People. V.

Lo Ho Wing - exception to the issuance of search warrant: 1) search

incidental to a lawful arrest; 2) search of moving vehicle; 3) seizure of evidence in
plain view

PEOPLE VS. LO HO WING, 193 SCRA 122

FACTS:
In July 1987, the Special Operations Group of the CIS received a tip from one of its
informers about an organized group engaged in importation of illegal drugs and
smuggling of contraband items. To infiltrate the crime syndicate, they recruited
confidential men and “deep penetration agents” under OPLAN SHARON 887. One
such agent was Reynaldo Tia (the discharged/accused). As an agent, he submitted
regular reports of undercover activities of suspected syndicates. CAPTAIN
PALMERA, head of oplan sharon 887, in turned informed the Dangerous Drugs
Board of Tia’s activities.
Tia was introduced to his co-accused Lim Cheng Huat by another agent named
George. Lim wanted a male travelling companion for his business trips abroad. Tia
offered his services and was hired by Lim. Later, Tia was introduced to Peter Lo
(alias of accused/appellant Lo Ho Wing), the later turning out to be Tia’s intended
companion.
Appellant Lo Ho Wing and Tia left for Hongkong on October 4, 1987. Tia
telephoned Capt. Palmera that they would return to the Philippines on October 6.
From Hongkong, the two proceeded to Guangzhou in mainland China. There,
appellant Lo Ho Wing bought six (6) cans of tea. Tia saw these 6 bags when they
were opened for examination. That evening, they went to Lo Ho Wing’s room and
he saw two other men with him. One was fixing the tea bags, while the other was
burning a substance on a piece of aluminum foil using a lighter. Appellant Lo Ho
Wing joined the second man and sniffed the smoke emitted by the burning
substance. When Tia asked Lo Ho Wing what cargo they would bring to Manila,
the latter replied that they would be bringing Chinese drugs.
The next day en route to Manila, customs examiners inspected the bags
containing the tin cans of tea. Since the bags were not closely examined, appellant
Lo Ho Wing and Tia were cleared. In Manila, They were met by Lim Cheng Huat.
Appellant Lo Ho Wing and Tia boarded a taxi from the airport and loaded their
luggage in the taxi’s compartment. Lim Cheng Huat followed them in another taxi.
A team composed by Capt. Palmera positioned themselves in strategic areas
around the airport. The CIS men who first saw Lo Ho and Tia followed them.
Along Imelda Avenue, the CIS car overtook the taxi ridden by Lo Ho Wing and Tia
, forcing the taxi driver to stop his vehicle. The CIS team asked the taxi driver to
open the baggage compartment. The CIS team asked permission to search their
luggage.
A tin can of tea was taken out of the compartment. Sgt. Cayabyab of the CIS pried
the lid open and pressed it in the middle to pull out the contents. Crystalline
white powder resembling crushed alum came out. Suspecting the crystalline
powder to be a dangerous drug, he had the three travelling bags opened for
inspection. All the bags threshed out a total of six tin cans. Tia and appellant were
taken to the CIS headquarters for questioning. Meanwhile, the second taxi
carrying Lim Cheng Huat sped in attempt to escape. However, they were later
captured.
Samples from the bag tested positive for metamphetamine. The three suspects
were indicted for violating Art. III, sec.15 of the Dangerous Drug Act. Appellant Lo
Ho Wing and Lim Cheng Huat were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to
pay a fine of P25, 000 each. Reynaldo Tia was discharged as a state witness. The
trial court gave full credence to the testimonies of government agents since the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties were in their favor.

