CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

NACHURA, J.:
FACTS: Valeroso was charged with violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 for the
possession of one cal. 38 Charter Arms revolver with five live ammos without license.
He pleaded not guilty. It was related that Disuanco received a dispatch order from a
desk officer to serve a warrant of arrest issued by Judge Salvador against Valeroso for
kidnapping with ransom. The team conducted surveillance. They accosted Valeroso.
However, the latter in his defense, contended that when the officers came to his
childrens Boarding house in Sagana Homes, he was forced to the faucet while the men
ransacked the room until one shouted that they found something. He further stated
that it was not done with a warrant. Contrary to the prosecutions testimony, he was
said to be arrested near the INP Central Police in Culiat. He was found guilty by the
trial court. On appeal, his sentence was lowered. His MR was not granted.
ISSUE: Whether there is a breach of Valerosos Constitutional rights.
RULING: Yes. The court favors the version of the Defense. Valerosos appeal is
anchored on the Constitutional right alleged to be violated thus making the evidence
against him inadmissible.
The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is secured by Section 2,
Article III of the Constitution but with certain exceptions of valid warrantless arrest.
However, in this case, such cannot be justified. For one, the warrantless search could
not be justified as an incident to a lawful arrest. Searches and seizures incident to
lawful arrests are governed by Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. When an
arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to to rearch and remove from
the arrestee that may be used by him to effect escape to the danger of the officer doing
the arrest and the concealment and destruction thereof. It is also the duty of the
arresting officer to search the area under his immediate control over any weapon and
also in his plain view.
In this case, it cannot be said that the area that the officers searched is in
their immediate control as the weapon was found in a locked cabinet which
needed force to be revealed. Also, it is not in plain view which could not
effectively merit a valid warrantless arrest.

ASSIGNMENT No.2

1. Valeroso v. Court of Appeals

GR. no. 164815
Sept. 3, 2009

2. People v. Nunez
G.R. No. 177148
June 30, 2009

QUISUMBING, J.:
FACTS: The operatives of St. Cruz Laguna conducted a search in the house of Raul
Nunez. They were accompanied by the Baranggay Tanod to assist in the serving of
search warrant. They showed the warrant to Nunez. They found 31 packets of Shabu.

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

The group also confiscated a component, camera, electric planer, grinder, drill, jigsaw,
electric tester, and assorted carpentry tools on suspicion that they were acquired in
exchange for shabu. Nunez was convicted of violating RA 6425 for possessing the
regulated drugs.

RULING: Yes. Turning to the objects which may be confiscated during the search,
Section 3, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court is pertinent: SEC. 3. Personal property to be
seized. A search warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of personal
property: (a) Subject of the offense; (b) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or
fruits of the offense; or (c) Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an
offense.
As a rule, only the personal properties described in the search warrant may be
seized by the authorities. In the case at bar, Search Warrant No. 42 specifically
authorized the taking of shabu and paraphernalia(s) only. By the principle of ejusdem
generis, where a statute describes things of a particular class or kind accompanied by
words of a generic character, the generic word will usually be limited to things of a
similar nature with those particularly enumerated, unless there be something in the
context of the statement which would repel such inference.
Thus, we are here constrained to point out an irregularity in the search
conducted. Certainly, the ladys wallet, cash, grinder, camera, component, speakers,
electric planer, jigsaw, electric tester, saws, hammer, drill, and bolo were not
encompassed by the word paraphernalia as they bear no relation to the use or
manufacture of drugs. In seizing the said items then, the police officers exercised their
own discretion and determined for themselves which items in appellants residence they
believed were proceeds of the crime or means of committing the offense. This is, in
our view, absolutely impermissible.
The purpose of the constitutional requirement that the articles to be seized be
particularly described in the warrant is to limit the things to be taken 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

ASSIGNMENT No.2

ISSUE: Whether the search conducted is irregular.

3. Tan v. Sy Tiong Gue

GR. No. 174570
Feb. 22, 2010
PERALTA, J.:
FACTS: An information on the crime of Robbery was filed against Sy Tiong Gue and
others for the taking of a large amount of cash, post dated checks and other
equipments in the office of Guan Yiak Hardware in Binondo Manila belonging to Sy Siy
Ho and Sons represented by Romer S. Tan. Search warrants were applied for stating
therein the personal knowledge of the police officer of the items lost. Judge Lanzanas

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

Issued the Search warrants. The warrants were later served. Under Search Warrant,
three boxes containing twelve Hennessy XOs and one box containing seven Hennessy
XOs, were seized. However, the enforcement of Search Warrant yielded negative
results. Respondents filed a Motion to Quash which petitioner opposed. The
respondents received a favorable decision. Hence, this petition.

RULING: Yes. A search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of the People
of the Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him
to search for personal property described therein and to bring it before the court. The
issuance of a search warrant is governed by Rule 126 of the Rules of Court.
Therefore, the validity of the issuance of a search warrant rests upon the
following factors: (1) it must be issued upon probable cause; (2) the probable cause
must be determined by the judge himself and not by the applicant or any other person;
(3) in the determination of probable cause, the judge must examine, under oath or
affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce; and (4)
the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or
things to be seized.
Jurisprudence dictates that probable cause, as a condition for the issuance of a
search warrant, is such reasons supported by facts and circumstances as will warrant
a cautious man to believe that his action and the means taken in prosecuting it are
legally just and proper. Probable cause requires facts and circumstances that
would lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that an offense has been
committed and that the objects sought in connection with that offense are in
the place to be searched. It does not call for an application of rules and
standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on the
merits.
Applying these set standards, this Court finds that there was no grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the RTC judge in issuing the subject search warrants.

ASSIGNMENT No.2

ISSUE: Whether there was probable cause warranting the issuance by RTC of the
subject search warrants.

4. Marimla v. People
GR. no. 158467 Oct. 16, 2009
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
FACTS: Special Investigator (SI) Ray C. Lagasca of the NBI Anti-Organized Crime
Division filed two (2) applications for search warrant with the RTC of Manila seeking
permission to search: (1) petitioners house located on RD Reyes St., Brgy. Sta.
Trinidad, Angeles City and (2) the premises on Maria Aquino St., Purok V, Brgy. Sta.

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

ISSUE: Whether the respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed Orders denying petitioners
Motion to Quash Search Warrant and to Suppress Evidence Illegally Seized and their
Motion for Reconsideration, respectively.
RULING: No. The general rule is that a party is mandated to follow the hierarchy of
courts. However, in exceptional cases, the Court, for compelling reasons or if
warranted by the nature of the issues raised, may take cognizance of petitions filed
directly before it. In this case, the Court opts to take cognizance of the petition, as it
involves the application of the rules promulgated by this Court in the exercise of its
rule-making power under the Constitution.
Rule 126 of the Criminal Prcedures on Search and Seizure states that: Sec. 2. Court
where application for search warrant shall be filed. An application for search warrant
shall be filed with the following: (a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a
crime was committed, (b)For compelling reasons stated in the application, any court
within the judicial region where the crime was committed if the place of the
commission of the crime is known, or any court within the judicial region where the
warrant shall be enforced. However, if the criminal action has already been filed, the
application shall only be made in the court where the criminal action is pending.
Nothing in A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC prohibits the heads of the PNP, NBI, PAOC-TF
and REACT-TF from delegating their ministerial duty of endorsing the application for
search warrant to their assistant heads. Under Section 31, Chapter 6, Book IV of the
Administrative Code of 1987, an assistant head or other subordinate in every bureau
may perform such duties as may be specified by their superior or head, as long as it is
not inconsistent with law. We cannot find any irregularity or abuse of discretion on
the part of Judge Omar T. Viola for denying petitioners Motion to Quash Search
Warrant.

ASSIGNMENT No.2

Cruz, Porac, Pampanga, both for Violation of Section 16, Article III of Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 6425, as amended. The said applications uniformly alleged that SI
Lagascas request for the issuance of the search warrants was founded on his personal
knowledge as well as that of witness Roland D. Fernandez (Fernandez), obtained after
a series of surveillance operations and a test buy made at petitioners house. The
purpose of the application for search warrants was to seize Shabu, Marijuana
weighing scale, plastic sachets, tooters, burner, rolling papers, and paraphernalia.
Juadge Guarina found probable cause to issue the search warrant. The officers
conducted a search and found separate dried flowering tops in different containers.
The petitioners filed a Motion to Quash the Search Warrant for it was allegedly filed
outside the territorial jurisdiction and judicial region of the court where the crime is
committed

5) Andrew Harvey vs Mirriam Defensor Santiago

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

G.R. No. 82544

June 28, 1988
FACTS: A petition for Habeas Corpus. Andrew Harvey, John Sherman, both
Americans, and Adriaa Van Den Elshout (Dutch) were apprehended on 27 February
1988 from their respective residences at Pagsanjan, Laguna by agents of the
Commission on Immigration and Deportation (CID) by virtue of Mission Orders issued
by Commissioner Miriam Defensor Santiago of the CID. They were among the 22
suspected alien pedophiles who were apprehended after 3 months of close surveillance
by CID agents in Pagsanjan, Laguna. 2 days after apprehension, or on 29 February
1988, 17 of the 22 arrested aliens opted for self-deportation and have left the country.
One was released for lack of evidence; another was charged not for being a pedophile
but for working without a valid working visa. Thus, of the original 22, only Harvey, et.
al. have chosen to face deportation. Seized during their apprehension were rolls of
photo negatives and photos of the suspected child prostitutes shown in salacious
poses as well as boys and girls engaged in the sex act. There were also posters and
other literature advertising the child prostitutes.
They are presently detained at the CID Detention Center. On 4 March 1988,
deportation proceedings were instituted against Harvey, et. al. for being undesirable
aliens under Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code (Deportation Case 88-13).
On 14 March 1988, Harvey, et. al. filed an Urgent Petition for Release Under Bond
alleging that their health was being seriously affected by their continuous detention.
Upon recommendation of the Board of Commissioners for their provisional release, the
Commissioner ordered the CID doctor to examine Harvey, et. al., who certified that the
latter were healthy. On 22 March 1988, Harvey, et. al. filed a Petition for Bail which,
however, the Commissioner denied considering the certification by the CID physician
that the accused were healthy. To avoid congestion, the Commissioner ordered Harvey,
et. al.'s transfer to the CID detention cell at Fort Bonifacio, but the transfer was
deferred pending trial due to the difficulty of transporting then to and from the CID
where trial was on-going. On 4 April 1988, Harvey filed a Manifestation/Motion stating
that he had "finally agreed to a self-deportation" and praying that he be "provisionally
released for at least 15 days and placed under the custody of Atty. Asinas before he
voluntarily departs the country." On 7 April 1988, the Board of Special Inquiry III
allowed provisional release of 5 days only under certain conditions. However, it
appears that on the same date that the Manifestation/Motion was filed, Harvey and
his co-petitioners had already filed the present petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

ASSIGNMENT No.2

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

ISSUE: (1) Whether there was unreasonable searches and seizures by CID agents
(2) Whether the Commissioner has the power to arrest and detain petitioners
pending determination of existence of probable cause.
RULING: (1) NONE. One of the constitutional requirements of a valid search warrant
or warrant of arrest is that it must be based upon probable cause. Probable cause has
been defined as referring to "such facts and circumstances antecedent to the issuance

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

The 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure also provide that an arrest wit a
warrant may be effected by a peace officer or even a private person (1) when
such person has committed, actually committing, or is attempting to commit
an offense in his presence; and (2) when an offense has, in fact, been
committed and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to
be arrested has committed it (Rule 113, Section 5).
In this case, the arrest of petitioners was based on probable cause
determined after close surveillance for three (3) months during which period
their activities were monitored. The existence of probable cause justified the
arrest and the seizure of the photo negatives, photographs and posters
without warrant (See Papa vs. Mago, L-27360, February 28, 1968,22 SCRA
857; People vs. Court of First Instance of Rizal, L-41686, November 17, 1980,
101 SCRA 86, cited in CRUZ, Constitutional Law, 1987 ed., p. 143). Those
articles were seized as an incident to a lawful arrest and, are therefore,
admissible in evidence (Section 12, Rule 126,1985 Rules on criminal
Procedure).

ASSIGNMENT No.2

of the warrant that in themselves are sufficient to induce a cautious man to rely on
them and act in pursuance thereof." (People vs. Syjuco 64 Phil. 667 [1937]; Alverez vs.
CFI, 64 Phil. 33 [1937]).

(2)Yes. The deportation charges instituted by the Commissioner of Immigration

are in accordance with Sec37 (a) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 in relation
to sec69 of the Revised Administrative code. Section 37 (a) provides that aliens shall be
arrested and deported upon warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration
and Deportation after a determination by the Board of Commissioners of
the existence of a ground for deportation against them. Deportation proceedings are
administrative in character and never construed as a punishment but a preventive
measure. Therefore, it need not be conducted strictly in accordance with ordinary
Court proceedings. What is essential is that there should be a specific charge against
the alien intended to be arrested and deported. A fair hearing must also be conducted
with assistance of a counsel if desired.

6. Stonehill vs Diono
G.R. No. L-19550
June 19, 1967

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

FACTS: Stonehill et al and the corporation they form were alleged to have committed
acts in violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue
(Code) and Revised Penal Code. By the strength of this allegation a search warrant
was issued against their persons and their corporation. The warrant provides
authority to search the persons above-named and/or the premises of their offices,
warehouses and/or residences, and to seize and take possession of the following
personal property to wit:
Books of accounts, financial records, vouchers, correspondence, receipts, ledgers,
journals, portfolios, credit journals, typewriters, and other documents and/or papers
showing all business transactions including disbursements receipts, balance sheets and
profit and loss statements and Bobbins.
The documents, papers, and things seized under the alleged authority of the
warrants in question may be split into (2) major groups, namely:
(a) those found and seized in the offices of the aforementioned corporations and
(b) those found seized in the residences of petitioners herein.
Stonehill averred that the warrant is illegal for they do not describe with
particularity the documents, books and things to be seized; cash money, not
mentioned in the warrants, were actually seized; the warrants were issued to fish
evidence against the aforementioned petitioners in deportation cases filed against
them; the searches and seizures were made in an illegal manner; and the documents,
papers and cash money seized were not delivered to the courts that issued the
warrants, to be disposed of in accordance with law.
The prosecution argues that the defects of said warrants, if any, were cured by
petitioners consent; and (3) that, in any event, the effects seized are admissible in
evidence against them. In short, the criminal cannot be set free just because the
government blunders.

ASSIGNMENT No.2

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

ISSUE: Whether the search warrants in question, and the searches and seizures made
under the authority thereof, are valid.
RULING: No. The SC ruled in favor of Stonehill et al. The constitution protects the
peoples right against unreasonable search and seizure. Two points must be stressed
in connection with this constitutional mandate, namely: (1) that no warrant shall
issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge in the manner set forth
in said provision; and (2) that the warrant shall particularly describe the things to be
seized.
None of these requirements has been complied with in the contested warrants.
Indeed, the same were issued upon applications stating that the natural and juridical
person therein named had committed a "violation of Central Ban Laws, Tariff and
Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code." In other words,
nospecific offense had been alleged in said applications. The averments thereof with
respect to the offense committed were abstract. As a consequence, it was impossible for

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

the judges who issued the warrants to have found the existence of probable cause, for
the same presupposes the introduction of competent proof that the party against
whom it is sought has performed particular acts, or committed specific omissions,
violating a given provision of our criminal laws. As a matter of fact, the applications
involved in this case do not allege any specific acts performed by herein petitioners. It
would be the legal heresy, of the highest order, to convict anybody of a "violation of
Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised
Penal Code," as alleged in the aforementioned applications without reference to
any determinate provision of said laws or
To uphold the validity of the warrants in question would be to wipe out
completely one of the most fundamental rights guaranteed in our Constitution, for it
would place the sanctity of the domicile and the privacy of communication and
correspondence at the mercy of the whims caprice or passion of peace officers. This is
precisely the evil sought to be remedied by the constitutional provision above quoted
to outlaw the so-called general warrants.

