(1) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs NBI agents did not convert the reasonable of each of them in said corporations,
hem in said corporations, and
ANDRE MARTI
FACTS:
The appellant and his common-law wife, Sherly
Reyes, went to the booth of the Manila
Packing and Export Forwarders carrying Four
(4) wrapped packages to send to Zurich,
Switzerland. Anita Reyes asked if she could
examine and inspect the packages. She
refused and assures her that the packages
simply contained books, cigars, and gloves.
Following the standard operating procedure,
opened the boxes for final inspection. A
peculiar odor emitted from the box. In the
presence of the NBI agents, Job Reyes opened
the suspicious package and found dried-
marijuana leaves inside. A case was filed
against Andre Marti in violation of R.A. 6425
and was found guilty by the court a quo. Andre
filed an appeal in the Supreme Court claiming
that his constitutional right of privacy was
violated and that the evidence acquired from
his package was inadmissible as evidence
against for the illegality of search and seized
objects.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the seizing of illegal objects is
legal?
HELD:
Charged for violation of right to privacy but no
no illegal search and seizure was made.
Stonehill vs Diokno, declared as inadmissible
any evidence obtained by virtue of a
defective search warrant, abandoning in
the process the ruling earlier adopted in
Mercado vs Peoples Court.
The constitutional proscription against unlawful
searches and seizures therefore applies as a
restraint directed only against the government
and its agencies tasked with the enforcement
of the law. It is not meant to be invoked against
acts of private individuals. It will be recalled
that Mr Job Reyes was the one who opened the
box in the presence of the NBI agents in his
place of business. The mere presence of the
search effected by Mr. Reyes into a warrantless
search and siezure proscribed by the
constitution. Merely to observe and look at that
which is in plain sight is not a search.
(2) STONEHILL V DIOKNO
FACTS:
In violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and
Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and
the Revised Penal Code, 42 warrants were
issued against petitioners and the corporation
where they are officers, to search the persons
above-named and the premises and objects
which are the subject of the offense.
Petitioners filed with the Supreme Court this
original alleging the search warrants to be void
since (1) they do not describe with particularity
the documents, books and things to be seized;
(2) cash money, not mentioned in the warrants,
were actually seized; (3) the warrants were
issued to fish evidence against the
aforementioned petitioners in deportation
cases filed against them; (4) the searches and
seizures were made in an illegal manner; and
(5) 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
ISSUE: W/N the seizure is valid
HELD: YES. warrants for the search of 3
residences null and void; searches and seizures
made are illegal; that the writ of preliminary
injunction issued. The documents, papers, and
things seized under the alleged authority of the
warrants in question may be split into two (2)
major groups, namely:
(a) those found and seized in the offices of the
aforementioned corporations, and have no
cause of action to assail the legality of the
contested warrants and of the seizures made in
pursuance thereof, for the simple reason that
said corporations have their respective
personalities, separate and distinct from the
personality of herein petitioners, regardless of
the amount of shares of stock or of the interest
whatever the offices they hold therein may be.
Question of the lawfulness of a seizure can be
raised only by one whose rights have been
invaded. Certainly, such a seizure, if unlawful,
could not affect the constitutional rights of
defendants whose property had not been
seized or the privacy of whose homes had not
been disturbed
(b) those found and seized in the residences of
petitioners herein.
2 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 - not met
(2) that the warrant shall particularly
describe the things to be seized. - not
met
Without reference to any determinate provision
of said laws, the warrants authorized the
search for and seizure of records pertaining to
all business transactions of petitioners herein,
regardless of whether the transactions were
legal or illegal.
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.
(3) SOLIVEN VS. MAKASIAR
FACTS:
Beltran wants to call for an interpretation of the
constitutional provision on
the issuance of warrants of arrest because he
assailed that his constitutional right was
violated when respondent RTC judge issued a
warrant for his arrest without personally
examining the complainant and the witnesses,
if any, to determine probable cause.
Beltran's interpretation of the words
"determined personally" convinced him that
the judge is solely responsible to personally
examine the complainant and his witnesses in
his determination of probable cause for
the issuance of warrants of arrest.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent committed a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction when the warrant of arrest was
issued.
HELD:
No. The Court did not find any grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of the respondent
judge.
What the Constitution requires is that the
issuing judge must satisfy himself first with
the criteria in finding probable cause. And to
satisfy himself doesn't mean to he is required
to personally examine the complainant and his
witnesses. The Constitution mandates that he
shall:
(1) personally evaluate the report and the
supporting documents submitted by the fiscal
regarding the existence of probable cause and,
on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest;
or( 2) if on the basis thereof he finds no
probable cause, he may disregard the
fiscal's report and require the submission of
supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in
arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of
probable cause.
