MANALILI VS CA October 9, 1997

Facts:
Pat. Romeo Espiritu and Pat. Anger Lumabas were patrolling the vicinity of the Kalookan City Cemetery due to reports of drug addicts roaming the area. hey chanced upon a male !who turned out to be petitioner Alain "analili y #i$on% who seemed to be &high' on drugs in front of the cemetery. (e was observed to have reddish eyes and to be walking in a swaying manner. )hen "analili tried to avoid the policemen* the latter approached him and asked what he was holding in his hands. "analili tried to resist* but the policemen were persistent until he yielded his wallet which they e+amined and found to contain crushed mari,uana residue. -urther e+amination by the -orensic Chemistry .ection of the /01 confirmed the findings. rial court convicted "analili of violation of .ection 2* Article 11* of RA 3456. 7pon appeal* the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court.!1n his defense* "analili claimed that he was not walking8 that he was riding a tricycle until the three police men ordered the driver of the tricycle to stop because the driver and passenger were allegedly under the influence of mari,uana. (e claimed that he was searched and his pants were turned inside9out but nothing was found. o some e+tent he implied that the mari,uana sample found in his entity was framed up by the policemen.%

Issue:
):/ the evidence sei$ed during a stop9and9frisk operation is admissible.

Held:
;es 1n the landmark case of erry vs. :hio* <2 a stop9and9frisk was defined as the vernacular designation of the right of a police officer to stop a citi$en on the street* interrogate him* and pat him for weapon!s%= . . . !)%here a police officer observes an unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his e+perience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous* where in the course of investigating this behavior he identified himself as a policeman and makes reasonable in>uiries* and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others? safety* he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. .uch a search is a reasonable search under the -ourth Amendment* and any weapon sei$ed may properly be introduced in evidence against the person from whom they were taken

.top9and9frisk has already been adopted as another e+ception to the general rule against a search without a warrant. 1n Posadas vs. Court of Appeals* 54 the Court held that there were many instances where a search and sei$ure could be effected without necessarily being preceded by an arrest* one of which was stop9and9frisk. 1n said case* members of the 1ntegrated /ational Police of #avao stopped petitioner* who was carrying a buri bag and acting suspiciously. hey found inside petitioner?s bag one .@29cal. revolver with two rounds of live ammunition* two live ammunitions for a .559cal. gun and a tear gas grenade. 1n upholding the legality of the search* the Court said that to require the olice o!!icers to search the ba" o#l$ a!ter the$ had obtai#ed a search %arra#t &i"ht ro'e to be useless, !utile a#d &uch too late u#der the circu&sta#ces( I# such a situatio#, it %as reaso#able !or a olice o!!icer to sto a sus icious i#di'idual brie!l$ i# order to deter&i#e his ide#tit$ or to &ai#tai# the status quo %hile obtai#i#" &ore i#!or&atio#, rather tha# to si& l$ shru" his shoulders a#d allo% a cri&e to occur( 1n the case at hand* Patrolman Espiritu and his companions observed during their surveillance that appellant had red eyes and was wobbling like a drunk along the Caloocan City Cemetery* which according to police information was a popular hangout of drug addicts. -rom his e+perience as a member of the Anti9/arcotics 7nit of the Caloocan City Police* such suspicious behavior was characteristic of drug addicts who were Ahigh.A he policemen therefore had sufficient reason to stop petitioner to investigate if he was actually high on drugs.