Alvero vs.

Dizon

Facts:
In February 1945, Aurelio S. Alvero was arrested for treason. Certain papers were seized
from his house.
Alvero demanded the return of the papers seized from his house because it was in violation of
his constitutional rights.
The lower court denied.
The documents were presented as evidence by the prosecution.

Issue:
Whether the seizure of the documents taken from Alveros house was legal and can be used
as evidence against him.

Held:
The right of officers and men of the United States Army to arrest Alvero, and to seize his
personal papers, without any search warrant, in the zone of military operations, is
unquestionable, under the provisions the Regulations relative to the Laws and Customs of
War on Land of the Hague Conventions of 1907, authorizing the seizure of military papers in
the possession of prisoners of war;
The consitution does not prohibit the Government from taking advantage of unlawful searches
under authority of state law.
The use and presentation of documents, as evidence for the prosecution against Alvero
cannot now be legally attacked, on the ground of unlawful or unreasonable searches and
seizures.
What constitutes a reasonable or even an unreasonable search in any particular case is
purely a judicial question, determinable from a consideration of the circumstances involved.

People vs. Andre Marti

Facts:
In August 1987, Andre Marti and his wife, Shirley Reyes, sent 4 gift-wrapped packages
Zurich, Switzerland.
Marti refused to have the packages be checked.
Job Reyes (proprietor) following standard operating procedure, opened the boxes for final
inspection, where a peculiar odor emitted therefrom.
He let the NBI examined the items from which they discovered bricks of dried marijuana.
A case in violation of RA 6425 Dangerous Drugs Act was filed against Marti.

Issue:
Whether the right of Marti against unreasonable search and seizure was violated. Thus, the
seized items cannot be used as evidence.

Held:
In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution
cannot be invoked against the State.
The mere presence of the NBI agents did not convert the reasonable search effected by
Reyes into a warrantless search and seizure proscribed by the Constitution. Merely to
observe at that which is in plain sight is not a search.
Having observed that which is open, where no trespass has been committed in aid thereof, is
not search.
If the search is made at the initiative of the proprietor of a private establishment for its own
purposes 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.

Bache & Co. Inc. vs. Ruiz

Facts:
Judge Vivencio M. Ruiz issued a search warrant against Bache & Co. Inc. and Frederick E.
Seggerman for violation of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).
The BIR agents served the search warrant to the corporation and Seggerman at Makati,
Rizal.
The corporations lawyers protested the search.
They petitioned that the search warrant be declared null and void.

Issue:
Whether the search warrant issued by Judge Ruiz is null and void.
Whether the corporation has the right to contest the legality of the seizure of documents from
its office.

Held:
Search Warrant No. 2-M-70 issued by respondent Judge is declared null and void.
The documents, papers and effects seized thereunder are ordered to be returned to
petitioners; and respondent are permanently enjoined from using the same against petitioners
in any criminal or other proceeding.
Respondent Judge failed to personally examine the complainant and his witness.
The judge must x x x personally examine on oath or affirmation the complainant x x x."
The search warrant was issued for more than one specific offense. The search warrant was
issued for 4 distinct offenses.
The search warrant does not particularly describe the things to be seized.
The Supreme Court recognized the right of a corporation to object against unreasonable
searches and seizures. The corporations have their respective personalities.

Stonehill vs. Diokno (Secretary of Justice)

Facts:
There were 42 search warrants issued against Harry S. Stonehill, Robert P. Brooks, HJohn J.
Brooks, and Karl Beck, and/or the corporations of which they were officers.
To seize: Books of accounts x x x balance sheets x x x intended to be used as the means of
committing the offense as violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal
Revenue and the Revised Penal Code.
Petitioners alleged that the search warrants are null and void.
In March 1962, the Supreme Court issued the writ of preliminary injunction.
In June 1962, the writ was partially lifted, insofar as the documents and things seized from the
offices of the corporations are concerned;
But the injunction was maintained as regards the papers and things found and seized in the
residences of Stonehill, et. al.