(4) SILVA VS. PRESIDING JUDGE
FACTS:
Sgt. Villamor filed an "application for search
warrant" and "Deposition of witness" against The officers who implemented the search
petitioner Nicomedes Silva and Martin Silva. warrant clearly abused their authority when
Judge Nickarter Ontal, then the presiding judge they seized the money of Antonieta Silva. The
issued Search Warrant No.1 pursuant to the warrant did not indicate the seizure of money
said applications for violation of RA 6425 but only for marijuana leaves,
Dangerous Drugs ACT of 1972. Such warrant cigarettes..etc. Search Warrant No. 1 is
states that there is a probable cause to believe declared null and void.
that Mr. Tama Silva has the possession and
control of marijuana dried leaves, cigarette and *** Sec 4 Rule 126 Rules of Court
joint.
(5) MORANO VS VIVO
The warrant authorizes Sgt. Villamor to make
an immediate search at any time of the room Facts:
of Mr. Tama Silva at the residence of his father Chan Sau Wah, a Chinese citizen, together with
Comedes Silva and to open aparadors, lockers, her minor son in her first marriage
cabinets, cartons and containers to look for arrived in the Philippines to visit her cousin.
said illegal drugs. They are permitted only into
the Philippines under a temporary visitor's visa
In the course of the search, the officers seized for two months and after they posted a cash
money belonging to Antonieta Silva in the bond of 4,000.
amount of P1,231.40. Petitioner filed a motion
to quash Search WarrantNo.1 on the ground Afterwards, Chan married Esteban Morano,
that 1) it was issued on the sole basis of native Filipino citizen to prolong their stay in
mimeograph the Philippines, Chan obtained
2) the judge failed to personally examine the several extensions. The last extension expired.
complainant and witness by
searching questions and answers. In a letter, the commissioner of Immigration
ordered Chan and Fu to leave the country with
ISSUE: a warning that upon failure so to do, he will
Whether or Not Search Warrant No.1 is invalid. issue a warrant for their arrest and will cause
WON the officers abused their authority in the confiscation of their bond.
seizing the money of Antonieta Silva.
Issue:
HELD: Whether or not the commissioner of
Search Warrant No. 1 is invalid due to the immigration can issue warrant of arrest
failure of the judge to examine the witness
in the form of searching questions and Ruling:
answers. The questions asked were leading as The Supreme Court held that Section 1 (3),
they are answerable by mere yes or no. Such Article III [Bill of Rights] of the Constitution
questions are not sufficiently searching to limits to judges the authority to issue
establish probable cause. The questions warrants of arrest and that the legislative
were already mimeographed and all the delegation of such power to the
witness had to do was fill in their answers on Commissioner of Immigration is thus
the blanks provided. Judge Ontal is guilty of violative of the Bill of Rights.
grave abuse of discretion when he rejected the
motion of Antonieta Silva seeking the return of The Court perceives, that in the execution of a
her money. final order of deportation issued in accordance
with law, they do not require judicial
intervention. The constitutional limitation
contemplates an order of arrest in the
exercise of judicial power as a step
preliminary or incidental to prosecution
or proceedings for a given offense or
administrative action, not as a measure
indispensable to carry out a valid decision
by a competent official, such as a legal
order of deportation, issued by the
Commissioner of Immigration, in
pursuance of a valid legislation.
The issue of probable cause be determined by
a judge, does not extend to deportation
proceedings.
(6) HARVEY V. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO
Facts:
This is a petition for Habeas Corpus.
Petitioners are American nationals that reside
at Pagsanjan Laguna respondent Commissioner
Miriam Defensor Santiago issued Mission
Orders to the Commission of Immigration and
Deportation (CID) to apprehended petitioners
at their residences. The Operation Report
read that Harvey was found together with two
young boys. Sherman was found with two
naked boys inside his room. While Elshout in
the after Mission Report read that two
children of ages 14 and 16 has been under his
care and subjects confirmed being live-in for
sometime now.
Seized during the petitioners apprehension
were rolls of photo negatives and photos of
suspected child prostitutes shown in
scandalous poses as well as boys and girls
engaged in sex. Posters and other literature
advertising the child prostitutes were also
found.
Deportation proceedings were instituted
against aliens for being undesirable aliens
under Sec.69 of Revised Administrative Code.
Warrants of Arrest were issued for violation of
Sec37, 45 and 46 of Immigration Act and sec69
of Revised Administrative Code.