7. ARSENIO VERGARA VALDEZ VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No 170180
November 23, 2007

ASSIGNMENT No.2

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

FACTS: Bautista testified that at around 8:00 to 8:30 p.m. of 17 March 2003, he was
conducting the routine patrol along the National Highway in Barangay San Benito
Norte, Aringay, La Union together with Aratas and Ordoo when they noticed
petitioner, lugging a bag, alight from a mini-bus. The tanods observed that petitioner,
who appeared suspicious to them, seemed to be looking for something. They thus
approached him but the latter purportedly attempted to run away. They chased him,
put him under arrest and thereafter brought him to the house of Barangay Captain
Orencio Mercado (Mercado) where he, as averred by Bautista, was ordered by Mercado
to open his bag. Petitioners bag allegedly contained a pair of denim pants, eighteen
pieces of eggplant and dried marijuana leaves wrapped in newspaper and cellophane.
It was then that petitioner was taken to the police station for further investigation.
Petitioner was found guilty by the RTC for the violation of Section 11 of RA 9165
(illegal possession of dangerous drugs) after dried marijuana leaves were found in his
possession by three barangay tanods who made a search on him
Petitioner denied ownership and purported that he had just alighted from the
bus when one of the barangay tanods approached him and requested to see the
contents of his bags. The petitioner was then brought by the three tanods to the house
of Brgy. Captain Mercado, who again ordered to have the bag opened. During which,
the dried marijuana leaves were found.
Petitioner prays for his acquittal questioning, although for the first time on
appeal, that his warrantless arrest was effected unlawfully and the warrantless search
that followed was likewise contrary to law.

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

ISSUE: Whether petitioner should be acquitted for the lack of a warrant supporting
the arrest and the search.

A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not also mean a waiver of the
inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest. The following
searches and seizures are deemed permissible by jurisprudence: (1) search of moving vehicles
(2) seizure in plain view (3) customs searches (4) waiver or consent searches (5) stop and frisk
situations (Terry Search) and (6) search incidental to a lawful arrest. The last includes a valid
warrantless search and seizure pursuant to an equally valid warrantless arrest, for, while as a
rule, an arrest is considered legitimate if effected with a valid warrant of arrest, the Rules of
Court recognize permissible warrantless arrests, to wit: (1) arrests in flagrante delicto, (2)
arrests effected in hot pursuit, and, (3) arrests of escaped prisoners.

When petitioner was arrested without a warrant, he was neither caught in

flagrante delicto committing a crime nor was the arrest effected in hot pursuit.
Verily, it cannot therefore be reasonably argued that the warrantless search
conducted on petitioner was incidental to a lawful arrest.
In the case at bar, following the theory of the prosecution albeit based on
conflicting testimonies on when petitioners bag was actually opened, it is apparent
that petitioner was already under the coercive control of the public officials who had
custody of him when the search of his bag was demanded. Moreover, the prosecution
failed to prove any specific statement as to how the consent was asked and how it was
given, nor the specific words spoken by petitioner indicating his alleged "consent."
Even granting that petitioner admitted to opening his bag when Ordoo asked to see
its contents, his implied acquiescence, if at all, could not have been more than mere
passive conformity given under coercive or intimidating circumstances and hence, is
considered no consent at all within the contemplation of the constitutional
guarantee. As a result, petitioners lack of objection to the search and seizure is
not tantamount to a waiver of his constitutional right or a voluntary submission
to the warrantless search and seizure.

ASSIGNMENT No.2

RULING: YES. The SC reversed the decision and acquitted the petitioner.
Accordingly, petitioners waiver of his right to question his arrest notwithstanding, the
marijuana leaves allegedly taken during the search cannot be admitted in evidence
against him as they were seized during a warrantless search which was not lawful. As
we pronounced in People v. Bacla-an

8. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VICTOR DIAZ VINECARIO, et al.

420 SCRA 280
(2004)

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

FACTS: Some time on April 10, 1995, fifteen police officers were manning a
checkpoint at Ulas, Davao City pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 2735, otherwise
known as the COMELEC gun ban. A motorcycle with three men on board namely
appellant Victor Vinecario (Vinecario), Arnold Roble (Roble) Gerlyn Wates (Wates) sped
past of the police officers. When they were ordered to return to the checkpoint, a police
officer asked what the backpack contains which the appellants answered that it was
only a mat. The police officers suspected that it was a bomb and when appellant
opened the bag it turns out that its contents were marijuana. The three were then
brought to the police station and later to Camp Catitipan and there they were
investigated by police officials without the assistance of counsel, following which they
were made to sign some documents which they were not allowed to read. The Regional
Trial Court rendered them guilty for transporting, possessing and delivering prohibited
drugs under Article IV of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as
amended by Republic Act No. 7659), and imposing upon them the penalty of reclusion
perpetua.
ISSUE: Whether or not the search and seizure conducted by the officers are valid
RULING: YES. This right to undisturbed privacy is guaranteed by Section 2, Article III
of the Constitution which provides:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose
shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath
or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Section 3(2), also of Article III, provides that any evidence obtained in violation
of the above provision shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
Hence, as a general rule, a search and seizure must be carried through with
judicial warrant, otherwise, such search and seizure constitutes derogation of a
constitutional right.
The above rule, however, is not devoid of exceptions. In People v. Sarap, the
exceptions where search and seizure may be conducted without warrant, are: (1)
search incident to a lawful arrest; (2) search of a moving motor vehicle; (3) search in
violation of customs laws; (4) seizure of the evidence in plain view; (5) search when the
accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and seizures; (6) stop
and frisk; and (7) exigent and emergency circumstances. The only requirement in
these exceptions is the presence of probable cause. Probable cause is the existence of
such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonable, discreet, and prudent
man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in
connection with the offense are in the place to be searched. In People v. Aruta, it was
ruled that in warrantless searches, probable cause must only be based on reasonable
ground of suspicion or belief that a crime has been committed or is about to be

ASSIGNMENT No.2

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

10

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

committed. There is no hard and fast rule or fixed formula in determining probable
cause for its determination varies according to the facts of each case.
Here, the search involved a moving vehicle, an instance where a warrantless
search and seizure may be conducted by peace officers. There is also probable cause
on the part of the officers for the warrantless arrest because when they flagged the
jeepney down, it did not stop, forcing the police to chase it until it reached
Shilan, La Trinidad. A search of the vehicle disclosed several pieces of Benguet
pine lumber. Petitioners could not produce the required DENR permit to cut and
transport the same.
In People v. Vinecarao, the Court ruled that where a vehicle sped away after
noticing a checkpoint and even after having been flagged down by police officers, in an
apparent attempt to dissuade the police from proceeding with their inspection, there
exists probable cause to justify a reasonable belief on the part of the law enforcers that
the persons on board said vehicle were officers of the law or that the vehicle contained
objects which were instruments of some offense.

9. PEOPLE v. RUBIO
G.R. NO. L- 35500 OCTOBER 27, 1932

ASSIGNMENT No.2

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

FACTS:
The chief secret service agent and a supervising agent of the
Bureau of Internal Revenue received a report from a reliable source that there are
prohibited fraudulent books, invoices and records, exist and being conducted in
Rubios house, and that he (Rubio) keeps in his possession effects and devices to wit:
Fraudulent books of the Simplex Trading Corporation & of subsidiary companies
Paramount Trading Corporation & New York Trading Corp. Thus, a search warrant
was issued. On the same day, internal revenue agents proceeded to the place indicated
in the warrant, searched the premises, and took therefrom books, invoices, and
documents belonging to the Simplex Trading Corporation of which Jose Rubio was the
manager.
Rubio filed a motion to declare null and void a search warrant issued on
December 26, 1930, and to have returned to him the books of account, invoices, and
records which were seized by virtue of the warrant. However, the motion was denied.
ISSUES: (1) Whether the search warrant was illegal.
(2) Whether the seizure of appellant's books and papers was made
solely for the purpose of using them as evidence against him in a criminal prosecution
and was, therefore, unlawful.
RULING: (1) No. The requirements of the law were substantially, and even
literally, complied with in this case. Appellant's contention that the search warrant
was issued without the complainants or any witnesses having been examined, is

11

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

untenable. The depositions speak for themselves. It is also contended that the
application and the warrant did not particularly describe the things to be seized. The
verified statements of the two internal revenue agents and the warrant issued by
the Court of First Instance of Manila all describe the property sought to be
seized as "fraudulent books, invoices and records". While it is true that the
property to be seized under a warrant must be particularly described therein and
no other property can be taken thereunder, yet the description is required to be
specific only in so far as the circumstances will ordinarily allow. It has been held
that, where, by the nature of the goods to be seized, their description must be
rather general, it is not required that a technical description be given, as this
would mean that no warrant could issue. Appellant has not shown that the
internal revenue agents exceeded their powers under the warranty by seizing property
other than that described in the warrant question. The list of books, invoices, and
records seized by said officers is the best evidence to show that they strictly obeyed the
command of their warrant by seizing those things, and only those described in the
search warrant.
In the case at bar, however, it has been shown that the internal revenue
agents strictly obeyed the command of their warrant by seizing no other property than
that described therein.
(2)No. In the first place, it is to be observed that the public has an
interest in the proper regulation of appellant's books. (Act No. 3292, section 4.) In the
second place, the books belonged to a corporation of which the appellant was simply
the manager. And in the third place, the search warrant only issued on a showing of
probable cause to adopt the language alike of section 96 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and the search warrant that "fraudulent books, invoices, and records"
were "now being used in the commission of a felony."
Finally, while the assertion is oft-repeated that the books, invoices, and records
were taken solely for the purpose of being used as evidence against Rubio, we find no
support for this contention in the record. In the trial court, the assistant city fiscal
said: "As we have stated above, the search and seizure in this case were made
under the provisions of the internal-revenue laws and the authority of a search
warrant, and not for the purpose of obtaining evidence, but with a view to seize
the instruments used in the violation of said laws committed by the defendant."
On appeal, the prosecution persistently maintains its position that the seizure was
made with the object of preventing the use of the books of account, documents, and
papers in the commission of further offenses or fraud or against the Government. Not
a scintilla of evidence is to be found in the record to prove that the Government has
used the books of account, documents, and papers as evidence against the appellant,
or that the Government ever had the intention of so doing. All we know is, that an
information was filed against Rubio, charging him with a violation of the Customs Law,
and that he compromised another case with the Bureau of Internal Revenue on the
payment of the sum of P100,000. On this showing, we perforce cannot deduce that the

ASSIGNMENT No.2

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

12

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

books of account, documents, and papers were wanted solely for use as evidence of a
crime.

FACTS:
Antipolo City Police Station received through telephone, a
confidential information that a Gemini car bearing plate number PFC 411 would
deliver an unspecified amount of shabu in Marville Subdivision, Antipolo City. Acting
on said tip, Antipolo City Chief of Police Major Rene Quintana dispatched a team of
policemen to the area to conduct a surveillance. When the team arrived in Marville
Subdivision, they saw the said Gemini car and immediately flagged it down. The driver
of the car pulled to a stop and opened a window of said vehicle giving the policemen
the opportunity to identify themselves as members of the Antipolo City Police Station.
It was then that PO1 Manuel Padlan (PO1 Padlan) saw a gun tucked on appellants
waist. PO1 Padlan inquired about the gun and appellant allegedly replied it did not
belong to him nor could he produce any pertinent document relating to said firearm.
This prompted PO3 Bueno to order appellant to get down from the car. As soon as
appellant stepped down from the vehicle, PO3 Bueno saw five plastic sachets on the
drivers seat, the contents of which appellant allegedly admitted to be shabu. Appellant
was thereafter immediately brought to the police station.
Expectedly, appellant presented a vastly different account of the events
that led to his indictment, however, the trial court found the evidence presented by the
prosecution sufficient to support a guilty verdict. Appellant claims that as the
confidential informant had been cooperating with the police for three weeks prior to
his arrest, the authorities were already informed of his identity and his alleged illegal
activities. They should have conducted a prior surveillance and then sought a search
warrant from the court. Absent said warrant, the shabu seized from him should be
excluded from evidence. In sustaining the trial court, the Court of Appeals found PO3
Buenos testimony to be "clear and unequivocal" and should therefore prevail over
appellants defense of denial. The Court of Appeals likewise brushed aside appellants
contention that he was a victim of frame-up as this defense has been viewed with
disfavor and has become a standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from
violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.

ASSIGNMENT No.2

10. PEOPLE v. TUAZON

532 SCRA 152 SEPTEMBER 3, 2007

ISSUE: Whether there was a probable cause to justify the warrantless searches
and seizure.
RULING: YES. The constitutional provisions against warrantless searches and
seizures admit of certain exceptions, as follows: (1) warrantless search incidental to a
lawful arrest recognized under Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and by

13

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

prevailing jurisprudence; (2) seizure of evidence in plain view; (3) search of a moving
vehicle; (4) consented warrantless search; (5) customs search; (6) stop and frisk; and
(7) exigent and emergency circumstances.
Nevertheless, the exception from securing a search warrant when it
comes to moving vehicles does not give the police authorities unbridled discretion to
conduct a warrantless search of an automobile. In recognition of the possible abuse,
jurisprudence dictates that at all times, it is required that probable cause exist
in order to justify the warrantless search of a vehicle.
When a vehicle is flagged down and subjected to an extensive
search, such a warrantless search has been held to be valid as long as the officers
conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe prior to the
search that they would find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a
crime, in the vehicle to be searched.
In this case, the police had probable cause to effect the warrantless search
of the Gemini car driven by appellant. A confidential informer tipped them off
that said car was going to deliver shabu at Marville Subdivision. Pursuing said
lead, the Antipolo City police sent a team to Marville Subdivision to monitor said
vehicle. The information provided by the informer turned out to be correct as, indeed,
the Gemini car was spotted in the place where it was said to be bringing shabu. When
they stopped the car, they saw a gun tucked in appellants waist. Appellant did not
have any document to support his possession of said firearm which all the more
strengthened the polices suspicion. After he was told to step out of the car, they found
on the drivers seat plastic sachets containing white powdery substance. These
circumstances, taken together, are sufficient to establish probable cause for the
warrantless search of the Gemini car and the eventual admission into evidence of the
plastic packets against appellant.
In any case, appellant failed to timely object to the admissibility of the evidence
against him on the ground that the same was obtained through a warrantless search.

ASSIGNMENT No.2

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

11. STEPHEN SY v. PEOPLE

G.R. NO. 182178 AUGUST 15, 2011
FACTS:
PNP of the Dumaguete City Police Station received a telephone call
from a concerned citizen that an illegal drug trade was going on at Zone 3, Barangay
Looc, Dumaguete City. While walking at the pathway going to the interior portion of
Zone 3, Barangay Looc, at a distance of about two (2) meters away, they saw a man,
later identified as the [petitioner] in this case, examining a transparent plastic sachet
containing shabu powder by flicking the same. They approached the [petitioner],
introduced themselves as policemen and announced his arrest for illegal possession of
dangerous drug. RTC, after finding that the prosecution has established all the

14

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

elements of the offense charged, rendered a Decision convicted petitioner of violation of

Section 11, Article II of RA No. 9165. Upon appeal, the CA rendered a Decision
affirming in toto the decision of the RTC.

RULING:
NO. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides:
Sec 5. Arrest without warrant, when lawful - A peace officer or a private person
may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(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 has just been committed and he has
probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that
the person to be arrested has 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
final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped
while being transferred from one confinement to another.
Corolarilly, the 1987 Constitution states that a search and consequent seizure
must be carried out with a judicial warrant; otherwise, it becomes unreasonable and
any evidence obtained therefrom shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding. Said proscription, however, admits of exceptions, namely:
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;
2. Search of evidence in "plain view;"
3. Search of a moving vehicle;
4. Consented warrantless search;
5. Customs search;
6. Stop and Frisk; and
7. Exigent and emergency circumstances
What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable warrantless search or seizure is
purely a judicial question, determinable from the uniqueness of the circumstances
involved, including the purpose of the search or seizure, the presence or absence of
probable cause, the manner in which the search and seizure was made, the place or
thing searched, and the character of the articles procured.
In searches incident to a lawful arrest, the arrest must precede the search;
generally, the process cannot be reversed. Nevertheless, a search substantially
contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest if the police have
probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search. Although probable
cause eludes exact and concrete definition, it ordinarily signifies a reasonable ground
of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a
cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he
is charged.