Issue:
Whether the search warrants were null and void because:
1. they are general warrants
2. there was no probable cause.
3. the warrants did nor describe the things to be seized.
Held:
They issued a general warrant.
The evil sought to be remedied by the provision on warrants is to outlaw the so-called general
warrants.
The warrants simply stated that the natural and juridical persons therein named had
committed a "violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue
(Code) and Revised Penal Code."
No specific offense had been alleged in said applications. It was impossible for the judges
who issued the warrants to have found the existence of probable cause
It openly contravened the Bill of Rights because the things that were seized were not
particularly described.

With respect to the documents and things seized in the residences of Stonehill, et. al., the
Supreme Court restrained the prosecutors from using them in evidence against Stonehill, et.
al.
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 corporations and (b) those found seized in the residences of Stonehill, et. al.
As regards the first group, Stonehill, et. al. have no cause of action to assail the legality of the
contested warrants for the simple reason that said corporations have their respective
personalities, separate and distinct from the personality of Stonehill, et. al.
The legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party whose rights have been impaired
thereby, and that the objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and
cannot be availed of by third parties.

Zurcher vs. Stanford Daily

Facts:
In April 1971, a large group of demonstrators seized the Stanford University Hospitals
administrative offices.
Nine police officers of Palo Alto Police pacified the demonstrators but instead they were
attacked.
A staff of Stanford Daily photographed the incident.
Through a search warrant, the Stanford Daily office was searched and the negatives, film,
and pictures showing the events at the hospital were seized.
The Standford Daily complained that the search was in violation of First, Fourth, and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
The District Court held that the search of the Dailys offices was illegal. CA affirmed.

Issue:
Whether the search of the Dailys offices was illegal because issuance of a warrant to search
was intended for one suspected of crime.

Held:

The State is not prevented by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments from issuing a warrant
to search for evidence simply because the owner or possessor of the place to be searched is
not reasonably suspected of criminal involvement.
The critical element in a reasonable search is not that the property owner is suspected of
crime but that there is reasonable cause to believe that the things to be searched for and
seized are located on the property to which entry is sought.
The delay in employing a subpoena duces tecum could easily result in disappearance of the
evidence.

Wilson vs. Layne

Facts:
In April 1992, a Gunsmoke team of Deputy United States Marshals and Montgomery County
Police officers executed the warrants against Dominic Wilson. Dominic Wilson had violated
his probation on previous felony charges.
The team was accompanied by a reporter from Washington Post, as part of a Marshals
Service ride-along policy.
In the early morning hours of 16 April 1992, a Gunsmoke team of Deputy United States
Marshals and Montgomery County Police officers assembled to execute the Dominic Wilson
warrants.
The officers believed that Dominic Wilson lived in the residence of his parents Charles and
Geraldine Wilson.
They arrested mistakenly Charles instead of Dominic.
Charles and Geraldine Wilson sued the officers in bringing the media in the execution of the
arrest warrant as violation of their Fourth Amendment rights.
The District Court denied the police officers qualified immunity. The Court of Appeals held
the officers qualified immunity.

Issue:
Whether the police officers were justified to bring along the media (Washington Post) in the
execution of the warrant in the residence of Charles and Geraldine Wilson.

Held:
No. Although the officers undoubtedly were entitled to enter the Wilson home in order to
execute the arrest warrant for Dominic Wilson, they were not entitled to bring the media with
them.
The Fourth Amendment does require that police actions in execution of a warrant be related
to the objectives of the authorized intrusion.
The presence of reporters inside the home was not related to the objectives of the authorized
intrusion.
It was a violation of the Fourth Amendment for police to bring members of the media or other
third parties into a home during the execution of a warrant when the third parties in the home
was not in aid of the execution of the warrant.
The officers violated the importance of the right of residential privacy of the Fourth
Amendment.

Burgos v. Chief of Staff, AFP

Facts:
In Dec 1982, two search warrants were issued to search the business addresses of
Metropolitan Mail and We Forum newspapers to search for documents and literatures
owned by JOSE BURGOS, JR.
The petitioner filed to enjoin using the articles seized as evidence in a criminal case against
Burgos.