ISSUES:
1. Was the warrantless search valid?
2. Are the effects taken admissible as evidence?
HELD:
1. This is a case of search on a moving vehicle which is one of the well-known
exceptions to the valid warrantless search and seizure. To still get a search
warrant from a judge would allow the accused go scot-free.
2. Since the search and seizure are valid, the evidence obtained is admissible as
evidence in any proceeding.
People v. Lo Ho Wing (alias Peter Lo), Lim Cheng Huat (alias Antonio Lim)
and Reynaldo Tia
Reynaldo Tia, “a deep penetration agent” of the SOG, reported of his undercover activities on the
suspected criminal syndicate led by Lo and Lim. Moreover, Tia informed his superior regarding
their return to the country. Upon arrival in the Philippines, Lo and Tia rode in one taxi cab while
Lim rode in another. They were pursued by the members of the NARCOM and were stopped. With
permission of Lo and Tia, a tin can of tea was taken out of the red travel bag and, upon
examination by the PC-INP Crime Laboratory, contained metamphetamine. Petitioner contend
that a warrant was needed.
Facts:
1. The Special Operations Group received a tip from one of its informers about
an organized group engaged in the importation of illegal drugs, smuggling of
contraband goods and gunrunning. As part of the operations, the
recruitment of confidential men and “deep penetration agents” was carried
out to infiltrate the crime syndicate. One of those recruited was Reynaldo
Tia.
2. Tia was introduced to Lim Cheng Huat (Antonio Lim) where the latter
expressed a desire to hire a male travel companion for his business trips
abroad. Tia offered his services and was hire. Together with Lim, Tia, in
one of the meetings in China, was introduced to Lo Ho Wing (Peter Lo)
whom tia found out to be the person he was to accompany to China in lieu
of Lim.
3. As “deep penetration agent,” Tia regularly submitted reports of his
undercover activities on the suspected criminal syndicate to Capt. Luisito
Palmera, head of Oplan Sharon 887 – the group created in order to bus the
suspected syndicate. Tia informed Palmera of their return to the Philippines
after they (Lo and Tia) left for Hong Kong.
4. Upon arrival in the Philippines, they were met by Lim. After Lim and Lo
finished their conversation, Lo hailed a taxicab. Lo and Tia boarded the
taxicab while Lim followed in another taxi cab. Meanwhile, the operatives
of the NARCOM (Narcotics Command), having been notified by Palmera,
stationed themselves in strategic places around the arrival area. Upon
seeing Lo and Tia leave the airport, the operatives followed them. Along
Imelda Avenue, the car of the operatives overtook the taxicab ridden by Lo
and Tia and cut into its path which forced the taxi driver to stop. The other
tax cab carrying Lim, however, sped away but was later caught on Retiro
Street, Quezon City.
 5. Going back to Lo and Tia, the operatives approached the taxicab and asked
the driver to open the baggage compartment. Three pieces of luggage were
retrieved from the back compartment of the vehicle. The operatives
requested from Lo and Tia permission to search their luggage. A tin can of
tea was taken out of the red travel bag owned by Lo. A certain Sgt.
Cayabyab, one of the operatives, pried the lid open, pulled out a paper tea
bag from the can and pressed it in the middle to feel its contents. Some
crystalline white powder resembling crushed aluminium came out of the
bag. The sergeant then opened the tea bag and examined its content more
closely. He had the three travel bags opened for inspection. From the red
travel bag, 6 tin cans were found, including the one previously opened and
nothing else was recovered from the other bags.
6. The tea bag contained metamphetamine after examination by the PC-INP
Crime Laboratory. One of metamphetamine’s derivatives is
metamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu/poor man’s cocaine).
7. The three were charged with violation of Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.
8. Lo contends that the search and seizure was illegal. He contends that the
officers concerned could very well have procured a search warrant since
they had been informed of the date and time of arrival of the accused at the
NAIA well ahead of time. Moreover, as claimed by Lo, the fact that the
search and seizure in question were made on a moving vehicle does not
automatically make the warrantless search fall within the coverage of
exceptions of the necessity of a valid warrant to effect search.
Ruling:
1. The search and seizure supported by a valid warrant is not an absolute rule.
As set forth in Manipon, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, there are at least 3 well-
recognized exceptions, namely: (a) a search incidental to an arrest, (b) a
search of a moving vehicle, and (c) seizure of evidence in plain view. In the
case at bar, there is a clear showing that the search in question, having been
made in a moving vehicle, does not need a valid warrant to effect search.
2. A warrantless search of a moving vehicle is justified on the ground that it is
not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly
moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be
sought.

