TOPICS: Exigency, Checkpoints, Wire Tapping

PEOPLE VS DE GRACIA
FACTS

This case took place at the height of

the coup d' etat staged in December, 1989
by ultra-rightist elements headed by the
Reform the Armed Forces MovementSoldiers of the Filipino People (RAM-SFP)
against the Government.
Early morning of December 1, 1989, Maj.
Efren Soria of the Intelligence Division,
National Capital Region Defense Command,
was on board a brown Toyota car conducting
a surveillance of the Eurocar Sales Officepursuant to an intelligence report received
by the division that said establishment was
being occupied by elements of the RAM-SFP
as a communication command post.
While parked in the area, a certain group in
the area drew their guns and fired at the
team(the Intelligence Division)
As a consequence, a searching team
raided the Eurocar Sales Office
No search warrant was secured by the
raiding team because, according to them, at
that time there was so much disorder
considering that the nearby Camp Aguinaldo
was being mopped up by the rebel forces
and there was simultaneous firing within the
vicinity of the Eurocar office, aside from the
fact that the courts were consequently
closed.

ISSUE
WON the raiding military operatives had to
secure a search warrant before raiding the
Eurocar Sales Office

PEOPLE VS EXALA
FACTS

RULING (NO)

It is admitted that the military operatives

who raided the Eurocar Sales Office were
not armed with a search warrant at that
time. The raid was actually precipitated by
intelligence reports that said office was
being used as headquarters by the
RAM. Prior to the raid, there was a
surveillance conducted on the premises
wherein the surveillance team was fired at
by a group of men coming from the Eurocar
building. When the military operatives
raided the place, the occupants thereof
refused to open the door despite requests
for them to do so, thereby compelling the
former to break into the office. The Eurocar
Sales Office is obviously not a gun store and
it is definitely not an armory or arsenal
which are the usual depositories for
explosives and ammunition. It is primarily
and solely engaged in the sale of
automobiles. The presence of an unusual
quantity of high-powered firearms and

explosives could not be justifiably or even

colorably explained.
In addition, there was general chaos and
disorder at that time because of
SIMULTANEOUS AND INTENSE FIRING within
the vicinity of the office and in the nearby
Camp Aguinaldo which was under attack by
rebel forces. The courts in the surrounding
areas were obviously closed and, for that
matter, the building and houses therein
were deserted.
Under the foregoing circumstances, it is our
considered opinion that the instant case
falls under one of the exceptions to the
prohibition against a warrantless search. In
the first place, the military operatives,
taking into account the facts obtaining in
this case, had reasonable ground to believe
that a crime was being committed. There
was consequently more than sufficient
probable cause to warrant their action.
Furthermore, under the situation then
prevailing, the raiding team had no
opportunity to apply for and secure a search
warrant from the courts. The trial judge
himself manifested that on December 5,
1989 when the raid was conducted, his
court was closed. 19 Under such urgency and
exigency of the moment, a search warrant
could lawfully be dispensed with.

On 2 November 1982, at about 8:15 in the

evening, a private jeep driven by accusedappellant Restituto B. Bocalan was stopped
at a police checkpoint in Cavite City for
routine inspection regarding unlicensed
firearms and other prohibited items.
a member of the inspection team, went near
the jeep and asked the occupants if there
were firearms inside. The occupants did not
answer.
Pfc. Galang then proceeded to inspect the
vehicle by beaming a flashlight inside. He
noticed a black leather bag measuring
about one (1) foot wide and two (2) feet
long with its sides bulging. He asked what it
contained. There was deadening silence.
Nobody answered. Instead, the three (3)
accused, Restituto B. Bocalan, Jaime P.
Fernandez and Rodelio C. Exala, suddenly
became fidgety. Suspicious, Pfc. Galang
ordered the bag opened. He found what he
excitedly described as "marijuana,
marijuana, napakaraming marijuana!" At
this juncture, the three (3) remained
motionless in their seats and appeared
petrified with fear. They were brought to the
police station that same night for further
investigation.

TOPICS: Exigency, Checkpoints, Wire Tapping

After laboratory examination, the bag was

verified to contain more than two (2) kilos of
Indian hemp otherwise known as marijuana.

ISSUE
WON the marijuana is admissible in court as
evidence since the seizure was made without a valid
search warrant

RULING

There are indeed instances where search

and seizure can be effected without
necessarily being preceded by an arrest. An
illustration would be the "stop-and-search"
without a warrant at military or police
checkpoints, the constitutionality of which
has already been upheld by this Court.
Vehicles are generally allowed to pass
through these checkpoints after a routine
inspection and answering a few questions. If
vehicles are stopped and extensively
searched it is because of some probable
cause which justifies a reasonable belief of
those manning the checkpoints that either
the motorist is a law-offender or the
contents of the vehicle are or have been
instruments in the commission of an
offense. However, lest it be misunderstood,
this doctrine is not intended to do away with
the general rule that no person shall be
subjected to search of his person, personal
effects and belongings, or his residence
except by virtue of a search warrant or on
the occasion of a lawful arrest. The case
before Us is an incident to or an offshoot of
a lawful "stop-and-search" at a military or
police checkpoint.
(WAIVER ON THEIR RIGHT AGAINST
WARRANTLESS SEARCH)
Their submissive stance after the discovery
of the bag of marijuana, as well as the
absence of any protest on their part when
arrested, not only casts serious doubt on
their professed innocence but also confirms
their acquiescence to the search. Clearly
then, there was waiver of the right against
unreasonable search and seizure. The right
to be secure from unreasonable search and
seizure may, like every right, be waived and
such waiver may be made either expressly
or impliedly.
The arrest of the three (3) accused was
lawful because it was made upon the
discovery of the prohibited drug in their
possession. There was no need for a
warrant.

GAANAN VS IAC
FACTS

In the morning of October 22, 1975,

complainant Atty. Tito Pintor and his client
Manuel Montebon were discussing the
terms for the withdrawal of the complaint
for direct assault which they filed with the
Office of the City Fiscal of Cebu against
Leonardo Laconico
That same morning, Laconico telephoned
appellant, who is a lawyer, to come to his
office and advise him on the settlement of
the direct assault case
When complainant called up, Laconico
requested appellant to secretly listen to the
telephone conversation through a telephone
extension so as to hear personally the
proposed conditions for the settlement.
The court found both Gaanan and Laconico
guilty of violating Section 1 of Republic Act
No. 4200(otherwise known as the AntiWiretapping Act)

ISSUE
WON an extension telephone is among the
prohibited devices in Section 1 of the Act, such
that its use to overhear a private conversation
would constitute unlawful interception of
communications between the two parties using a
telephone line.
RULING(NO)

The law refers to a "tap" of a wire or

cable or the use of a "device or
arrangement" for the purpose of
secretly overhearing, intercepting, or
recording the communication. There
must be either a physical interruption
through a wiretap or
the deliberate installation of a device or
arrangement in order to overhear,
intercept, or record the spoken words.
An extension telephone cannot be
placed in the same category as a
dictaphone, dictagraph or the other
devices enumerated in Section 1 of RA
No. 4200 as the use thereof cannot be
considered as "tapping" the wire or
cable of a telephone line.
Consequently, the mere act of listening,
in order to be punishable must strictly
be with the use of the enumerated
devices in RA No. 4200 or others of
similar nature. We are of the view that
an extension telephone is not among
such devices or arrangements.