People vs Damaso
Without this evidence, the
Facts: Basilio DAMASO @ Bernardo/Bernie Mendoza @ KA DADO, did then
and there, wilfully, unlawfully and criminally, have in his possession,
custody and control one (1) M14 Rifle bearing Serial No. 1249935 with
magazine and Fifty-Seven (57) live ammunition, in furtherance of, or
incident to, or in connection with the crime of subversion, filed against said
accused in the above-entitled case for Violation of Republic Act 1700. The
counsel for accused-appellant interposed his objections to the admissibility
of the prosecution's evidence on grounds of its being hearsay, immaterial
or irrelevant and illegal for lack of a search warrant. Solicitor General
argues they saw a copier machine, computer, M-14 rifle, bullets and
ammunitions, radio set and more subversive items; that technically
speaking, there was no search as the group was voluntarily shown the
articles used in subversion; that besides, a search may be validly conducted
without a search warrant with the consent of the person searched as in
this case, appellant's helper and Luz Tanciangco allowed them to enter and
to look around the appellant's house; and that since the evidence seized
was in plain view of the authorities, the same may be seized without a
warrant.
Issue: WON the search was valid
Ruling: The constitutional immunity from unreasonable searches and
seizures, being a personal one, cannot be waived by anyone except the
person whose rights are invaded or one who is expressly authorized to do
so in his or her behalf (De Garcia v. Locsin, 65 Phil. 689, 695). In the case at
bar, the records show that appellant was not in his house at that time Luz
Tanciangco and Luz Morados, his alleged helper, allowed the authorities to
enter it (TSN, October 31, 1989, p. 10). We find no evidence that would
establish the fact that Luz Morados was indeed the appellant's helper or if
it was true that she was his helper, that the appellant had given her
authority to open his house in his absence. The prosecution likewise failed
to show if Luz Tanciangco has such an authority.
authorities' intrusion into the appellant's dwelling cannot be given any
color of legality.
Veroy vs Layague
Facts: Petitioners are husband and wife who owned and formerly resided
at No. 13 Isidro St., Skyline Village, Catalunan Grande, Davao City. When
petitioner Leopoldo Veroy was promoted to the position of Assistant
Administrator of the Social Security System sometime in June, 1988, he
and his family transferred to 130 K-8th St., East Kamias, Quezon City. Capt.
Reynaldo Obrero of the Talomo Patrol Station, PC/INP, acting upon a
directive issued by Metrodiscom Commander Col. Franco Calida, raided the
house of herein petitioners in Davao City on information that the said
residence was being used as a safehouse of rebel soldiers. They were able
to enter the yard with the help of the caretakers but did not enter the
house since the owner was not present and they did not have a search
warrant. Petitioner Ma. Luisa was contacted by telephone in her Quezon
City residence by Capt. Obrero to ask permission to search the house in
Davao City as it was reportedly being used as a hideout and recruitment
center of rebel soldiers.The authority given by Ma. Luisa Veroy was relayed
by Capt. Obrero to Major Macasaet who answered that Ma. Luisa Veroy
has called him twice by telephone on the matter and that the permission
was given on the condition that the search be conducted in his
presence.Capt. Obrero recovered a .45 cal. handgun with a magazine
containing seven (7) live bullets in a black clutch bag inside an unlocked
drawer.
big travelling bag containing assorted polo shirts, men's brief, two (2)
pieces polo barong and short sleeve striped gray polo, sweat shirt, two (2)
pairs men's socks, a towel made in U.S.A., one blanket, a small black bag,
Gandhi brand,containing a book entitled "Islamic Revolution Future Path of
the Nation", a road map of the Philippines, a telescope, a plastic bag
containing assorted medicines and religious pamphlets was found in the
master's bedroom. Sgt. Leo Justalero was instructed by Capt. Obrero to
make an inventory and receipt of the articles seized in the house.
Issue: WON the evidence is admissible of the articles seized in violation of
their constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure.
Ruling: While Capt. Obrero was able to enter the compound, he did not
enter the house because he did not have a search warrant and the owners
were not present. This shows that he himself recognized the need for a
search warrant, hence, he did not persist in entering the house but rather
contacted the Veroys to seek permission to enter the same. Permission
was indeed granted by Ma. Luisa Veroy to enter the house but only to
ascertain the presence of rebel soldiers. Under the circumstances it is
undeniable that the police officers had ample time to procure a search
warrant but did not. warrantless searches were declared illegal because
the officials conducting the search had every opportunity to secure a
search warrant. The objects seized, being products of illegal searches, were
inadmissible in evidence in the criminal actions subsequently instituted
against the accused-appellants.