Papa v. Mago
Papa, Chief of Police of Manila and a duly deputized member of the Bureau of Customs, together
with Alagao and other elements of the counter-intelligence unit, seized 9 bales of goods from two
trucks. Said items, according to an information, were misdeclared and undervalued. The cargo
owner, respondent in this case, claimed that the MPD seized said goods without a search warrant.
Facts:
1. Petitioner Martin Alagao (head of the counter-intelligence unit of the
MPD), having received a reliable information that a certain shipment of
personal effects were allegedly misdeclared and undervalued and were to be
released from the customs zone of the port of Manila, conducted
surveillance of said zone. With him were petitioner Ricardo Papa, the Chief
of Police of Manila and a duly deputized member of the BOC, and other
elements of the counter-intelligence unit. The information which reached
Alagao specified that said misdeclared and undervalued items were loaded
on two trucks.
2. The trucks left the gate where Alagao’s group conducted surveillance.
However, such trucks were later intercepted. The load of the two trucks
consisted of 9 bales of goods.
3. The cargo was owned by Remedios Mago while the truck was owned by
Valentin Lanopa. In their petition in the CFI of Manila, they claimed that
the MPD seized the goods without search warrant issued by a competent
court, and that Papa denied the request of Mago’s counsel that the bales be
not opened and the goods not examined.
4. The respondent judge issued an order restraining petitioners from opening
the nine bales in question. However, some bales were already opened by
examiners of the BOC when the restraining order was received.
5. Respondent contended that, since the inventory of the goods seized did not
show any article of prohibited importation, such articles should be released
upon her posting of the bond to be determined by court. Petitioners
contended however that most of the goods, as shown in the inventory, were
not declared and were thus subject to forfeiture. Respondent judge issued
an order releasing the good upon the filing of the bond in the amount of Php
40,000.00 to which the respondent complied with.
Issue: Is there a need to procure a warrant before search be made?
Ruling:
1. The Bureau of Customs acquires exclusive jurisdiction over imported goods,
for the purposes of enforcement of the customs laws, from the moment the
goods are actually in possession or control, even if no warrant of seizure or
detention had previously been issued by the Collector of Customs in
connection with seizure and forfeiture proceedings. In the case at bar, the
 moment the BOC actually seized the goods in question, the BOC acquired
jurisdiction over the goods for the purposes of enforcement of the tariff and
customs laws, to the exclusion of the regular courts.
2. Petitioner 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 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
articles.

Salazar v. Achacoso
Salazar’s properties in her residence and dance studio were seized by virtue of a search warrant
issued by the POEA.
Facts:
1. Petitioner (Hortencia “Horty” Salazar) was charged by a Rosalie Tesoro wth
the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. According to Tesoro,
after she surrendered her PECC Card to petitioner, she promised her of
“booking” in Japan. However, after 9 months, Tesoro was still in the
Philippines and was never able to travel to Japan, and that her PECC card
was not released by Salazar.
2. Public respondent Atty. Ferdinand Marquez sent a telegram to petitioner.
Respondent requested the petitioner before him being a part of POEA Anti-
Illegal Recruitment Unit. On the same day, having ascertained that the
petitioner had no license to operate a recruitment agency, administrator
Tomas Achacoso issued a closure and seizure order, numbered 1205.
3. The Director of POEA Licensing and Regulation (Atty. Estelita Espiritu)
issued an order designation Atty. Marquez, Atty. Abara and Atty. Vistro as
members of the team tasked to implement the Closure and Seizure Order
rendered by Achacoso. After proceeding to petitioner’s residence, the team,
assisted by Mandaluyong policemen and mediamen, went to Hannalie
Dance Studio, which petitioner operated.
4. Before entering Hannalie Dance Studio, the team served said order on a
certain Mrs. Flora Salazar who voluntarily allowed them entry into the
premises. When required to show credentials, Salazar was unable to
 produce any. The team confiscated assorted costumes when they chanced
upon 12 talent performers practicing a dance number. The confiscation was
duly receipted for by Mrs. Asuncion Maguelan and witnessed by Salazar.
5. Petitioner, through a letter to POEA, requested that the personal properties
seized at her residence be returned.
Issue: Whether the POEA validly issue warrants of search and seizure (or arrest)
under Article 38 of the Labor Code.
Ruling:
1. Under the present Constitution, it is only a judge who may issue warrants
of search and arrest. It was declared that mayors may not exercise this
power, neither by a mere prosecuting body. The exception is in cases of
deportation of illegal and undesirable aliens, whom the President or the
Commissioner of Immigration may order arrested, following a final order of
deportation, for purpose of deportation.
2. Section 38(c), as amended by PD 1920 and 2018, bestowed to the Minister of
Labor the power to recommend the arrest and detention of any person
engaged in illegal recruitment. More so, PD 1920 gave the Minister of Labor
arrest and closure power. That, the Minister of Labor and Employment has
the power to cause the arrest and detention of such non-licensee or non-
holder of authority if after proper investigation it is determined that his
activities constitute a danger to national security and public order or will
lead to further exploitation of job-seekers. Meanwhile, PD 2018 bestowed
upon the Minister of Labor search and seizure powers. However, the
decrees in question stood as dying vestiges of authoritarian rule in its
twilight moments. Thus, the Secretary of Labor, not being a judge, may no
longer issue search or arrest warrants. Article 38(c) of the Labor Code is
declared unconstitutional and of no force and effect.