Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

FELICISIMO RIETA vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES


G.R. No. 147817 August 12, 2004
Facts: After a car chase, Col. Lacson and his men searched a vehicle and found several firearms.
The persons in the car belonged to the 2nd COSAC Detachment. They were found not to be
equipped with mission orders. During that same incident, when the cargo truck which was
accompanied by the car during the car chase was searched, 305 cases of blue seal or untaxed
cigarettes were found inside.
Rieta, one of the passengers of the seized cargo truck, denied any knowledge of the alleged
smuggling of the blue-seal cigarettes. He alleged that the cargo truck was not opened in their
presence, nor were the contents thereof shown to them upon their apprehension. These allegations
were corroborated by one of his companions during the incident.
RTC and CA found Rieta guilty of smuggling.
Issue: Were the evidence obtained against the accused inadmissible in evidence because
petitioner and his co-accused were arrested without a warrant but by virtue of an arrest and
seizure order (ASSO) which was subsequently declared illegal and invalid by this Honorable
Supreme Court?
Held: The Chicot doctrine cited in Taada advocates that, prior to the nullification of a statute,
there is an imperative necessity of taking into account its actual existence as an operative fact
negating the acceptance of "a principle of absolute retroactive invalidity." Whatever was done
while the legislative or the executive act was in operation should be duly recognized and
presumed to be valid in all respects. The ASSO that was issued in 1979 under General Order No.
60 -- long before our Decision in Taada and the arrest of petitioner -- is an operative fact that
can no longer be disturbed or simply ignored.
The search and seizure of goods, suspected to have been introduced into the country in violation
of customs laws, is one of the seven doctrinally accepted exceptions to the constitutional
provision. Such provision mandates that no search or seizure shall be made except by virtue of a
warrant issued by a judge who has personally determined the existence of probable cause.
Under the Tariff and Customs Code, a search, seizure and arrest may be made even without a
warrant for purposes of enforcing customs and tariff laws. Without mention of the need to priorly
obtain a judicial warrant, the Code specifically allows police authorities to enter, pass through or
search any land, enclosure, warehouse, store or building that is not a dwelling house; and also to
inspect, search and examine any vessel or aircraft and any trunk, package, box or envelope or any
person on board; or to stop and search and examine any vehicle, beast or person suspected of
holding or conveying any dutiable or prohibited article introduced into the Philippines contrary to
law.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED, and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED.

TOMAS SALVADOR vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES


G.R. No. 146706. July 15, 2005
Facts: On the wee hours of June 4, 1994, Aurelio Mandin, Danilo Santos and petitioner Tomas
Salvador, then aircraft mechanics employed by the Philippine Air Lines (PAL) and assigned at the
Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) and Manila Domestic Airport, were nabbed by
intelligence operatives of the Philippine Air Force (PAF) for possessing thirteen (13) packets
containing assorted smuggled watches and jewelries valued at more than half a million pesos.
Consequently, they were charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 117, Pasay City
with violation of Section 3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code, docketed as Criminal Case No.
94-5843. The Information reads:
"That on or about the 4th day of June 1994 at the NAIA/Domestic Airport vicinity, Pasay City
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and
felonious assist in the concealment and unlawful importation of several items.
Issues: Whether the seized items are admissible in evidence
Held: Our jurisprudence provides for privileged areas where searches and seizures may lawfully
be effected sans a search warrant. These recognized exceptions include: (1) search of moving
vehicles; (2) search in plain view; (3) customs searches; (4) waiver or consented searches; (5)
stop-and-frisk situations; and (6) search incidental to a lawful arrest.
Here, it should be noted that during the incident in question, the special mission of the PAF
operatives was to conduct a surveillance operation to verify reports of drug trafficking and
smuggling by certain PAL personnel in the vicinity of the airport.
In other words, the search made by the PAF team on petitioner and his co-accused was in the
nature of a customs search. As such, the team properly effected the search and seizure without a
search warrant since it exercised police authority under the customs law. Law enforcers who are
tasked to effect the enforcement of the customs and tariff laws are authorized to search and seize,
without a search warrant, any article, cargo or other movable property when there is reasonable
cause to suspect that the said items have been introduced into the Philippines in violation of the
tariff and customs law. They may likewise conduct a warrantless search of any vehicle or person
suspected of holding or conveying the said articles, as in the case at bar.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen