Admissibility of Evidence marijuana contained in a black bag with his initials, NM.

contained in a black bag with his initials, NM. Thereafter, officers to conduct a warrantless search not only onthe
said specimens were forwarded to the PNP Crime Laboratory for person of the suspect, but also in the permissible area within
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. MEDARIO CALANTIAO chemical analysis. The result of the examination conducted by thelatters reached. Otherwise stated, a valid arrest allows
Y DIMALANTA, G.R. No. 203984, June 18, 2014 P/SINSP. Jesse Dela Rosa revealed that the same was positive for the seizure ofevidence or dangerous weapons either on the
marijuana. person of the one arrestedor within the area of his
FACTS: immediate control. The phrase within the area of his
On Calantiaos defense the taxi he and his companion Rommel Reyes immediate control means the area from within which he
were riding almost collided with another car. Reyes then opened the might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.
Medario Calantiao y Dimalanta was convicted guilty beyond
window and made a fuck yousign against the persons on board of A gun on a table or in a drawer in front of one who is
reasonable doubt of violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act
that car. That prompted the latter to chase them and when they were arrested can be as dangerous to the arresting officer as one
No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 by the
caught in a traffic jam, PO1 Nelson Mariano; one of the persons on concealed in the clothing of the person arrested. In Valeroso,
RTC of Caloocan City, Branch 127 on July 23, 2009. On appeal is the
board of that other car alighted and kicked their taxi. Calantiao and however, the Court held that the evidence searched and
decision dated January 17, 2012 of the court of Appeals affirming in
Reyes alighted and PO1 Mariano slapped the latter and uttered some seized from him could not be used against him because they
in totothe decision of the RTC.
words, police officer poked his gun against Reyes and when Calantiao were discovered in a room, different from where he was
tried to grab it, the gun fired. Calantiao and Reyes were then being detained, and was in a locked cabinet. Thus, the area
On November 11, 2003 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila, Philippines
handcuffed and were brought to the police station. Thereat, they were searched could not be considered as one within his
and within the jurisdiction of this HonorableCourt, the above-named
subjected to body frisking and their wallets and money were taken. immediate control that he could take any weapon or destroy
accused, without any authority of law, did then and there willfully,
PO1 Mariano then prepared some documents and informed them that any evidence against him.In the case at bar, the marijuana
unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and
they will be charged for drugs. A newspaper containing marijuana was was found in a black bag in Calantiaos possession and
control two bricks of dried marijuana fruiting tops with a total weight
shown to them and said police officer told them that it would be within his immediate control. He could have easily taken
of 997 .9 grams, knowing the same to be a dangerous drug.
sufficient evidence against them. any weapon from the bag or dumped it to destroy the
evidence inside it. As the black bag containing the
PO1 Nelson Mariano and PO3 Eduardo Ramirez were on duty; a
ISSUE: marijuana was in Calantiaos possession, it was within the
certain Edwin Lojera arrived at their office and asked for police
permissible area that the apprehending officers could validly
assistance regarding a shooting incident. Per report of the latter, it
1. Whether or not that the allegedly seized items are conduct a warrantless search.
appears that while driving a towing truck and traversing along EDSA,
inadmissible evidence in accordance to plain view doctrine.
Balintawak, Quezon City, he had a traffic dispute (gitgitan) with a
The Plain View Doctrine is actually the exception to the
white taxi cab prompting him to follow said vehicle until they reached
2. Whether or not the arresting officers patent non-compliance inadmissibility of evidence obtained in a warrantless search
along 8thAvenue Street corner C-3 Road, Caloocan City. Thereat, the
with the requirements for the proper chain of custody of the incident to a lawful arrest outside the suspects person and
passengers of said taxi cab, one of them was accused Calantiao,
seized dangerous drugs. premises under his immediate control. This is so because
alighted and fired their guns.