Issue:
Whether the search warrant issued was valid. Whether there was probable cause.
Held:
Mere generalization will not suffice.

The statement in the effect that Burgos is in possession of equipments and other documents
used as a means of committing subversion punishable under PD 885, is a mere conclusion of
law and does not satisfy the requirements of probable cause.
When the search warrant applied for is directed against a newspaper publisher in connection
with the publication of subversive materials, its supporting affidavits must contain a
specification.
Probable cause for a search is defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that
the items sought in connection with said offense is in the place to be searched.
Bereft of particulars as would justify a finding of the existence of probable cause, an allegation
cannot serve as basis for the issuance of a search warrant.

Chandler vs. Gov. Miller

Facts:
Libertarian Party nominees Walker L. Chandler , et al. challenged a Georgia statute requiring
proof of urinalysis drug test to qualify for nomination to election.
Under a Georgia statute, a candidate must present a certificate of a negative urinalysis drug
test prior to qualifying for nomination.
Chandler, et al alleged that the drug tests required violated their rights under the
Constitution's Fourth Amendment.
The District Court denied the petition.

Issue:
Whether the requirement of drug testing for all candidates for state offices violated the Fourth
Amendment.
Whether the suspicionless searches, required in Georgias drug testing for candidates for
public offices, is reasonable.

Held:
The statute requiring drug testing for all candidates for state offices violated the Fourth
Amendment.
Where the risk to public safety is substantial and real, blanket suspicionless searches
calibrated to the risk may rank as reasonable.
In the case at bar, public safety is not genuinely in jeopardy, the Fourth Amendment precludes
the suspicionless search, no matter how conveniently arranged.
Georgias drug testing requirement effects a search within the meaning of the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments.
To be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, a search ordinarily must be based on
individualized suspicion of wrongdoing.
Particularized exceptions to the main rule are sometimes warranted based on special needs,
beyond the normal need for law enforcement.

People vs. Chua Ho San

Facts:
Jim Lagasca Cid, as Chief of Police of the Bacnotan, La Union and his men arrested Chua
Ho San in violation of RA 7659 for illegal transport of a regulated drug shabu.
He was caught with a bag of shabu after alighting a speedboat.
He was tried through an interpreter.
RTC convicted Chua.

Issue:
Whether persistent reports of rampant smuggling of firearm and other contraband articles,
Chuas watercraft differing in appearance from the usual fishing boats that commonly cruise
over the Bacnotan seas, Chuas illegal entry into the Philippines, Chuas suspicious behavior,
i.e. he attempted to flee when he saw the police authorities, and the apparent ease by which
Chua can return to and navigate his speedboat with immediate dispatch towards the high
seas, constitute probable cause.

Held:
There is no probable cause.
Persistent reports of rampant smuggling of firearm and other contraband articles, Chuas
watercraft differing in appearance from the usual fishing boats, Chuas illegal entry into the
Philippines, Chuas suspicious behavior, i.e. he attempted to flee when he saw the police
authorities, and the apparent ease by which Chua can return to and navigate his speedboat
with immediate dispatch towards the high seas, do not constitute probable cause.
None of the telltale clues, e.g., bag emanating the pungent odor of marijuana, confidential
report by informers, suspicious demeanor accepted by the Court as sufficient to justify a
warrantless arrest exists in the case.
The search was not incidental to an arrest.
The search was nothing but a fishing expedition.
Casting aside the regulated substance as evidence, the same being the fruit of a poisonous
tree, the remaining evidence on record are insufficient to sustain Chuas conviction.

People vs. Molina

Facts:
SPO1 Marino Paguidopon, received an information regarding the presence of alleged
marijuana pushers in Davao City. The informer named them as Nasario Molina and Gregorio
Mula.
Through an informers message, the group of Paguidopon intercepted Molina and Mula in a
Trisikad. They seized a bag of marijuana.
The accused were arrested. They claimed of the violation of their constitutional right against
unreasonable searches and seizures.
Trial court sentenced them of penalty of death by lethal injection.
The case was elevated to the Supreme Court on automatic review.