ASSIGNMENT No.2

ISSUE:
Whether the honorable court of appeals erred in holding that the
right of the petitioner against unlawful searches and seizures was not violated.

15

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

From the foregoing, sufficient evidence supports that the warrantless

arrest of petitioner was effected under Section 5 (a), or the arrest of a
suspect in flagrante delicto. The police officers witnessed petitioner flicking
a transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance in plain
view. Arousing their suspicion that the sachet contains shabu, the arresting officers
immediately approached petitioner, introduced themselves as police officers and
effected the arrest. After laboratory examination, the white crystalline substance
placed inside the plastic sachet was found positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu, a regulated drug.
Under these circumstances, petitioner was clearly arrested in flagrante
delictoas he was then committing a crime, violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act,
within the view of the police officers. At the time of his arrest, the police officers
were actively performing their duties, since they were following up a tip that there was
an illegal drug trade being conducted in the area. This fact, coupled with the overt
acts of petitioner, formed sufficient basis on the part of the police officers to believe
that a crime was actually being committed. Thus, petitioners case falls within the
exception to the rule requiring a warrant before effecting an arrest. Consequently,
the results of the ensuing search and seizure were admissible in evidence to
prove petitioners guilt of the offense charged.

ASSIGNMENT No.2

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

12. PEOPLE v. MANUEL CRUZ

G.R. NO. 187047 JUNE 15, 2011
FACTS: The prosecution witness testified that a a male informant came in with an
information that a certain alias Maning was engaged in selling illegal drugs at Sitio de
Asis, Barangay San Martin de Porres, Paraaque City. Accordingly, a buy-bust
operation against alias Maning was planned and a team was formed. At around 5:00
p.m., the buy-bust team, together with the male informant, proceeded to the target
area on board two vehicles. At this juncture that alias Maning was arrested and was
brought to the office of DAID-SOT, Southern Police District, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig,
Metro Manila, for investigation and proper documentation. In the course thereof, alias
Maning was later on identified to be Manuel Cruz y Cruz, the herein appellant.
The trial court, convinced on the merits of the prosecutions case,
convicted the accused with the crime of illegal sale only. The Ca affirmed in toto the
decision of the RTC, and ratiocinated that accused was caught committing the offense
while he was in the act of passing the shabuto PO2 [Gallano] in exchange for
P2,000.00, thus, they were justified in arresting him and seizing the materials without
warrant.
ISSUE: Whether the arrest and seizure was lawful.

16

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

RULING: Yes. In People v. Sembrano citing People v. Agulay, this Court held that a
buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which in recent years has been accepted
as a valid and effective mode of apprehending drug pushers. If carried out with due
regard for constitutional and legal safeguards, a buy-bust operation, as in this case,
deserves judicial sanction. Moreover, in a buy-bust operation, the violator is
caught in flagrante delicto and the police officers conducting the same are not
only authorized but also duty-bound to apprehend the violator and consequently
search him for anything that may have been part of or used in the commission of
the crime.
In the case at bench, after the police operatives of DAID-SOT, Southern Police
District, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig, Metro Manila, received information from their male
informant regarding appellants criminal activity, an entrapment plan was then set up.
The same was made specifically to test the veracity of the informants tip and to
subsequently arrest the malefactor if the report is found to be true. The prosecutions
evidence positively showed that appellant agreed to sell shabu to the poseur-buyer,
who was introduced to him by the male informant. He was, in fact, caught red-handed
plying his illegal trade. Thus, the warrantless arrest of the appellant was legal and
within the confines of law. In the same breath, it cannot be doubted that the sachet of
shabu seized from him during the legitimate buy-bust operation is admissible and was
properly admitted in evidence against him.
Appellants assertion that he was just framed up as the shabu seized from him
was planted evidence so he can be prosecuted for the illegal sale thereof finds no
support in evidence.

ASSIGNMENT No.2

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

13. ABRAHAM MICLAT, JR. V. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 176077
AUGUST 31, 2011
FACTS: petitioner Abraham C. Miclat, Jr. was charged for Violation of Section 11,
Article II of RA No. 9165. He did then and there willfully and feloniously have in his
possession, custody and control a shabu weighing 0.24 gram, knowing the same to be
a dangerous drug under the provisions of the law. Petitioner, with the assistance of
counsel pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Trial on the merits ensued.
The testimony of the police investigator, PO3 Fernando Moran (PO3 Moran),
was dispensed with after petitioners counsel admitted the facts offered for stipulation
by the prosecution. On the other hand, the defense presented the petitioner as its sole
witness. The testimonies of Abraham Miclat, Sr. and Ma. Concepcion Miclat, the

17

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

father and sister, respectively, of the petitioner was dispensed with after the
prosecution agreed that their testimonies were corroborative in nature.
The RTC decided to convict the petitioner.
In affirming the RTC, the CA ratiocinated that contrary to the contention of the
petitioner, the evidence presented by the prosecution were all admissible against him.
Moreover, it was established that he was informed of his constitutional rights at the
time of his arrest. Hence, the CA opined that the prosecution has proven beyond
reasonable doubt all of the elements necessary for the conviction of the petitioner for
the offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

RULING: YES. Verily, no less than the 1987 Constitution mandates that a
search and consequent seizure must be carried out with a judicial warrant; otherwise,
it becomes unreasonable, and any evidence obtained therefrom shall be inadmissible
for any purpose in any proceeding.
What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable warrantless search or seizure is
purely a judicial question, determinable from the uniqueness of the circumstances
involved, including the purpose of the search or seizure, the presence or absence of
probable cause, the manner in which the search and seizure was made, the place or
thing searched, and the character of the articles procured.
It is to be noted that petitioner was caught in the act of arranging the heatsealed plastic sachets in plain sight of PO3 Antonio and he voluntarily surrendered
them to him upon learning that he is a police officer. The seizure made by PO3
Antonio of the four plastic sachets from the petitioner was not only incidental to
a lawful arrest, but it also falls within the purview of the plain view doctrine.
Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in a
position to have that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant
and may be introduced in evidence. The plain view doctrine applies when the
following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the
evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which
he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of evidence in plainview is
inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he
observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.
The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a
position from which he can particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful
intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused.
The object must be open to eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent.
It is clear, therefore, that an object is in plain view if the object itself is
plainly exposed to sight. Since petitioners arrest is among the exceptions to the rule
requiring a warrant before effecting an arrest and the evidence seized from the

ASSIGNMENT No.2

ISSUE: Whether the warrantless searches and seizure is valid.

18

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

petitioner was the result of a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest, which
incidentally was in plain view of the arresting officer, the results of the ensuing search
and seizure were admissible in evidence to prove petitioners guilt of the offense
charged.

FACTS: Accused-appellants Rolando S. delos Reyes and Raymundo G. Reyes,

Emmanuel de Claro, and Mary Jane Lantion-Tom (Lantion-Tom) were all arrested for
illegal possession, sale, delivery, distribution, and/or transportation of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a regulated drug commonly known as shabu. The
Office of the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City, in its Resolution dated March 3,
2000, found probable cause to indict accused-appellants, together with Emmanuel de
Claro, for violation of Republic Act No. 6425, and resolved to continue the preliminary
investigation in so far as Lantion-Tom was concerned. The criminal information
against accused-appellants and Emmanuel de Claro was filed with the RTC.
Accused-appellant Rolando delos Reyes, Emmanuel de Claro, and Lantion-Tom,
insisting on their innocence, moved for a reinvestigation of their case before the RTC,
which said trial court granted in an Order.
After the reinvestigation, the Office of the City Prosecutor issued a Resolution
recommending that the RTC proceed with the indictment of accused-appellant Reyes
and Emmanuel de Claro, and dismiss the charges against accused-appellant Rolando
delos Reyes and Lantion-Tom. The Office of the City Prosecutor considered the
different versions of events presented by the parties during the preliminary
investigation and reinvestigation.
Accused/respondent [Emmanuel] de Claro and his common law wife,
respondent Lantion-Tom, submitted their separate Counter-Affidavits jointly denying
the charges and claiming that they were at the Whistlestop Bar and Restaurant to talk
to respondent Lantion-Toms accountant Ms. Daisy Milan regarding the Mayors
Permit, Business Location Clearance issued by the Office of the Barangay Captain,
insurance documents, BIR Certificate of Registration of her business; that they were
with accused/respondent [Emmanuel] de Claros brother, Roberto and a friend,
James, with the two remaining outside the restaurant; that respondent Lantion-Tom
went to accompany Ms. Milan, while accused/respondent [Emmanuel] de Claro was
left inside; that after Ms. Milan left, respondent Lantion-Tom was suddenly
surrounded by men who introduced themselves as police officers and were arresting
them for being the source of "shabu" in a drug deal; that all of them,
accused/respondent [Emmanuel] de Claro, Roberto and James were likewise arrested
and continuously questioned on their complicity in the drug deal; that they were taken
to Camp Bagong Diwa, Taguig, Metro Manila and subjected to further investigation;
that Roberto and James were released the following day. Both respondents maintain

ASSIGNMENT No.2

14. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ROLANDO DELOS REYES

GR No. 174774
August 31, 2011

19

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

that the allegations of the arresting officers as to the circumstances on the alleged
"drug deal" leading to their arrest are unfounded and purely fabricated.
The Office of the City Prosecutor pointed out that the arresting police officers
failed to refute accused-appellant Rolando delos Reyes counter-allegation that he was
not arrested at Shangri-La Plaza in Mandaluyong City, but he was illegally arrested
without warrant at Buenas Market in Cainta, Rizal, as corroborated by Marlon David
and Joel Navarro (Navarro) in their respective sworn statements (Sinumpaang
Salaysay) dated March 14, 2000. The Office of the City Prosecutor also observed that
Lantion-Tom was "merely in the company of the other respondents without performing
any overt act showing her to be part of the illicit transaction" and her drug test
revealed negative results. On the other hand, it considered the conflicting claims of
Emmanuel de Claro (i.e., that he was illegally arrested and that the drug deal was a
mere fabrication) and the arresting officers (i.e., that Emmanuel de Claro was the
seller/pusher in the drug deal and the shabu was seized from his vehicle) would be
best ventilated during the trial on the merits.
ISSUE: Whether search and seizure of the shabu was valid.
RULING: NO. Search and seizure may be made without a warrant and the evidence
obtained therefrom may be admissible in the following instances: (1) search incident to
a lawful arrest; (2) search of a moving motor vehicle; (3) search in violation of customs
laws; (4) seizure of evidence in plain view; (5) when the accused himself waives his
right against unreasonable searches and seizures; and (6) stop and frisk situations.
The first exception (search incidental to a lawful arrest) includes a valid
warrantless search and seizure pursuant to an equally valid warrantless arrest which
must precede the search. In this instance, the law requires that there be first a lawful
arrest before a search can be made the process cannot be reversed. As a rule, an
arrest is considered legitimate if effected with a valid warrant of arrest.
To constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, two requisites must
concur: (1) 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 (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the
arresting officer.
Similar to the above-cited cases in Molina, there is a dearth of evidence in this
case to justify the in flagrante delicto arrests of accused-appellants and search of their
persons incidental to the arrests.
A close examination of the testimonies of SPO1 Lectura, PO3 Santiago, and PO3
Yumul reveal that they simply relied on the information provided by their confidential
informant that an illegal drug deal was to take place on the night of February 17,
2000 at Shangri-la Plaza in Mandaluyong City. Without any other independent
information, and by simply seeing the suspects pass from one to another a white

ASSIGNMENT No.2

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

20

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

plastic bag with a box or carton inside, the police team was already able to conclude
that the box contained shabu and sensed that an illegal drug deal took place.
In the instant case, SPO1 Lectura, PO3 Santiago, and PO3 Yumul uniformly
testified before the RTC that they brought the arrested suspects to the police office for
investigation. SPO1 Lectura and PO3 Santiago were vague as to how they ascertained
as shabu the contents of the box inside the white plastic bag, immediately after seizing
the same from accused-appellant Reyes and before proceeding to the police office;
while PO3 Yumul explicitly testified on cross-examination that he saw the shabu for
the first time at the police office. At any rate, all three police officers recounted that
the shabu was marked by SPO1 Benjamin David only at the police office.
Without valid justification for the in flagrante delicto arrests of accusedappellants, the search of accused-appellants persons incidental to said arrests, and
the eventual seizure of the shabu from accused-appellants possession, are also
considered unlawful and, thus, the seized shabu is excluded in evidence as fruit of a
poisonous tree. Without the corpus delicti for the crime charged, then the acquittal of
accused-appellants is inevitable.

15. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V PO2 FROILAN TRESTIZA

GR no. 193833
November 16, 2011
FACTS: Accused PO1 Froilan Trestiza y Lacson and P/S Insp. Loriemar L. Manrique,
both active members of the Philippine National Police, and Rodie Pineda y Jimenez, a
private individual, all of them armed with firearms, conspiring, confederating and
mutually helping one another with one PO2 [Reynel] Jose, a member of the Philippine
National Police, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kidnap
Lawrence Yu y and Maria Irma Navarro, or otherwise deprive them of their liberty by
then and there kidnap without legal grounds for the purpose of extorting money for
their safety and immediate release as in fact said accused demanded the amount of
P1,000,000.00 as ransom money from them.
Pineda had been contacting Yu to follow up on the balance on the ransom.
Pineda was then arrested pursuant to an entrapment operation conducted in the early
morning at New World Hotel. During the investigation at Camp Crame, Pineda revealed
that Trestiza could be found at Club 5 in Makati. Pineda and Yu accompanied the
arresting team to Club 5. Yu pointed out Trestiza to the arresting team while Trestiza
was on his way to his black Hummer.

ASSIGNMENT No.2

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

ISSUE: Whether there is a valid warrantless arrest

RULING: Section 5, Rule 113 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure enumerates the
instances when warrantless arrests are lawful.

21

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private

person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(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 has just been committed and he has probable cause to
believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be
arrested has 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 final judgment or is temporarily confined
while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without
a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be
proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112.
It is clear that Trestizas warrantless arrest does not fall under any of the
circumstances mentioned in Section 5, Rule 113. However, Trestiza failed to make a
valid objection to his warrantless arrest.
Any objection to the procedure followed in the matter of the acquisition by a
court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be opportunely raised before
he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.45 Trestiza, being a
policeman himself, could have immediately objected to his warrantless arrest.
However, he merely asked for the grounds for his arrest. He did not even file charges
against the arresting officers. There was also a lengthy amount of time between
Trestizas arrest on 16 November 2002 and the filing of the Omnibus Motion objecting
to Trestizas warrantless arrest on 11 May 2004. Although it may be argued that the
objection was raised prior to the entry of Trestizas plea of not guilty in the kidnapping
for ransom charge, it must be noted that the circumstances of the present case make
us rule otherwise. Trestiza was charged with two crimes at the time of his arrest:
kidnapping with ransom under Criminal Case No. 02-3393 and illegal possession of
firearms under Criminal Case No. 02-3394. Trestiza did not question the legality of his
warrantless arrest nor the acquisition of jurisdiction of the trial court over his person,
and fully participated in the hearing of the illegal possession of firearms case. Thus,
Trestiza is deemed to have waived any objection to his warrantless arrest. Under the
circumstances, Trestizas Omnibus Motion in the kidnapping for ransom case is a
mere afterthought and cannot be considered as a timely objection.

