[G.R. No. 152989. September 4, 2002] ROLDAN, JR. vs. HON. MADRONA, et al.

Facts: Madrona is an owner of a parcel of land that is about 60,000 square meters. In 2009, Merida applied for a Private land transfer permit for him to be able to create a road and a poultry farm in his property. He was then informed that he can proceed with the cutting of the trees even while his application was still pending. After 3 weeks, representatives of CENRO raided his property without a search warrant and the woods were confiscated and were turned over to a baranggay kagawad. After a few days, CENRo returned with a search warrant and confiscated the logs. Petitioner filed a case against CENRO, however, he was then prosecuted for finding a probable cause for violation of PD 705 Section 68. Issue: a. Whether or not the owner of a private property can be prosecuted for violating Sec 68 of PD 705 for cutting trees within his own property Ruling: a. Yes, the owner of a private property can be prosecuted for violating Sec 68 of PD 705 for cutting trees within his own property. Sec 68 of PD 705 has stated that Any person who shall cut, gather, collect, remove timber or other forest products from any forest land, or timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from private land, without any authority, or possess timber or other forest products without the legal documents as required under existing forest laws and regulations, shall be punished with the penalties imposed under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code xxx . The law did not distinguish whether or not the person who commits the punishable

acts under the aforementioned law is the owner of the property, for what is material in determining the culpability of a person is whether or not the person or entity involved or charged with its violation possesses the required permit, license or authorization from DENR at the time he or it cuts, gathers or collects timber or other forest products.

Merida vs People GR no. 158182

12 June 2008 Facts: Merida has been charged with the violation of Sec 68 of PD 705 for cutting, gathering and transporting the lone nara tree inside the property of Tansiongco. Upon confrontation, Merida said that he cut the tree upon the orders of Vicar Calix who supposedly bought the property from Tansiongco. Issue: a. Whether or not Merida can be prosecuted for violation of PD 705 Sec 68 for cutting trees in a private land Ruling:
a. a. Yes, Merida can be prosecuted for violation of PD 705 Sec 68 for cutting trees in a private land. . Sec 68 of PD 705 has stated that Any person who shall cut, gather, collect, remove timber or other forest products from any forest land, or timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from private land, without any authority, or possess timber or other forest products without the legal documents as required under existing forest laws and regulations, shall be punished with the penalties imposed under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code xxx . The law did not distinguish whether or not the person who commits the punishable acts

undep[;r the aforementioned law is the owner of the property, for what is material in determining the culpability of a person is whether or not the person or entity involved or charged with its violation possesses the required permit, license or authorization from DENR at the time he or it cuts, gathers or collects timber or other forest products.

People vs Dator

344 SCRA 222 (2000)

Facts: On October 29, 1993, Dator feloniously possessed 1,560 board feet of assorted lumber flitches valued at 23,500 php without any legal document. The lumber was boarded to a Isuzu cargo truck. He was then charged and pleaded not guilty. The lower court, after trial, found the accused guilty of violation of Sec 68 of PD 705. Issue: Whether or not the lower court erred in finding Dator guilty of violation of the said law beyond reasonable doubt Ruling: No, the lower court did not err in finding Dator guilty of violation of Sec 68 or PD 705. The fact of possession by the appellant of the subject fifty-one (51) pieces of assorted Antipolo and Dita lumber, as well as his subsequent failure to produce the legal documents as required under existing forest laws and regulations constitute criminal liability for violation of Presidential Decree No. 705, otherwise known as the Revised Forestry Code.i[22] Section 68 of the code.

Merida vs People GR no. 158182

12 June 2008 Facts: Merida has been charged with the violation of Sec 68 of PD 705 for cutting, gathering and transporting the lone nara tree inside the property of Tansiongco. Upon confrontation, Merida said that he cut the tree upon the orders of Vicar Calix who supposedly bought the property from Tansiongco. Issue: a. Whether or not Merida can be prosecuted for violation of PD 705 Sec 68 for cutting trees in a private land Ruling:
a. a. Yes, Merida can be prosecuted for violation of PD 705 Sec 68 for cutting trees in a private land. . Sec 68 of PD 705 has stated that Any person who shall cut, gather, collect, remove timber or other forest products from any forest land, or timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from private land, without any authority, or possess timber or other forest products without the legal documents as required under existing forest laws and regulations, shall be punished with the penalties imposed under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code xxx . The law did not distinguish whether or not the person who commits the punishable acts

under the aforementioned law is the owner of the property, for what is material in determining the culpability of a person is whether or not the person or entity involved or charged with its violation possesses the required permit, license or authorization from DENR at the time he or it cuts, gathers or collects timber or other forest products.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW:

[G.R. No. 148825. December 27, 2002]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. SUSAN CANTON, appellant. Facts: Canton was charged for violation of Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. She was caught in possession of metamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) without prescription or license. Susan was bound to Saigon, Vietnam. Prior to her flight, she passed through the metal detector and beeped. A civilian inspector of the airport searched her and upon frisking, she felt something that is bulging in the abdomen of Susan. They were able to recover packets that were wrapped with packing tape.

Issue: Whether or not the warrantless search and seizure of regulated drugs, as well as the arrest of Susan were violative of her constitutional rights

Ruling: No, warrantless search and subsequent seizure of the regulated drugs, as well as the arrest of SUSAN, were not violative of her constitutional rights. What was done to Susan was a stop and frisk search. stop and frisk situation refers to a case where a police officer approaches a person who is acting suspiciously, for purposes of investigating possibly criminal behavior in line with the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection. The search was made pursuant to routine airport security procedure, which is allowed under Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6235 which states that Holder hereof and his hand-carried luggage(s) are subject to search for , and seizure of, prohibited materials or substances xxx. This is another exemption in warrantless arrest and seizure. After the metal detector alarmed SUSAN consented to be frisked, which resulted in the discovery of packages on her body. Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause by exposure of their persons or property to the public in a manner reflecting a lack of subjective expectation of privacy, which expectation society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ABE VALDEZ y DELA CRUZ, accused-appellant. Facts: De La Cruz unlawfully cultivated seven fully grown marijuana plants from which dangerous drugs may be manufactured. The police officers received a tip that the said marijuana plants were grown by De La Cruz. They then went to De La Cruzs place and saw 7 5 ft tall marijuana plants. The police uprooted the plants and were then confiscated and escheated in favor of the government. A laboratory test was made and confirmed that the plants were marijuana. A case was brought against dela cruz and the marijuana plants were used as an evidence against him.

Issues: Whether or not the seizure of marijuana plants is lawful Whether or not the trial court erred in admitting as evidence the 7 marijuana plants despite their inadmissibility being products of an illegal search Ruling: No, the seizure of marijuana plants is unlawful. The OSG may have contended that the seizure is lawful since it can be treated as part of the plain view doctrine, however, the police have declared that they have one day to obtain a warrant to search the appellants farm. They could have convinced the judge that there is probable cause to justify the issuance of warrant. The doctrine of plain view cannot be applied in this case. The following are required for the plain view doctrine to be applied: (a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right to be where they are; and (c) (d) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search.[35]

In the instant case, PO2 Balut testified that they first located the marijuana plants before appellant was arrested without a warrant. Hence, there was no valid warrantless arrest which preceded the search of appellant's premises. The seizure of evidence in "plain view" applies only where the police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. Their discovery of Cannabis plant was not inadvertent.

II. Yes, the trial court the trial court erred in admitting as evidence the 7 marijuana plants despite their inadmissibility being products of an illegal search. The 7 marijuana plants were obtained being products of an illegal search.

Fajardo vs People GR no. 190889 10 January 2011 Facts: Fajardo and Valerio were charged of violation of PD 1866 for conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, without authority of law, permit or license, did then and there, knowingly, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in their possession, custody and control two (2) receivers of caliber .45 pistol, [M]odel [No.] M1911A1 US with SN 763025 and Model [No.] M1911A1 US with defaced serial number, two (2) pieces short magazine of M16 Armalite rifle, thirty-five (35) pieces live M16 ammunition 5.56 caliber and fourteen (14) pieces live caliber .45 ammunition, which items were confiscated and recovered from their possession during a search conducted by members of the Provincial Intelligence Special Operation. Petitioner insists on an acquittal and avers

that the discovery of the two (2) receivers does not come within the purview of the plain view doctrine. She argues that no valid intrusion was attendant and that no evidence was adduced to prove that she was with Valerio when he threw the receivers. Likewise absent is a positive showing that any of the two receivers recovered by the policemen matched the .45 caliber pistol allegedly seen tucked in the waistband of her shorts when the police elements arrived. Neither is there any proof that petitioner had knowledge of or consented to the alleged throwing of the receivers. Issue: Whether or not the receivers are admissible as evidence in court

Ruling:
Yes, the receivers are admissible as evidence in court. The receivers were seized in plain view which is an exception to the rule that an evidence that has been obtained through warrantless arrest and seizure is

inadmissible. Prior to the seizure, the law enforcement officer lawfully made an intrusion and was in a position from which he can particularly view the area. In the course of lawful intrusion, he inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating to the accused. The evidence was also open to the eye and hand and its discovery was inadvertent.

Amarga v. Abbas 98 Phil. 739 (1956) Facts: Municipal Judge Samulde conducted a preliminary investigation of Arangale upon a complaint for robbery filed by complainant Magbanua, alleging that Arangale harvested palay from a portion of her land directly adjoining Arangales land. After the PI, Samulde transmitted the records of the case to Provincial Fiscal Salvani with his finding that there is prima facie evidence of robbery as charged in the complaint. Fiscal Salvani returned the records to Judge Samulde on the ground that the transmittal of the records was premature because Judge Samulde failed to include the warrant of arrest (WA) against the accused. Judge Samulde sent the records back to Fiscal Salvani stating that although he found that a probable cause existed, he did not believe that Arangale should be arrested. Fiscal Salvani filed a mandamus case against Judge Samulde to compel him to issue a WA. RTC dismissed the petition on the ground that the fiscal had not shown that he has a clear, legal right to the performance of the act to be required of the judge and that the latter had an imperative duty to perform it. Neverhteless, Judge Samulde was ordered to issue a WA in accordance with Sec. 5, Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules of Court. ISSUE: Whether or not it is mandatory for the investigating judge to issue a WA of the accused in view of his finding, after conducting a PI, that there exists prima facie evidence that the accused commited the crime charged.

Ruling: THE PURPOSE OF A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE THE ISSUANCE OF A WA BY THE INVESTIGATING JUDGE OR OFFICER. Under Rule 112 of the 1985 ROC, a PI is conducted on the basis of affidavits to determine whether or not there is sufficient ground to hold the accused for trial. To determine whether a WA should issue, the investigating judge must have examined in writing and under oath the complainant and his wirtnesses by searching questions and answers; he must be satisfied that a probable cause exists; and there must be a need to place the accused under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. It is not obligatory, but merely discretionary, upon the investigating judge to issue a WA, for the determination of whether it is necessary to arrest the accused in order not to frustrate the ends of justice, is left to his sound judgment or discretion. The fiscal should, instead, have filed an information immediately so that the RTC may issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused.

Burgos vs Chief of Staff 133 SCRA 800 1984

Facts: