Constitutional Law: Manalili vs Court of Appeals (GR 113447)

Oct. 9, 1997
Manalili v CA (GR 113447) Oct. 9, 1997
Facts:
At about 2:10 PM on April 11, 1988, Police Anti-Narcotics Unit of Kalookan City
conducted surveillance along A. Mabini Street, in front of the Kalookan City
Cemetery. This was done after receiving information that drug addicts were
roaming around said area.
Upon reaching the cemetery, the policemen chanced upon a male person, the
petitioner, in front of the cemetery who appeared high on drugs. The petitioner
had reddish eyes and was walking in a swaying manner.
Petitioner was trying to avoid the policemen, but the officers were able to
introduce themselves and asked him what he was holding in his hands. Petitioner
resisted. Policeman Espiritu asked him if he could see what the petitioner had in
his hands. The petitioner showed his wallet and allowed the officer to examine it.
Policeman Espiritu found suspected crushed marijuana residue inside. He kept
the wallet and its marijuana contents and took petitioner to headquarters to be
further investigated.
The suspected marijuana was sent to the NBI Forensic Chemistry Section for
analysis.
Issue:
Whether or not the search and seizure of the suspected marijuana is
unreasonable, and hence inadmissible as evidence.
Held:
The general rule is a search and seizure must be validated by a previously
secured judicial warrant; otherwise, such a search and seizure is unconstitutional
and subject to challenge. Any evidence obtained in violation of this
constitutionally guaranteed right is legally inadmissible in any proceeding.
The exceptions to the rule are: (1) search incidental to a lawful arrest, (2) search
of moving vehicles, (3) seizure in plain view, (4) customs search, and (5) waiver
by the accused of their right against unreasonable search and seizure. In these
cases, the search and seizure may be made only with probable cause. Probable
cause being at best defined as a reasonable ground of suspicion, supported by
circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man in the
belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged;
or the existence of such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and
that the item(s), article(s) or object(s) sought in connection with said offense or
subject to seizure and destruction by is in the place to be searched.
Additionally, stop-and-frisk has already been adopted as another exception to the
general rule against a search without a warrant.
In the present case, petitioner effectively waived the inadmissibility of the
evidence illegally obtained when he failed to raise the issue or object thereto
during the trial.
The Supreme Court affirmed with modifications the assailed Decision and
Resolution of the respondent court.

Source: https://lawandbar.blogspot.com/2016/08/constitutional-law-manalili-vscourt-of.html