objects in the plain view of an officer who has the right to
HELD: be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure
PO1 Mariano testified that they immediately responded to said
and may be presented as evidence. The doctrine is usually
complaint by proceeding to 5th Avenue corner 8th Street, Caloocan
1. In People v. Valeroso, this Court had the occasion to applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence
City where they found the white taxi. While approaching said vehicle,
reiterate the permissible reach of a valid warrantless search against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes
two armed men alighted therefrom, fired their guns towards them and
and seizure incident to a lawful arrest, viz: When an arrest is across an incriminating object. It serves to supplement the
ran away. PO1 Mariano and PO3 Ramirez chased them but they were
made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer tosearch the prior justification whether it be a warrant for another
subdued. PO1 Mariano recovered from Calantiao a black bag
person arrested in order to remove any weapon that the object, hot pursuit, search incident to lawful arrest, or some
containing two bricks of dried marijuana fruiting tops and a magazine
lattermight use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape. other legitimate reason for being present unconnected with a
of super 38 stainless with ammos, while PO3 Ramirez recovered from
Otherwise, theofficers safety might well be endangered, search directed against the accused and permits the
Calantiaos companion a .38 revolver.
and the arrest itselffrustrated. In addition, it is entirely warrantless seizure. The Plain View Doctrine thus finds no
reasonable for the arresting officer tosearch for and seize applicability in Calantiaos situation because the police
The suspects and the confiscated items were then turned over to SPO3
any evidence on the arrestees person in order toprevent its officers purposely searched him upon his arrest. The police
Pablo Temena, police investigator at Bagong Barrio Police Station
concealment or destruction. Moreover, in lawful arrests, it officers did not inadvertently come across the black bag,
for investigation. Thereat, PO1 Mariano marked the bricks of
becomes both the duty and the rightof the apprehending which was in Calantiaos possession; they deliberately

1
 opened it, as part of the search incident to Calantiaos lawful
arrest.
2. SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated,
Seizedand/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources
of DangerousDrugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals,Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory
Equipment. The PDEAshall take charge and have
custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources ofdangerous
drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well
asinstruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
confiscated,seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition
in the following manner:(a) The apprehending officer/team
having initial custody andcontrol of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation,physically
inventory and photograph the same in the presence of
theaccused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/orseized, or his/her representative or
counsel, a representative from themedia and the Department
of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public officialwho shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given
acopy thereof; Provided, that the physical inventory and
photograph shallbe conducted at the place where the search
warrant is served; or at thenearest police station or at the
nearest office of the apprehendingofficer/team, whichever is
practicable, in case of warrantless seizures;Provided,
further, that non-compliance with these
requirementsunder justifiable grounds, as long as the
integrity and the evidentiaryvalue of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehendingofficer/team,
shall not render void and invalid such seizures of
andcustody over said items.
The prosecution was able to establish the chain of custody
of theseized marijuana from the time the police officers
confiscated it, to the timeit was turned over to the
investigating officer, up to the time it was broughtto the
forensic chemist for laboratory examination. This Court has
noreason to overrule the RTC and the Court of Appeals,
which both found thechain of custody of the seized drugs to
have not been broken so as to renderthe marijuana seized
from Calantiao inadmissible in evidence.
Furthermore, unless it can be shown that there was bad faith, ill will,
or tampering of the evidence, the presumption that the integrity of the
evidence has been preserved will remain. The burden of showing the
foregoing to overcome the presumption that the police officers
handled the seized drugs with regularity, and that they properly
discharged their duties is on Calantiao. Unfortunately, Calantiao failed
to discharge such burden.It is worthy to note that these arguments
were only raised by Calantiao on his appeal. He himself admits this.
23 His theory, from the very beginning, was that he did not do it, and
that he was being framed for having offended the police officers.
Simply put, his defense tactic was one of denial and frame-up.
However, those defenses have always been frowned upon by the
Court, to wit: The defenses of denial and frame-up have been
invariably viewedby this Court with disfavor for it can easily be
concocted and is a commonand standard defense ploy in prosecutions
for violation of DangerousDrugs Act. In order to prosper, the defenses
of denial and frame-up mustbe proved with strong and convincing
evidence. In the cases before us,appellant failed to present sufficient
evidence in support of his claims.Aside from his self-serving
assertions, no plausible proof was presented to bolster his allegations.
