Mala Prohibita

[Latin, Wrongs prohibited.] A term used to describe conduct that is prohibited by laws, although not inherently evil. Courts commonly classify statutory crimes as mala prohibita. This, however, is not a fixed rule since not all statutory crimes are classified as such. Examples of mala prohibita include public intoxication and carrying a concealed weapon.

SEARCH AND SEIZURE

Section 1. Search warrant defined. A search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal property described therein and bring it before the court.

WHAT IS A SEARCH WARRANT?

> A search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal property described therein and bring it before the court.

WHAT IS THE CONCEPT OF A SEARCH WARRANT?

> > It is a criminal process akin to a mode of discovery It is a special and peculiar remedy, which is drastic in nature

ARE SEARCH AND SEIZURES PROHIBITED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION?

> No. The constitutional guarantee embodied in Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution is not a blanket prohibition against all searches and seizures as it operates only against unreasonable

searches and seizures

WHEN IS THE SEARCH OR SEIZURE UNREASONABLE?

> A search and seizure is unreasonable if it is made without a warrant, or the warrant was invalidly issued. > In all instances, what constitutes reasonable or unreasonable search or seizure is a purely judicial question determinable from a consideration of the attendant circumstances.

WHAT ARE THE THREE SITUATIONS WHEREIN THERE MUST BE FINDING OF PROBABLE CAUSE?
1. > Probable cause in filing of an information Facts and circumstances that would engender a well-grounded belief that a crime has been committed and the person to be charged is probably guilty thereof 2. > Probable cause in the issuance of a search warrant Facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable discreet and prudent man to

believe that there has been a crime committed and the things and objects connected to the crime committed are in the place to be searched 3. > Probable cause in the issuance of a warrant of arrest Facts and circumstances that would engender a well-grounded belief that a crime

has been committed and the person to be arrested committed it

WHY ARE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A SEARCH WARRANT MORE STRINGENT THAN THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WARRANT OF ARREST?

> The right against unreasonable search and seizure is a core right implicit in the natural right to life, liberty and property. Even in the absence of a constitution, individuals have a fundamental and natural right against unreasonable search and seizure under natural law. > Moreover, the violation of the right to privacy produces a humiliating effect that cannot be

rectified anymore. > > This is why there is no other justification to speak of for a search, except for a warrant. On the other hand, in a warrant of arrest, the person to be arrested can always post bail

to prevent the deprivation of liberty.

Sec. 2. Court where application for search warrant shall be filed. An application for search warrant shall be filed with the following:

(a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed.

(b) For compelling reasons stated in the application, any court within the judicial region where the crime was committed if the place of the commission of the crime is known, or any court within the judicial region where the warrant shall be enforced.

However, if the criminal action has already been filed, the application shall only be made in the court where the criminal action is pending.

WHERE SHOULD ONE FILE AN APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT?

> As a general rule, any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed BUT FOR COMPELLING REASONS stated in the application, any court within the judicial region

where the crime was committed if the place of the commission of the crime is known, or any court within the judicial region where the warrant shall be enforced. > For example, a drug syndicate keeps his drugs in a warehouse in Pasay for the reason that

it has connections in Pasay and can easily get a tip when the police officers will file for a search warrant. To avoid the drug syndicate from getting a tip of the impending search, the

police officers apply for a search warrant in Makati stating the compelling reason. > However, if the criminal action has already been filed, the application shall only be

made in the court where the criminal action is pending.

Sec. 3. Personal property to be seized. A search warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of personal property:

(a) Subject of the offense;

(b) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the offense; or

(c) Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense.

WHAT MAY BE THE SUBJECT OF A SEARCH WARRANT?

1. 2. 3. Subject of the offense; Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the offense; or Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense.

IS IT NECESSARY THAT THE PERSON NAMED IN THE SEARCH WARRANT BE THE

OWNER OF THE THINGS TO BE SEIZED?

> > No, ownership is of no consequence. What is relevant is that the property is connected to an offense. Sec. 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. A search warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witness he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines.

WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES OF A VALID SEARCH WARRANT?

1. There must be probable causefacts and circumstances that would engender a wellfounded belief in a reasonable prudent and discreet man that a crime has been committed and the things and objects to be seized can be found in the place to be searched 2. Which must be determined by the judge personally through searching not and probing

questionsquestions

merely answerable by yes or no but could be answered by the

applicant and the witnesses on facts personally known to them 3. (Upon whom?) The complainant and the witnesses he may produce are personally

examined by the judge, in writing and under oath and affirmation 4. 5. 6. (Based on what?) The applicant and the witnesses testify on facts personally known to them The probable cause must be in connection with the specific offense The warrant specified describes the person and place to be searched and the things to be

seized 7. The sworn statement together with the affidavits of the witnesses must be attached to the

record

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE FOR THE PARTICULARITY OF DESCRIPTION OF THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED AND THE THINGS TO BE SEIZED?
> The evident purpose and intent of this requirement is to limit the things to be seized to those, and only those, particularly described in the search warrantto leave officers of the law with no discretion regarding what articles they should seize, to the end that unreasonable searches and seizures may not be committed, that abuses may not be committed.

Sec. 5. Examination of complainant; record. The judge must, before issuing the warrant, personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn statements, together with the affidavits submitted.

WHEN IS THE AFFIDAVIT OR TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESS SAID TO BE BASED ON PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE?
> The test is whether perjury could be charged against the witness

WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES OF THE PERSONAL EXAMINATION THAT THE JUDGE MUST CONDUCT BEFORE ISSUING THE SEARCH WARRANT?

1. 2. 3.

The judge must examine the witness personally The examination must be under oath The examination must be reduced into writing in the form of searching questions and

answers

Sec. 6. Issuance and form of search warrant. If the judge is satisfied of the existence of facts upon which the application is based or that there is probable cause to believe that they exist, he shall issue the warrant, which must be substantially in the form prescribed by these Rules.

WHAT IS A SCATTER SHOT WARRANT?