ASSIGNMENT No.2

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

16. ISON V GALVEZ, JR.

G.R. No. 173951
April 16, 2012
FACTS: A contract of employment was entered into by and between the petitioner and
respondents whereby the former agreed to work as Cook A for the latter on board M.V.
Stadt Kiel for a period of 12 months. Petitioner was later on medically repatriated due

22

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

ISSUE: Whether the ruling of the CA is correct

RULING: We hold that the CA is correct in ruling thus. The company-designated
physician has cleared petitioner for employment resumption after two months of
continuous treatment and after medication has successfully controlled his
hypertension. As aptly held by the CA, the extensive medical attention given by the
company-designated physician to petitioner enabled the former to acquire a detailed
knowledge and familiarity of petitioners medical condition.
This enabled the
company-designated physician to arrive at a more accurate prognosis of petitioners
disability as compared to other physicians not privy to petitioners case from the
beginning. It has been held that the doctor who have had a personal knowledge of the
actual medical condition, having closely, meticulously and regularly monitored and
actually treated the seamans illness, is more qualified to assess the seamans
disability.
On the other hand, the medical reports of Dr. Vicaldo and Dr. Caja were issued
after petitioner consulted each of them only once. Clearly, said physicians did not
have the chance to closely monitor petitioners illness. Moreover, Dr. Vicaldos
evaluation of petitioners illness was unsupported by any proof or basis. While he
diagnosed petitioner to be suffering from Hypertensive Cardiovascular Disease,
Concentric Left Ventricular Hypertrophy, Lateral Wall Ischemic and suggested an
Impediment Grade V (58-96%), no justification for such assessment was provided for
in the medical certificate he issued. Similarly, Dr. Cajas medical report contained no
supporting proof but was rather based on the findings of past examinations done by
the company-designated physician, as well as on the statements supplied to her by the
petitioner. In Coastal Safety Marine Services Inc. v. Esguerra,[35] this Court brushed
aside the medical certifications upon which the seaman therein anchored his claim for
disability benefits for being unsupported by diagnostic tests and procedures as would
effectively dispute the results of the medical examination earlier made upon him in a
foreign clinic referred by his employer.

ASSIGNMENT No.2

to chest pain and leg cramps. Petitioner was declared fit to return to work since the
diagnosis of the company-designated physician already showed controlled
hypertension with the concomitant advice, of continuous medication for life. Petitioner
thereafter executed a release and quitclaim in favour of respondents wherein he
acknowledged receipt of a sum of money corresponding to his sickness allowance,
thereby releasing his employer from future claims and actions. Despite the execution
of the release and quitclaim, petitioner filed a complaint against respondents before
the Arbitration Branch of NLRC to claim full disability benefits. The LA dismissed the
complaint of petitioner considering that the certifications he presented do not
outweigh the company-designated physicians fit to work assessment. NLRC reversed
LAs decision but CA affirmed the latters decision holding that NLRC gravely abused
its discretion.

23

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

17. RUBEN DEL CASTILLO @ BOY V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 185128 January 30, 2012
PERALTA, J.:
FACTS: Police officers headed by SPO3 Bienvenido Masnayon, after conducting
surveillance and test-buy operation at the house of petitioner, secured a search
warrant from the RTC, went to Gil Tudtud St., Mabolo, Cebu City to serve the search
warrant to petitioner. Upon arrival, somebody shouted raid. , SPO3 Masnayon
claimed that he saw petitioner run towards a small structure, a nipa hut, in front of
his house. Masnayon chased him but to no avail. He guarded the place while his
men went to get assistance of a barangay tanod. They searched the place, including
the nipa hut, and found nothing but one of the barangay tanods was able to
confiscate from the nipa hut several plastics packs of shabu. Castillo was charged of
illegal possession of prohibited drugs. In is defense, he claimed that he was outside
that day working and that he learned from his wife that police operatives searched his
house and found nothing. He added that the nipa hut, 20 meters away from his
house where they found the confiscated items, was owned by his older brother and
was used as a storage place by his father. RTC found him guilty and the CA affirmed
the latters decision. He filed a petition for certiorari and argued that the evidence
gathered were inadmissible against him because the nipa hut is no longer within the
permissible area that may be searched by the police officers due to the distance and
that the search warrant did not include the same nipa hut as one of the places to be
searched. The OSG, on the other hand, argued that the constitutional guaranty
against unreasonable searches and seizure is applicable only against government
authorities and not to private individuals such as the barangay tanod who found the
folded paper containing packs of shabu inside the nipa hut.

ASSIGNMENT No.2

Likewise significant is the fact that it took petitioner more than a year before
disputing the declaration of fitness to work by the company-designated physician.
Petitioner filed a claim for disability benefit on the basis of Dr. Vicaldo and Dr. Cajas
medical certifications which were issued after five and 10 months, respectively, from
the company-designated physicians declaration of fit to work. Unfortunately, apart
from the reasons already stated, these certifications could not be given any credence
as petitioners health condition could have changed during the interim period due to
different factors such as petitioners poor compliance with his medications as in fact
mentioned by Dr. Caja in the medical certificate she issued. As such, the said medical
certifications cannot effectively controvert the fit to work assessment earlier made.

ISSUE: Whether the search and seizure made by the officers is valid.

24

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

RULING: No. It must be remembered that the warrant issued must particularly
describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized in order for it to
be valid. A designation or description that points out the place to be searched to the
exclusion of all others, and on inquiry unerringly leads the peace officers to it,
satisfies the constitutional requirement of definiteness.
In the present case, Search Warrant specifically designates or describes the residence
of the petitioner as the place to be searched. Incidentally, the items were seized by
a barangay tanod in a nipa hut, 20 meters away from the residence of the
petitioner. The confiscated items, having been found in a place other than the one
described in the search warrant, can be considered as fruits of an invalid warrantless
search, the presentation of which as an evidence is a violation of petitioner's
constitutional guaranty against unreasonable searches and seizure.
Having been established that the assistance of the barangay tanods was sought
by the police authorities who effected the searched warrant, the same barangay
tanods therefore acted as agents of persons in authority (. Article 152 of the Revised
Penal Code). The Local Government Code also contains a provision which describes
the function of a barangay tanod as an agent of persons in authority.
Thus, the search conducted was unreasonable and the confiscated items are
inadmissible in evidence. Acquitted.

ASSIGNMENT No.2

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

18. SEC, NBI, DOJ NATIONAL V. RIZZA G. MENDOZA, CARLITO LEE,

GRESHIELA G. COMPENDIO, RAUL RIVERA, REY BELTRAN, REX ALMOJUELA,
LINDA P. CAPALUNGAN, HILDA R. RONQUILLO, MA. LODA CALMA, TERESITA P.
ALMOJUELA, RUFINA ABAD and AMADOR A. PASTRANA.
G.R. No. 170425 April 23, 2012
ABAD, J.:
Facts: the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 63, issued search
warrant covering documents and articles found at the offices of Amador Pastrana and
Rufina Abad upon application by NBI as these were used to violate Republic Act 8799,
also known as the Securities Regulation Code (SRC), and commit estafa. NBI searched
the described documents and shortly after filed criminal complaint against Mendoza,
Pastrana, Abad, et al for violation of SRC. Simultaneously, Mendoza filed a petition for
prohibition and injunction before RTC of Muntinlupa , and Pastrana and Abad filed a
Motion to Quash the subject search warrant.
RTC Muntinlupa Case:

25

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

Mendoza, et al. alleged that NBI and SEC violated Section 1, Rule 126 of the Rules on
Criminal Procedure,[5] which required the officers who conducted the seizure to
immediately turn over the seized items to the issuing court as it took them three
months after the search and seizure to turn over the documents. They feared that the
seized articles may have already been tampered with, altered, or augmented by those
responsible for seizing them. Opposing the petition, the SEC, the NBI, and the DOJ
(the three agencies) averred that injunction may not be issued as Mendoza, et al.
should have exhausted administrative remedies available to them at the DOJ. Writ of
Preliminary of Injunction was issued. The three agencies appealed with CA.

Pastrana and Abad filed with the Makati RTC a motion to quash the subject search
warrant for having been issued in connection with several offenses when the Rules of
Criminal Procedure[9] require its issuance for only one specific offense. Makati RTC
rendered a decision nullifying the search warrant it issued and declaring the
documents and articles seized under it inadmissible in evidence.
CAs Decision:

ASSIGNMENT No.2

RTC Makati Case:

For some reason, the CA did not mention the Makati RTC order and did not dismiss
the petition before it on ground of mootness. CA rendered judgment, denied the three
agencies petition, and affirmed the orders of the Muntinlupa RTC. Hence, they filed
the present petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE: Whether the CA erred in holding that the Muntinlupa RTC has jurisdiction to
entertain Mendoza, et al.s injunction action.
RULING: Yes. Questions concerning both 1) the issuance of the search warrant
and 2) the suppression of evidence seized under it are matters that can be raised
only with the issuing court if, as in the present case, no criminal action has in
the meantime been filed in court. Thus:
Section 14. Motion to quash a search warrant or to suppress
evidence; where to file. A motion to quash a search warrant and/or to
suppress evidence obtained thereby may be filed in and acted upon
only by the court where the action has been instituted. If no criminal
action has been instituted, the motion may be filed in and resolved
by the court that issued the search warrant. However, if such court
failed to resolve the motion and a criminal case is subsequently filed in
another court, the motion shall be resolved by the latter court.

26

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

But the rules do not require Mendoza, et al. to be parties to the search warrant
proceeding for them to be able to file a motion to suppress. It is not correct to say
that only the parties to the application for search warrant can question its
issuance or seek suppression of evidence seized under it. The proceeding for the
issuance of a search warrant does not partake of an action where a party
complains of a violation of his right by another.

19. MARGARITA AMBRE Y CAYUNI V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES .

G.R. No. 191532 August 15, 2012
MENDOZA, J.:

ASSIGNMENT No.2

Dispositive: the Court REVERSED the decision of the and ORDERED the dismissal of
the action for prohibition and injunction that respondents Mendoza et al, filed with
the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City for lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the same.

FACTS: On or about April 20, 2005, the Caloocan Police Station Anti-Illegal DrugSpecial Operation Unit conducted a buy-bust operation pursuant to a tip from a police
informant that a certain Abdullah Sultan and his wife Ina Aderp was engaged in the
selling of dangerous drugs at a residential compound in Caloocan City. The buy-bust
operation resulted in the arrest of Aderp and a certain Moctar Tagoranao. Sultan run
away from the scene of the entrapment operation and PO3 Moran, PO2 Masi and PO1
Mateo pursued him. In the course of the chase, Sultan led the said police officers to
his house; that inside the house, the police operatives found Ambre, Castro and
Mendoza having a pot session hence they were arrested. Ambre and her co-accused
were charge of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia and illegal use of prohibited
drugs (shabu). Ambre plead not guilty and defended that she was inside the
compound to buy malong then few minutes later the policemen barged in and arrested
her. RTC acquitted amber for the charge of illegal possession but was found guilty for
the illegal use of prohibited drugs. CA affirmed said decision. Hence this petition.
ISSUES: Whether the warrantless arrest of Ambre and the search of her person was
valid. Whether the items seized are inadmissible in evidence.
RULING: Yes and yes.
The Constitution mandates that a search and seizure must be carried out
through or on the strength of a judicial warrant predicated upon the existence of

27

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

This exclusionary rule is not, however, an absolute and rigid proscription. One of the
recognized exception established by jurisprudence is search incident to a lawful
arrest.15 In this exception, the law requires that a lawful arrest must precede the
search of a person and his belongings. As a rule, an arrest is considered legitimate if
effected with a valid warrant of arrest. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure, however, recognizes permissible warrantless arrests:
"Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A peace officer or a private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

ASSIGNMENT No.2

probable cause, absent which such search and seizure becomes "unreasonable"
within the meaning of said constitutional provision. Evidence obtained and
confiscated on the occasion of such an unreasonable search and seizure is tainted and
should be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree. In the language
of the fundamental law, it shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any
proceeding.

(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge
of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined
while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.
In arrest in flagrante delicto, the accused is apprehended at the very moment
he is committing or attempting to commit or has just committed an offense in
the presence of the arresting officer. Clearly, to constitute a valid in flagrante
delicto arrest, two requisites must concur: (1) 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 (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within
the view of the arresting officer.
In the case at bench, there is no gainsaying that Ambre was caught by the police
officers in the act of using shabu and, thus, can be lawfully arrested without a
warrant. Suffice it to state that prior justification for intrusion or prior lawful
intrusion is not an element of an arrest in flagrante delicto. Thus, even granting
arguendo that the apprehending officers had no legal right to be present in the
dwelling of Sultan, it would not render unlawful the arrest of Ambre, who was seen

28

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

sniffing shabu with Castro and Mendoza in a pot session by the police officers. The
Court holds that Ambre is deemed to have waived her objections to her arrest for not
raising them before entering her plea.18

20. HPS SOFTWARE AND COMMUNICATION CORPORATION and HYMAN YAP V.

PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCETELEPHONE COMPANY (G.R. No. 170217)
X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY V. HPS SOFTWARE AND
COMMUNICATION CORPORATION including its Incorporators, Directors, Officers
G.R. No. 170694
(December 10, 2012
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

ASSIGNMENT No.2

Considering that the warrantless arrest of Ambre was valid, the subsequent search
and seizure done on her person was likewise lawful. After all, a legitimate warrantless
arrest necessarily cloaks the arresting police officer with authority to validly search
and seize from the offender (1) dangerous weapons, and (2) those that may be used as
proof of the commission of an offense.

FACTS: Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF) applied for the
issuance of search warrant for Violation of Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code
for Theft of Telephone Services and for Violation of P.D. 401 for unauthorized
installation of telephone communication equipments following the complaint of
the PLDT that they were able to monitor the use of the respondents in their
premises of Mabuhay card and equipments capable of receiving and
transmitting calls from the USA to the Philippines without these calls passing
through the facilities of PLDT. Complainants witnesses conducted a test call
using Mabuhay Card and discovered in the course of their test calls that PLDT
telephone lines/numbers were identified as the calling party. They testified that
the test calls passing through the Mabuhay Card were being reflected as local
calls only and not overseas calls thus making the international long distance
calls appear as local calls, to the damage and prejudice of PLDT which is
deprived of revenues as a result thereof. They discovered that the lines were
subscribed by Philip Yap whose address is HPS Software Communication
Corporation. The trial court issued the search warrant and it was implemented.
Subsequently, corresponding information filed against HPS and Yap.
Yap filed a Motion to Quash and/or Suppress Illegally Seized Evidence. HPS
Corporation filed a Motion to Quash Search Warrant and Return. Both
pleadings sought to quash the search warrants at issue on the grounds that the
same did not refer to a specific offense, that there was no probable cause, and

29

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

that the search warrants were general warrants and were wrongly implemented.
Before PLDT could submit its memorandum, RTC granted to quash the search
warrant and return the things seized. Hence PLDT filed separate notice of
appeal and certiorari.

PLDTs Certiorari: PLDT alleged that they weres deprived of due process when the trial
court expeditiously released the items seized by virtue of the subject search
warrants without waiting for PLDT to file its memorandum and despite the fact
that the order was not yet final and executory. CA resolved in favor of PLDT.
HPS MR denied. Hence, this petition for certiorari by HPS (G.R. No. 170217).
ISSUES: (1) Whether the two search warrants were improperly quashed? (2)Whether
the subject warrants are in the nature of general warrants? (3) Whether the
release of the items seized by virtues of the subject search warrants was
proper?

ASSIGNMENT No.2

PLDTs Appeal: PLDT argued that two search warrants were improperly quashed. CA
affirmed the decision of RTC. CA concluded that no test calls using the same
Mabuhay card were actually made by PLDTs witnesses when it applied for a
search warrant against HPS C, otherwise, the Mabuhay card should have had
less than $10.00 value left in it before it was used in the test calls conducted at
the NTC-Region VII office and in open court. Hence, this petition for certiorari
by PLDT (G.R. No. 170694).

RULING: (1) Yes.This Court has consistently held that the validity of the issuance of a
search warrant rests upon the following factors: (1) it must be issued upon
probable cause; (2) the probable cause must be determined by the judge himself
and not by the applicant or any other person; (3) in the determination of
probable cause, the judge must examine, under oath or affirmation, the
complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce; and (4) the warrant
issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons and
things to be seized. Probable cause, as a condition for the issuance of a
search warrant, is such reasons supported by facts and circumstances as
will warrant a cautious man to believe that his action and the means taken
in prosecuting it are legally just and proper. It requires facts and
circumstances that would lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that an
offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with that
offense are in the place to be searched.
In Microsoft Corporation v. Maxicorp, Inc.,53 this Court held that the quantum
of evidence required to prove probable cause is not the same quantum of
evidence needed to establish proof beyond reasonable doubt which is

30

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

This Court cannot subscribe to CAs hasty conclusion because the determination of
whether or not test calls were indeed made by PLDT on Mabuhay card cannot
be ascertained solely by checking the value reflected on the aforementioned
Mabuhay card. In fact, reliance on this method of verification is fraught with
questions that strike deep into the capability of the said Mabuhay card to
automatically and accurately reflect the fact that it had indeed been used by
PLDTs witnesses to make test calls. PLDT never represented that the Mabuhay
card had an accurate recording system that would automatically deduct the
value of a call from the value of the card at the time the call was made.
Certainly, PLDT was not in a position to make such an assertion as it did not
have a hand in the production and programming of said Mabuhay card.

ASSIGNMENT No.2

required in a criminal case that may be subsequently filed. We ruled in this

case that:
The determination of probable cause does not call for the application of
rules and standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after
trial on the merits. As implied by the words themselves, probable cause
is concerned with probability, not absolute or even moral certainty. The
prosecution need not present at this stage proof beyond reasonable
doubt. The standards of judgment are those of a reasonably prudent
man, not the exacting calibrations of a judge after a full-blown trial.

(2) No. A search warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be
searched and persons or things to be seized in order for it to be valid,
otherwise, it is considered as a general warrant which is proscribed by
both jurisprudence and the 1987 Constitution. In Uy Kheytin v. Villareal, we
explained the purpose of the aforementioned requirement for a valid search
warrant, to wit:
[A] search warrant should particularly describe the place to be searched
and the things to be seized. The evident purpose and intent of this
requirement is to limit the things to be seized to those, and only those,
particularly described in the search warrant x x x what articles they
shall seize, to the end that unreasonable searches and seizures may not
be made, - that abuses may not be committed. x x x
This Court finds that the subject search warrants are not general warrants because
the items to be seized were sufficiently identified physically and were also
specifically identified by stating their relation to the offenses charged which are
Theft and Violation of Presidential Decree No. 401 through the conduct of illegal
ISR activities.

31

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

(3) No. As properly pointed out by PLDT, Order of the respondent judge is not
immediately executory. It is a final order which disposes of the action or
proceeding and which may be the subject of an appeal. From the foregoing, it is
clear that execution may issue only upon motion by a party and only upon the
expiration of the period to appeal, if no appeal has been perfected. Otherwise, if
an appeal has been duly perfected, the parties would have to wait for the final
resolution of the appeal before it may execute the judgment or final order
except for instances where an execution pending appeal is granted by the
proper court of law.

21. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. REYNALDO BELOCURA y PEREZ

G.R. No. 173474
August 29, 2012
BERSAMIN, J.:
FACTS: On March 22, 1999, at 11 oclock in the morning, Chief Insp. Divina, received
a call from a male person who refused to identify himself. The caller tipped him off
about a robbery to be staged along Lopez Street, Tondo, Manila. Thereafter he was
immediately order to form a team, they positioned themselves to aforesaid street and
spotted an owner-type jeep bearing a spurious government plate. The team pursued
the driver, which is Belocura, signaled him to stop but was ignored and sped off the
car. Later, the team was able to blocked Becolo's path and they approach Belocura.
Divina and his team queried Belocura about the plate no., confiscated his pistol that
was tucked in his waist and arrested him. SPO2 Santos searched the jeep and
recovered a red plastic bag containing a marijuana wrapped in newspaper. On the
other hand, Belocura denied owning or possessing the bricks of marijuana, saying
that he only sees the marijuana for the first time in the court. On re-direct
examination, Belocura replied that he did not see the bricks of marijuana whether at
the time of his arrest, or at the police precinct, or during the inquest proceedings. On
re-cross, he clarified that while the drivers seat were fixed to the jeep, the bricks of
marijuana could nevertheless be placed under the drivers seat only if pressed hard
enough, but in that case the wrappings would get torn because the wirings of the car
underneath the seat were exposed. He recalled that the wrappings of the bricks of
marijuana were intact.
RTC convicted Belocura. On appeal, CA affirmed. Hence, this petition. Belocura
argues that his arrest and the ensuing search of his vehicle and recovery of the
incriminating bricks of marijuana were in violation of his aforementioned rights under
the Constitution because he was then violating only a simple traffic rule on the illegal
use of a government plate. He claims that the arresting policemen had no probable
cause to search his vehicle for anything.

ASSIGNMENT No.2

Dispositive: Petition for Certiorari by HPS was denied. Petition for Certiorari by PLDT
granted.

32

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

RULING: YES. The constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and

seizures admits of the following exceptions, namely: (a) warrantless search incidental
to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court;19 (b)
seizure of evidence under plain view; (c) search of a moving vehicle; (d) consented
warrantless search; (e) customs search; (f) stop-and-frisk situations (Terry search); and
(g) exigent and emergency circumstances.20 In these exceptional situations, the
necessity for a search warrant is dispensed with.
Belocura was caught in flagrante delicto violating Section 31 of Republic Act
No. 4139 (The Land Transportation and Traffic Code). In flagrante delicto means
in the very act of committing the crime. To be caught in flagrante delicto
necessarily implies the positive identification of the culprit by an eyewitness or
eyewitnesses. Such identification is a direct evidence of culpability, because it "proves
the fact in dispute without the aid of any inference or presumption." Even by his own
admission, he was actually committing a crime in the presence or within the view of
the arresting policemen. Such manner by which Belocura was apprehended fell under
the first category in Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. The arrest was valid,
therefore, and the arresting policemen thereby became cloaked with the
authority to validly search his person and effects for weapons or any other
article he might use in the commission of the crime or was the fruit of the crime
or might be used as evidence in the trial of the case, and to seize from him and
the area within his reach or under his control, like the jeep, such weapon or
other article. The evident purpose of the incidental search was to protect the
arresting policemen from being harmed by him with the use of a concealed
weapon. Accordingly, the warrantless character of the arrest could not by itself
be the basis of his acquittal.

ASSIGNMENT No.2

ISSUE: Whether the warrantless search on Belocura's jeep was legal.

22) CENTURY CHINESE MEDICINE CO., V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and

LING NA LAU
G.R. No. 188526
November 11, 2013
PERALTA, J.:
FACTS: Respondent Ling Na Lau, doing business under the name and style Worldwide
Pharmacy, is the sole distributor and registered trademark owner of TOP GEL T.G. &
DEVICE OF A LEAF papaya whitening soap for a period of ten years. Her
representative, Ping Na Lau, (Ping) wrote a letter addressed to National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI), requesting assistance for an investigation on several drugstores

33

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

which were selling counterfeit whitening papaya soaps bearing the general appearance
of their products. NBI found that the request of Ping was true and from a list of
drugstores who sells the whitening soap was included herein petitioners Century
Chinese Medicine Co., NBI applied for the issuance of search warrants before RTC,
Branch 143, Makati City, against petitioners and other establishments for violations
Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines. Section 168, in relation to Section 170,
penalizes unfair competition; while Section 155, in relation to Section 170, punishes
trademark infringement. RTC granted the search warrants. petitioners collectively
filed their Motion to Quash the Search Warrants. Thereafter, compromise agreement
entered between petitioner and ping, which was approved. Meanwhile, the Motion to
quash filed by petitioner was sustain. In quashing the search warrants, the RTC
applied the Rules on Search and Seizure for Civil Action in Infringement of Intellectual
Property Rights. That at the time of the filing of the application for the search
warrants, there is yet no determination of the alleged right of respondent over the
subject trademark/tradename. On appeal, CA reversed the RTCs ruling. In reversing
the RTC's quashal of the search warrants, the CA found that the search warrants were
applied for and issued for violations of Sections 155 and 168, in relation to Section
170, of the Intellectual Property Code and that the applications for the search
warrants were in anticipation of criminal actions which are to be instituted against
petitioners; thus, Rule 126 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure was applicable. It also
ruled that the basis for the applications for issuance of the search warrants on
grounds of trademarks infringement and unfair competition was the trademark TOP
GEL T.G. & DEVICE OF A LEAF; that respondent was the registered owner of the said
trademark, which gave her the right to enforce and protect her intellectual property
rights over it by seeking assistance from the NBI. Hence, this petition. Petitioners next
contend that the CA's ruling on the applicability of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court that
the search warrants were issued in anticipation of a criminal action was only based on
respondent's claim which was only brought for the first time in her appellant's brief

ASSIGNMENT No.2

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

ISSUE: Whether CA erred in reversing the RTC's quashal of the assailed search
warrants.
RULING: NO. A core requisite before a warrant shall validly issue is the existence of a
probable cause, meaning "the existence of such facts and circumstances which would
lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been
committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place
to be searched." And when the law speaks of facts, the reference is to facts, data or
information personally known to the applicant and the witnesses he may present.
Absent the element of personal knowledge by the applicant or his witnesses of the
facts upon which the issuance of a search warrant may be justified, the warrant is
deemed not based on probable cause and is a nullity, its issuance being, in legal
contemplation, arbitrary.

34

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

It bears stressing that the basis for the applications for issuances of the search
warrants on grounds of trademark infringement and unfair competition is the
trademark TOP GEL T.G. & DEVICE OF A LEAF. Private complainant-appellant was
issued a Certificate of Registration No. 4-2000-009881 of said trademark on August
24, 2003 by the Intellectual Property Office, and is thus considered the lawful holder
of the said trademark. Being the registrant and the holder of the same, private
complainant-appellant had the authority to enforce and protect her intellectual
property rights over it. This prompted her to request for assistance from the agents of
the NBI, who thereafter conducted a series of investigation, test buys and inspection
regarding the alleged trademark infringement by herein respondents-appellees.
Subsequently, Ping Na Lau, private complainant-appellants representative, issued a
certification with the finding that the examined goods were counterfeit. This prompted
the NBI agents to apply for the issuances of search warrants against the respondentsappellees. Said applications for the search warrants were granted after by Judge
Laguilles after examining under oath the applicant Agent Furing of the NBI and his
witnesses Ping Na Lau and Junayd R. Ismael.
Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the requisites for the issuance of the search
warrants had been complied with and that there is probable cause to believe that an
offense had been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the
offense were in the places to be searched. The offense pertains to the alleged violations
committed by respondents-appellees upon the intellectual property rights of herein
private complainant-appellant, as holder of the trademark TOP GEL T.G. & DEVICE
OF A LEAF under Certificate of Registration No. 4-2000-009881, issued on August 24,
2003 by the Intellectual Property Office

ASSIGNMENT No.2

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

23. RAMON MARTINEZ y GOCO/RAMON GOCO y MARTINEZ @ MON V. PEOPLE

OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 198694
February 13, 2013
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
FACTS: At around 9:15 in the evening of December 29, 2007, PO2 Roberto Soque (PO2
Soque), PO2 Alejandro Cepe(PO2 Cepe) and PO3Edilberto Zeta (PO3 Zeta), who wereall
assigned tothe Station Anti-Illegal Drugs (SAID) Section of the Malate Police Station 9
(Police Station 9), conducted a routine foot patrol along Balingkit Street, Malate,
Manila. In the process, they heard a man shouting "Putanginamo!
Limangdaannabaito?" For purportedly violating Manila City Ordinance which punishes
breaches of the peace, the man, later identified as Ramon,was apprehended and asked
to empty his pockets. In the course thereof, the police officers were able to recover
from him a small transparent plastic sachet which later examined as a shabu.
Consequently, Ramon was charged with possession of dangerous drugs. In defense,
Ramon denied the charge and narrated that while walking, he was approached by

35

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

civilian asriving if he is Ramon Goco.Upon affirming his identity he was immediately

handcuffed. The RTC convicted him. On appeal, CA affirmed the decision. Hence this
petition.

RULING: NO. A valid warrantless arrest which justifies a subsequent search is one
that is carried out under the parameters of Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of
Court which requires that the apprehending officer must have been spurred by
probable cause to arresta person caught in flagrante delicto. To be sure,the term
probable cause has been understood to mean a reasonable ground of suspicion
supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious
man's belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged.
To elucidate, it cannot be said that the act of shouting in a thickly-populated
place, with many people conversing with each other on the street, would constitute any
of the acts punishable under Section 844 of the Manila City Ordinance as abovequoted. Ramon was not making or assisting in any riot, affray, disorder, disturbance,
or breach of the peace; he was not assaulting, beating or using personal violence upon
another; and, the words he allegedly shouted "Putanginamo! Limangdaannabaito?"
are not slanderous, threatening or abusive, and thus, could not have tended to disturb
the peace or excite a riot considering that at the time of the incident, Balingkit Street
was still teeming with people and alive with activity.
Consequently, as it cannot be said that Ramon was validly arrested the
warantless search that resulted from it was also illegal. Thus, the
subject shabu purportedly seized from Ramon is inadmissible in evidence for being the
(unreadable portion)

ASSIGNMENT No.2

ISSUE: Whether the warrantless search as a result of a warrantless arrest is valid.

24. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. HADJI SOCOR CADIDIA

G.R. No. 191263
October 16, 2013
PEREZ, J.:
FACTS: Marilyn Trayvilla (Trayvilla), while performing her duty as a female frisker
assigned at the Manila Domestic Airport Terminal I (domestic airport) in Pasay City,
frisked the accused Cadidia upon her entry at the departure area 4 and she noticed
something unusual and thick in the area of Cadidias buttocks. Upon inquiry, Cadidia
answered that it was only her sanitary napkin which caused the unusual
thickness.5Not convinced with Cadidias explanation, Trayvilla and her female coemployee Leilani M. Bagsican (Bagsican) brought the accused to the comfort room
inside the domestic airport to check. When she and Bagsican asked Cadidia to remove
her underwear, they discovered that inside were two sachets of shabu. On the other
hand, Candidas version, she proceeded to the departure area of the domestic. When

36

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

ISSUE: Whether there was a valid searched.

RULING: YES. Airport frisking is an authorized form of search and seizure As held
in similar cases of People v Johnson and People v Canton, this Court affirmed the
conviction or the accused Leila Reyes Johnson and Susan Canton for violation of
drugs law when they were found to be in hiding in their body illegal drugs upon
airport frisking. The Court in both cases explained the rationale for the validity of
airport frisking thus:
Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause by exposure
or their persons or property to the public in a manner reflecting a lack or
subjective expectation of privacy, which expectation society is prepared to
recognize as reasonable. Such recognition is implicit in airport security
procedures. With increased concern over airplane hijacking and terrorism has come
increased security at the nations airports. Passengers attempting to hoard an aircraft
routinely pass through metal detectors: their carry-on baggage as well as checked
luggage arc routinely subjected to x-ray scans. Should these procedures suggest the
presence of suspicious objects. physical searches are conducted to determine what the
objects are. There is little question that such searches are reasonable, given their
minimal intrusiveness, the gravity or the safety interests involved, and the
reduced privacy expectations associated with airline travel. Indeed. travellers
are often notified through airport public address systems, signs, and notices in
their airline tickets that the are subject to search and. if any prohibited
materials or substances are found, such would he subject to seizure. These
announcements place passengers on notice that ordinary constitutional
protections against warrantless searches and seizures do not apply to routine
airport procedures

ASSIGNMENT No.2

she passed-by the x-ray machine, two women, whom she later identified as Trayvilla
and Bagsican, apprehended her. Trayvilla and Bagsican held her arms and asked her
if she was a Muslim. When she replied in the affirmative, the two women said that she
might be carrying gold or jewelries. Despite her denial, Trayvilla and Bagsican brought
her to the comfort room and told her she might be carrying shabu. She again denied
the allegation but the two women told her to undress. When she asked why, they
answered that her back was bulging. In reply, she told them that she was having her
menstrual period. Trayvilla and Bagsican did not believe her and proceeded to ask her
to remove her underwear. They later frisked her body but failed to recover
anything. Thereafter, the two women asked for money as they allegedly recovered two
plastic sachets containing shabu from her. RTC found him guilty of charged. On a
ppeal, CA affirmed the decision. Hence, this review.