Hence, as Calantiao failed to show clear and convincing evidence that
the apprehending officers were stirred by illicit motive or failed to
properly perform their duties, their testimonies deserve full faith and
credit. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby
AFFIRMSthe January 17, 2012 Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04069.
MA. MIMIE CRESCENCIO Vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
G.R. No. 205015, November 19, 2014
Facts:
1. Eufemio Abaniel, the Chief of the Forest Protection unit of DENR
together with other Forest Rangers, went to the petitioner's house.
2. Upon arriving thereat, they saw forest products lying under the
house of petitioner and at the shoreline about two meters away from
the house petitioner's house.
3. As the DENR personnel tried to investigate from the neighborhood
as to who was the owner of the lumber, the petitioner admitted its
ownership.
4. Thereafter, DENR personnel entered the premises of the petitioner's
house without a search warrant.
5. When the DENR personnel asked for documents to support the
petitioner's claim of ownership, the latter showed to them an official
receipt issued by Pengavitor Enterprises where she allegedly bought
the said lumber.
2
6. However, when the DENR scaled the lumber, they found out that
the dimensions and species of the lumber did not tally with the items
mentioned in the receipt.
7. Since petitioner could not present any other receipt, Abaniel
ordered the confiscation of the lumber and told petitioner that they
were going to transport the same to the DENR office for safekeeping.
8. Petitioner was charged with violation of section 68 of P.D. 705.
9. RTC rendered judgment convicting petitioner.
10. Petitioner appealed the decision to the CA.
11. However, the CA dismissed the appeal outright because the
petitioner failed to furnish the OSG a copy of the appellants brief in
violation of the rules of court.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the outright dismissal is justified.
2. Whether or not the seizure of the lumber is valid
Ruling:
1. (The petitioner submits that the outright denial of her appeal is due
to to the incompetence and ignorance of her former counsel who even
lied about the fact that he has indeed filed an Appellant's Brief)
As a general rule, the inadvertence of counsel cannot be considered as
an adequate excuse as to call for the appellate court's indulgence
except:
(1) where the reckless or gross negligence of the counsel deprives the
client of due process of law
(2) when the application of the rule will result in outright deprivation
of the clients's Liberty or property
(3) when the interest of justice so requires
The Supreme Court agrees that the CA should have taken a liberal
view of the rules and ruled on the merits of the appeal, especially
when what is involved is no less than petitioner's Liberty.
2. The constitution recognizes the right of the people to be secured in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures. Nonetheless, the constitutional prohibition
against warrant less search and seizures admits of certain exceptions,
one of which is seizure of evidence in the "plain view". Under the
plain view doctrine, objects falling in the plain view of an officer, who
has the right to be in the position to have that view, are subject to
seizure and may be presented as evidence.
There is no question that the DENR personnel were not armed with a
search warrant. When they arrived at the petitioner's house, the
lumbers were lying under the latter's house and at the shoreline about
two meters away from the house of the petitioner. It is clear, therefore,
that the said lumber is plainly exposed to sight. Hence, the seizure
falls within the purview of the plain view doctrine.
Besides, the DENR personnel had the authority to arrest the petitioner,
even without a warrant. Section 80 of the Forestry Code authorizes the
forestry officer of employee of the DENR to arrest, even without a
warrant, any person who has committed or is committing in his
presence any of the offenses defined in the Forestry Code.
G.R. No. 89139 August 2, 1990
ROMEO POSADAS y ZAMORA, petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
GANCAYCO, J.:
Ruling: Patrolmen saw 2 men looking from side to side, one of whom was
holding his abdomen. The patrolmen approached these persons and
An arrest without a warrant may be effected by a peace officer or identified themselves as policemen where the 2 suspicious-looking
private person, among others, when in his presence the person to be men allegedly tried to run away but were unable to escape because
arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
other lawmen surrounded them.
commit an offense; or when an offense has in fact just been
committed, and he has personal knowledge of the facts indicating that
the person arrested has committed it.
The suspects were then searched and one of them who turned out to
Contrary to the argument of the Solicitor General that when the two be Mengote y Tejas was found with .38 caliber Smith and Wesson
policemen approached the petitioner, he was actually committing or revolver with 6 live bullets in the chamber. His companion, identified
had just committed the offense of illegal possession of firearms and
ammunitions in the presence of the police officers and consequently as Morellos had a fan knife secreted in his front right pants pocket.
the search and seizure of the contraband was incidental to the lawful The weapons were then taken and Mengote and Morellos were turned
arrest in accordance with Section 12, Rule 126 of the 1985 Rules on over police headquarters for investigation.
Criminal Procedure; At the time the peace officers in this case
identified themselves and apprehended the petitioner as he attempted
to flee they did not know that he had committed, or was actually
committing the offense of illegal possession of firearms and August 11, 1987: Mengote y Tejas was then filed before RTC for a
ammunitions. They just suspected that he was hiding something in the violation of PD 1866 Illegal Possession of Firearms.
buri bag. They did not know what its contents were. The said
circumstances did not justify an arrest without a warrant.

Facts:
While Pat. Ungab and Umpar were conducting a surveillance along
Magallanes Street, Davao City, 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
thwarted by the two notwithstanding his resistance.
They then checked the "buri" bag of the petitioner where they found
one (1) caliber .38 revolver, two (2) rounds of live ammunition for a .
38 caliber gun 2 a smoke (tear gas) grenade, 3 and two (2) live
ammunitions for a .22 caliber gun. 4 the petitioner was asked to show
the necessary license or authority to possess the firearms and
ammunitions but failed to do so.
Issue:
Whether or not the warantless arrest and search was valid.
People v. Mengote y Tejas
Unlawful warrantless arrest; violation of right against
illegal search and seizure
FACTS
August 8, 1987: Western Police District received a telephone call from
an informer that there were 3 suspicious-looking persons at the corner
of Juan Luna and North Bay Boulevard, Tondo Manila and because of
it, a surveillance team of plainclothesmen were then dispatched to the
place.
Aside from the policemen, the prosecution also presented Rigoberto
Danganan who identified the .38 caliber Smith and Wesson revolver
as among the articles stolen from him during a robbery in his house in
Malabon. Danganan pointed at Mengote y Tejas as one of the robbers.
The defense side however, Mengote, made no effort to prove that he
owned the firearm or that he was licensed to possess it and claimed
instead that the weapon had been "planted" on him at the time of his
arrest.
RTC: Mengote was convicted for violation of PD 1866 and sentenced
to reclusion perpetua.
As appeal however by Mengote, it is submitted in the Appellant's
Brief that:

3
-the revolver should not have been admitted in evidence because of its
illegal seizure, no warrant therefor having been previously obtained.
-Neither could it have been seized as an incident of a lawful arrest
because the arrest of Mengote was itself unlawful, having been also
effected without a warrant.
-also contends that the testimony regarding the alleged robbery in
Danganan's house was irrelevant and should also have been
disregarded by the trial court.
ISSUE:
Whether the warrantless search and seizure was illegal?
Whether the warrantless arrest was illegal?
HELD:
Yes, the warrantless search and arrest was illegal.
There is no question that evidence obtained as a result of an illegal
search or seizure is inadmissible in any proceeding for any purpose. In
fact, illegal search or seizure is an absolute prohibition of Article 3(2)
of the Constitution. The Solicitor General, however, while conceding
the rule, maintains that it is not applicable in the case at bar. His
reason is that the arrest and search of Mengote and the seizure of the
revolver from him were lawful under Rule 113, Section 5, of the
Rules of Court:
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when
lawful. A peace officer or private
person may without a warrant, arrest a
person: Cdpr
(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 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 has 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.
SC: Does not agree with the Solicitor General.
Par.c of Section 5 is obviously inapplicable as Mengote was
not an escapee from a penal institution when he was
arrested. We therefore confine ourselves to determine
lawfulness of his arrest under either Par. (a) or Par. (b) of
this section.
Paragraphs a and b however, have not been established in
the case.