> > It is a warrant of arrest that is issued for more than one offense It is void for the law requires that a warrant of arrest should only be issued in connection with one specific offense

A WARRANT WAS ISSUED FOR THE SEIZURE OF DRUGS CONNECTED WITH THE VIOLATION OF THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT. IS THE WARRANT VALID?
> > The warrant is valid Although there are many ways of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act, it is not a scatter shot warrant since it is in connection with only one penal law

POLICE OFFICERS APPLIED FOR A WARRANT TO SEARCH DOOR #1 OF AN APARTMENT COMPLEX. THE COURT ISSUED THE WARRANT. WHEN THEY WENT TO THE APARTMENT COMPLEX, THEY REALIZED THAT WHAT THEY THOUGHT WAS DOOR #1 WAS ACTUALLY DOOR #7. CAN THEY SEARCH DOOR #7?
> No, what is controlling is what is stated in the warrant, and not what the peace officers had in mind, even if they were the ones who gave it the description to the court. > This is to prevent abuses in the service of search warrants

CAN THE POLICE OFFICER SEIZE ANYTHING THAT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE WARRANT?
> No, anything not included in the warrant cannot be seized EXCEPT if its mala prohibita, in which case, the seizure is justified under the plain view doctrine. > Even if the object was related to the crime, but it is not mentioned in the warrant nor is it mala prohibita, it still cannot be seized

POLICE OFFICERS WENT TO THE HOUSE TO EXECUTE A SEARCH WARRANT. THEY FOUND A PISTOL ON THE TABLE, BUT THE PISTOL WASNT INCLUDED IN THE SEARCH WARRANT. CAN THEY SEIZE THE PISTOL?
> No, it is not mala prohibita and they have no proof that it is unlicensed.

WHAT SHOULD THE POLICE OFFICER OR COURT TO DO THINGS SEIZED ILLEGALLY?

> Anything seized illegally must be returned to the owner unless it is mala prohibita. In such a case, it should be kept in custodia legis. Sec. 7. Right to break door or window to effect search. The officer, if refused admittance to the place of directed search after giving notice of his purpose and authority, may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house or any part of a house or anything therein to execute the warrant to liberate himself or any person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained therein.

Sec. 8. Search of house, room, or premises to be made in presence of two witnesses. No search of a house, room, or any other premises shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.

NOTE:

The two witness rule only applies in the absence of the lawful occupants of the

premises searched

PEACE OFFICERS RAIDED A HOUSE, WHICH WAS SUSPECTED TO BE A FACTORY FOR ILLEGAL DRUGS. DURING THE RAID, 8 CHINESEMEN WERE FOUND INSIDE WHO COULDNT SPEAK ENGLISH OR FILIPINO. THE CHINESE WERE LOCKED INSIDE A ROOM AND TWO WITNESSES WHO WERE NOT OCCUPANTS WERE USED WHILE SEARCHING THE HOUSE AND SEIZING THE PROHIBITED DRUGS. VALID?
> > No. The two-witness rule can only apply when there is absence of the lawful occupants of the premises searched. > In this case, they locked the occupants in a room while doing the search and seizure and

used 2 witnesses who werent the occupants of the premises.

Sec. 9. Time of making search. The warrant must direct that it be served in the day time, unless the affidavit asserts that the property is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched, in which case a direction may be inserted that it be served at any time of the day or night.

WHEN SHOULD THE SEARCH WARRANT BE EXECUTED?

> > If possible, it should be executed during the daytime But in certain cases, such as when the things seized are mobile or are in the person of the accused, it can be served during nighttime

Sec. 10. Validity of search warrant. A search warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days from its date. Thereafter, it shall be void.

FOR HOW LONG IS THE SEARCH WARRANT VALID?

> it > If the police officer doesnt make a return, the judge should summon him and require him It is valid for 10 days, after which the police officer should make a return to the judge who issued to explain why no return was made > If the return was made, the judge should determine if the peace officer issued the receipt to

the occupant of the premises from which the things were taken. > The judge shall also order the delivery to the court of the things seized.

IF THE WARRANT WAS EXECUTED EVEN BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE 10-DAY PERIOD, CAN THE PEACE OFFICER USE THE WARRANT AGAIN BEFORE IT EXPIRES?
> No, of the purpose for which it was issued has already been carried out, the warrant cannot be used anymore.

>

The exception is if the search wasnt finished within 1 day, the warrant can still be

used the next day, provided it is still within the 10-day period

Sec. 11. Receipt for the property seized. The officer seizing the property under the warrant must give a detailed receipt for the same to the lawful occupant of the premises in whose presence the search and seizure were made, or in the absence of such occupant, must, in the presence of at least two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality, leave a receipt in the place in which he found the seized property.

WHAT IS THE DUTY OF THE OFFICER WHEN HE SEIZES THE PROPERTY?

> The officer seizing the property under the warrant must give a detailed receipt for the same to the lawful occupant of the premises in whose presence the search and seizure were made, or in the absence of such occupant, must, in the presence of at least two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality, leave a receipt in the place in which he found the seized property.

CAN THE OWNER OF THE THINGS SEIZED BE MADE TO SIGN THE RECEIPT?
> No since this would be tantamount to a violation of ones right against selfIt is a confession without the assistance of counsel. incrimination.

IS THERE PERIL TO THE OWNER OF THE THINGS SEIZED IF HE IS

MADE TO SIGN THE BOOKING SHEET?

> There is no peril since he would just be made to acknowledge that a case has been filed against him

THE ACCUSED WAS ARRESTED DURING A BUY-BUST OPERATION. PESO BILLS WERE SEIZED FROM HIM. CAN THE ACCUSED BE MADE TO SIGN THE BILLS?
> > Yes, having the bills is not a crime. This applies even if the bills involved is marked money. Sec. 12. Delivery of property and inventory thereof to court; return and proceedings thereon.

(a) The officer must forthwith deliver the property seized to the judge who issued the warrant, together with a true inventory thereof duly verified under oath.