37

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

25. WORLDWIDE WEB CORPORATION and CHERRYLL L. YU V.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE
COMPANY
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 161266
PLANET INTERNET CORP. V. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE
COMPANY
G.R. No. 161106
January 13, 2014

FACTS: Police Chief Inspector Napoleon Villegas of the Regional Intelligence Special
Operations Office (RISOO) of the Philippine National Police filed applications for
warrants before the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 78, to search the office premises of
petitioner Worldwide Web Corporation (WWC) located at the 11th floor, IBM Plaza
Building, No. 188 Eastwood City, Libis, Quezon City, as well as the office premises of
petitioner Planet Internet Corporation (Planet Internet) located at UN 2103, 21/F
Orient Square Building, Emerald Avenue, Barangay San Antonio, Pasig City.
The applications alleged that petitioners were conducting illegal toll bypass operations,
which amounted to theft and violation of Presidential Decree No. 401 (Penalizing the
Unauthorized Installation of Water, Electrical or Telephone Connections, the Use of
Tampered Water or Electrical Meters and Other Acts), to the damage and prejudice of
the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT).
On 26 September 2001, the RTC granted the application for search warrants
The warrants were implemented on the same day by RISOO operatives of the National
Capital Region Police Office.

ASSIGNMENT No.2

SERENO, CJ:

PLDT filed a Consolidated Opposition to the motions to quash.

The RTC granted the motions to quash on the ground that the warrants issued were
in the nature of general warrants. Thus, the properties (cables, modems, computers,
antennas and much more) seized under the said warrants were ordered released to
petitioners.
The CA reversed and set aside the assailed RTC Resolutions and declared the search
warrants valid and effective
ISSUE: Whether the CA erred in giving due course to PLDTs appeal despite the
following procedural infirmities:
1. PLDT, without the conformity of the public prosecutor, had no personality to
question the quashal of the search warrants;
2. PLDT assailed the quashal orders via an appeal rather than a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

38

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

2. An order quashing a search warrant, which was issued independently prior to the
filing of a criminal action, partakes of a final order that can be the proper subject of an
appeal. So appeal was valid.
26. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. JOSELITO BERAN y ZAPANTA @ "Jose
G.R. No. 203028
January 15, 2014
REYES, J.:

ASSIGNMENT No.2

RULING: NO CA did not err. 1. An application for a search warrant is not a criminal
action; conformity of the public prosecutor is not necessary to give the aggrieved party
personality to question an order quashing search warrants.
a search warrant is obtained, not by the filing of a complaint or an information, but by
the filing of an application therefor. The general rule is that under sec 5 rule 110
ROC; the public prosecutor has direction and control of the prosecution of "(a)ll
criminal actions commenced by a complaint or information." However, a search
warrant is obtained, not by the filing of a complaint or an information, but by the filing
of an application therefor.

FACTS: On or about August 26, 2003, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said
accused, not having been authorized by law to sell, trade, deliver or give away any
dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell or offer for
sale to a poseur buyer one (1) pc. plastic sachet containing ZERO POINT ZERO THREE
ZERO (0.030) gram of white crystalline substance known as SHABU containing
methylamphetamine hydrochloride, which is a dangerous drugs:
According to the prosecution, between three and four o'clock in the afternoon of
August 26, 2003,4 a confidential informant (CI) went to the District Anti-Illegal
Drug (DAID) Office of the Western Police District (WPD) at the United Nations
Avenue, Manila, and approached Police Officer 3 (PO3) Rodolfo Enderina
(Enderina) to report that a certain Joselito Beran, alias "Jose," a pedicab driver,
was selling prohibited drugs, particularly "shabu," in the vicinity of San Antonio
Street in Tondo, Manila. P03 Enderina relayed the information to Police Colonel
Marcelino Pedroso, Chief of DAID-WPD, who then ordered him to form a buybust team to apprehend the suspect. At around 5 :00 p.m., the buy-bust team,
composed of PO3 Enderina, PO3 Hipolito Francia, PO3 Benito Decorion
(Decorion), PO2 Ernie Reyes, PO2 Alexander Delos Santos (Delos Santos) and
PO3 Knowme Sia (Sia), who was to act as the poseur-buyer, arrived in Tondo on
board an owner-type jeep and two scooters. In the jeep were PO3 Enderina, PO2
Delos Santos, and the CI, while the rest of the team rode in the scooters. They
parked near the Gat Andres Hospital and proceeded on foot towards San
Antonio Street. As arranged, PO3 Sia and the CI walked ahead of the others.

39

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

After recognizing and pointing Beran to PO3 Sia, the CI approached him and
the two men conversed briefly. Then the CI signaled to PO3 Sia to join them,
and he introduced PO3 Sia to Beran, who then asked the CI how much PO3 Sia
was buying. The CI replied, ''piso lang," or P100, and Beran took out something
from his pocket, a small, heat-sealed plastic sachet, which he then handed to
PO3 Sia. PO3 Sia took the sachet and pretended to examine it discretely, after
which he indicated to Beran that he was satisfied with its content. He then took
out a marked P100 bill which he handed to Beran; all this time the back-up
members of the buy-bust team were watching from strategic locations around
the vicinity.
Thereupon, PO3 Sia executed the pre-arranged signal of touching his
hair to signify to the back-up cops that the buy-bust sale of shabu had been
consummated, even as he then placed Beran under arrest. The back-up
operatives quickly converged upon Beran, with PO2 Delos Santos arriving first,
to whom PO3 Sia then handed over the custody of Beran, while he kept the
plastic sachet. The buy-bust team brought Beran to the DAID-WPD office, where
PO3 Sia marked the confiscated plastic sachet with the initials of Beran, JB. He
also recorded the incident in the police blotter, and accomplished the Booking
Sheet and Arrest Report (Exhibit F and F-1), and the Request for Laboratory
Examination (Exhibit G and G-1. He later brought the seized plastic sachet to
the WPD Crime Laboratory for examination, where after testing it was found to
contain the prohibited drug methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.5

ASSIGNMENT No.2

PO3 Sia and the CI reached the target area first, and there the CI saw Beran
standing some 10 meters away near a ''poso" or deep-well.

In his defense, Beran vehemently denied the above incident. Testifying

alone in his defense, he asserted that on August 26, 2003 at around 2:00 p.m.,
while he was resting alone upstairs in his house, five WPD policemen arrived
and ordered him to come with them. He resisted and asked why they were
arresting him, but without apprising him of his constitutional rights they
handcuffed and forcibly boarded him in an owner-type jeep and brought him to
the WPD Headquarters. There, two of his arrestors, PO3 Francia and PO3 Sia,
demanded from him the amount of P20,000.00 in exchange for his release
without any charge. But he could not produce the amount they asked, and they
trumped up a charge against him of illegal sale of shabu.6
The trial of Beran took all of seven years to wind up, mainly on account
of many postponements allegedly due to supervening illnesses or reassignments
of the subpoenaed arresting officers. The prosecution was able to present two
witnesses, PO3 Francia and PO3 Sia, but only PO3 Sia gave a witness account
of the drug buy-bust itself. PO3 Francia admitted that he served as a mere look-

40

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

out to prevent any intruder from interfering in the buy-bust operation, and that
he did not witness the buy-bust transaction itself. As for PO3 Decorion, also a
member of the buy-bust team, the RTC per its Order7 dated July 29, 2009
agreed to dispense with his testimony after the parties stipulated that as the
designated driver of the buy-bust team, he did not see the actual exchange of
drug and money between Beran and PO3 Sia, nor did he witness the actual
arrest of Beran by PO3 Sia.

CA further held that the arrest of Beran by PO3 Sia without warrant was valid under
Section 5(b) of Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which provides
that "a police officer or a private person may, without a warrant arrest a person when
an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed it." It also cited Section 5(a) of Rule 113, wherein it provides that "a police
officer can arrest a person without warrant when in his presence the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense."

ASSIGNMENT No.2

Ruling convicted Beran of Life imprisonment. CA affirmed and ruled that Beran was
caught in flagrante delicto as a result of a valid and legitimate buy-bust operation, an
entrapment to apprehend law breakers while in the act of executing their criminal
plan. CA Relying solely on the testimony of PO3 Sia.

ISSUE: Whether, to establish the corpus delicti the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized drug have been preserved in an unbroken chain of custody.
RULING: NO. SC found no unbroken chain of custody, and we rule that the
prosecution failed to establish the very corpus delicti of the crime charged. Beran
must be set free. Evidentiary gaps in the chain of custody of the confiscated plastic
sachet cast reasonable doubt on its integrity.
The RTC and CA both convicted Beran on the basis alone of the uncorroborated
testimony of PO3 Sia, and despite the buy-bust team s unexplained non-observance of
the procedures laid down in Article II, Section 21(a) of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 (about
the photography and Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or
Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory
Equipment)
Also, the operatives rode in separate vehicles on the trip back to the WPD, and PO3
Sia took a scooter with another teammate, who could then have attested as to his
exclusive custody of the subject drug, but that person was not presented to affirm this
fact. So even granting that P03 Sia did mark the same sachet at the precinct, breaks

41

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

in the chain of custody had already taken place, first, when he confiscated it from
Beran without anyone observing him do so and without marking the subject sachet at
the place of apprehension, and then as he was transporting it to the precinct, thus
casting serious doubt upon the value of the said links to prove the corpus delicti.

27. SATURNINO C. OCAMPO V. HON. EPHREM S. ABANDO ETC.

G.R. No. 176830
February 11, 2014
SERENO, CJ.:
FACTS: On 26 August 2006, a mass grave was discovered by elements of the 43rd
Infantry Brigade of the Philippine Army at Sitio Sapang Daco, Barangay Kaulisihan,
Inopacan, Leyte. The mass grave contained skeletal remains of individuals believed to
be victims of "Operation Venereal Disease" (Operation VD) launched by members of the
Communist Party of the Philippines/New Peoples Army/National Democratic Front of
the Philippines (CPP/NPA/NDFP) to purge their ranks of suspected military informers.

ASSIGNMENT No.2

It has been held that "while a perfect chain of custody is almost always impossible to
achieve, an unbroken chain becomes indispensable and essential in the prosecution of
drug cases owing to its susceptibility to alteration, tampering, contamination and even
substitution and exchange.

As a result warrants of arrest were given to the 71 named members of the Communist
Party of the Philippines/New Peoples Army/National Democratic Front of the
Philippines (CPP/NPA/NDFP) of murder, including petitioners herein along with
several other unnamed members.
ISSUE:
1. Whether petitioners were denied due process during preliminary
investigation and in the issuance of the warrants of arrest.
2. Whether the warrant was legal
RULING:
1. NO. Petitioners were accorded due process during preliminary
investigation and in the issuance of the warrants of arrest.
The essence of due process is reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit evidence
in support of one's defense." What is proscribed is lack of opportunity to be heard.
Thus, one who has been afforded a chance to present ones own side of the story
cannot claim denial of due process.
The respondents were issued and served with Subpoena at their last known address
for them to submit their counter-affidavits and that of their witnesses.

42

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

Majority of the respondents did not submit their counter-affidavits because they could
no longer be found in their last known address, per return of the subpoenas. On the
other hand, Saturnino Ocampo @ Satur, Fides Lim, Maureen Palejaro and Ruben
Manatad submitted their Counter-Affidavits. However, Vicente Ladlad and Jasmin
Jerusalem failed to submit the required Counter Affidavits in spite entry of
appearance by their respective counsels.

In this case, the Resolution stated that efforts were undertaken to serve subpoenas on
the named respondents at their last known addresses. This is sufficient for due
process. It was only because a majority of them could no longer be found at their last
known addresses that they were not served copies of the complaint and the attached
documents or evidence.
2. YES. Petitioners Echanis and Baylosis claim that, had Judge Abando painstakingly
examined the records submitted by Prosecutor Vivero, the judge would have inevitably
dismissed the charge against them. The determination of probable cause for the
issuance of warrants of arrest against petitioners is addressed to the sound discretion
of Judge Abando as the trial judge as long as there is no grave abuse of discretion.
Although the Constitution provides that probable cause shall be determined by the
judge after an examination under oath or an affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses, we have ruled that a hearing is not necessary for the determination thereof.
In fact, the judges personal examination of the complainant and the witnesses is not
mandatory and indispensable for determining the aptness of issuing a warrant of
arrest. Because there is another way the examination of the prosecutors report.

ASSIGNMENT No.2

Section 3(d), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, allows Prosecutor Vivero to resolve the
complaint based on the evidence before him if a respondent could not be subpoenaed.
As long as efforts to reach a respondent were made, and he was given an opportunity
to present countervailing evidence, the preliminary investigation remains valid.

28. JOSE JESUS M. DISINI, JR., ROWENA S. DISINI, LIANNE IVY P. MEDINA,
JANETTE TORAL and ERNESTO SONIDO, JR. V. THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE,
THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE INFORMATION AND
COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY OFFICE, THE CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL POLICE and THE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION, ETC.
G.R. No. 203335
February 11, 2014

43

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

FACTS: These consolidated petitions seek to declare several provisions of Republic Act
(R.A.) 10175, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, unconstitutional and void.
The cyber crime prevention act was enacted in 2012 petitioners claim that the
means adopted by the cybercrime law for regulating undesirable cyberspace activities
violate certain of their constitutional rights. The government of course asserts that the
law merely seeks to reasonably put order into cyberspace activities, punish
wrongdoings, and prevent hurtful attacks on the system.
Pending hearing and adjudication of the issues presented in these cases, on
February 5, 2013 the Court extended the original 120-day temporary restraining order
(TRO) that it earlier issued on October 9, 2012, enjoining respondent government
agencies from implementing the cybercrime law until further orders.
The petitioners asked for certain provisions (with regard to our subject criminal
procedure) be unconstitutional:
ISSUE
Whether
the
pertinent
such
provisions
procedure/constitutional law on searches and seizures.

violate

criminal

RULING: Section 12 unconstitutional that authorizes the collection or recording of

traffic data in real-time unconstitutional. RATIO: when seemingly random bits of
traffic data are gathered in bulk, pooled together, and analyzed, they reveal patterns of
activities which can then be used to create profiles of the persons under surveillance.
With enough traffic data, analysts may be able to determine a persons close
associations, religious views, political affiliations, even sexual preferences. Such
information is likely beyond what the public may expect to be disclosed, and clearly
falls within matters protected by the right to privacy. Section 12 does not even bother
to relate the collection of data to the probable commission of a particular crime. It just
says, "with due cause," thus justifying a general gathering of data. It is akin to the use
of a general search warrant that the Constitution prohibits.
Section 19 of the same Act that authorizes the Department of Justice to restrict
or block access to suspected Computer Data.- unconstitutional RATIO: The content of
the computer data can also constitute speech. In such a case, Section 19 operates as a
restriction on the freedom of expression over cyberspace. Certainly not all forms of
speech are protected. Legislature may, within constitutional bounds, declare certain
kinds of expression as illegal. But for an executive officer to seize content alleged to be
unprotected without any judicial warrant, it is not enough for him to be of the opinion
that such content violates some law, for to do so would make him judge, jury, and
executioner all rolled into one.