Issue:
Whether the search conducted to Molina and Mula are illegal.
Whether the marijuana seized could be admitted as evidence.
Whether holding a bag while on a trisikad would justify arrest, and the seizure of prohibited
drugs.

Held:
The search conducted on their person was likewise illegal.
The marijuana seized by the peace officers could not be admitted as evidence against them.
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 law requires that there be first a lawful arrest before a search can be made the
process cannot be reversed.
Molinas response which allegedly reinforced the suspicion will not constitute probable
cause to effect an in flagrante delicto arrest.

Solid Triangle Sales Corp. vs. Sanly Corporation

Facts:
Both Sanly and Solid Triangle sell genuine Mitsubishi products.
Solid Triangle acquires its goods from Japan. Sanly buys its goods from Hongkong.
A search warrant was issued to Sanly Corporation for violation of Section 168 of RA 8293
(unfair competition) applied by Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB).
Solid Triangle filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor an affidavit complaint for unfair
competition against the members of the Board of Sanly.
Sanly, LWT and ERA moved to quash the search warrant which was granted after a
reconsideration.
Solid Triangle petitioned that the quashal of the search warrant is not proper considering the
pendency of the preliminary investigation.
Judge Bruselas ordered EIIB, Sitchon and Solid Triangle to divulge the location of the
warehouse where the goods were kept.
Solid Triangle petitioned for TRO to Judge Bruselas.

Issue:
Whether the seized items from search conducted are inadmissible as evidence to the
separate preliminary investigation.

Held:
The proceedings for the issuance/quashal of a search warrant before a court on the one
hand, and the preliminary investigation before an authorized officer on the other, are
proceedings entirely independent of each other.

One is not bound by the others finding as regards the existence of a crime. The purpose of
each proceeding differs from the other. The first is to determine whether a warrant should
issue or be quashed, and the second, whether an information should be filed in court.
The evidence presented before the trial court does not prove unfair competition.
The court, thus, ordered Solid Triangle and EIIB to return to Sanly Corporation the 451 boxes.
People vs. Salanguit
Facts:
In Dec 1995, Robert Salanguit was arrested in his residence through a search warrant.
The offiecers found plastic bags containing shabu and two bricks of dried marijuana weighing
1.255 kg.
Salanguit was charged for violations of RA 6425, i.e. for possession of shabu and marijuana.
Salanguit claimed (1) the inadmissibility of the shabu (2) the inadmissibility of the marijuana
since it was not obtained via the plain view doctrine;
Issue:
Whether the warrant was invalid for failure of providing evidence to support the seizure of
drug paraphernalia, and whether the marijuana may be included as evidence in light of the
plain view doctrine

Held:
The warrant was partially valid.
The warrant authorized the seizure of undetermined quantity of shabu and drug
paraphernalia.
Evidence was presented showing probable cause of the existence of shabu. The fact that
there was no probable cause to support the application for the seizure of drug paraphernalia
does not warrant the conclusion that the search warrant is void.
Marijuana was inadmissible was evidence.
Under the plain view doctrine, unlawful objects within the plain view of an officer are
subject to seizure and may be presented in evidence.
For this doctrine to apply, there must be: (a) prior justification; (b) inadvertent discovery of the
evidence; and (c) immediate apparent illegality of the evidence before the police.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION vs. MAXICORP, INC.

Facts:
In July 1996, NBI agents, armed with the search warrants, searched premises and seized
property in the Maxicorps premises for violation of PD 49 and Article 189 of the RPC.
Maxicorp filed a motion to quash the search warrants because there was no probable cause
and that the warrants are in the form of "general warrants."
The RTC found probable cause. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTCs ruling.

Issue:
Whether or not the search warrants are valid on the ground that there is there was no
probable cause to issue the search warrants and that are general warrants.

