were other drug couriers in the 395. People v. Susan Canton,
a dwelling house, persons exercising police Philippines. The members of the team were GR 148825, December 27,
authority under the customs law may effect
search and seizure without a search warrant in
able to establish the identity of other two 2002
persons as Nigel Richard Gatward and one Zaw
the enforcement of customs laws. Win Naing who were scheduled to leave for FACTS: February 12, 1998 at the NAIA,
Bangkok. While on board, Gatward was Canton was a departing passenger bound to go
MAIN POINT: The collector of customs has requested to disembark and was invited by the
the requisite authority to issue a warrant of to Saigon, Vietnam. She passed through a
police officers for investigation. Gatward’s metal detector which emitted a beeping
seizure and detention for an Automobile luggage, with his consent, was subjected to x-
whose duties and taxes not been paid for. In sound. Mylene Cabunoc, who was a civilian
ray examination and there also found powdery employee of the National Action Committee on
exercising this authority, the Collector has not substance which was concluded to be 5,237.70
violated the constitutional right against Hijacking and Terrorism (NACHT) and the
grams of heroin by the chemists. frisker duty called Canton’s attention. They
unreasonable search and seizures and he may
not be prosecuted for criminal offense of subsequently checked Canton. Cabunoc felt
ISSUE: Whether Gatward’s and U Aung something bulging in several parts of Canton.
usurpation of judicial function. Win’s luggages may be searched without This was reported thereafter to her supervisor.
warrant. Canton was requested to go the comfort room
for a physical examination wherein she was
asked to take her clothes off. The packages subjective expectation of privacy, which
that she carried was examined and turned out expectation society is prepared to recognize as RULING: YES. The constitutional right of
to be 998.2809 grams of methamphetamine reasonable. Travelers are often notified the accused was not violated as she was validly
hydrochloride or SHABU, a regulated drug, through airport public address systems, signs, arrested without warrant pursuant to the
without the corresponding prescription or and notices in their airline tickets that they are provisions of Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985
license. She was found guilty beyond subject to search and, if any prohibited Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides:
reasonable doubt of violating the Article 3, materials or substances are found, such would Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A
Section 16 of the RA 6425 or the Dangerous be subject to seizure. These announcements peace officer or a private person may, without
Drugs Act. Canton filed for Motion for place passengers on notice that ordinary a warrant, arrest a person:
reconsideration but this was denied. constitutional protections against warrantless (a) when in his presence, the person
searches and seizures do not apply to routine to be arrested has committed, is
ISSUES: Whether or not there was a valid airport procedures. actually committing, or is attempting
search and arrest. 396. People v. Johnson – 348 to commit an offense;
SCRA 526 (b) when an offense has in fact just
RULING: YES. The search was made been committed, and he has personal
pursuant to routine airport security procedure, FACTS: Leila Johnson was arrested at the knowledge of facts indicating that the
which is allowed under Section 9 of Republic airport after she was found to have in her person to be arrested has committed
Act No. 6235, “ Every ticket issued to a possession more than 500 grams of shabu it; and…
passenger by the airline or air carrier when she was initially frisked by a security The arrest of the accused above falls in either
concerned shall contain among others the personnel at a gate in the airport. The security paragraph (a) or (b) of the Rule above cited.
following condition printed thereon: “Holder personnel felt something hard in respondent’s The drug seized from her during the routine
hereof and his hand-carried luggage(s) are abdominal area and when asked she said that frisk at the airport was acquired legitimately
subject to search for, and seizure of, prohibited she had to wear 2 girdles because of an pursuant to airport security procedures.
materials or substances. which shall constitute operation. Unconvinced, the security
a part of the contract between the passenger personnel went to her supervisor. MAIN POINT: Persons may lose the
and the air carrier. In this case, after the metal Subsequently, after a thorough search on protection of the search and seizure clause by
detector alarmed, R.A. No. 6235 authorizes respondent, packets of shabu were seized exposure of their persons or property to the
search for prohibited materials or substances. from her. Accused (respondent) was public in a manner reflecting a lack of
Corollarily, her subsequent arrest, although subsequently convicted and sentenced to subjective expectation of privacy, which
likewise without warrant, was justified since reclusion perpetua. In the present appeal, expectation society is prepared to recognize as
it was effected upon the discovery and respondent contended that the search made reasonable. (Same MAIN POINT with the LAST
recovery of “shabu” in her person in flagrante upon her was not valid and that her case, People vs. Susan Canton)
delicto. constitutional rights were infringed when such
search was conducted.