ASSIGNMENT No.2

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

Section 14 that authorizes the disclosure of computer data under a court-issued

warrant constitutional RATIO: The process envisioned in Section 14 is being likened
to the issuance of a subpoena. Petitioners objection is that the issuance of subpoenas
is a judicial function. But it is well-settled that the power to issue subpoenas is not

44

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

exclusively a judicial function. Executive agencies have the power to issue subpoena as
an adjunct of their investigatory powers.

constitutional
RATIO: Petitioners challenge Section 15 on the assumption that it will supplant
established search and seizure procedures. On its face, however, Section 15 merely
enumerates the duties of law enforcement authorities that would ensure the proper
collection, preservation, and use of computer system or data that have been seized by
virtue of a court warrant. The exercise of these duties do not pose any threat on the
rights of the person from whom they were taken. Section 15 does not appear to
supersede existing search and seizure rules but merely supplements them.

ASSIGNMENT No.2

Section 15 that authorizes the search, seizure, and examination of computer data
under a court-issued warrant
(a) To secure a computer system or a computer data storage medium;
(b) To make and retain a copy of those computer data secured;
(c) To maintain the integrity of the relevant stored computer data;
(d) To conduct forensic analysis or examination of the computer data
storage medium; and
naccessible or remove those computer data in the accessed computer or
computer and communications network.

29. PLDT Co. V. Alvarez

718 SCRA 54
G R No 179408, March 5, 2014

Brion, J:
FACTS: Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) is the grantee of a
legislative franchise which authorizes it to carry on the business of providing basic
and enhanced telecommunications services in and between areas in the Philippines
and between the Philippines and other countries and territories. PLDTs network is
principally composed of the Public Switch Telephone Network, telephone handsets
and/or telecommunications equipment used by its subscribers, the wires and cables
linking these handsets and/or equipment, antennae, transmission facilities, the
international gateway facility (IGF) and other telecommunications equipment providing
interconnections. To safeguard the integrity of its network, PLDT regularly conducts
investigations on various prepaid cards marketed and sold abroad to determine
alternative calling patterns (ACP) and network fraud that are being perpetrated against
it.
To prevent or stop network fraud, PLDTs ACP Detection Division (ACPDD) regularly

45

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

visits foreign countries to conduct market research on various prepaid phone cards
offered abroad that allow their users to make overseas calls to PLDT subscribers in the
Philippines at a cheaper rate.
ACPDD bought The Number One prepaid card a card principally marketed to
Filipinos residing in the United Kingdom for calls to the Philippines. During a test call
placed at the PLDTACPDD office, the receiving phone reflected a PLDT telephone
number (28243285) as the calling number used, the call was originating from a local
telephone in Metro Manila. Upon verification, the ACPDD learned that subscriber of
the reflected telephone number is Abigail Razon Alvarez and further learned that
several lines are installed at the same address with Abigail and Vermon Razon among
others as subscriber. ACPDD validate its findings by conducting same test calls
On November 6, 2003 and November 19, 2003, Mr. Lawrence Narciso of the PLDTs
Quality Control Division, together with the operatives of the Philippine National Police
(PNP), conducted an ocular inspection at 17 Dominic Savio St., Savio Compound and
at No. 38 Indonesia St., Better Living Subdivision both in Barangay Don Bosco,
Paranaque City and discovered that PLDT telephone lines were connected to several
pieces of equipment which prompted Police Superintendent Gilbert Cruz to file a
consolidated application for search warrant before Judge Francisco Mendiola for the
crimes of theft and violation of PD 401. According to PLDT, the respondents are
engaged in the form of network fraud known as International Simple Resale (ISR)
which amounts to theft under the RPC.
Judge Mendiola found probable cause for issuance of search warrants applied
for and four search warrants were issued for violations of Art. 308, in relation to Art.
309 of RPC and of PD 401 as amended
PNP searched the premise indicated in the warrants and made a return with a
complete inventory of the items seized PLDT and PNP filed with the DOJ a joint
complaint affidavit for theft and violation of PD 401 against the respondents.
Respondents filed with the RTC a motion to quash the search warrant on the following
grounds: first, the RTC had no authority to issue search warrants which were enforced
in Paraaque City; second, the enumeration of the items to be searched and seized
lacked particularity; and third, there was no probable cause for the crime of theft.
PLDT opposed the respondents' motion. RTC denied the respondents' motion to quash.
Respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the CA.

ASSIGNMENT No.2

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

ISSUE: Whether the search warrant issued is valid

RULING: Yes. PLDTs evidence shows, sufficiently establishes probable cause for the
issuance of search warrant for the crime of theft.
One of the constitutional requirements for the validity of a search warrant is that it
must be issued based on probable cause which, under the Rules, must be in
connection with one specific offense. In search warrant proceedings, probable cause is
defined as such facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and

46

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

30. Sesbreo V. Court of Appeals

720 SCRA 57
GR No 160689 March 26, 2014
Bersamin, J:
FACTS: VECO was a public utility corporation engaged in the sale and distribution of
electricity within Metropolitan Cebu. Sesbreo was one of VECOs customers under
the metered service contract they had entered.
To ensure that its electric meters were properly functioning, and that none of it meters
had been tampered with, VECO employed respondents Engr. Felipe Constantino and
Ronald Arcilla as violation of contract (VOC) inspectors. VOC conducted a routine
inspection of the houses at La Paloma Village, Labangon, Cebu City, including that of
plaintiff-appellant Sesbreo, for illegal connections, meter tampering, seals, conduit
pipes, jumpers, wiring connections, and meter installations. Bebe Baledio, Sesbreos
maid, unlocked the gate, the VOC team inspected the electric meter and found that it
had been turned upside down. Arcilla took photographs of the upturned electric meter.
With Chuchie Garcia, Peter Sesbreo and one of the maids present, they removed said
meter and replaced it with a new one. At that time, Sesbreo was in his office and no
one called to inform him of the inspection. The VOC Team then asked for and received
Chuchie Garcias permission to enter the house itself to examine the kind and number
of appliances and light fixtures in the household and determine its electrical load.
Afterwards, Chuchie Garcia signed the Inspection Division Report, which showed the
condition of the electric meter on May 11, 1989 when the VOC Team inspected it, with
notice that it would be subjected to a laboratory test. She also signed a Load Survey
Sheet that showed the electrical load of Sesbreo.
Sesbreo countered the inspection by VOC and contented that VOCs entry to his
house and surrounding premise was effected without his permission and over the
objections of hid maids. They threatened, forced or coerced their way into his house.
They unscrewed the electric meter, turned it upside down and took photographs
thereof. They then replaced it with a new electric meter. They searched the house and
its rooms without his permission or a search warrant. They forced a visitor to sign two

ASSIGNMENT No.2

prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects
sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.
In the determination of probable cause, the court must necessarily determine
whether an offense exists to justify the issuance or quashal of the search
warrant because the personal properties that may be subject of the search warrant are
very much intertwined with the one specific offense requirement of probable cause.
Contrary to PLDTs claim, the only way to determine whether a warrant should issue
in connection with one specific offense is to juxtapose the facts and circumstances
presented by the applicant with the elements of the offense that are alleged to support
the search warrant.

47

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

documents, making her appear to be his representative or agent. Afterwards, he found

that some of his personal effects were missing, apparently stolen by the VOC Team
when they searched the house.

RULING: No. The constitutional guaranty against unlawful searches and seizures is
intended as a restraint against the Government and its agents tasked with law
enforcement. It is to be invoked only to ensure freedom from arbitrary and
unreasonable exercise of State power.
If the search is made upon the request of law enforcers, a warrant must generally be
first secured if it is to pass the test of constitutionality. However, if the search is made
at the behest or initiative of the proprietor of a private establishment for its own and
private purposes, as in the case at bar, and without the intervention of police
authorities, the right against unreasonable search and seizure cannot be invoked for
only the act of private individual, not the law enforcers, is involved. In sum, the
protection against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be extended to acts
committed by private individuals so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful
intrusion by the government.
It is worth noting that the VOC inspectors decided to enter the main premises
only after finding the meter of Sesbreo turned upside down, hanging and its disc not
rotating. Their doing so would enable them to determine the unbilled electricity
consumed by his household. The circumstances justified their decision, and their
inspection of the main premises was a continuation of the authorized entry. There was
no question then that their ability to determine the unbilled electricity called for them
to see for themselves the usage of electricity inside. Not being agents of the State, they
did not have to first obtain a search warrant to do so.

ASSIGNMENT No.2

ISSUE: Whether the inspection made by the VOC team was an unreasonable search
for being carried out without a warrant and for being allegedly done with malice or bad
faith.

31. Bayaca V. Ramos

577 SCRA 93
A.M. No. MTJ-07-1676, January 2, 2009
Leonardo- De Castro, J;
FACTS: Complainant Bayaca was the accused in a criminal case for arson through
reckless imprudence presided by respondent judge. After trial, respondent Judge
promulgated his Decision dated April 2, 2004. Complainant appealed the case to the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 37 of Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya which came out
with its decision affirming with modification the decision of the MCTC.

48

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

Despite the deletion of the penalty of imprisonment in the RTC decision, respondent
Judge issued a Warrant of Arrest and Commitment on Final Sentence which led to
complainants incarceration at the Solano District Jail from August 8 to 28, 2006.
Bayaca filed a complaint alleging that respondent Judge acted without legal basis in
ordering his detention, and committed grave abuse of discretion. Complainant added
that respondents conduct was unbecoming and inappropriate for a judge which is
greatly prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
In his Counter-Affidavit, respondent Judge clarified that his issuance of the warrant of
arrest against herein complainant was a mistake done in good faith. He added that for
almost sixteen (16) years it was the practice in his sala that before acting on a motion
it passed through his Clerk of Court who studied the records to determine whether or
not to grant it. If it would be granted, the Clerk of Court would then request the
stenographer to type the order and thereafter, he would affix his initial for respondent
Judges signature. This was the procedure that they followed in the instant case
which was unfortunately the only instance that they committed a mistake.
Respondent Judge maintained that the matter was merely a case of simple negligence.
ISSUE: Whether the issuance of Warrant of Arrest by respondent judge was a mistake
done in good faith.

ASSIGNMENT No.2

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

RULING: No. We hold that respondent Judge was inexcusably negligent when he
issued a Warrant of Arrest and Commitment to Final Sentence despite the deletion by
the appellate court of that portion of the judgment imposing the penalty of
imprisonment. In the performance of his duties, respondent Judge failed to observe
that diligence, prudence and circumspection which the law requires in the rendition of
any public service. If only respondent Judge had exercised the requisite thoroughness
and caution, he would have noted not only the modification of the monetary awards by
the appellate court, but also the deletion of the penalty of imprisonment upon which
the Warrant of Arrest and Commitment to Final Sentence that he signed was based.
Respondent Judge cannot pass on the blame to his Clerk of Court and/or
Stenographer. A judge cannot take refuge behind the inefficiency or mismanagement
of his very own court personnel. Certainly, a judge is responsible not only for the
dispensation of justice but also for managing his court efficiently to ensure the prompt
delivery of court services. In the discharge of the functions of his office, respondent
Judge must strive to act in a manner that puts him and his conduct above reproach
and beyond suspicion. He must act with extreme care for his office indeed is laden
with a heavy burden of responsibility. Surely, a judge is enjoined to pore over all
documents whereon he is required to affix his signature and give his official
imprimatur.The negligence of respondent Judge in this case simply.

32. DON DJOWEL SALES y ABALAHIN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

49

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

FACTS: Petitioner was scheduled to board a Cebu Pacific plane bound for Kalibo,
Aklan. As part of the routine security check at the pre- departure area, petitioner
passed through the Walk-Thru Metal Detector Machine and immediately thereafter was
subjected to a body search by a male frisker on duty, a non-uniformed personnel of
the Philippine National Police (PNP) Aviation Security Group (ASG). While frisking
petitioner, Soriano felt something slightly bulging inside the right pocket of his short
pants. When he asked petitioner to bring the item out, petitioner obliged but refused
to open his hands. Soriano struggled with petitioner as the latter was nervous and
reluctant to show what he brought out from his pocket. Soriano then called the
attention of his supervisor. Petitioner finally opened his right hand revealing two rolled
paper sticks with dried marijuana leaves/fruiting tops. After informing petitioner of his
constitutional rights, they brought petitioner and the seized evidence and immediately
turned over petitioner to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Airport
Team. Petitioner testified that he, together with his girl friend and her family were
headed to Boracay Island for a vacation. While he was queuing to enter the airport, he
was frisked by two persons, a male and a female. On the way to the comfort room, he
was blocked by a male person who frisked him for a second time, asking for his
boarding pass. This male person without an ID card, asked petitioner to empty his
pockets, which he did. The male person then said it was okay but as petitioner
proceeded to go inside the comfort room, the male person called him again saying that
this fell from you and showing him two small white wrappings which seemed to be
marijuana.

ASSIGNMENT No.2

G.R. No. 191023

ISSUE: Whether the body search conducted on petitioner is a valid warrantless search
made pursuant to a routine airport security procedure allowed by law.
RULING: Yes, in a prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following
facts must be proven with moral certainty: (1) that the accused is in possession of the
object identified as prohibited or regulated drug; (2) that such possession is not
authorized by law; and (3) that the accused freely and consciously possessed the said
drug.
In this case, the prosecution has satisfactorily established that airport security
officers found in the person of petitioner the marijuana fruiting tops contained in
rolled paper sticks during the final security check at the airports pre-departure area.
Petitioner at first refused to show the contents of his short pants pocket to Soriano
who became suspicious when his hand felt the slightly bulging item while frisking
petitioner. Passengers attempting to board an aircraft routinely pass through metal
detectors; their carry-on baggage as well as checked luggage are routinely subjected to
x-ray scans. Should these procedures suggest the presence of suspicious objects,

50

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

physical searches are conducted to determine what the objects are. There is little
question that such searches are reasonable, given their minimal intrusiveness, the
gravity of the safety interests involved, and the reduced privacy expectations
associated with airline travel. Indeed, travelers are often notified through airport
public address systems, signs, and notices in their airline tickets that they are subject
to search and, if any prohibited materials or substances are found, such would be
subject to seizure. These announcements place passengers on notice that ordinary
constitutional protections against warrantless searches and seizures do not apply to
routine airport procedures.
The Terry search or the 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. To assure himself that the person with whom he is dealing is not armed
with a weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against him, he could
validly conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such person to
discover weapons which might be used to assault him.
33. LUZ V. PEOPLE
GR No. 197788

ASSIGNMENT No.2

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

SERENO, J.:
FACTS: PO2 Emmanuel L. Alteza, who was then assigned at the Sub-Station 1 of the
Naga City Police Station as a traffic enforcer he saw the accused, who was coming
from the direction of Panganiban Drive and going to Diversion Road, Naga City, driving
a motorcycle without a helmet; that this prompted him to flag down the accused for
violating a municipal ordinance which requires all motorcycle drivers to wear helmet
(sic) while driving said motor vehicle; that he invited the accused to come inside their
sub-station since the place where he flagged down the accused is almost in front of the
said sub-station; that while he and SPO1 Rayford Brillante were issuing a citation
ticket for violation of municipal ordinance, he noticed that the accused was uneasy
and kept on getting something from his jacket; that he was alerted and so, he told the
accused to take out the contents of the pocket of his jacket as the latter may have a
weapon inside it; that the accused obliged and slowly put out the contents of the
pocket of his jacket which was a nickel-like tin or metal container including two (2)
cellphones, one (1) pair of scissors and one (1) Swiss knife; that upon seeing the said
container, he asked the accused to open it; that after the accused opened the
container, he noticed a cartoon cover and something beneath it; and that upon his
instruction, the accused spilled out the contents of the container on the table which
turned out to be four (4) plastic sachets, the two (2) of which were empty while the
other two (2) contained suspected shabu.