Issues:
(1) Whether or Not the Commissioner has the
power to arrest and detain petitioners pending
determination of existence of probable cause.
(2) Whether or Not there was
unreasonable searches and seizures by CID
agents.
(3) Whether or Not the writ of Habeas
Corpus may be granted to petitioners.
Held: While pedophilia is not a crime under the
Revised Penal Code, it violates the declared
policy of the state to promote and protect the
physical, moral, spiritual and social well being
of the youth. The arrest of petitioners was
based on the probable cause determined after
close surveillance of 3 months. The existence
of probable cause justified the arrest
and seizure of articles linked to the
offense. The articles were seized as an
incident to a lawful arrest; therefore the
articles are admissible evidences (Rule 126,
Section12 of Rules on Criminal Procedure).
The rule that search and seizures must be
supported by a valid warrant of arrest is not an
absolute rule. There are at least three
exceptions to this rule. 1.) Search is
incidental to the arrest. 2.) Search in a
moving vehicle. 3.) Seizure of evidence in
plain view. In view of the foregoing, the
search done was incidental to the arrest.
The filing of the petitioners for bail is
considered as a waiver of any irregularity
attending their arrest and estops them
from questioning its validity. Furthermore,
the deportation charges and the hearing
presently conducted by the Board of Special
Inquiry made their detention legal. It is a
fundamental rule that habeas corpus will not
be granted when confinement is or has
become legal, although such confinement was
illegal at the beginning.
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.
(7) ALVAREZ VS CFI
Facts:
The chief of the secret service of the Anti-Usury
Board, of the Department of Justice, presented
to a Judge an affidavit alleging that according
to reliable information, the petitioner kept in
his house books, documents, receipts, lists,
chits and other papers used by him in
connection with his activities as a money-
lender charging usurious rates of interest in
violation of the law. In his oath at the end of
the affidavit, the chief of the secret service
stated that his answers to the questions were
correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
He did not swear to the truth of his statements
upon his own knowledge of the facts but upon
the information received by him from a reliable
person. Upon the affidavit in question the
Judge, on said date, issued the warrant
ordering the search of the petitioners house at
any time of the day or night, the seizure of the
books and documents above-mentioned and
the immediate delivery thereof to him to be
disposed of in accordance with the law.
With said warrant, several agents of the Anti-
Usury Board entered the petitioners store and
residence at seven oclock on the night and
seized and took possession of articles, but as
the articles had not been brought immediately
to the judge who issued the search warrant,
the petitioner filed a motion praying that the
agent, be ordered immediately to deposit all
the seized articles in the office of the clerk of
court and that said agent be declared guilty of
contempt for having disobeyed the order of the
court.
Motion granted. Attorney Arsenio Rodriguez,
representing the Anti-Usury Board, filed a
motion praying that the order be set aside and
that the Anti-Usury Board be authorized to
retain the articles seized for a period of thirty
(30) days for the necessary investigation.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the affidavit is valid for
purposes in issuing a search warrant
2. Whether or not affidavit of witnesses is
needed
3. Whether or not the constitutional mandate
that the thing to be seized is particularly
described is violated
4. Whether or not fishing evidence is valid
Ruling:
1. The provisions of the constitution require
that there be not only probable cause
before the issuance of a search warrant
but that the search warrant must be
based upon an application supported by
oath of the applicant and the witnesses
he may produce. The oath required must
refer to the truth of the facts within the
personal knowledge of the petitioner or his
witnesses. The true test of sufficiency of an
affidavit to warrant issuance of a search
warrant is whether it has been drawn in such a
manner that perjury could be charged thereon
and affiant be held liable for damages caused.
It appears that the affidavit, which served as
the exclusive basis of the search warrant, is
insufficient and fatally defective by
reason of the manner in which the oath
was made, and therefore, it is hereby held
that the search warrant in question and the
subsequent seizure of the objects are illegal
and do not in any way warrant the deprivation
to which the petitioner was subjected.
2. It is admitted that the judge who issued the
search warrant in this case, relied exclusively
upon the affidavit made by agent Mariano G.
Almeda and that he did not require nor take
the deposition of any other witness. Neither
the Constitution nor General Orders No.
58 provides that it is of imperative
necessity to take the deposition of the
witnesses to be presented by the
applicant or complainant in addition to
the affidavit of the latter. Therefore, if the
affidavit of the applicant or complainant is
sufficient, the judge may dispense with that of
other witnesses. Inasmuch as the affidavit
of the agent in this case was insufficient
because his knowledge of the facts was
not personal but merely hearsay, it is the
duty of the judge to require the affidavit
of one or more witnesses for the purpose
of determining the existence of probable
cause to warrant the issuance of the
search warrant.