At the time of the arrest in question, Mengote y Tejas was merely
"looking from side to side" and "holding his abdomen," according to
the arresting officers themselves. There was apparently no offense that
had just been committed or was being actually committed or at least
being attempted by Mengote in their presence.
As to the argument actual existence of an offense was not necessary as
long as Mengote's acts "created a reasonable suspicion on the part of
the arresting officers and induced in them the belief that an offense
had been committed and that the accused-appellant had committed
it."
SC: looking from side to side and holding his abdomen and in
a place not exactly forsaken certainly do not constitute sinister
acts.
It would have been different if Mengote had been apprehended at an
ungodly hour and in a place where he had no reason to be, like a
darkened alley at 3 o'clock in the morning. But he was arrested at
11:30 in the morning and in a crowded street shortly after alighting
from a passenger jeep with his companion. He was not skulking in the
4
shadows but walking in the clear light of day. There was nothing
clandestine about his being on that street at that busy hour in the blaze
of the noonday sun.
People v. Malmstedt (Court sustained the warrantless arrest of the
accused because there was a bulge in his waist that excited the
suspicion of the arresting officer and, upon inspection, turned out to
be a pouch containing hashish) and People v. Claudio (accused
boarded a bus and placed the buri bag she was carrying behind the
seat of the arresting officer while she herself sat in the seat before
him. His suspicion aroused, he surreptitiously examined the bag,
which he found to contain marijuana. He then and there made the
warrantless arrest and seizure that we subsequently upheld on the
ground that probable cause had been sufficiently established) do not
apply to this case. These cases do not apply for there was nothing to
support the arresting officers' suspicion other than Mengote's
darting eyes and his hand on his abdomen. By no stretch of
imagination could it have been inferred from these acts that an
offense has been committed, was actually being committed or was at
least being attempted in their presence.
Instead, the case before us is similar to People v. Aminnudin where the
Court held that the warrantless arrest of the accused was
unconstitutional. This was effected while he was coming down a
vessel, to all appearances no less innocent than the other disembarking
passengers. He had not committed nor was he actually committing or
attempting to commit an offense in the presence of the arresting
officers. He was not even acting suspiciously. In short, there was no
probable cause that, as the prosecution incorrectly suggested,
dispensed with the constitutional requirement of a warrant.
SC: Moreover, Paragraph b is all the more not applicable for its
requirements have not been satisfied. The prosecution has not shown
that at the time of Mengote's arrest an offense had in fact just been
committed and that the arresting officers 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.
As for the illegal possession or the firearm found on Mengote's
person, the policemen discovered this only after he had been searched
and the investigation conducted later revealed that he was not its
owners nor was he licensed to possess it. Before these events, the
peace officers had no knowledge even of Mengote' identity, let alone
the fact (or suspicion) that he was unlawfully carrying a firearm or
that he was involved in the robbery of Danganan's house. (In short
there was no investigation done, policemen had no personal
knowledge about Mengote)
It would be a sad day, indeed, if any person could be summarily
arrested and searched just because he is holding his abdomen, even if
it be possibly because of a stomachache, or if a peace officer could
clamp handcuffs on any person with a shifty look on suspicion that he
may have committed a criminal act or is actually committing or
attempting it. Without the evidence of the firearm taken from him at
the time of his illegal arrest, the prosecution has lost its most
important exhibit and must therefore fail. The testimonial evidence
against Mengote (which is based on the said firearm) is not sufficient
to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the crime imputed to
him.
There is no need therefore to discuss the other issue in depth as the
ruling is sufficient enough to sustain Mengote's exoneration.
FINAL DISPOSITIVE PORTION: Decision is reversed and set aside.
Mengote is acquitted.
Manalilivs CA
Facts:
This is a petition for certiorari seeking the reversal of CAs decision in
affirming TCs decision on convicting Manalili of illegal possession
of prohibited drug violating RA 6425.