Held:
On Probable Cause. The testimonies of these two witnesses, coupled with the object and
documentary evidence they presented, are sufficient to establish the existence of probable
cause.
Copyright infringement and unfair competition are not limited to the act of selling counterfeit
goods.
The Constitution and the Rules of Court only require that the judge examine personally and
thoroughly the applicant for the warrant and his witnesses to determine probable cause.
On the Nature of General Warrants. It is only required that a search warrant be specific as far
as the circumstances will ordinarily allow. The description of the property to be seized need
not be technically accurate or precise.
Measured against this standard we find that paragraph is not a general warrant.
No provision of law exists which requires that a warrant, partially defective in specifying some
items, should be nullified as a whole.
A partially defective warrant remains valid as to the items specifically described in the warrant.

Personal determination by judge

STA. ROSA MINING COMPANY vs. ASSISTANT PROV FISCAL AUGUSTO ZABALA
Facts:
Mandamus to compel respondent Fiscal to prosecute Criminal Case.
In March 1974, petitioner filed a complaint for attempted theft against Romeo Garrido and Gil
Alapan with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Camarines Norte.
The case was assigned to Assistant Fiscal Esteban P. Panotes for preliminary investigation
who filed the information for Attempted Theft on a prima facie case which was approved by
Prov Fiscal Joaquin Ilustre.
Fiscal Ilustre filed with the Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte the Information.
On March 6, 1975, the Secretary of Justice reversed the findings of prima facie case and
directed said prosecuting officer to dismiss the case.
On April 19, 1976, respondent Fiscal filed a Motion to Dismiss the case which was denied.
The fiscal manifested that he would not prosecute the case.

Issue:
Whether or not the fiscal be compelled to prosecute the case, after motion to dismiss has
been denied by the trial court?

Held:
Notwithstanding his personal convictions, the fiscal must proceed with his duty of presenting
evidence to the court to enable the court to arrive at its own independent judgment.
Accordingly, if the fiscal is not at all convinced that a prima facie case exists, he simply cannot
move for the dismissal of the case and, when denied, refuse to prosecute the same.
He is obliged by law to proceed and prosecute the criminal action.
He cannot impose his opinion on the trial court. At least what he can do is to continue
appearing for the prosecution and then turn over the presentation of evidence to another
fiscal.

The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or information is filed in Court
any disposition of the case as its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests
in the sound discretion of the Court.

Examination of witnesses

LEONA PASION VIUDA DE GARCIA vs. DIEGO LOCSIN

Facts:
In November 1934, Mariano G. Almeda, an agent of the Anti-Usuary Board, obtained a search
warrant to search the house or store of LEONA PASION VIUDA DE GARCIA relating to her
activities as usurer.
The papers and documents seized were kept for a length of time by the Anti-Usury Board and
thereafter were turned over to the respondent fiscal.
The legality of the search warrant was challenged.
The respondent Judge of First Instance ruled that though the search warrant was illegal, there
was a waiver on the part of the petitioner .
Issue:
Whether or not the search warrant is legally issued?
Held:
In the instant case, the existence of probable cause was determined not by the judge himself
but by the applicant. All that the judge did was to accept as true the affidavit made by agent
Almeda.
He did not decide for himself. It does not appear that he examined the applicant and his
witnesses, if any.
For a search warrant to be valid, (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)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.
The properties seized were not delivered to the court which issued the warrant, as required by
law.
The search warrant is declared void.

Particularity of description
People vs. Choi
Facts:
In April 27, 1999, Mario P. Nieto, an Intelligence Operative of the Economic Intelligence and
Investigation Bureau, applied for a search warrant which was issued by Judge Lourdes F.
Gatbalite.
The search warrant was for Christopher Choi for violation of RA 8293, the Intellectual
Property Code.
The search was conducted and respondent filed a motion to quash search warrant.
The respondent claimed that probable cause was not sufficiently established as the
examination conducted was not probing and exhaustive.
CA ruled that the judge should have at least required Sealey to present the alleged fake
Marlboro cigarettes and the genuine ones for comparison.

Issue:
Whether or not Judge Gatbalite committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the search
warrant and whether adding a particular requirement to present the alleged fake Marlboro
cigarettes and the genuine ones for comparison is essential for a finding of probable cause.