(b) Ten (10) days after issuance of the search warrant, the issuing judge shall ascertain if the return has been made, and if none, shall summon the person to whom the warrant was issued and require him to explain why no return was made. If the return has been made, the judge shall ascertain whether section 11 of this Rule has been complied with and shall require that the property seized be delivered to him. The judge shall see to it that subsection (a) hereof has been complied with.

(c) The return on the search warrant shall be filed and kept by the custodian of the log book on search warrants who shall enter therein the date of the return, the result, and other actions of the

judge.

A violation of this section shall constitute contempt of court.

WHAT IS THE DUTY OF THE OFFICER AFTER THE PROPERTY SOUGHT UNDER THE SEARCH WARRANT HAS BEEN SEIZED?
> The officer must forthwith deliver the property seized to the judge who issued the warrant, together with a true inventory thereof duly verified under oath. Sec. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.

IN WHAT INSTANCES WOULD A SEARCH AND SEIZURE WITHOUT A WARRANT BE ALLOWED?

1. A warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest a. b. c. Arrest must be lawful It must be contemporaneous with the arrest in both time and place Within the vicinity of the person arrested, immediate control, which is the evidence of

the offense or weapon 2. 3. Search of evidence in plain view Search of a moving vehicle a. b. 4. Must be cursory Cant make a thorough search; just have to take a look; not to open trunks

Consented warrantless searches

a. b. c. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

The right exists Person making the consent knows that he has the right In spite of the knowledge of the right, he voluntarily and intelligently gives his consent

Customs searches Stop and frisk Exigent and emergency circumstances Checkpoints Republic Act requiring inspections or body checks in airports

10. Emergency 11. In times of war and within military operations

WHAT ARE THE INSTANCES OF A PERMISSIBLE WARRANTLESS ARREST?

1. 2. 3. Arrest in flagrante delicto Arrest effected in hot pursuit Arrests of escaped prisoners

WHAT IS THE AREA OF COVERAGE OF AN OFFICERS SEARCH? IS IT LIMITED TO THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED?
> Under this rule, the search being an incident to a lawful arrest may extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include the premises or surrounding under his immediate control > The search must be made after the arrest. The objective is to make sure that the life of the peace officer will not be endangered. It must be contemporaneous with the arrest in both time and place.

WHEN IS THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A MOVING VEHICLE ALLOWED?

> It is allowed when it is not practicable to secure a warrant

WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS IN A WARRANTLESS SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO A LAWFUL ARREST?

1. 2. 3. Arrest must be lawful It must be contemporaneous with the arrest in both time and place Within the vicinity of the person arrested, immediate control, which is the evidence of the offense or weapon

WHO SHOULD GIVE CONSENT TO A WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES?
> Only the person whose right may be violated can give the consent; it is a personal right that cannot be availed of by third parties. The requisites are: 1. 2. The person has knowledge of his right against the search He freely and intelligently gives his consent in spite of such knowledge

WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES FOR THE PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE TO APPLY?

1.

There must have been a prior valid intrusion based on the warrantless arrest in which

the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties 2. are 3. 4. The evidence must be immediately apparent There was no need for further search The evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they

WHAT IS A STOP AND FRISK SITUATION? WHEN IS IT VALID?

> > It is a situation wherein there is a limited protective search of outer clothing for weapons While probable cause is not required to conduct a stop and frisk, mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate such a procedure. > A genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officers experience and surrounding

conditions, to warrant the belief that the person has detained the weapons concealed about him. Sec. 14. Motion to quash a search warrant or to suppress evidence; where to file. A motion to quash a search warrant and/or to suppress evidence obtained thereby may be filed in and acted upon only by the court where the action has been instituted. If no criminal action has been instituted, the motion may be filed in and resolved by the court that issued search warrant. However, if such court failed to resolve the motion and a criminal case is subsequently filed in another court, the motion shall be resolved by the latter court.

A POLICE OFFICER WAS GRANTED TO SEARCH THE HOUSE FOR REBEL OFFICERS. CAN THE POLICEMAN CONDUCT A WARRANTLESS SEARCH?

>

NO, the permission didnt include the room to room search and anything confiscated will

be inadmissible

IF AN OBJECT HAS BEEN SEIZED UPON ORDERS OF THE COURT, MAY A COORDINATE COURT ISSUE A REPLEVIN ORDER FOR THE RELEASE OF THE OBJECT?
> No, only the court that ordered its confiscation may release the object

IF THE ARRESTED PERSON SIGNS THE RECEIPT OF THE PROPERTY SEIZED WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, IS THE RECEIPT ADMISSIBLE?
> No, because it was done without assistance of counsel

WHAT IS THE MULTI-FACTOR BALANCING TEST?

> It requires officers to weigh the manner and intensity of the interference of the right of the people, the gravity of the crime committed, and the circumstances attending the incident.

WHERE SHOULD ONE FILE THE NOTION TO QUASH WARRANT OR TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE?
1. 2. 3. In the court where the action has been instituted If no criminal action has been filed, in the court that issued the warrant However, if said court failed to resolve the motion and a criminal case is subsequently filed in another court, the motion shall be filed in the latter court

A MOTION TO QUASH WAS FILED IN THE COURT WHERE THE CRIMINAL ACTION WAS FILED. DURING THIS TIME, THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION WAS ONGOING. THE ACCUSED MOVES FOR THE SUSPENSION OF THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION. VALID AND PROPER?
> No, the preliminary investigation is of different nature from deciding on whether to grant the motion to quash the warrant > The result of one will not affect the other. One deals on probable cause on whether there are facts and circumstances that would engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the accused is probably guilty thereof. The other deals on whether the things

and objects were seized legally or not.

NOTE:

The Motion To Quash, filed in the issuing court, or to Suppress Evidence, filed

with the court trying the case, are alternative, not cumulative remedies. If one is filed, the other can no longer be availed of. The court first taking cognizance of the motion does so to exclusion of the other. The proceedings thereon are subject to the omnibus motion rule and the rule

against forum shopping.