MAIN POINT: Persons may lose the i. Stop and frisk
protection of the search and seizure clause by
exposure of their persons or property to the
ISSUE: Whether or not a valid search and situation
arrest was made.
public in a manner reflecting a lack of
 Malacat: “Where a police officer the same street. The officer believed that the beacting suspiciously.They approached the
observes unusual conduct which leads Petitioner and the other men were “casing” a petitioner and identified themselves
him reasonably to conclude in light of store for a potential robbery. The officer asmembers of the INP. Petitioner attempted to
his experience that criminal activity may decided to approach the men for questioning, flee but his attempt to get away wasthwarted
be afoot and that the person with whom and given the nature of the behavior the by the two notwithstanding his resistance.They
he is dealing may be armed and that the officer decided to perform a quick search of then checked the "buri" bag of the petitioner
person with whom he is dealing may be the men before questioning. A quick frisking of where they found unlicensed firearms.
armed and presently dangerous, where in the Petitioner produced a concealed weapon
the course of investigation of this and the Petitioner was charged with carrying a ISSUE: WON the warrantless arrest and
concealed weapon. search was valid
behavior he identifies himself as a
policeman and makes reasonable
ISSUE: WON a search for weapons RULING: Yes. The search in the case at bar
inquiries, and where nothing in the
without probable cause for arrest is an is reasonable considering that it is effected on
initial stages of the encounter serves to
unreasonable search the basis of a probable cause. When the
dispel his reasonable fear for his own or petitioner acted suspiciously and attempted to
other’s safety, he is entitled for the RULING: No. it is a reasonable search flee with the buri bag there was a probable
protection of himself and others in the when an officer performs a quick seizure and a cause that he was concealing something illegal
area to conduct a carefully limited limited search for weapons on a person that in the bag and it was the right and duty of the
search of the outer clothing of such the officer reasonably believes could be police officers to inspect the same.
person in an attempt to discover armed. A typical beat officer would be unduly
weapons which might be used to assault burdened by being prohibited from searching MAINPOINT: The assailed search and
him.” individuals that the officer suspects to be seizure is justified as akin to a "stop and frisk"
armed. situation whose object is either to determine
Malacat (1997): Probable cause is not the identity of a suspicious individual or to
required. However, mere suspicion or a MAINPOINT: An officer may perform a maintain the status quo momentarily while the
hunch is not enough. Rather, a “genuine search for weapons without a warrant, even police officer seeks to obtain more
reason must exist, in light of the police without probable cause, when the officer information.
officer’s experience and surrounding reasonably believes that the person may be
conditions, to warrant the belief that the armed and dangerous. 399. People v. Solayao 202
person detained has weapons concealed SCRA 255 (1996)
about him.” 398. Posadas v. CA, GR NO.
89139, August 2, 1990 FACTS: SPO3 Jose Nio in conducting an
397. Terry v. Ohio 392 US 1 intelligence patrol proceeded to Barangay
FACTS: While Pat. Ungab and Umpar were Onion to stop any potential disturbance in the
FACTS: The officer noticed the Petitioner conducting a surveillance along Magallanes area where they met the group of Solayao who
talking with another individual on a street Street,Davao City, they spotted petitioner was then drunk and wearing a camouflage
corner while repeatedly walking up and down carrying a "buri" bag and they noticed him to uniform, suspicion arised. Solayao’s
companions, upon seeing the government searched by a group of policemen when he "stop and frisk," it nevertheless holds that
agents, fled. Confiscated from Solayao is a was said to be acting suspiciously with his eyes mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a
homemade firearm and was charged with moving fast together with other Muslim- "stop and frisk." A genuine reason must exist,
illegal possession of firearm.- Solayao was looking men in a Plaza. When the policemen in light of the police officer's experience and
found guilty, then he appealed to the court approached the group of men, they scattered surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief
against the admissibility of the firearm as in all directions which prompted the police to that the person detained has weapons
evidence as it was the product of an unlawful give chase and petitioner was then concealed about him.
warrantless search. apprehended and a search was made on his
person. He was then convicted under PD 1866
ISSUE: WON the trial court erred in in the lower court. He contended that the
admitting in evidence the homemade firearm lower court erred in holding that the search
made on him and the seizure of the hand
RULING: No. Firearm is admissible as grenade from him was an appropriate incident
evidence. There are many instances where a to his arrest.
search and seizure can be effected without
necessarily being preceded by an arrest, one of ISSUE: WON the search and seizure
which is stop-and-frisk in the case at bar. There conducted by the police was valid.
was justifiable cause to "stop and frisk"
accused-appellant when his companions fled RULING: No. There are at least three (3)
upon seeing the government agents. Under reasons why the stop-and-frisk was invalid. 1.
the circumstances, the government agents There is grave doubt that Malacat is a member
could not possibly have procured a search of the group which attempted to bomb the
warrant first. Suspicion also arouse when the plaza 2. There was nothing in petitioner’s
group was spotted dressed in camouflage. behaviour or conduct which could have
reasonably elicited even mere suspicion other
MAINPOINT: An officer may perform a search than that his eyes were moving very fast and 3.
for weapons without a warrant, even without There was at all no ground, probable or
probable cause, when the officer reasonably otherwise, to believe that petitioner was
believes that the person may be armed and armed with a deadly weapon. When the
dangerous. policemen approached the accused and his
companions, they were not yet aware that a
hand grenade was tucked inside his waistline.
400. Malacat v. CA 283 They did not see any bulging object in his
person
SCRA 159 (1997)
MAINPOINT: Mere suspicions are not
FACTS: Petitioner was arrested for having sufficient to validate warrantless arrest. While
in his possession a hand grenade after he was probable cause is not required to conduct a