3. These provisions of the constitution are
mandatory and must be strictly complied with
but where, by the nature of the goods to be
seized, their description must be rather
generally, it is not required that a technical
description be given, as this would mean that
no warrant could issue. Taking into
consideration the nature of the article so
described, it is clear that no other more
adequate and detailed description could have
been given, particularly because it is difficult to
give a particular description of the contents
thereof. The description so made substantially
complies with the legal provisions because the
officer of the law who executed the warrant
was thereby placed in a position enabling him
to identify the articles, which he did.
4. The seizure of books and documents by
means of a search warrant, for the purpose of
using them as evidence in a criminal case
against the person in whose possession they
were found, is unconstitutional because it
makes the warrant unreasonable, and it is
equivalent to a violation of the constitutional
provision prohibiting the compulsion of an
accused to testify against himself.
(8) MATA vs BAYONA
FACTS:
The contention is that the search warrant
issued by respondent Judge was based merely
on application for Search Warrant and a joint
affidavit of private respondents which were
wrongfully allegedly subscribed, and sworn to
before the Clerk of Court. Furthermore, there
was allegedly a failure on the part of the
respondent Judge to attach the necessary
papers, the information against him alleging
that Soriano Mata offered, took, and arranged
bets on the Jai Alai game by selling illegal
tickets knows as Masiao tickets without any
authority from the Philippine Jai Alai and
Corporation or from the government authorities
concerned.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Search Warrant is valid.
HELD:
No. The Search Warrant is declared as illegal.
Deposition, sometimes used in a broad sense
to describe any written statement verified by
oath; but in its more technical and appropriate
sense the meaning of the word is limited to
written testimony of a witness given in
the course of a judicial proceeding in
advance of the trial or hearing upon oral
examination.
Mere affidavits of the complainant and his
witnesses are thus not sufficient. The
examining Judge has to take depositions
in writing of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce and to attach
them to the record. Such written deposition
is necessary in order that the Judge may be
able to property determine the existence or
non-existence of the probable cause, to hold
liable for perjury the person giving if it will be said hospital was among the five (5) male
found later his declarations are false. "sparrows" who murdered two (2) Capcom
mobile patrols before a road hump.
(9) PEOPLE VS. DEL ROSARIO The wounded man's name was listed by the
hospital management as "Ronnie Javellon,"
however it was disclosed later that the true
Facts: name of the wounded man was Rolando Dural.
Accused was charged and convicted by the
In view of this verification, Rolando Dural was
trial court of illegal possession of firearms and
transferred to the Regional Medical Services of
illegal possession and sale of drugs, the CAPCOM, for security reasons. While
particularly methamphetamine or shabu. confined thereat, he was positively identified
by the eyewitnesses as the one who murdered
After the issuance of the search warrant, which the 2 CAPCOM mobile patrols.
authorized the search and seizure of an
undetermined quantity of methamphetamine Issue:
and its paraphernalias, an entrapment was Whether or Not Rolando was lawfully arrested.
planned that led to the arrest of del Rosario
and to the seizure of the shabu, its Held:
paraphernalias and of a .22 caliber pistol with Rolando Dural was arrested for being a
3 live ammunition. member of the NPA, an outlawed subversive
organization. Subversion being a continuing
offense, the arrest without warrant is
Issue:
justified as it can be said that he was
Whether or Not the seizure of the firearms was
committing as offense when arrested. The
proper. crimes rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or
proposal to commit such crimes, and crimes or
Held:
offenses committed in furtherance therefore in
No. Sec 2 art. III of the constitution
connection therewith constitute direct assaults
specifically provides that a search against the state and are in the nature of
warrant must particularly describe continuing crimes.
the things to be seized. In herein case, the
only objects to be seized that the warrant
(11) PEOPLE VS SUCRO
determined was the methamphetamine and
the paraphernalias therein. The seizure of the
Facts:
firearms was unconstitutional.
Pat. Roy fulgencio, a member of the INP Kalibo,
Aklan was instructed by P/Lt Vicente Seraspi Jr.,
Wherefore the decision is reversed and the
Station commander, to monitor the activities of
accused is acquitted.
appellant. Fulgencio positioned himself to a
house, adjacent of which is a chapel. Fulgencio
saw appellant enter the chapel taking
(10) UMIL VS. RAMOS
something which turn out later to be marijuana
from a compartment of a cart found inside the
Facts:
chapel and return to the street where he
Military agents were dispatched to the St.
handed the same to a buyer.