WHAT IS THE TOTAL EXCLUSIONARY RULE?

> Things and objects seized in violation of the right against unreasonable searches and seizures are fruits of the poisonous tree and are inadmissible as evidence

MANALILI V. COURT OF APPEALS - 280 SCRA 400

FACTS:
Narcotics officers were doing surveillance and chanced upon the accused in a cemetery who seemed to be high on drugs. He tried to resist the police officers and upon inquiry, found that the accused was possessing what seemed to be crushed marijuana leaves.

HELD:
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. It has been held as one of the exceptions to the general rule against searches without warrant.

SECTION 3 RULES OF COURT. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCEEVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE WHEN IT IS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE AND IS NOT EXCLUDED BY LAW OR THESE RULES.
I. Introduction.

A. ADMISSIBILITY- THE CHARACTER OR QUALITY WHICH ANY MATERIAL MUST NECESSARILY POSSESS FOR IT TO BE ACCEPTED AND ALLOWED TO BE PRESENTED OR INTRODUCED AS EVIDENCE IN COURT. IT ANSWERS THE QUESTION: SHOULD THE COURT ALLOW THE MATERIAL TO BE USED AS EVIDENCE BY THE PARTY? B. WEIGHT- THE VALUE GIVEN OR SIGNIFICANCE OR IMPACT, OR IMPORTANCE GIVEN TO THE MATERIAL AFTER IT HAS BEEN ADMITTED; ITS TENDENCY TO CONVINCE OR PERSUADE. HENCE A PARTICULAR EVIDENCE MAY BE ADMISSIBLE BUT IT HAS NO

WEIGHT. CONVERSELY, AN EVIDENCE MAY BE OF GREAT WEIGHT OR IMPORTANCE BUT IT IS NOT ADMISSIBLE. II. CONDITIONS FOR ADMISSIBILITY (AXIOMS OF ADMISSIBILITY PER WIGMORE)
A. RELEVANCY (None but facts having rational probative value are admissible). Per section 4, Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or nonexistence.
1. The material presented as evidence must affect the issue or question. It must have a bearing on the outcome of the case. It requires both: a). rational or logical relevancy in that it has a connection to the issue and therefore it has a tendency to establish the fact which it is offered to prove. The evidence must therefore have probative value b). legal relevancy in that the evidence is offered to prove a matter which has been properly put in issue as determined by the pleadings in civil cases, or as fixed by the pre-trial order, or as determined by substantive law. If so the matter has materiality.

Illustration: (i).

Criminal case: the fact that the crime was committed

at nighttime is rationally or logically relevant to a killing at 12 midnight but evidence thereon would be not be legally relevant if nighttime was not alleged in the Information. It would be immaterial. (ii)

Civil Case: In an action for sum of money based on a promissory note, evidence that the defendant was misled into signing the note would be rationally relevant but if fraud was never alleged as a defense, then evidence thereof would be legally irrelevant or immaterial.

The components of relevancy are therefore probative value and materiality.

2. Rule as to collateral matters: Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the facts in issue

a). collateral matters-facts or matters which are not in issue. They are not generally allowed to be proven except when relevant. b) In criminal cases, the collateral matters allowed to be proven, being relevant include: (i). Antecedent Circumstances, or those in existing even prior to the commission of the crime. They include such matters as habit, custom, bad moral character when self defense is invoked; or plan design, conspiracy, or premeditation, agreement to a price, promise or reward (ii) Concomitant circumstances or those which accompany the commission of the crime such as opportunity to do the act or incompatibility (iii).Subsequent circumstances or those which occur after the commission of the crime, such as flight, escape, concealment, offer of compromise

c). Example: Motive is generally irrelevant and proof thereof is not allowed except: when the evidence is purely circumstantial, when there is doubt as to the identity of the accused, or when it is an element of the crime.

B. COMPETENCY ( All facts having rational probative value are admissible unless some specific law or rule forbids). In short the evidence is not excluded by law or rules.

III. PRINCIPLES WHICH EXCLUDE RELEVANT OR MATERIAL EVIDENCE:

A. The Exclusionary Rule Principle - the principle which mandates that evidence obtained from an illegal arrest, unreasonable search or coercive investigation, or in violation of a particular law, must be excluded from the trial and will not be admitted as evidence.
1. The principle judges the admissibility of evidence based on HOW the evidence is obtained or acquired and not WHAT the evidence proves. 2. The principle is to be applied only if it is so expressly provided for by the constitution or by a particular law. Even if the manner of obtaining the evidence is in violation of a certain law but the law does not declare that the evidence is inadmissible, then such evidence will be admissible.

Example: The accused claimed that information about his bank accounts i.e. trust funds, was obtained in violation of the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Law ( R.A. 1405) and moved to have them be excluded as evidence. HELD: R.A. 1405 nowhere provides that an unlawful examination of bank accounts shall render the evidence there from inadmissible in evidence. If Congress has both established a right and provided exclusive remedies for its violation, the court would encroaching upon the prerogatives of congress if it authorizes a remedy not provided for by statute. Absent a specific

reference to an exclusionary rule, it is not appropriate for the courts to read such a provision into the act. ( Ejercito vs. Sandiganbayan, 509 SCRA 190, Nov. 30, 2006).

3. The phrase is attributed to Justice Felix Frankfurter of the U.S. Supreme and has its biblical reference to Mathew 7: 17-20.

B. The Doctrine of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

1. Evidence will be excluded if it was gained through evidence uncovered in an illegal arrest, unreasonable search or coercive interrogation, or violation of a particular exclusionary law. 2. It is an offshoot of the Exclusionary Rule which applies to primary evidence. The doctrine applies only to secondary or derivative evidence. There must first be a primary evidence which is determined to have been illegally obtained then secondary evidence is obtained because of the primary evidence. Since the primary evidence is inadmissible, any secondary evidence discovered or obtained because of it may not also be used. a. The poisonous tree is the evidence seized in an illegal arrest, search or interrogation. The fruit of this poisonous tree is evidence discovered because of knowledge gained from the first illegal search, arrest, or interrogation or violation of a law. b. It is based on the principle that evidence illegally obtained by the state should not be used to gain other evidence because the original illegally obtained evidence taints all those subsequently obtained.

C Illustrations:

A suspect as forced to make a confession where he revealed he took shabu from the room of X. Based on this knowledge the police went to the house of X and with the consent of X, searched his room and found the shabu. The confession is inadmissible because of the exclusionary. It is the poisoned

tree. The shabu is inadmissible because knowledge of its existence was based on the confession. It is the fruit.

D. Exceptions to the two principles- when evidence is still admissible despite the commission of an illegal arrest, search or interrogation, or violation of a particular exclusionary law.

1. Under the Doctrine of Inevitable Discovery- Evidence is admissible even if obtained through an unlawful arrest, search, interrogation, or violation of an exclusionary law, if it can be established, to a very high degree of probability, that normal police investigation would have inevitably led to the discovery of the evidence

2. Independent Source Doctrine- evidence is admissible if knowledge of the evidence is gained from a separate or independent source that is completely unrelated to the illegal act of the law enforcers.

3. Attentuation Doctrine: evidence maybe suppressed only if there is a clear causal connection between the illegal police action and the evidence. Or, that the chain of causation between the illegal action and the tainted evidence is too attenuated i.e too thin, weak, decreased or fragile. This takes into consideration the following factors:

a). The time period between the illegal arrest and the ensuing confession or consented search b). The presence of intervening factors or events c). The purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct

E. Remedy : By filing a Motion to Suppress the Evidence

III. EVIDENCE EXCLUDED BY THE CONSTITUTION

A. Under Article III of the Constitution the following evidence are inadmissible 1. evidence obtained in violation of the right against unreasonable search and seizure 2. evidence obtained in violation of the privacy of communication and correspondence, except upon lawful order of the court or when public safety or order requires otherwise 3. evidence consisting of extra-judicial confessions which are uncounselled, or when the confessant was not properly informed of his constitutional rights, or when the confession was coerced 4. evidence obtained in violation of the right against self-incrimination

B. Principles:

1. The exclusionary rule in all the foregoing provisions is TOTAL in that the inadmissibility or incompetency applies to all cases, whether civil criminal or administrative, and for all purposes. 2. The incompetency applies only if the evidence was obtained by law enforcers or other authorized agencies of the government. It does not apply if the evidence was obtained by private persons such as private security personnel or private detectives even if they perform functions similar to the police whenever a crime was committed. a). Thus evidence obtained by the following are not covered by the provisions: (i) the security personnel or house detectives

constitutional

of hotels or commercial establishments or schools (ii) private security agencies even if they are guarding public or government buildings/offices (iii) employers and their agents.

It will be some other appropriate principle on the admissibility of evidence which will govern.

b). However, by way of exception, the rule of incompetency applies if what are involved are the private correspondence of an individual. In Zulueta vs. CA ( Feb. 1986) it was held that pictures and love letters proving the infidelity of the husband, kept by him in his private clinic, taken by the wife without the knowledge of the husband, are inadmissible as evidence for being obtained in violation of the husbands privacy of communication and correspondence. The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify anyone of them breaking the drawers and cabinet of the other and ransacking them for any telltale evidence of marital infidelity. A person, by contracting marriage, does not shed his or her integrity or his right to privacy as an individual and the constitutional protection is available to him or her

3. Secondary evidence resulting from a violation of the foregoing provisions is inadmissible under the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine.

IV. R.A. 4200 ( THE ANTI WIRE TAPPING LAW) EXCLUSION AS TO EVIDENCE OBTAINED THROUGH MECHANICAL, ELECTRONIC OR OTHER SURVEILLANCE OR INTERCEPTING DEVISES. (INTERCEPTED COMMUNICATIONS)
A. Coverage: R.A 4200 declares that evidence is inadmissible if obtained through any of the following ways:

1. By using any device to secretly eavesdrop, overhear, intercept or record any communication or spoken word

a. The person who obtained the evidence may be a third person or a participant in the conversation or communication.

FACTS: Ramirez and Garcia had a confrontation in the office of Garcia. Ramirez secretly taped their verbal confrontation and used it as evidence in her action for damages against Garcia who in turn filed a criminal case against Ramirez for violation of R.A. 4200. Ramirez held that the taping by a participant to a conversation is not covered by the law.

HELD: 1. The law does not make a distinction as to whether the party sought to be penalized is a party or not to the private conversation. 2. The nature of the conversation is immaterial What is penalized is the act of secretly overhearing, intercepting, or recording private communications by the devices enumerate under Section 1. (Ramirez vs. C.A., September 28, 1995)

b. To be admissible the consent of the person speaking or of all the parties to the conversation. However consent is not necessary if the words which were taped or recorded were not intended to be confidential as when the were intended to be heard by an audience or when uttered under circumstances of time, place, occasion and similar circumstances whereby it may reasonably be inferred that the conversation was the presence of third persons. without regard to

c. Questions: i). Does this apply if the recording of the words was unintentional or inadvertent, such as conversations captured by a moving video camera? ii). Are conversations in a police entrapment included? iii). Is lip-reading included?

iv). Are conversations captured in surveillance cameras included? v). Does this apply to secret taping through spy cameras purposely made to be aired in television programs, such as Bitag, XXX and Cheaters? vi). Are the gestures, snores, laughs, weeping, included as communication or spoken words? vii). What about satellite discs and similar facilities? Google earth?

2. By the unauthorized tapping of any wire or cable as to communications used via telephone/cable, as opposed to verbal communications.

a). There must be a physical interruption through a wiretap or the deliberate installation of a device or arrangement in order to over hear, intercept, or record the spoken words. i). hence over hearing through an extension telephone wire is not included even if intentional because each party to a telephone conversation takes the risk that the other party may have an extension telephone and may allow another to overhear the conversation ( Ganaan vs. IAC, 1986) ii). Does the Ganaan ruling apply to overhearing by telephone operators of hotels, schools, hospitals and similar establishments?