People vs Lacerna
Facts: Police Officer 3 (PO3) Carlito P. Valenzuela, a member of the Mobile
Patrol Division of the Western Police District (WPD), was assigned to man
the checkpoint and patrol the area somewhere along the sidestreets of
Radial Road near Moriones Street. appellant and co-accused, who were
aboard a taxicab, passed by PO3 Valenzuela's place of assignment, which
was then heavy with traffic, looking suspicious PO3 Valenzuela and his co-
police officer asked permission to search the vehicle. As the occupants
readily agreed, the police officers went about searching the luggages in the
vehicle which consisted of a knapsack and a dark blue plastic grocery bag.
He found several blocks wrapped in newspaper, with the distinct smell of
marijuana emanating from it. PO3 Valenzuela opened one of the boxes and
saw dried marijuana leaves. He told appellant and co-accused that the
contents of the bag were marijuana, which co-accused readily
affirmed.After seeing what the contents of the blocks were, the specimens
were brought to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for further
examination. Appellant sets up the defense of denial, alleging that the blue
plastic bag was owned by his uncle who requested him to bring it to Iloilo.
He also denied knowing that it contained marijuana.
Issue: WON appellant's right against warrantless arrest and seizure
violated?
Ruling: we hold that appellant and his baggage were validly searched, not
because he was caught in flagrante delicto, but because he freely
consented to the search. True, appellant and his companion were stopped
by PO3 Valenzuela on mere suspicion -- not probable cause -- that they
were engaged in a felonious enterprise. But Valenzuela expressly sought
appellant's permission for the search. Only after appellant agreed to have
his person and baggage checked did the actual search commence. It was
his consent which validated the search, waiver being a generally
recognized exception to the rule against warrantless search.
People vs Compacion
Facts: SPO1 Gilbert L. Linda and SPO2 Basilio Sarong of the 6th Narcotic
Regional Field Unit of the Narcotics Command (NARCOM) of the Bacolod
City Detachment conducted a surveillance of the residence of accused-
appellant who was then the barangay captain of barangay Bagonbon, San
Carlos City the team applied for a search warrant with the office of
Executive Judge Bernardo Ponferrada in Bacolod City. However, Judge
Ponferrada informed them that he did not have territorial jurisdiction over
the matter.They arrived there around six-thirty in the evening, then went
to the house of Executive Judge Roberto S. Javellana to secure a search
warrant. They were not able to do so because it was nighttime and office
hours were obviously over. They were told by the judge to go back in the The act of the accused-appellant in allowing the members of the military to
morning. enter his premises and his consequent silence during the unreasonable
search and seizure could not be construed as voluntary submission or an
Issue: WON the search was valid implied acquiescence to warrantless search and seizure especially so when
members of the raiding team were intimidatingly numerous and heavily
Ruling: A search and seizure, therefore, must be carried out through or armed. His implied acquiescence, if any, could not have been more than
with a judicial warrant; otherwise, such search and seizure becomes mere passive conformity given under coercive or intimidating
"unreasonable" within the meaning of the constitutional circumstances and is, thus, considered no consent at all within the purview
provision.Evidence secured thereby, i.e., the "fruits" of the search and of the constitutional guarantee.
seizure, will be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any
proceeding."

The requirement that a warrant must be obtained from the proper judicial
authority prior to the conduct of a search and seizure is, however, not
absolute. There are several instances when the law recognizes exceptions,
such as when the owner of the premises consents or voluntarily submits to
a search; when the owner of the premises waives his right against such
incursion;when the search is incidental to a lawful arrest; when it is made
on vessels and aircraft for violation of customs laws; when it is made on
automobiles for the purpose of preventing violations of smuggling or
immigration laws;when it involves prohibited articles in plain view]when it
involves a "stop and frisk" situation; when the search is under exigent and
emergency circumstances; or in cases of inspection of buildings and other
premises for the enforcement of fire, sanitary and building regulations.In
these instances, a search may be validly made even without a warrant.
It is extant from the records that accused-appellant did not consent to the
warrantless search and seizure conducted. While the right to be secure
from unreasonable search and seizure may, like every right, be waived
either expressly or impliedly such waiver must constitute a valid waiver
made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently.It does not appear either that
the situation falls under any of the above mentioned cases. Consequently,
accused-appellant's right against unreasonable search and seizure was
clearly violated.