Agnes Hospital to verify a confidential
information which was received by their office, Fulgencio radioed Seraspi and reported the
about a "sparrow man" (NPA member) who had activity, Seraspi instructed Fulgencio to
been admitted to the said hospital with a continue monitoring.
gunshot wound. That the wounded man in the
The team seraspi proceeded to the area and
fulgencio told seraspi to intercept Macabante
who was buying from flugencio and Appellant.
Team Seraspi caught up with macabante at a
crossing. Upon seeing the police Macabante
threw something at the ground which turned
out to a tea bag of marijuana. Macabante
admitted that he brought the same from
appellant. The police team was able to
overtake and arrest appellant.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the arrest without warrant
of the accused is lawful
2. Whether or not the evidence resulting from
arrest is admissible
Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that under Section 5
Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal
Procedure for the instance that arrest without
warrant is considered 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.
An offense is committed in the presence or
within the view of an officer when the officer
sees the offense, although at the distance, or
hears the disturbance created thereby and
proceed at once at the scene the act of
surveillance
Second requirement: the act of macabante,
throwing of the marijuana and the admission,
constitute that he just committed an illegal act
which the police officer had personal
knowledge, being members of the team which
monitors Sucros nefarious activity
People vs bati police officers have
personal knowledge of the actual
commission of the crime when it had
earlier conducted surveillance activities.
Evidence - admissible because the arrest is
valid
(12) PEOPLE V. RODRIGUEZA
Facts:
NARCOM agents staged a buy-bust operation,
after gaining information that there was an
ongoing illegal traffic of prohibited drugs. The
participating agents were given money treated
with ultraviolet powder. One of the agents went
to said location, asked for a certain Don.
Thereafter, the Don, herein accused, met with
him and a certain object wrapped in a plastic
later identified as marijuana was given in
exchange for P200. The agent went back to
headquarters and made a report, based on
which, a team was subsequently organized and
a raid was conducted in the house of the father
of the accused. During the raid, the NARCOM
agents were able to confiscate dried marijuana
leaves and a plastic syringe among others.
There was no authorization by any search
warrant. The accused was found positive of
ultraviolet powder. The lower court, considering
the evidences obtained and testimonies from
the prosecution, found him guilty of violating
the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 and
sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
Issue: Whether or Not the lower court was
correct in its judgment.
Held: The NARCOM agents procedure in the
entrapment of the accused failed to meet
the qualification that the suspected drug
dealer must be caught red-handed in the
act of selling marijuana to a person
posing as a buyer, since the operation
was conducted after the actual exchange.
Said raid also violated accused right against
unreasonable search and seizure, as the
situation did not fall in the circumstances
wherein a search may be validly made
even without a search warrant, i.e. when
the search is incidental to a lawful arrest; when
it involves prohibited articles in plain view.
The NARCOM agents could not have justified
their act by invoking the urgency and necessity
of the situation because the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses reveal that the place
had already been put under surveillance for
quite some time. Had it been their intention to
conduct the raid, then they should, because
they easily could, have first secured a search
warrant during that time. The Court further
notes the confusion and ambiguity in
the identification of the confiscated marijuana
leaves and other prohibited drug
paraphernalia presented as evidence
against appellant.
A plastic bag and the dried marijuana leaves
contained therein constitute the corpus delicti
of the crime. As such, the existence thereof
must be proved with certainty and
conclusiveness. Failure to do so would be fatal
to the cause of the prosecution. Conviction is
reversed and set aside and accused is
acquitted.
(13) GO VS. COURT OF APPEALS
Facts:
Petitioner, while traveling in the wrong
direction on a one-way street, almost had a
collision with another vehicle. Petitioner
thereafter got out of his car, shot the driver of
the other vehicle, and drove off.
An eyewitness of the incident was able to take
down petitioners plate number and reported
the same to the police, who subsequently
ordered a man hunt for petitioner. 6 days
after the shooting, petitioner presented himself
in the police station, accompanied by 2
lawyers, the police detained him. Subsequently
a criminal charge was brought against him.
Petitioner posted bail, the prosecutor filed the
case to the lower court, setting and
commencing trial without preliminary
investigation. Prosecutor reasons that the
petitioner has waived his right to preliminary
investigation as bail has been posted and that
such situation, that petitioner has been
arrested without a warrant lawfully, falls under
Section 5, Rule 113 and Section 7, Rule 112 of
The 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure which
provides for the rules and procedure pertaining
to situations of lawful warrantless arrests.