Police operatives Espiritu, Lumabas and driver Enriquez conducted
surveillance along the front of Kalookan Cemetery based on the
information that drug addicts were roaming around in the area, saw a
man who appeared to be high on drugs and introduced themselves as
policemen. Said man avoided them and tried to resist, when they
asked what the man was holding in his hand, the man held out his
wallet and allowed Espiritu to examine it, who found what he
suspected to be crushed mj leaves. The man was brought to the Anti-
Narcotics Unit and turned out to be Manalili. The substance found on
Manalilis wallet was sent to NBI Foresic Chemistry Section and was
confirmed as mj.
Manalilis version of the story was that early afternoon he was riding
in a tricycle when 3 policemen stopped the tricycle and informed them
of the suspected possession of mj, the policemen bodily searched both
Manalili and the driver and upon finding nothing illegal on their
persons, let the driver go but brought Manalili along to the police
station. Manalili while on the way to the station saw a neighbor whom
he signaled to follow them and when he was again searched in the
station, he was asked to strip his pants where they found nothing
illegal. Said neighbor then asked the policemen to let Manalili go
seeing as they had not found anything illegal but Manalili was put on
a cell who was brought to a fiscal later that day and was told not to
say anything despite his saying that the policemen had not found mj
on his person. Said tricycle driver and neighbor testified on court as to
how the 2 searches yielded nothing illegal on Manalilis person.
Issues:
1. W/N evidence seized during a stop-and-frisk is admissible.
2. W/N Manalilis actions constituted a waiver of his rights.
3. W/N the evidence is sufficient to prove Manalilis guilt.
Ruling:
I. In Terry vs Ohio, a stop-and-frisk was defined as the vernacular
designation of the right of a police officer to stop a citizen on the
street, interrogate him and pat him for weapons: W)here a police
officer observes an 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 identified 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.
Such a search is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment,
and any weapon seized may properly be introduced in evidence
against the person from whom they were taken.
It did not, however abandon the rule that the police must, whenever
practicable, obtain advance judicial approval of searches and seizures
5
through the warrant procedure, excused only by exigent
circumstances. As People vsLacerna enumerated 5 recognized
exceptions to the rule against warrantless searches and seizures: 1)
search incidental to lawful arrest; 2) search of moving vehicles; 3)
seizure in plain view; 4) customs search; 5) waiver of the accused of
his rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. From Espiritus
experience as a member of the Anti-Narcotics Unit of Caloocan City
Police, Manalilis suspicious behavior was characteristic of drug
addicts who were high.
II. SGs contention that Manalili effectively waived the
inadmissibility of the evidence illegally obtained when he failed to
raise this issue or object during trial. A valid waiver of right against
unreasonable searches and seizures require the concurrence of these
requisites: 1) the right to be waived existed; 2) the person waiving it
had knowledge; and 3) he/she had actual intention to relinquish the
right. In this case however, it is deemed that Manalili has waived such
right for failure to raise its violation before the trial court, at the
earliest opportunity possible. Issues not raised below cannot be
pleaded for the first time on appeal.
III.Manalilis contention that the charge was trumped up to extort
money and testimonies of the arresting officers were inconsistent, it
held that the trial courts assessment of the credibility of the witnesses
particularly when affirmed by CA is accorded great weight and
respect as it had opportunity to observe their demeanor and
deportment as they testified before it.
The elements of illegal possession of mj are: a) the accused is in
possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited
drug; b) such possession is not authorized by law; and c) the accused
freely and consciously possessed the said drug. The substance found
on Manalilis wallet was identified as mj which was prohibited and
knowingly without authority. Considering that he was high and tried
to avoid and resist, such behavior clearly shows that he knew he was
holding mj and it was prohibited by law.
Esquillo vs. People
G.R 182010
August 25, 2010
 Facts: PO1 Cruzin and PO2 Aguas were sent to conduct
surveillance on the activities of an alleged notorious snatcher
operating in the Pasay area known only as Ryan.