51

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

RULING: No, there was no valid arrest of petitioner. When he was flagged down for
committing a traffic violation, he was not, ipso facto and solely for this reason,
arrested. Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he or she may be
bound to answer for the commission of an offense. It is effected by an actual restraint
of the person to be arrested or by that persons voluntary submission to the custody of
the one making the arrest. At the time that he was waiting for PO3 Alteza to write his
citation ticket, petitioner could not be said to have been under arrest. There was no
intention on the part of PO3 Alteza to arrest him, deprive him of his liberty, or take
him into custody. Prior to the issuance of the ticket, the period during which petitioner
was at the police station may be characterized merely as waiting time. There being no
valid arrest, the warrantless search that resulted from it was likewise illegal. The
following are the instances when a warrantless search is allowed: (i) a warrantless
search incidental to a lawful arrest; (ii) search of evidence in plain view; (iii) search of
a moving vehicle; (iv) consented warrantless search; (v) customs search; (vi) a stop
and frisk search; and (vii) exigent and emergency circumstances.
None of the above-mentioned instances, especially a search incident to a lawful
arrest, are applicable to this case. It must be noted that the evidence seized, although
alleged to be inadvertently discovered, was not in plain view. It was actually
concealed inside a metal container inside petitioners pocket. Clearly, the evidence was
not immediately apparent. Neither was there a consented warrantless search. Consent
to a search is not to be lightly inferred, but shown by clear and convincing evidence. It
must be voluntary in order to validate an otherwise illegal search; that is, the consent
must be unequivocal, specific, intelligently given and uncontaminated by any duress
or coercion.

ASSIGNMENT No.2

ISSUE: Whether or not it was a valid warrantless arrest and search made by the traffic
enforcer.

34. PEOPLE V. VILLARREAL

G.R. NO. 201363
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
FACTS: PO3 de Leon was driving his motorcycle on his way home he saw appellant
from a distance holding and scrutinizing in his hand a plastic sachet of shabu. He
alighted from his motorcycle and approached the appellant whom he recognized as
someone he had previously arrested for illegal drug possession. Upon seeing PO3 de
Leon, appellant tried to escape but was quickly apprehended with the help of a tricycle
driver. Despite appellants attempts to resist arrest, PO3 de Leon was able to board
appellant onto his motorcycle and confiscated the plastic sachet of shabu in his
possession. In his defense, appellant denied PO3 de Leons allegations and instead
claimed that on the date and time of the incident, he was walking alone when

52

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

someone who was riding a motorcycle called him from behind. Appellant approached
the person, who turned out to be PO3 de Leon, who then told him not to run, frisked
him, and took his wallet.

RULING: No, there is none. On the basis of the foregoing testimony, the Court finds it
inconceivable how PO3 de Leon, even with his presumably perfect vision, would be
able to identify with reasonable accuracy, from a distance and while simultaneously
driving a motorcycle, a negligible and minuscule amount of powdery substance inside
the plastic sachet allegedly held by appellant. That he had previously effect numerous
arrests, all involving shabu, is insufficient to create a conclusion that what he
purportedly saw in appellants hands was indeed shabu.
Even if appellant had been exhibiting unusual or strange acts, or at the very least
appeared suspicious, the same would not have been sufficient in order for PO3 de
Leon to effect a lawful warrantless arrest under paragraph (a) of Section 5, Rule 113.
Neither has it been established that the rigorous conditions set forth in paragraph (b)
of Section 5, Rule 113 have been complied with, i.e., that an offense had in fact just
been committed and the arresting officer had personal knowledge of facts indicating
that the appellant had committed it. The factual circumstances of the case failed to
show that PO3 de Leon had personal knowledge that a crime had been indisputably
committed by the appellant. It is not enough that PO3 de Leon had reasonable ground
to believe that appellant had just committed a crime; a crime must in fact have been
committed first, which does not obtain in this case.

ASSIGNMENT No.2

ISSUE: Whether there is lawful warrantless arrest.

35. FELICIANO GALVANTE V. HON. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO

G.R. No. 162808
April 22, 2008
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
FACTS: In the afternoon of May 14, 2001 at Sitio Cahi-an, Kapatungan, Trento,
Agusan del Sur, private respondents confiscated from petitioner one colt pistol super .
38 automatic with serial no. 67973, one short magazine, and nine super .38 live
ammunitions. The confiscated materials were covered by an expired Memorandum
Receipt.
Consequently, the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor filed against petitioner an
Information or Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions in Relation to
Commission on Elections (Comelec) Resolution No. 3258, docketed as Criminal Case
No. 5047, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur.
Pending resolution of Criminal Case No. 5047, petitioner filed against private
respondents an administrative case, docketed as Administrative Case No. IASOB-

53

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

020007 for Grave Misconduct, before the Internal Affairs Service (IAS), Region XIII,
Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG);and a criminal case, docketed as
OMB-P-C-02-0109-B for Arbitrary Detention, Illegal Search and Grave Threats, before
the Ombudsman.
Petitioner alleged that upon arrival at the house of retired police Percival Plaza,
together with Lorenzo Sanoria, Delfin Ramirez and Pedro Ramas, He immediately went
down of the jeep but before he could call Mr. Plaza, four policemen in uniform blocked
his way. That the four policemen, all pointed their long firearms ready to fire. He raised
his arms and heard [private respondent] PO1 Avenido saying, "ANG IMONG PUSIL,
IHATAG" which means "Give me your firearm," to which I answered, "WALA MAN KO'Y
PUSIL" translated as "I have no firearm," showing his waistline when he raised his Tshirt. His other companions on the jeep also went down and raised their arms and
showed their waistline when the same policemen and a person in civilian attire holding
an armalite also pointed their firearms to them to which Mr. Percival Plaza who came
down from his house told them not to harass me as I am also a former police officer
but they did not heed Mr. Plaza's statements.
While we were raising our arms [private respondent] SPO4 Benjamin Conde, Jr.
went near my owner type jeep and conducted a search. To which I asked them if they
have any search warrant. That after a while they saw the super .38 pistol under the
floor mat of the petitioners jeep and asked for the MR of the firearm but due to fear
that their long arms were still pointed to them, He searched his wallet and gave the
asked document. He further alleged that he was detained by Police Chief Rocacorba for
two days having been released only after posing a bail.
Consequently, petitioner filed an Affidavit of Desistance with both the IAS and
Ombudsman absolving private respondents Avenido, Degran, Rufano and Balolot, but
maintaining the private respondent Conde alone be prosecuted in both administrative
and criminal cases. The IAS then issued a Decision finding all private respondents
guilty of grave misconduct even if they were merely being enthusiastic in the conduct
of the arrest in line of duty. The RTC dismissed the case against the petitioner. On the
other hand, the Ombudsman dismissed the charges against private respondents for
lack of probable cause.

ASSIGNMENT No.2

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

ISSUE: Whether the Ombudsman properly dismissed the criminal complaints filed
against the private respondents.
RULING: YES. Public respondents' dismissal of the criminal complaint for illegal
search which petitioner filed with the Ombudsman against private respondents was
proper, although the reasons public respondents cited for dismissing the complaint
are rather off the mark because they relied solely on the finding that the warrantless
search conducted by private respondents was valid and that the Affidavit of Desistance
which petitioner executed cast doubt on the veracity of his complaint. Public
respondents completely overlooked the fact that the criminal complaint was not
cognizable by the Ombudsman as illegal search is not a criminal offense. Nevertheless,

54

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

the result achieved is the same: the dismissal of a groundless criminal complaint for
illegal search which is not an offense under the RPC. Thus, the Court need not resolve
the issue of whether or not public respondents erred in their finding on the validity of
the search for that issue is completely hypothetical under the circumstance.
The Constitution vests in the Ombudsman the power to determine whether
there exists reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that
the accused is probably guilty thereof and, thereafter, to file the corresponding
information with the appropriate courts. The Court respects the relative autonomy of
the Ombudsman to investigate and prosecute, and refrains from interfering when the
latter exercises such powers either directly or through the Deputy Ombudsman, except
when the same is shown to be tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction.
It is noted that the criminal complaint which petitioner filed with the
Ombudsman charges private respondents with warrantless search, arbitrary
detention, and grave threats.
The complaint for warrantless search charges no criminal offense. The conduct
of a warrantless search is not a criminal act for it is not penalized under the Revised
Penal Code (RPC) or any other special law. What the RPC punishes are only two forms
of searches:
Art. 129. Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those
legally obtained. - In addition to the liability attaching to the offender for the
commission of any other offense, the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum
period to prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding
P1,000.00 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall
procure a search warrant without just cause, or, having legally procured the
same, shall exceed his authority or use unnecessary severity in executing the
same.
Art. 130. Searching domicile without witnesses. - The penalty of arresto mayor in
its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon a public officer or
employee who, in cases where a search is proper, shall search the domicile,
papers or other belongings of any person, in the absence of the latter, any
member of his family, or in their default, without the presence of two witnesses
residing in the same locality.
Petitioner did not allege any of the elements of the foregoing felonies in his
Affidavit-Complaint; rather, he accused private respondents of conducting a search on
his vehicle without being armed with a valid warrant. This situation, while lamentable,
is not covered by Articles 129 and 130 of the RPC.

ASSIGNMENT No.2

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

36. SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS) V. DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARD and

PHILIPPINE DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY (PDEA),
GRs. 157870, 158633 and 161658 November 03, 2008

55

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

VELASCO, JR., J.:

FACTS: In 2002, Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002 was implemented. Section 36 thereof requires mandatory drug testing of
candidates for public office, students of secondary and tertiary schools, officers and
employees of public and private offices, and persons charged before the prosecutors
office with certain offenses.
In December 2003, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 6486, prescribing the
rules and regulations on the mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office in
connection with the May 10, 2004 synchronized national and local elections. Aquilino
Pimentel, Jr., a senator and a candidate for re-election in the May elections, filed a
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65. In it, he seeks (1) to nullify Sec.
36(g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 dated December 23, 2003 for
being unconstitutional in that they impose a qualification for candidates for senators
in addition to those already provided for in the 1987 Constitution; and (2) to enjoin the
COMELEC from implementing Resolution No. 6486.
According to Pimentel, the Constitution only prescribes a maximum of five (5)
qualifications for one to be a candidate for, elected to, and be a member of the Senate.
He says that both the Congress and COMELEC, by requiring, via RA 9165 and
Resolution No. 6486, a senatorial aspirant, among other candidates, to undergo a
mandatory drug test, create an additional qualification that all candidates for senator
must first be certified as drug free. He adds that there is no provision in the
Constitution authorizing the Congress or COMELEC to expand the qualification
requirements of candidates for senator.
Meanwhile, SJS contends that Section 36(c)(d)(f) and (g) are constitutionally
infirm as it constitutes undue delegation of legislative power when they give unbridled
discretion to schools and employers to determine the manner of drug testing. It also
violates the equal protection clause as it can be used to harass a student or employee
deemed undesirable. The constitutional right against unreasonable searches is also
breached. In addition to the abovementioned contentions, Atty. Manuel J. Laserna, Jr.,
as a citizen and taxpayers maintains that said provision should be struck down as
unconstitutional for infringing on the constitutional right to privacy, the right against
unreasonable search and seizure, and the right against self-incrimination, and for
being contrary to the due process and equal protection guarantees.

ASSIGNMENT No.2

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

ISSUE: Whether Sec 36 of RA 9165 and Resolution 6486 are constitutional. (Section
36 (c) and (d) are constitutional while (f) and (g) are not )
RULING: NO. However, sec. 36 and (d) are valid. Pimentels contention is valid.
Accordingly, Sec. 36 of RA 9165 is unconstitutional. It is basic that if a law or an
administrative rule violates any norm of the Constitution, that issuance is null and
void and has no effect. The Constitution is the basic law to which all laws must
conform; no act shall be valid if it conflicts with the Constitution. In the discharge of

56

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

their defined functions, the three departments of government have no choice but to
yield obedience to the commands of the Constitution. Whatever limits it imposes must
be observed.
The provision [n]o person elected to any public office shall enter upon the duties
of his office until he has undergone mandatory drug test is not tenable as it enlarges
the qualifications. COMELEC cannot, in the guise of enforcing and administering
election laws or promulgating rules and regulations to implement Sec. 36, validly
impose qualifications on candidates for senator in addition to what the Constitution
prescribes. If Congress cannot require a candidate for senator to meet such additional
qualification, the COMELEC, to be sure, is also without such power. The right of a
citizen in the democratic process of election should not be defeated by unwarranted
impositions of requirement not otherwise specified in the Constitution.
The right to privacy has been accorded recognition in this jurisdiction as a facet
of the right protected by the guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure under
Sec. 2, Art. III of the Constitution. But while the right to privacy has long come into its
own, this case appears to be the first time that the validity of a state-decreed search or
intrusion through the medium of mandatory random drug testing among students
and employees is, in this jurisdiction, made the focal point. Thus, the issue tendered
in these proceedings is veritably one of first impression.
The essence of privacy is the right to be left alone. In context, the right to
privacy means the right to be free from unwarranted exploitation of ones person or
from intrusion into ones private activities in such a way as to cause humiliation to a
persons ordinary sensibilities. And while there has been general agreement as to the
basic function of the guarantee against unwarranted search, translation of the
abstract prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures into workable broad
guidelines for the decision of particular cases is a difficult task, to borrow from C.
Camara v. Municipal Court. Authorities are agreed though that the right to privacy
yields to certain paramount rights of the public and defers to the states exercise of
police power.
As the warrantless clause of Sec. 2, Art III of the Constitution is couched and as
has been held, reasonableness is the touchstone of the validity of a government
search or intrusion. And whether a search at issue hews to the reasonableness
standard is judged by the balancing of the government-mandated intrusion on the
individuals privacy interest against the promotion of some compelling state interest. In
the criminal context, reasonableness requires showing of probable cause to be
personally determined by a judge. Given that the drug-testing policy for employees
and students for that matterunder RA 9165 is in the nature of administrative search
needing what was referred to in Vernonia as swift and informal disciplinary
procedures, the probable-cause standard is not required or even practicable. Be that
as it may, the review should focus on the reasonableness of the challenged
administrative search in question.

ASSIGNMENT No.2

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

37. POLO VS. CONSTANTIMO DAVID

57

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

G.R. No. 181881. October 18, 2011.

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

David found, in Bricio Pollo, petitioner, legal pleading or documents that are
related to administrative cases and were for on the behalf of parties who were facing
charges. David inferred that he was willfully aiding their adverse interests and it was a
practice that he pursued regularly.
Pollo argued that he was not even a lawyer to pursue such acts. He also
asserted that the CSC conducted a fishing expedition and his right to privacy was
violated and that the source of the complaint was anonymous. The CSC charged Pollo
in violation of RA 6713. After some motions filed to the CSC, he filed his motion to the
CA wherein he was ordered to be dismissed of his governmental duties. The CA ruled
that the search was legal because in their capacity as employers, the government
agencies could validly conduct search and seizure in the governmental workplace
without meeting the probable cause or warrant requirement for search and seizure.

ASSIGNMENT No.2

FACTS: Petitioner is a former Supervising Personnel Specialist of the CSC Regional

Office No. IV and also the Officer-in-Charge of the Public Assistance and Liaison
Division (PALD) under the"Mamamayan Muna Hindi Mamaya Na"program of the CSC.
CSC Chairperson Karina David received a document from an anonymous
source, making her aware that there is a corrupt official in the Commission. She then
formed personnel and directed them to back up all the files of the computers found
therein.

ISSUE: Whether there was illegal search.

RULING: NO. The SC ruled in favor of the CSC. Basing their decision on other cases,
the SC asked whether Pollo has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his office and
computer files and was the search reasonable in its inception and scope.
On regards the first inquiry, the SC found that he had no actual expectation of
privacy on his work computer. He did not have a separate office space nor did he use a
password for his computer. He would have visitors which he let them use his
computer. The CSC also implemented a policy that its employees on notice that they
have no expectation of privacy in anything on their office computers, and that the CSC
may monitor their use. This implies that on-the-spot inspections may be done to
ensure that the computer resources were used only for such legitimate business
purposes.
On the second inquiry, the SC said that the search Pollo's files were conducted
in connection with investigation of work-related misconduct prompted by an
anonymous letter-complaint. A search by a government employer of an employees

58

CARPIO, JAHZEL DP.

CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
Atty. Christian G.
Villasis

ASSIGNMENT No.2

office is justified at inception when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that it
will turn up evidence that the employee is guilty of work-related misconduct.

59