Petitioner in his petition for certiorari assails
such procedure and actions undertaken and
files for a preliminary investigation.
Issues:
(1) Whether or Not warrantless arrest of
petitioner was lawful.
(2) Whether or Not petitioner effectively
waived his right to preliminary investigation.
Held:
Petitioner and prosecutor err in relying on Umil
v. Ramos, wherein the Court upheld the
warrantless arrest as valid effected 1 to 14
days from actual commission of the offenses,
which however constituted continuing
crimes, i.e. subversion, membership in
an outlawed organization, etc.
There was no lawful warrantless arrest under
Section 5, Rule 113. This is because the
arresting officers were not actually there
during the incident, thus they had no
personal knowledge and their information
regarding petitioner were derived from
other sources. Further, Section 7, Rule 112,
does not apply.
Petitioner was not arrested at all, as
when he walked in the police station, he
neither expressed surrender nor any
statement that he was or was not guilty
of any crime. When a complaint was filed to
the prosecutor, preliminary investigation
should have been scheduled to determine
probable cause. Prosecutor made a substantive
error, petitioner is entitled to preliminary
investigation, necessarily in a criminal charge,
where the same is required appear thereat.
Petition granted, prosecutor is ordered to
conduct preliminary investigation, trial for the
criminal case is suspended pending result from
preliminary investigation, petitioner is ordered
released upon posting a bail bond.
(14) POSADAS VS. COURT OF
APPEALS
Facts:
Members of the Integrated National Police (INP)
of the Davao Metrodiscom assigned with the
Intelligence Task Force, conducted surveillance.
They spotted petitioner carrying a "buri" bag
and they noticed him to be acting suspiciously.
They approached the petitioner and identified
themselves as members of the INP. Petitioner
attempted to flee but his attempt to get away
was unsuccessful. They then checked the
"buri" bag of the petitioner where they found
one revolver, 2 guns, and a smoke grenade.
They brought the petitioner to the police
station for further investigation.
In the course of the same, the petitioner was
asked to show the necessary license or
authority to possess firearms and ammunitions
found in his possession but he failed to do so.
He was prosecuted for illegal possession of
firearms and ammunitions in the Regional Trial
Court of Davao City.
Issue: Whether or Not the warantless search is
valid.
Held: In justifying the warrantless search of the
buri bag then carried by the petitioner, argues
that under Section 12, Rule 136 of the
Rules of Court a person lawfully arrested
may be searched for dangerous weapons
or anything used as proof of a
commission of an offense without
a search warrant. It is further alleged that
the arrest without a warrant of the petitioner
was lawful under the circumstances.
In the case at bar, there is no question that,
indeed, it is reasonable considering that it
was effected on the basis of a probable
cause. The probable cause is that when the
petitioner acted suspiciously and attempted
to flee with the buri bag there was a probable
cause that he was concealing something illegal
in the bag and it was the right and duty of the
police officers to inspect the same.
(15) PEOPLE VS MENGOTE
Y TEJAS
Facts:
A telephone call was made by Western Police
district that there were three suspicious-looking
persons. A surveillance team of plain
clothesmen was dispatched to the place. They
saw two men looking from side to side one of
whom is holding his abdomen. They
approached these persons and identified
themselves as policemen, whereupon the two
tried to run away but were unable to escape
because the other lawmen had surrounded
them. The suspects were then searched. One
of them, who turned out to be the accused was
found with a .38 caliber Smith and Wesson
revolver with six live bullets in the chamber.
His companion had a fan knife. The weapons
were taken from them.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused constitutional right
against unreasonable search and seizure is
violated
Ruling:
The Supreme court held that par(a) section 5
Rule 113 of rules of court requires that a
person be arrested 1 After he has committed or
while he is actually committing or is at least
attempting to commit an offense 2 In the
presence of the arresting officer.
These requirements have not been
established in the case at bar at bar. At
the time of the arrest in question, the accused
was merely looking from side to side and
holding his abdomen. There was
apparently no offense that has just been
committed or was being actually
committed or at least being attempted by
Mengote in their presence.
Par. B. is no less applicable because its no less
stringent requirements have not been satisfied.
The prosecution has not shown that at
the time of arrest an offense had in fact
just been committed and that the
arresting officer had personal knowledge
of facts indicating that Mengote had
committed it. All they had was hearsay
information from the telephone caller, and
about a crime that had yet to be committed.
ACQUITTED
(16) MALACAT vs. CA
Facts:
Petitioner was arrested for having in his
possession a hand grenade after he was
searched by a group of policemen when he was
said to be acting suspiciously when he was
hanging around Plaza Miranda with his eyes
moving fast together with other Muslim-looking
men. When the policemen approached the
group of men, they scattered in all directions
which prompted the police to give chase and
petitioner was then apprehended and a search
was made on his person.
He was then convicted under PD 1866 in the
lower court. Hence, the present petition
wherein petitioner contended that the lower
court erred in holding that the search made on
him and the seizure of the hand grenade from
him was an appropriate incident to his arrest
and that it erred in admitting the hand grenade
as evidence since it was admissible because it
was a product of an unreasonable and illegal
search.
Issue:
WON the search and seizure conducted by the
police was valid.
Held:
The general rule as regards arrests, searches
and seizures is that a warrant is needed in
order to validly effect the same. The
Constitutional prohibition against unreasonable
arrests, searches and seizures refers to those
effected without a validly issued warrant,
subject to certain exceptions. As regards valid
warrantless arrests, these are found in Section
5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.
A warrantless arrest under the circumstances
contemplated under Section 5(a) has been
denominated as one "in flagrante delicto,"
while that under Section 5(b) has been
described as a "hot pursuit" arrest.
Turning to valid warrantless searches, they
are limited to the following: (1) customs
searches; (2) search of moving vehicles; (3)
seizure of evidence in plain view; (4) consent
searches; (5) a search incidental to a lawful
arrest; and (6) a "stop and frisk.
At the outset, we note that the trial court
confused the concepts of a "stop-and-frisk" and
of a search incidental to a lawful arrest. These
two types of warrantless searches differ in
terms of the requisite quantum of proof
before they may be validly effected and in their
allowable scope.
In a search incidental to a lawful arrest, the law
requires that there first be a lawful arrest
before a search can be made, the process
cannot be reversed. At bottom, assuming a
valid arrest, the arresting officer may search
the person of the arrestee and the area within
which the latter may reach for a weapon or for
evidence to destroy, and seize any money or
property found which was used in the
commission of the crime, or the fruit of the
crime, or that which may be used as evidence,
or which might furnish the arrestee with the
means of escaping or committing violence.
We now proceed to the justification for and
allowable scope of a "stop-and-frisk" as a
"limited protective search of outer clothing for
weapons,"
We merely hold today that where a police
officer observes unusual conduct which leads
him reasonably to conclude in light of his
experience that criminal activity may be afoot
and that the persons with whom he is dealing
may be armed and presently dangerous, where
in the course of investigating this behavior he
identifies himself as a policeman and makes
reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the
initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel
his reasonable fear for his own or others'
safety, he is entitled for the protection of
himself and others in the area to conduct a
carefully limited search of the outer clothing of
such persons in an attempt to discover
weapons which might be used to assault him. It
nevertheless holds that mere suspicion or a
hunch will not validate a "stop and
frisk." Finally, a "stop-and-frisk" serves a
two-fold interest: (1) the general interest
of effective crime prevention and
detection, which underlies the
recognition that a police officer may,
under appropriate circumstances and in
an appropriate manner, approach a
person for purposes of investigating
possible criminal behavior even without
probable cause; and (2) the more
pressing interest of safety and self-
preservation which permit the police
officer to take steps to assure himself
that the person with whom he deals is
not armed with a deadly weapon that
could unexpectedly and fatally be used
against the police officer.
(17) PEOPLE VS AMINNUDIN
Facts:
The PC (Philippine Constabulary) officer
received a tip from one of their informers that
the accused was on board a vessel bound
for Iloilo City and was carrying marijuana.
He was identified by name. Acting on this tip,
they waited for him in the evening and
approached him as he descended from the
gangplank after the informer pointed at him.
They detained him and inspected the bag he
was carrying. It was found to contained
three kilos of what were later analyzed as
marijuana leaves by the NBI forensic
examiner. On the basis of the finding, the
corresponding charge was then filed against
Aminnudin.
Issue:
Whether or not accused constitutional right
against unreasonable serach and seizure is
violated
Ruling:
The Supreme Court Held that warrantless
arrest allowed under Rule 113 of the rules
of court not justified unless the accused
was caught in flagrante or a crime was
about to be committed or had just been
committed.
A vessels and aircraft are subject to
warrantless searches and seizures for violation
of the customs law because these vehicles
may be quickly moved out of the locality or
jurisdiction before the warrant can be secured.
In the present case, from the conflicting
declarations of the PC witnesses, it is clear that
they had at least two days within which they
could have obtained a warrant to arrest and
search Aminnudin who was coming to Iloilo on
the M/V Wilcon 9. His name was known. The
vehicle was identified. The date of his arrival
was certain. And from the information they
have received, they could have persuaded a
judge that there was a probable cause, indeed,
to justify the issuance of a warrant. Yet they did
nothing. The Bill of Rights was ignored
altogether because the PC lieutenant who was
the head of the arresting team had determine
on his own authority that a search warrant was
not necessary.
The evidence of probable cause should be
determined by a judge and not law
enforcement agents.
(18) PEOPLE VS MALMSTEDT
Facts:
Captain Alen Vasco, the commanding officer of
the first regional command (NARCOM) ordered
his men to set up a temporary checkpoint for
the purpose of checking all vehicles coming
from the Cordillera Region. The order to
establish a checkpoint was prompted by
persistent reports that vehicles coming from
Sagada were transporting marijuana and other
prohibited drugs.
In the afternoon the bus where accused was
riding stopped. Sgt. Fider and CIC Galutan
boarded the bus and announced that they
were members of the NARCOM and that they
would conduct an inspection. During the
inspection CIC Galutan noticed a bulge on
accused waist. Suspecting the bulge on
accused waist to be a gun, the officer asked for
accuseds passport and other identification
papers. When accused failed to comply, the
officer required him to bring out whatever it
was that was bulging o his waist. And it turned
out to be a pouched bag and when accused
opened the same bag the officer noticed four
suspicious looking objects wrapped in brown
packing tape. It contained hashish, a derivative
of marijuana.
Issue:
Whether or not there is a violation of the
constitutional right against unreasonable
search and seizure
Ruling:
Accused was searched and arrested while
transporting prohibited drugs. A crime was
actually being committed by the accused
and he was caught in flagrante delicto,
thus the search made upon his personal
effects falls squarely under paragraph 1
of the foregoing provision of law, which
allows a warrantless search incident to a
lawful arrest.
Probable cause has been defined as such facts
and circumstances which could lead a
reasonable, discreet and prudent man to
believe that an offense has been committed,
and that the object sought in connection with
the offense are in the placed sought to be
searched.
When NARCOM received the information that a
Caucasian travelling from Sagada to Baguio
City was carrying with him a prohibited drug,
there was no time to obtain a search warrant.
(19) ESPANO VS CA
Facts:
Pat. Pagilagan together with other police
officers confirmed reports of drug pushing in
Pandacan. They saw petitioner selling
something to another person. After the alleged
buyer left, they approached petitioner,
identified themselves as policemen, and
frisked him. The search yielded two plastic
cellophane tea bags of marijuana. When asked
if he had more marijuana, he replied that there
was more in his house. The policemen went to
his residence where they found ten more
cellophane tea bags of marijuana. Petitioner
was brought to the police headquarters where
he was charged of possession of prohibited
drugs.
Issue:
Whether or not the pieces of evidence were
inadmissible
Ruling:
Petitioners arrest falls squarely under the
aforecited rule. He was caught in flagrante
as a result of a buy bust operation
conducted by police officers on the basis
of information received regarding the
illegal trade of drugs within the area. The
police officer saw petitioner handling over
something to an alleged buyer. After the buyer
left, they searched him and discovered two
cellophane of marijuana. His arrest was,
therefore, lawful and the two cellophane bag of
marijuana seized were admissible in evidence,
being fruits of the crime.
(20) PAPA VS. MAGO
Facts:
Mago, the owner of the goods that were seized,
when the truck transporting the goods was
intercepted by the BOC, questioned the validity
of the search conducted by them since it was
made without any search warrant and whether
the BOC has jurisdiction over the forfeited
goods.
Issue: Was the search conducted by the BOC
valid?
Held:
Petitioner Martin Alagao and his companion
policemen had authority to effect the seizure
without any search warrant issued by a
competent court. The Tariff and Customs
Code does not require said warrant in the
instant case. The Code authorizes persons
having police authority under Section
2203 of the Tariff and Customs Code to
enter, pass through or search any land,
inclosure, warehouse, store or building,
not being a dwelling house; and also to
inspect, search and examine any vessel or
aircraft and any trunk, package, or
envelope or any person on board, or to
stop and search and examine any vehicle,
beast or person suspected of holding or
conveying any dutiable or prohibited
article introduced into the Philippines
contrary to law, without mentioning the
need of a search warrant in said cases.
But in the search of a dwelling house, the Code
provides that said "dwelling house may be
entered and searched only upon
warrant issued by a judge or justice of the
peace. . . ." It is our considered view, therefor, authority under the customs law may effect
that except in the case of the search of a search and seizure without a search warrant in
dwelling house, persons exercising police the enforcement of customs laws.