Held:
The Search Warrant was VALID.
There is no law or rule which requires that the existence of probable cause is or should be
determined solely by a specific kind of evidence.
To restrict the exercise of discretion by a judge by adding a particular requirement (20th
Century Fox) not provided in the law for a finding of probable cause is beyond the realm of
judicial competence.
The testimonies and other evidence on record constituted adequate bases to establish
probable cause that the alleged offense had been committed.

Objects of Seizure
UNILAB vs. Isip
Facts:
Rolando H. Besarra, NBI investigator, filed for the issuance of a search warrant concerning
the first and second floors of the Shalimar Building in Sta. Cruz, Manila owned by Ernesto
Isip.
The warrant is to search for counterfeit REVICON multivitamins.
No fake Revicon multivitamins were found but instead Disudrin and Inoflox.
Respondents filed a Motion to Quash the Search Warrant. They contended that a wrong
building was searched and the items seized were not in the search warrant.
The trial court quashed the warrant.
Issue:
Whether the search conducted by the NBI officers of the first and second floors of the
Shalimar building and the seizure of the sealed boxes which, when opened, contained
Disudrin syrup and Inoflox, were valid.

Held:
A search warrant, to be valid, must particularly describe the place to be searched and the
things to be seized. The officers of the law are to seize only those things particularly
described in the search warrant.
A search warrant is not a sweeping authority empowering a raiding party to undertake a
fishing expedition to confiscate any and all kinds of evidence relating to a crime.
In this case, Disudrin and/or Inoflox were not listed in the search warrant issued by the court
as among the properties to be seized by the NBI agents.
The warrant specifically authorized the officers only to seize 'counterfeit Revicon.
Requirements for the plain view doctrine to apply: (a) the executing law enforcement officer
has a prior justification for an initial intrusion (b) the officer must discover incriminating
evidence inadvertently; and (c) it must be immediately apparent to the police that the items
they observe may be evidence of a crime subject to seizure.
The plain view doctrine may not be used to extend a general exploratory search from one
object to another until something incriminating at last emerges

Valid Waiver
People v. Omaweng
Facts:
In September 1988, the Ford Fiera driven by Conway Omaweng was stopped in a
check point by the PC constables.
He consented when the rear of his vehicle was checked including the travelling bag.
Plastic packets of marijuana was dicovered and seized..
Omaweng was indicted for the violation of RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972),

Issue:
Whether or not CONTRABAND SUBJECT OF THE INSTANT CASE IS INADMISSIBLE IN
EVIDENCE FOR HAVING BEEN OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE.
Held:
The accused was not subjected to any search which may be stigmatized as a
violation of his Constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Omaweng waived his right against unreasonable searches and seizures when he
voluntarily submitted to a search or consents to have it made in his person or premises.
He is precluded from complaining thereof right to be secure from unreasonable
search.
The right to be secure from unreasonable search may, like every right, be waived and
such waiver may be made either expressly or impliedly.

Plain view doctrine

PADILLA VS. CA
Facts:
Accused Robin Padilla was apprehended in Pampanga after he was pursued for a
hit-and-run accident. He was ordered by police officers to alight his Mitsubishi Pajero.
When he went out, a gun tucked on the left side of his waist was revealed. A long
magazine of an armalite rifle in his back right pocket was also exposed. A baby armalite lying
at the driver's seat was also seen.
Accused was unable to produce any permit to carry said firearms. He was arrested
and said firearms were seized.

Issue: Whether or not seizure of said firearms is valid under the plain view doctrine.

Ruling:
Seizure was valid.
All firearms came within the "plain view" of the policement who inadvertently
discovered the revolver and magazine tucked in accused's waist and back pocket, and M-16
armalite immediately apparent to policemen who took casual glance at the Pajero's driver's
seat.
Seizure of evidence in plain view is valid when the following elements concur:
(a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally
present in the pursuit of their official duties;
(b) evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they
are;
(c) evidence must be immediately apparent;
(d) "plain" view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search
Note: In this case, search and seizure of firearms can also be valid under: (1) search
incidental to a lawful arrest, and (2) search of a moving vehicle.