TAMBASEN VS PEOPLE Petitioner was in possession of grenades, rifles, pistols, subversive documents which were used or intended to be used.

The amount of 14, 000 was also seized from him. RULING: violates sec 3 rule 126 of the revised rules of court which prohibits the issuance of a warrant of arrest for more than one specific offense -> the caption of the warrant in question reflects a violation of two laws - PD 1866 and RA 1700, the warrant is a scattershot warrant violates sec 2, art 3 of 1987 Constitution -> the evident purpose and intent of the requirement is to limit the things to be seized to those, and only those, particularly described in the search warrant - to leave the officers of the law with no discretion regarding what articles they should seize, to the end that unreasonable searches and seizures may not be made and that abuses may not be committed the money which was not indicated in the search warrant, was illegally seized from petitioner PEOPLE VS SIMBAHON A search warrant was issued for violation of RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act) and PD 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms). RULING: the caption and the body of warrant shows that it was issued for more than one specific offense Failure to describe the place to be searched with sufficient particularity -> only the application for search warrant contains the address of the place to be searched, it wasnt mentioned in the warrant itself Seizure of marijuana was invalid, for it wasnt mentioned in the search warrant (see Tambasen vs People) Plain View Doctrine not applicable -> bricks of marijuana were not found inadvertently or in plain view, they were found after a meticulous search under the bed, wrapped in a newspaper, and inside a plastic bag WARRANTLESS SEARCH NOLASCO VS PANO The search warrant disposes that document and other papers of the CPP/NPA and the Natl Democratic Front, including support money from foreign and local sources are in petitioners premises. Roque, one of the petitioners, was one of the accused of rebellion in a criminal case to which she is still at large RULING: The search warrant is in the nature of a general warrant,; it authorizes the seizure of personal properties vaguely described and not particularized; it is an allembracing description which includes everything conceivable regarding the communist party and the Natl Democratic Front, -> there is absence of a definite guideline to the searching team as to what items might be lawfully seized thus giving the officers of the law discretion regarding what articles they should seize

Failure to establish Probable Cause ->the questions by the Executive Judge to the applicants witness are not sufficiently searching to establish probable cause; mere generalization will not suffice and does not satisfy the requirements of probable cause upon which a warrant may issue ROQUE RULING: o Sec 12, Rule 126, Rules of Court - a person charged with an offense may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense; this refers to a search without warrant of a person who had been arrested o The extent and reasonableness of the search must be decided on its own facts and circumstances; what must be considered is the balancing of the individuals right to privacy and the publics interest in the prevention of crime and the apprehension of criminals o Roque is charged of a crime against public order, thus, it is just right to retain the personalities seized without prejudice to those who are irrelevant to the case

PEOPLE VS MUSA Musa is engaged in selling marijuana. He was caught in doing the act in a buybust operation. The police officers werent able to confiscate the marked money for Musa gave it to his wife immediately after receiving it from the poseur buyer, thus, they searched for the place and was able to find a plastic white bag containing marijuana RULING: Sec 12, Rule 126, Rules of Court - a person charged with an offense may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense without a search warrant The testimonies of the two police officers and the two wrappings of marijuana sold by the appellant, among other evidences, proves the guilt of Musa beyond reasonable doubt Plain view doctrine cannot be applied -> the incriminating nature of the contents of the white plastic bag was not immediately apparent from the plain view of said object. It cannot be said that the plastic bag clearly showed its contents, whether by its distinctive configuration, its transparency, or otherwise, that its contents are obvious to an observer PEOPLE VS CHE CHUN TING Defendant was entrapped and arrested upon series of buy-bust operations from an informant who cooperated with the government after being apprehended. After the buy-bust operation directed against defendant, police officers went on searching on the condominium to which the defendant alleges that the place doesnt belong to him but to her girlfriend. RULING: Sec 12, Rule 126 of Rules of Court Lawful arrest without search warrant is limited and circumscribed by the SUBJECT, TIME, and PLACE of the arrest o Subject sanctioned only with respect to the person of the suspect, and the things that may be seized from him are limited to dangerous

weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense o Time and place of search conducted at about the time of arrest or immediately thereafter and only at the place where the suspect was arrested, or the premises or surroundings under his immediate control o Purpose: to protect the arresting officer against physical harm from the person being arrested who might be armed with a concealed weapon, and also to prevent the person arrested from destroying the evidence within his reach o The shabu found inside the condominium is inadmissible as evidence as it is a violation against the guarantee of unreasonable searches and seizures But the shabu which has been obtained during the entrapment is valid and admissible as evidence; he was caught in flagrante delicto