As PO1 Cruzin alighted from the private vehicle that
brought him and PO2 Aguas to the target area, he glanced in the
direction of petitioner who was standing three meters away and seen
placing inside a yellow cigarette case what appeared to be a small
heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white
substance. While PO1 Cruz was not sure what the plastic sachet
contained, he became suspicious when petitioner started acting
strangely as he began to approach her. He then introduced himself as
a police officer to petitioner and inquired about the plastic sachet she
was placing inside her cigarette case. Instead of replying, however,
petitioner attempted to flee to her house nearby but was timely
restrained by PO1 Cruzin who then requested her to take out the
transparent plastic sachet from the cigarette case and thereafter
arrested her.
RTC found appellant guilty of illegal possession of
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu.
Before the Court of Appeals, appellant questioned as illegal
her arrest without warrant to thus render any evidence obtained on the
occasion thereof inadmissible. She assails the appellate courts
application of the stop-and-frisk principle in light of PO1 Cruzins
failure to justify his suspicion that a crime was being committed, he
having merely noticed her placing something inside a cigarette case
which could hardly be deemed suspicious. To petitioner, such legal
principle could only be invoked if there were overt acts constituting
unusual conduct that would arouse the suspicion
Issue: Whether or not the stop-and-frisk principle was properly
applied by the CA.
Held: In a stop-and-frisk, it is essential is that a genuine reason
must exist, in light of the police officers experience and surrounding
conditions, to warrant the belief that the person who manifests
unusual suspicious conduct has weapons or contraband concealed
about him. Such a stop-and-frisk practice serves a dual purpose: (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.
The circumstances under which petitioner was arrested indeed
engender the belief that a search on her person was warranted: The
police officers were on a surveillance operation as part of their law
enforcement efforts when PO1 Cruzin saw petitioner placing a plastic
sachet containing white crystalline substance into her cigarette case.
Given his training as a law enforcement officer, it was instinctive on
his part to be drawn to curiosity and to approach her. That petitioner
reacted by attempting to flee after he introduced himself as a police
officer and inquired about the contents of the plastic sachet all the
more pricked his curiosity.
From these standards, the Court finds that the questioned act
of the police officers constituted a valid stop-and-frisk operation.
The search/seizure of the suspected shabu initially noticed in
petitioners possession - later voluntarily exhibited[24] to the police
operative - was undertaken after she was interrogated on what she
placed inside a cigarette case, and after PO1 Cruzin introduced
himself to petitioner as a police officer. And, at the time of her arrest,
petitioner was exhibiting suspicious behavior and in fact attempted to
flee after the police officer had identified himself. Absent any proof of
motive to falsely accuse petitioner of such a grave offense, the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the
findings of the trial court with respect to the credibility of witnesses
prevail over that of petitioner
Exceptions Stop and Frisk
COMERCIANTE V. PEOPLE | GR NO. 205926
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
An information was filed with the RTC of Mandaluyong, Branch 213,
against Alvin Comerciante ("Comerciante"). He was found to have in
possession two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with shabu
which the police acquired after he was frisked after the police spotted
him (from a distance of ten [10] meters) standing and showing
6
"improper and unpleasant movements" together with Erick Dasilla
("Dasilla"), with one of them passing a plastic sachet to the other. The
RTC convicted him of the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous
Drugs. Accordingly, Comerciante appealed with the Court of Appeals
but the CA merely re-affirmed the decision of the RTC. On appeal
with the Supreme Court, it was held that the search conducted on
Comerciante was illegal as "improper and unpleasant movements"
cannot be considered as probable cause, hence, the warrantless arrest
was unlawful. Considering the foregoing, the evidence acquired from
such search is inadmissible (Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine).
Hence, the SC acquitted Comerciante and exonerated him from all
criminal liability.
DOCTRINE
Exclusionary Rule
To protect people from unreasonable searches and seizures,
Section 3(2), Article III of the Constitution provides an
exclusionary rule which instructs that evidence obtained
and confiscated during unreasonable searches and seizures
are deemed tainted and should be excluded for being the
fruit of a poisonous tree. Such pieces of evidence are
therefore inadmissible.
The law requires that there first be a lawful arrest before a
search can be made and this process cannot be done in the
reverse.
While the stop and frisk is an instance wherein a warrantless
is allowed, the same cannot be done without probable cause
based on the circumstances.