B. Exceptions: when evidence through secret recording or tapping is admissible

1. When Judicial Authorization was granted upon a written petition filed pursuant to the provisions of R.A. 4200 if the crimes involve (a). treason (b) espionage (c) provoking war and disloyalty ( d). piracy and mutiny in the high seas (e) sedition, inciting to sedition (g)kidnapping (h) other offenses against national security.

The list is exclusive and does not include offenses which are equally or more serious as those enumerated, such as drug trafficking, kidnapping, Trafficking in Persons, Rape, Murder.

2.When Judicial Authorization is granted upon a written petition under R.A. 9372 ( The Human Security Act of 2007) in connection with the crimes of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism. If granted the authority covers written communications.

VI. EXCLUSION BY CERTAIN RULES OF EVIDENCE

1. The rule excluding secondary evidence when the primary or best evidence is available 2. The rule excluding hearsay evidence 3. The rule excluding privilege communications

VII. KINDS OF ADMISSIBILITY

A. Multiple Admissibility: when a material is asked by a party to be admitted as evidence, the party presenting must inform the court of the purpose which the material is intended to serve and the court then admits the material as evidence. Multiple admissibility may mean either (i) the evidence is admissible for several purposes or (ii) an evidence is not admissible for one purpose but may be admitted for a different purpose if it satisfies all the requirements of the other purpose
1. Examples of the first concept: (a) a knife may be admitted to prove the accused was armed with a deadly weapon; to prove the weapon is far deadlier than the weapon of the victim; to prove it was the weapon of the accused which cause the wounds and not some other instrument; to corroborate the statement of a witness who claims he saw the accused holding a bladed instrument.

2. Example of the second concept: (a). the extra judicial confession of one of several accused may not be admitted to prove there was conspiracy among them or to prove the guilt of the other co-accused but it maybe admitted to prove the guilt of the confessant (b) the statement of the victim may not be admitted as a dying declaration but as part of the res gestae.

B. Curative admissibility or fighting fire with fire or Opening the Door

1. This applies to a situation when improper evidence was allowed to be presented by one party, then the other party may be allowed to introduce or present similar improper evidence but only to cure or to counter the prejudicial effect of the opponents inadmissible evidence. 2. The party presenting must have raised an objection to the improper evidence, for if he did not, then it is discretionary for the court to allow him to present curative evidence 3. The evidence sought to be countered should not refer to those which are incompetent due to an exclusionary rule 4. Example: P vs. D for sum of money. P was allowed to introduce evidence that D did not pay his debt as shown by his refusal to pay his indebtedness to X, Y and Z. Defendant may introduce evidence his debts to A, B and C. that he paid

C. Conditional Admissibility: An evidence is allowed to be presented for the time being or temporarily, subject to the condition that its relevancy or connection to other facts will later be proven, or that the party later submit evidence that it meets certain requirements of the law or rules. If the conditions are not later met, the evidence will be stricken from the record.

1. Example: A Xerox copy of a document may be allowed to presented subject to the condition that the original be later presented 2. Example: P vs. D to recover a parcel of land. P presents a document that the land belonged to X. If D objects to it as being irrelevant, P can state that he will alter show that X sold the land to Y who in turn sold it to Z and then to P. The Court may admit the document conditionally.

VIII. POLICY ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

A. Policy of Liberality: In case a question arises as to whether or not a particular material discretion what to should be admitted as evidence, Courts are given wide admit and to be liberal in admitting materials offered

as evidence, unless the material is clearly incompetent. The reasons are: (i) so that it may have a substantial range of facts as basis for deciding the case and (ii) in case of appeal the appellate court may have before it all the evidence to determine whether the decision appealed from is in accordance with the evidence, (iii) to minimize any adverse effect of the non-admission upon the party affected.

B. Limitations:

1. Evidence may be excluded even if relevant if its probative value is outweighed by the risk that its admission will cause: a). undue or unfair prejudice b). confusion of the issues c). misleads the court d). undue delay or waste of time

2. The court has the power to limit the presentation of additional evidence which are but cumulative, or to prove points which a party has already well presented

First Issue: Admissibility of the Evidence Seized During a Stop-and-Frisk Petitioner protests the admission of the marijuana leaves found in his possession, contending that they were products of an illegal search. The Solicitor General, in his Comment dated July 5, 1994, which was adopted as memorandum for respondent, counters that the inadmissibility of the marijuana leaves was waived because petitioner never raised this issue in the proceedings below nor did he object to their admissibility in evidence. He adds that, even assuming arguendo that there was no waiver, the search was legal because it was incidental to a warrantless arrest under Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. We disagree with petitioner and hold that the search was valid, being akin to a stop-and-frisk. In the landmark case of Terry vs. Ohio, 18 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 weapon(s):
. . . (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. 19

In allowing such a search, the United States Supreme Court held that the interest of effective crime prevention and detection allows a police officer to approach a person, in appropriate circumstances and manner, for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even though there is insufficient probable cause to make an actual arrest. This was the legitimate investigative function which Officer McFadden discharged in that case, when he approached petitioner and his companion whom he observed to have hovered alternately about a street corner for an extended period of time, while not waiting for anyone; paused to stare in the same store window roughly 24 times; and conferred with a third person. It would have been sloppy police work for an officer of 30 years' experience to have failed to investigate this behavior further. In admitting in evidence two guns seized during the stop-and-frisk, the US Supreme Court held that what justified the limited search was the more immediate interest of the police officer in taking steps to assure himself that the person with whom he was dealing was not armed with a weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against him. It did not, however, abandon the rule that the police must, whenever practicable, obtain advance judicial approval of searches and seizures through the warrant procedure, excused only by exigent circumstances. In Philippine jurisprudence, the general rule is that a search and seizure must be validated by a previously secured judicial warrant; otherwise, such search and seizure is unconstitutional and subject to challenge. 20Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, gives this guarantee: Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable

cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Any evidence obtained in violation of the mentioned provision is legally inadmissible in evidence as a "fruit of the poisonous tree," falling under the exclusionary rule: Sec. 3. . . . (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of . . . the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. This right, however, is not absolute. 21 The recent case of People vs. Lacerna enumerated five recognized exceptions to the rule against warrantless search and seizure, viz.: "(1) search incidental to a lawful arrest, (2) search of moving vehicles, (3) seizure in plain view, (4) customs search, and (5) waiver by the accused themselves of their right against unreasonable search and seizure." 22 In People vs. Encinada, 23 the Court further explained that "[i]n these cases, the search and seizure may be made only with probable cause as the essential requirement. Although the term eludes exact definition, probable cause for a search is, at best, defined as a reasonable ground of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man in the belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged; or the existence of such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the item(s), article(s) or object(s) sought in connection with said offense or subject to seizure and destruction by law is in the place to be searched." Stop-and-frisk has already been adopted as another exception to the general rule against a search without a warrant. In Posadas vs. Court of Appeals, 24 the Court held that there were many instances where a search and seizure could be effected without necessarily being preceded by an arrest, one of which was stop-and-frisk. In said case, members of the Integrated National Police of Davao stopped petitioner, who was carrying a buri bag and acting suspiciously. They found inside petitioner's bag one .38-cal. revolver with two rounds of live ammunition, two live ammunitions for a .22-cal. gun and a tear gas grenade. In upholding the legality of the search, the Court said that to require the police officers to search the bag only after they had obtained a search warrant might prove to be useless, futile and much too late under the circumstances. In such a situation, it was reasonable for a police officer to stop a suspicious individual briefly in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo while obtaining more information, rather than to simply shrug his shoulders and allow a crime to occur. In the case at hand, Patrolman Espiritu and his companions observed during their surveillance that appellant had red eyes and was wobbling like a drunk along the Caloocan City Cemetery, which according to police information was a popular hangout of drug addicts. From his experience as a member of the Anti-Narcotics Unit of the Caloocan City Police, such suspicious behavior was characteristic of drug addicts who were "high." The policemen therefore had sufficient reason to stop petitioner to investigate if he was actually high on drugs. During such investigation, they found marijuana in petitioner's possession: 25 FISCAL RALAR: Q And why were you conducting surveillance in front of the Caloocan Cemetery, Sangandaan, Caloocan City?

A Because there were some informations that some drug dependents were roaming around at A. Mabini Street in front of the Caloocan Cemetery, Caloocan City. xxx xxx xxx Q While you were conducting your surveillance, together with Pat. Angel Lumabas and one Arnold Enriquez, what happened, if any? A We chanced upon one male person there in front of the Caloocan Cemetery then when we called his attention, he tried to avoid us, then prompting us to approach him and introduce ourselves as police officers in a polite manner. xxx xxx xxx Q Could you describe to us the appearance of that person when you chanced upon him? A That person seems like he is high on drug. Q How were you able to say Mr. Witness that that person that you chanced upon was high on drug? A Because his eyes were red and he was walking on a swaying manner. Q What was he doing in particular when you chanced upon him? A He was roaming around, sir. Q You said that he avoided you, what did you do when he avoided you? A We approached him and introduced ourselves as police officers in a polite manner, sir. Q How did you introduce yourselves? A In a polite manner, sir. Q What did you say when you introduced yourselves? A We asked him what he was holding in his hands, sir. Q And what was the reaction of the person when you asked him what he was holding in his hands? A He tried to resist, sir. Q When he tried to resist, what did you do?

A I requested him if I can see what was he was (sic) holding in his hands. Q What was the answer of the person upon your request? A He allowed me to examine that something in his hands, sir. xxx xxx xxx Q What was he holding? A He was holding his wallet and when we opened it, there was a marijuana (sic) crushed residue. Furthermore, we concur with the Solicitor General's contention that petitioner effectively waived the inadmissibility of any evidence illegally obtained when he failed to raise this issue or to object thereto during the trial. A valid waiver of a right, more particularly of the constitutional right against unreasonable search, requires the concurrence of the following requirements: (1) the right to be waived existed; (2) the person waiving it had knowledge, actual or constructive, thereof; and (3) he or she had an actual intention to relinquish the right. 26Otherwise, the Courts will indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental safeguards and will not deduce acquiescence from the failure to exercise this elementary right. In the present case, however, petitioner is deemed to have waived such right for his failure to raise its violation before the trial court. In petitions under Rule 45, as distinguished from an ordinary appeal of criminal cases where the whole case is opened for review, the appeal is generally limited to the errors assigned by petitioner. Issues not raised below cannot be pleaded for the first time on appeal. 27 Second Issue: Assessment of Evidence Petitioner also contends that the two arresting officers' testimony contained "polluted, irreconcilable and unexplained" contradictions which did not support petitioner's conviction. We disagree. Time and again, this Court has ruled that the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals as in this case, is accorded great weight and respect, since it had the opportunity to observe their demeanor and deportment as they testified before it. Unless substantial facts and circumstances have been overlooked or misappreciated by the trial court which, if considered, would materially affect the result of the case, we will not countenance a departure from this rule. 28 We concur with Respondent Court's ruling: (e)ven assuming as contended by appellant that there had been some inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses' testimonies, We do not find them substantial enough to impair the essential veracity of their narration. In People vs. Avila, it was held that "As long as the witnesses concur on the material points, slight differences in their remembrance of the details, do not reflect on the essential veracity of their statements. However, we find that, aside from the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty, the bestowal of full credence on Pat. Espiritu's testimony is justified by tangible evidence on record. Despite Pat. Lumabas' contradictory testimony, that of Espiritu is supported by the Joint Affidavit 29 signed by both arresting policemen. The question of whether the marijuana was found inside petitioner's wallet or inside a plastic bag is immaterial, considering that petitioner did not deny

possession of said substance. Failure to present the wallet in evidence did not negate that marijuana was found in petitioner's possession. This shows that such contradiction is minor and does not destroy Espiritu's credibility. 30 Third Issue: Sufficiency of Evidence The elements of illegal possession of marijuana 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. 31 The substance found in petitioner's possession was identified by NBI Forensic Chemist Aida Pascual to be crushed marijuana leaves. Petitioner's lack of authority to possess these leaves was established. His awareness thereof was undeniable, considering that petitioner was high on drugs when stopped by the policemen and that he resisted when asked to show and identify the thing he was holding. Such behavior clearly shows that petitioner knew that he was holding marijuana and that it was prohibited by law. Furthermore, like the trial and the appellate courts, we have not been given sufficient grounds to believe the extortion angle in this case. Petitioner did not file any administrative or criminal case against the arresting officers or present any evidence other than his bare claim. His argument that he feared for his life was lame and unbelievable, considering that he was released on bail and continued to be on bail as early as April 26, 1988. 32Since then, he could have made the charge in relative safety, as he was no longer in the custody of the police. His defense of frame-up, like alibi, is viewed by this Court with disfavor, because it is easy to concoct and fabricate. 33 The Proper Penalty The trial and the appellate courts overlooked the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103, as amended) by sentencing petitioner to a straight penalty of six years and one day of imprisonment, aside from the imposed fine of six thousand pesos. This Act requires the imposition of an indeterminate penalty: Sec. 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense; and if the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. (As amended by Act No. 4225.) Sec. 2. This Act shall not apply to persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life-imprisonment; to those convicted of treason; to those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage; to those convicted of piracy; to those who are habitual delinquents; to those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence; to those who having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive shall have violated the terms thereof; to those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year, not to those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of approval of this Act, except as provided in Section 5 hereof. (Emphasis supplied)

The Dangerous Drugs Law, R.A. 6425, as amended by B.P. 179, imposes the following penalty for illegal possession of marijuana: Sec. 8. . . . . The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six years and one day to twelve years and a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall possess or use Indian hemp. Prescinding from the foregoing, the Court holds that the proper penalty is an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment ranging from six years and one day to twelve years. 34 WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision and Resolution are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner is sentenced to suffer IMPRISONMENT of SIX (6) YEARS, as minimum, to TWELVE (12) YEARS, as maximum, and to PAY a FINE of SIX THOUSAND PESOS. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, C.J., Romero, Melo and Francisco, JJ., concur. Footnotes 1 Docketed as Crim. Case No. C-30549. 2 CA rollo, p. 4. 3 Records, p. 12. 4 Ibid., p. 23. 5 Penned by Judge Rene Victorino. 6 CA rollo, p. 12D. 7 Records, p. 180. 8 p. 13. 9 The Eighth Division composed of JJ. Justo P. Torres, Jr., ponente; Reynato S. Puno (both of whom are now members of the Supreme Court), and Pacita Canizares-Nye. 10 Rollo, pp. 45-51. 11 The former Eighth Division was reorganized and J. Emeterio C. Cui replaced J. Reynato S. Puno. 12 Records, pp. 175-177. The narration of facts by the trial court is reproduced here because it contains more details than the version of Respondent Court.

13 Exhibit "F," Exhibits Envelope, p. 2. 14 Exhibit "G," Exhibits Envelope, p. 3. 15 TSN, April 19, 1989, pp. 2-4. 16 Records, pp. 177-178. The Memorandum for the Petitioner did not present the defense's version of the facts. 17 TSN, April 19, 1989, pp. 9-12. 18 20 L Ed 2d 889; 88 S Ct 1868, 392 US 1,900, June 10, 1968. 19 Herrera, A Handbook on Arrest, Search and Seizure and Custodial Investigation, 1995 ed., p. 185; and Terry vs. Ohio, supra, p. 911. 20 Pita vs. Court of Appeals, 178 SCRA 362, 276, October 5, 1989; People vs. Saycon, 236 SCRA 325, 328, September 5, 1994; People vs. Cuizon, 256 SCRA 325, 338, April 18, 1996; and People vs. Lacerna, G.R. No. 109250, September 5, 1997. 21 Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, allows a search without a warrant for "dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense" of a person lawfully arrested. 22 People vs. Lacerna, supra; People vs. Fernandez, 239 SCRA 174, 182-183, December 13, 1994. In the latter case, Puno, J., proposed a sixth exception: exigent circumstances, as a catchall category that would encompass a number of diverse situations where some kind of emergency makes obtaining a search warrant impractical, useless, dangerous or unnecessary. 23 G.R. No. 116720, October 2, 1997, pp. 15-16, citing A Handbook on Arrest, supra, p. 40. 24 188 SCRA 288, 292-293, August 2, 1990, per Gancayco, J., concurred in by all members of the First Division, namely: Narvasa, Cruz, Grio-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ. 25 TSN, May 27, 1988, pp. 6-9. 26 People vs. Salangga, 234 SCRA 407, 417-4187, July 25, 1994, per Regalado, J. 27 Manila Bay Club Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 245 SCRA 715, 729, July 11, 1995; Chua vs. Court of Appeals, 206 SCRA 339, 344-345, February 19, 1992; and Baquiran vs. Court of Appeals, 2 SCRA 873, 877, July 31, 1961. 28 People vs. Atad, G.R. No. 114105, January 16, 1997, p. 19; People vs. Lua, 256 SCRA 539, 546, April 26, 1996; and People vs. Exala, 221 SCRA 494, 498-499, April 22, 1993. 29 Exhibits "A" & "A-1," Exhibits Envelope, p. 1.

30 People vs. Lua, supra, p. 547. 31 People vs. Lacerna, supra. 32 Records, p. 23. 33 People vs. Velasco, 252 SCRA 135, 143, January 23, 1996, per Davide, J. 34 People vs. Tabar, 222 SCRA 144, 155, May 17, 1993, per Davide, J. G.R. No. 113447 October 9, 1997 ALAIN MANALILI y DIZON, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.