PEOPLE VS LUA A buy-bust operation was conducted to entrap herein respondent. Upon his arrest, a gun with two live shells was found tucked inside his belly. The police officers preceded their search inside defendants dwelling. RULING: The arrest was lawful for having been caught in flagrante delicto; the marijuanas are admissible for they were the fruits of the crime; the body search is also lawful Bricks of marijuana inside defendants house is inadmissible as evidence as it cant be said that the inner portion of his house is within his reach or control (see People vs Che Chun Ting) ESPANA VS CA Police officers went to a certain area to investigate on reports on drug pushing. They saw respondent selling something to an unidentified buyer. After this buyer left, these officers frisked respondent, in possession of marijuana. WAhen asked if he still has other marijuanas, respondent told that he has some in his house. RULING: The arrest was lawful as described in Sec 12, Rule 126, Rules of Court But, there was a violation on Sec 2, Art 3, 1987 Constitution The arrest was lawful, and the seizure of marijuana was valid being the fruits of the crime; the other 10 cellophanes of marijuana found in respondents house is inadmissible as evidence as (1) it is not within the reach and control of the respondent during the arrest at that certain time and place and (2) police officers dont have a search warrant PEOPLE VS LAGUIO After a buy-bust operation of drug pushing, the apprehended persons pointed their fingers to Mr. Wang as the source of the illegal drug. Police officers then went to Mr. Wangs residence. When Wang went out from his apartment and when he was nearing his car, he was apprehended by the police officers. He has in his possession a pistol underneath his right pocket. Shabu was found on his car. RULING:

The arrest of the accused and the search of his person and the car were without probable cause, the arrest didnt fall under Sec 5, Rule 113 Rules of Court o Sec 5, Rule 113 Rules of Court -> a peace officer may arrest a person without a warrant: (a) when in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) when an offense is in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge o0f facts indicating that the person to be arrested hs committed it, and (c) when the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving a final judgment or temporarily confined while being transferred from one confinement to another o The accused was merely walking and was about to enter the car cannot suffice the requisites for paragraph 1 of Sec 2, Rule 113: The person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime, and Such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer PEOPLE VS TIU WON CHUA A test buy operation was conducted within the premises of respondents. The police officers then secured a search warrant for the area; it wasnt implemented immediately for the private respondent is not in the building. Barangay officials were not present during the search; instead the owners of the building represented them. Respondents contend that the warrant was issued against a certain Timothy Tiu, and that person is neither of the two appellants. Their car, about few meters away from the building was also searched. RULING: A mistake in the name of the person to be searched does not invalidate the warrant; a mistake in the identification of the owner of the place does not invalidate the warrant provided that the place to be searched is properly described The search of the car is illegal as it is not particularly described in the issued search warrant and it is not incidental to a lawful arrest PEOPLE VS CHUA Based on reports that respondent is engaged in the distribution and sale of dangerous drugs, a team composed of police officers was made. In a place where it was thought that the respondent does his acts on illegal trade, the team positioned strategically. After respondent went out from his car, he was met by two police officers. As accused pulled out his wallet, shabu protruded from his pocket. RULING: When accused arrived in the area, he merely parked his car and went inside the hotel. Respondent did not act in a suspicious manner and there was no overt manifestation that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime As applied in flagrante delicto arrests, reliable information alone, absent any overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise in the presence and within the view

of the arresting officers, is not sufficient to constitute probable cause that would justify the flagrante delicto arrest No stop and frisk -> for a valid stop and frisk the search and seizure mut precede the arrest, which is not in this case. The information about the illegal activities of respondent was not unknown to the apprehending officers

PEOPLE VS SARAP A search warrant was issued to raid a certain house on reports to the sale of marijuana in the area. Three persons were arrested, and upon investigation, it was learned that Sarap is the supplier of the said marijuana. Two days later, the caretaker of the house informed the police officers that Sarap is in the house. The police went back to the area, and saw Sarap walking in the alley towards him (the officer). Sarap immediately throws the bag. A police apprehended Sarap and inspected a green bag which contains marijuana RULING: Respondent was not in the act of committing a crime, or about to commit one, or had just committed one; she was merely walking on the street and only when the caretaker identified her as Sarap did she became the subject of the search. It is because of the identification that the police offcer thought that the bag contains marijuana The police officers had an opportune time to secure a search warrant for they had now known the illegal acts of Sarap. The excuse on urgency cannot be accepted The search of Saraps green bag does not fall on the plain view doctrine as the marijuana tops are not visible from the inside of the bag, and the police officer had to grab the bag to view its contents PEOPLE VS ESTELLA -