For a warrantless arrest to operate the following elements
must be met:
o Person arrested must execute an overt act
indicating that he has just committed, is actually
committing or is attempting to commit a crime;
and
o Such act is done in the presence or within the
view of the arresting officer (there is personal
knowledge on the part of the officer).
IMPORTANT PEOPLE
Alvin Comerciante (accused) [Commerciante]
Erick Dasilla (person Comerciante was standing with, was eventually
acquitted before Comerciante) [Dasilla]
Agent Eduardo Radan (Agent of NARCOTICS Group) [Agent Radan]
PO3 BienvyCalag II (arresting officer) [PO3 Calag]
c. Ordered to pay the fine of Php 300,000.
6. Comerciante appealed to the CA but the CA affirmed his
conviction on 20 October 2011.
7. With the denial of his Motion for Reconsideration, Comerciante
filed a Rule 45 petition with the Supreme Court.
violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The
Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause his
immediate release, unless he is being lawfully held for any other
reason.
SO ORDERED.

FACTS ISSUE with HOLDING

1. 30 July 2003 Agent Radan and PO3 Calag were on a
motorcycle patrolling the area on their way to visit their friend.
a. On the way to visit their friend
b. Cruising at a speed of 30 KM/HR along Private Rode,
Mandaluyong
c. Spotted at a distance of ten (10) meters, two (2) men in
front of a jeepney
d. Men were identified as: Comerciante and Dasilla
i. Men were standing and showing "improper
and unpleasant movements"
ii. One of them was handing plastic sachets to
the other
e. At five (5) meters, PO3 Calag introduced himself as a
police officer and arrested the two men, confiscating
two small plastic sachets containing shabu.
2. After the prosecution rested its case, Dasilla filed a demurrer to
evidence subsequently granted by the RTC, which resulted to
Dasilla's acquittal.
3. Comerciante failed to file his own demurrer and the RTC
considered this as him waiving his right to do so and ordered him
to present his evidence
4. Comerciante averred, in his defense, that:
a. PO3 Calag was looking for "Barok" a notorious drug
pusher.
b. That after being arrested, they were asked money in
exchange for their release.
c. When they failed to meet the demand, they were
brought to another police station and underwent
inquest proceedings.
5. The RTC ruled on 29 July 2009 that Comerciante was guilty of
violating Section 11, Article II of RA 9165
a. RTC ruled that PO3 Calag conducted a valid
warrantless search since the officer saw Comerciante in
plain view carrying the sachets.
b. Sentenced to twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
twenty (20) years
1. Whether or not the CA correctily affirmed Comerciante's OTHER NOTES
conviction. No. The evidence against Comerciante is
inadmissible as it was procured through an unlawful search Evidence obtained through unlawful seizures should be excluded as
(fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine). The same should result evidence because it is "the only practical means of enforcing the
in his acquittal. constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures."
a. The OSG's argument, on behalf of the People of the (People v. Cogaed, 731 SCRA 427 [2014]).
Philippines, was that the warrantless arrest was valid
pursuant to the stop and frisk rule, and hence
Comerciante's conviction should be upheld.
b. However, the SC held that:
i. There was no lawful arrest.
ii. Because it is highly implausible that PO3
Calag, even assuming that he has perfect
vision, would be able to identify from 10
meters, while moving at a speed of 30 km/hr
on the motorcycle, miniscule amounts of
shabu inside two (2) very small plastic
sachets as held by Comerciante.
iii. There is no overt act that could be properly
attributed to Comerciante as to rouse
suspicion in the mind of PO3 Calag that the
former had just committed, was currently
committing, or was about to commit a crime.
iv. The acts of standing around with a
companion handing over something cannot
be considered as a criminal act.
c. Hence, there being no lawful arrest, the evidence
procured is inadmissible, being a fruit of the poisonous
tree.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Decision
dated October 20, 2011 and the Resolution dated February 29, 2013 of
the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CR No. 32813 are hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, petitioner Alvin
Comerciante y. Gonzales is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime